The authors argue that the criticisms of their earlier article on teacher logs ("Educational Researcher," March 2009) by Smagorinsky and Willis do not address, much less undermine, the evidence they presented as part of their validation argument about the teacher logs. Moreover, they argue that their method for studying classrooms is not nearly as incommensurate with Smagorinsky's and Willis's methods as those authors' arguments seem to imply. The authors of this rejoinder see the main differences between themselves and their critics as being around the notion of "consequential" validity, an issue they discuss at the end of this article.