Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Aristotle and Learning as Engagement in Particulars

  • Sasha BarabEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_673-2

Introduction

Most formal learning environments focus on transmitting disembodied ideas, abstracted from the contextual particulars that give them value. As educators work to communicate the “platonic ideal” of the construct (e.g., scientific method, mathematical formula, grammatical rule) independent of any potential context, they are stripping the value and meaning of that which is being taught. By operating under a bias that separates person, content, and context, they end up creating understandings that are free of any meaningful context with the misguided assumption that by not attaching them to any one context they will be more easily viewed as relevant to numerous future contexts. By creating a formal divide between content and context, person and context, and context and person, we undermine the very motivations for why the content being taught could have value or that the learner could apply what they are learning to create such value.

The irony is that educators then wonder...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aristotle, & Irwin, T. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Ecologizing the learner-facilitator system. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 349–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, C., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Competing against luck (HBX Connext). Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  7. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In K. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–35). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Lombardo, T. J. (1987). The reciprocity of perceiver and environment. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Wolff-Michael Roth
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada