A common practice in textbooks is to introduce concepts or strategies in association with specific people. This practice aligns with research suggesting that using “real-world” contexts in textbooks increases students’ motivation and engagement. However, other research suggests this practice may interfere with transfer by distracting students or leading them to tie new knowledge too closely to the original learning context. The current study investigates the effects on learning and transfer of connecting mathematics strategies to specific people. A total of 180 (...) college students were presented with an example of a problem-solving strategy that was either linked with a specific person or presented without a person. Students who saw the example without a person were more likely to correctly transfer the novel strategy to new problems than students who saw the example presented with a person. These findings are the first evidence that using people to present new strategies is harmful for learning and transfer. (shrink)

An early and persistent criticism of Rahner was his use of transcendental philosophy and his emphasis on human subjectivity, with an attendant loss of concrete historicity and human embodiment. By finding connections between Rahner’s concept of the transcendental and philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s treatment of language and its uses, the article highlights Rahner’s own often-overlooked treatment of human embodiment and concrete historicity. The argument here focuses on the priority of being over appearance, and the necessary connection between intentions and actions, important (...) themes in both men’s thought. (shrink)

Robert Lassalle-Klein’s paper has provided an examination of how Ignatio Ellacuría, working with philosopher Xavier Zubiri, both used and criticized some of Karl Rahner’s key ideas for the purpose of finding a philosophical framework for working out Ellacuría’s own theological vision, rooted in his experiences as a Spanish Jesuit serving in Latin America. While the technical work in this adaptation receives some commentary here, most of my remarks are observations about the impact of this work on Rahner scholarship more generally. (...) Ellacuría’s use of Rahner is in marked contrast to Metz’s critique that saw Rahner’s transcendental method incapable of dealing with historical realities. Ellacuría’s work can be understood as supplying a particularity to Rahner’s austere structures that, I argue, is intrinsic to those structures. As such, Ellacuría’s work should be adopted into the canon of mainstream Rahner scholarship. (shrink)