In Memory of Professor Robert E. Slavin

Robert E. SLAVIN, a world-recognized education researcher, passed away on April 24, 2021. The unfortunate death of Professor Slavin was a great loss for the global educational research, especially for our journal.

Virtue, Objectivity, and the Character of the Education Researcher

In his 1993 book, Hare asks “What Makes a Good Teacher?” In this paper we ask, “What makes a good education researcher?” We begin our discussion with Richard Rudner's classic 1953 essay, The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments, which confronted science with the internal subjectivity it had long ignored. Rudner's bold claim that scientists do make value judgments as scientists called attention to the very foundations of scientific conduct. In an era of institutional research ethics, like the Tri-Council’s ethics policy, Rudner's call for an approach to these value judgments is even more relevant. The contemporary education researcher primarily engages with ethics procedurally, which provides a certain level of consistency and objectivity. This approach has its roots in principle-based theories of ethics that have long been dominant in Western universities. We argue that calls, like Rudner's, for an objective science of ethics, are at the root of this dominant institutional approach. This paper critiques the suitability of such principle-based ethics for solving Rudner's concerns, and posits that educational research ethics is better understood as a matter of character and virtue. We argue that, much like the ethical teacher, the ethical education researcher is a certain kind of person.

Ensino pesquisa e extensão na educação profissional e tecnológica: Olhares multidisciplinares

This is the third book in the EPT Teaching, Research and Extension Collection. The purpose of the seminar is to dialogue with researchers in the field of EFA, enabling the exchange of interinstitutional experiences. The organization of this work consists of a transcript of the opening conference given by the respected professional education researcher, Prof. Dr. Dante Henrique Moura (IFRN), who provided master students, teachers and other participants, a class on the advances and setbacks in EPT. The exquisite debate of the researcher professor, Dr. Alexandre Ferry (Cefet-MG) was also transcribed, which in a very didactic way, provides a better understanding of the terminological inaccuracies that make up the EFA. The other texts that consolidate the collection are the results of research carried out by teachers and students, the Master in Technological Education (Cefet-MG) and the Master in Professional and Technological Education (ProfEPT) from IFMG and IF Sudeste de Minas. And, also, by professors from the Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU), from other courses at Cefet-MG, as well as from other institutions such as Faculdade Pitágoras and Puc-Minas. The themes that make up this volume are quite variable and broad, as is the field of professional and technological education. The idea of the subtitle: multidisciplinary views, translates well the meaning of the work. It is a network of knowledge that gets mixed up in a hybrid connection, showing the reader that science is not linear, nor is it watertight.

Does Your Article Need A Methods Or Methodology Sub-Section?

In the process of writing a discipline-based science education research article for the Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, authors are faced with the question of titling each of the article’s subjections. Some editors and authors advocate a METHODS section whereas others advocate for a METHODOLOGY(IES) section. What do we currently prefer in JAESE? The answer is an unsatisfying, “it depends.” The vast majority of papers in the JAESE Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education use a traditional METHODS section because most—but certainly not all—papers to date describe studies in which the method of inquiry is based on a balance of pragmatism, cost, usefulness, and actionable information. This is in contrast to a METHODOLOGY section, which takes time to argue for why a particular approach will be most fruitful for the question at hand. A robust mix of both are vitally important across the broader discipline-based science education researcher community.