**6. Some considerations**

discussion between teachers once more figure as constraints, because, as one teacher pointed out, it is important "[…] that we discuss this among the teachers, isn't it? And everyone thinks along the same lines, you know? I think it's a good idea for us to approach it as a group […]" (IT14) to plan the project. This particular excerpt underscores the concern that all the teachers should think along the same lines with relation to the controversy to be dealt with. For this reason, this constraint can be linked to insecurity with discussion, with epistemological reflec-

*[…] there are people who are in favor and people who are against, but that's it, the maturity, that the teacher's nakedness to, to be able to reach closure in each of these subjects, without giving his own opinion, agreeing or disagreeing, but then it is the adult's point of view, that has to end it. (IT13)*

The same teacher (T13) refers to the issue of neutrality in the discussion process "[…] because if the teacher also more or less sits on the fence, then he doesn't know and then the student realizes this, particularly adolescents, they will realize this […]" (IT13), thereby creating an

*[…] the teacher has to be very adult and take this position, of an adult, he can't give an opinion that he agrees, disagrees, I accept, don't accept, that's not it, he has to play the role of someone who is mature* 

Other constraints are related to "teaching materials and supporting materials," as seen in an excerpt from another teacher: "These controversies, sometimes, are not covered in the teaching materials" (I14). This element is also highlighted in articles and by researchers [13, 21, 23]

Another of the constraints that was cited was "assessment," and there were no comments specifically related to learning during the interviews. I therefore conclude that this may be related to insecurity with dealing with the subject, since, when assessing a discussion of con-

When asked about the potentials of using the SSC approach in lessons, the teachers considered that they provide motivation for the students to seek information on current issues. Taking into consideration the concepts involved in dealing with controversies, one teacher (T1) answered a questionnaire item as follows: "I think that this approach is always motivating and provoking, because it drives me to seek more information and greater precision with

Other teachers stated that the controversies approach promotes better understanding of reality; as follows: "[…] it helps with development of critical reasoning and position‐taking, helping students to think like a citizen and see beyond appearances[…]" (QT3\_5), providing "[…] awareness of the facts and changes that are a part of learning […]" (QT4\_5) and, therefore, "[…] gives significance to the students' reality" (QT14\_5). A different point of view on potentials is revealed in another teacher's response: "It is important since they are who will continue scientific and technological develoxpment and presenting them with these controversies is a way of making them reflect so that in the future we can achieve better solutions than the current ones" (QT10\_5). My understanding is that including SSC among the subjects of the projects run at the school is relevant, since it provides an opportunity to discuss controversial subjects in society. Nevertheless,

troversial subjects, the teacher cannot only consider one point of view to be correct.

*for power, provide a compass, you know? I think that's the teacher's job. (IT13)*

tion, and with the treatment needed for use in projects.

90 Science Education - Research and New Technologies

obstacle to mediation of the subject being discussed.

who use the SSC approach.

relation to the concepts covered" (QT1\_5).

It is our belief that it is not enough to rely on traditional subject‐based teaching alone, in which information considered relevant is provided by the teacher, with content isolated from its context. Rather, it is necessary to use methodologies that enable the integration of concepts across different subjects to be perceived in a clear and objective manner, taking advantage of the experiences provided by the environment of which the students are part, combined with an approach using socioscientific controversies to provide opportunities for discussions that are not restricted to scientific knowledge.

However, I have also shown some of the limitations of this type of activity, many related to planning its use within the daily routine of the school, describing a series of factors that are impediments to its effective implementation. These factors are linked to issues from a range of different domains, including of a political, emotional, and structural nature, in addition to elements related to training and qualifications. However, these limitations could be resolved if the teaching staff involved in a collective project were able to discuss strategies to overcome them. It is clear that some factors are not easy to resolve and, in some cases, are under the control of the school's Principal and Vice‐principal, such as allocating space and time for more effective discussions to take place, in addition to more adequate remuneration for the teachers.

The analyses of questionnaires and interview transcripts enabled us to identify the principal factors that interfere with using controversial subjects in the classroom. One of these aspects is emphasis on memorization and the little attention given to aspects related to the process of construction of scientific knowledge or to the epistemological aspects of science. This is strongly linked to teachers' initial training, where the emphasis is on depositing the subject content learnt, passing it on to the students so they are instrumentalized to pass external assessment exams and university entrance exams, ignoring the context and the reality of society.

Another factor is the teachers' lack of experience and, consequently, the students' lack of experience with discussions in the classroom, which means they do not have the necessary skills for this type of activity. Of particular importance is a lack of knowledge about how to design and manage classroom discussion activities, obviously in relation to controversial subjects. Although they did use a space for, for example, simulation of a jury, the teachers had concerns with relation to mediating these activities. This insecurity, related to a lack of experience, demonstrates the extent to which theory and practice are separated in the classroom. Both initial training and ongoing education explore the importance of group activities and of discussion, but teachers do not have experience with these activities, making it less likely that they will employ them.

Other constraints are related to the large quantity of curricular content in science subjects; the teachers' concepts of science teaching and the socioscientific issues approach; and a lack of educational resources. These teachers end up opting for direct presentation as teaching strategy and concern themselves with transmission of knowledge, filling their lessons with fragmented elements from the curriculum, when they could be utilizing aspects of knowledge production and the epistemology of science, with the result that they create an idea of science as pre‐established content that the students must master.

It is our understanding that using the SSC approach within the sciences alone will not achieve integration between the different subjects. Along the same lines, taking this approach to teaching the humanities or languages, in isolation, will also fail to achieve this success. The project teaching method is one means of bringing these subjects together, because it works, organizes, and teaches in a way that is collective and integrative, making the social dynamics of working groups explicit and providing opportunities for integration.

In addition to integration, which is fostered by the project teaching method, we need to go further, by planning projects with the SSC approach, since, in order to develop citizenship, we cannot limit ourselves to discussion but must provide opportunities for the students to act on their discussions, that is, enable them to go beyond the school walls and into society, motivating them to exercise their citizenship.

Analysis of the teachers' responses showed that, in general, the staff are open to new ways of working, including the strategy proposed, involving use of socioscientific controversies in an integrative manner. Many of them pointed out that they already include different ways of working in their practices, albeit in an isolated manner, which reveals a fresh view on their conceptualizations of teaching, students, and education. Working from the constraints on and potentials of discussion of socioscientific controversies within an integrative approach, I believe that we need to rethink the way that initial teacher training and ongoing education are constituted. It is important to help them to internalize the educational relevance of this type of educational experience and to develop the teaching knowledge necessary to implement it in the classroom setting.

I believe that the constraints and potentials raised by the teachers with relation to this type of practice in the school are potentialized by explanation of the contradictions between what is possible and what limits effective use. From this perspective, it is possible to understand what the "constraints" are and how they operate and how, sometimes, they can be overcome. Taking them as a basis, it is necessary to undertake planned actions to ensure that this type of discussion is included as part of teachers' training, going beyond identification of limiting factors, in the direction of achieving better knowledge of and interaction with reality.

When faced with difficulties, teachers should attempt to evaluate the reasons behind the success or failure of the approach adopted. It is likely that they will not be inherent to the methodology proposed but to the way it has been conceived and managed. Particular attention must be paid to the subject and structure of the task, to the composition of groups, and to the social skills that are needed to complete the activities that follow.

Another concern related to using discussion of socioscientific controversies in an integrative model is that this approach could tend to be transformed into just another teaching resource for convincing students that scientific knowledge, because it is different, has greater validity than other types, or that it is the only knowledge that should be taken into account for decision‐making. I believe that this can often lead to discussion of controversies being seen as an instrument exclusively for learning scientific knowledge, reducing a debate that could be much wider‐ranging, because scientific discourse is seen as an instrument for understanding human controversies.

Teaching with Integrated Projects, allied to the SSC approach, can enable an expansion of horizons and lead to perception of the implications for understanding the reality of the curricular content of each of the subjects. In addition to this advantage, the practice can help students and teachers to perceive the importance of an integrative view of knowledge, stimulating them to advance beyond education bound by the domains of the content of a single subject. This study appears to show that the project teaching strategy is a promising way to transform the student‐student, student‐teacher, and teacher‐teacher relationships in the classroom.
