**2.2. Socioscientific controversies in Brazil**

According to Nelkin [10, 11], scientific controversies can be caused by: (a) the social, moral, or religious implications of a scientific theory or practice (e.g., issues related to cloning and genetic modification of living beings); (b) social tensions between individual rights and social objectives, political priorities and environmental values, economic interests, and health‐related concerns that result from the application of technology; (c) by use of public financial resources for major scientific and technological projects to the detriment of other projects, such as, for example, for social ends. These controversies can also be referred to as socioscientific issues, that is, social issues provoked by scientific and technological

Ramsey [12] defined three criteria for selection of controversial socioscientific subjects: (i) whether there are differences of opinion in relation to them; (ii) whether the subject has social significance; and (iii) whether the subject, to some extent, is related to science and technology. According to Para Reis [13], controversial socioscientific issues (CSIs) are social issues with a considerable scientific and technological dimension, such as, for example, manipulation of the genomes of living beings, in vitro fertilization, and cloning; release into the atmosphere of substances with effects on public health, on the greenhouse effect, and on destruction of the ozone layer; use of hormones and antibiotics in animal production; environmental and public

Pérez and Carvalho [14] state that CSIs encompass debates, controversies, or subjects directly related to scientific and/or technological knowledge that have a major impact on society. According to Abd‐El‐Khalick [15], these issues are markedly different from the exercises or "problems" that appear at the ends of chapters of the text books used in the classroom. Such exercises are generally defined and cover multidisciplinary aspects that are very often loaded

These authors argue that the characteristics generally observed in socioscientific issues are: (a) knowledge of a scientific nature; (b) formation of opinions and choosing between options; (c) frequent appearances in the news media; (d) local scope; (e) analysis in terms of cost versus benefit and of values; (f) awareness of sustainability; (g) permeation by ethical and moral rationales; (h) permeated by understanding of risks; and (i) normally, part of people's every-

We can see that even the definition of a controversy is a controversial issue. According to Velho and Velho [16], some authors consider a controversy to be a discussion between two parties about a particular subject in which their beliefs and arguments are at stake, which is a view that places controversy on a more cognitive or psychological plane. I therefore believe that controversies cannot be separated from a wider cultural context and are, therefore, social

Faced with such a diversity of definitions, I have chosen to use the term "socioscientific controversies" and have adopted the following criteria for selection of the articles that make up

(i) controversies that are provoked by the social impacts of scientific and technological in-

novations and divide both the scientific community and society in general;

with ethical, esthetic, ecological, moral, educational, cultural, and religious values.

developments.

80 Science Education - Research and New Technologies

health issues.

day lives.

phenomena that are historically determined.

our corpus for analysis:

The proposal of working with the SSC in the classroom is relatively new and has received little publicity. For Brazil, searching with the dates 2001 to 2014, a total of 44 publications were identified in online periodicals dealing with science teaching, which suggested this type of approach [17]. Some studies list the educational potentials that discussing SSC in the classroom can leverage, not only for learning curricula content but also for learning about processes of a scientific and technological nature and for students' cognitive, social, political, moral, and ethical development [3, 13, 18–23].

Reis [13] conducted a series of studies investigating the educational impact of conflict and controversy in the classroom, finding that their use resulted in motivation, research, and interchange of information. Reassessment of individual positions, supportive relationships between the students, and appreciation of content and of the learning experience enabled development of logical and moral reasoning skills and a deeper understanding of the important aspects of the nature of science.

Reis and Galvão [19] believe that use of socioscientific issues can be important for the establishment of a link between the scientific culture (in which the scientific community participate) and science teaching.

Ramos and Silva [20] claim that discussion of controversial subjects allows students to acquire knowledge about the type of reasoning that motivates governments, scientists, and protest movements, and also a more realistic understanding of scientific and technological development, within its social and political context, and of its impact on the general public or on specific communities. They state that it is the school's and, therefore, the teacher's responsibility to create opportunities for discussion of controversial subjects, which are an ever growing part of daily life. Schools should provide science education that informs students of scientific developments since, in addition to being necessary, it is an indispensable social duty to provide them with science that is up‐to‐date, historical, social, critical, and human.

Galvão and Reis [3] add that it is the science teacher's job to encourage students to: research and select reliable sources of information; contrast different points of views with each other; search for necessary knowledge; familiarize themselves with scientists' practices, techniques, and theories, creating opportunities to relate this knowledge to their daily lives; debate the subjects; determine the benefits and harm that could result; and critically assess and form an opinion on controversial issues.

Vieira and Bazzo [21] state that discussing controversial socioscientific situations can offer students a more realistic image of science, whereas not including them in science teaching contributes to transmission of distorted ideas that often describe science as non‐controversial, neutral, and disinterested.

Zuin and Freitas [22] describe how socioscientific controversies are not resolved by analysis of evidence such as empirical data. They state that we must pay special attention to considerations of ethics, morals, and values with relation to social elements and to conceptual, methodological, and technological elements related to science. Within this perspective, learning opportunities provided by teaching based on discussion of socioscientific problems have shown great potential for construction of a more realistic view of scientific development and for promotion of responsible citizenship.

Forgiarini and Auler [23] claim that another of the characteristics of controversial subjects is that they are given prominence in the press, on television, and in films, which may relate them to stereotypical ideas of science and technology and of the activity of scientists. It is accepted that both schools and the media can contribute to construction of misleading conceptions with relation to scientific and technological endeavors.

Forgiarini and Auler [23] also state that controversial subjects are still studied little in the classroom and highlight the reasons that lead many teachers to avoid them. According to Reis [13], one of the factors behind this absence could be: "[…] concerns about a possible failure of control during discussions, since there may not be correct answers, rather a diversity of value judgments" [13]. He recommends that the teacher should maintain a neutral position, that of a mediator, with relation to discussion of these subjects, in order to avoid revealing personal positions that the students might assume are correct. He states that the teacher's neutrality is of fundamental importance, because the students must be given the right to form their own opinions, and, therefore, the teacher should opt for neutrality during these discussions.

In addition to contribution to demystification of misleading ideas with relation to scientific endeavor, discussion of socioscientific controversies can also motivate students to express their opinions, to learn to construct arguments, and to take well‐founded decisions with respect to scientific and technological development and its implications for society.

Reis also raises the suggestion that by using socioscientific controversies in science teaching, we can cover a range of different curricular content. This process can be conducted in an interdisciplinary manner, in the form of a collaborative effort involving teachers from several different subjects (general science, history, geography, chemistry, physics, and biology, among others).

#### **2.3. Constraints on and potentials of socioscientific controversies in Brazil**

A study conducted by Duso [17] identified work that focused on socioscientific controversies published from 2001 to 2014 in Brazilian periodicals dealing with science, available on‐line, and indexed with the terms "controversial subjects," "contentious subjects," "socioscientific controversies," "contemporary subjects," or "socioscientific issues" in their subtitles, titles, abstracts, or keywords. The study located 44 papers published in the journals selected.

The authors of these articles pointed out the difficulties faced by teachers who, in general, do not have the skills to manage and direct classroom discussions nor the knowledge needed for discussion of socioscientific issues with relation to the nature of science and the sociological, political, ethical, and economic elements of the subjects being discussed. Additionally, they also deal with the difficulties involved in assessing activities involving discussion of socioscientific controversies and/or the pressure exerted by national assessment systems that do not place value on this type of discussion, creating barriers to effective adoption of this approach.

contributes to transmission of distorted ideas that often describe science as non‐controversial,

Zuin and Freitas [22] describe how socioscientific controversies are not resolved by analysis of evidence such as empirical data. They state that we must pay special attention to considerations of ethics, morals, and values with relation to social elements and to conceptual, methodological, and technological elements related to science. Within this perspective, learning opportunities provided by teaching based on discussion of socioscientific problems have shown great potential for construction of a more realistic view of scientific development and

Forgiarini and Auler [23] claim that another of the characteristics of controversial subjects is that they are given prominence in the press, on television, and in films, which may relate them to stereotypical ideas of science and technology and of the activity of scientists. It is accepted that both schools and the media can contribute to construction of misleading conceptions

Forgiarini and Auler [23] also state that controversial subjects are still studied little in the classroom and highlight the reasons that lead many teachers to avoid them. According to Reis [13], one of the factors behind this absence could be: "[…] concerns about a possible failure of control during discussions, since there may not be correct answers, rather a diversity of value judgments" [13]. He recommends that the teacher should maintain a neutral position, that of a mediator, with relation to discussion of these subjects, in order to avoid revealing personal positions that the students might assume are correct. He states that the teacher's neutrality is of fundamental importance, because the students must be given the right to form their own opinions, and, therefore, the teacher should opt for neutrality during

In addition to contribution to demystification of misleading ideas with relation to scientific endeavor, discussion of socioscientific controversies can also motivate students to express their opinions, to learn to construct arguments, and to take well‐founded decisions with

Reis also raises the suggestion that by using socioscientific controversies in science teaching, we can cover a range of different curricular content. This process can be conducted in an interdisciplinary manner, in the form of a collaborative effort involving teachers from several different subjects (general science, history, geography, chemistry, physics, and biology,

A study conducted by Duso [17] identified work that focused on socioscientific controversies published from 2001 to 2014 in Brazilian periodicals dealing with science, available on‐line, and indexed with the terms "controversial subjects," "contentious subjects," "socioscientific controversies," "contemporary subjects," or "socioscientific issues" in their subtitles, titles, abstracts, or keywords. The study located 44 papers published in the journals selected.

respect to scientific and technological development and its implications for society.

**2.3. Constraints on and potentials of socioscientific controversies in Brazil**

neutral, and disinterested.

82 Science Education - Research and New Technologies

these discussions.

among others).

for promotion of responsible citizenship.

with relation to scientific and technological endeavors.

One of the major problems of teaching, highlighted by Shulman [24], Carr and Kemmis [25], and Tardif [26], has been the lack of individual and collective systematization of teachers' experiences, which has resulted in a real absence of history and practice, without which it is difficult to conduct an analysis of its principles. This is why Lee Shulman's studies are important, because they follow teachers at different levels of education and constitute a considerable number of cases, in which their reasoning and actions while in service were recorded.

Shulman's contributions with relation to teacher's knowledge of their subjects' content are of interest in teacher training, because I consider that this knowledge helps to construct teachers' autonomy. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that achieving autonomy is not limited to teachers knowing their subjects' content, which is still in the personal dimension of a teacher's professional development, since it is also necessary to cultivate the social dimension, because teachers' autonomy is an especially collective process and not only an individual process.

Content is no longer discussed, it is simply replicated and derived. In contrast, training is a concept that must be problematized and reformulated, working from the concepts and the objectives of science teaching.

According to Fourez [27], there are divergent positions on the utility of training in epistemology, history of science, and interdisciplinary approaches, because of the complex situations or the fundamental questions provoked by scientific models. The collective dimensions of scientific work should be fostered, organizing interdisciplinary working groups and facilitating interaction between different groups of teachers from different subject areas and the scientific community.

Along the same lines, Forgiarini and Auler [23] state that teacher training that is excessively fragmented and disconnected from the social context exacerbates the extent to which the true situation is different from the ideal. They point out that the great majority of teachers suffer from knowledge gaps, from a lack of information related to controversial subjects, because controversial socioscientific issues are considerably different from the types of problems that are generally dealt with in science lessons.

However, in some of the articles analyzed, while the importance of collective working is highlighted, teachers from subjects in the humanities are not considered to have so many obligations with relation to the circumstances of controversies related to scientific subjects. The most excessive criticisms are leveled at biology teachers, possibly because of the specificity of the curricula content linked with this science.

Levinson [18] considers that science and humanities teachers have complementary strengths and weaknesses. While teachers from humanities subjects are more at home with controversy, Science teachers have greater knowledge of scientific concepts. Collaboration has useful contributions to make, but, unfortunately, the teachers from these different spheres rarely work in cooperation.

If collaboration between teachers can be fostered, the classroom can become a forum for discussions in which the students participate actively, demonstrating their interests and knowledge about the most varied range of subjects, which can be dealt with not only with regard to scientific knowledge but also in relation to their social significance and impact. This will give them the opportunity to experiment in a variety of forms or from different perspectives with the points of view of different social groups, which in turn makes dialogue over the limitations to and possibilities for debates about controversial socioscientific subjects possible.

I understand that it is not feasible to work with controversial subjects by exclusively drawing on subject knowledge. Contributions are needed from multiple fields of knowledge. This is why cooperative work is extremely necessary, so that all participants can make contributions from their own area of expertise to analyze the many different dimensions involved.

It is also indispensable to conduct in‐depth studies with relation to controversial subjects, in order to avoid simplification of complex issues, and it is necessary to engage in coherent epistemological reflection on science and technology, acknowledging the impossibility of obtaining answers to all questions exclusively on the basis of technical and scientific knowledge [19], choosing working methods that are appropriate to the objectives that discussion of controversial issues in the classroom is intended to achieve.

#### **2.4. The project teaching method as an option for integrated teaching practices**

The project teaching method was pioneered by John Dewey and Kilpatrick in Chicago at the start of the twentieth century with the objective of resignifying the school environment to make it more open to real life. This approach was taken up and championed by Freinet, in France, in the 1920s and 1930s.

Kilpatrick believed that the foundation of all education is guided and decided activity. In other words, all school activities could be conducted in the form of projects, with no need for special organization.

In turn, Freinet [28] did not explicitly propose using this method, but did vehemently argue in favor of the idea of work as a vital function of each and every individual. This is the school of work that becomes the school of life, and each will become the other.

Jolibert and colleagues were influenced by Freinet's ideas and constructed a proposal based on working with projects. They proposed organizing work on the basis of principles such as the collaborative life, students' appropriation of their own school lives, and organization of teaching into projects. Jolibert [29] believed that the project teaching method allows school life to be founded on the real, open to multiple relationships with the exterior, and in which the students take an active part in their own learning.

This concept is founded on a globalizing and interdisciplinary view of organization of schools' curricular content. Within this proposal, it is possible to combine study of significant contemporary problems by groups of students and teachers with the content of school subjects, respecting their interests and their requirements and taking students' concepts, hypotheses, and knowledge as a starting point.

Levinson [18] considers that science and humanities teachers have complementary strengths and weaknesses. While teachers from humanities subjects are more at home with controversy, Science teachers have greater knowledge of scientific concepts. Collaboration has useful contributions to make, but, unfortunately, the teachers from these different spheres rarely work

If collaboration between teachers can be fostered, the classroom can become a forum for discussions in which the students participate actively, demonstrating their interests and knowledge about the most varied range of subjects, which can be dealt with not only with regard to scientific knowledge but also in relation to their social significance and impact. This will give them the opportunity to experiment in a variety of forms or from different perspectives with the points of view of different social groups, which in turn makes dialogue over the limitations to and possibilities for debates about controversial socioscientific subjects possible.

I understand that it is not feasible to work with controversial subjects by exclusively drawing on subject knowledge. Contributions are needed from multiple fields of knowledge. This is why cooperative work is extremely necessary, so that all participants can make contributions

It is also indispensable to conduct in‐depth studies with relation to controversial subjects, in order to avoid simplification of complex issues, and it is necessary to engage in coherent epistemological reflection on science and technology, acknowledging the impossibility of obtaining answers to all questions exclusively on the basis of technical and scientific knowledge [19], choosing working methods that are appropriate to the objectives that discussion of

The project teaching method was pioneered by John Dewey and Kilpatrick in Chicago at the start of the twentieth century with the objective of resignifying the school environment to make it more open to real life. This approach was taken up and championed by Freinet, in

Kilpatrick believed that the foundation of all education is guided and decided activity. In other words, all school activities could be conducted in the form of projects, with no need for

In turn, Freinet [28] did not explicitly propose using this method, but did vehemently argue in favor of the idea of work as a vital function of each and every individual. This is the school

Jolibert and colleagues were influenced by Freinet's ideas and constructed a proposal based on working with projects. They proposed organizing work on the basis of principles such as the collaborative life, students' appropriation of their own school lives, and organization of teaching into projects. Jolibert [29] believed that the project teaching method allows school life to be founded on the real, open to multiple relationships with the exterior, and in which the

from their own area of expertise to analyze the many different dimensions involved.

**2.4. The project teaching method as an option for integrated teaching practices**

of work that becomes the school of life, and each will become the other.

students take an active part in their own learning.

controversial issues in the classroom is intended to achieve.

France, in the 1920s and 1930s.

special organization.

in cooperation.

84 Science Education - Research and New Technologies

There are many different approaches to working with projects, following different methodological paths. The approach that is advocated in this text is the result of certain reflections on and experiments with implementation of integrated projects in a secondary school.

Working with the project teaching method proposes changes in the teacher's role, which becomes that of a guide and a researcher who both challenges and learns. The objective is to foster in the students an understanding of the problems investigated, going beyond the information provided and recognizing the different versions of a fact, proposing explanations and hypotheses and engaging in dialogue on different points of view.

Secondary education is possibly the most appropriate time to work with interdisciplinary projects, since it is a period during which young people are going through a process of transition between childhood and adulthood and is therefore a stage in which they are defining their future roles in society. As Hernández [30] puts it, "[…] the school culture takes on a function of remaking and renaming the world and of teaching students to interpret the changeable meanings with which people in different cultures and historical periods give meaning to reality."

When working with integrated projects, the activities are organized on the basis of students' experiences, motivations, expectations, and interests, and it is assumed that working groups will be formed that enrich through meaningful collaboration. The subject matter is not predetermined, because it is the result of an open process, and is explored in relation to the students' everyday lives, so that they gain a cognitive, emotional, and relational understanding of the phenomena of the world that surrounds them.

#### **2.5. The constraints on and the potentials of the project teaching method**

According to Santomé [31], certain constraints are because of a lack of adequate planning, of work in small groups, and a lack of motivation for work that is not appropriately remunerated. Compounding these elements is the prejudice against using projects because of ignorance of their meaning and lack of professional preparedness.

We should take into account the way teachers are trained by specific subject area. According to Schor [32], as a result of the specialization of scientific knowledge, certain problems emerge that demand a collaborative approach, that is, it is necessary that specialists work together collectively. We cannot expect that subject teachers will engage in integrated work if it does not fit in with their specialties. A lack of experience during training, both initial qualification and ongoing education, with an integrative curriculum approach can create constraints.

However, according to some authors, what is reported is that working with project teaching method is a challenge for teachers, since this dynamic implies that they must take on the roles of teachers, researchers, and mediators, leaving aside their roles as transmitters of knowledge to become mediators of learning, encouraging the formation of autonomous students, capable of acting and interacting in the world in which they live. The project teaching methodology, with activities conducted within the project, leads to considerable changes in students' behavior, interest, and motivation with relation to learning the subject.

One of the potentials of using integrated projects is the students' involvement in the process of construction of knowledge and of seeking solutions to problematic situations, in addition to positive changes in relation to day‐to‐day attitudes and greater motivation and involvement in the learning process.

Although it is difficult for teachers to achieve a good balance between the elements of the triad "subject matter," "activities," and "assessment" in the classroom, students are able to demonstrate and re‐elaborate earlier concepts, which I consider to be of great importance in the construction of knowledge.

Beane [33] sees curricular integration as a concept that is concerned with the possibilities for personal and social integration through a curriculum that is organized around significant problems and questions, identified in a collaborative manner by the teachers and students, irrespective of the demarcations that separate subjects.

However, difficulties are encountered, especially with relation to the issue of bringing the humanities closer to the sciences. In the majority of cases, integration between these different groups of subjects proves to be a practical problem that is difficult to solve. The difficulty lies in establishing a set of common repertoires that will enable dialogue.

In view of the above, the SSC approach can be considered an ideal way to achieve curricular integration in teaching, since all of the different subject areas will get the opportunity to contribute a great deal of subject matter to the discussion.
