O Impacto Das Controvérsias Sócio-científicas Nas Concepções E Práticas De Professores De Ciências Naturais Portugueses

Research in Science Education 34: 153–171, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The Impact of Socio-Scientific Controversies in Portuguese Natural Science Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices

Pedro Reis and Cecília Galvão Lisbon University Abstract This article discusses the results of a qualitative study, based on case studies, aimed at: (a) assessing a group of Portuguese secondary school natural science teachers regarding their conceptions of the nature, teaching and learning of science; (b) studying possible impacts of recent controversies surrounding scientific and technological issues on these conceptions and on teachers’ classroom practices. Five teachers, with different backgrounds and teaching experience, were observed during classes and interviewed with the purpose of studying: (a) the relationship between their conceptions and classroom practices; and (b) the factors that impede or enhance this relationship. Subsequently, observation notes and interview transcriptions were systematically analysed. The socio-scientific controversies recently discussed in Portugal seem to have had an impact on teachers’ (1) conceptions about the nature, teaching and learning of science; and (2) classroom practice. However, not all teachers were able to teach according to their conceptions. Some factors seem to mediate the relationship between teachers’ conceptions and classroom practice: National Curriculum, national exams, teachers’ previous experience as scientists, and personal educational priorities or aims. Based on the results obtained, some remarks and educational implications are discussed. Key Words: classroom practice, controversial science-based issues, nature of science, science education, teachers’ conceptions

Over the last few years, like in many other countries, Portuguese society has been shaken by numerous controversies related to science and technology, such as: (1) the co-incineration of toxic waste in concrete factories and the subsequent release of dangerous substances into the atmosphere; (2) the possible transmission of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) to humans through beef consumption; (3) the potential negative effects of mobile phone radiation; (4) the possible negative effects of the construction of dams in certain areas of the country; (5) human cloning, etc. These situations have led to strong reactions in the Portuguese population (fear, anger, hysteria) and caused social tension between individual rights and social aims, political priorities and environmental values, economic interests and health concerns. Almost every day the media make sensationalist headlines out of these themes, often more concerned about audience ratings than information. Some studies have shown that the public image of science is determined by the most recent controversial events (Thomas, 1997). Therefore, all these controversies, besides having provoked reactions and tensions in the Portuguese population, may

154

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

also have influenced their conceptions of science and, subsequently, their thoughts, discourses and decisions about socio-scientific issues. Given the importance and relevance of this theme, this research intended to study the possible impact of recent controversies surrounding scientific and technological issues – made public by the media – on a group of Portuguese natural science teachers, regarding their (1) conceptions of the nature, teaching and learning of science and (2) classroom practice. It is assumed that through the ideas they transmit, the strategies they implement and the way they approach these controversies in class, teachers may have a considerable impact on the conceptions students construct about science. In Portugal, this study is particularly meaningful during the implementation of a new science curriculum which calls for the discussion of polemic and up-to-date scientific and technological themes, as a way of preparing pupils for active, informed participation in society (Galvão, 2001; Galvão & Abrantes, 2002). On the other hand, the discussion of socio-scientific themes may have positive effects regarding the construction of a more realistic image of science and technology and the stimulation of social interactions in the classroom (Reis, 1997, 1999).

Theoretical Background Several authors believe that school contributes, both implicitly and explicitly, to the construction of limited conceptions regarding the nature of science (Duschl, 2000; Monk & Dillon, 2000). When “school science” favours the illustration, verification and memorisation of a perfectly established, non-controversial body of knowledge, it presents science as an objective, value-free process, which leads to absolute, indisputable truths, through rigorous observation of regularities in phenomena and the establishment of generalisations. However, “real science” is quite different. Specialists often have conflicting opinions, given that socio-scientific controversies cannot be solved merely on a technical basis, because they involve hierarchies of values, personal conveniences, social and economic group pressures, etc. The media often present a sensationalist image of science, using only certain stories and presenting polemic theories as if they were facts, and scientists as superior beings living in a world apart (Nelkin, 1995). They constantly use striking expressions and metaphors – disaster, blessing of modern medicine, new landmark, fraud – which influence the way citizens understand, think about and act upon socioscientific issues (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Through this language they shape the population’s conceptions about science. In a study about the metaphors used by British newspapers in articles on biotechnology, Liakopoulos (2002) found large numbers of metaphors aimed at conveying very positive images – revolution, breakthrough, big step, golden opportunity, goldmine, miracle – and very negative ones – Pandora’s Box, threat, killer plants, Frankenstein, Nazi-like. He also observed that the biotechnologist was portrayed as a mad scientist or an evil genius who intends to

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

155

reach his/her objectives no matter what – an image that he believes has a considerable effect on the public’s trust in biotechnology. Over the past few decades, several studies have shown relations between science teachers’ conceptions and classroom practices (Brickhouse, 1990; Cross & Price, 1996; Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996; Gallagher, 1991; Hashweh, 1996). However, the assumption that teachers’ conceptions of science are transposed to their classroom practice has been questioned (Lederman, 1992; Tobin & McRobbie, 1997). Certain factors seem to influence the transposition of teachers’ conceptions about science to their classroom practice: (a) experience in class management and organisation; (b) teaching experience; (c) pressure to cover contents; (d) limitations imposed by practicum supervisors or by the institutions; (e) knowledge about the nature of science or the necessary resources to teach it; (f) content knowledge; (g) the importance given by teachers to the teaching of the nature of science; (h) teachers’ intention to explicitly approach this theme (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Duschl & Wrigth, 1989; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). As regards possible relations between teachers’ conceptions about science teaching and learning in general and their classroom practices, the conclusions of research also diverge. Whereas some studies report relations between these two variables (Koulaidis & Ogborn, 1995; Tobin & Espinet, 1989), others show that teachers have some difficulty in transposing their ideas on science teaching and learning to the classroom (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993).

Problem and Methodology The study presented in this article is part of a larger research, essentially qualitative, that studies the impact of recent controversies surrounding science and technology on the pedagogical practice of a group of Portuguese Natural Science teachers and on the conceptions these teachers and their students have of science and technology. An interpretative methodology, based on case studies, was chosen in order to: (1) study their conceptions of the nature, teaching and learning of science; and (2) assess the possible impact of recent controversies surrounding science and technology – made public by the media – on these conceptions and on their classroom practices. This paper refers only to a small group of five teachers, from the total involved in the larger research. These teachers taught Natural Science (Biology and Geology) to students aged 13 to 18 years (7th–12th grade) in five separate schools in Lisbon and its outskirts. The wide range in experience (3, 8, 25, 33 and 39 years of teaching) and professional and personal trajectories were the criteria used for their selection. Over the last years, all five teachers had worked with the researchers on other projects: the close working relationship between teachers and researchers was intended to contribute to the authenticity of data collected. The aim was to learn about the impact of controversies in science on a specific and eclectic group of Natural Science teachers.

156

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

Applying or generalising the results reached by this study to other situations is up to the readers (Merriam, 1988). During one school year, information was gathered through semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, open-ended questionnaires and analysis of classroom plans and materials. All data collected underwent a process of independent analysis, followed by a process of triangulation. However, this paper refers mainly to the results of classroom observation and analysis of the interviews. The interviews were audiotaped in each school by the researchers before and after the observation of 14 successive classes (for each teacher). Through this procedure the researchers aimed to investigate the relationship between teachers’ conceptions and classroom practices, and to study the factors that impede or enhance this relationship. The semi-structured interview was designed to collect data on each teacher’s academic background, teaching experience, goals and objectives for natural science classes and conceptions of the nature, teaching and learning of science. The interviews gathered opinions in the subjects’ own language, allowing for an intuitive understanding of the aspects under scrutiny. Both classroom observation notes and full transcriptions of the interviews were analysed using a model of analytical induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Through this approach, explanations of the phenomenon under investigation are continually formulated and tested as data are analysed. The ultimate goal is to obtain an explanation suitable for all cases under investigation.

Results Fernanda: Informal Extra-programme Conversations to Clarify Doubts about New Breakthroughs in Natural Sciences Fernanda has been a teacher for 39 years. When she was nineteen, she began to work at Primary School level, but eleven years later, after concluding her degree in Biology at Lisbon University, she moved on to the secondary school, teaching all natural science subjects. Currently, she is teaching mostly 12th grade subjects. She regards herself as an affective, enthusiastic, persistent person, with a “rather logical, demanding and rigorous spirit” (which she seeks to develop in her students). Conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge Fernanda associates (1) science with rigour, honesty, comprehension, creativity, understanding and modesty; and (2) technology with rigour, efficacy and adaptability. In her own words: (. . .) Science is something I try to explain, (. . .) it’s a reality which is built little by little with the data we have, therefore there is never such a thing as definite science. (. . .) Science advances (. . .) as we constantly question what we initially accepted as true.

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

157

She feels that for scientific knowledge to be considered as such, there must be scientific data and proof to validate it; an opinion, on the other hand, may be based either on data or on affective or social reasons. This teacher refers to genetic engineering, cloning, transgenic food and organ transplants as examples of scientific and technological issues that are controversial, warning that “we must be very careful regarding certain discoveries” for they may turn out to be “Pandora’s Boxes,” opened by “wizardry apprentices who trigger a series of forces without knowing how to control them.” Yet she believes that if science were restrained, that would mean the stagnation of scientific knowledge. So she defends “the need to continue researching (. . .), to gain more and more knowledge in fields which remain slightly taboo up to a certain point,” even though this implies running the risk of misusing new discoveries. Despite considering that the population over-reacts to some of the controversial issues she mentioned, Fernanda is concerned about the eventual “construction of genetically modified organisms” – for instance, “programmed individuals” who may threaten human freedom. Conceptions about Natural Science teaching Fernanda believes that a scientific culture shared by the whole population is essential for our present world to “progress.” She tries “to go beyond the programmes, which is hard, especially in the final year of secondary school (12th grade) (. . .) because of the pressure of exams and the marks they need to achieve” and “such a vast programme whose aims, unfortunately, are essentially about students knowing things and not about learning to do things (. . .).” Despite advocating a curricular reformulation of the 12th grade subject, she feels teachers always have some leeway that allows them to promote students’ development of a scientific attitude and involve them in the “discovery of knowledge.” Among the ideal activities for fulfilling these goals she suggests experimentation, which she does not use much because of the programme’s length and the high number of students in the class (30, in general), and “the critical analysis of texts or data.” She also values dialogue as a tool for explaining doubts, constructing knowledge and enhancing students’ motivation. However, in her opinion dialogue “isn’t always easy (. . .) because you spend more time explaining something and, besides, the rigour factor may be a bit damaged.” Despite valuing experimental activities and dialogue, her classes mainly involve explanation of programme contents. Conceptions about the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom This teacher shows some difficulty in identifying topics of the science programmes that allow discussion of controversial issues. In the upper Secondary School programmes, she only points out cloning. She thinks the 12th grade programme has no topics that allow this type of discussion and that its length, together with the pressure felt from having to prepare students for final exams, also hinder this kind of task. As for the 7th and 8th grade Natural Science programmes, her difficulty in

158

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

identifying controversial themes remains. But she states that these programmes are not so vast, so teachers are freer to propose activities concerning the discussion of controversial issues. Oddly enough, she stresses the importance of the Environmental Education area for developing an environmental conscience in students, but she does not consider that this theme includes controversial issues. However, despite all the limitations she points out, Fernanda states that sometimes she discusses certain doubts pupils raise, originating what she calls “informal, extraprogramme conversations,” which she identifies as “the most fabulous moments” of her classes. In her opinion, these “conversations” turn out to be useful in educating “people who are capable of intervening in society,” for they develop “certain tools: knowledge, critical thinking, curiosity, etc.”

Isabel: Link between Scientists/Technicians and Students Regarding the Communication and Discussion of Breakthroughs in Natural Sciences Isabel has two degrees in Biology – one in Biological Sciences and the other in Biology Education – and she has been teaching Natural Sciences for 25 years, after a scientific training period in Agronomy and Soil Fauna. She has already taught all Natural Science subjects from the 7th to the 12th grades. In the last few years she has been teaching 10th and 12th grade subjects. She feels professionally fulfilled, but apprehensive because she notices “that programmes are far removed from reality (. . .), they’re kind of divorced from what actually goes on in biology currently.” In her opinion, programmes are outdated, tackling outmoded issues and do not include “new discoveries in biology.” Besides this, she considers that the 12th grade examinations, “full of twists and turns,” hamper teachers’ work because they feel an obligation to prepare students for assessment based chiefly on memorisation. Isabel tries to keep up to date by going to congresses and conferences. She considers herself as a link between scientists and students concerning the transmission of up-to-date knowledge. Every year she seeks to reshape the way she “teaches contents,” namely using “those shortcuts” she can “take without putting the programme aside too much.” Conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge Isabel perceives science as being dynamic and transitory, something that “awakens the wish to learn more” and “makes us feel good about life and the world.” She believes that science is ruled by facts and real data that result from testing hypotheses through experimentation. Sometimes she has the feeling that technology can become slightly inaccessible because of the hermetic language that technicians use and the communication difficulties many of them appear to have. She seeks to transmit to her students an idea of evolving science, marked by doubts and new discoveries that sometimes change a given theory:

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

159

(. . .) it’s like when you meet someone. Often we think certain things about a person, we think we’ve understood him or her, and as we try to get to know the person better we start finding little things that change our idea of him or her – the same happens with the world of science.

As examples of controversial scientific and technological themes she points out the uncertainties surrounding the causes and consequences of ozone depletion, AIDS, the transmission of genetic diseases, the Human Genome Project, genetically modified organisms, organ production through cloning, pollution and co-incineration of toxic waste in concrete factories. In her opinion, “there is still a lot to learn, (. . .) to discover” and “many fears” remain regarding these issues because of certain lobbies and some ignorance. She thinks that overcoming this situation demands that the population be better informed by scientists who are independent of political powers and economic interests. Conceptions about Natural Science teaching Isabel considers that Natural Science teaching is “important for individuals’ general education” because it conveys (1) useful knowledge about nature and the functioning and development of the human body; (2) the importance of science for knowledge evolution; and (3) “a vision of an evolving world” where “there are no absolute truths.” In terms of teaching strategies, this teacher values: (1) bibliographical research on current themes that interest students; and (2) “lab work,” for students to be able to “feel what science is.” She constantly seeks to establish relations between different themes and stimulate students’ involvement and motivation. However, despite acknowledging the existence of “kids who (. . .) are curious and try to find answers themselves and confront these with others and with me,” in many students she observes “a terrible inertia,” “lack of attention” and “great difficulty in participating in classroom activities.” Conceptions about the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom Isabel considers that there are several topics in the science programmes that allow some of the aforementioned controversial issues to be discussed: The Immune System and Evolution enable the respective discussion of issues concerning AIDS and genetically modified organisms; the Study of the Planet Earth allows the problem of ozone depletion to be discussed; Heredity and Reproduction are appropriate for debating cloning and the transmission of genetic diseases. This teacher believes that approaching these matters – through videos, discussion, research work and debates – enables students to: (1) “locate themselves in the world they live in”; (2) “become aware of issues that concern them”; (3) “acquire meaningful knowledge for their lives”; and (4) “develop the idea that school is not something on the side, dissociated from real life.”

160

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

Madalena: Research and Discussion of Controversial Issues in the Development of a Critical Attitude towards Science, the Promotion of Autonomy and the Definition of the Values System Madalena has been teaching for 33 years and took a degree in Biological Sciences and another in Biology Education at Lisbon University. During the last few years she completed two courses in the field of Education: one specialisation in Assessment and a Master degree in Teacher Education (themes she considers extremely relevant and interesting). After some years devoted to scientific research in Mozambique, at the Faculty of Sciences, she ended up embarking on a teaching career. She says she really likes being a teacher: her words reveal her huge enthusiasm in embracing her career, the same enthusiasm she transmits to her students. Lately, she has been teaching 10th and 11th grade subjects. Conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge Madalena finds science amazing, fascinating and believes it “should serve Man, Man with a capital M, not just some men.” She believes science is constantly evolving and is not neutral, but rather, for her it involves matters of value, which lead to different opinions among scientists according to their individual beliefs and principles. As for technology, she sees positive and negative aspects, the latter stemming from the fact that technology is often ruled by “economic and elitist interests.” Therefore she firmly states she must impart to her students the knowledge and skills that are essential for critical evaluation and decision-making regarding situations or information: I would like my students to be able to inform themselves scientifically about the situations at stake and be critical and make their own decisions, be autonomous. (. . .) Because manipulation scares me and it’s so easy nowadays. It is important that students are aware of the fact that science is far from having solved everything, (. . .) let’s not forget science is done by men, for men, for the better but also for the worst. So, with all these limitations, we must (. . .) intervene, give our opinion, demand, assume responsibilities (. . .) and not act like sheep.

So she engages her students in collecting and critically analysing science related articles from newspapers and magazines in order to detect possible ‘mistakes’ or bias and “acquire a critical attitude towards scientific information.” The examples she gives of controversial scientific and technological issues are abortion, organ transplants, AIDS and cloning. Conceptions about Natural Science teaching Madalena seeks to stimulate her students’ curiosity, “create fascination for science” and “make them become very demanding in terms of science and its applications.” She believes that science teaching contributes to “the individual’s education, as an intervening and responsible citizen,” promoting “a path of pursuit, research, curiosity and questioning that should always arise, a critical spirit”:

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

161

(. . .) knowledge has to be structured, based on that curiosity, it must be a constant search, not just taking exams, repeating things that were acquired like a parrot, things which have no meaning at all sometimes. (. . .) More than providing information, there has to be a concern for the full education of the individual, (. . .) the capacity to reflect upon knowledge . . . (. . .) And all this requires constant questioning, not that acquired, static knowledge.

In order to reach this goal, she thinks “it’s necessary to know how to ‘waste’ time,” that is, to use strategies that stimulate reflection. Her whole discourse shows a remarkable flexibility in managing the programmes. Despite the fact that the programmes are so vast, Madalena thinks “it’s possible to achieve both information and the development of skills” and she admits that sometimes the programme is not fully covered in favour of the development of certain skills. She refers to the examples of research work, public presentations (at school and at the town hall) and debates about several themes of Reproduction and Sexuality that her students have carried out. Conceptions about the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom In her opinion there are several topics in the Natural Science programmes that are good for conducting discussions about controversial issues. For instance, Reproduction and Heredity can be used to discuss abortion, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, cloning, genetic diagnosis, genetic engineering, transgenic food products or other themes that come up at the time (for example, the case of the Siamese twins whose survival depended on eliminating one). Madalena stresses how important it is for students’ moral development to discuss controversial issues: (. . .) it’s not just for the sake of discussing, it’s because I feel it’s important that each one becomes aware of what values he/she believes in when making a choice, what values he/she placed above the rest (. . .). I truly believe that (. . .) by discussing these issues, we are trying to help the student find his/her own path, not my path nor the next-door neighbour’s path.

This teacher considers that research and the discussion of controversial issues help students to define their own value system and assume full citizenship.

Rita: Research and Discussion for Students’ Cultural and Intellectual Development and the Construction of a Scientific Culture Rita’s first experience as a Natural Science teacher occurred when she was in the third year of her degree in Applied Plant Biology, at Lisbon University. This experience was so “exceptional” that she considered changing areas and embarking on a teaching career. However, her taste for research led her to conclude her degree in Applied Plant Biology, train at the University of Milan, in Italy, and then work at a Research Institute in Biotechnology. But she “missed her classes” throughout this time and some years later the call for teaching spoke louder than the call for

162

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

research. Currently in her eighth year of teaching, she is an active collaborator of the Portuguese Biologists’ Association. Having taught all the Natural Science subjects, she is currently dedicating herself entirely to a subject she proposed in her school (for the 10th, 11th and 12th grades): Introduction to Cellular and Molecular Biology. Rita considers herself to be “100 percent fulfilled” as a teacher, but sometimes she feels frustrated with the poor conditions for carrying out this occupation and with her colleagues’ lack of professional engagement and commitment. However, she has a group of equally enthusiastic peers outside school, with whom she shares the huge amount of ideas, information and materials she keeps collecting in courses and national and international projects she takes part in. Conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge Rita classifies science and technology as interesting, stimulating and fun. Her intention is that students build the idea that “science can be done by anyone, it’s very hard but at the same time, sometimes it’s very simple (. . .) and any of them can become a scientist.” She also seeks to stress the relation between science and everyday situations: “(. . .) science is actually related to their everyday lives, from the moment they wake up until they go to sleep.” She believes in the constant evolution of scientific knowledge and that it differs from opinions due to its reasoned grounding and rigour. Her examples of controversial scientific and technological issues include cloning, transgenic food products, xenotransplants, in vitro fertilisation and freezing embryos. She finds it hard to present a general stance regarding each of these matters and states that they should be analysed step-by-step and case-by-case. However, she expresses: (a) no problem at all in consuming transgenic food products; (b) some apprehension regarding the environmental impact of genetically modified plants; (c) disagreement as far as human cloning is concerned; and (d) agreement with the cloning of specific organs. She believes that much of the controversy surrounding these issues is linked to the general public’s lack of information and certain technological abuses that were carried out in the past. Therefore, she strives to make her students understand and discuss the technological aspects involved and their ethical and moral implications, as in her opinion citizens must participate actively in the control of scientific and technological activities. Conceptions about Natural Science teaching Rita feels that Natural Science teaching “prepares people to make the best of their lives and understand everything that surrounds them.” She also firmly believes that science teaching is extremely important for students’ cultural and intellectual development and for the construction of a scientific culture: I think [science teaching] is very important in terms of the kids’ culture and intelligence. Good science classes prepare a student to be everything he or she wants to be: a student who is a good observer, who

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

163

knows how to note what he observes, discusses all he observes, interprets all he observes, is fit for any profession. I think that nowadays scientific culture is essential. Everyone has heard of cloning, but few know what it means.

In order to reach these aims, she uses something she calls a “theoretical and practical approach,” consisting of sequences of classes with a theoretical introduction followed by an extremely pronounced and varied practical component that may involve students in activities such as research in books, scientific journals and the Internet, lab work, discussion of results or problematic issues (sometimes with students from other countries) and composing reports: Nothing should be used on its own. I hear a lot of people say they’re against explanatory classes, and so am I if they’re only explanatory, although I think this dimension is essential. But I’m also against ‘recipe’ classes, you follow the recipe, you’ve got the work done. (. . .) I think the key is to vary as much as possible in each lesson.

Conceptions about the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom Rita believes that the Natural Science programmes allow the discussion of all the above-mentioned controversial issues, as long as teachers are interested, motivated and have the training for such a task: (. . .) these issues are linked to a vast array of topics, they fit in anywhere, the teacher just has to want and know how [to approach them]! For instance, I can talk about cloning when I teach Biomolecules, the Cell, Genetics or Evolution. (. . .) Biology is all interrelated, in fact I think everything’s related to Biology (. . .) there’s always room to fit this in [discussion of controversial issues] and there’s always time.

Rita uses several strategies to approach controversial issues. Sometimes she simply clarifies students’ doubts regarding a given matter. Sometimes, these issues are the pretext for undertaking research on the Internet, discussions, debates and inquiries – it all depends on the characteristics of the class. Usually the students’ level of curiosity and interest determines which strategy to choose: (. . .) when the Gulf War broke out, the 8th grade kids got to class and asked me: ‘What’s a biological weapon?’ And the following day there I was, with Petri dishes, with bacteria (. . . ) and they had no idea what a bacteria was (. . . )!

In this teacher’s opinion, discussion promotes students’ intellectual development and the construction of a scientific culture fundamental for an active citizenship.

Paulo: The Discussion of Controversial Issues in the Construction of a Concept of Science as a Collective Activity Whose Progress Clearly Depends on the Discussion of Ideas Paulo has a degree in Biology and Geology Teaching, taken at Lisbon University. He has been a teacher for three years. During this time he taught Natural Science

164

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

subjects from the 5th to the 12th grades and carried out several activities, namely in projects of the Ministry of Science and Technology aimed at divulging science in school. He is currently participating in a project of the Institute for the Conservation of Nature because he feels it is extremely important that teachers stay informed through contact with “the centres where science is produced” and by confronting ideas with “people from diverse fields.” At the moment he is teaching the 7th and 8th grades and is the Co-ordinator of the Science Department. He really enjoys his profession, particularly working with his students, and he feels that his scientific and pedagogic training allows him to face any changes in the lesson plan in a confident and relaxed manner. Conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge Paulo views science as a dynamic, engaging, useful, alluring “field of discussion,” and technology as a “working tool” for obtaining more knowledge. He believes that scientific knowledge results from a process of constant observation, experimentation and reflection. The examples of controversial scientific and technological issues he refers to are genetic manipulation, birth control, drug addiction, sexual orientation and the segregation of HIV-infected people. Despite acknowledging the need to deepen research about the possible environmental impact of some of these innovations, he shows little fear when it comes to consuming genetically modified products (such as genetically altered corn wheat). He thinks there is not enough information to convince him about possible dangers. Conceptions about Natural Science teaching Paulo feels that his role should not merely be one of “conveying knowledge,” but it should comprise of other aspects such as establishing a sound relationship with students and trying to contribute to their education as citizens, namely by promoting the development of an attitude of constant inquiry regarding the World. He believes that Natural Science teaching enables us “to better understand where we live, how we live and what we live for.” He approaches Natural Science teaching according to a constructivist, interactionist perspective, constantly valuing students’ previous knowledge and interaction for the purpose of knowledge construction. Subsequently, he strongly endorses group work and classroom discussion, which he implements every day, despite certain inherent difficulties: (. . .) In this school my classes are in groups and the kids have to organise their desks in groups; when I finish the lesson, it just so happens that the teacher after me doesn’t teach groups so I have to put the desks back again, and that requires a lot of physical exertion. (. . .) At the beginning, working in groups isn’t easy. Even at these ages, they’ve already got a group, their own group. Usually they don’t like the groups to begin with and so on, but after two months they realise that with this methodology classes run more smoothly.

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

165

He believes in the decisive role played by group work, research and discussion in constructing a concept of science as a collective activity whose progress clearly depends on the discussion of ideas: (. . .) I began to see that it [group work] was the best way to teach science classes, also because it obeyed a set of ideas. I started thinking about them, how science is created, how science is constructed, and how to pass this on to the students. Not just in theoretical terms but in practical terms, that is, that science is not carried out alone but rather in groups, that discussion originates good ideas, and so on. (. . .) last year we talked about geological formations, like calcareous rocks and so on. I transmitted a lot of theoretical information to them (. . .) and then we prepared a field trip: (. . .) they went to the computers, created a log book with data, information, stuff they wanted to know, they went on the field trip, collected data, came back to the classroom, analysed the data they had, confronted these data with the theoretical information they’d obtained, and that’s how you create science (. . .)

Therefore, Paulo is against teaching Natural Science exclusively based on an explanatory stance that, in his opinion, reinforces a stagnant image of science: (. . .) teaching science in the sense of parroting information, I mean, getting to the classroom and merely churning out the material (. . .), for instance, teaching science as if it were knowledge that is already fully known, there’s nothing more to find out, uhm. . . there aren’t any doubts, only absolute truths, that’s the worst way of teaching science. (. . .) It’s not about transmitting knowledge; the main thing is that students begin to understand how science is constructed, what goes on in the world of science, (. . .) what it took to reach certain conclusions.

Conceptions about the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom Paulo identifies several topics of the science programmes as being appropriate for discussing controversial issues. For instance, he refers to the Sexuality themes that enable the discussion of issues concerning birth control and genetic manipulation. He argues that the contemporary and relevant character of these controversial issues are good enough reasons to discuss them in the classroom and believes this discussion grants the construction of decisive knowledge for life in society: [Controversial issues] are part of our lives, we live with them, encounter them, so it’s best we have an idea about them, I mean, be informed people and with the information we have, manage to produce our own opinions about them (. . .). We’re going to make citizens participate more and more, be more active, but they can only participate and be more active (. . .) if they have some knowledge about the issues and if they’ve got some grasp of that area. (. . .) Nowadays everyone’s talking about education for citizenship and I think that education for citizenship is about making individuals intervene more, be more active in society at large, regarding all that goes on in society.

In his opinion, active citizenship depends on knowledge of the issues related to controversial matters. Only through this knowledge may citizens be expected to actively participate.

166

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

Final Remarks The teachers who were observed and interviewed believe that scientific and technological breakthroughs represent a source of amazement, progress and concern all together. Amazement and the notion of progress derive from their impact in terms of a better quality of life; concern is mainly due to the actual or possible negative side effects – regarding individuals, society and the environment – related to several types of technology. In these teachers’ opinions, this duality is evident in issues such as genetic engineering (namely the introduction of genetically modified living organisms into the environment and the intake of transgenic food products), cloning, organ transplants and the co-incineration of toxic waste in cement factories. So it seems that these recent controversies have had some impact on the interviewed teachers’ conceptions about scientific and technological knowledge. The controversial issues raised by some of these technologies – namely the environmental, social and cultural impact they may have – which are made public by the media, triggered a need in these teachers for a scientific literacy shared by the whole population. A scientific literacy that ensures the eradication of certain unfounded fears (resulting from lack of information and technological abuses that took place in the past) and citizens’ participation in decision-making and action taking concerning current problems. However, these conceptions, characterised as they are by the transitory, controversial character of science and technology, do not always echo when it comes to classroom practices. Often these conceptions are not compatible with the image of science conveyed in science classes. Although the interviewed teachers refer to the fact that scientific knowledge is transitory and in constant evolution, sometimes the classroom practices they describe do not convey this idea. For instance, although Fernanda identifies certain controversial scientific and technological issues, her practices still convey an image of science as an objective, detached activity, strictly rational and free of doubt or controversy. Her main aims are to “carry out the programme” and help students “pass” their exams with good marks. So she is too concerned with factual aspects of the curriculum to be interested in or worry about “how science works.” Her practices reflect an image of science as a catalogue of terms, facts and theories that the students must memorise and repeat in tests. She uses an explanatory teaching strategy for the whole class and sometimes certain lab activities to exemplify. This way, she transmits the idea that citizens just “receive” science, without exerting an active role in terms of decision-making about current options in the field of science and technology. This is left to the “initiates” in the hermetic language of science: scientists and teachers. But other teachers manage to transpose their conceptions about science and science teaching and learning to their classroom practices. For example, Madalena looks upon science as a human, complex, dynamic activity, which involves values, and therefore creates differences in opinion among scientists, according to their beliefs and principles. She believes these controversies cannot be solved merely on a technical basis, because they involve other aspects: hierarchies of values, personal

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

167

convenience, financial issues, social pressures, etc. Subsequently, it may happen that specialists’ opinions do not coincide, so it is essential to evaluate the information presented by the parties involved. Therefore, Madalena acknowledges how important it is for citizens to participate in accompanying, assessing and controlling the course of scientific and technological progress and its implications. So she strives to prepare her students for collecting, analysing and interpreting information and arguments, discussing ideas and opinions, making decisions and solving problems. Her practices focus on both the development of skills and the construction of meaningful knowledge for life. Madalena shows great flexibility in managing the programme (likewise Rita), demonstrating more concern for the competencies students develop than covering the programme’s topics comprehensively. Madalena, Rita and Isabel all use their students’ doubts and curiosity regarding current themes as starting points for research, discussion and decision-making activities about the potentialities and limitations of scientific and technological knowledge. According to Madalena and Paulo, these activities are fundamental in Natural Science classes. Besides promoting the development of abilities and the construction of knowledge meaningful for life and essential for a true citizenship, they also provide them with the real experience of what science is: a human activity that involves research and sharing, joint analysis and discussion of results and ideas that are often controversial. This study thus shows that recent controversies surrounding scientific and technological issues seem to have had some impact on the classroom practices implemented by the interviewed teachers. All of them acknowledge how important it is to discuss these controversial issues in Natural Science classes, believing they have potential in terms of: (a) Constructing a scientific culture that is essential for active citizenship; (b) Constructing meaningful knowledge for life in society, “transmitting the idea that school is not something on the side, dissociated from real life”; (c) Motivating students and stimulating their curiosity; (d) Promoting students’ intellectual development, for example, by fostering critical thinking skills; (e) Promoting students’ moral development, through the clarification of values; (f) Constructing a concept of science as a human activity, influenced by values, and whose progress clearly depends on the discussion of ideas and opinions; (g) Changing the concept of science as a well-defined subject, with hard and fast answers and no room for uncertainties, doubts or debate. However, similarly to other studies (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002), certain factors seem to have hindered the transposition of teachers’ conceptions about science and science teaching and learning to their classroom practices. Despite the fact that all teachers consider the discussion of controversial issues in science classes important, several factors seem to render this task difficult, particularly in the final school years, in the run-up to university:

168

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

(a) The length of the programmes – resulting from the huge quantity of terms, facts and theories they include – makes it hard to accomplish this type of activity; (b) The fact that the programmes do not include explicitly controversial themes, along with the difficulty some teachers have in identifying appropriate topics or issues that allow these discussions to take place; (c) Some teachers’ difficulty in managing the programmes so as to ‘find the time’ to undertake activities related to the discussion of controversial issues; (d) The current national exam, which leads teachers to prepare their students for a type of evaluation that focuses almost entirely on memorisation and very little on critical analysis; (e) The fact that some teachers do not highlight these activities in their plans, looking upon them as mere “informal extra-curricular conversations.” Previous investigations into the relation between teachers’ conceptions and classroom practice have stressed the curriculum as an important inhibitor of the attention teachers pay to aspects of the nature of science (Brickhouse, 1990; Duschl & Wrigth, 1989; Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). But in our study this factor does not affect all the teachers. Some reveal a remarkable capacity to (re)interpret the programme so as to approach the themes and carry out the activities they consider to be important. Another finding that is contrary to that suggested by other studies (Lederman, 1999) is that the teachers in our study who show greater consistency between their conceptions and their practice are not necessarily those who have most teaching experience. A good example of this are the cases of Paulo – whose three years as a teacher reveal a high level of consistency – and Fernanda – who after 39 years reveals little consistency between her conceptions and practice. Therefore, similarly to certain findings obtained by Lederman (1999), these five teachers’ transposition of conceptions about the nature, teaching and learning of science to their classroom practices seems to have been strongly influenced by the educational goals each of them defined and by their previous experiences with scientific activity. In the case of Fernanda, it was difficult to perform this transposition because of the priority she defined for her lessons: to help students obtain good marks in an exam which values the memorisation of a great number of facts, theories, laws and so on. As for Paulo and Madalena, the transposition they carried out seems to have been possible thanks to the educational goal they firmly advocate: to provide a real experience of what science is. Besides this, Madalena’s and Rita’s previous experience as scientific researchers, and consequently, the in-depth knowledge of this ‘other world,’ may have been important in transporting their conceptions about the nature of science to their classes. Despite the fact that the Portuguese educational reform that took place in the 80s already encompassed an underlying educational and curricular philosophy that stressed formative, personal and social developmental aspects, as well as the ScienceTechnology-Society interaction, not all classes have felt this impact. Some aspects seem to hinder the passage from a curricular rhetoric to pedagogic practice, thus limiting the transition from a culture of science lacking in responsibility and passion to one purporting to respond to human personal and social needs.

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

169

In order to overcome these obstacles it is fundamental that teachers become aware of: 1. The impact of what they teach and the way they teach on their students’ conceptions about science and technology. Science is not a single act, rather it is a set of different actions. Therefore, when science teaching focuses only on one aspect, it may convey distorted images about science and scientists’ work to students. 2. The existence of a certain curricular leeway that enables the implementation of strategies and an approach to programmed themes that do not refer to them explicitly. Particularly this year, which sees the implementation of a new science curriculum that values discussion activities about current polemic themes, it is important, as Lederman (1999) states, to help teachers: (1) internalise the educational importance of approaching aspects of the nature of science in their classes; (2) develop the teaching competencies that are necessary to transpose knowledge about the nature of science to their practices. At a time when pseudo-science tends to occupy much of the media’s attention, confounding the public and often overlapping the school, discussion activities concerning controversial issues may play an important role in detecting and discussing conceptions about science. As Roth and Stuart (2002) declare, this is not about indoctrinating students with a specific world vision so as not to question the presumptions on which science is based. Rather, it is about involving students in the reflective questioning of the role of science and scientists in concrete situations that they consider to be personally and socially relevant. Activities of discussion of controversial issues may represent an important key in a type of teaching that is not limited to factual aspects but includes social aspects of science related to themes students consider contemporary and important. Acknowledgments This project was carried out within the Prodep Programme (Medida 5) and with financial backing from IIE, Medida 2 SIQE, Project no. 42/2000. The authors are grateful to the schools and teachers who participated in this study. Correspondence: Pedro Reis and Cecília Galvão, Centro de Investigação em Educação; Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa; Campo Grande C4, r/c, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] References Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–437. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

170

PEDRO REIS AND CEC´ILIA GALVÃO

Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62. Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319–333. Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 247–266. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborn (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Duschl, R., & Wrigth, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467–501. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–133. Galvão, C. (Coord.) (2001). Ciências Físicas e Naturais. Orientações curriculares para o 3o ciclo do ensino básico (Physical and Natural Sciences. Curriculum Orientations for the 3rd Cycle of Basic Education). Lisbon, Portugal: Ministry of Education, Department of Basic Education. Galvão, C., & Abrantes, P. (2002). Physical and natural sciences – a new curriculum in Portugal. Paper presented at the 2nd International IPN – YSEG Symposium, Kiel, Germany. Available at http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/chik_symposium/sites/ index.htm Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25–45. Hashweh, M. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63. Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 273–283. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. Lederman, N. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929. Lederman, N., & Zeidler, D. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734.

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND PORTUGUESE TEACHERS

171

Liakopoulos, M. (2002). Pandora’s Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 5–32. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Monk, M., & Dillon, J. (2000). The nature of scientific knowledge. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborn (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 72–87). Buckingham: Open University Press. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Reis, P. (1997). A Promoção do Pensamento através da Discussão dos Novos Avanços na Área da Biotecnologia e da Genética [The promotion of thinking through the discussion of new advances in biotechnology and genetics]. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Lisbon, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Education. Reis, P. (1999). The discussion of biotechnology controversial issues – an exploratory study about its potentialities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston. Available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED444834) or http:// www2.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/conference/99.htm Roth, W.-M., & Stuart, L. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33–56. Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236. Thomas, J. (1997). Informed ambivalence: Changing attitudes to the public understanding of science. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas, Science today: Problem or crisis? (pp. 163–172). London: Routledge. Tobin, K., & Espinet, M. (1989). Impediments to change: Applications of coaching in high school science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 105–120. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum, Science & Education, 6, 331–354.