Controversial issues in science education for functional scientific literacy: A case study of an implemented curriculum in Cyprus Science classrooms

This study has been designed to provide and interpret information from classroom based practice about the implementation of controversial issues in the science curriculum and relate it to the discussion about conceptual frameworks that situate controversial issues in science education. Since no tools were available from the science education research area to fulfil the methodological aims stated above, the study has taken a methodological orientation which resulted in the selection and modification of Schellens’ (1985) argument typology scheme alongside Peirce’s (1905) classification of the sciences to describe the epistemic part of the lesson, and to the selection of Walton’s and Crabbe’s (1995) typology of argumentative dialogues to describe the dialectical context.
The application of argument schemes was successful and it has enabled the description of the epistemic practices as situated in dialectical practice. The analysis has revealed the basic structural components in which the complexity of the discussion is built, consequences, needs (ends) and rules, and how these have been used within discussions: either to ground decisions about an issue, or to explain or evaluate societal agents’ and own selves’ actions, desires, decisions, views and positions, or own intentions towards a personal stated dilemma. Furthermore, they have revealed the instances in which each discipline, like Ethics, Natural Sciences, Psychology, and Sociology, had taken place. The results indicate an intersection of the disciplines and provide valuable information about how implementing controversial issues in the science curriculum might be related to enhancing thoughtful decision making, humanizing the science curriculum, or focusing on epistemological issues.