{"CACHEDAT":"2026-04-14 02:54:03","SLUG":"before-the-implementation-of-the-scilmi-framework-F9YzWjSeAB","MARKDOWN":"**A. Before the Implementation of the SciLMi Framework**\n\n \n\nTeaching metascientific literacies requires knowledge of the SciLMi framework and its structure, and additionally an understanding of what socio-scientific (SSI) issues are and the complexities linked to SSIs. The purpose of this part of the framework is to support teachers in undeerstanding the SciLMi framework and designing activities based on the SciLMi framework and suggested methods.\n\n \n\nTherefore, the first step sof the process is that teachers and future teachers:\n\n·      Are aware of the Meta-Scientific Literacy SciLMi framework, its structure (D1–D4), and purpose.\n\n·      Understand socio-scientific issues (SSI) as:\n\n·      scientifically and socially grounded,\n\n·      controversial and dichotomous,\n\n·      ethically and emotionally charged,\n\n·      locally and globally relevant.\n\n·      Recognise that MSL can take time to develop\n\n·      Are willing to reflect on their own information habits, values, sensitivities, and epistemic positioning.\n\n \n\n \n\n**The SciLMi Framework**\n\n \n\nThe SciLMi framework is a structured competence model designed to support teachers in helping students critically navigate today's complex information landscape by using socio-scientific issues as the context. It is organised into four progressive domains that guide learners from initial awareness to informed civic engagement. Each domain contains clearly defined goals that describe the key competences to be developed, and each goal is supported by practical \"HOW\" elements — short, concrete examples of classroom activities that illustrate how these goals can be achieved in practice. This structure makes the framework both pedagogically systematic and directly applicable in everyday teaching. Developed collaboratively over two years, the framework was continuously refined through implementation and feedback gathered during multiple teacher trainings, ensuring strong theoretical foundations alongside practical classroom relevance \n\n**Domain 1 – Open up your mind** focuses on building awareness of the modern information environment. Learners explore how information is produced, distributed, and shaped by media systems, algorithms, and digital platforms. This domain develops competences in recognising information bubbles, identifying diverse sources, conducting effective searches, and selecting credible materials while remaining alert to misinformation and attention-grabbing strategies. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]\n\n**Domain 2 – Be wise / Think twice** strengthens learners' critical evaluation skills. Students learn to assess the relevance of information, distinguish between claims and evidence, evaluate the quality and reliability of arguments, and detect bias and manipulation strategies. The emphasis is on analytical thinking, logical consistency, and recognising how language, framing, and media techniques can influence interpretation. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]\n\n**Domain 3 – Make up your mind** supports learners in forming well-reasoned personal positions on socio-scientific issues. This domain guides students in comparing viewpoints with established scientific knowledge, understanding uncertainty, analysing impacts and trade-offs across social, environmental, economic, and ethical dimensions, and reflecting on stakeholder perspectives. Learners develop the ability to weigh evidence and construct informed, balanced judgements. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]\n\n**Domain 4 – Speak out and take action** empowers learners to communicate their views responsibly and participate as active democratic citizens. Students learn how to plan civic engagement, tailor messages to audiences, present evidence-based arguments, respond to counter-arguments, and select appropriate communication channels. The domain promotes constructive dialogue, responsible participation, and practical action related to socio-scientific issues. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]\n\n \n\n**\\[INSERT VIDEO WITH SCILMI FRAMEWORK + EXPLANATION OF FRAMEWORK\\]**\n\n \n\n \n\n**What are socio-scientific issues?**\n\n \n\n**\\[**\\]\n\nSocio-scientific issues (SSI) are complex, real-world problems that arise at the intersection of science and society and are characterised by controversy, uncertainty, and the presence of multiple competing perspectives. They are issues about which significant groups of people disagree and where consensus is difficult to achieve because proposed explanations or solutions are grounded in differing values, beliefs, and priorities. Such issues are typically ill-defined and value-laden, involving ethical, environmental, economic, political, cultural, and social dimensions, while also being shaped by incomplete or evolving scientific knowledge. Although SSI are often described as controversial issues, it is important to distinguish between the two: while all socioscientific issues are controversial, not all controversial issues are socioscientific, as SSI are specifically rooted in scientific understanding and its societal implications (Evagorou et al., 2011).\n\nSSI differ from traditional school science problems because they do not have single correct answers or clear solution procedures. Instead, they require individuals to weigh evidence, consider trade-offs, evaluate risks and benefits, and make informed judgments in situations where uncertainty persists. Decisions about SSI therefore involve personal and collective value judgments, since there are no fixed algorithms for determining how different burdens and benefits should be prioritised. Learners must interpret data, analyse conflicting evidence, and justify their positions while acknowledging alternative viewpoints. This emphasis on judgment, reasoning, and ethical reflection makes SSI particularly relevant for preparing students to participate responsibly in democratic societies.\n\nSocioscientific education extends beyond learning scientific facts; it aims to empower students to understand how science-related issues connect to their own lives and to the broader social world. Engaging with SSI supports the development of informed decision-making, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and civic participation. Students learn to engage in dialogue, debate respectfully, appreciate diverse perspectives, and cope with complexity and uncertainty. Importantly, SSI instruction also promotes a deeper understanding of the nature of science — including its limitations, its evolving character, and its relationship with social values and political processes.\n\nFor teachers across all subject areas — not only science educators — SSI provide meaningful contexts for interdisciplinary learning. Issues such as climate change, public health, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and sustainability involve scientific evidence alongside ethical considerations, economic interests, media representation, and policy decisions. Addressing SSI in the classroom therefore supports citizenship education, media literacy, moral development, and critical engagement with contemporary global challenges. By integrating SSI into teaching, educators help students become reflective thinkers who can justify their viewpoints with evidence, consider the perspectives of others, and participate constructively in societal discussions and decision-making processes.\n\n \n\n \n\n**What to consider when choosing an SSI:**\n\n \n\nIf you want to choose an SSI to use as a context for your teaching please consider the following:\n\n·      What makes this issue controversial? This will help you consider multiple perspectives for the topic.\n\n·      Where do you personally stand in relation to this issue and and why? This will help you identify your own biases.\n\n·      Which aspects could be emotionally loaded in your classroom in relation to the topic? Could the topic be of personal interest to one of the students?\n\n \n\nThe purpose of this reflection process is to make you conscious of your role in using SSI as the context when introducing meta-scientific literacies in your teaching.\n\n \n\n \n\nIf you are looking for examples of SSI topics you can visit the SSI briefs that were developed by the SciLMi project: )\n\n \n\n \n\n**SSIs, personal identities and ethical perspectives**\n\nIn the context of socio-scientific issues (SSI), teachers should recognise that classroom discussions often engage not only students' knowledge but also their personal identities, values, and beliefs. Topics such as environmental responsibility, public health measures, emerging technologies, or social justice may connect to students' family backgrounds, cultural norms, or deeply held worldviews. As a result, SSI discussions can feel personal and may provoke strong emotional responses or defensiveness. Being aware of this dimension helps teachers create supportive learning environments where diverse viewpoints are respected and dialogue remains constructive. Within the SciLMi framework, this awareness is particularly important in Domain 3 — Make up your mind, where students are encouraged to weigh viewpoints, consider stakeholder perspectives, and reflect on trade-offs across societal dimensions. Recognising the personal dimension of SSI enables teachers to guide discussions carefully, ensuring that students learn to evaluate arguments and evidence without feeling that their identities are being judged.\n\n \n\n \n\nTeachers should also recognise that ethical attitudes and responsible civic dispositions cannot be imposed through instruction alone; rather, they develop gradually through structured learning experiences that invite reflection, dialogue, and perspective-taking. Students build ethical understanding when they are given opportunities to examine multiple viewpoints, consider the impacts of decisions on different stakeholders, and justify their own positions using evidence and reasoning. This process aligns with the progression across the SciLMi framework: learners critically evaluate information and arguments in Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice, form justified viewpoints in Domain 3 — Make up your mind, and learn to communicate and engage respectfully in Domain 4 — Speak out and take action. By designing activities that support thoughtful dialogue rather than prescribing \"correct\" moral positions, teachers help students develop their own informed and responsible stances while strengthening the competences needed for democratic participation.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n**Understand that meta-scientific literacies take time to develop**\n\nMeta-Scientific Literacies (MSL) develop progressively and require sustained learning experiences over time. Competences such as identifying and selecting relevant information sources, evaluating the relevance and reliability of evidence, recognising scientific uncertainty, and weighing viewpoints are closely linked to students' cognitive and moral development. Learners gradually strengthen these abilities through repeated opportunities to analyse claims, interpret evidence, and reflect on how knowledge is constructed and communicated. For this reason, fostering MSL benefits from a whole-school approach in which these competences are addressed consistently across subjects, year levels, and learning contexts rather than in isolated lessons. When students regularly practise evaluating information, analysing argumentation, and reflecting on the societal dimensions of science, they progressively build the capacity to make justified judgments on complex issues.\n\nSocio-scientific issues (SSI) provide powerful contexts for developing MSL because they naturally connect evidence evaluation, argumentation, ethical reflection, and civic decision-making. SSI such as climate change, public health measures, artificial intelligence, or sustainable resource management require learners to examine diverse information sources, distinguish between claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER), recognise uncertainty, analyse trade-offs, and consider different stakeholder viewpoints. These issues therefore create meaningful connections between disciplines: language subjects can examine framing and rhetorical devices in information sources, social studies can explore stakeholder positions and underlying values, mathematics can investigate how numerical evidence is contextualised, and arts subjects can analyse how visual elements influence interpretation. SSI can help students understand that evaluating information and forming viewpoints are competences relevant across all areas of learning and  are important to everyday life.\n\nImportantly, the framework enables teachers to foster sub-competences consistently over time. Educators may focus on individual goals — such as selecting credible information sources or evaluating argument strength — or combine elements from different domains, such as analysing stakeholder viewpoints (Domain 3) while practising evidence evaluation (Domain 2). This flexibility supports cross-disciplinary teaching and allows competences to be revisited as students progress through school. By providing clearly structured goals supported by practical classroom examples (\"HOWs\"), the SciLMi framework helps teachers integrate the development of Meta-Scientific Literacies into everyday teaching and supports students in becoming reflective, informed, and engaged members of democratic societies.\n\n**\\[CREATE LINKS TO HOWS TO USE HERE AS EXAMPLES\\]**\n\n \n\n \n\n**Understand the CER terminology**\n\n \n\nTo support students in developing Meta-Scientific Literacies, teachers need a clear understanding of the terminology used in argumentation and of how arguments are structured. In everyday discussions, students often express opinions, but in educational settings we aim to move from personal opinions to justified viewpoints supported by evidence and reasoning. A widely used and accessible model for understanding the structure of arguments is the Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) framework developed by McNeill and Krajick (2012). In this model,\n\n• A claim is a statement that answers a question or expresses a viewpoint.\n\n• Evidence is the information that supports the claim (facts, data, examples, expert statements, statistics, documents).\n\n• Reasoning explains why the evidence supports the claim and shows the logical connection between them.\n\nUnderstanding this structure helps teachers guide students beyond simply stating what they think and toward explaining why they think it and how they know it. CER helps students move from simply stating opinions to constructing justified viewpoints. Importantly, CER is not limited to science subjects — it is a flexible structure that supports reasoning and communication across all areas of learning.\n\n \n\nTeachers can introduce the CER structure through simple, interactive training activities that mirror classroom practice. For example, participants may be presented with the statement: \"Artificial Intelligence is good for the environment.\" Teachers position themselves along a line in the room ranging from \"agree\" to \"disagree,\" making their initial stance visible. They are then asked to explain how they decided where to stand. At this stage, most responses will consist of intuitive or experience-based statements — this is an opportunity to clarify that such statements represent claims. Next, participants receive \"evidence cards\" containing short pieces of information such as research findings, statistics, expert statements, or case examples. Teachers read the cards and decide whether each piece of information supports or challenges the claim by placing it on the corresponding side of the line. This step helps them recognise what counts as evidence. Finally, discussion focuses on why certain evidence supports particular positions. Here, participants articulate the reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim. Through this process, teachers experience how arguments are built and see how making CER explicit helps students structure their thinking.\n\nWhen preparing lessons, teachers can support students in developing argumentation competences in line with the goals of Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice of the SciLMi framework. In particular, students should learn to distinguish between unsupported and justified claims by identifying whether a statement is simply an opinion or whether it is supported by evidence and reasoning (D2: distinguishing claims from CER components). Teachers should also help learners evaluate the relevance of evidence by examining whether the information directly addresses the claim and fits its scope (D2: assessing topical and logical fit). A further step is guiding students to verify the reliability of evidence, for example by checking the credibility of information sources, comparing evidence with established scientific knowledge, and recognising possible distortions or omissions (D2: evaluating evidence reliability). In addition, students need practice in analysing the coherence of reasoning, ensuring that explanations logically connect evidence to claims and do not rely on unsupported assumptions or logical fallacies (D2: analysing reasoning coherence). Bringing these elements together enables learners to evaluate the overall strength of an argument by integrating the quality of the claim, the relevance and reliability of the evidence, and the clarity and logic of the reasoning (D2: evaluating argument strength).\n\n \n\nUsing Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) effectively requires careful planning that aligns with several goals of the SciLMi framework, particularly within Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice and Domain 3 — Make up your mind. When designing learning activities, teachers should choose socio-scientific issues and guiding questions that allow for multiple defensible viewpoints, creating opportunities for students to compare positions and weigh arguments (D3: weighing viewpoints). Preparing varied and credible evidence materials enables students to practise evaluating the relevance and reliability of evidence (D2: evaluating evidence quality), while anticipating common misconceptions or weak reasoning helps teachers scaffold students' ability to construct coherent arguments (D2: analysing reasoning coherence).\n\nIt is also helpful to plan structured prompts that make the components of argumentation explicit, such as asking students to identify their claim, the evidence supporting it, and the reasoning that connects the two. Visual organisers, colour-coding of CER elements, and collaborative discussion routines can further support students in recognising how arguments are structured and evaluated (D2: distinguishing CER components and evaluating argument strength). By modelling and practising CER across subjects, teachers support students not only in constructing justified viewpoints but also in critically evaluating others' arguments and engaging more thoughtfully with complex socio-scientific issues (D3: forming informed viewpoints).\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n**Understand the importance of cross-disciplinary teaching:**\n\n \n\nCross-disciplinary teaching is essential for developing students' Meta-Scientific Literacies because real-world socio-scientific issues do not belong to a single subject area. Challenges such as climate change, public health, artificial intelligence, or sustainable development combine scientific evidence with ethical considerations, social impacts, economic interests, media representation, and policy decisions. Addressing such complexity requires students to draw on different types of knowledge and ways of thinking. The SciLMi framework reflects this reality by organising competences that are relevant across subjects: students learn to navigate the information landscape and evaluate information sources (Domain 1 — Open up your mind), critically assess argumentation and evidence (Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice), weigh viewpoints and consider stakeholder perspectives (Domain 3 — Make up your mind), and communicate and engage responsibly in society (Domain 4 — Speak out and take action). These competences are not tied to one discipline but are strengthened when students encounter them repeatedly in different learning contexts. A cross-disciplinary approach therefore helps learners build coherent understanding, transfer skills across subjects, and see how knowledge connects to everyday life.\n\n \n\nIn practice, cross-disciplinary teaching does not necessarily require large joint projects; it can begin with small, coordinated connections across subjects. For example, students exploring an environmental SSI might analyse scientific data in science lessons (evaluating evidence), examine how the issue is framed in news articles in language lessons (analysing information sources and manipulation strategies), investigate stakeholder positions and policy responses in social studies (weighing viewpoints and trade-offs), and design awareness materials in arts or media studies (communicating viewpoints). Teachers can also collaborate by using shared guiding questions, common evidence materials, or aligned classroom routines such as CER-based argumentation. Through such coordinated efforts, students experience how similar competences are applied in different disciplines, reinforcing their learning while maintaining each subject's specific goals. The SciLMi framework supports this approach by offering modular goals and practical \"HOW\" examples that teachers can adapt to their subject while contributing to a coherent development of students' competences across the curriculum.\n\n \n\n**\\[INSERT LINK TO EXAMPLES FROM LESSON PLANS\\]**","HTML":"

A. Before the Implementation of the SciLMi Framework

\n

Teaching metascientific literacies requires knowledge of the SciLMi framework and its structure, and additionally an understanding of what socio-scientific (SSI) issues are and the complexities linked to SSIs. The purpose of this part of the framework is to support teachers in undeerstanding the SciLMi framework and designing activities based on the SciLMi framework and suggested methods.

\n

Therefore, the first step sof the process is that teachers and future teachers:

\n

·      Are aware of the Meta-Scientific Literacy SciLMi framework, its structure (D1–D4), and purpose.

\n

·      Understand socio-scientific issues (SSI) as:

\n

·      scientifically and socially grounded,

\n

·      controversial and dichotomous,

\n

·      ethically and emotionally charged,

\n

·      locally and globally relevant.

\n

·      Recognise that MSL can take time to develop

\n

·      Are willing to reflect on their own information habits, values, sensitivities, and epistemic positioning.

\n

The SciLMi Framework

\n

The SciLMi framework is a structured competence model designed to support teachers in helping students critically navigate today's complex information landscape by using socio-scientific issues as the context. It is organised into four progressive domains that guide learners from initial awareness to informed civic engagement. Each domain contains clearly defined goals that describe the key competences to be developed, and each goal is supported by practical "HOW" elements — short, concrete examples of classroom activities that illustrate how these goals can be achieved in practice. This structure makes the framework both pedagogically systematic and directly applicable in everyday teaching. Developed collaboratively over two years, the framework was continuously refined through implementation and feedback gathered during multiple teacher trainings, ensuring strong theoretical foundations alongside practical classroom relevance 

\n

Domain 1 – Open up your mind focuses on building awareness of the modern information environment. Learners explore how information is produced, distributed, and shaped by media systems, algorithms, and digital platforms. This domain develops competences in recognising information bubbles, identifying diverse sources, conducting effective searches, and selecting credible materials while remaining alert to misinformation and attention-grabbing strategies. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]

\n

Domain 2 – Be wise / Think twice strengthens learners' critical evaluation skills. Students learn to assess the relevance of information, distinguish between claims and evidence, evaluate the quality and reliability of arguments, and detect bias and manipulation strategies. The emphasis is on analytical thinking, logical consistency, and recognising how language, framing, and media techniques can influence interpretation. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]

\n

Domain 3 – Make up your mind supports learners in forming well-reasoned personal positions on socio-scientific issues. This domain guides students in comparing viewpoints with established scientific knowledge, understanding uncertainty, analysing impacts and trade-offs across social, environmental, economic, and ethical dimensions, and reflecting on stakeholder perspectives. Learners develop the ability to weigh evidence and construct informed, balanced judgements. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]

\n

Domain 4 – Speak out and take action empowers learners to communicate their views responsibly and participate as active democratic citizens. Students learn how to plan civic engagement, tailor messages to audiences, present evidence-based arguments, respond to counter-arguments, and select appropriate communication channels. The domain promotes constructive dialogue, responsible participation, and practical action related to socio-scientific issues. \\[LINK to learner dimensions\\]

\n

\\[INSERT VIDEO WITH SCILMI FRAMEWORK + EXPLANATION OF FRAMEWORK\\]

\n

What are socio-scientific issues?

\n

\\[<https://share.synthesia.io/f8233f65-911b-4828-b502-a531bcab573a>\\]

\n

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are complex, real-world problems that arise at the intersection of science and society and are characterised by controversy, uncertainty, and the presence of multiple competing perspectives. They are issues about which significant groups of people disagree and where consensus is difficult to achieve because proposed explanations or solutions are grounded in differing values, beliefs, and priorities. Such issues are typically ill-defined and value-laden, involving ethical, environmental, economic, political, cultural, and social dimensions, while also being shaped by incomplete or evolving scientific knowledge. Although SSI are often described as controversial issues, it is important to distinguish between the two: while all socioscientific issues are controversial, not all controversial issues are socioscientific, as SSI are specifically rooted in scientific understanding and its societal implications (Evagorou et al., 2011).

\n

SSI differ from traditional school science problems because they do not have single correct answers or clear solution procedures. Instead, they require individuals to weigh evidence, consider trade-offs, evaluate risks and benefits, and make informed judgments in situations where uncertainty persists. Decisions about SSI therefore involve personal and collective value judgments, since there are no fixed algorithms for determining how different burdens and benefits should be prioritised. Learners must interpret data, analyse conflicting evidence, and justify their positions while acknowledging alternative viewpoints. This emphasis on judgment, reasoning, and ethical reflection makes SSI particularly relevant for preparing students to participate responsibly in democratic societies.

\n

Socioscientific education extends beyond learning scientific facts; it aims to empower students to understand how science-related issues connect to their own lives and to the broader social world. Engaging with SSI supports the development of informed decision-making, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and civic participation. Students learn to engage in dialogue, debate respectfully, appreciate diverse perspectives, and cope with complexity and uncertainty. Importantly, SSI instruction also promotes a deeper understanding of the nature of science — including its limitations, its evolving character, and its relationship with social values and political processes.

\n

For teachers across all subject areas — not only science educators — SSI provide meaningful contexts for interdisciplinary learning. Issues such as climate change, public health, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and sustainability involve scientific evidence alongside ethical considerations, economic interests, media representation, and policy decisions. Addressing SSI in the classroom therefore supports citizenship education, media literacy, moral development, and critical engagement with contemporary global challenges. By integrating SSI into teaching, educators help students become reflective thinkers who can justify their viewpoints with evidence, consider the perspectives of others, and participate constructively in societal discussions and decision-making processes.

\n

What to consider when choosing an SSI:

\n

If you want to choose an SSI to use as a context for your teaching please consider the following:

\n

·      What makes this issue controversial? This will help you consider multiple perspectives for the topic.

\n

·      Where do you personally stand in relation to this issue and and why? This will help you identify your own biases.

\n

·      Which aspects could be emotionally loaded in your classroom in relation to the topic? Could the topic be of personal interest to one of the students?

\n

The purpose of this reflection process is to make you conscious of your role in using SSI as the context when introducing meta-scientific literacies in your teaching.

\n

If you are looking for examples of SSI topics you can visit the SSI briefs that were developed by the SciLMi project: <https://wiki.scilmi.eu/doc/ssi-briefs-N2up1DfBta>)

\n

SSIs, personal identities and ethical perspectives

\n

In the context of socio-scientific issues (SSI), teachers should recognise that classroom discussions often engage not only students' knowledge but also their personal identities, values, and beliefs. Topics such as environmental responsibility, public health measures, emerging technologies, or social justice may connect to students' family backgrounds, cultural norms, or deeply held worldviews. As a result, SSI discussions can feel personal and may provoke strong emotional responses or defensiveness. Being aware of this dimension helps teachers create supportive learning environments where diverse viewpoints are respected and dialogue remains constructive. Within the SciLMi framework, this awareness is particularly important in Domain 3 — Make up your mind, where students are encouraged to weigh viewpoints, consider stakeholder perspectives, and reflect on trade-offs across societal dimensions. Recognising the personal dimension of SSI enables teachers to guide discussions carefully, ensuring that students learn to evaluate arguments and evidence without feeling that their identities are being judged.

\n

Teachers should also recognise that ethical attitudes and responsible civic dispositions cannot be imposed through instruction alone; rather, they develop gradually through structured learning experiences that invite reflection, dialogue, and perspective-taking. Students build ethical understanding when they are given opportunities to examine multiple viewpoints, consider the impacts of decisions on different stakeholders, and justify their own positions using evidence and reasoning. This process aligns with the progression across the SciLMi framework: learners critically evaluate information and arguments in Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice, form justified viewpoints in Domain 3 — Make up your mind, and learn to communicate and engage respectfully in Domain 4 — Speak out and take action. By designing activities that support thoughtful dialogue rather than prescribing "correct" moral positions, teachers help students develop their own informed and responsible stances while strengthening the competences needed for democratic participation.

\n

Understand that meta-scientific literacies take time to develop

\n

Meta-Scientific Literacies (MSL) develop progressively and require sustained learning experiences over time. Competences such as identifying and selecting relevant information sources, evaluating the relevance and reliability of evidence, recognising scientific uncertainty, and weighing viewpoints are closely linked to students' cognitive and moral development. Learners gradually strengthen these abilities through repeated opportunities to analyse claims, interpret evidence, and reflect on how knowledge is constructed and communicated. For this reason, fostering MSL benefits from a whole-school approach in which these competences are addressed consistently across subjects, year levels, and learning contexts rather than in isolated lessons. When students regularly practise evaluating information, analysing argumentation, and reflecting on the societal dimensions of science, they progressively build the capacity to make justified judgments on complex issues.

\n

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) provide powerful contexts for developing MSL because they naturally connect evidence evaluation, argumentation, ethical reflection, and civic decision-making. SSI such as climate change, public health measures, artificial intelligence, or sustainable resource management require learners to examine diverse information sources, distinguish between claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER), recognise uncertainty, analyse trade-offs, and consider different stakeholder viewpoints. These issues therefore create meaningful connections between disciplines: language subjects can examine framing and rhetorical devices in information sources, social studies can explore stakeholder positions and underlying values, mathematics can investigate how numerical evidence is contextualised, and arts subjects can analyse how visual elements influence interpretation. SSI can help students understand that evaluating information and forming viewpoints are competences relevant across all areas of learning and  are important to everyday life.

\n

Importantly, the framework enables teachers to foster sub-competences consistently over time. Educators may focus on individual goals — such as selecting credible information sources or evaluating argument strength — or combine elements from different domains, such as analysing stakeholder viewpoints (Domain 3) while practising evidence evaluation (Domain 2). This flexibility supports cross-disciplinary teaching and allows competences to be revisited as students progress through school. By providing clearly structured goals supported by practical classroom examples ("HOWs"), the SciLMi framework helps teachers integrate the development of Meta-Scientific Literacies into everyday teaching and supports students in becoming reflective, informed, and engaged members of democratic societies.

\n

\\[CREATE LINKS TO HOWS TO USE HERE AS EXAMPLES\\]

\n

Understand the CER terminology

\n

To support students in developing Meta-Scientific Literacies, teachers need a clear understanding of the terminology used in argumentation and of how arguments are structured. In everyday discussions, students often express opinions, but in educational settings we aim to move from personal opinions to justified viewpoints supported by evidence and reasoning. A widely used and accessible model for understanding the structure of arguments is the Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) framework developed by McNeill and Krajick (2012). In this model,

\n

• A claim is a statement that answers a question or expresses a viewpoint.

\n

• Evidence is the information that supports the claim (facts, data, examples, expert statements, statistics, documents).

\n

• Reasoning explains why the evidence supports the claim and shows the logical connection between them.

\n

Understanding this structure helps teachers guide students beyond simply stating what they think and toward explaining why they think it and how they know it. CER helps students move from simply stating opinions to constructing justified viewpoints. Importantly, CER is not limited to science subjects — it is a flexible structure that supports reasoning and communication across all areas of learning.

\n

Teachers can introduce the CER structure through simple, interactive training activities that mirror classroom practice. For example, participants may be presented with the statement: "Artificial Intelligence is good for the environment." Teachers position themselves along a line in the room ranging from "agree" to "disagree," making their initial stance visible. They are then asked to explain how they decided where to stand. At this stage, most responses will consist of intuitive or experience-based statements — this is an opportunity to clarify that such statements represent claims. Next, participants receive "evidence cards" containing short pieces of information such as research findings, statistics, expert statements, or case examples. Teachers read the cards and decide whether each piece of information supports or challenges the claim by placing it on the corresponding side of the line. This step helps them recognise what counts as evidence. Finally, discussion focuses on why certain evidence supports particular positions. Here, participants articulate the reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim. Through this process, teachers experience how arguments are built and see how making CER explicit helps students structure their thinking.

\n

When preparing lessons, teachers can support students in developing argumentation competences in line with the goals of Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice of the SciLMi framework. In particular, students should learn to distinguish between unsupported and justified claims by identifying whether a statement is simply an opinion or whether it is supported by evidence and reasoning (D2: distinguishing claims from CER components). Teachers should also help learners evaluate the relevance of evidence by examining whether the information directly addresses the claim and fits its scope (D2: assessing topical and logical fit). A further step is guiding students to verify the reliability of evidence, for example by checking the credibility of information sources, comparing evidence with established scientific knowledge, and recognising possible distortions or omissions (D2: evaluating evidence reliability). In addition, students need practice in analysing the coherence of reasoning, ensuring that explanations logically connect evidence to claims and do not rely on unsupported assumptions or logical fallacies (D2: analysing reasoning coherence). Bringing these elements together enables learners to evaluate the overall strength of an argument by integrating the quality of the claim, the relevance and reliability of the evidence, and the clarity and logic of the reasoning (D2: evaluating argument strength).

\n

Using Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) effectively requires careful planning that aligns with several goals of the SciLMi framework, particularly within Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice and Domain 3 — Make up your mind. When designing learning activities, teachers should choose socio-scientific issues and guiding questions that allow for multiple defensible viewpoints, creating opportunities for students to compare positions and weigh arguments (D3: weighing viewpoints). Preparing varied and credible evidence materials enables students to practise evaluating the relevance and reliability of evidence (D2: evaluating evidence quality), while anticipating common misconceptions or weak reasoning helps teachers scaffold students' ability to construct coherent arguments (D2: analysing reasoning coherence).

\n

It is also helpful to plan structured prompts that make the components of argumentation explicit, such as asking students to identify their claim, the evidence supporting it, and the reasoning that connects the two. Visual organisers, colour-coding of CER elements, and collaborative discussion routines can further support students in recognising how arguments are structured and evaluated (D2: distinguishing CER components and evaluating argument strength). By modelling and practising CER across subjects, teachers support students not only in constructing justified viewpoints but also in critically evaluating others' arguments and engaging more thoughtfully with complex socio-scientific issues (D3: forming informed viewpoints).

\n

Understand the importance of cross-disciplinary teaching:

\n

Cross-disciplinary teaching is essential for developing students' Meta-Scientific Literacies because real-world socio-scientific issues do not belong to a single subject area. Challenges such as climate change, public health, artificial intelligence, or sustainable development combine scientific evidence with ethical considerations, social impacts, economic interests, media representation, and policy decisions. Addressing such complexity requires students to draw on different types of knowledge and ways of thinking. The SciLMi framework reflects this reality by organising competences that are relevant across subjects: students learn to navigate the information landscape and evaluate information sources (Domain 1 — Open up your mind), critically assess argumentation and evidence (Domain 2 — Be wise / Think twice), weigh viewpoints and consider stakeholder perspectives (Domain 3 — Make up your mind), and communicate and engage responsibly in society (Domain 4 — Speak out and take action). These competences are not tied to one discipline but are strengthened when students encounter them repeatedly in different learning contexts. A cross-disciplinary approach therefore helps learners build coherent understanding, transfer skills across subjects, and see how knowledge connects to everyday life.

\n

In practice, cross-disciplinary teaching does not necessarily require large joint projects; it can begin with small, coordinated connections across subjects. For example, students exploring an environmental SSI might analyse scientific data in science lessons (evaluating evidence), examine how the issue is framed in news articles in language lessons (analysing information sources and manipulation strategies), investigate stakeholder positions and policy responses in social studies (weighing viewpoints and trade-offs), and design awareness materials in arts or media studies (communicating viewpoints). Teachers can also collaborate by using shared guiding questions, common evidence materials, or aligned classroom routines such as CER-based argumentation. Through such coordinated efforts, students experience how similar competences are applied in different disciplines, reinforcing their learning while maintaining each subject's specific goals. The SciLMi framework supports this approach by offering modular goals and practical "HOW" examples that teachers can adapt to their subject while contributing to a coherent development of students' competences across the curriculum.

\n

\\[INSERT LINK TO EXAMPLES FROM LESSON PLANS\\]

","UPDATEDAT":"2026-03-06T13:52:32.545Z","ID":"f1a39b9d-2ac5-4794-9716-c5ce98eeadb6","TITLE":"Before the Implementation of the SciLMi Framework"}