\n\n| Pre-Lesson Stage | \nIdentify an SSI Relevant to the Curriculum | \nTeachers should identify meaningful connections between the curriculum and an SSI topic, even if the connection is indirect. For example, an English lesson may focus on media representation, persuasion, rhetoric, or misinformation related to climate change,. SSI should be narrowed into a clear inquiry question that students can critically investigate. Teachers can use the briefs in the wiki for support in choosing appropriate questions. | \n
\n\n| Select Texts, Sources, Media and Materials | \nUse the SciLMi Wiki, SSI briefs, media sources, scientific articles, videos, graphs, and social media posts. Include examples of misinformation, emotional appeals, or manipulated media so students can critically evaluate credibility and bias. | \n
\n\n| Link SSI to the Learners' Dimension | \nTeachers should identify which MSL competences they want students to develop. For example, climate-change misinformation may focus on evaluating source credibility and recognising emotional language, while AI and energy lessons may focus on ethical reasoning and evaluating impacts on different communities. Use the lesson plan template | \n
\n\n| Select Teaching Methods Appropriate for MSL | \nTeachers can adapt existing lessons using SciLMi methods or design new SSI lessons. Suggested methods include role-play, debates, inquiry tasks, CER activities, escape rooms, group discussions, ethical reflection activities, and gamification approaches and details can be found in the Educators Dimension in the wiki. | \n
\n\n| Organisation of the Setting | \nEstablishment of a Supportive Classroom Climate | \nCreate classroom discussion rules collaboratively with students before discussing controversial SSI topics. Rules may include: "Challenge ideas, not people," "Use evidence to support opinions," "Listen without interrupting," and "Be open to reconsidering your viewpoint." Teachers should model respectful communication, empathy, and neutrality while encouraging students to safely express differing viewpoints. | \n
\n\n| Flexible Social Groupings | \nUse heterogeneous groups to ensure multiple perspectives are represented. Smaller groups of 3–5 students allow all learners to participate. Teachers may use "physical consensus lines" where students move to different sides of the classroom to indicate agreement or disagreement with statements such as "AI is beneficial for society" and justify their positions. | \n
\n\n| Atmosphere for Discussion | \nOpenness | \nTeach students active listening and respectful communication explicitly. Encourage students to focus on the speaker, maintain appropriate eye contact, and monitor verbal and non-verbal reactions. Teachers can model phrases such as "Listen to understand, not just to respond." Students should learn to separate disagreement with ideas from criticism of people by using sentence starters such as "I understand your perspective, but I interpret the evidence differently." Reflection activities can encourage emotional awareness and empathy. | \n
\n\n| Respect | \nReinforce the rule of treating others respectfully. Encourage active listening, paraphrasing, acknowledging others' ideas, apologising when necessary, and recognising thoughtful contributions. Teachers should model respectful disagreement and encourage students to challenge arguments using evidence rather than attacking individuals. | \n
\n\n| Tolerance | \nPromote tolerance by establishing clear norms for disagreement and perspective-taking. Teachers should acknowledge different viewpoints neutrally and encourage students to examine why people may hold different opinions. Activities such as role-play, stakeholder analysis, debates, and think-pair-share can support empathy and respectful dialogue. Reflection questions such as "What did you learn from someone you disagreed with?" help students develop tolerance and self-awareness. | \n
\n\n| Constructive Criticism | \nStudents should learn how to critique ideas constructively rather than personally. Teachers can provide sentence starters such as "I agree with part of your argument, however…" or "What evidence supports this claim?" Activities such as peer feedback, structured debates, and evidence comparison tasks help students practise giving and receiving constructive criticism respectfully. | \n
\n\n| Ethics & Reflection | \nIntroduce Principles of Ethics | \nEthical discussions help students explore fairness, responsibility, sustainability, and human rights within SSI contexts. Teachers can use ethical questions such as "Who benefits and who may be harmed by this decision?" or "Is this solution fair for all communities?" Activities may include stakeholder analysis, debates, ethical dilemmas, awareness campaigns, or role-play activities connected to issues such as AI, vaccination, renewable energy, or climate change. | \n
\n\n| Questioning & Responding | \nQuestioning Techniques and IRF Model | \nUse open, closed, probing, reflective, evaluative, comparative, and ethical questions. Teachers can guide students through stages of eliciting prior knowledge, evaluating evidence, identifying misinformation, and forming informed viewpoints. The IRF model (Initiation–Response–Feedback) should be used flexibly by extending student thinking through follow-up questions such as "What evidence supports your idea?" or "Can someone offer another perspective?" | \n
\n\n| Teaching Methods & Forms | \nClaim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) Framework | \nUse evidence cards, scientific claims, graphs, statistics, and media extracts to help students distinguish between opinion and evidence-based reasoning. Students can classify information as supporting, challenging, or irrelevant to a claim. | \n
\n\n| Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) & Problem-Based Learning (PBL) | \nSSI lessons should encourage students to investigate authentic problems, analyse evidence, and develop informed conclusions. Data Sets Analysis activities may include interpreting graphs, statistics, expert opinions, or conflicting reports related to climate change, vaccination, AI, or renewable energy. Students answer inquiry questions such as "What will happen if current trends continue?" or "Which evidence is most reliable?" | \n
\n\n| Learning Café ("Am I fooled?") | \nStudents circulate between tables containing news articles, social media posts, statistics, videos, or images connected to an SSI. At each station, students evaluate reliability, identify misinformation, analyse persuasive techniques, and reflect on how media influence perceptions and public discourse. | \n
\n\n | \nGamification | \nGamification introduces elements such as missions, storytelling, collaboration, challenges, and problem-solving into SSI learning. Gamified activities increase behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement while supporting critical thinking and collaborative decision-making. | \n
\n\n| Escape Rooms | \nEducational escape rooms require students to solve SSI-related challenges collaboratively in order to "unlock" clues. For example, students investigating climate-change misinformation may analyse manipulated images, compare media reports, evaluate source credibility, or identify emotional language. Teachers can assign roles such as fact-checker, data analyst, ethics advisor, or discussion leader. | \n
\n\n| Role Play | \nStudents adopt stakeholder roles connected to SSI topics such as nuclear energy, vaccination, AI, or renewable energy. Activities may include mock elections, public hearings, or "talk shows with experts." Students debate environmental, social, ethical, financial, and political dimensions of the issue while using evidence-based arguments. Teachers should provide stakeholder cards, evidence packs, and guiding questions. Reflection after the activity helps students evaluate how perspectives influence reasoning. | \n
\n\n| Fake News Bingo | \nStudents analyse social media posts, headlines, or videos to identify manipulation techniques such as emotional language, exaggeration, clickbait, misleading statistics, or one-sided arguments. | \n
\n\n| Interactive Lectures & Experiential Learning | \nUse "Talking Points" where students evaluate whether statements are reliable, contentious, or misleading. Students can also create "2-Minute Pitch" videos where they present concise evidence-based arguments connected to an SSI topic. | \n
\n\n| Scaffolding Group Discussions | \nStructured Discussion Support | \nAssign roles such as facilitator, evidence checker, summariser, critical thinker, timekeeper, or wellbeing monitor. Teachers should provide discussion prompts and sentence starters to support respectful communication and deeper analysis. During discussions, teachers circulate, ask probing questions, support quieter students, and encourage students to justify their reasoning using evidence. | \n
\n