{"CACHEDAT":"2026-06-05 07:41:01","SLUG":"2026-05-07-Jr1159l2Fy","MARKDOWN":"# `D1` Open up your mind\n\n## `D1G1` ==Understand how (mis)information reaches people==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G1O1` Classify information environments through which people encounter (mis)information.\n\n* `D1G1O1H1` Identify analogue and digital information environments, i.e. places, platforms, media, and situations in which people encounter information that shapes their viewpoints and actions.\n* `D1G1O1H2` Compare ☑ digital information platforms in terms of who can publish content. \n* `D1G1O1H3` Explain factors that make anyone - irrespective of intelligence or education - susceptible to encountering and sharing misinformation.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G1O2` Explain mechanisms that shape the visibility of (mis)information items in information environments.\n\n* `D1G1O2H1` Explain the role of ☑ search engine optimisation (SEO) in shaping search results.\n\n\n* `D1G1O2H2` Investigate what determines information visibility in ☑ feeds.\n* `D1G1O2H3` Identify information environments excluded from web crawling.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G1O3` Trace phenomena of amplification to their underlying mechanisms.\n\n* `D1G1O3H1` Identify the interplay between hashtag use and social bot activity in a recent case of trending (e.g. #ClimateScam).\n* `D1G1O3H2` Identify the amplification mechanisms behind a documented case of virality (e.g. Ice Bucket Challenge).\n* `D1G1O3H3` Identify the amplification mechanisms behind a documented case of spill-over (e.g. the Bixonimania case).\n\n:::\n\n## `D1G2` ==Check who is behind the information==\n\n\n:::tip\n### Distinguish the primary interests of different source types.\n\n* List different ☑ source types.\n* Describe the ☑ primary interests of typical authors and publishers in each source type.\n* Compare ☑ typical communicative intentions across source categories. \n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Evaluate the source's trustworthiness.\n\n* Identify the ☑ author or creator of the information item.\n* Classify the source in terms of its ☑ general category.\n* Identify ☑ pre-publication review practices.\n* Explain why a professional-looking surface or domain does not indicate trustworthiness.\n* Evaluate the source's trustworthiness through lateral reading.\n\n:::\n\n##  ==Find more than what finds you== \n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G1O5` Explain that the information people encounter about an SSI may only show part of the picture.\n\n* `D1G1O1H1` Describe the effect of algorithmic personalisation on the visibility of information items to individual users\n* Distinguish filter ☑ echo chambers from ☑ filter bubbles.\n* Discuss the unequal access to digital information that ☑ access barriers create for different population groups. \n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G2O1` Detect under-represented source types in selected information environments.\n\n* `D1G2O1H1` Identify the specific aspect of the SSI to investigate.\n* `D1G2O1H2` Compare the source types surfaced for the same SSI across different information environments.\n* `D1G2O1H3` Identify source types missing or marginally represented in the surfaced results.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G2O1` Diversify search strategies across different information environments.\n\n* `D1G2O1H1` Adapt ☑ search queries to the specific features of the selected information environment.\n* `D1G2O1H1`Refine ☑ search queries based on initial results.\n* Reformulate queries to reach different types of sources.\n\n:::\n\n## `D1G4` ==Pause before you click==\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Identify features designed to attract attention and prompt engagement.**\n\n* Identify ☑ emotionally charged language in titles, headlines, or snippets.\n* Identify mismatches between images and headlines or snippets.\n* Verify the authenticity and original context of visual content, using cheap and deep fake verification tools and reverse image search.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Identify awareness triggers as cues for caution with information items.\n\n* Identify sponsored content markers as awareness triggers for caution with content of potentially non-informational but rather promotional intent.\n\n\n* Identify „breaking news\" labels as awareness triggers for caution with potentially preliminary information.\n\n\n* Identify AI summaries as awareness triggers for caution with possible ☑ AI hallucinations.\n\n\n* Identify personalisation markers (e.g., „For You\", „Top 10\", „Recommended for you\") as awareness triggers for caution with ☑ algorithmically personalised content from a narrowed selection.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D1G2O1` Evaluate the relevance of search results or feed posts before engaging with them.\n\n* `D1G2O1H1` Assess the topical match between a search result or post and the information need.\n* Assess the currency and source of a search result or post.\n* Identify ☑ content formats that prioritise engagement over completeness → clickbait, memes, short formats\n\n:::\n\n# `D2` Be wise & think twice\n\n## ==Skim before you scan==\n\n\n:::tip\n### Assess the relevance of the information item for the SSI investigation.\n\n* Identify mismatches between what the headline, snippet, or thumbnail promised and what the content delivers.\n* Read the summary to determine whether the content addresses the specific aspect of the SSI under investigation.\n\n:::\n\n## ==Scan before you trust==\n\n\n:::tip\n### Cross-check the claim.\n\n* Identify the claim.\n* Check whether the claim has been reviewed on fact-checking websites.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Distinguish between unsupported and justified claims (C vs. CER). \n\n* Identify the ☑ evidence or the lack thereof.\n* Identify the ☑ reasoning or the lack thereof.\n* Classify the claim as unsupported (C) or justified (CER).\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Evaluate the relevance of the evidence in relation to the claim. \n\n* Specify the scope and assertion of the claim.\n* Assess the topical fit: whether the evidence addresses the same subject matter as the claim.\n* Assess the scope fit: whether the evidence addresses the same conditions, time frame, or population as the claim.\n* Assess the logical fit: whether the evidence supports the specific assertion made in the claim.\n* Assess the temporal fit: whether the evidence is current.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Verify the reliability of the evidence based on scientific knowledge.\n\n* Identify the source of the evidence within the information item.\n* Assess the methodological quality of the evidence, e.g. sample size, representativeness, data type, limitations.\n* Examine whether the data are reported without distortion, omission, or misinterpretation.\n* Assess whether numerical evidence is contextualised with an appropriate baseline, denominator, or comparison.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Analyse the coherence of the reasoning connecting evidence and claim.\n\nSpecify any assumptions underlying the reasoning.\n\n* `D2G1O4H2` Assess whether the reasoning logically connects the evidence to the claim.\n* `D2G1O4H3` Examine whether the reasoning avoids ☑ logical fallacies.\n* Evaluate the overall strength of the argument based on the quality of the supporting evidence and reasoning.\n\n:::\n\n## ==Follow the thread==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D2G3O2` Identify the viewpoint of the information item.\n\n* `D2G3O2H1` Identify the SSI-question the information item addresses.\n* Identify the viewpoint, whether it is a binary (yes/no) or qualified (with conditions, scope, or limits).\n* Identify which ☑ perspectives are represented and absent.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Map the arguments to the viewpoint.**\n\n* Identify supporting arguments, i.e. arguments that explain why the viewpoint holds.\n* Identify limiting arguments, i.e. arguments that define when or where the viewpoint does not hold.\n* Identify weighing arguments, i.e. arguments that justify why one side prevails.\n* Identify counter-arguments, i.e. arguments against the viewpoint, which presented externally or acknowledged internally within the viewpoint.\n* Classify the argumentation as linear, dual-perspective, or rebuttal-based.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Assess the coherence of the overall argumentation.**\n\n* Assess whether all arguments support the overall viewpoint.\n* Identify contradictions or logical breaks within the argumentation.\n* Classify the argumentation as coherent, partially coherent, or incoherent.\n\n:::\n\n## `D2G2` ==Read between the lines==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D2G2O1` Identify framing and rhetorical devices.\n\n* `D2G2O1H1` Identify framing choices, → e.g. which aspects are foregrounded, which are backgrounded, which metaphors structure the message.\n* `D2G2O1H2` Identify rhetorical devices, → e.g. repetition, parallelism, rhetorical questions, loaded comparisons.\n* `D2G2O1H3` Identify sensational and emotional language, → e.g. superlatives, fear/outrage words, dramatic imagery, urgency cues.\n* Identify manipulative use of imagery, → e.g. selective framing of photos, emotionally charged images, mismatched illustrations, misleading graphs or charts.\n* Identify manipulative use of sound, → e.g. dramatic music, emotionally charged voice tone, selective audio cues.\n* `D2G2O1H4` Identify mismatches between textual, visual, and auditory elements within the information item.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D2G2O2` Identify deceptive tactics.\n\n* `D2G2O2H1` Identify omissions, i.e. relevant information that is left out.\n* Identify fabrications, i.e. invented facts, quotes, or data.\n* Identify misrepresentations, i.e. real facts distorted or taken out of context.\n* Identify one-sided presentations that are disguised as neutral reporting.\n\n:::\n\n## ==Zoom out & contextualise==\n\n\n:::tip\n### Analyse information limitations resulting from audience tailoring.\n\n* Infer the likely target audience from the framing and rhetorical devices of the information item.\n* Assess potential information limitations expected from the inferred audience tailoring.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D2G2O3` Identify the purpose and motives behind the information item.\n\n* Identify the geographical, cultural, and/or political context in which the information item was created.\n* Determine the purpose of the information item based on its ☑ source type.\n* Identify potential motives of the author or distributor, e.g. financial benefit, political gain, reputation, ideological commitment.\n* Identify who might benefit from the information being believed or spread.\n\n:::\n\n# `D3` Make up your mind \n\n## ==Check the science==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G2O1` Assess the degree of scientific consensus on empirical claims related to the SSI.\n\n* `D3G2O1H2` Distinguish between central superordinate claims and subordinate ones addressing specific aspects.\n* `D3G2O1H2` Compare arguments from multiple scientific sources addressing the same claim.\n* `D3G1O1H2` Determine the degree of expert agreement on each claim.\n* `D3G1O1H2` Classify claims as strongly established, moderately established, or contested.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G1O2` Analyse the scope of scientific uncertainty on the SSI.\n\n* `D3G1O1H1` Summarise the established scientific knowledge on the SSI.\n* Classify types of uncertainty where data exist but experts disagree, e.g. incomplete data, model limitations, competing interpretations, limited expert discussions.\n* `D3G1O1H1` Identify unresolved questions where data is currently missing.\n* `D3G1O1H2` Explain the effect of uncertainty on the interpretation of evidence.\n\n:::\n\n## `D3G2` ==Map the full picture==\n\n\n:::tip\n### Analyse main drivers behind the SSI.\n\n* `D3G2O2H2` Identify the main drivers behind the SSI across the different [☑](https://wiki.scilmi.eu/doc/make-up-your-mind-xWFLDEKwb8#h-checklist) perspectives.\n* `D3G2O2H3` Select the perspectives most relevant for the discussion of this SSI.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G2O1` Analyse the impacts of the SSI.\n\n* `D3G2O1H1` Identify impacts across the relevant perspectives.\n* `D3G2O1H1` Distinguish short-term and long-term impacts.\n* `D3G2O1H1` Distinguish local and global impacts.\n* `D3G2O1H2` Distinguish positive and negative impacts.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G2O2` Analyse proposed responses to the SSI.\n\n* `D3G2O2H2` Identify proposed ☑ policy measures. \n* `D3G2O2H3` Identify technological alternatives.\n* `D3G2O2H2` Identify ☑ nature-based solutions.\n* `D3G2O2H3` Identify proposed behavioural or societal changes.\n* `D3G2O2H3` Compare proposed responses in terms of feasibility. \n\n:::\n\n## D3G3 ==Trace the viewpoints==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G2O2` Analyse the controversy and its stakeholders.\n\n* `D3G2O2H2` Characterise the nature of the controversy – scientific, ethical, political, economic, cultural, or mixed.\n* Identify stakeholder groups active in the SSI discourse.\n* Identify the ☑ perspectives – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific – that each stakeholder group brings into the discourse.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Collect viewpoints on the SSI across stakeholders.\n\n* Identify viewpoints expressed by different stakeholder groups.\n* Identify evidence-based arguments supporting each viewpoint.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G1O1` Analyse viewpoints against the scientific knowledge base.\n\n* `D3G1O1H2` Identify omissions in how the viewpoints represent established knowledge and uncertainty.\n* Identify exaggerations in how the viewpoints represent established knowledge and uncertainty.\n* `D3G1O1H3` Assess whether the viewpoints proportionally represent the degree of scientific certainty and uncertainty.\n* `D3G1O1H4` Classify the viewpoints as strongly aligned, partially aligned, or weakly aligned with the current scientific knowledge base.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G1O1` Analyse the trade-offs between perspectives embodied by each viewpoint.\n\n* `D3G2O1H1` Identify the perspectives a viewpoint prioritises – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n* Identify the perspectives a viewpoint deprioritises or ignores – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n* Compare how different viewpoints prioritise and deprioritise perspectives differently.\n\n:::\n\n## `D3G4` ==Take your stand==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G4O1` Clarify your own values and concerns regarding the SSI.\n\n* `D3G4O1H1` Identify your personal relation to the SSI. \n* Identify personal needs and interests that affect your viewpoint. \n* Identify the values you want to guide your reasoning on this SSI.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Form your viewpoint by weighing evidence, values, and trade-offs.**\n\n* Weigh the scientific evidence against your personal needs and interests.\n* Weigh the trade-offs across the perspectives – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n* Formulate your viewpoint, whether it is binary (yes/no) or qualified (with conditions, scope, or limits).\n* Identify the basis of your viewpoint: intuition, critically analysed information, or scientific knowledge.\n* Acknowledge the resulting quality of your viewpoint: an unexamined opinion, a critically informed viewpoint, or a scientifically substantiated judgement.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Situate your viewpoint within the SSI discourse.\n\n* Identify the alignment of your viewpoint with existing viewpoints.\n* Identify the representation of your viewpoint in the public discourse.\n* Review opposing arguments and their evidence.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D3G4O2` Reassess your viewpoint when new information or arguments emerge.\n\n* `D3G4O2H1` Monitor new scientific findings and developments on the SSI. \n* Revise your viewpoint when the basis for change is strong enough.\n\n:::\n\n# `D4` Speak out and take action\n\n## `D4G1` ==Plan your civic engagement==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G1O1` Identify needs and opportunities for engagement.\n\n* `D4G1O1H1` Identify the needs of yourself, your family, your friends, your school, the local community or broader society with regard to the pertinent socio-scientific issue.\n* `D4G1O1H1` Identify the impact of your needs on other ☑ stakeholders.\n* `D4G1O1H2` Identify gaps in existing efforts addressing these needs.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G1O2` Determine the purpose of your engagement.\n\n* `D4G1O2H1` Define the impact you want to achieve.\n* Determine the recipient(s) or target group(s) of your civic engagement.\n* H3: Weigh the potential effect of different forms of engagement — inform, argue, or act.\n* `D4G1O2H2` Select the type of civic engagement you would like to take — inform, argue, or act.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G1O3` Select the most appropriate information environment for your engagement.\n\n* `D4G1O3H1`☑ Match the information environment to your recipient(s) or target group(s).\n* Match the information environment to the type of engagement.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G1O4` Anticipate feedback and reactions.\n\n* `D4G1O4H1` Review similar initiatives to understand common feedback and reactions.\n* `D4G1O4H2` Simulate the engagement with peers.\n* `D4G1O4H3` Prepare responses to likely objections.\n\n:::\n\n## `D4G2` ==Inform objectively==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G2O1` Tailor your message to the target audience.\n\n* `D4G2O1H1` Assess the audience's previous knowledge of the SSI.\n* Adapt the ☑ content complexity to the audience.\n* `D4G2O1H2` Adapt ☑ linguistic features to the audience.\n* Adapt ☑ visual features to the audience.\n* Adapt ☑ auditory features to the audience.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G2O2` Present opposing viewpoints transparently.\n\n* `D4G2O2H1` Organise the ☑ arguments and supporting ☑ evidence for each viewpoint.\n* `D4G2O2H2` Report facts and provide context.\n* `D4G2O2H3` Refer to ☑ sources.\n\n:::\n\n## `D4G3` ==Argue persuasively==\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G3O1` Define your message.\n\n* `D4G3O1H1` Formulate a clear statement on the SSI in a single sentence.\n* `D4G3O1H2` Identify a hook to grab the recipients' attention.\n* `D4G3O1H3` Provide background information on the SSI.\n* Select arguments that support your message.\n* Select supporting evidence for each argument.\n* `D4G3O1H4` Build the argumentative chain from evidence via arguments to the message.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G2O1` Tailor your message to the target audience.\n\n* `D4G2O1H1` Assess the audience's previous knowledge of the SSI.\n* Adapt the ☑ content complexity to the audience.\n* `D4G2O1H2` Adapt ☑ linguistic features to the audience.\n* Adapt ☑ visual features to the audience.\n* Adapt ☑ auditory features to the audience.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### `D4G3O3` Anticipate feedback and reactions.\n\n* `D4G3O3H1` Identify likely counter-arguments.\n* `D4G3O3H2` Research evidence and reasoning behind the counter-arguments.\n* `D4G3O3H3` Evaluate their relevance and validity.\n* `D4G3O3H4` Develop responses and alternative arguments.\n\n:::\n\n## `D4G4` Build resilience\n\n\n:::tip\n### Map the misinformation circulating about an SSI\n\n* Identify typical misleading claims about the SSI in your environment.\n* Trace the sources behind these examples. \n* Catalogue the ☑ manipulation techniques in use. \n* Document the audiences likely affected.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### Debunk circulating misinformation about an SSI\n\n* \\\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Prebunk misinformation regarding an SSI**\n\n* Match prebunking content to the underlying ☑ manipulation techniques.\n* Share prebunking content with your peer network.\n\n:::\n\n## ==Act & reflect==\n\n\n:::tip\n### **O1: Prepare the execution of your civic engagement.**\n\n* Outline concrete steps and a timeline. \n* Identify resources and support needed. \n* Define success criteria before acting.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Carry out your civic engagement.**\n\n* Execute the engagement according to the plan. \n* Adapt the execution to unforeseen circumstances.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Evaluate the impact of your civic engagement.**\n\n* Observe and document reactions and effects. \n* Compare observed outcomes with the defined success criteria.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\n### **Reflect on your civic engagement.**\n\n* Identify what worked and what did not. \n* Derive lessons for future engagement.\n\n:::","HTML":"

D1Open up your mind

\n

D1G1Understand how (mis)information reaches people

\n
\n
\n\n

D1G1O1Classify information environments through which people encounter (mis)information.

\n
    \n
  • D1G1O1H1Identify analogue and digital information environments, i.e. places, platforms, media, and situations in which people encounter information that shapes their viewpoints and actions.\n
    • \n
  • D1G1O1H2Compare ☑ digital information platforms in terms of who can publish content. \n
    • \n
  • D1G1O1H3Explain factors that make anyone - irrespective of intelligence or education - susceptible to encountering and sharing misinformation.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D1G1O2Explain mechanisms that shape the visibility of (mis)information items in information environments.

\n
    \n
  • D1G1O2H1Explain the role of ☑ search engine optimisation (SEO) in shaping search results.\n
    • \n
  • D1G1O2H2Investigate what determines information visibility in ☑ feeds.\n
    • \n
  • D1G1O2H3Identify information environments excluded from web crawling.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D1G1O3Trace phenomena of amplification to their underlying mechanisms.

\n
    \n
  • D1G1O3H1Identify the interplay between hashtag use and social bot activity in a recent case of trending (e.g. #ClimateScam).\n
    • \n
  • D1G1O3H2Identify the amplification mechanisms behind a documented case of virality (e.g. Ice Bucket Challenge).\n
    • \n
  • D1G1O3H3Identify the amplification mechanisms behind a documented case of spill-over (e.g. the Bixonimania case).\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D1G2Check who is behind the information

\n
\n
\n\n

Distinguish the primary interests of different source types.

\n
    \n
  • List different ☑ source types.\n
    • \n
  • Describe the ☑ primary interests of typical authors and publishers in each source type.\n
    • \n
  • Compare ☑ typical communicative intentions across source categories.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Evaluate the source's trustworthiness.

\n
    \n
  • Identify the ☑ author or creator of the information item.\n
    • \n
  • Classify the source in terms of its ☑ general category.\n
    • \n
  • Identify ☑ pre-publication review practices.\n
    • \n
  • Explain why a professional-looking surface or domain does not indicate trustworthiness.\n
    • \n
  • Evaluate the source's trustworthiness through lateral reading.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Find more than what finds you

\n
\n
\n\n

D1G1O5Explain that the information people encounter about an SSI may only show part of the picture.

\n
    \n
  • D1G1O1H1Describe the effect of algorithmic personalisation on the visibility of information items to individual users\n
    • \n
  • Distinguish filter ☑ echo chambers from ☑ filter bubbles.\n
    • \n
  • Discuss the unequal access to digital information that ☑ access barriers create for different population groups.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D1G2O1Detect under-represented source types in selected information environments.

\n
    \n
  • D1G2O1H1Identify the specific aspect of the SSI to investigate.\n
    • \n
  • D1G2O1H2Compare the source types surfaced for the same SSI across different information environments.\n
    • \n
  • D1G2O1H3Identify source types missing or marginally represented in the surfaced results.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D1G2O1Diversify search strategies across different information environments.

\n
    \n
  • D1G2O1H1Adapt ☑ search queries to the specific features of the selected information environment.\n
    • \n
  • D1G2O1H1Refine ☑ search queries based on initial results.\n
    • \n
  • Reformulate queries to reach different types of sources.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D1G4 Pause before you click

\n
\n
\n\n

Identify features designed to attract attention and prompt engagement.

\n
    \n
  • Identify ☑ emotionally charged language in titles, headlines, or snippets.\n
    • \n
  • Identify mismatches between images and headlines or snippets.\n
    • \n
  • Verify the authenticity and original context of visual content, using cheap and deep fake verification tools and reverse image search.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Identify awareness triggers as cues for caution with information items.

\n
    \n
  • Identify sponsored content markers as awareness triggers for caution with content of potentially non-informational but rather promotional intent.\n
    • \n
  • Identify „breaking news" labels as awareness triggers for caution with potentially preliminary information.\n
    • \n
  • Identify AI summaries as awareness triggers for caution with possible ☑ AI hallucinations.\n
    • \n
  • Identify personalisation markers (e.g., „For You", „Top 10", „Recommended for you") as awareness triggers for caution with ☑ algorithmically personalised content from a narrowed selection.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D1G2O1Evaluate the relevance of search results or feed posts before engaging with them.

\n
    \n
  • D1G2O1H1Assess the topical match between a search result or post and the information need.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the currency and source of a search result or post.\n
    • \n
  • Identify ☑ content formats that prioritise engagement over completeness → clickbait, memes, short formats\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D2Be wise & think twice

\n

Skim before you scan

\n
\n
\n\n

Assess the relevance of the information item for the SSI investigation.

\n
    \n
  • Identify mismatches between what the headline, snippet, or thumbnail promised and what the content delivers.\n
    • \n
  • Read the summary to determine whether the content addresses the specific aspect of the SSI under investigation.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Scan before you trust

\n
\n
\n\n

Cross-check the claim.

\n
    \n
  • Identify the claim.\n
    • \n
  • Check whether the claim has been reviewed on fact-checking websites.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Distinguish between unsupported and justified claims (C vs. CER).

\n
    \n
  • Identify the ☑ evidence or the lack thereof.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the ☑ reasoning or the lack thereof.\n
    • \n
  • Classify the claim as unsupported (C) or justified (CER).\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Evaluate the relevance of the evidence in relation to the claim.

\n
    \n
  • Specify the scope and assertion of the claim.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the topical fit: whether the evidence addresses the same subject matter as the claim.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the scope fit: whether the evidence addresses the same conditions, time frame, or population as the claim.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the logical fit: whether the evidence supports the specific assertion made in the claim.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the temporal fit: whether the evidence is current.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Verify the reliability of the evidence based on scientific knowledge.

\n
    \n
  • Identify the source of the evidence within the information item.\n
    • \n
  • Assess the methodological quality of the evidence, e.g. sample size, representativeness, data type, limitations.\n
    • \n
  • Examine whether the data are reported without distortion, omission, or misinterpretation.\n
    • \n
  • Assess whether numerical evidence is contextualised with an appropriate baseline, denominator, or comparison.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Analyse the coherence of the reasoning connecting evidence and claim.

\n

Specify any assumptions underlying the reasoning.

\n
    \n
  • D2G1O4H2 Assess whether the reasoning logically connects the evidence to the claim.\n
    • \n
  • D2G1O4H3 Examine whether the reasoning avoids ☑ logical fallacies.\n
    • \n
  • Evaluate the overall strength of the argument based on the quality of the supporting evidence and reasoning.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Follow the thread

\n
\n
\n\n

D2G3O2Identify the viewpoint of the information item.

\n
    \n
  • D2G3O2H1Identify the SSI-question the information item addresses.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the viewpoint, whether it is a binary (yes/no) or qualified (with conditions, scope, or limits).\n
    • \n
  • Identify which ☑ perspectives are represented and absent.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Map the arguments to the viewpoint.

\n
    \n
  • Identify supporting arguments, i.e. arguments that explain why the viewpoint holds.\n
    • \n
  • Identify limiting arguments, i.e. arguments that define when or where the viewpoint does not hold.\n
    • \n
  • Identify weighing arguments, i.e. arguments that justify why one side prevails.\n
    • \n
  • Identify counter-arguments, i.e. arguments against the viewpoint, which presented externally or acknowledged internally within the viewpoint.\n
    • \n
  • Classify the argumentation as linear, dual-perspective, or rebuttal-based.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Assess the coherence of the overall argumentation.

\n
    \n
  • Assess whether all arguments support the overall viewpoint.\n
    • \n
  • Identify contradictions or logical breaks within the argumentation.\n
    • \n
  • Classify the argumentation as coherent, partially coherent, or incoherent.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D2G2Read between the lines

\n
\n
\n\n

D2G2O1Identify framing and rhetorical devices.

\n
    \n
  • D2G2O1H1Identify framing choices, → e.g. which aspects are foregrounded, which are backgrounded, which metaphors structure the message.\n
    • \n
  • D2G2O1H2Identify rhetorical devices, → e.g. repetition, parallelism, rhetorical questions, loaded comparisons.\n
    • \n
  • D2G2O1H3Identify sensational and emotional language, → e.g. superlatives, fear/outrage words, dramatic imagery, urgency cues.\n
    • \n
  • Identify manipulative use of imagery, → e.g. selective framing of photos, emotionally charged images, mismatched illustrations, misleading graphs or charts.\n
    • \n
  • Identify manipulative use of sound, → e.g. dramatic music, emotionally charged voice tone, selective audio cues.\n
    • \n
  • D2G2O1H4Identify mismatches between textual, visual, and auditory elements within the information item.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D2G2O2Identify deceptive tactics.

\n
    \n
  • D2G2O2H1 Identify omissions, i.e. relevant information that is left out.\n
    • \n
  • Identify fabrications, i.e. invented facts, quotes, or data.\n
    • \n
  • Identify misrepresentations, i.e. real facts distorted or taken out of context.\n
    • \n
  • Identify one-sided presentations that are disguised as neutral reporting.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Zoom out & contextualise

\n
\n
\n\n

Analyse information limitations resulting from audience tailoring.

\n
    \n
  • Infer the likely target audience from the framing and rhetorical devices of the information item.\n
    • \n
  • Assess potential information limitations expected from the inferred audience tailoring.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D2G2O3Identify the purpose and motives behind the information item.

\n
    \n
  • Identify the geographical, cultural, and/or political context in which the information item was created.\n
    • \n
  • Determine the purpose of the information item based on its ☑ source type.\n
    • \n
  • Identify potential motives of the author or distributor, e.g. financial benefit, political gain, reputation, ideological commitment.\n
    • \n
  • Identify who might benefit from the information being believed or spread.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D3Make up your mind

\n

Check the science

\n
\n
\n\n

D3G2O1Assess the degree of scientific consensus on empirical claims related to the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O1H2Distinguish between central superordinate claims and subordinate ones addressing specific aspects.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O1H2Compare arguments from multiple scientific sources addressing the same claim.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H2Determine the degree of expert agreement on each claim.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H2Classify claims as strongly established, moderately established, or contested.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G1O2Analyse the scope of scientific uncertainty on the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G1O1H1Summarise the established scientific knowledge on the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Classify types of uncertainty where data exist but experts disagree, e.g. incomplete data, model limitations, competing interpretations, limited expert discussions.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H1Identify unresolved questions where data is currently missing.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H2Explain the effect of uncertainty on the interpretation of evidence.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D3G2Map the full picture

\n
\n
\n\n

Analyse main drivers behind the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O2H2Identify the main drivers behind the SSI across the different ☑ perspectives.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O2H3Select the perspectives most relevant for the discussion of this SSI.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G2O1Analyse the impacts of the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O1H1 Identify impacts across the relevant perspectives.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O1H1 Distinguish short-term and long-term impacts.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O1H1Distinguish local and global impacts.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O1H2Distinguish positive and negative impacts.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G2O2Analyse proposed responses to the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O2H2Identify proposed ☑ policy measures.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O2H3Identify technological alternatives.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O2H2Identify ☑ nature-based solutions.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O2H3Identify proposed behavioural or societal changes.\n
    • \n
  • D3G2O2H3Compare proposed responses in terms of feasibility.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D3G3 Trace the viewpoints

\n
\n
\n\n

D3G2O2Analyse the controversy and its stakeholders.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O2H2Characterise the nature of the controversy – scientific, ethical, political, economic, cultural, or mixed.\n
    • \n
  • Identify stakeholder groups active in the SSI discourse.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the ☑ perspectives – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific – that each stakeholder group brings into the discourse.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Collect viewpoints on the SSI across stakeholders.

\n
    \n
  • Identify viewpoints expressed by different stakeholder groups.\n
    • \n
  • Identify evidence-based arguments supporting each viewpoint.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G1O1Analyse viewpoints against the scientific knowledge base.

\n
    \n
  • D3G1O1H2Identify omissions in how the viewpoints represent established knowledge and uncertainty.\n
    • \n
  • Identify exaggerations in how the viewpoints represent established knowledge and uncertainty.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H3Assess whether the viewpoints proportionally represent the degree of scientific certainty and uncertainty.\n
    • \n
  • D3G1O1H4Classify the viewpoints as strongly aligned, partially aligned, or weakly aligned with the current scientific knowledge base.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G1O1Analyse the trade-offs between perspectives embodied by each viewpoint.

\n
    \n
  • D3G2O1H1Identify the perspectives a viewpoint prioritises – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the perspectives a viewpoint deprioritises or ignores – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n
    • \n
  • Compare how different viewpoints prioritise and deprioritise perspectives differently.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D3G4Take your stand

\n
\n
\n\n

D3G4O1Clarify your own values and concerns regarding the SSI.

\n
    \n
  • D3G4O1H1Identify your personal relation to the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Identify personal needs and interests that affect your viewpoint.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the values you want to guide your reasoning on this SSI.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Form your viewpoint by weighing evidence, values, and trade-offs.

\n
    \n
  • Weigh the scientific evidence against your personal needs and interests.\n
    • \n
  • Weigh the trade-offs across the perspectives – nature-centred, individual, social, economic, political, or scientific.\n
    • \n
  • Formulate your viewpoint, whether it is binary (yes/no) or qualified (with conditions, scope, or limits).\n
    • \n
  • Identify the basis of your viewpoint: intuition, critically analysed information, or scientific knowledge.\n
    • \n
  • Acknowledge the resulting quality of your viewpoint: an unexamined opinion, a critically informed viewpoint, or a scientifically substantiated judgement.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Situate your viewpoint within the SSI discourse.

\n
    \n
  • Identify the alignment of your viewpoint with existing viewpoints.\n
    • \n
  • Identify the representation of your viewpoint in the public discourse.\n
    • \n
  • Review opposing arguments and their evidence.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D3G4O2Reassess your viewpoint when new information or arguments emerge.

\n
    \n
  • D3G4O2H1Monitor new scientific findings and developments on the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Revise your viewpoint when the basis for change is strong enough.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D4Speak out and take action

\n

D4G1Plan your civic engagement

\n
\n
\n\n

D4G1O1Identify needs and opportunities for engagement.

\n
    \n
  • D4G1O1H1Identify the needs of yourself, your family, your friends, your school, the local community or broader society with regard to the pertinent socio-scientific issue.\n
    • \n
  • D4G1O1H1Identify the impact of your needs on other ☑ stakeholders.\n
    • \n
  • D4G1O1H2Identify gaps in existing efforts addressing these needs.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G1O2Determine the purpose of your engagement.

\n
    \n
  • D4G1O2H1Define the impact you want to achieve.\n
    • \n
  • Determine the recipient(s) or target group(s) of your civic engagement.\n
    • \n
  • H3: Weigh the potential effect of different forms of engagement — inform, argue, or act.\n
    • \n
  • D4G1O2H2Select the type of civic engagement you would like to take — inform, argue, or act.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G1O3Select the most appropriate information environment for your engagement.

\n
    \n
  • D4G1O3H1☑ Match the information environment to your recipient(s) or target group(s).\n
    • \n
  • Match the information environment to the type of engagement.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G1O4Anticipate feedback and reactions.

\n
    \n
  • D4G1O4H1Review similar initiatives to understand common feedback and reactions.\n
    • \n
  • D4G1O4H2Simulate the engagement with peers.\n
    • \n
  • D4G1O4H3Prepare responses to likely objections.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D4G2Inform objectively

\n
\n
\n\n

D4G2O1Tailor your message to the target audience.

\n
    \n
  • D4G2O1H1Assess the audience's previous knowledge of the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt the ☑ content complexity to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • D4G2O1H2Adapt ☑ linguistic features to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt ☑ visual features to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt ☑ auditory features to the audience.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G2O2Present opposing viewpoints transparently.

\n
    \n
  • D4G2O2H1Organise the ☑ arguments and supporting ☑ evidence for each viewpoint.\n
    • \n
  • D4G2O2H2Report facts and provide context.\n
    • \n
  • D4G2O2H3Refer to ☑ sources.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D4G3Argue persuasively

\n
\n
\n\n

D4G3O1Define your message.

\n
    \n
  • D4G3O1H1Formulate a clear statement on the SSI in a single sentence.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O1H2Identify a hook to grab the recipients' attention.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O1H3Provide background information on the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Select arguments that support your message.\n
    • \n
  • Select supporting evidence for each argument.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O1H4Build the argumentative chain from evidence via arguments to the message.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G2O1Tailor your message to the target audience.

\n
    \n
  • D4G2O1H1Assess the audience's previous knowledge of the SSI.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt the ☑ content complexity to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • D4G2O1H2Adapt ☑ linguistic features to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt ☑ visual features to the audience.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt ☑ auditory features to the audience.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

D4G3O3Anticipate feedback and reactions.

\n
    \n
  • D4G3O3H1Identify likely counter-arguments.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O3H2Research evidence and reasoning behind the counter-arguments.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O3H3Evaluate their relevance and validity.\n
    • \n
  • D4G3O3H4Develop responses and alternative arguments.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

D4G4Build resilience

\n
\n
\n\n

Map the misinformation circulating about an SSI

\n
    \n
  • Identify typical misleading claims about the SSI in your environment.\n
    • \n
  • Trace the sources behind these examples.\n
    • \n
  • Catalogue the ☑ manipulation techniques in use.\n
    • \n
  • Document the audiences likely affected.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Debunk circulating misinformation about an SSI

\n
    \n
  • \\\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Prebunk misinformation regarding an SSI

\n
    \n
  • Match prebunking content to the underlying ☑ manipulation techniques.\n
    • \n
  • Share prebunking content with your peer network.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Act & reflect

\n
\n
\n\n

O1: Prepare the execution of your civic engagement.

\n
    \n
  • Outline concrete steps and a timeline.\n
    • \n
  • Identify resources and support needed.\n
    • \n
  • Define success criteria before acting.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Carry out your civic engagement.

\n
    \n
  • Execute the engagement according to the plan.\n
    • \n
  • Adapt the execution to unforeseen circumstances.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Evaluate the impact of your civic engagement.

\n
    \n
  • Observe and document reactions and effects.\n
    • \n
  • Compare observed outcomes with the defined success criteria.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Reflect on your civic engagement.

\n
    \n
  • Identify what worked and what did not.\n
    • \n
  • Derive lessons for future engagement.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
","UPDATEDAT":"2026-05-08T17:18:47.576Z","ID":"9bd99e40-d95d-4100-8cf8-76d36128824b","TITLE":"2026-05-07"}