Four of the assignments result in artefacts that participants submit for the credential: the SSI map, the lesson plan, the HOW activity, and the implementation survey (→ Summative Assessment).
\nIn their international SSI teams, participants develop a cross-subject lesson sequence on a shared socio-scientific issue. Each lesson pursues a subject-specific learning goal, addresses a clear aspect of the SSI, and promotes learning outcomes of the SciLMi Model. The sequence can be designed either as multidisciplinary, with lessons that stand side by side and each contribute their own insights to the SSI, or as interdisciplinary, with co-planned lessons that integrate knowledge and methods from the subjects (European Commission 2025). It is documented as an SSI map and presented on the final day.
\nEach participant develops or adapts a lesson plan for their own subject. The lesson is part of the SSI lesson sequence of their team.
\nAt the heart of each lesson plan is a HOW activity that fosters a selected learning outcome of the SciLMi Model. Participants write clear activity instructions and a model solution that shows the expected student output. They pilot their HOW activity in their subject-specific team, where colleagues try it out as learners. Each subject-specific team then selects one HOW activity that worked particularly well in the piloting and presents it in plenary (→ HOW Highlights).
\nEncourage participants to bring and adapt their own teaching materials: the goal is to weave meta-scientific literacies into their regular teaching. In the SciLMi BITs, participants developed complete lesson plans in English. Consider letting participants work on their existing lesson plans in their own language and elaborate only the HOW activity in English, so that it can be shared with peers and inspires others by showing how meta-scientific literacies can be fostered with only small adjustments.
Participants teach their lesson in their own classroom, ideally together with colleagues from other subjects who teach further lessons of the sequence.
\nAfter teaching their lesson, participants complete a short survey on their implementation experience.
\nParticipants share their implementation experience in the virtual follow-up.
\nPRO: Close support during the classroom implementation phase would deepen the learning process: in coaching sessions, participants discuss their lesson plan, their implementation experience, and the revisions they derive from it, and receive feedback from trainers and peers. Realistically, however, this is only feasible with additional paid trainer time (→ Organisation & Funding).
Feedback from peers who teach the same subject and peers who do not, from trainers, and from the practising teacher in the trainer team focuses on the following criteria:
\nThe implementation survey is not assessed for content; only its completion counts.
\nParticipants receive feedback on their SSI maps, lesson plans, and HOW activities, based on the assessment criteria:
\nThe summative assessment is completion-based, without grading. Participants receive a micro-credential and a PDF certificate (→ Overview) if they meet the following requirements:
\nReferences
\n