Participants get to know the SciLMi Model of Meta-Scientific Literacies from the inside, discover where it already overlaps with their own subject teaching, and learn how to weave it into their regular lessons. The module serves the aim Teaching for Meta-Scientific Literacies (→ Aims & Learning Outcomes).
\n| Activity | \nWorking setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|---|
| SciLMi Puzzle | \nSubject-specific teams | \n– | \n→ Making SciLMi Stick to Your Subject → Dotting SciLMi → Focus modules (several activities) | \n
| Making SciLMi Stick to Your Subject | \nSubject-specific teams | \n→ SciLMi Puzzle (domain posters) | \n– | \n
| Dotting SciLMi | \nIndividual | \n→ SciLMi Puzzle (domain posters) | \n– | \n
| Wiki'ing SciLMi | \nIndividual | \n– | \n– | \n
| SciLMifying Lessons | \nPlenary, then individual, then SSI teams | \n→ Mind-Mapping SSI (2) | \n→ Piloting & Polishing HOW Activities → Wiki'ing Inclusion | \n
| Piloting & Polishing HOW Activities | \nSubject-specific teams, then individual, then plenary | \n→ SciLMifying Lessons → Diversity & Inclusion | \n– | \n
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Subject-specific teams | \n– | \n→ Making SciLMi Stick to Your Subject → Dotting SciLMi → Focus modules (several activities) | \n
A short input explains the logic behind the model, which follows the path of information: from encountering information to scrutinising it, forming a position, and acting on it. It also introduces the competence-based structure of the model: each domain comprises learning goals, learning outcomes formulated with action verbs from Bloom's taxonomy, and HOWs.
\nThe domains, learning goals, learning outcomes, and HOWs are printed on slips of paper in different colours. Each subject-specific team receives a random selection of slips, and together the teams reconstruct the model by pinning the elements in the right place on a poster for each domain. The four posters are attached to pinboards in the four corners of the room, which gives the teams enough space to work and gets participants moving.
\nThe posters stay up for the rest of the week, and participants are encouraged to revisit them, which they do.
\nVariations
\nThe degree of difficulty can be adjusted:
\nInstead of being presented with a finished model, participants actively construct it themselves: they debate where each element belongs, justify their choices to each other, rearrange slips when they see new connections, and in this way build their own understanding of how the model works. And they have fun doing it.
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Subject-specific teams | \n→ SciLMi Puzzle (domain posters) | \n– | \n
Participants receive coloured stickers, one colour for each subject. In their subject-specific teams, they scan the domain posters and place their stickers next to the HOWs that overlap with subject-specific learning goals or that can easily be integrated into their teaching. On each sticker, they note the age group of the learners concerned.
\nHere, participants deepen their engagement with the model and connect it to their own curriculum. The stickers in the different subject colours create a striking visual impression in the room: every subject is needed, and the subjects can work well together.
Ideally, this activity takes place on a different day from the SciLMi Puzzle.
The same method is used with socio-scientific issues in a digital mind map, where participants note in which subjects and for which age groups the topics can be addressed (→ Making SSI Stick to Your Subject). In Going Meta, participants can then compare the analogue and the digital approach.
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Individual | \n→ SciLMi Puzzle (domain posters) | \n– | \n
Participants use coloured dots to mark learning outcomes or HOWs on the domain posters. The dots can refer to one of three dimensions:
\n| Dimension | \nGreen | \nYellow | \nRed | \n
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence | \nI can promote it without support. | \nI would need some support. | \nI would need a lot of support. | \n
| Experience | \nI have promoted it regularly. | \nI have promoted it occasionally. | \nI have not promoted it yet. | \n
| Intention | \nI definitely want to promote it. | \nI might promote it. | \nI do not plan to promote it. | \n
Variations
\nEach dimension can be applied at different levels of detail:
\nAfterwards, participants and trainers go through the results together, domain by domain.
\nHere, participants revisit the model from the perspective of their own teaching practice. Depending on the dimension chosen, the results also give the trainers formative feedback on where participants need support.
By varying the number of dots and colours, the length of the activity can easily be adjusted to the time available. This also makes dotting a good short refresher between other activities. In shorter trainings, it is better to highlight what participants already do and to do without the traffic light.
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Individual | \n– | \n– | \n
Participants explore the online version of the model, where they can have it translated into their own language and read explanatory information in the glossary.
\nExploring the online model only needs to be an activity in its own right when language difficulties make it harder for participants to understand the model. Otherwise, a short demonstration is sufficient before participants start working on their lesson plans and HOW activities.
In shorter trainings without time for the SciLMi Puzzle, exploring the online model can also be set as preparatory homework.
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Plenary, then individual, then SSI teams | \n→ Mind-Mapping SSI (2) | \n→ Piloting & Polishing HOW Activities → Wiki'ing Inclusion | \n
Each participant now turns the lesson from their team's SSI map into a lesson plan with a HOW activity.
\nA short input sets the expectations: SciLMifying a lesson does not mean designing a showcase lesson or covering a learning goal in full. The SciLMi Model deliberately breaks meta-scientific literacies down into HOWs, in effect partial learning outcomes. These HOWs, and some learning outcomes as a whole, can be fostered through small moments woven into a regular lesson that sharpen learners' critical minds. A chart from a trustworthy source, presented without units or axis labels, raises learners' awareness of information gaps: it shows them that missing information can make even reliable information impossible to interpret. A fake item handed out by the teacher, which learners accept simply because it comes from the teacher, shows them that they might put blind trust in the source. Habits such as lateral reading need practice, and the more often such moments occur in everyday teaching, the more likely meta-scientific literacies are to take root. The focus module on digital media and information literacies shows such moments in action (→ What's the Catch?).
\nA short input on activity instructions with Bloom's verbs equips participants for the individual work on their own lessons. A second input on expert blindness then prepares them for revising their materials before the SSI team feedback.
\nOn top of the subject-specific learning goal, the lesson has to meet two further demands: it is set in the context of a socio-scientific issue, and it fosters meta-scientific literacies. As both are new to many participants, they may be tempted to design rather extraordinary lessons in which the subject-specific learning goal moves into the background. Some even work in the evenings to finish them, time they are unlikely to have for SciLMifying lessons back at school. Remind them that regular teaching does not always have to meet both demands and that they are not expected to foster the full range of meta-scientific literacies in one lesson or over a few lessons. Weaving small moments that foster meta-scientific literacies into everyday teaching, with the subject-specific learning goal at the heart of the lesson, is a big step forward. Coordinating lessons with colleagues around socio-scientific issues to foster interdisciplinary thinking is a leap into the future of teaching.
Participants draft the overall flow of their lesson. They decide how many activities the lesson will include, write a short summary of each activity, and select one activity that they will fully elaborate as their HOW activity. At this stage, they focus on the structure and logical flow of the lesson rather than on full activity instructions.
\nA short input shows that competence-based teaching describes learning outcomes in terms of observable competences and assesses what learners do. This requires clear and transparent activity instructions and model solutions.
\nWind turbines are bird killers and landscape destroyers. Who would want these monsters near their home?
\nUsing the example sentence above, the input contrasts a wh-question, such as "Why is this text manipulative?", which triggers curiosity and suits moderated discussions but leads to vague answers that are hard to assess, with an activity instruction that uses a Bloom's verb, such as "Analyse the rhetorical devices used in this text.", which makes clear what the teacher expects learners to do.
\nActivity instructions with Bloom's verbs communicate clearly what learners are expected to do, make it easier to assess learners' outputs and give feedback, encourage the application of knowledge beyond mere reproduction, and ensure that the activity instruction aligns with the intended learning outcome. They also allow teachers to create criteria-based model solutions, on the basis of which learners' work can be graded fairly and transparently.
Transparent activity instructions and model solutions also allow learners to assess their own work. In the ARISE self-evaluation method, teachers hand back corrected tests without points or grades. Learners assess their work against the criteria, write a comment with tips for improvement, suggest a grade, and compare it with the teacher's comment and grade.
Participants then design their HOW activity with the materials they have found. They match the materials to the selected HOWs, formulate the activity instruction with one Bloom's verb per sentence, and develop a model solution based on identifiable criteria, such as a checklist of what learners' responses must include. They revise the activity instruction until it matches the model solution.
\nThe sequence of activities needs to be coherent with the subject-specific learning goal and the selected learning outcome of the SciLMi Model. The HOW activity shows how this learning outcome is actively fostered.
Even better than designing a new activity is SciLMifying an activity from the materials participants have brought from their own teaching, as this makes the transfer to their classrooms more likely. It does not always work, because the issue and the angle agreed in the SSI team may not match the materials they have brought. In that case, participants work with the materials pooled in their team (→ Prompting & Pooling Materials).
If the group atmosphere allows it, ask participants to share their activity instructions in plenary. The others say how they would respond, compare their answers with the model solution, and the group optimises the activity instruction together. This is risky, as participants may feel exposed, but it is one of the most rewarding activities of the week. Packaging it as a Jeopardy-style game adds a playful touch.
A short input introduces expert blindness. As experts in their fields, teachers subconsciously fill in the blanks and often fail to notice cognitive leaps in texts, arguments, or explanations, because their prior knowledge bridges them automatically. Learners do not share this knowledge base: they get lost and often blame themselves ("I am not smart enough.").
\nStudies show microplastics in drinking water. Therefore, scientists are concerned this could pose health risks.
\nUsing the example above, participants identify the technical term that needs explaining and the missing logical connection between the presence of microplastics and the concern.
\nThe input closes with strategies to overcome expert blindness, which participants apply when they revise their HOW activity:
\nMaking the reasoning steps explicit benefits all learners (→ Diversity & Inclusion).
At the end of the block, the SSI teams turn to each other again. Each participant briefly presents the draft of their lesson and HOW activity, and the others give feedback on how well the lesson fits into the sequence and connects to the neighbouring lessons. As colleagues from other subjects, they are also the first readers who spot technical terms and cognitive leaps in each other's materials that the author no longer notices (→ Mind the Gap). Where the drafts have moved away from the plan, the team revises its SSI map accordingly.
\nThe individual lessons and the team's sequence develop in parallel: the feedback round keeps them aligned before the lesson plans are elaborated further.
The SSI teams have been sitting together since Mind-Mapping SSI (2). They do not have to wait for the feedback round: team members can support each other during the individual work whenever a question comes up.
| Working setting | \nRequires | \nRequired for | \n
|---|---|---|
| Subject-specific teams, then individual, then plenary | \n→ SciLMifying Lessons → Diversity & Inclusion | \n– | \n
In subject-specific teams, participants try out each other's HOW activities as learners and give each other feedback on their lesson plans from the perspective of their shared subject. Each participant then polishes their HOW activity and lesson plan on this basis. Finally, each team presents one HOW activity in plenary.
\nIn subject-specific teams of three or four, participants agree who pilots which HOW activity. Each participant takes a colleague's HOW activity, works through it, writes down a solution, and notes anything that is challenging or could be improved. In their team, they then compare the solution with the model solution: Do they match? Does the activity instruction fit the model solution? How could the activity be SciLMified a bit more?
\nParticipants experience their colleagues' HOW activities from the learners' perspective. Mismatches between their solution and the model solution show where the activity instruction or the model solution needs to be revised.
The team then turns to the lesson plans. As colleagues from the same subject, participants analyse the subject-specific learning goal of each lesson plan, evaluate how well the planned activities support it and how the lesson fits into regular subject teaching, and give each other tips for improvement.
\nColleagues from the same subject can best judge whether the activities support the subject-specific learning goal. Those giving feedback are clear and precise, use I-messages, and focus on things that can be changed. Those receiving feedback listen, do not justify themselves, and appreciate the opportunity to improve.
Participants can also approach colleagues from their subject area for feedback at any time during the week.
Each participant revises their HOW activity and lesson plan in the light of the piloting and the feedback: mismatches between the solutions and the model solution, unclear activity instructions, and the subject-specific suggestions.
\nFinally, each subject-specific team selects one HOW activity that worked particularly well in the piloting and presents it in plenary: the activity instruction, the materials, and what made the activity work. The plenary then suggests how the activity could become even more inclusive, drawing on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (→ Diversity & Inclusion).
\nParticipants see HOW activities from other subjects, collect ideas that they can transfer to their own teaching, and practise applying the principles of inclusive teaching to concrete activities.
Allow about five minutes per team: two to three minutes for the presentation and two to three minutes for the feedback on inclusion.