1. Introduce the activity by explaining that learners will practice searching for reliable information online.

2. Show examples of trusted sources (e.g., research institutions).

Model one search together with the class (e.g., “Norwegian fish stocks 2023”).

3. Divide learners into pairs and give them time to search for information about fish stocks.

4. Remind them to check whether the source is reliable and to note both the numbers/statistics and the source.

5. After the pair work, let each pair briefly share one fact with the class.

1. The teacher introduces the activity by explaining that learners will practice finding and evaluating reliable information online.

2. The teacher shows examples of trusted sources, such as research institutions, and demonstrates a search process using a topic like “Norwegian fish stocks 2023”.

3. Learners work in pairs to search for scientific or statistical information about Norwegian fish stocks.

4. Learners identify one relevant fact, write it down together with the source, and discuss whether the information is reliable.

5. Each pair shares one finding with the class.

Present briefly the two perspectives: scientific (overfishing threatens fish stocks) and social (fishing provides jobs and culture).

Organize learners in small groups and ask them to identify one advantage and one disadvantage of limiting fishing.

Guide the discussion and encourage learners to use both scientific and social arguments in their statements.

1. The teacher introduces the activity by explaining that learners will discuss scientific and social arguments for and against limiting fishing in Norway. The goal is to practice evaluating different perspectives, considering trade-offs, and forming an informed opinion.

2. The teacher presents two perspectives to the class:

Scientific perspective: Overfishing threatens fish populations and marine ecosystems.

Social perspective: Fishing provides jobs, income, and is an important part of Norwegian culture.

3. Learners work in small groups of three to four people. Each group discusses and writes down one advantage and one disadvantage of limiting fishing.

4. Each student writes a short statement beginning with: “I think Norway should/should not limit fishing more because…” The statement must include one scientific argument and one social argument.

5. The activity ends with a short plenary discussion. Learners discuss which arguments were most convincing and how scientific and social knowledge can be balanced when making decisions.

1. The teacher introduces an Instagram post with an emotional message about sustainable fishing: “3 billion people depend on the ocean for protein. That’s why we have to fish sustainably.”

2. Learners watch and analyze the post. During viewing, they identify emotionally charged words and discuss how these words influence the audience’s feelings and opinions.

3. The learners discuss questions introduced by the teacher in a plenary discussion, such as: How does the figure “3 billion” influence your perception? Does the moral message “we have to…” feel persuasive? Why?

How does this compare to fact-only statements, such as statistics about overfishing? Which type of message makes you feel more concerned?

4. Learners work in groups to compare emotional and factual communication styles. They analyze differences in:

Emotional vs. factual tone; Use of statistics or moral appeals; How responsibility is presented (for example, “we must act” compared to “here are the data”)

5. Learners find and analyze a social media post or campaign about sustainable oceans, fishing, or quotas from Norway (for example, from an NGO or government organization).

6. Learners find a similar post or campaign from their home country, such as from a government, NGO, or news organization.

7. In groups they compare the two examples and discuss how different countries use emotions, facts, and messages of responsibility to communicate about overfishing and marine protection.