Facilitator Guides

Step-by-step guides for every session of the Clean Energy Café programme. Select a guide to read it online or download it as PDF.

Language / Idioma / Limbă:
Complete programme
Complete Course Facilitator Guide
5 days · 30 h Programme overview · methodology · all sessions · evaluation
Ready
Module 1 — Introduction to Disinformation
Day 1 · Block 1 — Welcome, baseline assessment & introduction
1 h 30 min Full group + individual Theory · pre-test
Ready
Day 1 · Block 2 — Team formation & narrative mapping
2 h 15 min Teams of 4–5 Workshop · visual output
Ready
Day 1 · Block 3 — Scenario 1: Disinformation Investigators (Malta)
~2 h Up to 32 participants VR scenario · secret role-play
Ready
Module 2 — Clean Energy Sources
Day 2 · Block 1 — Clean energy fundamentals & energy mix analysis
1 h 30 min Full group + teams Lecture · interactive data analysis
Ready
Day 2 · Block 2 — Fact-checking methodology & building a fact-checking sheet
2 h 15 min Teams of 4–5 Workshop · verification · group output
Ready
Day 2 · Block 3 — Scenario 2: Hydropower Disinformation (Romania)
~2 h Teams of 4 (fixed roles) AR gymkhana · 4 stations · QR codes
Ready
Module 3 — Narratives & Modus Operandi
Day 3 · Block 1 — Disinformation drivers & the Spain blackout case study
1 h 30 min Full group + teams Recap · lecture · case study
Ready
Day 3 · Block 2 — Debunking on social media & creating a debunking thread
2 h 15 min Teams of 4–5 Theory · creative workshop · peer review
Ready
Day 3 · Block 3 — Scenario 3: Fact-Checking & Countering Disinformation
2 h Groups of 3–5 Integrative case study · group presentations
Ready
Module 4 — Science Communication
Day 4 · Block 1 — Science communication & counter-narrative strategies
1 h 30 min Plenary Day opening · lecture · interactive session
Ready
Day 4 · Block 2 — Storytelling & counter-narrative comic (Pixton)
2 h 15 min Groups of 3–5 Interactive lecture · comic production workshop
Ready
Day 4 · Block 3 — Scenario 4: Energy Stories (Fiction as Counter-narrative)
2 h Groups of 3–5 Geolocated scenario · ArcGIS QuickCapture · StoryMap
Ready
Module 5 — Practical Applications
Day 5 — Campaign presentations, post-test & programme close
Full day Plenary + groups Campaign prep · pitch presentations · post-test · closing
Ready
Facilitator Guide · Ref. 2024-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000245038
Complete Programme 5 Days · 30 Hours

Complete Course Facilitator Guide

Clean Energy Cafés — POWER Project · Ref. 2024-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000245038

Programme overview

The Clean Energy Cafés are immersive, five-day in-person events designed for students (BA, MA, PhD) and academic staff to explore the critical intersection of clean energy and disinformation. The programme combines theoretical briefings with learning-by-doing activities, culminating in integrated group campaign presentations.

Each day follows the same structure: a morning Block 1 (lecture/briefing), a mid-morning Block 2 (applied workshop) and an afternoon Block 3 (experiential scenario). The three blocks build on each other within each day and across the five days, forming a coherent progressive arc: identify → verify → analyse → counter → communicate.

Daily schedule
Block 19:00–10:30 · 1 h 30 min · Lectures & briefings
Coffee break10:30–10:45 · 15 min
Block 210:45–13:00 · 2 h 15 min · Workshops & group work
Lunch break13:00–14:15 · 1 h 15 min
Block 314:15–16:30 · 2 h 15 min · Experiential scenarios
Total6 h/day × 5 days = 30 hours effective learning

Note: Day 5 ends at 13:30 — Block 3 is not held on the final day. Presentations and closing ceremony take place within Block 2 (12:00–13:30).

Five-day arc — sessions at a glance
Day / ThemeBlock 1 (9:00–10:30)Block 2 (10:45–13:00)Block 3 (14:15–16:30)
Day 1
Understanding Disinformation		 Welcome · Pre-test · Foundations of Disinformation
OERs 111 · 112 · 113		 Team formation · Narrative Mapping workshop
OERs 121 · 122		 Scenario 1: Disinformation Investigators (Malta · VR)
OER 131
Day 2
Clean Energy Solutions		 Recap · Clean Energy Technologies · Energy Mix Analysis
OERs 211 · 212		 Fact-checking methodology · Fact-checking Sheet workshop
OERs 221 · 222		 Scenario 2: Hydropower Disinformation (Romania · AR gymkhana)
OER 231
Day 3
Narratives & Modus Operandi		 Recap · Disinformation Drivers · Spain Blackout case study
OERs 311 · 312		 Effective Debunking · Debunking Thread workshop
OERs 321 · 322		 Scenario 3: Spot, Check & Counter — Disinformation in the Wild
OER 331
Day 4
Science Communication		 Recap · Science Communication Principles · Counter-narrative Strategies
OERs 411 · 412		 Storytelling lecture · Counter-narrative Comic workshop (Pixton)
OERs 421 · 422		 Scenario 4: Energy Stories — Fiction as Counter-narrative (ArcGIS)
OER 431
Day 5
Practical Applications		 Campaign preparation briefing · Integrated Campaign Development workshop
OER 511		 Final preparation · Rehearsal · Campaign Pitch Presentations (12:00–13:30) · Post-test · Closing
OER 521		 — No Block 3 —
Programme ends 13:30
Progressive group project — deliverables

Groups of 3–5 participants (same composition across all five days) build an integrated counter-narrative campaign step by step. Each day produces one deliverable that feeds the next:

D1Narrative MapVisual identification and classification of a clean-energy disinformation narrative (themes, emotional triggers, target audiences, spread mechanisms).
D2Fact-checking SheetClaim verification with sources and debunking arguments. Provides the factual anchors used throughout the rest of the campaign.
D3Social Media Thread5–7 post debunking campaign designed for social networks, applying the truth sandwich and the verified facts from Day 2.
D4Counter-narrative Comic6–8 panel comic produced in Pixton, integrating at least one verified fact into an engaging visual counter-narrative story.
D5Integrated Campaign Pitch10-minute presentation combining all four previous deliverables into a complete, evidence-based communication strategy with action plan and M&E framework.
Four experiential scenarios
Scenario 1 · Day 1 · Malta (VR)

Disinformation Investigators: participants analyse real clean-energy disinformation in an immersive virtual environment with personalised avatars and assigned character archetypes. OER 131.

Scenario 2 · Day 2 · Romania (AR)

Hydropower Disinformation: groups investigate a hydropower disinformation case via an augmented reality gymkhana, verifying claims in the field and comparing evidence across countries. OER 231.

Scenario 3 · Day 3 · All countries

Spot, Check & Counter: groups choose a real disinformation narrative, find examples online, verify them using the Fact-Checking Launchpad and design counter-messages. The chosen narrative seeds Day 4. OER 331.

Scenario 4 · Day 4 · Spain (ArcGIS)

Energy Stories: participants become scriptwriters, exploring real locations with ArcGIS QuickCapture and embedding the truth sandwich as a subplot in geolocated fictional scenes assembled into a collective StoryMap. OER 431.

Pedagogical approach
Learning by doing

Every concept introduced in Block 1 is immediately applied in Block 2 (workshop with a tangible deliverable) and then taken further in Block 3 (experiential scenario). Theory never exists without practice.

Progressive arc

The five-day sequence mirrors a real counter-narrative workflow: identify (D1) → verify (D2) → analyse & counter (D3) → communicate creatively (D4) → campaign & pitch (D5).

Stable groups

Groups of 3–5 remain the same across all five days. This builds team cohesion, ensures continuity between deliverables and makes the final campaign a genuine collective product.

Pre/post measurement

Day 1 opens with a pre-test (OER 112) and Day 5 closes with a post-test (OER 521). The paired comparison measures learning outcomes and feeds the project's impact evaluation.

Activity types distribution
Lectures / Briefings6 h · Block 1 (Days 1–5)
Interactive Sessions3 h · Block 1 (Days 2–4)
Workshops (group work)11 h · Block 2 (Days 1–5)
Experiential Scenarios8 h · Block 3 (Days 1–4)
Presentations1.5 h · Day 5 Block 2
Evaluation (pre/post-test)1 h · Days 1 & 5

Total: 30 hours effective learning time

General facilitation principles
Block transitions are critical

Each block must land its deliverable before the break. If Block 2 overruns, Block 3 suffers. Build a 5-minute buffer before each break for logistics (saving files, regrouping, instructions).

Explicitly connect the days

Open every day with a recap that names what the group produced the day before and how it feeds today. Participants need to see the thread across sessions, not just do isolated activities.

Technology check before each scenario

Scenarios in Blocks 3 use VR (Day 1), AR (Day 2), web tools (Day 3) and ArcGIS (Day 4). Each requires prep: accounts, QR codes, app installation. Test all tools the day before, not during the session.

Protect group continuity

Do not reassign participants between groups mid-programme. The progressive deliverable only makes sense if the same team built every piece. If someone drops out, redistribute their work rather than reassigning the whole group.

Assessment & closing
  • Pre-test (Day 1, OER 112): diagnostic baseline on clean energy knowledge and disinformation literacy.
  • Daily deliverables (Days 1–4): formative outputs assessed for quality during group showcase/debrief.
  • Integrated campaign pitch (Day 5): summative group presentation evaluated on evidence quality, creativity, feasibility and teamwork.
  • Post-test (Day 5, OER 521): paired with pre-test to measure learning gain per participant.
  • Peer vote (Day 5): best campaign chosen by participants using the evaluation criteria.
  • Certificate of participation + Clean Energy Disinformation Analyst badge distributed at closing ceremony.
All OERs — quick reference
CodeTitleTypeDay · Block
111Welcome & POWER Project IntroductionLectureD1 B1
112Pre-test AssessmentAssessmentD1 B1
113Foundations of DisinformationLectureD1 B1
121Team Formation & Project IntroductionWorkshopD1 B2
122Narrative MappingWorkshopD1 B2
131Scenario 1: Disinformation Investigators — Malta (VR)ScenarioD1 B3
211Clean Energy TechnologiesLectureD2 B1
212Interactive: Energy Mix AnalysisLectureD2 B1
221Fact-checking MethodologyWorkshopD2 B2
222Building a Fact-checking SheetWorkshopD2 B2
231Scenario 2: Hydropower Disinformation — Romania (AR)ScenarioD2 B3
311Disinformation Drivers & Modus OperandiLectureD3 B1
312Case Study: The Spain Blackout (April 2025)LectureD3 B1
321Effective Debunking on Social MediaWorkshopD3 B2
322Creating a Debunking ThreadWorkshopD3 B2
331Scenario 3: Spot, Check & CounterScenarioD3 B3
411Principles of Science CommunicationLectureD4 B1
412Counter-narrative StrategiesLectureD4 B1
421Storytelling for Counter-narrativesWorkshopD4 B2
422Counter-narrative Comic in PixtonWorkshopD4 B2
431Scenario 4: Energy Stories (ArcGIS)ScenarioD4 B3
511Campaign Preparation & Integrated DevelopmentWorkshopD5 B1
521Final Campaign Presentations & Post-testWorkshopD5 B2

Full course: yourls.ciberimaginario.es/powercourse

Module 1 Block 1 Opening session
Facilitator Guide
Welcome, baseline assessment and introduction to disinformation
At a glance
Duration
1 h 30 min · 09:00–10:30
Grouping
Full group for welcome and theory · Individual for pre-test
Format
Presentation · Diagnostic assessment · Participatory theory session
Tools needed
Online pre-test · Mentimeter (or similar) · Projector · Participant devices
Deliverable
No group deliverable · Pre-test recorded as baseline for Day 5 post-test
Session context

This session is the entry point to the Clean Energy Café programme — five-day face-to-face training events for students and academic staff exploring the intersection of clean energy and disinformation. The programme follows a learning-by-doing methodology: each day combines a morning theory session (Block 1), an applied workshop (Block 2) and an experiential afternoon scenario (Block 3).

This first block serves three essential functions: building a learning community, establishing a knowledge baseline through the pre-test, and providing the conceptual framework on disinformation that underpins the whole week. The quality of this opening largely determines group cohesion and participants' readiness for the collaborative work ahead.

Session objective

By the end of this block, participants will have integrated into a learning community, understood the POWER project objectives and the course methodology, completed the baseline pre-test, and acquired the foundational conceptual framework on disinformation — distinguishing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation — and its impact on the energy transition.

Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
1 · Welcome and introduction to the POWER programme (09:00–09:30)
09:00–09:30
Welcome
Introduce themselves (name, institution, profile, expectations) and learn about the project and the five-day structure.Welcome the group. Present POWER and the methodology. Run the icebreaker to build cohesion.
2 · Baseline assessment — Pre-test (09:30–10:00)
09:30–10:00
Pre-test
Complete the online questionnaire individually (knowledge on energy and disinformation, attitudes and perceptions).Clarify that it does not grade — it measures the starting point. Ensure everyone completes it.
3 · Foundations of disinformation (10:00–10:30)
10:00–10:20
Concepts
Learn the three key concepts with examples and explore the information ecosystem and its social and environmental impacts.Explain misinformation / disinformation / malinformation with energy examples. Connect to the energy transition.
10:20–10:30
Experiences
Share personal experiences with disinformation through a quick interactive poll.Launch the poll. Connect responses to the theory and close with the key ideas from the block.
Before you start
  • Set up the room and check projector, sound and internet connection.
  • Have the pre-test questionnaire ready and tested — verify it records individual responses.
  • Prepare the closing interactive poll with the personal experience questions.
  • Review the POWER project presentation and the five-day structure.
  • Have concrete energy examples ready to illustrate the three concepts.
  • Confirm participants have a connected device for the pre-test and the poll.
Key facilitation tips
The opening sets the tone for the week
Give the icebreaker real time. The cohesion you build here sustains the group work in the days ahead.
The pre-test does not grade — it measures
Say this clearly to reduce anxiety. Encourage honest answers, not right ones.
Anchor concepts in energy examples
The distinction between the three terms lands best with real cases — e.g. a real wind figure taken out of context = malinformation.
False narratives spread through emotion
Emphasise the role of fear, outrage and uncertainty. This is the thread that connects the entire course.
Validate the group's own experiences
The closing poll shows disinformation is everyday. Use their responses to bridge into the rest of the programme.
Watch the clock: three parts in 90 minutes
If introductions run long, trim there — not the pre-test or the foundations.
Expected outcomes
  • Participants know the POWER project objectives and the Clean Energy Café methodology.
  • Every participant has completed the pre-test, recorded as the baseline for the Day 5 post-test.
  • Participants can clearly distinguish misinformation, disinformation and malinformation.
  • Participants understand how disinformation circulates in the digital ecosystem and its impact on the energy transition.
  • Participants feel part of a learning community, ready for the collaborative work ahead.
Frequently asked questions
No. It is a diagnostic assessment to establish the baseline. Its value lies in comparing it with the Day 5 post-test. Make this clear so participants answer honestly.
Integrate them naturally in the next part and give them a brief version of POWER and the course structure at the first break. Do not stop the block — timing is tight.
Use one energy example for each and emphasise intent and truthfulness: misinformation (false, no intent to harm), disinformation (false and deliberate), malinformation (true but taken out of context to cause harm).
That is expected — and the pre-test will reflect it. Start from accessible everyday examples. Diversity of backgrounds is a resource that will emerge in group work.
Have a backup plan ready — questionnaire on another device or on paper to transcribe later. The key is not to lose any participant's baseline record.
Module 1 Block 2 Applied workshop
Facilitator Guide
Team formation and narrative mapping
At a glance
Duration
2 h 15 min · 10:45–13:00
Grouping
Teams of 4–5 participants (formed in this session, mixed profiles)
Format
Practical collaborative workshop · Learning-by-doing · Visual output
Tools needed
Real disinformation examples · Narrative Map template · Mural / flipchart or collaborative digital tool
Deliverable
One visual Narrative Map per team — the architecture of a real disinformation narrative across its 7 components
Session context

This session is the first practical, collaborative workshop of the course. Following the introduction to disinformation in the opening block, participants now begin working as analysis teams, applying concepts to real cases. This is where the teams that will accompany each participant for the full five days are formed, and where they produce the first deliverable of the progressive project: a Narrative Map that deconstructs the architecture of a disinformation narrative.

Session objective

Teams learn to identify, deconstruct and visualise a disinformation narrative on climate and energy — understanding it as a narrative, social and psychological phenomenon — and produce a Narrative Map that will serve as the foundation for the counter-narrative and communication activities in the days ahead.

Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
10:45–11:15
1 · Teams
Organise into heterogeneous teams, learn about the progressive project, deliverables, roles and evaluation criteria.Form diverse groups. Present the 5-day project. Assign roles and clarify the final presentation format.
11:15–11:30
2 · Framework
Learn the Narrative Mapping methodology and the disinformation drivers (social, platform, psychological, narrative).Explain the key idea: disinformation spreads through narrative and emotion, not just falsehood. Present the drivers.
11:30–12:30
3 · Analyse
Analyse a real disinformation example on climate/energy as a team and deconstruct its narrative.Assign / validate each team's example. Circulate and guide analysis with questions, not answers.
12:30–12:50
4 · Map
Build the visual Narrative Map identifying the 7 components of their narrative.Ensure the map covers all 7 components and is visual — not running text.
12:50–13:00
5 · Share
Each team briefly presents their map; the rest observe common patterns across narratives.Facilitate the debrief. Highlight recurring patterns that connect to the days ahead.
The 7 components of the Narrative Map
Each team's map must identify these seven elements. Keep them visible throughout the workshop.
1
Claims
What the narrative asserts.
2
Emotional triggers
Which emotions it activates — fear, anger, injustice, doubt…
3
Target audience
Who it is trying to persuade.
4
Narrative structure
How the story is built — citizens vs. elites, conspiracy, common sense…
5
Social drivers
Which social needs it exploits — belonging, identity, validation.
6
Cognitive hooks
Which biases or shortcuts it uses — repetition, familiarity, anchoring…
7
Source credibility
Why the audience perceives it as reliable — influencers, fake experts, testimonials.
Before you start
  • Decide team composition in advance to ensure diversity of profiles.
  • Prepare real disinformation examples on climate and energy — ideally one different example per team.
  • Have the Narrative Map template and the support ready (mural / flipchart or collaborative digital tool).
  • Review the 7 components and the 4 driver types so you can guide without giving away the answers.
  • Have the progressive project structure clear: daily deliverables, roles, criteria and final presentation.
Key facilitation tips
Heterogeneity is the team's engine
Mix profiles, disciplines and backgrounds. Different perspectives enrich the analysis and mirror real-world situations.
Beyond true / false
Analysing a narrative is not verifying it — it is understanding what story it tells, what emotion it activates and why it seems credible.
Emotion and identity outweigh data
This is the central idea of the block. Highlight the role of anger as the main driver of virality.
Guide with questions, not answers
Ask "Who is this aimed at?" or "What emotion does it seek?" rather than pointing out the components yourself.
The map is visual, not a text
It must be readable at a glance. If a team fills the support with paragraphs, redirect them toward a scheme with connections.
Connect to what comes next
Understanding how a narrative is built is the first step to countering it. This map feeds the activities in the days ahead.
Expected outcomes
  • A formed, operational team with roles assigned and the progressive project understood.
  • A visual Narrative Map that deconstructs a real climate/energy disinformation narrative.
  • All 7 components identified: claims, emotions, audience, structure, social drivers, cognitive hooks and source credibility.
  • An analysis base ready to feed the counter-narrative and science communication activities ahead.
Frequently asked questions
Combine academic, professional, cultural and disciplinary profiles. You can prepare them in advance using the registration list, or form them on the spot by deliberately mixing people who do not know each other or come from different fields.
Verification answers "Is it true or false?" Narrative analysis answers "Why does it work?" — what story it tells, to whom, with what emotion and with what credibility mechanisms.
Ideally yes — the debrief is richer when it shows a variety of narratives and patterns. If an example is repeated, ask teams to compare their approaches at the close.
It is normal for some components to be weaker or absent. What matters is that teams reason through why. A well-justified "empty" component is also valid analysis.
Either works. The key is that it is visual and readable at a glance. If done on paper, photograph it to keep it as a deliverable for the progressive project.
Module 1 Block 3 Immersive scenario
Facilitator Guide
OER 1.3.1 · Electric vehicles and clean energy: identify and counter disinformation — "Dr. Nikola's Lab" (Malta)
At a glance
Duration
~2 hours
Participants
Up to ~32 · individual investigation + full-group role-play and debrief
Format
Immersive VR scenario (FrameVR) · secret role-play · guided debrief
Tools needed
Genially presentation · FrameVR space (Neo Office template) · role cards or digital draw · headphones
Deliverable
Questions completed in Genially + group debrief identifying the three narratives, their techniques and the overall frame
Modality
Face-to-face or online (both supported)
Session context

This OER is an experiential, immersive scenario from the POWER course on clean energy disinformation. It can be used as a standalone open educational resource or as the afternoon experiential block of a Clean Energy Café. The methodology is learning-by-doing: instead of being told what disinformation looks like, participants enter an investigation and discover it for themselves.

Participants take on the role of government-recruited disinformation investigators. Dr. Nikola's team had uncovered three coordinated EV disinformation narratives in Malta — and then disappeared. Participants enter the virtual lab (in FrameVR) to recover the evidence, distinguish truth from manipulation and defuse the campaign.

Session objective

Participants learn to identify and classify common disinformation narratives about electric vehicles, analyse the persuasion techniques behind them, evaluate claims against verified official data, and recognise how their own attitudes — amplifying, doubting, believing, verifying — help spread or counter disinformation.

Session schedule
TimeStepParticipants doFacilitator does
0:00–0:15
1 · Enter the story
Complete the pre-test; watch the intro and narrative video; read the learning objectives.Launch the Genially. Set the investigation tone. Ensure the video plays with sound.
0:15–0:30
2 · Role & avatar
Draw a secret role; review how that profile thinks and acts; create a FrameVR avatar consistent with it.Run the role draw (cards or digital). Stress that the role is secret. Help with avatar creation and entry.
0:30–1:05
3 · Investigate
Explore the lab: read panels, watch videos, talk to the robots (one reliable, one lying per room) and other players in role.Circulate (or move avatar). Keep people moving between rooms. Guide with questions — never confirm which robot is lying.
1:05–1:25
4 · Report
Leave FrameVR; answer the narrative questions in Genially.Gather everyone. Ensure questions are completed. Note common errors for the debrief.
1:25–1:45
5 · Debrief
Discuss the narratives, techniques and overall frame. Reveal who played each role.Lead the guided debrief (see below). Always close each false claim with the verified fact.

Timings are indicative. If time is tight, prioritise the debrief (Step 5) — it is where most of the learning consolidates.

The three narratives at a glance
Each room of the lab hosts one narrative. Know them well so you can guide without giving away the answers.
1
The Ferry Trap
EV batteries are uniquely dangerous and will catch fire on the Gozo ferry. Reality: EVs catch fire far less often than petrol vehicles, though the fire is harder to extinguish.
2
The Thirst Conspiracy (hydrogen)
EVs are as dirty as petrol cars because Malta imports electricity, and hydrogen is the "real" solution. Reality: lifecycle emissions are far lower; hydrogen wastes most of its energy and has no infrastructure in Malta.
3
The Dead Battery Scenario (range)
Range and charging make EVs unworkable for daily life. Reality: Malta is 27 km across; EVs do 200–450 km; fast charging adds 100–200 km in 20–40 min. Charger rollout delays are a legitimate criticism — not proof the cars don't work.
Overall frame connecting all three: the Government pushes EVs only to enrich dealers, even though the cars are supposedly dangerous, dirty and useless. Surfacing this frame is the goal of the debrief.
The five secret roles
Each participant draws a role and plays it when interacting with others. Roles are not revealed — they are guessed. The goal is to experience how each profile spreads or slows disinformation.
🔊 The Amplifier
Shares the impactful without verifying. Speaks in headlines and with urgency.
🤔 The Sceptic
Distrusts all official data — even reliable sources. Questions everything institutionally.
😟 The Believer
Genuinely afraid. The honest audience the false narrative exploits.
🔍 The Fact-Checker
Asks for the source, cross-references with the panels, names the technique.
👁 The Bystander
Observes in silence until the evidence forces a decision.
Before you start
  • Test the FrameVR space yourself with a guest avatar: walk the full route, open every panel, play every video and talk to all six robots.
  • Decide the role draw method: physical cards in a bag (face-to-face) or digital draw via link/QR (online or face-to-face). Have it ready before the session.
  • Check the narrative video plays with sound and subtitles; ask participants to use headphones.
  • Have the Genially open and questions ready; confirm the link/QR works on participants' devices.
  • Re-read the three narratives, the verified data and the six robot scripts so you can guide without revealing which robot is lying.
  • Online: share the FrameVR and Genially links in advance; set up a support channel (chat or video call); allow extra time for entry and avatar creation.
  • Face-to-face: ensure each participant has a device with a stable connection; physical role cards work well as an opening dynamic.
Key facilitation tips
Never confirm which robot is lying
The whole exercise is about participants cross-referencing robots with panels. If asked, send them back: "What do the verified data say?"
Keep people moving
With ~32 avatars, steer participants so rooms don't get saturated. Encourage visiting all three narratives.
Protect the role-play
Remind participants to stay in character. The goal is not to "win" the debate — it is to experience how each profile spreads or slows disinformation.
Guide with questions, not answers
Ask "Where does that data come from?", "Does the panel match the robot?", "What emotion is this going for?" — don't name the technique yourself.
Always close a false claim with the fact
When debunking, end with the verified data, not the doubt (truth sandwich). Never leave the false claim as the last thing said.
Separate legitimate concern from disinformation
Some points are real (battery fires are harder to extinguish; charger rollout is delayed). Validate genuine concern — then separate it from the manipulation built on top.
How to run the final debrief
The debrief is where learning consolidates. Cover three planes, then reveal the roles.
  • The narratives. What did all three have in common? What was the overall frame? What grain of truth did each one exploit?
  • The techniques. Which manipulation techniques did you recognise — emotional localisation, long exhaust pipe, misdirection, cherry-picking, false technical inevitability? Which was hardest to detect?
  • The attitudes. Which behaviours helped slow disinformation — and which spread it? Do you recognise any of these roles in real social media?
  • Who is who. Participants reveal their role. Did others guess correctly? What gave them away? How did playing that role change the way they handled information?
Expected outcomes
  • Participants identified the three disinformation narratives and the overall frame connecting them.
  • Participants distinguished the reliable robot from the lying one in each room by cross-referencing with verified data.
  • Participants named the main manipulation technique behind each narrative.
  • Participants completed the questions in Genially.
  • Participants reflected, through their secret role, on how attitudes and behaviours spread or slow disinformation.
Frequently asked questions
Both work. Physical cards work well as a face-to-face opening dynamic; a link/QR is simpler online. The essential thing is that the role stays secret.
Send them back to the panels and videos. The lying robot contradicts the verified data; the reliable one matches them. Cross-referencing is the exercise.
No. Inside the lab participants only gather information. They answer the questions in Genially after leaving — a single place for assessment.
The scenario works just as well individually. With small groups, have participants compare findings in the debrief. With very large groups, stagger entry so rooms don't get saturated.
That's fine — gently remind them, but don't force it. Even a half-played role generates useful material for the debrief on attitudes.
Yes. FrameVR and Genially both run in the browser. Set up a support channel and allow extra time for entry and avatar creation.
Module 2 Block 1 Theory + data session
Facilitator Guide
Clean energy fundamentals and energy mix analysis
At a glance
Duration
1 h 30 min · 09:00–10:30
Grouping
Full group for the lecture · previous day's teams for the recap and data analysis
Format
Plenary recap + lecture with visual data + interactive data-analysis session
Tools needed
OERs 211 and 212 · Eurostat and IRENA data · Projector · Participant devices
Deliverable
No formal deliverable · teams produce their conclusions from the comparative energy mix analysis
Session context

This is the first block of the second day. After analysing on Day 1 how disinformation works, the focus shifts to the object of that disinformation: energy systems, renewable energies and the associated technologies. The aim is not to train technical specialists, but to give participants enough grounding to later interpret narratives, debates and disinformation campaigns related to clean energy.

The block combines three parts: a collaborative recap of Day 1, a lecture on clean energy technologies, and an interactive data session in which teams compare real national energy mixes and discuss which technologies are most vulnerable to disinformation and why.

Session objective

Participants gain a solid grounding in the main clean energy technologies and their role in the energy transition, learn to interpret real national energy-mix data — distinguishing total energy from electricity — and understand why wind and solar are the main targets of disinformation, laying the technical basis for detecting false energy narratives in the blocks ahead.

About the two OERs
2.1.1 — Clean Energy Technologies
Lecture covering solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass, plus supporting technologies: smart grids, storage, EVs and green hydrogen. Connects to the SDGs and the European Green Deal. Use it as the main plenary input (09:15–10:00).
2.1.2 — Energy Mix Analysis
Interactive session with real Eurostat and IRENA data visualisations for Spain, Romania, Malta and Moldova — electricity generation mix by source (2024) and renewable share trend (2013–2024). Use it for the data analysis and debate (10:00–10:30).
Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
1 · Day opening and recap (09:00–09:15)
09:00–09:15
Recap
Review Day 1 learnings. Each group presents its Narrative Map (2 min).Run the recap. Give 2 min per group. Point out common patterns and bridge to energy.
2 · Lecture: Clean energy technologies (09:15–10:00)
09:15–10:00
Lecture
Learn about renewable sources, supporting technologies, EVs and green hydrogen, and their link to the SDGs and the Green Deal.Deliver OER 211 with visual data. Don't aim to train technicians — give the basis to read disinformation.
3 · Interactive session: energy mix analysis (10:00–10:30)
10:00–10:20
Data
Analyse and compare the energy mixes of Spain, Romania, Malta and Moldova with real data (OER 212).Guide the analysis. Stress the difference between total energy mix and electricity mix.
10:20–10:30
Debate
Discuss which technologies are most vulnerable to disinformation and why.Steer the debate towards wind and solar and the reasons: visibility, growth, intermittency, symbolism.
Before you start
  • Open OERs 211 and 212 and test the projector and sound.
  • Have the previous day's Narrative Maps to hand to speed up the recap.
  • Prepare the data visualisations for the four countries (Eurostat / IRENA).
  • Review the difference between total energy mix and electricity mix, and have examples ready to illustrate it.
  • Keep the 8 categories of anti-renewables narratives in mind to steer the final debate.
Key facilitation tips
The aim is not to train technicians
Enough grounding to interpret disinformation later is plenty. Don't get lost in engineering detail; prioritise functional understanding.
Total energy ≠ electricity
The most valuable distinction in the block. Many myths confuse the two — "renewables can't power a country" mixes total-system data with electricity-system data.
Data puts claims in context
Encourage critical reading of the charts — where the data comes from, what it measures, what it leaves out. This is the muscle they'll use all week.
Every country is different
Stress that the energy mix depends on geography, resources, infrastructure and history. There is no single "correct" model.
Close by connecting to disinformation
The final debate is the day's hinge. Lead teams to see why wind and solar attract the attacks.
Mind the time
The lecture tends to run long. If needed, trim the technical detail to protect the data session, which is the applied part.
Expected outcomes
  • Participants know the main clean energy technologies and their role in the transition.
  • Participants can distinguish between total energy mix and electricity mix.
  • Participants can interpret real energy-mix data and compare it across countries.
  • Participants understand why wind and solar are the main targets of disinformation.
  • Participants have the technical basis needed to detect false energy narratives in the following blocks.
Frequently asked questions
No. The goal is functional: to understand what each technology does, its advantages and its limits, in order to interpret the narratives later. It's not about training engineers.
Use an example: the electricity system is only part of all the energy a country uses (there's also transport, heating, industry). Many myths compare the renewable electricity share with the total energy figure to "prove" that renewables fall short.
From Eurostat and IRENA, which is what OER 212 uses. Have the visualisations prepared in advance and check that the figures are up to date.
Make the most of it — it's exactly the critical attitude you're after. Ask where their data comes from and compare sources. Telling a legitimate doubt apart from a disinformation narrative is part of the learning.
Because they are the most attacked technologies in Europe, due to their visibility, rapid growth, intermittency and political symbolism. It's the direct connection to the rest of the programme.
Time the 2 minutes per group firmly. If there are many teams, ask each to highlight just one pattern from its map, rather than describing the whole thing.
Module 2 Block 2 Applied workshop
Facilitator Guide
Fact-checking methodology and building a fact-checking sheet
At a glance
Duration
2 h 15 min · 10:45–13:00
Grouping
Teams of 4–5 (same groups as Day 1)
Format
Theory input → structured group workshop → team presentations
Tools needed
OERs 221 and 222 · Fact-checking Launchpad · Devices with internet access
Deliverable
One completed fact-checking sheet per team — claim, verdict, evidence, sources and debunking argument
Session context

This block puts into practice the analytical skills developed in Block 1. After understanding clean energy technologies and the energy mix data, teams now apply a professional fact-checking methodology to real clean energy claims — moving from passive analysis to active verification.

The session combines a theory input on fact-checking principles with a structured group workshop in which each team selects a claim, researches evidence, applies a verdict rating, and builds a debunking argument. The result is the second deliverable of the progressive project: a completed fact-checking sheet.

Session objective

Teams apply a structured fact-checking methodology to investigate real clean energy claims: identifying verifiable statements, locating reliable sources, collecting evidence, developing an evidence-based verdict, and building a debunking argument — documented in a fact-checking sheet ready to use in the counter-narrative activities ahead.

About the two OERs
2.2.1 — Fact-checking Methodology
Theory input on the 6-step fact-checking process: choose a statement, identify verifiable facts, assess what can and cannot be verified, examine assumptions, corroborate with reliable sources, publish transparently. Covers types of claims (easier / difficult / cannot be verified) and the 5 verdict ratings (True → False). Use for the opening theory phase.
2.2.2 — Building a Fact-checking Sheet
Structured workshop in which teams choose one of the provided clean energy claims, fill in the fact-checking structure for each stage of the process (40 min), and present their evaluation to the group. Includes an interactive drag-and-drop exercise to order the stages and a matching activity on verdict ratings. Use for the applied workshop phase.
Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
1 · Fact-checking methodology — theory input (10:45–11:15)
10:45–11:15
Theory
Learn the 6-step fact-checking process, the types of claims, and the 5 verdict ratings through OER 2.2.1.Deliver the theory input. Stress the distinction between verifiable claims, opinions and predictions. Introduce the verdict scale.
2 · Workshop: building the fact-checking sheet (11:15–12:30)
11:15–11:25
Choose claim
Each team selects one of the provided clean energy claims to investigate.Ensure different teams pick different claims for a varied debrief. Validate each team's choice.
11:25–12:05
Research
Research sources and evidence using the Fact-checking Launchpad and authoritative sources (Red Eléctrica, IEA, Eurostat). Fill in each stage of the fact-checking structure.Circulate. Guide with questions: "Is that a verifiable claim or an opinion?" "Where does that data come from?" Don't give verdicts — ask for sources.
12:05–12:30
Build sheet
Assign a verdict rating, write the debunking argument and document all sources in the fact-checking sheet.Check that each team has a verdict, evidence and a debunking argument — not just a summary. Prompt for the "why it's misleading" layer.
3 · Team presentations and debrief (12:30–13:00)
12:30–13:00
Present
Each team presents their claim, verdict and debunking argument (3–4 min). The rest of the group listens and asks questions.Facilitate the debrief. Note patterns across claims. Connect to the disinformation drivers from Day 1.
The 6-step fact-checking process
Keep these steps visible during the workshop — they are the structure teams follow to fill in their sheet.
1
Choose a statement to check
Select statements in the public interest that could cause harm if false.
2
Identify verifiable facts
Break down the statement and identify the parts that are factual and verifiable.
3
Assess what can and cannot be verified
Determine which elements are facts, opinions, predictions or not verifiable.
4
Examine assumptions behind claims
Identify underlying assumptions and evaluate whether they are justified and supported.
5
Corroborate with reliable sources
Compare facts with multiple credible, independent sources. Use at least two.
6
Publish findings transparently
Communicate the verdict, sources used and any uncertainties or limitations clearly.
Before you start
  • Open OERs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 and test that all interactive elements work (drag-and-drop, matching activity).
  • Prepare the list of clean energy claims for teams to choose from — ideally 1 per team, all different.
  • Have the Fact-checking Launchpad URL ready to share with participants.
  • Review the 5 verdict ratings (True / Mostly True / Half True / Mostly False / False) so you can guide teams to the right level of nuance.
  • Prepare a blank fact-checking sheet template (digital or paper) for each team.
Key facilitation tips
Verdict before debunking
Teams often jump to writing the debunking argument before they've settled on a verdict. Hold them to the order: evidence first, verdict second, argument third.
Opinion vs. verifiable claim
The most common mistake is trying to fact-check opinions or predictions. Redirect: "That's a value judgment — what's the verifiable claim underneath it?"
Source quality matters
Push teams beyond Google. The Fact-checking Launchpad, Red Eléctrica, IEA and Eurostat are the anchors. If a team's only source is a news article, ask what that article cites.
The "why it's misleading" layer
A good debunking argument doesn't just say "this is false" — it explains the mechanism: cherry-picking, context removed, outdated data. Push teams to name the technique.
Connect to Day 1 narrative maps
During the debrief, ask teams whether their claim connects to any of the narrative patterns they mapped on Day 1. The link is usually there.
Celebrate legitimate doubt
If a team assigns "Half True" or "Mostly True", that's good work — real claims are rarely black and white. Validate nuance.
Expected outcomes
  • Teams can apply the 6-step fact-checking process to a real clean energy claim.
  • Each team has a completed fact-checking sheet with claim, verdict, evidence, sources and debunking argument.
  • Teams can distinguish between verifiable claims, opinions and predictions.
  • Teams understand the 5 verdict ratings and can apply the right level of nuance.
  • The fact-checking sheet is ready to feed into the counter-narrative activities in Modules 3 and 4.
Frequently asked questions
Use claims from the POWER Disinformation Case Bank or select from the examples in OER 2.2.2. Good claims are specific, verifiable and connected to clean energy — not generic opinions. Aim for one different claim per team so the debrief covers a range.
Point them to the Fact-checking Launchpad first. If they're still stuck, the issue is usually the claim itself — it may be an opinion rather than a verifiable statement. Help them identify the underlying factual claim.
That's valuable — it shows the claim has genuine complexity. Ask the team to document both positions and the evidence for each, then choose the most defensible verdict. Real fact-checkers face this constantly.
Prioritise completing the verdict and one solid source over filling in every field. A partial sheet with a clear verdict and evidence is more useful than a complete sheet with weak sourcing.
After is more engaging — state the claim, walk through the evidence, then reveal the verdict. It mirrors how professional fact-checks are published and builds suspense in the debrief.
Module 2 Block 3 Experiential scenario
Facilitator Guide
OER 2.3.1 · Clean Energy Disinformation Campaign Analysis — "Unsustainable Lies" AR Gymkhana (Romania)
At a glance
Duration
~2 hours · 14:30–16:30
Grouping
Teams of 4 with fixed roles assigned before departure
Format
Augmented Reality gymkhana (Onirix) · 4 physical stations with QR codes · final video
Tools needed
Genially OER 2.3.1 · Onirix app (installed on team devices) · Google Maps · QR codes placed at stations
Deliverable
Short video recorded by each team summarising how they debunked the 4 narratives — the Final Revelation
Session context

This is the experiential scenario of Module 2 — "Unsustainable Lies." Participants become digital researchers on a crucial mission for Romania's energy future. A disinformation campaign has been discovered that exploits legitimate maintenance work on Romania's hydroelectric dams to contest the clean energy transition, question authorities' intentions and delegitimise governmental energy policies.

Teams navigate a physical space using clues, locate 4 hidden QR codes, activate Dr. Nikola's AR hologram at each station via Onirix, analyse 4 real disinformation frames identified by the POWER Romanian team, and ultimately produce a short video debunking the narratives — the Final Revelation. The gymkhana format combines physical movement, AR technology, fact-checking practice and collaborative storytelling.

Session objective

Teams apply the fact-checking methodology from Block 2 to real hydropower disinformation narratives in the Romanian context, practise source verification embedded in an AR experience, develop evidence-based counter-arguments at each station, and produce a short debunking video that integrates all four findings.

Session schedule
TimeStepTeams doFacilitator does
14:30–14:45
Briefing
Read the mission intro in Genially. Assign team roles. Install Onirix if needed. Receive starting point coordinates.Launch the Genially. Set the mission tone. Confirm Onirix is working on all devices. Explain the Final Revelation mechanic.
14:45–15:00
Depart
Navigate to the starting point (Puerta de la Plaza Redonda). Assign roles before leaving.Release teams with a short gap between them to avoid crowding at Station 1. Be reachable by message.
15:00–16:00
4 stations
At each station: find the hidden QR → scan with Onirix → activate Dr. Nikola's hologram → analyse the disinformation claim → answer the Decoder's questionnaire → note evidence for the final video.Monitor progress remotely. Respond to stuck teams with hints, not answers. Do not reveal QR locations — guide with progressively more specific clues.
16:00–16:20
Final Revelation
Having completed all 4 stations, unlock the Final Revelation. Film a short video summarising how the 4 narratives were debunked.Ensure all teams reach the Final Revelation. Be present or available for the video recording step.
16:20–16:30
Debrief
Return to base. Share videos. Discuss patterns across the 4 narratives.Facilitate the debrief. Connect the 4 hydropower frames to the POWER disinformation drivers.
The four team roles
Each team member keeps their role for the entire activity. Assign roles before teams leave the briefing room.
🔎 Decoder
Holds the questionnaire. Leads the answering process at each station. Analyses the disinformation claim and coordinates the team's response.
📡 AR Explorer
Operates the Onirix app. Uses it to locate and activate Dr. Nikola's hologram at each station via the QR code.
📝 Fact-Checker
Takes notes throughout the mission and prepares the final video. Summarises key evidence and organises findings for narration.
🧭 Navigator
Uses Google Maps to guide the team between locations. Follows the clues to find each hidden station.
The 4-step mechanic at each station
1
Navigate to the hidden location
Use clues and Google Maps to find the station within the venue.
2
Scan QR for the evidence dossier
Locate the hidden QR code. Scan it to access Dr. Nikola's files for that narrative.
3
Analyse claims and verified facts
Investigate the disinformation claim and gather data to counter it.
4
Listen and deactivate the narrative
Record Dr. Nikola's message and answer questions to stop the disinformation. Complete all four stations to unlock the Final Revelation.
Final Revelation: When all 4 stations are complete, teams unlock the Final Revelation and film a short video summarising how they debunked the narratives. This is the progressive project deliverable for Day 2.
Before you start
  • Place the 4 QR codes at their hidden stations well before the session. Test each one with Onirix to confirm the hologram activates correctly.
  • Ensure all team devices have Onirix installed and updated. Test in the venue — AR requires adequate lighting and camera access.
  • Have the Genially OER open and ready to launch at briefing time.
  • Know the location of all 4 stations yourself so you can provide progressively specific hints without revealing the answer.
  • Brief the 4 roles clearly before teams depart — role confusion in the field wastes time.
  • Set a messaging channel (WhatsApp group or similar) so teams can reach you when stuck.
  • Prepare the debrief: know the 4 disinformation frames and which POWER drivers they connect to.
Key facilitation tips
Stagger team departures
Release teams 2–3 minutes apart to avoid crowding at Station 1. Teams do not need to follow the same order.
Hints, not answers
When teams are stuck finding a station, give progressively specific clues. Never reveal the QR location outright — the search is part of the learning.
Onirix lighting issues
AR works poorly in very bright direct sunlight or very dark areas. If a station is problematic, have a fallback: the dossier content accessible directly in Genially.
The Fact-Checker is the key role
The quality of the final video depends on the notes taken at each station. Remind the Fact-Checker to note the claim, the verified fact and the manipulation technique at every stop.
Connect to the fact-checking sheet
At the debrief, ask teams how the narratives they found in the field compare to the claim they verified in Block 2. The connection is usually direct.
The video is a deliverable, not optional
The Final Revelation video is the progressive project deliverable for Day 2. Ensure every team records it before the debrief — it feeds into the campaign development on Day 5.
Expected outcomes
  • Teams identified and deactivated 4 real disinformation frames from the Romanian hydropower context.
  • Teams applied the fact-checking methodology to energy claims in a real-world, physical setting.
  • Teams identified technical misinformation about hydropower and developed evidence-based counter-arguments.
  • Each team produced a short Final Revelation video summarising their debunking — the Day 2 deliverable for the progressive project.
Frequently asked questions
Have a fallback ready: the dossier content (Dr. Nikola's files) should also be accessible directly through the Genially. The AR layer enhances the experience but the content must be reachable without it.
Start with the clue in Genially, then offer progressively more specific hints by message. If they're genuinely stuck after two hints, you can guide them to within 20 metres and let them find the QR themselves.
No — teams can visit the four stations in any order. This also helps avoid crowding. The Final Revelation only unlocks when all four are complete.
2–3 minutes maximum. It should cover: the overall disinformation frame, one specific claim per station (4 total), the verified fact, and the manipulation technique. The Fact-Checker's notes from the stations are the script.
Ask them to go back and deepen one station — find a second source, refine the debunking argument, or improve the video. There is always more evidence to gather.
Module 3 Block 1 Theory + case study
Facilitator Guide
Disinformation drivers, modus operandi and the Spain blackout case study
At a glance
Duration
1 h 30 min · 09:00–10:30
Grouping
Full group for the lecture and case study · previous day's teams for the recap
Format
Plenary recap → lecture with POWER research examples → interactive case study with real data
Tools needed
OERs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 · Projector · Participant devices
Deliverable
No formal deliverable · evidence base built for the workshop and scenario that follow
Session context

This block opens Module 3 — the pivot from understanding clean energy and fact-checking to understanding the disinformation landscape itself. After two days analysing individual claims, participants now zoom out to see the system: who produces disinformation, how it operates, what mechanisms drive its spread, and how it exploits real events to attack the energy transition.

The block combines the 8 disinformation drivers from POWER's research with a live case study — the Spain blackout of 28 April 2025 — that illustrates all the drivers in action. It serves as the evidence base for the workshop and scenario that follow, where participants will build debunking threads and counter-narratives using these very narratives.

Session objective

Participants understand the 8 main disinformation drivers identified in POWER's research, how campaigns operate on social media through amplification mechanisms and bot networks, and how a real event — the Spain blackout — was weaponised within hours into anti-renewable narratives. By the end, each participant has the evidence base needed to build a counter-narrative in Block 2.

About the two OERs
3.1.1 — Disinformation Drivers & Modus Operandi
Lecture on the 4 driver categories (political/geopolitical, psychological/cognitive, structural/platform, economic) and the tactics, techniques and procedures used by state and non-state actors. Includes AI-generated deepfakes, LLM-powered bots and the EU's regulatory responses. Use for the main lecture (09:15–10:00).
3.1.2 — Case Study: The Spain Blackout
Real-time case analysis of the 28 April 2025 blackout — how a genuine technical incident was reframed within hours into disinformation against the energy transition, using POWER's own social media data. Covers 4 main blackout narratives, the drivers behind each, and the verified facts. Use for the case study (10:00–10:30).
Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
1 · Day opening and recap (09:00–09:15)
09:00–09:15
Recap
Each group shares one verified claim from the Day 2 fact-checking sheet (1 min each).Run the recap. Time groups firmly at 1 min. Note common patterns and bridge to the drivers: "Why does this claim keep appearing?"
2 · Lecture: Disinformation drivers & modus operandi (09:15–10:00)
09:15–10:00
Lecture
Learn the 8 POWER disinformation drivers, the 4 driver categories and how campaigns operate through social media amplification, bot networks and AI tools.Deliver OER 3.1.1. Connect each driver to examples participants have already seen in their own analysis. Ask "which driver did you see in your Day 2 claim?"
3 · Case study: The Spain Blackout (10:00–10:30)
10:00–10:20
Case study
Analyse how the Spain blackout generated a wave of anti-renewable disinformation using POWER's social media data. Identify the 4 main narratives and the drivers behind each.Present OER 3.1.2 interactively. Ask participants to identify drivers before revealing them. Contrast narratives with verified facts.
10:20–10:30
Bridge
Discussion: which of these narratives are most challenging to counter, and why? What would a good counter-narrative look like?Steer discussion toward the workshop ahead. Frame Block 2 as "now you build the counter" to these specific narratives.
The 8 POWER disinformation drivers
Keep these visible during the lecture — participants will use them throughout the day to classify narratives.
1
Deliberate environmental destruction
Claims that renewable energy projects cause ecocide, destroy landscapes or wildlife habitats.
2
Negative impact on wildlife
Narratives about wind turbines killing birds, solar farms destroying ecosystems, etc.
3
Pollution, toxicity & health risks
Claims about battery toxicity, electromagnetic fields, noise pollution from turbines.
4
Technical unreliability
Narratives about intermittency, grid instability and inability to power modern economies — amplified during events like the Spain blackout.
5
Conspiracy / Global elites
Framing the energy transition as imposed by global elites, the WEF or foreign agendas against national sovereignty.
6
Antimodernism / Eco-traditionalism
Nostalgia-based opposition framing fossil fuels as "natural" and renewables as artificial impositions on rural communities.
7
Greenwashing / Green hypocrisy
Claims that renewable companies are the real polluters, or that the energy transition is a corporate profit scheme.
8
Geopolitical distraction / Smoke screen
Narratives framing climate and energy policy as foreign interference or as distraction from "real" national priorities.
Before you start
  • Open OERs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and test projector and sound (3.1.1 includes embedded video from EUvsDisinfo).
  • Have the Day 2 fact-checking sheets visible or accessible — the recap connects directly to today's drivers.
  • Know the 8 drivers well enough to prompt participants to identify them before revealing the answer.
  • Familiarise yourself with the 4 Spain blackout narratives and their verified counter-facts — you may get challenging questions.
  • Prepare the bridge to Block 2: which of the blackout narratives will each team pick for their debunking thread?
Key facilitation tips
Connect drivers to Day 2 claims
The most powerful moment is when participants recognise the driver behind the claim they verified yesterday. Ask explicitly: "Which of these 8 categories does your Day 2 claim fall into?"
The blackout case is the hinge
OER 3.1.2 is not background context — it's the raw material for Block 2 and Block 3. Make sure participants leave the case study with at least one narrative they want to counter.
Disinformation hijacks real events
The Spain blackout key message: disinformation doesn't invent the event — it hijacks its meaning. A real, complex technical incident became ammunition against renewables before any investigation began.
Distinguish cause from context
If participants ask whether renewables caused the blackout: the investigation was ongoing as of the course. What we know is that the narratives outpaced the evidence — that's the point of the case study.
Name the technique, not just the claim
Push participants beyond "this is false" — ask which of the 8 drivers it uses and what the emotional mechanism is. This is the analysis they'll use in their debunking threads.
Bridge explicitly to Block 2
End the case study with a clear handover: "In Block 2 you'll each choose one blackout narrative and build a 5–7 post debunking thread. Pick the one you find most challenging."
Expected outcomes
  • Participants can identify and distinguish the 8 POWER disinformation drivers and the 4 driver categories.
  • Participants understand the modus operandi of disinformation campaigns — from production to amplification via bots and AI tools.
  • Participants can explain how the Spain blackout was reframed into anti-renewable disinformation, and identify the drivers behind each narrative.
  • Each participant has chosen a blackout narrative to counter in Block 2.
Frequently asked questions
The official investigation was still ongoing at the time of the course. What is documented is that disinformation narratives blaming renewables spread within hours of the event, before any technical findings were available. The case study focuses on this information dynamic, not on the technical cause of the blackout itself.
No — campaigns typically use 1–3 drivers together. The Spain blackout concentrated mainly on Technical Unreliability, with elements of Conspiracy and Geopolitical Distraction. Recognising which drivers a specific campaign uses is the analytical skill.
The 4 categories (political/geopolitical, psychological/cognitive, structural/platform, economic) explain WHY disinformation spreads. The 8 drivers are the specific CONTENT frames used in clean energy disinformation. Both are necessary: one explains motivation, the other explains what the message looks like.
Time 1 minute per group firmly. If there are many teams, ask each to name the claim and the driver only — no full explanation. Use their examples as entry points into the lecture rather than separate presentations.
Module 3 Block 2 Applied workshop
Facilitator Guide
Effective debunking on social media and creating a debunking thread
At a glance
Duration
2 h 15 min · 10:45–13:00
Grouping
Teams of 4–5 (same groups throughout)
Format
Theory input → creative group workshop → peer review between teams
Tools needed
OERs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 · POWER Fact-Checking Launchpad · Fact-check databases (Maldita/IBERIFIER, EUvsDisinfo, StopFals/Veridica)
Deliverable
One social media debunking thread per team — 5–7 posts targeting one of the 4 Spain blackout narratives
Session context

This block is the creative output of Module 3. After understanding the disinformation landscape (Block 1), teams now produce their first counter-narrative artefact: a social media debunking thread targeting one of the four Spain blackout narratives. It is the third deliverable of the progressive project.

The session combines a short theory input on why corrections fail and what makes them work — including the truth sandwich, the SIFT method, visual strategies and platform best practices — followed by a 105-minute creative workshop in which teams select a narrative, build a 5–7 post thread and present it for peer review.

Session objective

Teams apply the truth-sandwich technique (fact–myth–fallacy–fact) and the FLICC framework to produce a platform-specific social media debunking thread that corrects a blackout narrative with evidence, names the manipulation technique, and uses visual and engagement strategies that work without mimicking disinformation tactics.

About the two OERs
3.2.1 — Effective Debunking on Social Media
Theory on why corrections fail (continued-influence effect, illusory-truth effect) and why the backfire effect is largely a myth. The truth sandwich (fact–myth–fallacy–fact), FLICC techniques, SIFT verification method, visual strategies and platform-specific best practices for TikTok, YouTube, X, Facebook/WhatsApp and Instagram. Use for the opening theory (10:45–11:15).
3.2.2 — Creating a Debunking Thread
Workshop instructions: choose a blackout narrative from the Spain case study, write a thread of at least 5 posts (under 280 characters each), use fact–myth–fallacy–fact, name the FLICC technique, design for a specific platform. 40 min to build, 5 min to present. Includes the 7-point responsible myth-dismantling checklist. Use for the creative workshop (11:15–13:00).
Session schedule
TimeStepStudents doFacilitator does
1 · Theory: effective debunking on social media (10:45–11:15)
10:45–11:15
Theory
Learn why corrections fail, the truth sandwich technique, FLICC framework, SIFT method, visual strategies and platform best practices through OER 3.2.1.Deliver the theory input. Use the wind turbine diesel example to illustrate the truth sandwich in practice. Ask participants which platform they'd design for.
2 · Workshop: creating a debunking thread (11:15–13:00)
11:15–11:25
Choose narrative
Each team selects one of the 4 Spain blackout narratives to debunk. Teams must pick different narratives.Ensure no two teams target the same narrative. Validate choices — each narrative connects to different FLICC techniques.
11:25–12:05
Research & build
Verify sources using the Fact-Checking Launchpad and fact-check databases. Build the 5–7 post thread applying truth sandwich + FLICC. Consider visuals, tone and platform.Circulate. Check that teams start with the fact, not the myth. Push on FLICC: "What's the technique — cherry-picking? Fake experts? Name it explicitly in the thread."
12:05–12:30
Peer review
Teams exchange threads with another group and review using the 7-point checklist from OER 3.2.2. Give written feedback.Facilitate the exchange. Ensure the checklist is used, not skipped. Ask reviewers: "Does it start and end on the truth? Is the FLICC technique named?"
12:30–13:00
Presentations
Each team presents their thread (5 min). The rest of the group discusses what works and what could be stronger.Facilitate debrief. Focus on craft: hook strength, truth-sandwich structure, tone. Connect to the scenario ahead.
Quick reference: truth sandwich & FLICC
The truth sandwich (fact–myth–fallacy–fact)
1 · Fact — State the truth memorably. This is the hook.
2 · Myth — Warn first ("You may have seen claims that…"), then state once.
3 · Fallacy — Name the technique (cherry-picking, fake experts, impossible expectations, conspiracy…).
4 · Fact — Close on the truth again. Never end on the myth.
Note: if restating the myth feels risky, debunk with fact → fallacy → fact and skip restating it.
FLICC techniques to name in the thread
F — Fake experts (unqualified voices presented as authorities)
L — Logical fallacies (false equivalence, strawman, slippery slope)
I — Impossible expectations (demanding perfection from renewables)
C — Cherry-picking (selecting data that ignores the full picture)
C — Conspiracy theories (hidden agendas, global elites)
Each Spain blackout narrative maps to 1–2 FLICC techniques.
The 7-point responsible myth-dismantling checklist
Use this for peer review — and keep it visible during the workshop.
1
Truth first and last
The thread opens and closes on the verified fact.
2
Myth stated once, after a warning
The false claim appears only once, preceded by "You may have seen…"
3
FLICC technique named
Not just "this is false" — the specific manipulation technique is identified.
4
Trusted source linked
At least one credible, accountable source is referenced.
5
Tone affirms, doesn't attack
The thread corrects the claim, not the person. Be human.
6
Visual + platform chosen deliberately
The format fits the chosen platform's norms and character limits.
7
Doesn't amplify the original
The thread doesn't repeat the false claim more than necessary or share the original post.
Key facilitation tips
Start with the fact, not the myth
The most common mistake is leading with the false claim. Catch this early. Walk around during the first 10 minutes of the workshop and check the first post of each team's draft.
Name the technique — don't just say "false"
Push teams beyond labelling the claim as false. "This uses cherry-picking by selecting 24 hours of data and ignoring the 12-month trend" is a debunking argument. "This is false" is not.
Platform choice changes everything
A thread for X has 280-character posts. A thread for Instagram is visual-first with caption space. A thread for WhatsApp is a single forwarded message. Make teams choose a platform before they write.
The truth sandwich has limits — say so
OER 3.2.1 is honest that evidence on the truth sandwich is mixed. If asked, confirm: it's a good default, but when in doubt, drop the myth entirely and go fact → fallacy → fact.
Peer review is not optional
The checklist-based peer review is the quality gate. If you're short on time, shorten the individual work time rather than the peer review. Feedback from another team is worth more than extra polish time.
Connect to the scenario ahead
The thread is the progressive project deliverable for Day 3. In Block 3 (the scenario) teams will use and build on this material. End the debrief by asking which claims they think will appear in the scenario.
Expected outcomes
  • Teams can explain why some corrections fail and apply the truth-sandwich technique to structure a debunking response.
  • Each team has produced a 5–7 post social media thread targeting one Spain blackout narrative, using truth sandwich + FLICC + platform-appropriate format.
  • Teams can identify and name the FLICC technique used in their target narrative.
  • Teams have given and received peer feedback using the 7-point checklist.
  • The debunking thread is ready as the Day 3 deliverable for the progressive project.
Frequently asked questions
Ideally yes — a thread designed for a Spanish-speaking audience should be in Spanish; for an English-speaking one, in English. If the group is multilingual, let each team choose. The craft principles are the same in any language.
Point them to the Fact-Checking Launchpad and the Spain blackout case study from Block 1 (OER 3.1.2) — the verified facts are already documented there. If they're still stuck, they may have chosen a claim that's opinion rather than verifiable. Help them reframe to the factual layer.
They can describe or sketch the visual concept — "a before/after chart from Red Eléctrica showing renewable output the week of the blackout" is fine. What matters is that the visual strategy is deliberate, not that it's polished.
Ask one to switch — the debrief is richer when all four narratives are covered. If you can't avoid it, ask the two teams to design for different platforms so the peer review can compare strategies.
It's theoretically sound and a good default, but the empirical evidence is mixed. Some studies show it doesn't always outperform a plain correction. The key principle that is well-supported: never end on the myth. Always close on the truth.
Module 3 Block 3 Experiential Scenario

Spot, Check & Counter: Disinformation in the Wild

OER 3.3.1 · Day 3 · Block 3 — Integrative case study on clean-energy disinformation

Activity context

This session is part of the Clean Energy Cafés, five-day in-person training events for students and academic staff exploring the intersection of clean energy and disinformation. The programme follows a learning-by-doing methodology: each day combines a morning briefing (Block 1), an applied workshop (Block 2) and an experiential scenario in the afternoon (Block 3).

This activity is the Block 3 experiential scenario and works as an integrative case study: it brings together what was learned in the previous scenarios and applies it to a real case. The narrative each group chooses here is also the seed for the next day's activity, in which they will develop a positive counter-narrative.

What it involves

Working in groups, participants choose a clean-energy disinformation narrative, search for real examples circulating online, verify them, analyse the mechanisms that make them persuasive, and design messages to counter them. To get started, the POWER project website provides an inventory of narratives and a bank of real cases documented in the partner countries (Spain, Romania and Malta).

At a glance
Module / BlockModule 3 · Block 3 (experiential scenario)
Duration2 hours
GroupingGroups of 3 to 5 participants (formed beforehand)
FormatHands-on, learning-by-doing, integrative case study with group presentations
Resources to openSlide deck · Case Bank · Lexicon · Fact-Checking Launchpad · Analysis Sheet (1 per group)
OEROER 3.3.1 — Spot, Check & Counter
Session goal

Groups analyse a real clean-energy disinformation narrative — spotting it, checking it and countering it — and finish able to tell disinformation apart from legitimate criticism.

Session run sheet
TimeStepWhat students doWhat the facilitator does
0:00–0:10 1 · Choose Browse the inventory and Case Bank; pick one narrative (one per group). Explain the task and the disinformation-vs-criticism idea. Assign different narratives to avoid overlap.
0:10–0:55 2 · Spot Search online for real examples, starting from the Case Bank. Collect links and quotes. Circulate among groups. Steer them toward examples from several countries. Help with search terms.
0:55–1:25 3 · Check Verify with the Fact-Checking Launchpad; identify the mechanism. Ask: what context is missing? Reinforce the difference between disinformation and legitimate criticism.
1:25–1:50 4 · Counter Draft counter-messages, using the Lexicon for the right terms. Push beyond "it's false": restore context, name the mechanism, offer an alternative.
1:50–2:00 5 · Present Organise the completed Analysis Sheet as the presentation guide. Explain they present from the sheet. Organise the group presentations.
Before you start
  • Open the slide deck and test the projector and sound.
  • Have the web resources open in tabs: Case Bank · Lexicon · Fact-Checking Launchpad.
  • Share the Analysis Sheet (1 per group).
  • Invite each group to choose a different narrative.
  • Skim the inventory so you can answer questions on each narrative.
Facilitation points
The key distinction

Criticising a policy or a cost is not disinformation. It becomes disinformation when it relies on falsehoods, generalisations or conspiratorial narratives.

The common mechanism

Most narratives start from a real fact and strip away the context. Help students see what's missing.

If they get stuck

Help them find examples. Point them to the Case Bank and to the Launchpad's translated search.

Cross-country comparison

Encourage them to compare how the same narrative changes from one country to another; this is the richest part of the discussion.

Expected outcome

By the end, each group should have:

  • A completed Analysis Sheet including the chosen narrative, real example(s) with their source, the identified mechanism and counter-messages.
  • A short oral presentation (2–3 min) based on that sheet.
  • The chosen narrative, which will serve as the basis for the next day's positive counter-narrative.
Frequently asked questions
Point them first to the Case Bank (it has examples of each narrative) and then to the Launchpad, which searches the fact-checkers translating the term into each one's language.
Offer them alternatives so there is variety. The value of the wrap-up lies in covering as many narratives as possible.
Yes, and it's very useful: use it to work on the distinction. Have the group argue why it's legitimate criticism and not disinformation.
No. They present directly from the completed Analysis Sheet. This saves time and keeps the focus on the analysis.
The flexible block is step 2 (Spot). If they're ahead, ask for examples from a second country; if they're short, have them keep a single well-analysed example.
Some posts get deleted — it happens easily. In that case, ask them to document what they see (screenshot, quote) and move on to another example.
Module 4 Block 1 Lecture + Interactive Session

Science Communication & Counter-narrative Strategies

OERs 4.1.1 + 4.1.2 · Day 4 · Block 1 — From communicating science to designing counter-narratives

Activity context

This block opens Day 4 of the Clean Energy Cafés. After three days analysing clean-energy disinformation, participants now learn to communicate scientific evidence clearly and build trust — and then to design counter-narratives that are credible, emotionally resonant and aligned with shared values.

The block has three parts: a Day Opening (recap + social media thread sharing), a Lecture on Principles of Science Communication (OER 4.1.1), and an Interactive Session on Counter-narrative Strategies (OER 4.1.2). What participants learn here is applied directly in the afternoon's Block 2 workshop and Block 3 scenario.

At a glance
Module / BlockModule 4 · Block 1 (lecture + interactive session)
Duration1 h 30 min total (9:00–10:30)
GroupingPlenary; individual or pair mini-exercises
FormatDay opening · lecture with mini-exercises · interactive session with practice
OER 4.1.1Principles of Science Communication
OER 4.1.2Counter-narrative Strategies
Session run sheet
TimePartContentFormat / notes
Day Opening — 9:00–9:15 (15 min)
9:00–9:15 Recap & sharing Recap of Day 3 scenario and key insights. Groups share their social media debunking threads (1 min each). Plenary sharing with quick feedback. No resources required.
Lecture: Principles of Science Communication (OER 4.1.1) — 9:15–10:00 (45 min)
9:15–9:20 Opening Core idea: knowing the facts is not enough — they must reach people, be understood and believed. Open question: what makes a scientific message convince you?
9:20–9:30 01 · Core principles Clarity, accuracy, engagement and relevance, and how they work together. Wind-turbine-and-birds example. Mini-exercise: go to Science Communication Bank, pick a pitfall and fix it.
9:30–9:38 02 · Audience analysis There is no "general public": segment and adapt content, tone and channel. Blackout example for engineers vs. neighbours. Poll: same fact, two audiences — what changes?
9:38–9:46 03 · Storytelling Narrative structure, leading with people and data afterwards, the "truth sandwich." The María-and-the-panels example. Mini-exercise: pick a pitfall from the Science Communication Bank and fix it.
9:46–9:53 04 · Trust & credibility Competence + honesty + goodwill; transparency and admitting limits. Quick debate: why does admitting a mistake build more trust?
9:53–9:58 05 · Barriers Jargon, overload, motivated reasoning, distrust; how to overcome them, and prebunking. Identify the barrier in an example from the Science Communication Bank.
9:58–10:00 Closing Recap of the five blocks and link to the afternoon workshop. Genially self-assessment (2–3 questions).
Interactive Session: Counter-narrative Strategies (OER 4.1.2) — 10:00–10:30 (30 min)
10:00–10:10 Debunking vs. Prebunking When to use each approach. Inoculation theory (McGuire) and psychological resistance. The "truth sandwich" technique in practice — worked example.
10:10–10:20 Three strategies Reframing (Lakoff/Entman) · Prebunking · Positive Narrative. Comparison table: purpose, theoretical foundation, how it works, example. Discussion: which strategy fits which narrative from Day 3?
10:20–10:30 Practice Groups reframe one narrative from their Day 3 Analysis Sheet using a chosen strategy (reframing, prebunking or positive narrative). Groups share one counter-message. Facilitator gives brief feedback using the GAMMMA+ dimensions.
Session objectives

OER 4.1.1 — Science Communication: participants understand and can apply the principles of effective science communication: explaining complex clean-energy content with clarity and accuracy, adapting the message to different publics, using storytelling to make it memorable, and building trust — while recognising and overcoming the most common barriers.

OER 4.1.2 — Counter-narrative Strategies: participants can differentiate counter-narrative strategies (reframing, prebunking, alternative narratives, value-based approaches), identify the psychological and cognitive mechanisms that make them effective, and design a counter-narrative tailored to a specific misleading narrative and audience.

Before you start
  • Open the OER 4.1.1 presentation and test the projector and sound.
  • Keep the Lexicon and the Science Communication Bank open in tabs to draw on examples or correct terminology.
  • Have a few clean-energy communication examples ready (news item, video, post) to illustrate the principles.
  • Review the five concepts so you can expand on any of them with your own examples if a question comes up.
  • For the interactive session (OER 4.1.2), have groups keep their Day 3 Analysis Sheet at hand — their chosen narrative is the raw material for the reframing practice.
Key concepts — science communication (OER 4.1.1)
01Core principlesClarity · Accuracy · Engagement · Relevance — how they work together
02Audience analysisThere is no "general public" — segment and adapt content, tone and channel
03StorytellingLead with people, data follows — the "truth sandwich" narrative structure
04Trust & credibilityCompetence + honesty + goodwill — transparency and admitting limits
05BarriersJargon · overload · motivated reasoning · distrust — and how to overcome them
Key concepts — counter-narrative strategies (OER 4.1.2)
Reframing

Shifts the debate away from the adversarial frame. Based on framing theory (Lakoff, Entman). Replaces fear with shared values; shifts from conflict to cooperation.
Example: "Security is built through social cohesion."

Prebunking

Prepares audiences to spot manipulation tactics before they encounter them. Based on inoculation theory (McGuire). Explains deceptive tactics and gives examples to recognise them.
Example: "Watch out for extreme fear tactics."

Positive Narrative

Promotes value-based, solution-focused stories. Based on moral psychology and prosocial communication. Highlights positive solutions; fosters collective agency.
Example: "Communities are building networks of support."

GAMMMA+ Model

Framework for counter-narrative design (Radicalisation Awareness Network): Goal · Audience · Message · Messenger · Media · Action + Monitoring & Evaluation.

Facilitation tips
Examples before definitions

Each principle is best understood through a case. Anchor every concept in a concrete clean-energy example before stating the general rule.

Connect to previous days

Participants already know narratives and real cases from the blackout. Use them as material to illustrate how they would communicate the correct response.

Make them practise

Mini-exercises are short (1–2 min). Don't look for perfect answers — aim for internalisation: rewriting a sentence, choosing a channel, finding the relevant angle.

Set up the afternoon

Storytelling and the "truth sandwich" seen here are applied directly in Block 2 and Block 3. Remind participants they will reuse these techniques.

Expected outcomes
  • Name and apply the four core principles of science communication (clarity, accuracy, engagement, relevance).
  • Adapt the same scientific message to different publics by changing content, tone and channel.
  • Use a basic narrative structure and the "truth sandwich" to communicate and debunk.
  • Recognise the most common barriers and propose a way to overcome them.
  • Differentiate between reframing, prebunking and positive narrative strategies and apply at least one to a real case.
  • Complete a draft counter-message for their Day 3 narrative, ready for development in Block 2.
Frequently asked questions
Start with a worked example yourself, then ask for just one contribution. In plenary it works better to pose the question, give 30 seconds to think, and collect two or three answers without forcing everyone.
Yes, but with uneven depth depending on the group. The core principles (01) and the barriers (05) are most important; if you're short on time, trim examples in 02–04, not the concepts themselves.
The flexible block in the lecture is the examples. If you're ahead, add a local case per concept; if you're short, keep a single example per principle and reduce mini-exercises to a quick discussion. For the interactive session, the practice step (10:20–10:30) is the most important — protect it even if you trim the strategy overview.
There's no deliverable in the lecture. Encourage them to note the techniques (truth sandwich, value framing) they will reuse in the afternoon. In the interactive session, their draft counter-message is informal — it feeds Block 2, not a submission.
Yes. The OER 4.1.1 resource is designed for self-navigation with a final self-assessment, so it works equally as in-class support or as individual study on the platform.
That's a feature, not a bug. Have them argue their case briefly — the goal is not one correct answer but understanding the trade-offs between reframing, prebunking and positive narrative for a given context and audience.
Module 4 Block 2 Applied Workshop

Storytelling & Counter-narrative Comic (Pixton)

OERs 4.2.1 + 4.2.2 · Day 4 · Block 2 — From disinformation analysis to a shareable visual counter-narrative

Activity context

This block is the creative core of Day 4. It takes as its starting point the disinformation case each group analysed the day before in the integrative scenario (OER 3.3.1) and turns it into a positive counter-narrative in the form of a comic, produced with the Pixton tool.

The session has two linked parts: a short storytelling lecture (OER 4.2.1, 30 min) that introduces the keys to turning a disinformation analysis into a visual story, followed by a hands-on production workshop (OER 4.2.2, 105 min) in which each group scripts and builds their comic. The resulting comic feeds directly into the final campaign on Day 5. The activity consolidates the full journey — identify, verify, analyse and counter — into a creative, shareable output.

At a glance
Module / BlockModule 4 · Block 2 (applied workshop)
Duration2 h 15 min — 30 min lecture + 105 min workshop (10:45–13:00)
GroupingGroups of 3 to 5 (the same as previous day)
ToolPixton (app.pixton.com · free version / 30-day trial)
DeliverableOne 6–8 panel comic per group, submitted as screenshot(s) on the course platform
OERs4.2.1 Storytelling · 4.2.2 Workshop
Session objective

Each group transforms the disinformation case it analysed the day before into a positive counter-narrative in the form of a comic, integrating at least one verified fact within an engaging story, and produces it with Pixton until it is ready to share.

Session timeline
TimeStepWhat students doWhat the facilitator does
OER 4.2.1 · Storytelling for Counter-narratives — Interactive Lecture (30 min)
10:45–11:15 Learn Follow the storytelling lecture: character, conflict, resolution, factual anchor and thinking in panels. Deliver the lecture. Connect each key idea with the cases analysed the previous day.
OER 4.2.2 · Workshop: Counter-narrative Comic in Pixton (105 min)
11:15–11:30 Conceive Revisit their case; agree on narrative, factual anchor, character and the 6–8 beats of the story. Recall the structure Setup → Escalation → Turn → Resolution. Check that the factual anchor is clear.
11:30–12:30 Produce Build the comic in Pixton: characters, scenes, dialogue. Place the factual anchor. Circulate between groups. Help with Pixton. Make sure they get all panels in before polishing.
12:30–12:45 Refine Edit dialogue and captions, integrate the fact, add a source credit and review the whole. Ask: does it make sense to someone who hasn't seen the case? Does the fact feel natural or preachy?
12:45–13:00 Share Present their comic (2 min) and give feedback using the criteria. Take a screenshot and upload it. Run the showcase. Remind them the screenshot is the submission method.
Before you start
  • Open the presentations (OER 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) and test the projector and sound.
  • Create a Pixton account in advance and get familiar with the basics: creating characters, scenes and speech bubbles.
  • Check that groups have their Day 3 case to hand (narrative, examples, verified fact, counter-messages).
  • Make sure each group can access Pixton — one device per group is enough.
  • Check that the assignment for uploading screenshots is active on the course platform.
Storytelling structure — the 4-beat comic
1SetupIntroduce the character and the world — the moment before the disinformation hits.
2EscalationThe character encounters the false narrative and begins to be affected by it.
3TurnA fact, a question or a trusted source changes the picture. This is where the factual anchor goes.
4ResolutionThe character acts differently as a result — the counter-narrative is embodied, not announced.

6–8 panels across these 4 beats; roughly 1–2 panels per beat. The factual anchor appears at the Turn.

Facilitation keys
It's a story, not a fact-check with drawings

The comic must stand on its own and carry the fact inside it — not be an illustrated correction. If it reads like a lecture, have them rewrite.

Let the character believe the disinformation

A character who starts out believing the false narrative connects with the audience. Avoid turning them into a villain or a fool — ridicule closes minds.

One well-placed factual anchor

Better one or two solid facts than overloading with figures. The fact usually appears at the Turn of the story, said or lived by a character — never in a text box lecture.

Skeleton first, detail later

Encourage them to block out all 6–8 panels before perfecting any one of them. Pixton helps you think visually as you go. If they get stuck: Setup → Escalation → Turn → Resolution, one panel per beat.

Expected outcome
  • A 6–8 panel comic produced in Pixton that counters a real clean-energy disinformation narrative.
  • At least one verified fact integrated naturally into the story, with its source credit.
  • One or more screenshots of the complete comic, uploaded to the course platform.
  • A comic ready to be reused in the integrated campaign on Day 5.
Frequently asked questions
No. Pixton works by dragging and dropping: you choose characters, poses, settings and speech bubbles. You don't draw anything.
Not with the free version. That's why the submission method is the screenshot. Ask them to capture the complete comic — all panels, with legible text — and upload it to the platform. If it doesn't fit on one screen, several overlapping screenshots work fine.
The flexible block is production (step 3, 11:30–12:30). If they're ahead, have them add a panel or polish expressiveness; if they're tight on time, make sure they secure the 6–8 panels with the factual anchor, even if the finish is simple.
Little. A speech bubble is not a paragraph: above around 20 words the panel feels crowded. Encourage them to cut everything that isn't essential.
No — it works much better if a character says it or lives it. If it sounds like a lecture, have them rewrite it as something someone would actually say. Caption boxes can be used to set the scene's context.
The 30-day trial more than covers the session. It's best if participants create the account on the day of the activity to allow a margin.
Module 4 Block 3 Experiential Scenario

Energy Stories: Fiction as Counter-narrative

OER 4.3.1 · Day 4 · Block 3 — Geolocated fictional scenes assembled into a collective StoryMap

Activity context

This activity is the Block 3 experiential scenario of Day 4. Participants step into the role of scriptwriters: they explore real locations, capture them with ArcGIS QuickCapture and create fictional scenes that address real clean-energy disinformation narratives, integrating verified data into the story. The scenes are assembled into a geolocated StoryMap that combines fiction, science and counter-narrative strategy.

The conceptual key is the truth sandwich as a subplot: a scene where a character voices the myth, but the story is built to dismantle it — it opens anchored in reality and resolves by restoring the verified context, so that disinformation never gets the last word. Inspired by the format of serialised fiction (such as Élite, used as an open reference), the activity works for any fictional universe. The narrative each group works on comes from the case it analysed in OER 3.3.1.

At a glance
Module / BlockModule 4 · Block 3 (experiential scenario)
Duration2 hours · 14:30–16:30
GroupingGroups of 3 to 5 participants (same as previous day)
FormatExperiential scenario, learning-by-doing, geolocated narrative with digital output
ToolsArcGIS QuickCapture (geolocated capture) + ArcGIS StoryMaps (final StoryMap) · Smartphones
DeliverableGeolocated fictional scenes in collective StoryMap (at least 3 locations per group) · OER 4.3.1
Session objective

Each group transforms the disinformation narrative it analysed the day before into geolocated fictional scenes, using the truth sandwich as a subplot to integrate verified data into the story, and assembles them into a collective StoryMap that combines fiction, science and counter-narrative.

Session timeline
TimeStepWhat students doWhat the facilitator does
14:30–14:45 1 · Framing Review the truth sandwich as a subplot and revisit their case from the previous day. Receive the instructions for their search area. Introduce the activity. Explain the sandwich as a dramatic structure. Indicate the edition's capture area.
14:45–15:45 2 · Capture Explore locations with their phones and capture with QuickCapture: photo, title, scene outline (sandwich structure), energy topic and GPS. Circulate between groups. Help with QuickCapture. Check that the outline follows the truth → myth → truth structure.
15:45–16:15 3 · Create Develop the scenes: conflict, integrated data and multiple perspectives. Refine the outline of each location. Recall the 3 steps of the methodology. Make sure the fact is lived in the scene, not delivered as a correction.
16:15–16:30 4 · Showcase Walk through the StoryMap together. Give feedback using the criteria and vote on the three awards. Run the showcase. Lead the awards vote.
Before you start
  • Open the presentation (OER 4.3.1) and test the projector and sound.
  • Create an account in advance and test ArcGIS QuickCapture and your edition's project; check that the project QR works.
  • Define and delimit your edition's location search area (on the "Your filming area" screen, select the map layer matching your edition-country).
  • Check that groups have their Day 3 case to hand (narrative, verified data, counter-messages).
  • Make sure each group has at least one smartphone with the app installed and the project downloaded.
  • Have the collective StoryMap ready, where the scenes will be gathered for the showcase.
The truth sandwich as a subplot
1Truth (open)The scene opens anchored in reality — a character's everyday context grounded in verified fact.
2Myth (conflict)A character voices the disinformation narrative, creating dramatic tension. The myth appears in dialogue, not endorsed by the story.
3Truth (resolve)The story resolves by restoring the verified context. The audience remembers the truth, not the myth — disinformation never gets the last word.
Facilitation keys
Truth gets the last word

The myth can appear in a character's mouth, but the scene must open and close anchored in facts. If the story ends on the myth, it fails.

The fact is lived, not dropped

Verified information should emerge from the conflict and the dialogue — not as an expository correction. Characters discover the complexity at the same time as the audience.

No absolute heroes or villains

The best scenes show several valid perspectives. The goal is a complex debate, not a pamphlet.

Any fictional universe works

The activity is inspired by serialised fiction but works for any genre — series, short film, graphic story. Encourage groups to use the universe that best fits their narrative.

The narrative comes from Day 3

No new topic is chosen here. Groups start from the case analysed in OER 3.3.1, closing the full journey: identify → verify → analyse → counter.

If they get stuck in the field

One good location with a well-structured scene is enough. Quality over quantity — minimum 3 per group.

Expected outcome
  • At least 3 locations captured with QuickCapture, each with photo, title, scene outline (sandwich structure), energy topic and GPS.
  • Fictional scenes that integrate verified data and address the disinformation narrative of their case.
  • Their scenes gathered into the session's collective StoryMap.
  • Participation in the showcase and the vote on the three awards.
Frequently asked questions
The one their group analysed the day before in the 3.3.1 case. No new topic is chosen: the aim is to bring that case into fiction.
No. The serialised fiction format is the reference example, but they can set their story in any series, genre or fictional format that fits. What matters is the structure of the story, not the title.
A three-beat dramatic structure: the scene opens anchored in reality (truth), a character voices the myth and creates conflict (lie), and the story resolves by restoring the verified context (truth). This way the audience remembers the truth, not the myth.
At least 3 per group. If they have time to spare, they can add more; if they're short, better a few locations with well-built scenes than many half-finished ones.
Indeed it is. The "Your filming area" screen has a layered map, so you can select the one matching each edition with its own area. The capture method (QuickCapture) is the same everywhere.
Captures are geolocated automatically in the QuickCapture project and assembled into the collective StoryMap, which is reviewed in the showcase. In the online version, scenes are submitted via the Moodle forum.
They can note down the scene (photo + outline) and register it later. The essential thing is the well-structured outline; geolocation can be completed on return.
Module 5 Final Day Campaign Presentations · Post-test · Closing

Day 5 — Final Campaign Presentations & Programme Close

OERs 5.1.1 + 5.2.1 · The culmination of the five-day journey: integrated campaigns, post-test and closing ceremony

Activity context

Day 5 is the closing day of the Clean Energy Café. Everything built across four days — the narrative map, fact-checking sheet, social media thread, storyboard and comic — comes together into a fully integrated communication campaign that each group develops, rehearses and pitches to the full group.

The day also includes the post-test (to compare with the Day 1 pre-test baseline), a feedback questionnaire and a closing ceremony with peer-voted awards, certificate distribution and information about the Clean Energy Disinformation Analyst badge.

At a glance
ModuleModule 5 — Practical Applications
DurationFull day · 9:00–13:30+ (approx. 4 h 30 min of programme)
GroupingPlenary for briefings / Groups for development / Plenary for presentations
DeliverableIntegrated campaign pitch (10 min) per group + post-test + feedback questionnaire
OER 5.1.1Campaign Preparation & Integrated Development
OER 5.2.1Final Campaign Presentations & Post-test
Full day timeline
TimeBlockActivitiesFormat / notes
Block 1 — Campaign Preparation (9:00–10:30)
9:00–9:15 Day Opening Overview of the final presentation format. Criteria for the integrated campaign: narrative map + fact-check + social media + storyboard. Timeline and logistics for presentations. Plenary briefing. OER 5.1.1. Make the evaluation rubric explicit from the start.
9:15–10:30 Workshop: Integrated Campaign Groups compile all deliverables from Days 1–4 (narrative map · fact-check sheet · social media thread · storyboard/comic). Develop campaign pitch: target audience, key messages, channels, timeline. Prepare 10-minute presentation. Collaborative group work with facilitator support. OER 5.1.1. Circulate between groups; check pitch structure covers all 9 elements.
Coffee Break (10:30–10:45)
Block 2 — Final Preparation, Presentations & Close (10:45–13:30)
10:45–12:00 Final Preparation Continue developing the integrated campaign. Create presentation materials. Rehearse within groups. Group work with facilitator support. OER 5.2.1. Help groups time their pitch — 10 min is tight; rehearsal is essential.
12:00–13:30 Campaign Pitch Presentations Each group presents their integrated campaign (10 min + 5 min Q&A). Peer vote on best campaign at the end. Plenary. Facilitator timekeeper. Audience uses evaluation rubric for Q&A feedback.
Post-programme Evaluation & Closing (after presentations)
After pitches Post-test & Feedback Post-test assessment (same format as Day 1 pre-test). Feedback questionnaire on programme quality. Reflection task: personal learning highlights. Individual. Results feed the project's impact evaluation. Remind participants the pre/post comparison is how they see their own growth.
Closing Ceremony & Farewell Announcement of best campaign (peer-voted). Certificate distribution. Information on Clean Energy Disinformation Analyst badge. Group photo. Farewell and networking. Plenary. Prepare certificates in advance. Have badge info ready to share.
The 9-element pitch structure (OER 5.2.1)

Each group's 10-minute presentation should cover these elements in order. Groups should not describe their materials — they should show them.

1Sharp HookA striking data point, short real-world story, surprising contradiction or tension the audience immediately recognises.
2ProblemWhat harmful narrative exists, why it matters, who is affected, what the consequences are. Tight, concrete, evidence-based.
3Audience InsightShow understanding of emotional triggers, identity concerns, motivations and barriers. This is where credibility begins.
4Counter-narrativeThe new frame, core idea, emotional value and cognitive value. The heart of the pitch — keep it simple and memorable.
5Messenger StrategyWho speaks, why they are trusted, why relatable, why they reduce resistance. Messenger choice = acceptance probability.
6Creative AssetsShow materials produced: key visuals, comic/storyboard, social media thread, claim + CTA. Do not describe — show.
7Action PlanChannels, sequence of activation, community touchpoints, how the message travels. Shows feasibility.
8Monitoring & EvaluationHow success is measured: interactions, discourse shifts, behaviour signals, misinformation decline, long-term impact.
9Call to ActionConcrete action · explicit benefit · memorable closing line that reinforces the value of the proposal.
Integrated campaign — deliverables checklist

Each campaign integrates all outputs produced across the five days:

Day 1 — Narrative Map

Identification and classification of the disinformation narrative. Sets the strategic starting point of the campaign.

Day 2 — Fact-checking Sheet

Verification and evidence base. Provides the factual anchors and source credits used throughout the campaign.

Day 3 — Social Media Thread

Debunking content designed for real-platform distribution. The "truth sandwich" in practice.

Day 4 — Comic / Storyboard

Counter-narrative storytelling (Pixton comic) and/or geolocated StoryMap scenes. The creative, shareable output.

Evaluation criteria (pitch presentations)
  • Accuracy and quality of evidence — facts are verified, sources credited, no unsupported claims.
  • Creativity and engagement potential — the counter-narrative is compelling, memorable and audience-appropriate.
  • Feasibility of implementation — the action plan is realistic; channels, timeline and resources are specified.
  • Teamwork and presentation quality — all members contribute; the pitch is clear, structured and time-controlled (10 min).
Facilitation tips
Time is the main risk

10-minute pitches with Q&A add up fast. With 4–5 groups that's 60–75 min minimum. Enforce the timer from the first group — it sets the norm and protects the closing ceremony.

Show, don't describe

The most common pitch mistake: groups narrate their materials instead of displaying them. Coach this during rehearsal: "Don't tell us there's a comic — show us a panel."

Integration is the key criterion

The quality of a Day 5 campaign is not the sum of four good outputs — it's how coherently they connect. During Q&A, push groups to explain how each piece serves the counter-narrative strategy.

Close with energy

The closing ceremony matters emotionally. Announce the peer-voted winner, distribute certificates and share badge information before people start to leave. End with the group photo.

Expected outcomes
  • Each group has delivered a 10-minute integrated campaign pitch covering all 9 elements.
  • Every participant has completed the post-test (paired with their Day 1 pre-test baseline).
  • Feedback questionnaire and reflection task completed by all participants.
  • Peer-voted best campaign announced; certificates distributed.
  • Participants informed about the Clean Energy Disinformation Analyst badge.
Frequently asked questions
They present with what they have. Encourage them to be explicit about which components are complete and frame the gaps as next steps — this is actually realistic campaign thinking. Don't let incomplete materials prevent them from pitching.
Strictly — but kindly. Give a 2-minute warning signal and a stop signal at 10. With 4–5 groups, overruns cascade quickly and the closing ceremony suffers. Groups that practised will appreciate that the rule is applied consistently.
It's better after the presentations, so participants have the full programme experience before self-assessing. However, if time is tight, it can be done during the coffee break or immediately after the last pitch, before the closing ceremony.
Each participant votes for the campaign they found most convincing and well-executed — not their own group's. A simple show of hands or anonymous paper vote works well. The criteria (accuracy, creativity, feasibility, presentation) can guide the vote or be left open to overall impression.
A digital open badge awarded to participants who have completed the full Clean Energy Café programme. Information about how to claim it is shared at the closing ceremony. Direct participants to the course platform or project website for details.
POWER — Prevention Of Weaponization and Enhancing Resilience against security-related disinformation on clean Energy · Ref. 2024-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000245038
Co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. The European Commission's support does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors.