Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-10-03T06:47:57Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}

{{BR}}
= ABI - Argumentative paragraphs schreiben =

'''Mini description:''' Develop focused argumentative paragraphs from '''claim → reasoning → evidence/example → link back to the question'''. You will practise reading, viewing, speaking and writing for the English Kursstufe in Baden-Württemberg. The course is designed for a shared '''Basisfach / Leistungsfach''' setting: BF works with smaller material sets and stronger scaffolds; LF works with greater breadth, depth, text complexity and more independent linking of material.

[[Datei:Argument Map.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUpZS1UcIew |500|center}}

'''Media entry – watch and notice:''' Before reading on, watch a short section of the video. What makes a paragraph feel like one connected unit rather than four separate sentences? Write down two features in English.

'''Level orientation:''' B2 is the main working level; selected C1 features are used as a learning goal, not as artificial difficulty.

'''Important:''' The examples in this course are short training models, not replacement essays. Any practice data marked '''fictional''' are invented for learning. Check real sources yourself. If you use AI voluntarily, verify claims and sources and follow your school's rules for disclosure. Do not submit an AI-generated replacement essay.

{{BR}}
== I-can goals ==

{| class="wikitable"
! I can ...
! BF focus
! LF extension
|-
| answer the exact question with a precise claim
| one clear position
| qualified, nuanced position
|-
| explain why my claim is plausible
| guided reasoning
| independent reasoning with assumptions made visible
|-
| select evidence or an example that actually supports the claim
| one clearly relevant item
| link and weigh several items where useful
|-
| explain the relevance of evidence
| sentence frames available
| more independent analytical language
|-
| link the paragraph back to the question
| explicit link sentence
| concise synthesis or qualified link
|-
| revise for coherence, register and accuracy
| checklist-guided
| increasingly independent editing
|}

{{BR}}
== Activate prior knowledge ==

Answer in English before opening a dictionary.

# [[Claim]]: What is the difference between a topic and a claim?
# [[Evidence]]: What can count as evidence in a text-based task?
# [[Reasoning]]: Why is evidence alone not yet an argument?
# [[Cohesion]]: Which words or structures help a paragraph hang together?

Do not worry about perfect wording yet. You will revisit the same questions after the paragraph builder.

{{BR}}
= Core idea: build the argument, not just the sentence =

A strong argumentative paragraph is a small line of reasoning. For this course, use the learning scaffold '''C-R-E-L''':

{| class="wikitable"
! Step
! English job
! Guiding question
|-
| '''Claim'''
| Answer the relevant part of the task.
| What exactly am I arguing here?
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| Explain the logic behind the claim.
| Why does this point make sense?
|-
| '''Evidence / Example'''
| Add specific support from the material, a reliable source or a clearly identified example.
| What supports the point?
|-
| '''Link back'''
| Show why the point matters for the task.
| How does this answer the question?
|}

'''C-R-E-L is a learning scaffold, not an official Abitur operator.''' In polished writing, evidence and reasoning can sometimes change order. What matters is that the logical connection remains clear.

[[Datei:Toulmin Argumentation Example.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

The [[Toulmin-Schema|Toulmin model]] is a useful extension, especially for LF. It distinguishes a claim, data, a warrant connecting data and claim, and optional elements such as qualifiers and rebuttals. You do not need to force every paragraph into all six parts.

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-YPPQztuOY |500|center}}

'''Viewing focus:''' Listen for the difference between '''evidence/data''' and the '''warrant/reasoning''' that explains why the evidence supports the claim.

{{BR}}
== Visual writing process ==

[[Datei:Writing Process Flow Chart.gif|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

Use a short cycle: '''plan → draft → check logic → revise language → proofread'''. Editing grammar before the argument is clear often wastes time.

{{BR}}
= Context vocabulary and word formation =

Read the English explanations first.

{| class="wikitable"
! Word
! English explanation
! Word family
! Useful pattern
|-
| '''claim'''
| a statement you want the reader to accept
| claim – claimant
| make / support / qualify a claim
|-
| '''reason'''
| an explanation for why a claim should be accepted
| reason – reasonable – reasonably
| give a reason for
|-
| '''evidence'''
| information used to support a claim
| evidence – evident – evidently
| evidence suggests / indicates
|-
| '''relevance'''
| the degree to which something helps answer the question
| relevant – irrelevant – relevance
| be relevant to
|-
| '''support'''
| to strengthen a point with reasons or evidence
| support – supportive – supporting
| support an argument
|-
| '''convince'''
| to cause someone to accept a view through reasons or evidence
| convince – convincing – convincingly
| a convincing explanation
|-
| '''qualify'''
| to limit a statement so it becomes more precise
| qualify – qualified – qualifier
| qualify a claim
|-
| '''cohere'''
| to form a connected whole
| cohere – coherent – coherence – cohesively
| a coherent paragraph
|-
| '''infer'''
| to reach a conclusion from evidence
| infer – inference – inferential
| infer from evidence
|-
| '''counter'''
| to respond to an opposing point
| counter – counterargument
| address a counterargument
|}

'''Dictionary first:'''

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim Cambridge Dictionary: claim]

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence Cambridge Dictionary: evidence]

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning Cambridge Dictionary: reasoning]

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/qualify Cambridge Dictionary: qualify]

'''Deutsch-Hilfe danach:''' claim = Behauptung/These im konkreten Absatz; reasoning = Begründungslogik; evidence = Beleg; link back = Rückbindung an die Aufgabenfrage. Nutze die deutsche Hilfe nur, wenn die englische Erklärung und das Wörterbuch nicht reichen.

{{BR}}
= Listening and Viewing =

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KKsLuRPsvU |500|center}}

The video presents '''Claim–Evidence–Reasoning''' in a science context. Transfer the logic to English writing.

# [[Listening]]: Note one sentence explaining what a claim does.
# [[Evidence]]: Note two possible qualities of useful evidence.
# [[Reasoning]]: Explain in your own words how reasoning connects evidence and claim.
# [[Transfer]]: Add a fourth step: how would you link the point back to an essay or comment question?

'''BF:''' Work with one segment and a four-box note grid.

'''LF:''' Add one limitation: when might the evidence still be insufficient?

{{BR}}
= Reading: a short practice source =

'''Course-created source. All figures are fictional and exist only for this exercise.'''

At Northbridge Sixth Form, students are discussing a weekly 45-minute phone-free study period. In a fictional anonymous survey of 180 students, 68% said notifications had interrupted independent work during the previous week. At the same time, 41% said a complete school-day ban would make after-school coordination more difficult. In the scenario, teachers also reported fewer off-task interruptions in classes that used voluntary phone boxes, but they did not measure grades. The material therefore suggests a possible concentration benefit, not proof of higher academic achievement. Any school rule would also need reasonable exceptions for accessibility and urgent communication.

'''Reading moves:'''

# [[Claim spotting]]: Underline one sentence that already contains a cautious conclusion.
# [[Evidence check]]: Identify two pieces of evidence and one limitation.
# [[Inference]]: What can you reasonably conclude? What can you not conclude?
# [[Source awareness]]: Why must the figures not be presented as real-world data?

{{BR}}
= Analysis: from weak to defensible =

'''Weak micro-paragraph:'''

Phones are bad for learning and everybody knows it. The survey says 68% of students were interrupted, so banning phones will definitely improve grades. Therefore all phones should be banned.

'''Diagnose four problems:'''

# [[Overgeneralisation]]: "everybody knows it" is not evidence.
# [[Evidence]]: the fictional survey is treated as if it were real and universal.
# [[Inference]]: interruption data do not prove higher grades.
# [[Link back]]: the paragraph jumps from a limited study period to an all-day ban.

'''Improved training model:'''

A weekly phone-free study period could be a proportionate way to reduce interruptions during independent work. The idea targets a specific concentration problem without automatically extending the restriction to the entire school day. In the fictional Northbridge survey, 68% of respondents reported recent notification-based interruptions, although the scenario provides no evidence that grades would rise. Therefore, the material supports testing a limited phone-free period more clearly than it supports a complete ban.

'''Notice:''' claim → reasoning → evidence with limitation → link back. The paragraph is a model for analysis, not a ready-made answer to a real examination text.

[[Datei:Notebook writing.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
= Speaking before writing =

[[Datei:GroupdiscrussionMIC.JPG|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

A spoken argument can expose gaps before you write.

# [[Micro argument]]: Give a 60-second answer to: "Should Northbridge test a weekly phone-free study period?"
# [[Partner check]]: Your partner listens only for claim, reasoning, evidence/example and link back.
# [[Revision]]: Repeat the argument with one clearer logical connection.

'''Privacy:''' Recording is optional. If you record yourself, keep the file local/private unless everyone involved has agreed to sharing. No upload is required for this course.

{{BR}}
= Writing: Interactive Paragraph Builder =

'''Prompt:''' Should Northbridge Sixth Form test a weekly phone-free study period?

'''Material:''' Use only the fictional practice source above.

{| class="wikitable"
! Builder step
! Your job
! BF sentence frame
! LF upgrade
|-
| '''Claim'''
| Answer the prompt directly.
| One reason to test the policy is that ...
| Use a precise or qualified claim rather than an absolute one.
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| Explain why the claim makes sense.
| This matters because ...
| Make the underlying assumption visible and test whether it is defensible.
|-
| '''Evidence / Example'''
| Select support that matches the claim.
| The fictional source reports that ...
| Combine evidence only if the relationship between sources is relevant.
|-
| '''Link back'''
| Return to the exact question.
| Therefore, the source supports ...
| Synthesize rather than simply repeat the claim.
|}

'''Builder rule:''' Do not insert a quotation or statistic and move on. After evidence, explain its relevance.

{{BR}}
== Builder round 1: assemble a paragraph ==

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Choose the correct paragraph function.
! Sentence
|-
| '''Claim'''
| A weekly phone-free study period could reduce avoidable interruptions without creating an all-day restriction.
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| A limited period targets the specific moment when sustained attention is required and keeps the measure proportionate.
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| In the fictional source, 68% of respondents report notification-based interruptions during independent work.
|-
| '''Link back'''
| This supports testing a limited study period more directly than introducing a complete school-day ban.
|}
{{E}}

</div>

<br>

{{BR}}
== Builder round 2: make it yours ==

Write a new paragraph using the same four functions, but change at least two features:

# [[Claim]]: Narrow or qualify the position.
# [[Reasoning]]: Add a different logical explanation.
# [[Evidence]]: Use the 41% figure or the limitation about grades.
# [[Link back]]: Make the final sentence answer the wording of the prompt.

'''BF support:''' aim for one main line of reasoning and one clearly relevant piece of evidence.

'''LF extension:''' weigh competing evidence, add a qualifier or short counterpoint, and decide which material deserves most weight.

{{BR}}
= Mediation mini-task =

'''English task first:''' Mediate the key idea below for an English-speaking partner who wants to understand the argument. Do not translate word for word. Build one short argumentative paragraph.

'''German source note – fictional practice material:''' Eine fiktive Schülergruppe berichtet, dass feste handyfreie Lernphasen die Konzentration erleichtern können. Gleichzeitig fordert sie Ausnahmen für Barrierefreiheit und dringende familiäre Kommunikation.

Your paragraph should contain a claim, reasoning, one mediated source point and a link back to the question: '''"Would a limited phone-free study period be a balanced approach?"'''

{{BR}}
= Language help =

Use these frames as temporary scaffolds, not as a template to repeat mechanically.

{| class="wikitable"
! Function
! Useful English
|-
| '''Claim'''
| A central reason is that ... / The material suggests that ... / A more convincing position is that ...
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| This matters because ... / The logic behind this is ... / This is particularly relevant when ...
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| The source indicates that ... / This is illustrated by ... / One example is ...
|-
| '''Explaining evidence'''
| This supports the claim because ... / The evidence is relevant insofar as ...
|-
| '''Qualification'''
| to some extent / under these conditions / this does not necessarily mean that ...
|-
| '''Link back'''
| Therefore, this point supports the view that ... / Taken together, this makes ... more plausible.
|}

'''Avoid empty connectors:''' "Furthermore" does not create logic by itself. The relationship between sentences must be meaningful.

{{BR}}
= Feedback and revision =

Use the checklist after the first draft.

{| class="wikitable"
! Check
! Yes / not yet
|-
| My claim answers the task rather than only naming the topic.
|
|-
| My reasoning explains why the claim makes sense.
|
|-
| My evidence/example is specific and relevant.
|
|-
| I explain what the evidence shows and what it does not show.
|
|-
| My final sentence links the point back to the question.
|
|-
| Pronouns, connectors and key terms create cohesion.
|
|-
| My register is appropriate for the task.
|
|-
| I have checked grammar, spelling and punctuation after revising the logic.
|
|}

'''Peer feedback sentence:''' "Your strongest connection is ... . One place where the reasoning needs to become more explicit is ... ."

{{BR}}
= Error analysis =

Find and repair the problem in each line.

{| class="wikitable"
! Problem sentence
! What to check
|-
| "This proves that the policy will work everywhere."
| Overclaiming: does the evidence really prove this?
|-
| "The source gives a statistic. Therefore, my claim is right."
| Missing reasoning: why is the statistic relevant?
|-
| "Some people disagree, but they are obviously wrong."
| Register and fairness: represent counterpositions accurately.
|-
| "This shows the issue is important."
| Vague link: important in what way and for which question?
|-
| "According to a website, many students agree."
| Source quality and traceability: which source, which data, which context?
|}

'''Correction principle:''' repair the logic first, then improve style.

{{BR}}
= Differentiation BF / LF =

{| class="wikitable"
! Dimension
! Basisfach
! Leistungsfach
|-
| Material
| smaller, clearly delimited set
| broader set; more independent material linking
|-
| Structure
| explicit C-R-E-L scaffold and sentence frames
| flexible structure with independent decisions
|-
| Evidence
| one or two clearly relevant items
| selection, comparison and weighting of material
|-
| Reasoning
| explicit, guided explanation
| deeper qualification, assumptions, counterarguments where useful
|-
| Language
| secure B2 clarity and accuracy
| B2 with selected C1 precision and range as learning orientation
|-
| Cognitive demand
| strong support for transfer into AFB II
| more sustained AFB II/III work and independent evaluation
|}

Do not make LF artificially difficult. Complexity should come from the material, reasoning and independence, not from unnecessarily rare vocabulary.

{{BR}}
= AI and source literacy =

AI output is not evidence simply because it sounds confident.

# [[Source check]]: Can you locate the original source?
# [[Claim check]]: Does the source really support the statement?
# [[Context check]]: Are date, population and situation appropriate?
# [[Quotation check]]: Is wording accurate and within permitted use?
# [[Disclosure]]: If your school requires disclosure of AI use, follow that rule.
# [[Authorship]]: Use tools to question, test or revise your thinking, not to replace your own examination writing.

This aiMOOC does not require external AI access, account creation or uploading personal work.

{{BR}}
= Transfer to Abitur-style work =

The paragraph skill supports several task types: analytical writing, personal comment, discussion and material-based argumentation. It also helps when you explain the effect of a linguistic or structural feature: make a claim about the effect, reason it through, support it with evidence from the text, then link it back to the analytical focus.

For literary and non-literary material, use only legally provided excerpts or material supplied for class. This course does not reproduce complete compulsory texts or unauthorised film sequences.

{{BR}}
== Abi-Check Baden-Württemberg ==

'''Checked for Abiturjahrgang 2027; official requirements can change for later cohorts. Always compare with the current ministry page before exam preparation.'''

'''Leistungsfach 2027:''' The official Facherlass specifies a written examination of about 255 minutes including selection time. It includes a listening-comprehension part and a writing part. The writing task can involve aspect-based reading comprehension, analysis and a personal statement or a creative writing task. The course focus on argumentative paragraphs directly supports the logic needed in analytical and personal-response writing.

'''Basisfach 2027:''' Across the four course semesters, the official Facherlass requires coverage of listening, reading, analysis, mediation and different writing types, including personal response and creative writing. BF uses a lower degree of breadth, depth and complexity than LF, but still requires independent communication.

'''Operatoren:''' For the 2027 examination cohort, the Facherlass refers to the IQB core set of operators.

'''Official sources:'''

[https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-km/intern/PDF/Dateien/Gymnasium/Dokumente_Abitur/Abitur_2027/Facherlass_2027_Stand_09.09.2025.pdf Facherlass Abitur 2027 Baden-Württemberg]

[https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/BP2016BW_ALLG_GYM_E1_LG Bildungsplan Englisch Gymnasium Baden-Württemberg]

[https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/abitur/dokumente/englisch IQB: Dokumente und Operatoren Englisch]

{{BR}}
== Follow-up course ==

Continue with [[ABI - Argumentative essays schreiben]]: move from one coherent paragraph to paragraph sequencing, counterargument, synthesis and whole-text coherence.

Useful links: [[Text analysis]], [[Comment writing]], [[Discussion writing]], [[Mediation]], [[Cohesion]], [[Academic vocabulary]].

{{BR}}
= Interaktive Aufgaben =

{{BR}}
== Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen ==

{{MC}}

'''What is the main job of a claim in an argumentative paragraph?'''
(To answer the relevant part of the question)
(!To repeat the topic without taking a position)
(!To list every fact from the source)
(!To introduce a quotation without explanation)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does reasoning mainly do?'''
(It explains why the claim makes sense)
(!It replaces all evidence)
(!It adds an unrelated example)
(!It corrects spelling mistakes)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which description best fits evidence?'''
(Specific support that is relevant to the claim)
(!Any sentence containing a number)
(!A strong opinion stated confidently)
(!A connector such as furthermore)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is the purpose of the link back?'''
(To connect the paragraph's point to the question)
(!To start a completely new argument)
(!To repeat the evidence word for word)
(!To add a source that has not been checked)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why is evidence alone often not enough?'''
(The reader still needs the relevance to be explained)
(!Evidence must always be translated into German)
(!Evidence can never contain examples)
(!Evidence is only useful in literary analysis)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does a qualifier do?'''
(It limits a claim so that it becomes more precise)
(!It turns every claim into a fact)
(!It removes the need for reasoning)
(!It makes the paragraph longer without changing meaning)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which sentence functions most clearly as evidence in the fictional Northbridge task?'''
(The fictional survey reports notification-based interruptions among respondents)
(!Phones are obviously terrible)
(!Everyone should agree with the policy)
(!This topic is very important)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which sentence is mainly reasoning?'''
(A limited study period targets the time when sustained attention is required)
(!The fictional survey included 180 students)
(!The question asks about a weekly study period)
(!The paragraph contains four sentences)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is the main problem with the phrase everybody knows it in an argument?'''
(It presents an unsupported generalisation)
(!It is a precise qualification)
(!It identifies a reliable source)
(!It links evidence to the task)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''How should LF usually differ from BF in this shared course?'''
(Through greater breadth depth complexity and independence)
(!Through rare vocabulary for its own sake)
(!By avoiding evidence)
(!By replacing reasoning with longer quotations)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Claim || Direct answer to the paragraph question
|-
| Reasoning || Logical explanation connecting the point
|-
| Evidence || Specific support for the claim
|-
| Linkback || Return to the exact task
|-
| Qualifier || Limitation that makes a claim more precise
|-
| Rebuttal || Response to an exception or counterargument
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Drag and Drop: Interactive Paragraph Builder ==

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Paragraph function
|-
| '''Claim'''
| Answers the relevant part of the question
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| Explains why the position makes sense
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| Provides specific support from material or an example
|-
| '''Qualification'''
| Limits the strength or scope of the point
|-
| '''Linkback'''
| Connects the paragraph result to the task

|}
{{E}}

<br>

'''Second builder: sentence to function'''

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Example sentence
|-
| '''Claim'''
| A limited phone-free study period could reduce avoidable interruptions.
|-
| '''Reasoning'''
| A short fixed period targets concentration without extending the rule across the whole day.
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| The fictional source reports that many respondents experienced notification-based interruptions.
|-
| '''Qualifier'''
| However the material does not show that grades would automatically improve.
|-
| '''Linkback'''
| Therefore the source supports testing a limited measure more clearly than a complete ban.

|}
{{E}}

<br />

{{BR}}
== Kreuzworträtsel ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Claim || Which word names the statement a writer wants the reader to accept?
|-
| Evidence || Which word names specific support for a claim?
|-
| Reasoning || Which word names the logical explanation connecting a claim and support?
|-
| Cohesion || Which word describes how sentences connect into a unified paragraph?
|-
| Qualifier || Which word names language that limits the strength of a claim?
|-
| Rebuttal || Which word names a response to an exception or counterargument?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=ABI+Argumentative+paragraphs+schreiben </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Lückentext ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Vervollständige den Text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
A focused paragraph begins with a clear { claim }. A writer then adds { reasoning } to explain the logic of the point. Specific { evidence } should support rather than merely decorate the paragraph. After using evidence, the writer explains its { relevance }. The final move connects the point back to the { question }. Pronouns, connectors and repeated key ideas can improve { cohesion }. A careful writer may use a { qualifier } to avoid overclaiming. Before using factual information, the writer should verify the { sources }.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Offene Aufgaben =

{{BR}}
=== Leicht ===

# [[Claim training]]: Turn three broad topics into precise one-sentence claims that answer a question.
# [[Reasoning ladder]]: Take one claim and add two "because" explanations; choose the stronger one and explain why.
# [[Evidence match]]: Create four short fictional evidence cards and decide which claim each one could genuinely support.
# [[Link back]]: Rewrite three vague concluding sentences so that each one refers clearly to the task question.

{{BR}}
=== Standard ===

# [[Paragraph reconstruction]]: Cut a self-written paragraph into four functional parts and label claim, reasoning, evidence/example and link back.
# [[Source evaluation]]: Compare two short sources supplied by your teacher and decide which evidence is more relevant for one specific claim.
# [[Peer feedback]]: Exchange one paragraph and give feedback only on logic and relevance before correcting language.
# [[Speaking to writing]]: Give a 60-second argument, then turn it into a paragraph and note what changed between speech and writing.

{{BR}}
=== Schwer ===

# [[Qualification]]: Write two versions of the same claim, one absolute and one carefully qualified; explain which is more defensible.
# [[Counterargument]]: Add a concise counterpoint and rebuttal without losing paragraph focus.
# [[Material synthesis]]: Combine two source ideas in one paragraph and make the relationship between them explicit.
# [[Transfer task]]: Apply the C-R-E-L logic to an unfamiliar Abitur-style question and justify your choice of evidence and paragraph structure.

{{:Offene Aufgabe - MOOC erstellen}}

{{BR}}
= Lernkontrolle =

# [[Argument diagnosis]]: Analyse a short flawed paragraph and explain where the claim, reasoning, evidence or link back fails.
# [[Revision transfer]]: Revise an overconfident paragraph so that its conclusion matches the strength of the available evidence.
# [[Source comparison]]: Given two short source extracts, decide which one is more relevant to a specific claim and justify the decision.
# [[Material-based writing]]: Write one original argumentative paragraph from a new source set and annotate the four core functions afterwards.
# [[Mediation transfer]]: Mediate a short German source idea into an English paragraph without translating sentence by sentence.
# [[BF LF reflection]]: Explain how the same task could be scaffolded for BF and extended for LF without making the LF version artificially difficult.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= Lernnachweis =

For a successful Lernnachweis, you should be able to show:

# [[Task focus]]: Your claim answers the exact question.
# [[Reasoning]]: The logical connection is explicit and defensible.
# [[Evidence]]: Support is relevant, accurately represented and traceable.
# [[Explanation]]: You explain what the evidence shows and avoid overclaiming.
# [[Cohesion]]: Sentences form one connected line of thought.
# [[Language]]: Register, grammar and vocabulary are appropriate for upper-secondary English.
# [[Revision]]: You can identify and repair weaknesses in logic as well as language.
# [[Source literacy]]: You distinguish real evidence from fictional practice data and verify AI-generated or online claims before use.
# [[Independence]]: Your final paragraph is your own work and not an externally generated replacement answer.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs zum Thema =

<iframe> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulmin-Schema </iframe>

Free media used in this course can be checked on Wikimedia Commons, including [[Datei:Argument Map.png]], [[Datei:Toulmin Argumentation Example.png]] and [[Datei:Writing Process Flow Chart.gif]].

<br>

{{BR}}
= Verknüpfte Lernbereiche =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[Argumentatives Schreiben]]'''
# [[Claim]]
# [[Reasoning]]
# [[Evidence]]
# [[Cohesion]]
# [[Text analysis]]
# [[Comment writing]]
# [[Discussion writing]]
# [[Mediation]]
# [[Toulmin-Schema]]
|}

[[Kategorie:Englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Abitur]]
[[Kategorie:Kursstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Baden-Württemberg]]
[[Kategorie:Basisfach]]
[[Kategorie:Leistungsfach]]
[[Kategorie:Schreiben]]
[[Kategorie:Argumentation]]
[[Kategorie:Textkompetenz]]
[[Kategorie:Medienkompetenz]]
[[Kategorie:B2]]
[[Kategorie:C1]]

{{BR}}
= aiMOOC-Projekte =
[[Kategorie:AI_MOOC]] [[Kategorie:GPT aiMOOC]]
{{MT}}

ABI - Argumentative paragraphs schreiben - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt