Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-10-03T17:19:30Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}

{{BR}}
= ABI - Reliable English-language sources identify =

[[Datei:Person factchecking with magnifying glass - RWiC.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Mini-description:''' Learn to identify reliable English-language sources by checking '''author, provider, date, expertise, evidence, transparency and relevance'''. Then use a fast source-check routine to verify claims before you read deeply, speak or write.

This aiMOOC is designed for '''Englisch als fortgeführte Fremdsprache''' in the Baden-Württemberg upper-secondary course stage, for a shared '''Basisfach / Leistungsfach''' setting. English comes first. Use context, word families, visualisation, an English explanation and a dictionary before German help. The learning target is '''B2, partly C1 as orientation''' — without artificial difficulty.

'''Course rule:''' You do the analysis and writing yourself. AI-generated suggestions, quotations and citations are leads, not evidence: verify them. Do not submit AI replacement essays. Use fictional data for practice where indicated. Recordings are voluntary and private; do not upload personal material without permission and do not send it to external AI services without explicit approval.

{{BR}}
= Einleitung =

A polished website can still be weak evidence. A simple page can still lead to a strong primary source. So do not ask only, “Does this look trustworthy?” Ask: '''Who is behind it? What is the evidence? What do other sources say?'''

For online source evaluation, a useful habit is '''lateral reading''': leave the page, open new tabs and investigate the source, the claim and the original evidence elsewhere. The goal is not to label a whole website “good” or “bad” forever. Your judgement should be specific: '''reliable for this claim, for this purpose, at this time — or not yet verified'''.

[[Datei:How to Spot Fake News.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Media task:''' Before using the infographic above, source-check the infographic itself. Who created it? When? Which organisation published it? Which claims are advice, and which would need further evidence?

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHNprb2hgzU |500|center}}

'''Viewing focus:''' Notice what happens when a fact-checker leaves the original page instead of staying inside it.

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

After this module, '''I can ...'''

# identify the author, provider, publication date and purpose of an English-language source.
# distinguish relevant expertise from impressive but irrelevant credentials.
# trace a claim to evidence and, where possible, to an original source.
# check transparency: methods, funding, corrections, limitations and conflicts of interest.
# read laterally and compare independent coverage before using a claim.
# explain a source judgement in clear B2 English and add nuance at C1-oriented level.
# use source checks in listening/viewing, reading, speaking, writing and mediation.
# document AI use and verify every AI-suggested source before citing it.

{{BR}}
== Quick prior-knowledge check ==

Without searching yet, decide which signal is '''strongest evidence''' of reliability: a professional layout, a .org domain, a named author, many shares, or a claim supported by traceable evidence. Then explain your choice in one English sentence.

'''Hint after thinking:''' No single surface feature proves reliability. The evidence chain and independent verification matter.

{{BR}}
= Media entry: reliability is a process =

[[Datei:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

Use the graphic to recall the difference between inaccurate information shared by mistake and deliberately misleading information. For your source check, however, first focus on what you can verify: '''who made a claim, what supports it, and whether independent sources corroborate it'''.

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm0MpfKIs5w |500|center}}

'''Listening/Viewing task:''' While watching, note three actions that help you evaluate a source. Then compare them with the routine below. Do not copy the presenter’s wording; paraphrase.

{{BR}}
= The seven source questions =

{| class="wikitable"
! Check
! Ask in English
! Stronger signal
! Warning signal
|-
| '''Author'''
| Who wrote, produced or edited this?
| Named person or accountable team; traceable profile
| Anonymous or identity cannot be verified
|-
| '''Provider'''
| Who publishes, hosts or funds it?
| Clear organisation, ownership and editorial responsibility
| Provider, sponsor or owner is hidden
|-
| '''Date'''
| When was it published or updated?
| Date is visible and appropriate for the topic
| Undated, stale or recycled material where recency matters
|-
| '''Expertise'''
| Does the author have relevant knowledge or access?
| Relevant qualification, role, experience or first-hand access
| Credentials are unrelated to the claim
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| What supports the claim?
| Traceable data, documents, research, direct quotations or primary material
| “Studies show” with no study, cherry-picked examples, broken links
|-
| '''Transparency'''
| Can I see methods, limits, funding, corrections and conflicts?
| Methods and limitations are explained; corrections are visible
| No method, no caveats, unclear sponsorship
|-
| '''Relevance'''
| Does this source answer my exact question?
| Appropriate scope, audience, place and time
| Interesting but off-topic, outdated or too general
|}

'''Important:''' Do not turn the seven questions into a mechanical points score. Reliability is contextual. A source may be excellent for one claim and weak for another.

{{BR}}
== Word formation and context vocabulary ==

{| class="wikitable"
! Core word
! Word family
! Useful phrase
|-
| reliable
| reliability, reliably
| a reliable source for this claim
|-
| relevant
| relevance, relevant
| relevant expertise
|-
| transparent
| transparency, transparently
| transparent about funding
|-
| credible
| credibility, credibly
| assess credibility
|-
| verify
| verification, verifiable
| verify the claim independently
|-
| evidence
| evidence, evidence-based
| provide traceable evidence
|-
| corroborate
| corroboration
| corroborate a claim with another source
|-
| bias
| biased, bias
| identify a possible source of bias
|}

'''Vocabulary routine:''' infer meaning from context → identify the word family → read an English definition/example → use your approved dictionary → use German help only if the meaning is still unclear.

{{BR}}
= The fast source-check routine =

[[Datei:Magnifying glass icon mgx1.svg|300px|rahmenlos|center]]

Use this routine before investing time in a source:

# '''Pause and define the claim.''' What exactly are you trying to verify?
# '''Scan the seven questions.''' Author, provider, date, expertise, evidence, transparency, relevance.
# '''Step outside the page.''' Open a new tab and investigate the author/provider through independent sources.
# '''Trace the evidence.''' Follow quotations, statistics, images and references back to the original context where possible.
# '''Triangulate.''' Check whether other independent, suitable sources support, qualify or challenge the claim.
# '''Record a precise judgement.''' Write one sentence such as: “This source is useful for X because ..., but it is limited for Y because ...”.

'''60-second version:''' Who is behind it? → What evidence is shown? → What do other sources say? → Is it relevant now?

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhbOvR2TGk |500|center}}

'''Viewing task:''' Find one example in the video where evidence looks relevant at first but does not actually support the claim strongly enough.

{{BR}}
== Why lateral reading beats surface signals ==

Professional fact-checking research has shown the value of leaving an unfamiliar site and checking its reputation, claims and evidence elsewhere. For school work, that means: do not spend five minutes decoding a site’s “About” page before checking what independent sources say about the organisation.

[[Datei:Web browser demo.webm|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Micro-practice:''' Open three tabs for one unfamiliar source: the original source, an independent search about the provider, and the best original evidence you can trace.

{{BR}}
= Listening and Viewing =

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Y-z6HmRgI |500|center}}

'''Task A – gist:''' What is the central warning about choosing news?

'''Task B – detail:''' Note two ways opinion, framing or incomplete information can influence what audiences receive.

'''Task C – transfer:''' Apply the seven source questions to one English-language news item connected to your current course topic. Do not judge from the headline alone.

'''BF scaffold:''' use a teacher-selected item and complete a seven-row check.

'''LF extension:''' compare two items on the same issue, trace at least one original document/data source and explain conflicting framing.

{{BR}}
= Reading: source cards =

The following material is '''fictional practice material'''. It trains method, not factual knowledge.

{| class="wikitable"
! Source card
! Metadata
! Claim
|-
| '''A'''
| “DailyFocusNow”, no named author, no date, “partner content”
| “A new study proves that students remember twice as much from short videos.”
|-
| '''B'''
| Maya Chen, education reporter; “City Learning Review”; 14 September 2026; links to a university report and correction policy
| “A local trial reported higher quiz scores after short video summaries, but the sample was small.”
|-
| '''C'''
| Dr Alex Morgan, “Future Learning Centre”; biography lists a doctorate in chemistry; no education research profile; no linked study
| “Video learning is scientifically proven to be superior for every subject.”
|}

'''Reading task:''' For each card, identify one strength, one limitation and one next verification step. Do not decide from job title or degree alone: check whether the expertise is relevant to the claim.

{{BR}}
== Evidence ladder ==

A useful source judgement asks how close the evidence is to the claim.

{| class="wikitable"
! Stronger for verification
! Weaker unless independently checked
|-
| Original dataset, official document, research paper, full interview, direct record
| Screenshot without origin, repost, summary without link, “experts say”
|-
| Multiple independent reports that trace to evidence
| Many pages repeating the same unverified source
|-
| Methods and limitations visible
| Certainty language with no method or caveat
|}

'''Remember:''' “primary” does not automatically mean “true”, and “secondary” does not automatically mean “weak”. Ask whether the source is appropriate for the claim.

{{BR}}
= Analysis =

For a non-literary English text, separate '''source reliability''' from '''text analysis'''.

{| class="wikitable"
! Question
! Focus
|-
| What is the author claiming?
| thesis, key claims, scope, qualification
|-
| How is the claim supported?
| statistics, examples, expert quotation, documents, links
|-
| How is the audience addressed?
| register, tone, framing, rhetorical choices
|-
| What is missing or uncertain?
| counter-evidence, method, date, source, limitations
|-
| How reliable is the source for this purpose?
| seven questions + lateral reading + relevance
|}

'''Useful analysis language:''' “The source supports the claim by ...”; “The evidence is traceable to ...”; “The author’s expertise is relevant because ...”; “This weakens the claim because ...”; “Independent coverage corroborates / qualifies ...”; “The source is useful for ..., but insufficient for ...”.

{{BR}}
= Speaking =

'''90-second source briefing:'''

# State the claim and the source.
# Give two reliability signals.
# Give one limitation or open question.
# Name one independent check.
# Conclude cautiously: usable, usable with caveat, or not yet verified for this specific purpose.

'''Partner response:''' Ask one follow-up question: “What evidence did you trace?”, “How do you know the provider is independent?”, or “Is the date relevant to the claim?”

Recordings are optional. If you record, keep them private unless everyone involved has explicitly agreed to another use.

{{BR}}
= Writing =

Write a short '''source note''' before using a source in an essay:

'''Model:''' “This source is relevant to my question because it provides recent data on .... The named author has relevant expertise in .... The article links to .... Independent sources confirm .... However, .... I will therefore use it for ..., not for ... .”

'''BF practice:''' one source, clear scaffold, one paragraph.

'''LF practice:''' connect three sources, distinguish primary/secondary evidence, explain tensions and justify which evidence can support which part of your argument.

These are classroom practice formats, not official word-count rules.

{{BR}}
= Mediation =

A German-speaking classmate sends you a German summary of an English report but wants to cite the report in an English presentation. Mediate only what is needed:

# explain in English who published the report and when;
# state the author’s relevant expertise if verifiable;
# explain what evidence the report uses;
# add one caveat and one independent check.

Do not translate the entire German message. Select and reformulate the source information for the English-speaking purpose.

{{BR}}
= BF / LF differentiation =

{| class="wikitable"
! Dimension
! Basisfach
! Leistungsfach
|-
| Material
| One or two manageable sources; key metadata visible
| Wider source set; more complex, partly conflicting materials
|-
| Support
| Check table, sentence starters, guided lateral-reading steps
| More independent search, source tracing and synthesis
|-
| Depth
| Exemplary judgement tied to a clear claim
| Nuanced comparison of evidence, methodology and framing
|-
| Language
| Secure B2 phrasing
| B2 with partly C1-oriented precision and qualification
|-
| AFB focus
| Strong structure and manageable transfer
| More AFB II/III: analyse, connect, evaluate evidence and justify limitations
|}

The difference is not “easy English versus difficult English”. It is mainly breadth, depth, text complexity, independence and the complexity of linking materials.

{{BR}}
= Help: when you get stuck =

{| class="wikitable"
! Problem
! First help
! Next help
|-
| I do not know a word.
| Context + word family
| English dictionary; German only afterwards
|-
| I cannot find the author.
| Check byline, footer, PDF title page
| Search the title/provider in a new tab
|-
| The source cites “research”.
| Look for a link, title, DOI or report
| Search the exact wording and trace the original
|-
| Two sources disagree.
| Compare date, scope, definitions and evidence
| Find independent coverage and original data
|-
| I am unsure how to phrase my judgement.
| Use “useful for ... but limited for ...”
| Add because + evidence + caveat
|}

{{BR}}
= Feedback and error analysis =

After a task, mark your error type:

# '''Surface-trust error:''' I trusted design, domain or popularity.
# '''Authority error:''' I accepted credentials without checking relevance.
# '''Evidence error:''' I repeated a claim without tracing support.
# '''Date error:''' I ignored whether recency mattered.
# '''Independence error:''' my “second source” copied the first.
# '''Language error:''' I wrote “proves” when the evidence only “suggests”, “reports” or “is consistent with”.
# '''Relevance error:''' the source was credible but did not answer my exact question.

Then rewrite only the flawed judgement. Feedback should name the check that would improve it.

{{BR}}
= AI and source checking =

Generative AI can produce plausible but inaccurate references, dates, quotations or summaries. Treat AI output as a '''search lead''', not as a source of evidence.

# Verify that every cited source really exists.
# Open the original source, not only an AI summary.
# Check author, provider, date, evidence and relevance yourself.
# Compare quotations with the original wording and context.
# State permitted AI use according to your course rules.
# Do not upload classmates’ work, private recordings, personal data or protected material to an external AI service without permission.
# Do not use AI to replace the analysis or essay you are expected to produce yourself.

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

'''Checked for the 2026/27 school year and Abitur 2027:''' The current English curriculum for the upper-secondary level distinguishes Basisfach and Leistungsfach by complexity, abstraction, breadth, depth and differentiation. The target level is B2, partly C1. The 2027 English regulations continue to require work with texts and media and with several language competences.

For the '''Leistungsfach''' written Abitur 2027, the official regulation states about 255 minutes in total: a listening part of about 30 minutes and, after a break, a 225-minute writing part including selection time. The writing task can involve an unfamiliar English text and additional materials such as images, statistics or diagrams.

For the '''Basisfach''', the 2027 regulation requires course assessment across the four half-years to cover listening, reading, analysis, mediation and two different writing-task types; the Abitur examination in the Basisfach is oral. Source checking is therefore best understood as a transferable reading, analysis and research habit that supports these competences, not as a separate stand-alone exam section.

The 2027 focus topic is '''On the Move: Migration and Cross-Cultural Encounters'''. Use this module with short, legally provided non-literary background sources related to the course topic; do not reproduce complete compulsory texts or unauthorised film sequences.

'''Official check links:'''
# [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 – Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg]
# [https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/%2CLde/DE_BW_BILDUNGSPLAENE_GEN2X_BPBW_ALLG_GYM_E1%28V3.0%29 Bildungsplan Englisch – überarbeitete Fassung V3.0]
# [https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/abitur/dokumente/englisch IQB – Dokumente Englisch und Operatoren]

If your examination year is not 2027, re-check the current official regulation before using exam-specific details.

{{BR}}
= Transfer =

Choose one English-language source you might genuinely use for your current course topic. Produce a '''source trail''' with four entries: original claim → original evidence → independent source about the provider/claim → your final use decision. Your final sentence must include both a reason and a limitation.

'''Follow-up course:''' [[ABI - Evidence-based argumentation in English|ABI - Evidence-based argumentation in English]].

{{BR}}
= Interaktive Aufgaben =

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

{{MC}}

'''Which check asks whether a writer has suitable knowledge for the specific claim?'''
(Relevant expertise)
(!Professional layout)
(!Number of followers)
(!Length of the article)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is lateral reading?'''
(Leaving the page to investigate the source and claim elsewhere)
(!Reading every paragraph twice)
(!Using only the About page)
(!Checking only spelling and grammar)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which is the strongest evidence signal?'''
(A traceable link to the original data or document)
(!A dramatic headline)
(!A large logo)
(!Many social-media shares)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why does publication date matter?'''
(Some claims require current information)
(!Old sources are always false)
(!New sources are always correct)
(!Dates prove author expertise)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does transparency include?'''
(Methods, limitations, funding and corrections)
(!Only the website colour)
(!Only the author photograph)
(!Only the article length)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which sentence shows a precise source judgement?'''
(This source is useful for recent local data but not for national trends)
(!This website is reliable forever)
(!This source looks professional)
(!This source has many comments)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What should you do with an AI-suggested citation?'''
(Open and verify the original source before using it)
(!Assume it exists)
(!Quote it without checking)
(!Use the AI summary as evidence)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does triangulate mean in source checking?'''
(Compare suitable independent sources and evidence)
(!Count three paragraphs)
(!Translate a source three times)
(!Use three sources from the same press release)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which phrase is appropriately cautious when evidence is limited?'''
(The findings suggest a possible link)
(!This proves the claim completely)
(!Everyone knows this is true)
(!There can be no alternative explanation)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is the best first language-help strategy in this course?'''
(Use context and word families before an English dictionary)
(!Translate every sentence immediately)
(!Ask for a full German translation)
(!Ignore unknown words completely)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Author || Who created the source?
|-
| Provider || Who publishes or hosts it?
|-
| Evidence || What supports the claim?
|-
| Transparency || Are methods and limitations visible?
|-
| Relevance || Does it answer the exact question?
|-
| Corroboration || Independent support from another source
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Drag and Drop ==

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Thema
|-
| '''Pause'''
| Define the exact claim
|-
| '''Scan'''
| Check author provider date expertise evidence transparency relevance
|-
| '''Step outside'''
| Investigate the source in another tab
|-
| '''Trace'''
| Find the original evidence
|-
| '''Triangulate'''
| Compare independent suitable sources

|}
{{E}}

<br>

{{BR}}
== Kreuzworträtsel ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Author || Who created or wrote the source?
|-
| Evidence || What supports a factual claim?
|-
| Relevance || Which criterion asks whether a source fits the exact question?
|-
| Expertise || What kind of knowledge should match the claim?
|-
| Provider || Who publishes or hosts the source?
|-
| Verify || What verb means to check whether a claim is supported?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=ABI+-+Reliable+English-language+sources+identify </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Lückentext ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Vervollständige den Text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
A reliable source check begins by identifying the { author } and the publishing organisation. The { date } matters when a claim can become outdated. Relevant { expertise } should match the subject of the claim. Strong claims need traceable { evidence }. A transparent source explains methods, limitations and possible { conflicts } of interest. Lateral reading means leaving the page to investigate it in another { tab }. Comparing independent sources can { corroborate } a claim. A final judgement should explain the source's { relevance } to the exact task.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Offene Aufgaben =

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

# [[Source snapshot]]: Choose one English webpage and capture only its metadata in your notes: author, provider, date and title. Do not upload screenshots containing personal data.
# [[Word-family map]]: Create a small visual map for reliable, relevant, transparent, credible and verify.
# [[Headline check]]: Find a headline and predict what evidence you would need before believing the main claim.
# [[Source sentence]]: Write one B2 sentence using “useful for ... but limited for ...” about a teacher-provided source.

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

# [[Lateral reading sprint]]: In three minutes, investigate who is behind an unfamiliar source and record two independent findings.
# [[Evidence trace]]: Follow one statistic or quotation back to its original source and explain any change in context.
# [[Speaking briefing]]: Give a 90-second source briefing with two strengths, one limitation and one next check.
# [[Mediation note]]: Convert a short German source description into a concise English source note for an international classmate.

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

# [[Source conflict]]: Compare three English sources that disagree. Explain whether the disagreement comes from data, definitions, dates, scope or interpretation.
# [[Method audit]]: Analyse how one report collected its evidence and identify one methodological strength and one limitation.
# [[AI citation audit]]: Using only fictitious or teacher-provided AI output, verify which references exist and document every correction without sending personal data to an AI service.
# [[Mini research dossier]]: Build a four-source evidence chain on a current course topic and justify which claim each source may and may not support.

{{:Offene Aufgabe - MOOC erstellen}}

{{BR}}
= Lernkontrolle =

# [[Reliability in context]]: A respected newspaper quotes a specialist outside the specialist’s field. Explain how this changes your judgement and what you would check next.
# [[Same claim different date]]: Two sources make the same claim, one from 2018 and one from 2026. Explain when the older source could still be useful and when it would be risky.
# [[Copied coverage]]: Five websites repeat the same statistic from one press release. Explain why this is not the same as five independent confirmations and design a better check.
# [[Evidence mismatch]]: A report gives strong evidence for a local sample but makes a national claim. Analyse the mismatch and rewrite the claim more cautiously.
# [[Transparent disagreement]]: Two transparent, expert sources reach different conclusions from similar evidence. Identify at least three reasons this can happen and propose how to communicate uncertainty.
# [[Transfer to Abi writing]]: Explain how a source check can improve the accuracy, analysis and argumentation of a non-literary writing task without turning the answer into a research report.

{{BR}}
= Lernnachweis =

For a successful learning record, you should be able to:

# apply all seven source questions to an unfamiliar English source;
# demonstrate lateral reading with at least one independent provider check;
# trace at least one claim to original evidence;
# distinguish relevant expertise from unrelated authority;
# explain one limitation or uncertainty without exaggeration;
# compare BF-level guided checking with LF-level multi-source synthesis;
# produce a short spoken and written source judgement in English;
# document permitted AI use and verify any AI-suggested references;
# reflect on one error pattern and show how you corrected it.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs zum Thema =

<iframe> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism </iframe>

'''Further open / educational resources:'''
# [https://cor.inquirygroup.org/ Civic Online Reasoning – Digital Inquiry Group]
# [https://inquirygroup.org/history-lessons/intro-lateral-reading-reconstruction-sources Intro to Lateral Reading – Digital Inquiry Group]
# [https://sml.stanford.edu/digital-strength/digital-strength-tools-training Digital Strength tools – Stanford Social Media Lab]
# [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fact-checking Wikimedia Commons – Fact-checking media]

{{BR}}
= Mediennachweise und Nutzung =

The Wikimedia Commons media used in this aiMOOC are linked through their file pages, where author, source and licence are documented. The embedded YouTube videos are streamed from the providers’ channels and are not copied into the MOOC.

# [[Datei:Person factchecking with magnifying glass - RWiC.png|200px|rahmenlos|center]]
# [[Datei:How to Spot Fake News.jpg|200px|rahmenlos|center]]
# [[Datei:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg|200px|rahmenlos|center]]
# [[Datei:Magnifying glass icon mgx1.svg|200px|rahmenlos|center]]
# [[Datei:Web browser demo.webm|300px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
= Verknüpfte Lernbereiche =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[Reliable English-language sources]]'''
# [[Quellenkritik]]
# [[Fact-Checking]]
# [[Medienkompetenz]]
# [[Lateral Reading]]
# [[Argumentation]]
# [[Textanalyse]]
# [[Sprachmittlung]]
# [[Englisch]]
# [[Abitur]]
|}

[[Kategorie:Englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Abitur]]
[[Kategorie:Oberstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Kursstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Basisfach]]
[[Kategorie:Leistungsfach]]
[[Kategorie:Baden-Württemberg]]
[[Kategorie:Medienkompetenz]]
[[Kategorie:Quellenkritik]]
[[Kategorie:Fact-Checking]]
[[Kategorie:Klasse 11-13]]

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

ABI - Reliable English-language sources identify - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt