Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-10-03T17:21:49Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}

{{BR}}
= ABI LF - AI debate challenge =

[[Datei:Library Debate session.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Mini-description:''' Lead a structured, evidence-based debate on one clearly defined AI question. Represent competing positions fairly, test claims against evidence, and communicate at Leistungsfach level.

'''Target group:''' Englisch als fortgeführte Fremdsprache, Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg, Leistungsfach. English first; German support comes only after context, word formation, visualisation, an English explanation and dictionary work.

{{BR}}
= Einleitung =

'''Debate motion:''' ''This House believes that upper-secondary schools should allow students to use generative AI for homework and formative writing, provided every use is disclosed and independently verified.''

The motion is deliberately narrow. It concerns '''homework and formative writing''', not the Abitur examination and not hidden AI-written replacement essays. ''Disclosed'' means that AI assistance is named. ''Independently verified'' means that factual claims are checked against reliable sources rather than accepted from the same AI system.

Your challenge is not to “win at all costs”. Your task is to construct the strongest evidence-based case you can, represent the opposing case fairly, rebut precisely and state the limits of your evidence.

[[Datei:Dall-e 3 (jan '24) artificial intelligence icon.png|400px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_W6P_K434 |500|center}}

''Media entry: Watch selected passages from the Oxford Union debate. Focus on structure, evidence, rebuttal and concessions, not on copying speakers' positions.''

{{BR}}
== Safety, privacy and academic integrity ==

No external AI tool is required for this aiMOOC. Do not enter personal data into external systems. Any recording task is voluntary and may stay private on your own device. Do not upload recordings, images or written work unless your teacher explicitly asks you to use an approved school platform. If AI is permitted in a learning task, document its use and verify its claims. Your final analysis and writing must remain your own.

If a task uses a class poll or sample data, those data are marked as '''fictional''' and are for analysis practice only.

{{BR}}
= I-can goals =

{| class="wikitable"
! I can ...
! Leistungsfach focus
|-
| narrow a broad AI topic into a debatable motion
| precision and conceptual control
|-
| distinguish claim, evidence, warrant, counterclaim, rebuttal and limitation
| AFB II/III reasoning
|-
| compare studies without overgeneralising from one subject, age group or setting
| source criticism
|-
| analyse structure, tone, register, examples, statistics and communicative strategy
| non-fiction analysis
|-
| build a five-minute evidence-based monologue and sustain a ten-minute dialogue
| communication practice
|-
| write an independent, source-based argument without outsourcing the thinking
| written exam transfer
|-
| mediate relevant information selectively and appropriately for an audience
| optional mediation transfer
|}

{{BR}}
= Vorwissen aktivieren =

Answer in English before opening a dictionary.

# [[Evidence]]: What makes information usable as evidence rather than merely an opinion?
# [[Generative AI]]: Name one capability and one limitation.
# [[Transfer]]: Why might evidence from mathematics not automatically apply to English writing?
# [[Fairness]]: What would a fair summary of a position you disagree with sound like?

'''Diagnostic rule:''' If you cannot explain a term, first infer from context, then inspect its word family, then use an English learner's dictionary. Use a bilingual dictionary only afterwards.

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

[[Datei:Critical Thinking Skills Diagram.svg|450px|rahmenlos|center]]

{| class="wikitable"
! Word
! Word family
! English explanation
! Useful collocation
|-
| evidence
| evident, evidential
| information used to support or challenge a claim
| strong / limited evidence
|-
| verify
| verification, verifiable
| check whether a claim is accurate
| independently verify a claim
|-
| disclose
| disclosure
| make relevant assistance or information visible
| disclose AI use
|-
| valid
| validity, validate
| well-founded for the purpose claimed
| external validity
|-
| reliable
| reliability, rely
| consistent or dependable enough for a purpose
| reliable source
|-
| bias
| biased
| a systematic tendency that can distort judgement or output
| detect bias
|-
| scaffold
| scaffolding
| temporary support that helps a learner perform a difficult task
| instructional scaffolding
|-
| overreliance
| rely, reliance
| depending on a tool so much that independent performance may weaken
| avoid overreliance
|-
| agency
| agent, agentic
| a person's capacity to make informed choices and act independently
| learner agency
|-
| equitable
| equity, inequity
| fair in access, opportunity and treatment
| equitable access
|-
| rebut
| rebuttal
| answer a counterargument with reasons or evidence
| evidence-based rebuttal
|-
| substantiate
| substantiation, substantiated
| support a claim with adequate evidence
| substantiate an argument
|}

'''Dictionary challenge:''' Add pronunciation, one example sentence and one extra collocation for six words.

'''Deutsch-Nothilfe erst zuletzt:''' Wenn Kontext, Wortfamilie, englische Erklärung und Wörterbuch nicht reichen, notiere eine knappe deutsche Arbeitsbedeutung. Übersetze nicht den gesamten Text.

{{BR}}
= Listening and Viewing =

{{BR}}
== Viewpoint A: potential benefits ==

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJP5GqnTrNo |500|center}}

Sal Khan argues for educational uses of AI tutoring and teaching support. Treat the talk as an '''argumentative source''', not as experimental proof.

# [[Listening for claims]]: Note the central claim in one sentence.
# [[Examples]]: Identify two examples used to make the claim plausible.
# [[Source type]]: Explain what the talk can show and what it cannot prove.
# [[Language analysis]]: Track one rhetorical strategy and its effect.

{{BR}}
== Viewpoint B: risks and governance ==

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL5OFXeXenA |500|center}}

Gary Marcus argues that unreliable AI systems can create social risks and calls for stronger safeguards. Again, separate expert argument from empirical study.

# [[Listening for counterclaims]]: State the main risk claim.
# [[Evidence audit]]: Mark each support item as example, expert judgement, data or reference to research.
# [[Rhetoric]]: Analyse tone, urgency and audience appeal.
# [[Fair comparison]]: Write one sentence both speakers could plausibly agree with.

{{BR}}
= Reading: evidence pack =

The following cards deliberately mix '''experimental evidence''' and '''policy guidance'''. Do not treat all source types as if they prove the same thing.

{{BR}}
== Evidence card A: high-school mathematics ==

A 2025 PNAS field experiment examined generative-AI tutoring in high-school mathematics. A standard chat-style condition improved performance while AI was available, but later unassisted performance was worse than for students who had not used that unrestricted condition. A more strongly scaffolded tutor was designed to give hints rather than simply provide answers.

'''Use carefully:''' This is strong causal evidence for its tested setting, but it is mathematics, not English writing. Do not generalise beyond the population, task and tool design without qualification.

[https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122 PNAS: Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning]

{{BR}}
== Evidence card B: university physics ==

A 2025 open-access randomized controlled trial with 194 students in a Harvard physics course compared a research-based AI tutor with in-class active learning for the same content. In that setting, students using the designed AI tutor learned more in less time and reported greater engagement and motivation.

'''Use carefully:''' The participants were university physics students and the tutor was purpose-built. This does not establish that unrestricted chatbots improve upper-secondary English writing.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97652-6 Scientific Reports: AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning]

{{BR}}
== Evidence card C: human-centred guidance ==

UNESCO's guidance on generative AI in education stresses human agency, privacy, equity, age-appropriate use and pedagogical validation.

'''Use carefully:''' Guidance can frame ethical and policy criteria. It is not a randomized learning-effect study.

[https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research UNESCO: Guidance for generative AI in education and research]

[[Datei:Scale of justice 2.svg|350px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
== Evidence card D: digital literacy and disinformation ==

The European Commission's 2026-updated guidance for educators links generative AI with digital literacy, critical thinking and the challenge of misleading information.

'''Use carefully:''' Use this source for educational goals and risk awareness, not as proof that one classroom policy causes a particular learning outcome.

[https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/actions/plan/guidelines-for-teachers-to-foster-digital-literacy-and-tackle-disinformation European Education Area: digital literacy and disinformation]

[[Datei:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg|450px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
= Evidence quality: analyse before you argue =

[[Datei:Ethics of Open Sharing icon - Algorithmic bias.svg|320px|rahmenlos|center]]

{| class="wikitable"
! Question
! What a strong answer does
|-
| What is the claim?
| states it precisely and neutrally
|-
| What kind of evidence is offered?
| distinguishes RCT, observational data, policy guidance, expert argument and anecdote
|-
| How direct is the evidence?
| checks population, subject, task, tool and outcome
|-
| What is the warrant?
| explains why the evidence supports the claim
|-
| What is the limitation?
| names what cannot safely be inferred
|-
| What would change your mind?
| identifies disconfirming evidence
|}

'''High-level move:''' A study can be methodologically strong and still have limited transfer to your exact motion.

{{BR}}
= Visualisation: fictional class snapshot =

'''Fictional data for analysis practice only — not evidence about real students.'''

{| class="wikitable"
! Position before the debate
! Fictional responses
|-
| allow AI with disclosure and verification
| 12
|-
| allow AI with few restrictions
| 3
|-
| do not allow AI for formative writing
| 9
|}

Analyse the table in three stages: '''describe''' the pattern, '''interpret''' one possible reason, then '''limit''' the interpretation. Do not claim that this fictional class represents Baden-Württemberg or students in general.

{{BR}}
= Debate architecture =

[[Datei:Two college students debating.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{| class="wikitable"
! Move
! Sentence frame
|-
| Claim
| Our position is that ...
|-
| Evidence
| This is supported by ...
|-
| Warrant
| This matters because ...
|-
| Limitation
| However, this evidence is limited to ...
|-
| Counterclaim
| A strong objection is that ...
|-
| Rebuttal
| That objection is important, but ...
|-
| Concession
| We accept that ... while maintaining that ...
|-
| Synthesis
| The evidence suggests a conditional position: ...
|}

'''Fairness rule:''' Before rebutting, summarise the opposing argument in a form that the other team accepts as accurate.

{{BR}}
= Speaking challenge =

{{BR}}
== Preparation ==

# [[Narrow the motion]]: Keep the debate about homework and formative writing, not final examinations.
# [[Build two cases]]: Prepare the strongest pro and con case before team roles are assigned.
# [[Select evidence]]: Use at least one experimental study and one ethical or policy source.
# [[Add limitations]]: Every major empirical claim must carry a transfer limitation.
# [[Prepare questions]]: Write three questions that could genuinely test your own side.

{{BR}}
== Monologue practice ==

Deliver a structured five-minute position statement without reading a full script. Use notes containing keywords, evidence references and signposts only.

'''Support:''' Use three blocks: claim – evidence – limitation.

'''Core:''' Use two evidence cards, one concession and one rebuttal.

'''Stretch:''' Compare the evidential value of two source types and explain why they justify different levels of certainty.

{{BR}}
== Dialogue practice ==

Hold a ten-minute evidence-focused dialogue. Your goal is not rapid-fire contradiction. Ask for clarification, test relevance, challenge transfer, concede valid points and reformulate when new evidence changes your position.

'''Useful gambits:''' ''Could you clarify what outcome you mean?'' – ''How directly does that study apply here?'' – ''I accept that point, but the limitation is ...'' – ''What evidence would distinguish between these explanations?''

[[Datei:Citizens' Corner debate about studying abroad (11440165255).jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
= Writing =

Do not write a replacement essay with AI. Build the reasoning yourself.

'''Task:''' Write a 350–450 word evidence-based comment on the debate motion. Use at least two source cards. Your text must include one counterclaim, one rebuttal and one explicit limitation.

'''Planning frame before prose:'''

{| class="wikitable"
! Element
! Notes
|-
| precise thesis
|
|-
| strongest evidence for
|
|-
| strongest evidence against
|
|-
| transfer limitation
|
|-
| concession
|
|-
| final conditional judgement
|
|}

'''LF stretch:''' Make the conclusion conditional rather than absolute by specifying the circumstances under which your judgement would change.

{{BR}}
= Optional mediation =

Read the German-language version of the European Commission's digital-literacy guidance. Then brief an English-speaking exchange student in 120–150 words on the two points most relevant to an AI debate at school. Select; do not translate sentence by sentence.

[https://education.ec.europa.eu/de/focus-topics/digital-education/actions/plan/guidelines-for-teachers-to-foster-digital-literacy-and-tackle-disinformation Europäische Bildungsplattform – deutsche Fassung]

{{BR}}
= Feedback and error analysis =

{{BR}}
== Peer feedback ==

{| class="wikitable"
! Criterion
! Feedback prompt
|-
| precision
| Which term or claim needs narrowing?
|-
| evidence
| Which claim is best supported, and why?
|-
| warrant
| Where is the reasoning link missing?
|-
| limitation
| Where is transfer too broad?
|-
| interaction
| Where did the speaker respond directly to the partner?
|-
| language
| Which phrase improved register or cohesion?
|}

Feedback must refer to observable performance. Suggest a better formulation rather than repeating an error.

{{BR}}
== Diagnose these faulty moves ==

# [[Overgeneralisation]]: “The physics study proves AI improves learning in every subject.”
# [[Source-type confusion]]: “A TED talk proves the causal effect.”
# [[Unsupported leap]]: “AI can make practice faster, therefore schools must allow unrestricted use.”
# [[Cherry-picking]]: Using only the study that supports your assigned side.
# [[False balance]]: Treating a weak anecdote as equal to a relevant randomized study merely because it supports the other side.
# [[Vague attribution]]: “Studies say ...” without naming what was studied.

Rewrite each move so that the claim becomes accurate, limited and source-aware.

{{BR}}
= Differentiation =

{| class="wikitable"
! Dimension
! Support
! Core
! Stretch
|-
| language
| sentence frames and vocabulary table
| independent academic phrasing
| nuanced qualification and register shifts
|-
| scope
| two evidence cards
| all four cards
| one additional teacher-approved peer-reviewed or official source
|-
| pace
| 90-second micro-turns
| full monologue and dialogue
| rapid response plus synthesis
|-
| analysis
| identify claim and evidence
| evaluate relevance and limitations
| compare methods and external validity
|-
| help
| English definition and dictionary first
| minimal prompts
| no sentence frames during final round
|}

{{BR}}
= Abi-Check Baden-Württemberg 2027 =

'''Status checked: 3 October 2026.''' For the 2027 Leistungsfach, the official Facherlass still refers to the Bildungsplan 2016 for the examined cohort. The mandatory focus topic is '''On the Move: Migration and Cross-Cultural Encounters''', together with the prescribed works and the two thematic fields on politics, culture and society in the USA and the United Kingdom. '''AI is not the 2027 prescribed focus topic.''' This aiMOOC therefore trains transferable LF competences rather than replacing the official content.

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

{{BR}}
== Written examination: what this challenge trains ==

According to the 2027 Facherlass, the written LF examination is about 255 minutes including selection time: roughly 30 minutes listening, a 15-minute break, then 225 minutes for the writing part. In Part II, students choose between a literary and a non-literary text basis. The sequence includes an aspect-based summary, analysis, and then a choice between a personal statement and a creative writing task. Discontinuous materials such as images, diagrams or statistics may also be included.

This challenge therefore trains: listening for claims, aspect-based summary, analysis of line of argument and communicative strategies, visual-data analysis, and source-based personal comment.

{{BR}}
== Leistungsfach depth ==

The 2027 Facherlass states that LF course assessments should cover AFB I, II and III, with AFB II and III more strongly emphasised than AFB I. For this challenge, that means less retelling and more analysis, evaluation, source comparison, qualification and transfer.

{{BR}}
== Communication examination: keep it distinct ==

The 2027 Facherlass treats the communication examination separately and refers its detailed design and assessment to the current Beurteilungs- und Korrekturrichtlinienerlass for modern foreign languages. The Landesbildungsserver's practice guidance describes 15 minutes of preparation, about five minutes of monologic speaking and about ten minutes of dialogic speaking. Use this aiMOOC's five-minute monologue and ten-minute dialogue as targeted practice, but check the current official assessment documents before a graded simulation.

[https://www.schule-bw.de/faecher-und-schularten/sprachen-und-literatur/englisch/unterrichtsmaterialien-nach-kompetenzen/sprechen/kommunikationspruefung/oldindex.html/list_reader_view Landesbildungsserver: Kommunikationsprüfung]
[https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/GYM/E1/IK/11-12-LF Bildungsplan Englisch Leistungsfach 11/12]

{{BR}}
= Transfer =

Use the same evidence routine with an official 2027 topic.

# [[On the Move]]: Test a claim about migration using two independent evidence types.
# [[USA]]: Analyse how a source frames freedom, equality or identity.
# [[United Kingdom]]: Compare two perspectives on social or cultural change.
# [[Arrival]]: Discuss only teacher-provided, legally accessible material; do not reproduce or upload film sequences.
# [[Short stories]]: Work from licensed classroom copies; do not paste full required texts into the MOOC.

{{BR}}
= Media literacy checkpoint =

[[Datei:Artificial intelligence icon — EU Basic icon, part of the "EU Icons for labelling AI-generated content" series 2026.png|420px|rahmenlos|center]]

[[Datei:EU-LABEL AI GENERATED black.svg|420px|rahmenlos|center]]

Before trusting an AI-supported claim, ask: Who is responsible for it? What source can be opened? Is the evidence current? Is the quotation accurate? Does the source actually support the claim? What population and task were studied? Can an independent source confirm it?

{{BR}}
= Interaktive Aufgaben =

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

{{MC}}

'''Which statement best defines the motion in this aiMOOC?'''
(Generative AI may be used for homework and formative writing if use is disclosed and independently verified)
(!Generative AI should replace all English writing tasks)
(!Generative AI is permitted in the Abitur examination)
(!All AI systems should be banned from education)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is a warrant in an argument?'''
(The reasoning that explains why evidence supports a claim)
(!A list of vocabulary items)
(!A source title without analysis)
(!A personal preference stated strongly)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why must the PNAS mathematics study be transferred cautiously to English writing?'''
(It tested a different subject, task and setting)
(!It contains no learners)
(!It is a fictional classroom survey)
(!It is a dictionary entry)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What can a policy guidance document do best in this debate?'''
(Provide ethical and policy criteria)
(!Prove a causal learning effect by itself)
(!Replace all empirical studies)
(!Guarantee that every AI output is correct)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which source type can most directly support a causal claim when well designed?'''
(A randomized controlled trial)
(!An unsupported social-media comment)
(!A slogan)
(!A personal anecdote)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does independent verification require?'''
(Checking an AI-supported claim against reliable external sources)
(!Asking the same AI the same question twice)
(!Using only the first search result)
(!Trusting a fluent answer automatically)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is a fair rebuttal?'''
(A response that represents the opposing claim accurately before challenging it)
(!A personal attack on the speaker)
(!A louder repetition of the original claim)
(!A refusal to acknowledge evidence)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is the role of a limitation statement?'''
(It marks the boundary of what the evidence can justify)
(!It makes every argument invalid)
(!It removes the need for evidence)
(!It turns an opinion into a fact)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which skill is especially important at Leistungsfach level?'''
(Connecting and evaluating evidence from different materials)
(!Copying one source without comment)
(!Avoiding all counterarguments)
(!Reducing every issue to one sentence)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Is AI the prescribed English LF focus topic for Baden-Württemberg Abitur 2027?'''
(No, this challenge trains transferable competences)
(!Yes, AI replaces all prescribed works)
(!Yes, only AI is examined)
(!No, because English has no prescribed content)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Claim || Debatable position
|-
| Evidence || Supporting information
|-
| Warrant || Reasoning link
|-
| Rebuttal || Response to a counterargument
|-
| Limitation || Boundary of inference
|-
| Guardrail || Designed restriction
|-
| Verification || Independent checking
|}
{{E}}
<br>

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

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Thema
|-
| '''Narrow the motion'''
| Define exactly what is being judged
|-
| '''Present evidence'''
| Support a claim with relevant information
|-
| '''State the warrant'''
| Explain why the evidence matters
|-
| '''Add a limitation'''
| Mark the boundary of the inference
|-
| '''Rebut fairly'''
| Answer the strongest counterargument accurately
|}

{{E}}

<br>

{{BR}}
== Kreuzworträtsel ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Evidence || What supports or challenges a claim?
|-
| Warrant || What links evidence logically to a claim?
|-
| Rebuttal || What answers a counterargument?
|-
| Bias || What can systematically distort judgement?
|-
| Validity || What describes whether an inference is well founded for its purpose?
|-
| Disclosure || What makes relevant AI assistance visible?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=ABI+LF+AI+debate+challenge </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Lückentext ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Vervollständige den Text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
A precise debate begins with a clearly defined { motion }. A claim should be supported by relevant { evidence }. The reasoning link between evidence and claim is the { warrant }. A strong speaker also states a { limitation }. A fair answer to an opposing argument is a { rebuttal }. AI-supported factual claims need independent { verification }. Hidden assistance should be replaced by transparent { disclosure }. At Leistungsfach level, analysis and evaluation require careful { qualification }.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Offene Aufgaben =

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

# [[AI motion card]]: Rewrite the debate motion in your own English and define the three key limits: homework, formative writing and verification.
# [[Vocabulary map]]: Create a one-page word-family map for six debate terms using only English explanations first.
# [[Evidence labels]]: Sort the four source cards into experiment, policy guidance and expert argument, then justify each label.
# [[Private voice note]]: Give a voluntary 60-second spoken claim-evidence-limitation response. Keep the recording local; no upload is required.

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

# [[Balanced case file]]: Build one pro and one con case with equal preparation time and at least two sources each.
# [[Source limitation poster]]: Design a visual poster showing population, task, tool and outcome for the two experiments. Use your own graphics or openly licensed media.
# [[Rebuttal workshop]]: Write three fair rebuttals that begin with an accurate summary or concession.
# [[Mini communication round]]: Run a five-minute monologue plus ten-minute dialogue with a partner and collect criterion-based feedback.

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

# [[Method comparison]]: Compare the two experimental studies and explain why their different populations and designs matter for transfer to English learning.
# [[Evidence audit]]: Find one additional teacher-approved peer-reviewed or official source and evaluate its method, relevance, limitations and date. Do not use an AI-generated summary as your evidence.
# [[Policy synthesis]]: Draft a conditional school guideline that responds to learning, privacy, equity, verification and disclosure without assuming that one study settles the issue.
# [[Abi transfer task]]: Apply the same claim-evidence-warrant-limitation method to one official 2027 English topic and connect at least three materials independently.

{{:Offene Aufgabe - MOOC erstellen}}

{{BR}}
= Lernkontrolle =

# [[Transfer test]]: A new study finds that an AI tutor improves vocabulary quiz scores for university students. Explain what would still need to be known before applying the result to Kursstufe writing.
# [[Competing evidence]]: Two strong studies point in different directions. Develop three plausible reasons for the difference before deciding what follows.
# [[Source-function analysis]]: Explain how an RCT and a policy guideline can both be useful without serving the same evidential function.
# [[Rebuttal quality]]: Take a strong argument for the opposite side and write a rebuttal that concedes one valid point, challenges one inference and adds one limitation.
# [[Visual-data transfer]]: Analyse a new chart by separating description, interpretation and limitation.
# [[Communication transfer]]: Turn a written paragraph into a five-minute spoken structure with signposting, one question to the partner and one planned concession.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= Lernnachweis =

For a successful Lernnachweis, demonstrate:

# a clearly narrowed debate motion
# accurate use of claim, evidence, warrant, counterclaim, rebuttal and limitation
# fair representation of competing positions
# at least two different evidence types
# explicit source checking and transparent citation
# differentiated transfer from studies to the exact school context
# independent English analysis and writing
# appropriate Leistungsfach register and cohesion
# visible revision after feedback
# privacy-aware and transparent handling of any optional AI support

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs zum Thema =

<iframe> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCnstliche_Intelligenz </iframe>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Sources and further OER-oriented reading =

# [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122 Bastani et al., PNAS 2025]: experiment on generative AI and high-school mathematics
# [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97652-6 Kestin et al., Scientific Reports 2025]: randomized study of a designed AI tutor in university physics
# [https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research UNESCO]: human-centred guidance for generative AI in education and research
# [https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/actions/plan/ethical-guidelines-for-educators-on-using-artificial-intelligence European Commission]: ethical use of AI and data in teaching and learning
# [https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/actions/plan/guidelines-for-teachers-to-foster-digital-literacy-and-tackle-disinformation European Commission]: updated digital-literacy and disinformation guidance
# [https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-km/intern/PDF/Dateien/Gymnasium/Dokumente_Abitur/Abitur_2027/Facherlass_2027_Stand_09.09.2025.pdf Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg]: official Facherlass Abitur 2027
# [https://www.schule-bw.de/faecher-und-schularten/sprachen-und-literatur/englisch/unterrichtsmaterialien-nach-kompetenzen/sprechen/kommunikationspruefung/oldindex.html/list_reader_view Landesbildungsserver Baden-Württemberg]: communication-exam practice guidance

{{BR}}
= Folgekurs =

Continue with [[ABI LF - AI source verification lab]]: trace a claim back to its original source, compare reporting with the study itself, verify quotations and data, and build a compact evidence dossier for a new debate.

{{BR}}
= Verknüpfte Lernbereiche =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[ABI LF - AI debate challenge]]'''
# [[Englisch]]
# [[Argumentation]]
# [[Debatte]]
# [[Textanalyse]]
# [[Hörverstehen]]
# [[Sprechen]]
# [[Schreiben]]
# [[Sprachmittlung]]
# [[Medienkompetenz]]
# [[Künstliche Intelligenz]]
# [[Quellenkritik]]
# [[Abitur Baden-Württemberg]]
|}

[[Kategorie:Englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Kursstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Leistungsfach]]
[[Kategorie:Abitur]]
[[Kategorie:Baden-Württemberg]]
[[Kategorie:Künstliche Intelligenz]]
[[Kategorie:Debatte]]
[[Kategorie:Medienbildung]]
[[Kategorie:Quellenkritik]]
[[Kategorie:Klasse 11-13]]

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

ABI LF - AI debate challenge - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt