Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-10-03T06:46:45Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}

{{BR}}
= ABI LF - Persuasive effectiveness beurteilen =

'''Mini-description:''' Judge the rhetorical effectiveness of a text by analysing '''argumentation, evidence, language and audience adaptation'''. Keep analytical judgment separate from personal agreement. Target level: '''continued foreign language English, Leistungsfach, Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg'''.

[[Datei:Rhetorical triangle.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3klMM9BkW5o |500|center}}

{{BR}}
= Einleitung =

'''English first.''' In an Abi-style analysis, the key question is not ''Do I agree?'' but ''How effectively does this text pursue its purpose for this audience?'' A strong answer explains how choices in argument, evidence and language work together in a specific rhetorical situation.

Use the MOOC's '''AELA lens''':
# '''Argumentation''': What is the line of argument? How are claims, reasons, concessions and counterarguments connected?
# '''Evidence''': Is support relevant, credible, sufficient and representative?
# '''Language''': How do diction, tone, syntax, register and rhetorical devices contribute to the purpose?
# '''Audience adaptation''': How well does the text fit the audience's knowledge, values, expectations, context and genre?

'''Core distinction:''' A text can be rhetorically effective even if you reject its position. A text can also support a position you share but argue for it weakly.

'''Leistungsfach profile:''' Expect greater breadth, depth, text complexity and differentiation than in the Basisfach. Link materials independently, justify interpretations with evidence and practise especially AFB II/III thinking.

{{BR}}
== Prüfungsbezug Baden-Württemberg: Stand 02.10.2026 ==

For the '''Abitur 2027''' in Baden-Württemberg, the official Facherlass for English states that the written examination in the Leistungsfach contains '''listening''' and '''writing'''. The writing part can require analysis of non-literary texts with attention to '''structure, use of language and communicative strategies'''. The official 2027 correction guidelines weight the overall written Abitur examination in the modern foreign languages as '''20% listening, 55% writing and 25% communication examination'''. In the qualification phase, tasks should cover AFB I, II and III, with '''AFB II and III more strongly emphasised than AFB I''' in the Leistungsfach.

'''Written part:''' about 255 minutes in total: about 30 minutes listening, a 15-minute break, then 225 minutes for writing including selection time.

'''Communication examination:''' 15 minutes preparation. An individual examination lasts at least 15 minutes, with about 5 minutes monologue and about 10 minutes dialogue. A tandem examination lasts at least 20 minutes, with about 5 minutes monologue per student and about 10 minutes dialogue. This oral component is part of the written Abitur examination and should not be confused with a possible additional oral examination in a written subject.

'''Current-source rule:''' If your exam year is not 2027, re-check the official KM documents for your cohort before using dates, weightings or compulsory content.

[https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/schule/gymnasium/termine-und-informationen-zum-abitur Official Baden-Württemberg Abitur information]
[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]
[https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-km/intern/PDF/Dateien/Gymnasium/Dokumente_Abitur/Abitur_2027/Beurteilungs-_und_Korrekturrichtlinienerlass_Abitur_2027_Stand_07.07.2025.pdf Beurteilungs- und Korrekturrichtlinien 2027]

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

By the end of this aiMOOC, you can say:
# I can reconstruct a line of argument instead of listing devices.
# I can distinguish claim, reason, evidence, warrant, concession and counterargument.
# I can evaluate evidence for relevance, credibility, sufficiency and representativeness.
# I can explain how language choices function in context.
# I can judge audience adaptation without pretending that all readers react identically.
# I can write a balanced judgment of persuasive effectiveness and keep it separate from personal agreement.
# I can transfer the same reasoning to speaking and the communication examination.

{{BR}}
== Vorwissen: 3-minute diagnostic ==

Without looking anything up, explain in English:
# What is the difference between a '''claim''' and '''evidence'''?
# Why is naming a rhetorical question not yet analysis?
# What changes when the same message is addressed to experts, parents or teenagers?
# Can a statement be factually correct but weak evidence for a specific claim?

If you are unsure, continue with the context vocabulary before using German help.

{{BR}}
= Medien-Einstieg: rhetoric in context =

[[Datei:Aristotle bust.jpg|350px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIESu4yXco4 |500|center}}

'''Viewing task:''' Note three ideas that go beyond the simple formula ''ethos, pathos, logos''. Then explain why rhetorical effectiveness always depends on '''purpose, audience and context'''.

{{BR}}
== Listening/Viewing: evidence check ==

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

While watching, create a two-column note:
{| class="wikitable"
! Evidence question
! Your note
|-
| What exactly is the claim?
|
|-
| What evidence is offered?
|
|-
| Does the evidence directly support the claim?
|
|-
| What is missing before the claim becomes convincing?
|}

'''LF extension:''' Distinguish between evidence that is '''credible''' and evidence that is '''probative''': a source may be trustworthy, yet the information may still fail to prove the specific claim being made.

{{BR}}
= Reading: fictional micro-text =

'''Fictional practice text and data:'''

<blockquote>
Every week, Northbridge Sixth Form throws away thousands of disposable cups. Last month, 68% of 125 respondents in a voluntary lunchtime poll said they would use a reusable cup if drinks cost 20 cents less. Starting next term, our school should introduce a small discount for reusable cups. It is a simple step: cleaner bins, lower waste and a habit students can take beyond school. Some say the scheme would slow service, but a two-week trial can test that claim. If we expect young people to act responsibly, we should make the responsible choice easy.
</blockquote>

'''First reading:''' Do not judge yet. Mark the main claim, supporting reasons, evidence, concession and proposed action.

'''Second reading:''' Ask what the text does not tell you about the poll: sampling, wording, non-response, baseline behaviour and whether intention predicts actual behaviour.

'''Third reading:''' Identify the likely audience and explain which values the wording tries to activate.

{{BR}}
= Kontextwortschatz =

'''Support order:''' infer from context → analyse word formation → read the English definition → check an approved monolingual dictionary → only then use the German help.

{| class="wikitable"
! Term
! Word family / formation
! English explanation in context
! German help
|-
| claim
| claim / to claim
| a statement the writer wants the audience to accept
| Behauptung
|-
| evidence
| evidence / evidential
| information used to support a claim
| Beleg
|-
| warrant
| warrant / to warrant
| the reasoning that connects evidence to a claim
| Schlussregel / Begründungsbrücke
|-
| credible
| credibility / credible / credibly
| worthy of trust based on source, expertise or method
| glaubwürdig
|-
| representative
| represent / representative
| reflecting the wider group rather than a narrow sample
| repräsentativ
|-
| sufficient
| suffice / sufficient / sufficiently
| enough in amount and quality for the conclusion drawn
| hinreichend
|-
| concession
| concede / concession
| an acknowledgement of a limitation or opposing point
| Einräumung
|-
| counterargument
| counter + argument
| an argument that challenges the writer's position
| Gegenargument
|-
| refutation
| refute / refutation
| a reasoned response showing why an objection is weak or limited
| Widerlegung
|-
| register
| register
| level and style of language appropriate to situation and audience
| Sprachregister
|-
| hedging
| hedge / hedging
| wording that limits certainty, for example ''may'' or ''suggests''
| sprachliche Abschwächung
|-
| loaded language
| loaded + language
| wording with strong evaluative or emotional associations
| wertend-emotional aufgeladene Sprache
|-
| audience adaptation
| adapt / adaptation
| tailoring content and language to a specific audience
| Adressatenbezug
|-
| persuasive effectiveness
| persuade / persuasive / persuasion
| the extent to which rhetorical choices support the intended purpose for the target audience
| persuasive Wirksamkeit
|}

{{BR}}
= Visualisierung: argumentation before devices =

[[Datei:Three elements of an argument.svg|450px|rahmenlos|center]]

[[Datei:Toulmin Argumentation Example.png|550px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Rule:''' A stylistic device matters only when you can connect it to the text's argument, purpose and audience. Prefer the chain '''feature → function in context → likely contribution to purpose → limitation or qualification'''.

{{BR}}
== Argumentation ==

Map the text before you interpret details:
{| class="wikitable"
! Question
! What to look for
|-
| What is the main claim?
| thesis, recommendation, judgment or call to action
|-
| How is the argument sequenced?
| problem-solution, cause-effect, comparison, concession-refutation, accumulation
|-
| What connects reasons to the claim?
| explicit or implicit warrants and assumptions
|-
| Are counterarguments represented fairly?
| concession, qualification, rebuttal, straw-manning
|-
| Does the conclusion follow?
| coherence, relevance, logical scope, overgeneralisation
|}

'''LF move:''' Do not only reconstruct the line of argument. Evaluate where its logic is strong, where assumptions remain implicit and where alternative explanations remain possible.

{{BR}}
== Evidence ==

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

Test each important piece of evidence:
# '''Relevance''': Does it directly bear on the claim?
# '''Credibility''': Is the source or method trustworthy?
# '''Sufficiency''': Is there enough support for the strength of the conclusion?
# '''Representativeness''': Does the evidence reflect the group or situation being generalised about?
# '''Precision''': Are numbers, comparisons and causal claims framed accurately?
# '''Transparency''': Can you tell where the information comes from and what its limits are?

'''Do not confuse data with proof.''' A statistic can be accurate and still be weak evidence if the sample is selective, the comparison is missing or the claim goes beyond what the data show.

{{BR}}
== Language ==

Analyse clusters of choices rather than collecting isolated devices.

{| class="wikitable"
! Language area
! Typical questions
|-
| diction and lexical fields
| Which values, identities or emotions are foregrounded?
|-
| tone and register
| Is the voice formal, conversational, urgent, reassuring, expert or confrontational, and why might that fit?
|-
| syntax and rhythm
| Do short sentences sharpen a call to action? Do parallel structures organise reasoning?
|-
| modality and hedging
| Does the writer signal certainty, probability, obligation or caution?
|-
| pronouns and address
| Who is included in ''we''? Who is positioned as ''you'' or ''they''?
|-
| rhetorical devices
| What is the local function of repetition, contrast, metaphor, rhetorical questions or enumeration?
|}

Avoid deterministic claims such as ''This makes the reader agree.'' Prefer: ''This may strengthen identification for an audience that already values...''

{{BR}}
== Audience adaptation ==

[[Datei:Public Speaking with Small Audiences.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

Ask:
# What does the audience probably know already?
# Which values or concerns are made salient?
# Is the evidence type appropriate for this audience?
# Is the register suitable for the relationship between writer and audience?
# Does the genre match the purpose?
# Which audience segment might resist the strategy, and why?

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2dEuMFR8kw |500|center}}

'''LF extension:''' Treat ''the audience'' as a hypothesis grounded in the text and context, not as a homogeneous group whose reactions you can know with certainty.

{{BR}}
= Analyse: from observation to judgment =

Use the '''F-F-A-J''' practice scaffold:
# '''Feature''': identify a relevant textual choice.
# '''Function''': explain what it does in this passage.
# '''Audience link''': connect it to the target audience and purpose.
# '''Judgment''': evaluate how far it contributes to persuasive effectiveness.

'''Analytical sentence frame:''' ''By using ..., the writer frames ... as ..., which may appeal to an audience that values .... This strengthens the argument because ..., although its effect is limited by ....''

'''Judgment sentence frame:''' ''Overall, the text is persuasive for ... to the extent that ..., but its effectiveness is reduced by ....''

'''Separate personal response:''' Only when the task asks for your own position, write a separate statement such as ''I agree/disagree because ...''. Do not substitute agreement for rhetorical analysis.

{{BR}}
== Worked micro-analysis ==

From the fictional cup text:

'''Observation:''' ''68% of 125 respondents'' is precise numerical evidence.

'''Analysis:''' The figure gives the proposal an empirical appearance and supports the claim that there is demand for a reusable-cup incentive.

'''Evaluation:''' Its persuasive value is limited because the poll was voluntary and taken at lunchtime; the sample may not represent the whole school, and stated intention may not predict behaviour.

'''Audience adaptation:''' For a school audience concerned with feasibility, the proposed two-week trial is a useful concession-response strategy because it turns an objection about service speed into a testable question.

'''Personal agreement:''' Not part of this analytical paragraph.

{{BR}}
= Speaking =

[[Datei:Speakers Triangle Diagramed.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

'''Communication-exam practice:'''
# Monologue: In about five minutes, evaluate the persuasive effectiveness of the fictional cup text for students and school staff.
# Dialogue: Discuss whether the text should be revised for parents. Challenge each other's judgments with evidence from the text.
# Interaction focus: respond to the partner's point before adding your own. Build, qualify, disagree precisely and invite clarification.

Useful moves: ''I take your point, but...'' · ''The evidence supports that only if...'' · ''For this audience, I would distinguish between...'' · ''Could we separate effectiveness from whether we personally support the proposal?''

{{BR}}
= Writing =

'''Abi-style analysis structure:'''
# '''Opening focus''': identify text type, communicative purpose, audience and the analytical focus named in the task.
# '''Body paragraphs''': organise by argumentation, evidence, language and audience adaptation, but combine criteria where they interact.
# '''Evidence from the text''': use short references or brief quotations only when needed.
# '''Analysis''': explain function and rhetorical logic.
# '''Evaluation''': weigh strengths and limitations.
# '''Conclusion''': give a differentiated judgment of effectiveness, not a summary of devices.

'''LF standard:''' Aim for breadth and depth: connect several parts of the text, qualify claims, consider limitations, and synthesise material independently.

{{BR}}
== Mediation: only where the task requires it ==

In the 2027 Leistungsfach qualification phase, mediation competence is assessed in an isolated format in a class test or part of a class test. It is not one of the final written Abi 2027 components listed alongside listening and writing. Still, the same audience principle applies: select what is relevant, adapt register and explain culture-specific information rather than translating line by line.

{{BR}}
= Hilfen und Differenzierung =

{| class="wikitable"
! Support level
! Use it when...
! Strategy
|-
| Foundation
| you lose the argument structure
| colour-code claim, reason, evidence, concession and counterargument
|-
| Standard
| you can identify features but analysis stays descriptive
| force every paragraph to answer ''so what for purpose and audience?''
|-
| Leistungsfach challenge
| your analysis is already accurate
| test alternative interpretations, evidence limits, audience segments and interactions between strategies
|}

'''Language support:''' first use context, word families and English definitions. Then check an approved monolingual dictionary. Use German help only if meaning remains unclear.

'''Tempo support:''' analyse one paragraph deeply before scaling up to the full text.

{{BR}}
= Feedback =

Use this peer-feedback sequence:
# Underline the writer's analytical judgment.
# Box the textual evidence supporting it.
# Mark the link to audience and purpose.
# Add ''L'' where a limitation or qualification is needed.
# Add ''A≠P'' if analysis slips into personal agreement.
# Rewrite one vague effect claim using ''may'', ''can'', ''for this audience'' or a more precise causal explanation.

{{BR}}
= Fehleranalyse =

Common LF errors and repairs:
{| class="wikitable"
! Error
! Repair
|-
| device spotting
| explain function, audience link and purpose
|-
| evidence worship
| test whether the evidence actually supports the scope of the claim
|-
| mind-reading
| replace ''the reader feels'' with a qualified, audience-specific inference
|-
| agreement as evaluation
| separate ''effective argument'' from ''position I support''
|-
| summary instead of analysis
| explain relationships between choices and effects
|-
| one-sided praise
| weigh strengths against limitations
|-
| vague language comments
| name diction, register, modality, syntax or pattern precisely
|}

{{BR}}
= Transfer =

Choose a short, legally shareable text: a Creative Commons speech excerpt, a public information poster, a school campaign text or a self-written/fictitious editorial. Do not upload copyrighted compulsory texts or unauthorised film sequences.

Apply the AELA lens, then redesign the message for a different audience. Compare what you changed and why.

'''Digital and AI literacy:''' If you use AI for brainstorming or feedback where your course allows it, keep the final analysis your own. Verify claims and sources independently, disclose AI use where required and do not submit AI-generated replacement essays. No upload is required by this MOOC, and no external AI service should be accessed on your behalf. Do not upload private recordings, classmates' work or copyrighted texts to external AI services without permission. Recordings are voluntary and should remain private unless everyone involved has agreed to sharing.

{{BR}}
= Abi-Check =

Before submitting an analysis, ask:
# Did I answer the operator and analytical focus?
# Did I reconstruct the line of argument?
# Did I evaluate evidence, not just mention statistics or examples?
# Did I analyse language as part of a rhetorical strategy?
# Did I connect claims to a plausible audience and purpose?
# Did I qualify uncertain audience effects?
# Did I separate rhetorical effectiveness from personal agreement?
# Did I include a differentiated overall judgment?
# Did I link several parts of the text rather than treat features in isolation?
# Did I leave time to revise language, cohesion and task fulfilment?

{{BR}}
= Folgekurs =

Continue with:
# [[ABI LF - Analysis non-fiction]]
# [[ABI LF - Argumentation analysieren]]
# [[ABI LF - Evidence bewerten]]
# [[ABI LF - Communicative strategies]]
# [[ABI LF - Audience adaptation]]
# [[ABI LF - Writing a personal comment]]
# [[ABI LF - Kommunikationsprüfung]]
# [[ABI LF - Mediation]]

{{BR}}
= Interaktive Aufgaben =

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

{{MC}}

'''What is the best basis for judging persuasive effectiveness?'''
(How well rhetorical choices serve purpose and target audience)
(!Whether you personally agree with the position)
(!How many stylistic devices you can name)
(!Whether the text contains any statistics)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which question best tests evidence for relevance?'''
(Does this evidence directly support the specific claim?)
(!Is the sentence grammatically complex?)
(!Does the evidence contain a large number?)
(!Is the evidence placed at the end?)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is a warrant in argument analysis?'''
(The reasoning that connects evidence to a claim)
(!A decorative rhetorical device)
(!The title of a source)
(!A personal response to the topic)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which statement keeps analysis separate from personal agreement?'''
(The text may be persuasive for its target audience even though I reject its position)
(!The text is effective because I agree with it)
(!The argument is correct because it sounds convincing)
(!My opinion proves the audience will react the same way)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which is the strongest analysis of a rhetorical question?'''
(It frames the issue as shared and may invite the target audience to supply the implied answer)
(!It is a rhetorical question and therefore persuasive)
(!It always makes readers agree)
(!It shows that the writer has asked a question)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does audience adaptation require?'''
(Matching content, evidence, register and strategy to a specific audience and context)
(!Using informal language in every persuasive text)
(!Avoiding all counterarguments)
(!Using as many emotional words as possible)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why can accurate data still be weak evidence?'''
(The data may be irrelevant, unrepresentative or insufficient for the claim)
(!Accurate data never belong in persuasive writing)
(!Numbers automatically make arguments objective)
(!Only quotations count as evidence)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What should an LF-level evaluation usually include?'''
(A differentiated judgment that weighs strengths, limitations and interactions between strategies)
(!A list of devices without explanation)
(!A summary of every paragraph)
(!A personal opinion only)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which wording avoids unsupported mind-reading?'''
(This wording may appeal to readers who value practical solutions)
(!This wording makes every reader feel guilty)
(!All readers will immediately agree)
(!The audience has exactly the same values)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''In the 2027 Baden-Württemberg English Leistungsfach, which statement is correct?'''
(The communication examination is an oral component of the written Abitur examination)
(!The communication examination replaces all writing tasks)
(!The communication examination is identical to listening comprehension)
(!The communication examination is optional for all candidates)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Claim || Statement to be accepted
|-
| Warrant || Link between evidence and claim
|-
| Credibility || Trustworthiness of source or method
|-
| Concession || Acknowledgement of an opposing point
|-
| Register || Level and style suited to context
|-
| Hedging || Limiting the strength of a statement
|-
| Audience adaptation || Tailoring choices to recipients and situation
|-
| Persuasive effectiveness || Success of rhetoric in serving purpose for an audience
|}
{{E}}
<br>

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

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Thema
|-
| '''Argumentation'''
| line of argument, claims, reasons and counterarguments
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| relevance, credibility, sufficiency and representativeness
|-
| '''Language'''
| diction, tone, syntax, register and rhetorical devices
|-
| '''Audience adaptation'''
| fit between message, recipients, context and genre
|-
| '''Judgment'''
| differentiated evaluation of persuasive effectiveness

|}
{{E}}

<br>

{{BR}}
== Kreuzworträtsel ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Claim || What do we call the central statement a writer wants accepted?
|-
| Warrant || What connects evidence logically to a claim?
|-
| Evidence || What supports a claim with information or examples?
|-
| Audience || Who receives the persuasive message?
|-
| Register || What term describes the level and style of language used?
|-
| Counterargument || What challenges the writer's main position?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=ABI+LF+Persuasive+effectiveness+beurteilen </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Lückentext ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Vervollständige den Text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
A rhetorical evaluation asks how well a text serves its { purpose } for a target audience. A line of reasoning depends on claims, reasons and the { warrant } connecting evidence to a conclusion. Strong evidence should be relevant, credible and { sufficient }. Language analysis should explain function rather than merely name a { device }. Claims about audience reaction should be qualified because audiences are not { homogeneous }. A final judgment should weigh both strengths and { limitations }. Personal agreement belongs in a separate response when the task asks for a { position }. In the 2027 Leistungsfach, the oral component of the written Abitur is the { communication examination }.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Offene Aufgaben =

{{BR}}
=== Leicht ===
# [[Claim Map]]: Mark claim, reasons, evidence and concession in the fictional cup text and draw arrows showing their relationships.
# [[Audience Swap]]: Rewrite two sentences from the fictional text for parents instead of students and explain your changes in English.
# [[Evidence Check]]: List three pieces of information you would need before trusting the fictional lunchtime poll.
# [[Device to Function]]: Choose one language feature and write a feature-function-audience-judgment paragraph.

{{BR}}
=== Standard ===
# [[Rhetorical Redesign]]: Turn the cup text into a short poster and then into an email to school staff. Compare register and evidence choices.
# [[Counterargument Clinic]]: Write a fair counterargument to the proposal and a reasoned refutation that does not use a straw man.
# [[Viewing Analysis]]: Use one embedded video and evaluate how examples, visuals, narration and structure adapt the explanation to its audience.
# [[Peer Review]]: Exchange a 250-word analysis with a partner and use the A≠P, audience-link and limitation checks.

{{BR}}
=== Schwer ===
# [[Comparative Effectiveness]]: Compare two short legally shareable persuasive texts on the same topic and judge why each may work differently for different audiences.
# [[Evidence Audit]]: Build an evidence table for a short editorial and assess source quality, relevance, representativeness and missing context.
# [[Communication Exam Simulation]]: Prepare a five-minute monologue and a ten-minute dialogue task using a fictitious visual prompt; focus on spontaneous interaction and qualification.
# [[Abi Mini-Analysis]]: Write a timed analytical response that synthesises argumentation, evidence, language and audience adaptation, then annotate where you performed AFB II and AFB III thinking.

{{:Offene Aufgabe - MOOC erstellen}}

{{BR}}
= Lernkontrolle =

# [[Transfer auf neue Zielgruppe]]: A text persuades students effectively but not teachers. Explain which features could cause the difference and propose evidence-based revisions.
# [[Evidenz und Schlussfolgerung]]: Given a small voluntary survey and a broad claim, identify the inferential gap and rewrite the conclusion so that it matches the evidence.
# [[Analyse oder Zustimmung]]: Write two short paragraphs on the same text: one evaluating rhetorical effectiveness and one giving your personal position. Highlight the different criteria.
# [[Strategien abwägen]]: Explain how a strong emotional appeal can increase attention but reduce credibility for some audiences. Use a specific hypothetical context.
# [[Material verknüpfen]]: Combine a short non-fiction text and a simple chart to judge whether the visual evidence strengthens, complicates or weakens the argument.
# [[Kommunikationsprüfung Transfer]]: Turn a written analytical judgment into a spoken response that anticipates a partner's objection and responds to it without losing structure.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= Lernnachweis =

For a successful learning record, you should be able to demonstrate:
# a clear reconstruction of the line of argument;
# precise evaluation of evidence;
# contextual language analysis;
# plausible and qualified audience analysis;
# a differentiated judgment of persuasive effectiveness;
# a clear separation between analysis and personal agreement;
# independent linking of text, visual or statistical material at Leistungsfach level;
# accurate, coherent English appropriate to task and genre;
# source checking and transparent handling of any permitted AI support.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs zum Thema =

<iframe> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorik </iframe>

[https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/rhetorical_situation/index.html Purdue OWL: Rhetorical Situations]

'''Media note:''' The embedded images are Wikimedia Commons files with reuse information on their file pages. The embedded YouTube videos come from educational channels or institutions; the videos remain hosted by their providers. Availability and platform terms can change, so verify them before classroom use.

<br>

{{BR}}
= Verknüpfte Lernbereiche =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[Rhetorical Analysis]]'''
# [[Argumentation]]
# [[Evidence]]
# [[Rhetorical devices]]
# [[Audience]]
# [[Register]]
# [[Text analysis]]
# [[Speaking]]
# [[Writing]]
# [[Mediation]]
# [[Kommunikationsprüfung]]
|}

[[Kategorie:Englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Englisch Oberstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Kursstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Baden-Württemberg]]
[[Kategorie:Abitur]]
[[Kategorie:Leistungsfach]]
[[Kategorie:Rhetoric]]
[[Kategorie:Argumentation]]
[[Kategorie:Textanalyse]]
[[Kategorie:Medienbildung]]
[[Kategorie:Klasse 11-13]]

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

ABI LF - Persuasive effectiveness beurteilen - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt