ABI LF - Multi-source research mini project
aiMOOCABI LF - Multi-source research mini project
QR-Code
ABI LF - Multi-source research mini project
Mini-description: Research one tightly defined question with several serious sources and produce a concise, source-based briefing with citations, limitations and explicit uncertainty. You work independently, verify AI-assisted claims against original sources and connect evidence rather than writing an “AI replacement essay”.
Einleitung
This aiMOOC is designed for Englisch als fortgeführte Fremdsprache, Leistungsfach, Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg. English comes first. German support appears only after context, word formation, visualisation, an English explanation and dictionary work have been used.
Your core product is a 450–650 word source-based briefing on one narrow research question. It should combine at least four credible sources, distinguish fact from interpretation, cite evidence consistently, identify limitations and state what remains uncertain.
Privacy and copyright: Use openly licensed media, your own notes and short lawful quotations only. Do not reproduce complete compulsory texts or film sequences. Any recording is optional and should remain private unless everyone involved has explicitly agreed to sharing. Do not upload personal data, copyrighted class material or confidential documents to external services. External AI access is not required.
Current Baden-Württemberg alignment: Abitur 2027
For the Abiturprüfung 2027 in English Leistungsfach, the official Facherlass states that the Bildungsplan 2016 remains the basis for teaching and assessment. It names the focus On the Move: Migration and Cross-Cultural Encounters and the two fields Politics, culture, society – between tradition and change with reference cultures USA and United Kingdom.[1]
The revised English curriculum version V3.0 entered into force from August 2026 only for younger cohorts entering specified lower grades; current Abitur-2027 candidates therefore continue under the applicable 2016 framework.[2]
For the written part, the official 2027 regulations specify about 255 minutes including selection time: approximately 30 minutes listening, a 15-minute break, then 225 minutes for the writing section. The writing task includes reading comprehension, analysis and a choice of personal response or creative/functional writing. The current correction guidelines weight listening at 20%, writing at 55% and the Kommunikationsprüfung at 25% of the overall result of the written Abitur examination.[3][4]
The Kommunikationsprüfung is the oral component of the written Abitur examination. Officially, preparation time is 15 minutes. An individual exam lasts at least 15 minutes with about five minutes of monologic speaking and about ten minutes of dialogue; a tandem exam lasts at least 20 minutes, with about five minutes of monologic speaking per candidate plus about ten minutes of dialogue.[5]
For this mini-project: You may connect your question to an Abitur topic, but the project trains transferable research, reading, analysis, speaking and writing skills rather than reproducing compulsory material.
I-can goals
| I can ... | Leistungsfach focus |
|---|---|
| narrow a broad topic into a researchable question | define scope, key terms, timeframe and population precisely |
| locate and evaluate several source types | compare authority, evidence, purpose, method and limitations |
| synthesize rather than list | connect agreements, contradictions and gaps across sources |
| cite and paraphrase accurately | distinguish my wording from a source's wording and ideas |
| express uncertainty precisely | calibrate claims with terms such as suggests, indicates, is consistent with, cannot establish |
| present findings orally and in writing | move from evidence to analysis and judgement at AFB II/III level |
Prior knowledge
Before starting, you should already be able to identify a text's main idea, distinguish claim and example, use an English dictionary, write a structured paragraph and recognise common non-fiction text features.
If one of these skills is insecure, use the support boxes below before increasing source complexity.
Media entry: What makes information worth trusting?
Look at the image before reading further. In English, note three things you would check before using an online claim in an Abitur-level text. Then compare your list with the questions: Who is behind the information? What is the evidence? What do other sources say? These questions are central to Civic Online Reasoning research and teaching materials.[6]
The mini-project workflow
Timebox: about 3–5 lessons plus independent research.
| Stage | Product | Quality check |
|---|---|---|
| Question | one narrow research question | clear scope, no vague “everything about” topic |
| Search | source shortlist | at least four serious sources from more than one source type |
| Verify | source log | author/institution, date, purpose, evidence, limitations |
| Extract | evidence notes | paraphrase first; quote only when wording itself matters |
| Triangulate | synthesis grid | agreements, conflicts, missing evidence |
| Brief | 450–650 words | claim, evidence, citation, limitation, uncertainty |
| Speak | 90-second briefing | concise evidence-based explanation plus response to a challenge |
A good question is narrow enough that several sources can address the same core issue. A useful pattern is: To what extent does X affect Y for Z in a defined context or timeframe?
Avoid questions that are merely factual, too broad or designed to confirm what you already believe.
Source mix
Aim for a mix such as: an official or institutional source, a high-quality journalistic source, a peer-reviewed or academic source and a dataset, report or other primary evidence where appropriate. A source is not automatically reliable because it looks professional.
Use lateral reading: leave the page, open new tabs and check what independent credible sources say about the publisher, author, claim and evidence. Research on online source evaluation shows that professional fact-checkers rely strongly on such cross-checking strategies.[7]
Source log
Create one row per source.
| Source | Main claim | Evidence used | Why credible | Limitation | Use in my brief |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source A | ... | ... | ... | ... | support / challenge / context |
| Source B | ... | ... | ... | ... | support / challenge / context |
Do not write “reliable” without a reason. Name the reason: transparent methodology, expertise, traceable data, editorial standards, independent corroboration or direct access to primary evidence.
Listening and Viewing
First viewing: identify the video's central distinction between evidence that is relevant and evidence that actually supports a claim.
Second viewing: note one example of weak evidence and one strategy for testing evidence.
LF challenge: explain why a large amount of weak evidence does not automatically become strong evidence.
Data visualisation
A graph can be accurate and still invite a misleading interpretation if axes, categories, time windows or missing context are ignored. Before using a graph, identify the variable, unit, source, date range and what the graph cannot show.
Viewing task: write a two-sentence distinction between data and interpretation of data.
Reading
When reading a source, do not highlight everything. Extract only what answers your research question.
Use a three-column note:
| Claim | Evidence | My evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| What does the source say? | What data, example, quotation or reasoning supports it? | How strong, relevant and limited is that evidence? |
For non-fiction analysis, move beyond content. Consider structure, line of argument, register, tone, statistics, references, quotations, examples, perspective and communicative strategies. These aspects match the current Baden-Württemberg 2027 English LF examination framework.[8]
Click restraint
Before clicking the first search result, scan the result page. Compare publishers, dates and result types. Search ranking is not a quality ranking.
Context vocabulary and word formation
Use this sequence before asking for German help:
- Context: infer the likely meaning from the sentence and topic.
- Word family: identify prefix, root, suffix and related forms.
- Visualisation: connect the word to a concept map or example.
- English explanation: define it in simple English.
- Dictionary: check a monolingual learner's dictionary first, then a bilingual dictionary if needed.
- German help: use only if the concept is still unclear.
| Word | Word family | Concise English explanation |
|---|---|---|
| credible | credibility – credibly | worthy of reasonable trust based on evidence or authority |
| corroborate | corroboration – corroborative | support a claim with independent evidence |
| limitation | limit – limited | a factor that restricts what a source or study can show |
| uncertainty | uncertain – uncertainly | the degree to which a conclusion is not fully settled |
| bias | biased – unbiased | a systematic tendency that can shape selection or interpretation |
| infer | inference – inferential | reach a conclusion from available evidence |
| qualify | qualification – qualified | make a claim more precise by adding conditions or limits |
Word-building challenge
Transform the word in brackets without changing the meaning.
The finding is useful, but its ______ is limited because the sample is small. (general) → generalisability
The second source ______ the first report with independent data. (corroboration) → corroborates
The author makes an ______ claim that goes beyond the evidence. (support) → unsupported
Analysis: from source to synthesis
A strong briefing does not produce one paragraph per source. It organises around ideas.
Use this synthesis pattern:
Point → Evidence from Source A → Comparison with Source B → Evaluation → Limitation → Calibrated conclusion
Example language: Source A reports ..., while Source B finds ... . The difference may reflect ... . Taken together, the evidence suggests ..., although it cannot establish ... .
Triangulation
Triangulation means checking whether different evidence streams point in the same direction. Agreement increases confidence only when sources are genuinely independent and methodologically sound. Repetition of the same original claim across many websites is not independent confirmation.
Limitations and uncertainty
Every serious briefing should answer: What can the evidence support? What can it not support? What would change my conclusion?
Useful language: The available evidence suggests ... This finding should be treated cautiously because ... The sources agree on ..., but evidence for ... remains mixed. The data are consistent with ..., but do not prove causation. A key uncertainty is ...
Practice-only fictional evidence set
The following data are fictional and exist only for training. Do not present them as real research.
| Practice source | Fictional finding | Built-in limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Northbridge University survey | students who studied without lyrical music scored 7% higher on a short reading task | self-selected sample; one school |
| ClearMind Lab experiment | instrumental music showed no meaningful difference from silence | small sample; short exposure |
| StudyNow student magazine poll | most respondents said music helped them concentrate | self-report; no objective performance measure |
| LearnData review | effects varied by task difficulty and music type | combines studies with different methods |
Task: Write a three-sentence synthesis that does not overclaim. Include one limitation and one uncertainty statement.
Citations and academic integrity
Paraphrasing means expressing a source's idea accurately in your own wording while still crediting the source. Changing a few words is not enough. Purdue OWL emphasises that borrowed ideas as well as exact wording require attribution.[9]
Choose one citation style and use it consistently. For this mini-project, a compact author-date style is sufficient unless your teacher specifies another system.
Example: Lateral reading improves source evaluation because the reader checks external information about a source rather than trusting the page's own presentation (Author, year).
Your bibliography should make every cited source traceable.
AI transparency
AI output is not a substitute source. If you use an AI tool for brainstorming, wording feedback or search-term generation, record what you used it for. Verify every factual claim against original, traceable sources.
Do not submit an AI-written replacement essay. Your final briefing must show your own source selection, reasoning, synthesis and wording.
Never upload personal data, private recordings, unpublished school materials or copyrighted texts to an external AI service without explicit permission.
Speaking
Prepare a 90-second evidence briefing:
- State your research question and provisional answer.
- Present the strongest evidence from two different sources.
- Name one limitation.
- End with one uncertainty or open question.
Then answer one challenge question from a partner, for example: Which source would you drop first if you had to reduce your evidence base, and why?
For Kommunikationsprüfung transfer, practise both monologic explanation and dialogic response. Do not memorise a script word for word; practise flexible evidence-based speaking.
Writing
Use this compact briefing structure:
| Section | Function |
|---|---|
| Research question | define exactly what is being investigated |
| Bottom line | give a cautious one- or two-sentence answer |
| Evidence | synthesise the strongest source-based findings |
| Tension | show disagreement, complexity or a competing explanation |
| Limitations | explain what restricts the evidence |
| Uncertainty | state what remains unresolved |
| Sources | provide consistent citations and a short bibliography |
LF standard: Your analysis should not merely identify techniques or source features. Explain their effect, relevance and consequences for the credibility or interpretation of the evidence.
Optional mediation
Read a short German-language institutional source relevant to your project. Without translating sentence by sentence, write a 100–130 word English note for an international student who needs only the information relevant to your research question.
Focus on audience, purpose and selection of information.
Support and differentiation
| Level | Support |
|---|---|
| Core | four sources, guided source log, sentence starters for limitations and uncertainty |
| Secure | five sources, independent triangulation, one contradictory source |
| Stretch LF | six or more sources, methodological comparison, competing explanations, explicit evaluation of generalisability and causality |
Language support order: context → word formation → visual → English explanation → monolingual dictionary → bilingual dictionary → German clarification.
Tempo differentiation: If research takes longer, reduce the number of source types but keep source quality high. If research is faster, add a genuinely contrasting source rather than simply adding more similar ones.
Feedback and error analysis
Use these feedback codes on a draft:
| Code | Question |
|---|---|
| C | Is the claim precise and answerable? |
| E | Is the evidence strong and relevant? |
| A | Is attribution/citation complete? |
| S | Is this synthesis, or only source-by-source summary? |
| L | Is a relevant limitation explained? |
| U | Is uncertainty calibrated rather than hidden? |
| R | Is the register concise, formal and audience-appropriate? |
Revision rule: correct the reasoning problem before polishing individual sentences.
Transfer: Abi-Check and follow-up course
For the written Abitur, this project trains listening, reading, non-fiction analysis, evidence-based writing and work with discontinuous texts such as charts. For the Kommunikationsprüfung, it trains concise monologic speaking, interaction and spontaneous qualification of claims.
AFB I: identify and accurately reproduce relevant information.
AFB II: analyse, compare, connect and explain evidence.
AFB III: evaluate evidence, weigh competing explanations, form a justified judgement and transfer findings to a new context.
In Leistungsfach, prioritise AFB II and III: greater breadth, depth, text complexity, differentiated analysis and independent material linkage.
Follow-up course: turn the briefing into an exam-style task: analyse one unfamiliar non-fiction text, connect it to a second source or visual and write a justified evaluation under time pressure.
Media note
The Wikimedia Commons files used here are openly licensed or public-domain media whose licence details are documented on their Commons file pages. The embedded YouTube videos are public educational videos viewed through the YouTube player; do not download, re-edit or re-upload them unless the licence explicitly permits this.
Interaktive Aufgaben
Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen
What is the main purpose of a narrow research question? (To make several sources answer the same clearly defined issue) (!To collect as many unrelated facts as possible) (!To avoid using evidence) (!To guarantee that all sources agree)
What does lateral reading involve? (Checking what independent sources say about a source or claim) (!Reading one website from top to bottom before checking anything else) (!Trusting the first search result) (!Judging credibility mainly from page design)
Which statement best describes triangulation? (Comparing independent evidence streams to see where they agree or differ) (!Repeating one source in several paragraphs) (!Using only sources with identical conclusions) (!Replacing citations with a bibliography)
What should a limitation statement explain? (What restricts the strength or scope of a conclusion) (!Why a source title is interesting) (!How many pages a text contains) (!Why uncertainty should be removed)
What is a good use of uncertainty language? (To calibrate a conclusion to the strength of the evidence) (!To make every conclusion sound certain) (!To avoid taking evidence into account) (!To replace source evaluation)
What is required when paraphrasing a source idea? (Accurate rewording plus attribution) (!Changing two words without a citation) (!Copying the sentence exactly without quotation marks) (!Removing the author's meaning)
Which source mix best supports a multi-source briefing? (Several credible source types with independent evidence) (!Four copies of the same press release) (!Only anonymous social media posts) (!Only the first four search results)
What should come before German help in this course? (Context, word formation, English explanation and dictionary work) (!Immediate full translation) (!Skipping unknown vocabulary) (!Replacing the text with a German summary)
What distinguishes synthesis from source-by-source summary? (Synthesis organises evidence around ideas and relationships) (!Synthesis removes citations) (!Synthesis uses only one source) (!Synthesis avoids contradictions)
How should AI-assisted factual claims be handled? (They must be checked against traceable original sources) (!They can be cited as automatically true) (!They should replace independent research) (!They should be copied without disclosure)
Memory
| Lateral reading | External cross-checking |
| Triangulation | Comparison of independent evidence |
| Corroboration | Additional support from another source |
| Limitation | Restriction on what evidence can show |
| Uncertainty | Degree of unresolved doubt |
| Paraphrase | Own wording with attribution |
Drag and Drop
| Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu. | Thema |
|---|---|
| Research question | Defines scope and focus |
| Source log | Records evidence and limitations |
| Lateral reading | Checks a source beyond its own page |
| Synthesis | Connects evidence across sources |
| Briefing | Presents a concise evidence-based conclusion |
...
Kreuzworträtsel
| Evidence | What supports a claim? |
| Triangulation | What means comparing independent evidence streams? |
| Paraphrase | What means expressing a source idea in your own words with attribution? |
| Credibility | What term describes reasonable trustworthiness? |
| Limitation | What restricts what a study or source can show? |
| Uncertainty | What term describes what remains unresolved? |
LearningApps
Lückentext
Offene Aufgaben
Leicht
- Research question: Turn a broad topic into three increasingly narrow English research questions and explain which one is most researchable.
- Source check: Compare two websites on the same non-political topic and write three sentences on authorship, evidence and purpose.
- Vocabulary map: Build a word-family map around credible, evidence, limit and infer using an English dictionary.
- Evidence note: Paraphrase one short source claim, add a citation placeholder and check that your wording is genuinely your own.
Standard
- Source log: Build a four-source log using at least three different source types and include one concrete limitation per source.
- Triangulation grid: Identify one point of agreement, one disagreement and one evidence gap across your sources.
- Private audio briefing: Record an optional 90-second private briefing on your device, listen back and annotate one content and one language revision; do not upload it.
- Concise briefing: Write a 450–650 word source-based briefing with citations, one limitation paragraph and an explicit uncertainty statement.
Schwer
- Method comparison: Compare the methods behind two sources and explain how methodological differences may account for different findings.
- Counter-evidence: Find a credible source that complicates your initial conclusion and revise your thesis accordingly.
- Visual evidence: Select an openly licensed chart or create your own from fictional data, then analyse what it shows and what it cannot show.
- Communication challenge: Present your conclusion, respond to two critical questions and reformulate one claim more cautiously in real time.
|
|
Lernkontrolle
- Transferanalyse: You receive two credible sources that reach different conclusions. Explain at least three plausible reasons for the disagreement and identify what further evidence would help decide between them.
- Quellenentscheidung: A briefing has room for only three of five candidate sources. Justify which source roles are indispensable without ranking sources by prestige alone.
- Unsicherheitsformulierung: Rewrite an overconfident conclusion so that claim strength, limitation and uncertainty accurately match the evidence.
- Syntheseleistung: Combine one statistical finding, one expert interpretation and one contradictory observation into a coherent paragraph rather than three separate summaries.
- Methodenkritik: Explain how sample selection, measurement, timeframe or author purpose could change the interpretation of a source.
- Abi-Transfer: Convert the main finding of your project into a two-minute monologic response and then formulate a follow-up question suitable for dialogic speaking.
Lernnachweis
For a successful learning record, you should be able to demonstrate:
- a narrowly defined and researchable question
- a transparent multi-source search strategy
- evaluation of authorship, evidence, purpose and method
- accurate paraphrasing and consistent citation
- synthesis across agreeing and conflicting sources
- explicit discussion of limitations and uncertainty
- independent English writing at Leistungsfach level
- a short oral explanation with evidence and flexible response
- transparent documentation of any AI support and independent verification of factual claims
OERs zum Thema
Verknüpfte Lernbereiche
aiMOOC-Projekte
- ↑ Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg: Facherlass für die Abiturprüfung 2027, Abschnitt 3 Englisch, Stand 09.09.2025, abgerufen am 03.10.2026.
- ↑ Bildungspläne Baden-Württemberg: Inkrafttreten Englisch V3.0, abgerufen am 03.10.2026.
- ↑ Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg: Facherlass 2027, Abschnitt 3.1.3.
- ↑ Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg: Beurteilungs- und Korrekturrichtlinien Abitur 2027, Moderne Fremdsprachen, Abschnitt C.
- ↑ Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg: Beurteilungs- und Korrekturrichtlinien Abitur 2027, Kommunikationsprüfung, Ablauf.
- ↑ Digital Inquiry Group: Civic Online Reasoning – About, abgerufen am 03.10.2026.
- ↑ Digital Inquiry Group: Civic Online Reasoning research, abgerufen am 03.10.2026.
- ↑ Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg: Facherlass 2027, Englisch Leistungsfach, Analyse.
- ↑ Purdue OWL: Paraphrasing, abgerufen am 03.10.2026.
MOOCwiki · Deutsch
Nach dem Lernen ist vor dem Lernen
Entdecke direkt den nächsten Lernkurs. Weitere Inhalte erscheinen, wenn Du weiter nach unten scrollst.
Zur MOOCwiki-HauptseiteJetzt üben: Source literacy →Mediathek
Mediathek wird aus dem Wiki geladen ...
Keine passenden Inhalte gefunden. Bitte ändere Suche oder Filter.