Die Druckversion wird nicht mehr unterstützt und kann Darstellungsfehler aufweisen. Bitte aktualisiere deine Browser-Lesezeichen und verwende stattdessen die Standard-Druckfunktion des Browsers.

aiMOOC

ABI - AI-generated facts verifizieren

QR-Code

ABI - AI-generated facts verifizieren

Mini-Beschreibung: Verify relevant AI-generated factual claims with reliable external sources. Detect fabricated, outdated, misleading and unresolved information before you use it in an argument, presentation or exam task.

Target group: English as a continuing foreign language, Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg, shared Basisfach / Leistungsfach course. Working level: secure B2; selected C1 language as an orientation, not as artificial difficulty.

Media starter: Watch the opening minutes of the Crash Course video. Write down one claim that sounds trustworthy and one question you would still need to verify. Do not confuse confident presentation with evidence.

Einleitung

Generative AI can produce fluent language and still be factually wrong. NIST uses the term confabulation for confidently presented erroneous or false generated content; this can also include invented citations. Your task is therefore not to decide whether a text “looks AI-generated”, but to test concrete factual claims against evidence.

This course uses a simple verification routine: identify the claim, inspect the source, corroborate it independently, check the date and state a justified status. You remain the author of your own analysis. AI output may be an object of investigation, but it is not a substitute essay.

Privacy rule: Work with fictional or public material. Recordings are voluntary and may stay private. Do not upload personal data, classmates' work, private recordings or copyrighted material to external AI services. No external AI access is required for this course.

Baden-Württemberg: current course frame

Verification date: 3 October 2026. The Ministry page currently provides Abitur information for 2027 and 2028. For English in Abitur 2027, the Facherlass refers to the competencies and content of Bildungsplan 2016. The official upper-secondary English plan distinguishes Basisfach and Leistungsfach by complexity, breadth, depth and differentiation; all learners work towards B2 and, in parts, C1.

This aiMOOC supports those competences, but it does not reproduce complete compulsory literary texts or copyrighted film sequences and it does not replace the official Facherlass.

BF/LF route and pace

Dimension	Basisfach	Leistungsfach
Pace	about 2–3 lessons; one central case	about 3–4 lessons; several connected cases
Materials	short, supplied sources and clear checkpoints	broader, more complex sources and more independent selection
Language	secure B2 with optional sentence frames	B2 plus selective C1 precision, synthesis and hedging
Analysis	test one claim and explain what strengthens or weakens it	compare competing evidence, limitations and source relationships
AFB focus	structured AFB I/II with selected transfer	more independent AFB II/III and material synthesis

I-can goals

I can turn a long AI answer into small, checkable factual claims.
I can use lateral reading and trace a claim to an original or authoritative source.
I can distinguish fabricated, outdated, misleading and unresolved information.
I can explain source quality, evidence and uncertainty in clear English.
I can revise a claim when new evidence changes its status.
I can write my own fact-check memo without outsourcing the judgement to AI.

Vorwissen: 5-minute diagnostic

Classify each statement before checking it.

Statement	First reaction	What would you need?
“This guideline became binding law in 2025.”	plausible / doubtful / unsure	legal source, date, jurisdiction
“A 2021 study proves the effect for all students.”	plausible / doubtful / unsure	original study, sample, scope
“The ministry has not published any 2028 material.”	plausible / doubtful / unsure	current official page

Key idea: Your first reaction is a hypothesis, not a verdict.

Core concepts

Fabricated information is invented or unsupported content presented as fact. Outdated information may once have been accurate but no longer describes the current situation. Misleading information can contain true details while creating a false overall impression. Unresolved means that the available evidence does not yet justify a firm conclusion.

A label about AI generation tells you something about provenance; it does not by itself prove whether a factual claim is true or false.

Context vocabulary and word formation

Use meaning, word families and an English dictionary before asking for German help.

Word family	English meaning in this course	Useful pattern
verify – verification – verifiable	check whether a claim can be supported	verify a claim against a source
accurate – accuracy – accurately	correct in the relevant details	factually accurate
rely – reliable – reliability	worthy of justified trust	a reliable source
fabricate – fabrication – fabricated	invent and present as if factual	a fabricated citation
corroborate – corroboration	find independent supporting evidence	corroborate independently
current – currency – outdated	up-to-date for the relevant date	check the currency of a source
qualify – qualification	limit a statement to match the evidence	qualify an overgeneralisation

Dictionary first: Try an English learner's dictionary. German support is useful only after context, morphology, a visual clue and an English explanation have not solved the problem.

The FACTS verification routine

Step	Question	Product
F – Frame	What is the smallest checkable factual claim?	one precise sentence
A – Author and origin	Who is responsible, and is this the original source?	author / institution / document
C – Corroborate	What independent evidence confirms, limits or contradicts it?	at least one second source
T – Time-check	Is the date appropriate for the claim?	publication/update date and relevant period
S – State the status	What does the evidence justify?	supported / contradicted / outdated / misleading / unresolved

Lateral reading means leaving the page you are evaluating and opening other sources to investigate who is behind it, what evidence exists and what other reliable sources say.

A practical source ladder

Prefer the source that is closest to the factual question. For an exam rule, use the ministry or the official document. For a research result, trace a news report back to the original study. For a statistic, look for the dataset, methods and date. Wikipedia can be a useful starting point and reference map, but important claims should be checked against the underlying source.

Do not use “many search results” as a substitute for independent evidence: copied claims can create false corroboration.

Listening / Viewing

Before viewing: Predict three features of strong evidence.

While viewing: Note the distinction between a claim, evidence and the reasoning that connects them.

After viewing – BF: Choose one example and explain why the evidence is strong, weak or incomplete in 4–5 sentences.

After viewing – LF: Compare two examples. Add one limitation and one alternative source that could strengthen the judgement.

Viewing extension: verify visuals, not vibes

A convincing image is not automatically evidence for its caption. Check the original upload, context, date and whether the image has been reused with a new claim. Use reverse-image search only with public or school-approved material; do not upload private photos.

Reading

Short classroom text:

A fluent AI response can mix correct and incorrect details. NIST describes “confabulation” as confidently presented false or erroneous generated content and notes that generated citations can also be misleading. UNESCO's guidance on generative AI in education stresses a human-centred approach, including attention to validation and data privacy. Stanford's CRAFT materials teach lateral reading for checking AI search results. Together, these sources support a practical rule: treat generated factual content as a set of claims to be verified, not as a source that verifies itself.

Source trail:

Reading tasks

BF: Mark four factual claims in the classroom text. For each, match one source and record one keyword that helped you locate evidence.

LF: Identify which claims are descriptive, which are recommendations and which contain a qualification. Explain why confusing these functions can lead to overclaiming.

Analyse: claim triage

Use the current sources, not memory alone.

Claim to verify	Evidence to seek	Possible status after checking
“UNESCO's 2023 guidance is a binding EU law that bans generative AI in schools.”	UNESCO publication type; EU legal source	contradicted / misleading
“NIST published its Generative AI Profile in July 2024.”	NIST publication record	supported
“The English Facherlass for Abitur 2027 in Baden-Württemberg refers to Bildungsplan 2016.”	official 2027 Facherlass, English section	supported
“As of 3 October 2026, Baden-Württemberg has no Abitur 2028 documents online.”	current ministry Abitur page	contradicted / outdated

BF route: Verify any two claims with the supplied source set. Use one evidence note per claim.

LF route: Verify all four claims. For one claim, reject a weaker source and justify the decision. Make the relationship between sources explicit.

Feedback and error codes

Code	Problem	Repair
F	claim too fuzzy	make it smaller and testable
O	origin not checked	trace to original/official source
C	no independent corroboration	add a genuinely independent source
T	date missing or wrong	time-check the relevant version
E	evidence does not support wording	narrow or qualify the claim
U	uncertainty hidden	state what remains unresolved

Speaking

Verifier–challenger pair task: Person A presents one claim, one source and one provisional status. Person B may ask only evidence questions: “What is the original source?”, “How current is it?”, “What would falsify the claim?”, “Is that source independent?” Then swap roles.

BF support: Use the FACTS table and the sentence frame “The claim is ... because source X states ...; however ...”.

LF extension: Add a competing interpretation or limitation and defend your source hierarchy.

Recording: Optional. If you record, keep it private unless everyone involved has explicitly agreed to share it.

Writing

Write a fact-check memo in your own words.

BF: 180–220 words. Include the claim, two sources, evidence, time-check and a qualified conclusion.

LF: 280–350 words. Include at least three sources, one source-quality comparison, conflicting or limiting evidence, and a justified final status.

Useful language: The claim can be traced to… / This source is authoritative for… / The evidence corroborates… / The wording overstates… / As of [date]… / The evidence remains insufficient to…

No model essay is supplied: the learning goal is independent analysis and writing.

Mediation – optional

Use a current German-language official school page. Explain the relevant information in English for an exchange student who needs to know what the source actually says.

BF: 80–100 words; select only the information relevant to the stated purpose.

LF: 120–150 words; add a short note on source status and currency.

Do not translate line by line. Mediation means selecting, adapting and explaining information for a purpose.

Hilfen: use them in this order

Read the sentence in context and underline the words around the problem.
Break unfamiliar words into roots, prefixes and suffixes.
Sketch the relationship between claim, source, evidence and date.
Use an English learner's dictionary or English explanation.
Ask a partner for an English paraphrase.
Use brief German support only if the earlier steps are not enough.

Self-feedback checklist

Before submitting, check: Is every important factual statement small enough to verify? Did I trace at least one key claim to an original or authoritative source? Are my corroborating sources independent? Did I check the date? Does my wording match the strength of the evidence? Have I separated fact, inference and opinion? Did I write the analysis myself?

Fehleranalyse

Typical error	Why it fails	Better move
“It has three citations, so it must be true.”	citations can be fabricated, irrelevant or circular	open each source and test the exact claim
“The page is official, so every claim is current.”	official pages can have old versions	check update date and document version
“Two websites agree.”	one may copy the other	test source independence
“I cannot prove it false, so it is true.”	lack of disproof is not positive evidence	use unresolved when evidence is insufficient
“The AI sounds uncertain, so the fact is probably false.”	confidence and accuracy are different properties	verify externally

Transfer

Apply FACTS to one claim from another subject: a historical date, a scientific statistic, an economic figure or a literary-context fact. Explain which step changes most when the domain changes. The method should transfer; the best sources will not always be the same.

Abi-Check Baden-Württemberg

Stand: 3 October 2026. Before exam preparation, verify the relevant examination year on the official ministry page. At this date, the page lists documents for Abitur 2027 and Abitur 2028. For English 2027, the official Facherlass states that the subject is based on the content and competencies of Bildungsplan 2016. The Bildungsplan states that Basisfach and Leistungsfach differ in complexity, breadth, depth and differentiation, while the target level is B2, in parts C1.

Mini Abi-Check BF – 15 minutes: Verify one current exam-related claim with two official pages. Summarise the evidence in 100–120 words.

Mini Abi-Check LF – 25 minutes: Verify three exam-related claims using at least two official documents and one explanatory source. Explain one limitation or change risk and finish with a date-qualified conclusion.

This is a practice format, not a reproduction of an official Abitur task.

Current official starting points

Media and copyright-safe working

The embedded Wikimedia Commons files come with reuse information on their file pages. Check the licence and attribution requirements before reusing them outside the wiki. The EU AI-label icons shown here are made publicly available for free use; the Commons file page records the reuse information. Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. YouTube material is embedded from the platform; do not copy or re-upload videos. Use short notes and your own analysis instead of reproducing full texts or film sequences.

LF extension: fact-checking AI disinformation

Use a selected, teacher-approved segment of this International Journalism Festival discussion with a Deutsche Welle fact-checking perspective. Focus on verification strategies and the limits of automated detection, not on memorising tool names.

LF task: Extract two verification principles and compare them with FACTS. Which step is most difficult for synthetic media, and why?

Folgekurs

Continue with ABI - AI-generated arguments analysieren: move from checking factual accuracy to analysing reasoning, assumptions, evidence chains and rhetorical framing.

Interaktive Aufgaben

Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen

What is the first step in the FACTS routine? (Frame the smallest checkable factual claim) (!Check how confident the wording sounds) (!Translate the entire answer into German) (!Count how many websites mention it)

What best describes lateral reading? (Leave the page and investigate the source and claim elsewhere) (!Read one website from top to bottom) (!Trust the first search result) (!Check spelling before checking evidence)

What is information called when it may once have been correct but is no longer current? (Outdated) (!Fabricated) (!Private) (!Anonymous)

Why is an official exam document useful for an exam rule? (It has direct authority for that rule) (!Its language is always simpler) (!It is always the newest page on the internet) (!It can never contain limitations)

What should you do when good sources conflict and the evidence is insufficient? (State that the issue is unresolved and explain the uncertainty) (!Choose the source with the best design) (!Repeat the AI answer more confidently) (!Call the claim fabricated immediately)

Which item is only a visual impression rather than an evidence check? (A polished website) (!A relevant publication date) (!A link to the original dataset) (!Independent corroboration)

What does corroborate mean in this course? (Find independent evidence that supports or tests the claim) (!Rewrite the claim in more formal English) (!Translate the claim into another language) (!Remove all uncertainty from the conclusion)

Why do you time-check a source? (A genuine source can still be outdated for the claim) (!Older sources are always false) (!New sources are always correct) (!Dates matter only in history)

Which conclusion is responsibly qualified? (The evidence supports this claim as of the stated date) (!The AI sounded certain so the claim is correct) (!I dislike the source so the claim is false) (!One source is enough for every factual claim)

How does the shared BF/LF course differentiate most appropriately? (BF receives more structure while LF adds breadth depth and independence) (!BF works in German while LF works in English) (!BF does not need evidence checks) (!LF uses artificially difficult vocabulary)

Memory

Verification	checking whether a claim is supported
Corroboration	independent supporting evidence
Fabrication	invented content presented as factual
Currency	how up-to-date information is
Lateral reading	leaving a page to investigate elsewhere
Qualification	limiting wording to match evidence
Evidence	information used to support or challenge a claim

Drag and Drop

Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.	Thema
Frame the claim	Make the statement small and testable
Author and origin	Identify responsibility and original source
Corroborate	Seek independent evidence
Time-check	Check date and version
State the status	Give a justified evidence-based conclusion

Kreuzworträtsel

Source	What is the origin of information called?
Evidence	What supports or challenges a factual claim?
Outdated	What describes information that is no longer current?
Verification	What is the process of checking whether a claim is supported?
Fabrication	What is invented factual-looking information called?
Corroboration	What is independent support from another source called?

LearningApps

Lückentext

Offene Aufgaben

Leicht

Fact-Checking: Choose one everyday factual claim and create a two-column claim/evidence table.
Wortbildung im Englischen: Create a word-family card for verify, rely, accurate and qualify, each with one original sentence.
Quellenkritik: Compare two public homepages and write three questions that help you decide which is closer to the original source.
Medienkompetenz: Design a one-page FACTS visual reminder using only your own text and freely reusable symbols.

Standard

Lateral Reading: Verify one teacher-supplied claim with two independent sources and document your search path.
Hörsehverstehen: Use one embedded Crash Course video and write five comprehension questions plus evidence-based answers.
Sprachmittlung: Mediate a current German official-school source into concise English for an exchange student.
Fehleranalyse: Create six fictional AI claims and label the error pattern only after you have supplied evidence for the classification.

Schwer

Quellenbewertung: Find a case in which two credible sources appear to disagree and explain whether the conflict is factual, methodological or temporal.
Datenkompetenz: Trace one reported statistic back to its original dataset and check definition, date and population.
Wissenschaftspropädeutik: Compare an official source, a research source and a news explanation of the same issue; analyse what each can and cannot establish.
Abiturvorbereitung Englisch: Create a BF/LF twin task on the same claim: BF with scaffolds, LF with broader material synthesis and stronger AFB II/III demands.

Lernkontrolle

Claim-Evidence-Match: You receive one claim and four source extracts. Decide which evidence is relevant, which is merely related and which is insufficient; justify the distinctions.
Aktualitätsprüfung: A once-correct statement is paired with an older and a current source. Explain exactly when and why the status changes.
Quellenkonflikt: Two credible sources reach different conclusions. Develop three possible reasons for the discrepancy and identify what additional evidence would resolve it.
Überarbeitung: Rewrite an overconfident AI-style paragraph so that every factual sentence matches the available evidence and uncertainty.
Transfer: Apply FACTS to a factual claim from another school subject and explain which source types become more or less authoritative.
Reflexion: Explain why detecting whether text was AI-generated is a different task from verifying whether its factual claims are accurate.

Lernnachweis

For a successful Lernnachweis, you should be able to:

formulate a precise factual claim from a longer response;
trace important information to an original or authoritative source;
use independent corroboration rather than copied repetition;
check date, version, scope and population;
distinguish fabricated, outdated, misleading, supported and unresolved claims;
communicate uncertainty with appropriate English qualification;
compare source quality at BF or LF depth;
document that the final analysis and wording are your own.

OERs zum Thema

Verknüpfte Lernbereiche

ABI - AI-generated facts verifizieren

aiMOOC-Projekte

Frag mich zum aktuellen Lerninhalt oder wähle eine kurze Hilfe.

Textmodus bereit

Sprache