aiMOOC

ABI - AI citations kontrollieren

QR-Code

ABI - AI citations kontrollieren

Mini-description: An AI-generated citation may be invented, may point to a real source that does not support the claim, or may be too old for the question. In this aiMOOC you learn to check three gates: Does the source exist? Does it support the claim? Is it current enough? You work in English first and use German only as a final support step.

Einleitung

Target group: English as a continued foreign language, Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg, joint Basisfach (BF) / Leistungsfach (LF) course. Learning orientation: B2, partly C1. The material is deliberately compact: active checking, media, speaking and writing come before long explanations.

Core rule: A citation is not evidence until you have opened and checked the source yourself.

Privacy and academic integrity: Use fictional practice data where possible. Recordings are voluntary and should stay private. Do not upload classmates' work, personal data or copyrighted texts to external services. Do not send material to an external AI unless this has been explicitly agreed. AI may suggest search terms or citations, but it must not replace your own source check, analysis or exam writing.

Current Abi frame: checked for 2027

For the Abitur 2027 in Baden-Württemberg, the official English subject decree refers to the Bildungsplan 2016 for the current Kursstufe and to the IQB operator list valid from the 2027 examination year. The newer English plan V3.0 starts with younger cohorts and does not replace the 2016 plan for the current upper-secondary cohort.

LF: The 2027 written exam combines listening and writing. The official framework names integrated reading, analysis and a choice between a personal response and a creative writing task; a communication examination is also part of the written subject. In LF course assessment, AFB II and III receive stronger emphasis than AFB I.

BF: The 2027 decree requires the same overarching focus topic as in LF, but with an appropriate reduction in scope and level. Across the four course semesters, listening, reading, analysis, mediation and different writing tasks must be covered; BF also includes substantial monologic and dialogic speaking contributions. For BF assessment, AFB I and II are weighted more strongly than AFB III.

Official check points:

Facherlass Abitur 2027 Baden-Württemberg, section 3 English.
IQB accompanying documents, including the operator list valid from examination year 2027.
Bildungspläne Baden-Württemberg, English, Kursstufe.

Freshness rule for this course: Before using the module for a later examination year, re-check the official decree and the IQB documents.

I-can goals

After this module, I can …

verify whether a cited source really exists.
locate the original source instead of relying on an AI answer, search snippet or secondary quotation.
decide whether the source actually supports the claim and record the exact evidence location.
judge whether a source is current enough for the specific claim.
explain uncertainty and limits in clear English.
compare BF and LF depth without making the language artificially difficult.
use verified evidence in my own speaking and writing instead of copying an AI-generated argument.

Media entry: What would make you trust this citation?

Look at the fictional AI output:

Claim: “Frequent use of generative AI reduces long-term memory by 37% in upper-secondary students.”

AI citation: Miller, J. (2024). Generative AI and memory retention in secondary education. Journal of Cognitive Learning, 18(2), 44–58. DOI: 10.0000/aimooc.fake.001.

Important: The citation above is fictional training data. Do not treat the title, percentage or DOI as facts.

Quick task: Before searching, predict which details you would verify first. Then compare your plan with the three-gate workflow below.

The three-gate workflow

Gate	English check	Evidence you keep
1 EXISTENCE	Can I find matching metadata for author, title, year, venue and identifier?	DOI/URL, catalogue record or publisher record
2 SUPPORT	Does the original source actually make or justify the claim?	page, section, paragraph, figure or table + short paraphrase
3 CURRENCY	Is the evidence recent enough for this claim, and is the version still valid?	publication/update date, version, correction or retraction status

Decision: Only after all three gates are checked should you cite the source as evidence.

Where to verify

Tool	Best use	Limitation
Crossref Metadata Search	Check title, author, venue, year and DOI metadata.	A metadata match does not prove that the source supports your claim.
DOI resolver	Test whether a DOI resolves to a registered object.	A working DOI still does not prove relevance or accuracy.
PubMed	Verify many biomedical publications and their metadata.	It is discipline-specific.
Library catalogue / publisher page	Verify books, chapters, editions and full publication details.	Search results can show editions different from the one cited.
Search engine / Google Scholar	Discover likely matches and citation trails.	Use it for discovery, then confirm with the original or an authoritative registry.

Access tip: Prefer an openly accessible original when available. If only an abstract is accessible, do not pretend you checked details that require the full text.

Listening / Viewing 1: fact-checking

First viewing – gist: Note three questions professional fact-checkers ask about online information.

Second viewing – evidence: Add one example for each question and explain why it matters for an AI-generated citation.

BF scaffold: Use the frame “I would check … because …”.

LF extension: Distinguish between checking the publisher/source and checking the specific evidence inside that source.

Listening / Viewing 2: lateral reading

When you read laterally, you leave the page and open other sources to investigate who is behind it, what other reliable sources say and where the information originated.

Task: Apply lateral reading to the fictional Miller citation. Do not search the whole claim first. Search the title, author, journal and DOI separately, then compare the results.

Reading: a real source, a wrong conclusion

Use this real open-access article as a practice source:

William H. Walters & Esther Isabelle Wilder (2023), “Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT”, Scientific Reports. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5.

Read selectively: title, abstract, methods summary and conclusion. Do not copy the article.

Now test this sentence:

“This study proves that all current generative AI systems fabricate most references.”

Your job is not to agree or disagree quickly. Ask:

What systems and conditions did the study actually test?
What kind of citation problem did it investigate?
Does “all current systems” go beyond the study?
Is a 2023 study current enough for a claim about systems used in 2026/2027?

Expected insight: A real citation can still be used to support an exaggerated or outdated claim. Existence is only gate 1.

Listening / Viewing 3: authority and perspective

Task: Build a two-column note: authority and perspective. Then decide which matters more for each case: a DOI registry, a publisher page, a company blog, a peer-reviewed study, a newspaper article and an anonymous social post.

Context vocabulary: English first

Use the sentence before the translation. Look at the word family, infer the meaning, read the English explanation, then use a monolingual dictionary. German help comes last.

Word family	Context	English explanation
verify – verification – verifiable	“The DOI is verifiable in Crossref.”	check that something is true, accurate or authentic
cite – citation – cited	“The paragraph is cited, but the claim is not supported.”	refer to a source in a traceable way
rely – reliable – reliability	“A polished reference is not automatically reliable.”	be dependable enough for a particular purpose
support – supporting – unsupported	“The source exists, but the percentage is unsupported.”	provide evidence or reasoning for a claim
retract – retraction – retracted	“A retracted article should not be used as normal evidence.”	formally withdraw a publication or result
fabricate – fabrication – fabricated	“The AI fabricated a journal title.”	invent something and present it as if it were real
current – currency	“Currency matters more for fast-changing AI performance claims.”	how up-to-date information is for the task

Dictionary step: Check one unclear word in your monolingual dictionary before using German.

Deutsch-Hilfe, nur wenn nötig: verify = überprüfen; citation = Quellenangabe/Zitatbeleg; reliable = zuverlässig; support = stützen/belegen; retraction = Rückzug einer Veröffentlichung; fabricate = erfinden/fabrizieren; currency = Aktualität.

Visualisation: citation ≠ evidence

Looks convincing	Better question
DOI present	Does it resolve to the same title and author?
Famous journal name	Is the article actually in that journal?
Real article	Does the passage support this exact claim?
Supporting passage	Is the source appropriate and current enough?
Recent date	Is it high-quality evidence for this question?

Listening / Viewing 4: evaluating evidence

Viewing task: Identify one example where evidence is relevant but still not strong enough. Transfer the idea to AI citations: “The source mentions the topic” is weaker than “The source supports the precise claim.”

Analysis: claim–source mapping

Use a simple evidence map before you write:

Claim	Source exists?	Exact support?	Current enough?	Decision
AI systems can produce fabricated references.	Yes: check metadata.	Find the exact scope in the study.	Historical occurrence can be shown with older evidence.	Cite with scope.
A specific current model has a 20% citation error rate.	A source may exist.	It must test that model and that metric.	Requires recent, comparable evidence.	Do not generalise from old models.
DOI registration identifies a digital object.	Check DOI documentation.	Definition can be stable.	Older authoritative documentation may still be sufficient.	Use fit-for-purpose evidence.

BF: Complete one row with teacher-provided material and a sentence frame.

LF: Compare two sources, explain a conflict or difference in scope, and justify which evidence is usable for the precise claim.

Speaking

Pair task – 90-second source check: Student A presents a claim and citation. Student B asks only verification questions:

“How do you know the source exists?”
“Where exactly does it support the claim?”
“Why is it current enough?”
“What limitation would you mention?”

Switch roles.

BF support: Keep the four-question sequence and use notes.

LF extension: Add a challenge about method, sample, version, perspective or transferability and respond without overclaiming.

Recording: Optional only. If recorded, keep the file private unless everyone involved has agreed to a specific use.

Writing

Write a short verification note in your own words:

Model structure:

Identify the AI claim and citation.
Report the existence check.
Explain whether the source supports the claim, naming the exact location checked.
Evaluate currency and fit-for-purpose.
Give a careful final status: supported, partly supported, unsupported, unverifiable, or outdated for this claim.

Useful language: “The bibliographic record can be verified via …” “The source does discuss …; however, it does not establish …” “The claim overgeneralises the study because …” “The publication is useful for … but too old to establish …” “A more cautious formulation would be …”

No replacement essays: Do not ask AI to generate your final exam paragraph. The learning goal is your own judgement, structure and language.

Mediation

A German-speaking classmate says: “Die Quelle gibt es doch, also stimmt die Aussage.”

Mediate the key point in natural English for an international study group. Do not translate word for word. Explain the distinction between existence, support and currency in 80–120 words.

BF: Use the three key terms and one example.

LF: Add one limitation about source type, method or scope.

Help ladder

Use support in this order:

Context: reread the sentence and identify the task.
Word formation: use the word family and visual workflow.
English explanation: paraphrase the term.
Monolingual dictionary: confirm meaning and usage.
Peer/teacher prompt: ask for a hint, not the answer.
German help: use a short translation only if you are still blocked.

Feedback

Use the code E–S–C:

E = existence checked. S = support checked in the original source. C = currency/fit checked.

Peer feedback should point to the missing gate, not simply say “good” or “wrong”.

Example: “E✓, S?, C✓ — you found the article and checked the date, but you have not shown where the article supports the 37% figure.”

Error analysis

Common error	Repair
Trusting a fluent AI bibliography	Verify each item independently.
Treating a search snippet as evidence	Open the original source.
Matching only the title	Match author, year, venue and identifier too.
Treating DOI resolution as proof of the claim	Check the relevant passage, table or figure.
Reading only the abstract for a detailed claim	State the limit or access the relevant full text legally.
Calling every older source “outdated”	Judge currency relative to the claim.
Using one study to describe all AI systems	Keep model, date, task and sample scope visible.

Transfer

Choose a citation from a current English coursework topic, for example migration, media, identity, science and technology or world of work. Verify it with the E–S–C workflow. Then rewrite the associated claim so that it says no more than the checked evidence supports.

BF: one claim + one source + one short limitation.

LF: two or more sources + comparison of scope + justified synthesis.

Abi-Check 2027

Use the currently valid IQB operator list rather than memorising old operator explanations.

analyze / examine: explain in detail and support your analysis with evidence from the text or material.

assess / evaluate: form a well-founded judgement based on evidence and examples.

For this module, a strong AFB II/III move is not “I found a source”, but “I can explain why this source supports only this narrower claim, under these conditions.”

2027 reminder: The official Baden-Württemberg English decree is the final reference for the exam format and required content. Re-check it if your examination year changes.

Follow-up course

Continue with ABI - AI claims kontrollieren and ABI - AI information triangulieren: move from checking one citation to comparing several independent sources and resolving contradictions.

Interaktive Aufgaben

Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen

What is the first gate when checking an AI-generated citation? (Verify that the source exists) (!Decide whether you like the claim) (!Translate the title into German) (!Copy the citation into your essay)

A DOI resolves to a real article. What does this prove? (The registered object exists) (!The article supports every claim linked to it) (!The article is definitely current enough) (!The article has no errors)

What is the best way to test whether a source supports a precise claim? (Open the original source and locate the relevant evidence) (!Read only the AI summary) (!Check whether the title sounds similar) (!Count how many times the source is cited)

When is publication date especially important? (When the claim concerns fast-changing current systems) (!Whenever the title is long) (!Only when the source is a book) (!Only when the source is written in German)

What does lateral reading mean? (Leaving a page to investigate it through other sources) (!Reading every word on one page twice) (!Reading only the footnotes) (!Translating the page before checking it)

Which statement best distinguishes citation from evidence? (A citation becomes useful evidence only after its relevance and support are checked) (!Every formatted citation is evidence) (!Only sources with a DOI are evidence) (!A recent source never needs checking)

What should you do if you can access only the abstract? (State the access limit and avoid claims requiring unchecked full-text detail) (!Invent the missing details) (!Assume the methods are suitable) (!Use page numbers generated by AI)

What is a retraction? (A formal withdrawal of a publication or result) (!A translation of a citation) (!A type of DOI) (!A search-engine ranking)

Which phrasing is most careful after finding a 2023 study on older AI models? (The study documents a problem in the models and conditions it tested) (!All current AI systems behave exactly the same way) (!The result will remain unchanged forever) (!The study proves every AI citation is false)

What is the purpose of the E–S–C check? (To record existence, support and currency) (!To grade pronunciation) (!To translate an article) (!To generate a bibliography automatically)

Memory

Crossref	metadata check
DOI resolver	identifier resolution
Lateral reading	external source investigation
Original source	claim verification
Currency	fit of publication date
Retraction	withdrawn publication
Abstract	concise research summary
Evidence map	claim-source alignment

Drag and Drop

Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.	Thema
Existence check	Author, title, year, venue and identifier match
Support check	Exact passage, figure or table backs the claim
Currency check	Date and version fit the question
Lateral reading	Investigate the source using other pages and records
Careful synthesis	Keep scope and limitations visible

Kreuzworträtsel

Crossref	Which metadata service can help verify a DOI and publication details?
Abstract	What is the short research summary at the start of many articles called?
Currency	Which term describes whether information is up to date enough for the task?
Retraction	What is the formal withdrawal of a publication called?
Evidence	What must a source provide to support a claim?
Metadata	What do title, author, year and venue collectively form?

LearningApps

Lückentext

Offene Aufgaben

Leicht

Citation checklist: Create a one-page visual checklist for the E–S–C workflow using only your own wording.
Metadata hunt: Verify the metadata of one teacher-provided real article in Crossref and record what matched.
Claim rewrite: Turn one exaggerated AI-generated claim into a cautious, evidence-limited sentence.
Vocabulary map: Build a word-family map for verify, cite, rely, support and retract.

Standard

Lateral reading protocol: Document the browser steps you use to investigate a source without copying any personal data.
Source support audit: Check whether one real source supports three short claims and classify each as supported, partly supported or unsupported.
Speaking check: In pairs, run the four-question verification interview and give E–S–C feedback.
Mini mediation: Explain the three gates in English to a fictional international student who trusts any citation with a DOI.

Schwer

Conflicting sources: Compare two sources that appear to disagree and explain whether the conflict comes from date, method, sample, definition or scope.
Currency judgement: Build two examples showing when an older source is still fit for purpose and when a recent source is necessary.
LF synthesis: Link at least two independently verified sources into one evidence-based paragraph while making limitations explicit.
Verification tutorial: Design a short screencast or storyboard that teaches source checking without showing personal accounts, copyrighted full texts or classmates' data.

Lernkontrolle

Source existence and support: You receive a polished AI citation and a matching publisher page. Explain why this is still insufficient and describe the next verification step.
Scope transfer: A study tested one AI model in one task. Rewrite a broad claim so that it matches the study scope and justify every restriction you add.
Currency decision: Compare an authoritative 2018 definition source with a 2026 model-performance study. Decide which type of claim each can appropriately support and explain why.
Evidence conflict: Two articles reach different conclusions. Develop a method for checking whether the difference comes from evidence quality, definitions, sample, method or date.
Abi operator transfer: Turn a simple “find the source” task into an analyze/examine task and then into an assess/evaluate task.
Integrity scenario: A classmate wants to submit an AI-generated paragraph with unchecked citations. Explain a workflow that preserves independent analysis and still uses digital tools responsibly.

Lernnachweis

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

document an existence check with traceable metadata.
point to the exact place where a source supports or fails to support a claim.
justify a currency decision in relation to the claim.
distinguish discovery tools from authoritative confirmation.
use cautious academic English that reflects scope and uncertainty.
show BF-appropriate structured application or LF-appropriate comparison and synthesis.
demonstrate your own analysis without outsourcing the final judgement or writing to AI.

OERs zum Thema

Useful external practice resources:

Verknüpfte Lernbereiche

ABI - AI citations kontrollieren

aiMOOC-Projekte

Inhalte werden geladen ...

Mediathek wird aus dem Wiki geladen ...

Frag mich zum aktuellen Lerninhalt oder wähle eine kurze Hilfe.

Textmodus bereit

Sprache