|
Skill
|
Students will be able to generate and refine research questions about generative AI and writing using QFT to identify an arguable ethical issue. - generate and refine
|
- I can generate a few simple QFT questions about generative AI and writing from a short case or prompt card, using question words like who, what, where, and why
- I can refine my questions by making them clearer after a group sorting discussion.
|
- I can generate and sort QFT questions about generative AI and writing into a “researchable” and “non-researchable” set based on group criteria
- I can revise my questions to be more specific and arguable so they can lead to ethical discussion and investigation.
|
- I can produce a strong set of QFT questions about generative AI and writing that connect to an ethical issue (such as fairness, privacy, labor, misinformation, or environmental impact)
- I can prioritize the best questions, revise wording for depth and focus, and explain my choices using evidence from the case materials.
|
- I can generate and refine an excellent, prioritized list of QFT research questions about generative AI and writing that clearly target an arguable ethical issue for a stakeholder audience
- I can justify how each question could lead to a claim supported by credible evidence, and I can improve my final research question through feedback and targeted revisions.
|
|
Content knowledge
|
Students will be able to analyze bias, privacy, labor, misinformation, and environmental cost in AI-related texts and visuals to determine stakeholder impact. - analyze
|
- I can identify a bias, privacy risk, labor impact, misinformation sign, or environmental cost shown in an AI-related text, headline, or visual and tell who might be affected and how
- I can use evidence from the passage or image (a quote, number, or detail) to support my observation.
|
- I can analyze multiple types of impact (bias, privacy, labor, misinformation, and environmental cost) in an AI-related text or visual and explain how the information could affect different stakeholders
- I can point to specific features (words, data points, sources, missing context, or design choices) and connect them to my claim about potential stakeholder impact.
|
- I can evaluate how bias, privacy, labor, misinformation, and environmental cost interact in an AI-related text or visual, using credible evidence to support my analysis
- I can compare stakeholder perspectives by explaining likely benefits and harms for at least two groups and describing what information or assumptions lead me to that conclusion.
|
- I can conduct an in-depth, reasoned analysis of stakeholder impact by interpreting bias, privacy, labor, misinformation, and environmental cost together and predicting outcomes across time
- I can justify my conclusions with precise evidence (multiple details and data/claims), consider alternative interpretations, and synthesize how these impacts should shape responsible decisions for a specific audience.
|
|
Skill
|
Students will be able to evaluate the credibility and bias of sources about generative AI to select evidence that best supports a defensible claim. - evaluate
|
- I can sort sources about generative AI by noticing who wrote them and what details are included, and I can choose ones that seem most helpful for my idea
- I can point to a simple example from a chosen source when I explain why it helped my claim.
|
- I can compare multiple sources about generative AI to judge how credible they are by checking clues like author/expertise, date, and whether the information is supported
- I can describe how bias or missing viewpoints might affect the evidence I select and choose sources that best fit my claim.
|
- I can evaluate sources about generative AI by using evidence of credibility and bias (such as viewpoint, data quality, sensational language, and whether multiple perspectives are included)
- I can justify which evidence is strongest for my defensible claim and explain what kind of bias could weaken other sources I considered.
|
- I can independently assess credibility and bias across sources about generative AI by cross-checking claims, analyzing methodology or data, and considering stakeholder perspectives and incentives behind the writing
- I can select and synthesize evidence that is most reliable for my claim, clearly explaining how I accounted for bias and how that improved the defensibility of my argument.
|
|
Skill
|
Students will be able to construct a focused claim about a school or community response to generative AI and support it with relevant evidence and reasoning. - construct and support
|
- I can state a clear, focused claim about how my school or community should respond to generative AI
- I can support my claim with at least one simple piece of evidence (such as a fact, example, or quote) from a reading or discussion
- I can explain my evidence by connecting it to my claim in one sentence.
|
- I can write a focused claim about a specific school/community need related to generative AI
- I can use multiple relevant evidence points and reasoning to show why my claim makes sense, referencing at least two sources or discussions
- I can organize my claim and evidence in a way that a reader can follow easily from point to point.
|
- I can develop a nuanced, specific claim that addresses stakeholder perspectives (who benefits and who could be harmed) regarding generative AI
- I can choose strong, relevant evidence and explain the reasoning that links each piece of evidence to my claim, using a source-to-claim map or clear in-text connections
- I can revise my claim or support to make the argument more accurate, credible, and persuasive for the intended audience.
|
- I can construct a well-supported, compelling claim for a real stakeholder audience and show how it responds to an ethical issue involving generative AI
- I can integrate varied, credible evidence (including data/visuals and perspectives from different stakeholders) and provide sophisticated reasoning that anticipates counterpoints and limitations
- I can clearly document how evidence shaped my claim through drafts, annotations, and an evidence map.
|
|
Content knowledge
|
Students will be able to compare stakeholder perspectives on AI use in writing and research to identify who benefits, who is harmed, and what trade-offs exist. - compare
|
- I can identify different stakeholders (such as students, teachers, families, and leaders) and describe how each might feel or be affected by using generative AI for writing and research
- I can name one possible benefit and one possible harm for at least one stakeholder in my notes or graphic organizer.
|
- I can compare at least two stakeholder perspectives on AI use in writing and research by using information from the case card, discussion, or source excerpts
- I can explain what each stakeholder stands to gain or lose and state a clear trade-off (a benefit for some choices that creates a downside for others).
|
- I can analyze multiple stakeholder perspectives to determine patterns about who benefits, who is harmed, and why those outcomes happen
- I can support my comparisons with 2–3 details from evidence (readings, quotes, interview notes, or data visuals) and summarize the key ethical tension at the center of the trade-off.
|
- I can evaluate stakeholder perspectives to make a nuanced claim about the most significant benefits and harms of AI use in writing and research, including how impacts may differ across groups and situations
- I can justify the trade-offs using strong, specific evidence and explain how my own recommendation changes when I consider different stakeholders.
|
|
Skill
|
Students will be able to revise arguments and writing using SWOC feedback, source-to-claim mapping, and evidence review to strengthen clarity and logic. - revise
|
- I can revise my draft by using SWOC feedback to clarify my main idea and add at least one piece of evidence from my sources that clearly supports my claim
- I can point to where I made changes in my draft or revision notes.
|
- I can revise my argument by using SWOC feedback and a source-to-claim map to match each reason in my writing to a specific source
- I can improve clarity by reorganizing my paragraphs and explaining how the evidence connects to my claim.
|
- I can strengthen my argument by using SWOC feedback, evidence review, and my source-to-claim map to refine logic (why my reasons lead to my claim)
- I can revise to address gaps or weak connections by adding, replacing, or rewording evidence and making the most important points easier to follow.
|
- I can independently revise my writing using SWOC feedback and evidence mapping to produce a clear, logically organized argument with strong, relevant support
- I can use my evidence review to justify my choices (why certain sources fit the claim best) and document major revisions with specific, purposeful change statements.
|
|
Disposition
|
Students will be able to explain how their thinking changed about responsible AI use through reflection on research, feedback, and drafting choices. - explain
|
- I can name one way my thinking about responsible AI use changed after doing research or getting feedback, and I can use a sentence starter (e.g., “I used to think… now I think… because…”) in my reflection.
|
- I can explain at least two specific changes I made to my ideas about responsible AI use by referencing evidence from research and feedback, and I can describe which drafting choice helped (e.g., adding a source, revising wording, or clarifying my claim).
|
- I can clearly describe how my thinking evolved over multiple drafts by connecting my reflection to research notes, feedback (SWOC), and revision decisions, and I can explain why those changes made my writing more responsible and accurate.
|
- I can provide a detailed, first-person account of how my understanding of responsible AI use changed, using concrete examples from my research, evidence map, and revision tracker, and I can justify my drafting and AI-use choices with ethical reasoning and a next-step plan for continued improvement.
|