Professional learning · Coaches, Teachers, Librarians · 45 minutes
Looking for the Checking
A looking-at-student-work protocol that asks one question of a class set: did students actually verify what the AI told them, and how can we tell?
Teachers now ask students to "check what the AI says," and most students write "I checked it." This protocol treats that assignment as data. A PLC reads a fictional set of eighth-grade research notes, describes what is actually on the page, places each sample on a verification evidence continuum, and plans the instruction the pattern calls for. The move for coaches: shift the conversation from "Are students cheating with AI?" to "What does our students' work show about how they verify, and what do we teach next?"
In this packet
- Handout A: Student Work Set: Dust Bowl Research Notes (reading)
- Handout B: Verification Evidence Continuum (rubric)
- Handout C: Protocol Record (organizer)
TCEA ELE indicators
- C3.1 I know how to use data to inform instructional decisions.
- C3.2 I can help teachers interpret and act on assessment results.
- AI4.2 I can teach others to question and verify AI outputs.
- T2.3 I am aware of strategies to help students identify and combat misinformation.
Full facilitator guide: mglearn.github.io/eles/activities/looking-for-the-checking.html
Handout A for Looking for the Checking
Student Work Set: Dust Bowl Research Notes
Fictional work from an 8th grade class at Harlan Creek Middle School. Assignment: "Ask the class AI chatbot why the Dust Bowl happened. Verify two of its claims using our textbook or another reliable source." The chatbot's answer is printed first.
1The chatbot's answer (projected by the teacher and copied by students): "The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms on the southern Great Plains during the 1930s. It was caused by a single year of drought in 1934, made worse because farmers had plowed up the native grasses that held the soil in place. The federal government did nothing to help farmers recover."
2Student A: Pasted the chatbot's answer word for word. Under it: "Source: AI." No other notes.
3Student B: Rewrote the answer in their own words. At the bottom: "I checked it and it's right."
4Student C: "Claim 1: farmers plowed up grasses that held the soil. Checked in our textbook, chapter 14, page 402. It says the same thing. MATCH. Claim 2: dust storms in the 1930s. Textbook page 401 says the same. MATCH."
5Student D: "The AI said it was one year of drought in 1934. The textbook says there were droughts across most of the decade, not one year. MISMATCH. I changed my notes to 'several years of drought' and wrote down the page (401). Claim 2: the grasses. MATCH."
6Student E: "I searched the first sentence and found a website that says the exact same thing, so it's verified." (The site's text is word-for-word the same as the chatbot's answer. No author or organization is listed.)
7Student F: Did not use the chatbot. Wrote a paragraph from the textbook with two page numbers. Note to teacher: "I didn't want to use the AI."
8Student G: "The AI said the government did nothing. My textbook says the government started soil conservation programs to teach farmers new methods. MISMATCH. But I kept the AI version because the AI has more information than our book."
Handout B for Looking for the Checking
Verification Evidence Continuum
Place each sample at a level for each criterion. Describe what you see before you decide.
| Criterion | No check | Claimed check | Checked a claim | Checked, corrected, explained |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifies the claims to check | Treats the AI answer as one block. | Mentions checking without naming a claim. | Names specific claims from the AI answer. | Names claims and chooses the ones most likely to be wrong or most important. |
| Uses an independent source | No source other than the AI. | Says a source was used but doesn't name it. | Names a source, but it may repeat the AI (circular) or be unvetted. | Names a reliable source that is independent of the AI answer, with a page or location. |
| Acts on what the check shows | No comparison made. | States a conclusion ("it's right") without showing the comparison. | Records match or mismatch for each claim. | Records a mismatch and revises the claim, choosing the documented source over the fluent one. |
| Documents what changed | Final notes are the AI's words. | Final notes are reworded but unchanged in substance. | Notes show which claims were confirmed. | Notes show what changed and why, so a reader could retrace the check. |
Handout C for Looking for the Checking
Protocol Record
The note-taker fills this in. Keep the first column to what is on the page.
| Level on the continuum | Samples here (A–G) | What we see on the page (describe only) | What it suggests about our teaching | Next move and the evidence we expect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No check | ||||
| Claimed check | ||||
| Checked a claim (including circular sources) | ||||
| Checked, corrected, explained | ||||
| Mismatch found but AI kept | ||||
| Didn't use AI |