ELA · Grade 7 · 4 weeks
Fact-Checking AI: Birmingham History Detectives
Driving question
How can we teach fourth graders to spot AI errors about Birmingham history using local primary sources?
Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
2 parts
- aApply grade 7 Reading standards to literature (e.g., "Compare and contrast a fictional portrayal of a time, place, or character and a historical account of the same period as a means of understanding how authors of fiction use or alter history").
- bApply grade 7 Reading standards to literary nonfiction (e.g. "Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims").
TAUGHT IN Week 1, activity 3; Week 2, activity 1; Week 2, activity 2; Week 2, activity 3; Week 3, activity 2; Week 4, activity 4ASSESSED BY Archival Evidence
Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
5 parts
- aIntroduce claim(s), acknowledge alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence logically.
- bSupport claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
- cUse words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), reasons, and evidence.
- dEstablish and maintain a formal style.
- eProvide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
TAUGHT IN Week 3, activity 1; Week 3, activity 2; Week 3, activity 3; Week 4, activity 1; Week 4, activity 2; Week 4, activity 3ASSESSED BY Argument Writing
Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims.
TAUGHT IN Week 1, activity 1; Week 1, activity 2; Week 1, activity 3; Week 2, activity 2; Week 3, activity 3ASSESSED BY Evaluating Claims
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Seventh graders test how well AI chatbots know Birmingham history by prompting three different tools with local civil rights questions and highlighting conflicting claims. Working in pairs, they cross-examine these claims against digitized primary sources from the Birmingham Public Library archives and Birmingham Civil Rights Institute collections. Students then write an evidence-based field guide showing how to verify digital claims and teach fourth graders strategies to spot AI errors.
The teacher displays three short AI chatbot responses to the question, 'What happened during the 1963 Children's Crusade in Birmingham?' Side-by-side, students notice that two chatbots give conflicting dates, invent participant names, and omit key local leaders. The teacher asks the class how fourth graders doing school research would know what is true.
- Why do AI chatbots make up facts about local history?
- Where can we find trusted primary sources from Birmingham archives?
- How do we prove whether a claim in an AI text is supported or false?
- How can we explain fact-checking steps so a fourth grader understands them?
Your lessons: 5 a week, 50 minutes.
Week 1
Test three AI tools on Birmingham history and list their specific factual claims.
Analyze three sample AI outputs about local events and sort claims into facts, gaps, and suspected errors.
· 1 lessonDevelop five shared research questions about Birmingham civil rights events and enter them into three AI chatbots. Start with questions about the 16th Street Baptist Church and Kelly Ingram Park, since students can walk there and read the historical markers themselves.
· 2 lessonsCompile chatbot answers into a side-by-side comparison chart and isolate specific factual claims to verify.
· 2 lessons
Supports
Provide sentence frames and claim-identification highlighters for multilingual students and students with IEPs; encourage students ready for more to test how small changes in prompt wording alter the chatbot claims.
Deliverable
Side-by-side comparison chart of chatbot claims with highlighted verification targets.
Week 2
Investigate primary sources from Birmingham archives to test chatbot claims.
Examine digitized archival photographs, letters, and oral histories from local library and institute collections.
· 2 lessonsEvaluate whether archival evidence supports, refutes, or adds missing context to each chatbot claim.
· 2 lessonsOrganize primary source citations and log verified facts versus confirmed AI errors in a research journal.
· 1 lesson
Supports
Offer audio recordings of oral histories and guided text excerpts for multilingual students and students with IEPs; have advanced students compare multiple primary source accounts that offer differing perspectives on the same event. Give students a claim-tracking sheet with columns for 'chatbot said', 'source says', 'match, partial, or wrong' and 'where I found it'.
Deliverable
Fact-checking research log citing specific primary source evidence for each claim.
Week 3
Draft the fact-checking guide and build step-by-step verification arguments.
Model how to write an argument proving an AI claim is false using direct primary source evidence.
· 1 lessonDraft a fact-checker guide comparing errors from two chatbots, showing verified case studies, and outlining rules for young researchers.
· 2 lessonsConduct peer review using a rubric checklist focused on clear claims, source evidence, and age-appropriate language.
· 1 lesson
Supports
Supply structural graphic organizers and transition word banks for multilingual students and students with IEPs; challenge advanced writers to include counter-arguments explaining why an AI might have generated that specific error.
Deliverable
Complete draft of the student-authored AI fact-checking guide.
Week 4
Revise the guide into a teaching tool and present it to fourth-grade students.
Revise and finalize the guide based on peer feedback, polishing arguments and visual layout.
· 2 lessonsRehearse mini-lessons in pairs, practicing how to guide fourth graders through testing an AI claim.
· 1 lessonDeliver the fact-checking workshop to fourth graders and guide them through an interactive claim check.
· 1 lessonComplete a written reflection assessing personal growth in evaluating digital and archival texts.
· 1 lesson
Supports
Provide cue cards and paired presentation roles for multilingual students and students with IEPs; invite advanced students to field spontaneous research questions from the fourth-grade audience.
Deliverable
Final polished fact-checking guide and completed self-reflection form.
The end of week 3, period 3.
Pairs swap guide drafts and complete a two-stars-and-a-wish rubric review, focusing on whether claims are backed by specific archival evidence and whether the instructions are easy for fourth graders to follow.
Student reflection
Students complete a written exit reflection analyzing how checking primary sources changed their trust in online tools and what skills they gained as researchers.
What they make
An illustrated fact-checking guide and a mini-lesson teaching younger students how to verify AI claims using primary sources.
Options
Pairs choose whether to make their guide as a printed booklet, a laminated cheat sheet, or a slide deck, and they select which verified Birmingham history case study to highlight. Let teams choose their teaching format for the fourth graders: a comic strip, a short skit, or a game of 'spot the fake fact'.
Who sees it
Fourth-grade elementary students during a workshop visit in the final week of the unit.
Teams
Teams of two, formed by student choice with teacher approval to ensure balanced strengths.
| Criterion | beginning | developing | proficient | advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluating Claims RI.7.8 · individual | Identifies chatbot claims but does not assess whether the reasoning or supporting evidence is valid. | Identifies claims and points out errors, but provides incomplete explanations of why the reasoning fails. | Accurately traces chatbot claims and evaluates whether their historical statements are sound and supported. | Critically assesses subtle inaccuracies or bias in chatbot reasoning and clearly explains the limits of its evidence. |
Archival Evidence W.7.9 · individual | Mentions primary source materials without quoting or connecting specific details to the claims. | Includes some details from primary sources, but the evidence is loosely connected to the investigated claim. | Draws accurate, relevant evidence from Birmingham archive materials to support factual analysis and claims. | Skillfully weaves specific, compelling textual evidence from multiple primary sources into research analysis. |
Argument Writing W.7.1 · team | States a claim about an AI error but lacks logical reasons, organized evidence, or formal tone. | Constructs an argument with a clear claim, but reasons are unevenly supported and transitions are weak. | Writes clear arguments with logical reasons, accurate evidence from sources, and an appropriate formal style. | Produces a compelling, cohesive argument that thoroughly refutes false claims and anticipates counter-arguments. |
Evaluating Claims
RI.7.8 · individualbeginning
Identifies chatbot claims but does not assess whether the reasoning or supporting evidence is valid.
developing
Identifies claims and points out errors, but provides incomplete explanations of why the reasoning fails.
proficient
Accurately traces chatbot claims and evaluates whether their historical statements are sound and supported.
advanced
Critically assesses subtle inaccuracies or bias in chatbot reasoning and clearly explains the limits of its evidence.
Archival Evidence
W.7.9 · individualbeginning
Mentions primary source materials without quoting or connecting specific details to the claims.
developing
Includes some details from primary sources, but the evidence is loosely connected to the investigated claim.
proficient
Draws accurate, relevant evidence from Birmingham archive materials to support factual analysis and claims.
advanced
Skillfully weaves specific, compelling textual evidence from multiple primary sources into research analysis.
Argument Writing
W.7.1 · teambeginning
States a claim about an AI error but lacks logical reasons, organized evidence, or formal tone.
developing
Constructs an argument with a clear claim, but reasons are unevenly supported and transitions are weak.
proficient
Writes clear arguments with logical reasons, accurate evidence from sources, and an appropriate formal style.
advanced
Produces a compelling, cohesive argument that thoroughly refutes false claims and anticipates counter-arguments.
- Digitized primary source collections from local public library archives and civil rights museum recordscheck before use
- Classroom internet access to three approved school-safe AI chatbot platformscheck before use
- Sample printouts of chatbot outputs containing known historical inaccuracies
- Highlighters, graphic organizers for claim tracking, and guide template paper