“A 2025 study found that handwritten notes improve recall by exactly 42%.”
No author, journal, link, or study title is provided.
⋮⋮ Drag caseAI can sound certain even when its evidence is not. Examine each case, then decide whether the content is supported, needs verification, or raises a red flag.
No author, journal, link, or study title is provided.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThe response gives individualized medical direction without a clinician or source.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThe response shows: $50 × 0.20 = $10; $50 − $10 = $40.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThe DOI does not resolve and the journal cannot be located.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThe answer may have been generated from older training data.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThis matches guidance on the official W3C Web Accessibility Initiative site.
⋮⋮ Drag caseNo jurisdiction, date, statute, or legal source is identified.
⋮⋮ Drag caseThe AI gives no citation, but the museum has an official history page.
⋮⋮ Drag caseDrag a case to the best evidence zone.
On a touch screen or keyboard, select a case first and then select a destination.
DESIGN BRIEF
After completing the activity, learners will classify eight AI-generated statements by evidence quality and appropriate next action with at least 80% accuracy.
College students and early-career professionals who use generative AI for research or workplace tasks and have basic AI familiarity but no formal fact-checking training.
Learners examine eight case cards and drag each one into Supported, Verify, or Red Flag. Each card contains an AI claim plus an evidence clue.
Correct placements lock into the selected zone and receive case-specific reasoning. Incorrect placements return for another attempt with a targeted hint. Progress and accuracy update immediately.
Sorting requires learners to evaluate the quality and risk of evidence instead of merely recognizing a memorized definition. Immediate, case-specific feedback corrects misconceptions at the moment of judgment, while repeated classification builds a practical verification habit that transfers to real AI use.