Scenario: You ask for a “research wall.” It sounds smart. Your brain relaxes—that’s the danger zone. This module is teammate + seatbelt: speed with verification.
Time: ~60 min read + 2–4 hours over a week for challenges.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this module, you will be able to:
- Design a workflow: explore → deepen → verify → organize → write → cite.
- Apply integrity zones that match your school (their rules win).
- Fact-check AI outputs with a repeatable protocol.
- Evaluate sources with a modern CRAAP-style lens.
- Study with AI in ways that still build memory.
- Document AI use when disclosure is required.
1. Workflow: Explore → … → Cite
| Phase | AI can help | You must |
|---|---|---|
| Explore | Overview, keywords, debates | Choose direction |
| Deepen | Explain jargon on pasted text | Read originals for grades |
| Verify | Suggest searches | Open real sources |
| Organize | Tables, outlines | Decide what matters |
| Write | Clarity passes | Ideas + voice |
| Cite | Format practice | Accurate refs |
Concept: Models hallucinate citations—treat unfamiliar refs as guilty until proven in a database or library.
Try This! Ask for five sources on a fun topic—try to find each in 15 minutes. Log hits vs misses.
2. Integrity: Green / Yellow / Red (Discuss With Your Teacher)
| Zone | Examples |
|---|---|
| Green (often) | Brainstorming, practice quizzes, glossary, grammar on your sentences |
| Yellow | Heavy rewrite, translation, code near project rules—ask |
| Red | Submitting AI text as yours; banned exam use; hiding disclosure |
Fun Fact: Integrity rules are usually pro-learning, not “anti-tech.”
Activity: Find your handbook section; rewrite three sentences in your words.
3. Source Checks (Teen Upgrade)
| Lens | Ask |
|---|---|
| Creator | Who? credentials? |
| Evidence | Data? citations? or vibes? |
| Agenda | Selling? political goal? |
| Date | Still true for fast topics? |
| Corroboration | Do independent sources agree on basics? |
Shopping-review energy: ignore one-word “perfect/trash”; read detailed middles.
4. Fact-Check Protocol
- Ask what source the claim came from. 2. Search key numbers/names. 3. Open the original. 4. Match year, scope, country. 5. Bookmark evidence.
| Claim type | Safer path |
|---|---|
| Health | CDC/WHO + teacher |
| History | museums, peer-reviewed, textbooks |
| Stats | official agencies, original studies |
Try This! Google an AI “fact” in quotes. Zero serious hits? Be suspicious.
5. Studying That Sticks
Flashcards you verify; misconception hunts; teach-back without notes. Retrieval practice beats rereading highlights.
Try This! Generate 20 quiz questions—take them two days later; tutor only the misses.
6. Writing Without Losing Your Voice
You messy draft or bullets → AI structure/clarity → you rewrite → human feedback. Teachers notice generic “AI voice” over time.
Try This! Paste only your intro; ask for two hook structures—don’t copy sentences; steal shape only.
7. Search-Augmented Tools vs Plain Chat
| Style | Strength | Watch |
|---|---|---|
| Plain chat | Brainstorm | Invents links |
| Search-augmented | Quick leads | Still read the page |
| Library databases | Authority | Steeper learning curve—worth it |
Same question to two tool types—compare verifiability in 20 minutes.
8. Notes That Survive 2 a.m.
One master doc per project; paste quotes with URL + date; tag AI bullets AI-UNVERIFIED until checked.
9. Group Projects — Drama Prevention
Written agreement: allowed tools per part; who verifies facts; how you credit collaboration.
10. Synthesis vs Ghostwriting
| Pattern | Signal |
|---|---|
| Synthesis | Your argument + verified evidence |
| Patchwriting | Swapped synonyms on AI paragraphs |
| Ghostwriting | Submitting model text as yours |
Try This! Voice memo five minutes of your argument before opening AI—then ask only for counterarguments to your points.
Practice Challenges
Wikipedia reference safari; hallucination hunt table; teacher interview → five personal rules; outline duel solo vs assisted; 45-min study plan you actually run; integrity journal for one week.
Your Challenge
Verified mini-research brief: narrow question; 150–250 words your synthesis; five opened sources in a table (credibility + one fact each); appendix with AI exploration highlighting corrections you made.
Discuss: Swap with a peer—does every claim trace to a source you’d defend?
Key Takeaways
- AI accelerates; it doesn’t replace verification.
- Ghost citations happen—prove in real indexes.
- Your voice and integrity are the actual assignment.
- Disclosure when required is professional, not “snitching.”
Key Takeaway
- Build a workflow where every graded claim ties to a source you opened.
- Use AI for keywords, outlines, and practice—not for unchecked facts.
- CRAAP-style thinking still works—add “could the model invent this?”
- Study tools should increase quizzes and explain-back, not passive reading.
- When rules differ by class, syllabus beats the internet.
Subject Snapshots
| Subject | AI helps… | You still… |
|---|---|---|
| Math | Alternate explanations | Do the reps |
| Science | Vocab, ideas for labs | Follow safety; cite real studies |
| History | Timelines | Use primary sources |
| Lit | Theme prompts | Anchor in textual evidence |
| Languages | Drills | Produce your speech/writing |
Going Further
Librarian tutorial; pair with Module 02; ethics deep dive in Module 09.
Research is evidence + judgment—you’re training both.