<a id="e-h-0abeb5e4802c"></a>

## Three weeks of reading sources and judging AI sentences

The TF for AI-Enhanced General Education presents a **three-week AI-assisted reading pilot proposal** . Proposed for committee discussion, it follows checking the source → finding omissions → revising sentences.

*   Presenter: **Achmage (안창현)** , Thursday, October 8, 2026
*   Meeting: **TF Committee Meeting 2026-3** , scheduled to begin at 12:00
*   Location: seminar room, fifth floor, Basic Education Building · Room 16505

Source · [Slide 1](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s01)

<a id="e-h-8b94d9fff702"></a>

### The question this pilot examines

Can students assess AI sentences **against source evidence and revise them when needed?**

*   **Learning to examine:** Source comprehension and finding evidence
*   **Evidence to retain:** Records of judgment, evidence, and revision
*   **Operating factors to examine:** Student difficulty and instructor workload

The three-week goal is to examine **feasibility and signs of change in learning** . This is not an experiment establishing long-term effects.

Source · [Slide 2](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s02)

<a id="e-h-accf2e641ef8"></a>

## International examples and the scope of application

**An actual Northeastern class** provides the primary model. Students compare AI summaries with the source, check accuracy and omissions, and discuss them. [Official classroom example (S1)](https://learning.northeastern.edu/ai-gallery-post-ai-generated-summaries-are-they-any-good/)

**An actual Monash class** is a supporting example: read first, receive AI assistance, then return to the source and explain it again in one's own words. [Official classroom example (S2)](https://www.monash.edu/learning-teaching/teachhq/be-inspired/2026/using-notebooklm-as-a-reading-tutor-for-academic-literature)

**An official UCLA HumTech activity** also informs the proposal: AI asks questions and students explain key points, evidence, and remaining questions. [Official activity (S3)](https://humtech.ucla.edu/instructional-support/ai-toolkit-for-the-humanities-classroom/reading-reflections-prompted-with-gen-ai/)

The existence of these official classroom examples and activities has been checked. However, **they do not establish the effectiveness of this particular three-week design.** The three-week plan is an application proposal based on those examples.

Source · [Slide 3](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s03)

<a id="e-h-65272908b749"></a>

## Teaching through checking, comparing, and revising

Use fewer tools while increasing the reading challenge.

1.  **Check:** Find source evidence together with the instructor.
2.  **Compare:** Check omissions and exaggerations with a partner.
3.  **Revise:** Judge independently and explain why you revise or retain a sentence.

Use the same worksheet and three fields every week, with materials prepared in advance. The standard plan is **three weeks × 120 minutes per week** . For integration into an existing class, the **50-minute adaptation** is described in the schedule below.

Source · [Slide 4](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s04)

<a id="e-h-4eee46a1f371"></a>

### Three records used every week

Prepared in advance by the instructor

<a id="e-h-354c10409418"></a>

#### Short source text + AI summary

\+ Paragraph numbers

Provide both the reading material and the fields to complete  
from the start.

*   **AI sentence to check:** Choose one sentence from the summary.
    
*   **Evidence found in the source:** Record the paragraph number and relevant passage.
    
*   **My judgment and reason:** Correct / Partially correct / Cannot verify
    

Do not add more fields in week three. **Add a revised sentence or a reason to retain it in the third field** only.

Source · [Slide 5](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s05)

<a id="e-h-d15e4223f2c1"></a>

### Week 1: Check evidence with the instructor

Check together

<a id="e-h-41823c5b8792"></a>

#### First action

Watch the instructor demonstrate how to find evidence.

<a id="e-h-92fb3e056674"></a>

#### Student activity

Record the relevant passage, paragraph number, and judgment.

<a id="e-h-28b5321c8016"></a>

#### Record to keep

AI sentence + Source evidence + Judgment and reason

Instructor's question: **Let us find where this is stated in the source.**

Proposal for committee discussion \[attachment\] [\[S1\]](https://learning.northeastern.edu/ai-gallery-post-ai-generated-summaries-are-they-any-good/)

Source · [Slide 6](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s06)

<a id="e-h-9437d1dd68f3"></a>

### Week 2: Compare omissions and exaggerations with a partner

Compare with a partner

Source wording: **some · possibility · conditions**

_≠_

Summary wording: **all · certainty · always**

<a id="e-h-92fb3e056674-2"></a>

#### Student activity

Read new text R2 and identify changes in scope and conditions in the summary.

<a id="e-h-93d57344210f"></a>

#### The partner's role

Ask where the evidence is, rather than supplying the answer.

<a id="e-h-28b5321c8016-2"></a>

#### Record to keep

Omission or exaggeration + Source evidence + Judgment

Instructor's question: **What would we miss if we read only this summary?**

Proposal for committee discussion \[attachment\] [\[S1\]](https://learning.northeastern.edu/ai-gallery-post-ai-generated-summaries-are-they-any-good/)[\[S2\]](https://www.monash.edu/learning-teaching/teachhq/be-inspired/2026/using-notebooklm-as-a-reading-tutor-for-academic-literature)

Source · [Slide 7](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s07)

<a id="e-h-37aaaed033ab"></a>

### Week 3: Revise or retain independently

Judge independently

<a id="e-h-34d299ef9eb5"></a>

#### Practice text R3

Revise one summary sentence for new text R3.

<a id="e-h-9cba5626f3fe"></a>

#### If it is not wrong

If it is accurate, record evidence and reasons for retaining it.

<a id="e-h-b13ac3b3f8e8"></a>

#### Final check

Check a new diagnostic text without AI tools or help from a partner.

Keep a record of: **Original sentence → Source evidence → Revised sentence / Reason to retain**

Source · [Slide 8](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s08)

<a id="e-h-e995b37b1216"></a>

## Applying the pilot and assessing learning

<a id="e-h-d4d178285c89"></a>

### Criteria retained across subjects

| Example field | Reading material to examine | Additional subject-specific understanding |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Humanities and social sciences | Argumentative texts or explanations of social phenomena | Claims and evidence, alternative perspectives |
| Natural sciences | Scientific explanations or research introductions | Conditions, uncertainty, and scope of results |
| Arts and interdisciplinary subjects | Artwork commentary or technology criticism | Observation and interpretation, application of concepts |

*   **Keep consistent:** Three-field worksheet · Diagnostic timing · Common scoring criteria
    
*   **Leave to the course:** Reading texts · Core concepts · Comprehension questions
    

The field names and material types are **illustrative examples** . The TF will decide the actual pilot courses.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 9](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s09)

<a id="e-h-f8f91637a053"></a>

### Three areas of diagnosis

AI literacy

<a id="e-h-de945f80a82d"></a>

#### Understand and check AI

Prioritize the TF's common diagnostic form.  
If none exists, use provisional scenario questions.

About five minutes each, before and after

Common reading performance

<a id="e-h-64d8518741c4"></a>

#### Read the source and judge

New texts A/B + a fixed summary  
Complete independently without AI tools.

About ten minutes each, before and after

Subject learning

<a id="e-h-bde8f465745b"></a>

#### Understand the course content

Core concepts, claims, and application questions  
Choose two or three per course.

About five minutes each, before and after

Standard plan: allocate **about twenty minutes** at the beginning and end. Do not combine confidence or satisfaction with actual performance scores.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 10](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s10)

<a id="e-h-54099a337245"></a>

### An eight-point rubric for the judgment process

**8** points maximum · Proposed scale

*   **Core understanding:** Did the student explain the source's central meaning?
    
*   **Source evidence:** Did the student accurately locate the relevant passage?
    
*   **Judgment of the AI sentence:** Did the student distinguish correct, partially correct, and unverifiable?
    
*   **Revision and explanation:** Did the student revise to match the source or explain why it should be retained?
    

Per criterion: **0, 1, or 2 points** · Do not score sentence length, AI-like style, decoration, or proficiency with Obsidian features.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 11](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s11)

<a id="e-h-87f1554248da"></a>

### Limits when interpreting the results

What to report

<a id="e-h-c674bdc6da0e"></a>

#### Changes within the same students

Number of students with both pre- and post-responses  
Common reading scores and subject-specific understanding  
Completion rate, level of assistance, and preparation time

What not to claim

<a id="e-h-87ba03d567d9"></a>

#### Effects not established

That AI caused the improvement  
Simple rankings of scores across different courses  
Established long-term reading habits or general ability

Decisions about expansion consider **changes in learning + implementation burden + equitable access** together.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 12](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s12)

<a id="e-h-91ee0ed56d09"></a>

## Operating conditions and committee decisions

<a id="e-h-3c554f019cdb"></a>

### Instructor preparation and equitable participation

Instructor preparation

<a id="e-h-7623d3995041"></a>

#### Three texts · Three summaries

Prepare evidence-based answers and worksheets,  
and remove ambiguous scoring items.

Student access

<a id="e-h-1b71f851667a"></a>

#### Obsidian, LMS, or paper

Use the same material, three fields, and scoring criteria.  
Do not require paid personal accounts.

Operating safeguards

<a id="e-h-1d35869d92a1"></a>

#### Can run without internet

Distribute fixed material and retain only necessary records.  
Do not enter personal information into AI.

Research use, consent, and retention scope will be **decided separately after checking the responsible procedures** as applicable.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 13](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s13)

<a id="e-h-b7a160b301cd"></a>

### Four decisions for the committee

<a id="e-h-96c03de2b90e"></a>

#### Which courses?

Participating courses · Instructors · Number of students

<a id="e-h-1e295b3a3096"></a>

#### When, and for how many minutes?

Three-week start date · 120-minute or shorter format · Integration into class

<a id="e-h-40dc62f1eed5"></a>

#### Which materials and tools?

Source texts and summaries · Common worksheet · Alternative submission route

04

<a id="e-h-cb01e32dedeb"></a>

#### What evidence will inform the decision?

Common diagnosis · Course-specific questions · Expansion criteria

With one worksheet,

*   **retain evidence of reading and checking:** Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 14](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s14)

<a id="e-h-7cb9cf3ca727"></a>

## Schedule and assessment tools

<a id="e-h-c899ee298d39"></a>

### A 120-minute plan and a 50-minute adaptation

Appendix A · Time allocation

**120 minutes** Includes diagnostics in weeks one and three

**20 minutes** Pre/post diagnosis; review and introduction in week two

**10 minutes** Instructor demonstration

**20 minutes** Independent source reading and evidence finding

**10 minutes** Break

**20 minutes** Compare with a partner

**25 minutes** Record judgments and revisions

**15 minutes** Share, save, and wrap up

For integration into an existing class

<a id="e-h-82d4c934dcea"></a>

#### 50-minute adaptation

Introduction and demonstration: 10 minutes  
Check the source: 15 minutes  
Compare and revise: 20 minutes  
Save: 5 minutes

Shorten the reading and separately allocate around twenty minutes each for the pre- and post-diagnostics.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 15](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s15)

<a id="e-h-d09651937db6"></a>

### Reading-performance rubric

Appendix B · Draft 0–8-point scoring criteria

| Criterion | 0 points | 1 point | 2 points |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Core understanding | 0: central meaning omitted or misunderstood | 1: partial understanding; conditions omitted | 2: central meaning and key conditions explained |
| Source evidence | 0: absent or irrelevant evidence | 1: incomplete location or content | 2: correct passage and location |
| AI judgment | 0: judgment conflicts with the source | 1: correct judgment but insufficient explanation | 2: judgment explained through source evidence |
| Revision and explanation | 0: error retained or no explanation | 1: partial revision with weak evidence | 2: accurate revision or evidence for retaining it |

**For diagnostics only,** add a one-sentence question on the source's main point. Score unanswered items zero; record nonparticipation separately.

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 16](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s16)

<a id="e-h-869ed8696198"></a>

### Provisional AI literacy diagnostic questions

Appendix C · Provisional scenario questions

<a id="e-h-6b9aaa3d0e0e"></a>

#### AI says it works for everyone.

**The source's population, scope, and conditions** should be checked first.

<a id="e-h-bd2bb11275d6"></a>

#### An AI answer includes a plausible-looking source.

**The actual existence and content of the source** must be checked.

<a id="e-h-dd3027f48f66"></a>

#### You are about to upload material containing student names to AI.

**Removal of identifying information and permitted use** must be checked first.

Includes sample responses **For instructor review** · Report the three-question score separately from confidence responses · Not a standardized scale

Proposal for committee discussion

Source · [Slide 17](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s17)

<a id="e-h-d71bbab6008b"></a>

### Synthetic example: restoring conditions through revision

Appendix D · Synthetic illustrative example

Source · Paragraph 1

Brief reading activities **may help some students** participate in class **under certain conditions.**  
The effect depends on **prior knowledge and task difficulty** in context.

Summary to check

Brief reading activities increase participation for all students.

Source evidence and judgment

Paragraph 1 says some, may help, and specifies two conditions → **Partially correct**

After revision

Brief reading activities may help some students participate in class, depending on prior knowledge and task difficulty.

Synthetic illustration, not an actual study result or AI output

Source · [Slide 18](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s18)

<a id="e-h-81ba74837190"></a>

## Sources and limits of verification

<a id="e-h-e75f3aae1ff8"></a>

### Source list

Appendix E · Supporting material

**S0**

<a id="e-h-9a9cde64ea2b"></a>

#### Attachment: international AI-assisted reading examples

User-provided Markdown

**S1**

<a id="e-h-cfc122e3dbcb"></a>

#### [Northeastern · Checking AI summary accuracy](https://learning.northeastern.edu/ai-gallery-post-ai-generated-summaries-are-they-any-good/)

Official university classroom example

**S2**

<a id="e-h-a469725d15b1"></a>

#### [Monash · NotebookLM as a reading tutor](https://www.monash.edu/learning-teaching/teachhq/be-inspired/2026/using-notebooklm-as-a-reading-tutor-for-academic-literature)

Official university classroom example

**S3**

<a id="e-h-34e3d6446648"></a>

#### [UCLA HumTech · AI-prompted reading reflections](https://humtech.ucla.edu/instructional-support/ai-toolkit-for-the-humanities-classroom/reading-reflections-prompted-with-gen-ai/)

Official university teaching-support activity

Verification reference date **2026.10.07.** · No effectiveness figures, participating courses, headcounts, or start date were invented.

Source · [Slide 19](https://achmage-slides.vercel.app/AI_reading_3week_pilot_20261008.html#s19)