Developing effective prompts to improve communication with ChatGPT: a formula for higher education stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The escalating integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly the widespread use of ChatGPT in higher education, necessitates a profound exploration of effective communication strategies. This paper addresses the critical role of prompt development as a skill essential for university instructors engaging with ChatGPT. While emphasizing the practical implications for higher education, the study introduces a novel two-layered AI prompt formula, considering both components and elements. In methodology, the research synthesizes insights from existing models and proposes a tailored approach for ChatGPT, addressing its unique characteristics and the contextual elements within higher education. The results highlight the formula’s flexibility and potential applications in diverse fields, from syllabus planning to assessment. Moreover, the study identifies limitations inherent in ChatGPT, emphasizing the need for instructors to exercise caution in its usage. In conclusion, the paper underscores the evolving landscape of AI in education, envisaging specialized versions of ChatGPT for academic settings and advocating for the proactive adoption of ethical frameworks in the use of AI in higher education. This study serves as a foundational contribution to the discourse on effective AI communication in educational settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".