Education and training prompts

You know what students need to be able to do by the end of the period and you need the plan, the timing, and the check for understanding. Use this for a single lesson, and run it once per lesson across a unit.

Act as an experienced teacher and instructional coach who plans lessons around what students will do, not what the teacher will say.

Grade level or audience: [GRADE LEVEL OR AUDIENCE]
Subject and topic: [SUBJECT AND TOPIC]
Learning objective or standard, in the words I must use: [LEARNING OBJECTIVE OR STANDARD]
Lesson length: [LESSON LENGTH]
What students already know and the misconceptions I have seen: [PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND MISCONCEPTIONS]
Materials and technology available: [MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY]

Write a plan with timings that add up to the lesson length:
1. The objective restated as what students will be able to do, with student-friendly success criteria.
2. Opening: a two- to five-minute hook that surfaces prior knowledge or a misconception.
3. Direct instruction or modeling, with the exact example to work through and the questions to ask while doing it.
4. Guided practice with a task, a grouping, and what to listen for.
5. Independent practice at two levels of challenge.
6. Check for understanding: an exit ticket with three questions and what each answer tells me.
7. Anticipated misconceptions with a one-line response to each.

Show the worked example in full and make sure every fact, formula, and answer is correct. Cite no sources or studies I did not give you. Keep it to two pages.

Tip: Work the worked example yourself before class; AI is careless with arithmetic and with the details of literature and history. The misconceptions field is what makes the plan yours, so fill it in from what you saw the last time you taught this.

You have an assignment and a vague sense of what an A looks like, and students keep asking what you want. Use this to build a rubric where every cell describes something visible in the work.

Act as an assessment specialist who writes rubrics that two graders would apply the same way.

The assignment and its instructions: [PASTE THE ASSIGNMENT]
The learning objectives it assesses: [LEARNING OBJECTIVES]
Number of criteria and performance levels I want: [CRITERIA AND LEVELS]
What an exemplary response includes, from my experience: [WHAT EXEMPLARY LOOKS LIKE]
The weak-response patterns I see most often: [COMMON WEAK PATTERNS]

If the objectives and the assignment do not line up, tell me before building anything.

Build:
1. A rubric table with criteria as rows and levels as columns. Every cell must describe observable features of the work (what is present, how many, how accurate, how well supported) rather than adjectives like 'strong' or 'adequate'. A grader should be able to answer yes or no to each cell.
2. Weighting by criterion, with a note on which criterion best separates proficient from advanced.
3. A student-facing version in plain language that tells them how to reach the top level for each criterion.
4. Two short sample excerpts per criterion, one top-level and one middle, so graders can calibrate. Mark them as illustrative, not real student work.
5. Anything in my assignment instructions that the rubric does not assess, so I can add a criterion or cut the instruction.

Tip: Grade three real papers with the draft rubric before you publish it, and rewrite any cell where you hesitated. Give students the rubric with the assignment, not after; it is teaching material, not a grading secret.

One passage or task has to work for students reading two grades below level, on level, and well above it, without changing what everyone is supposed to learn. Use this to produce the versions and the supports.

Act as a literacy and universal design for learning specialist who adapts materials so every student works on the same concept with the right support.

The base text or activity, pasted in full: [PASTE THE BASE TEXT OR ACTIVITY]
Grade level and the learning objective it serves: [GRADE LEVEL AND OBJECTIVE]
Learner needs in general terms only, no names or IEP details (for example: reading below grade level, multilingual learners, early finishers): [LEARNER NEEDS IN GENERAL TERMS]
Target reading levels or the range I need: [TARGET READING LEVELS]

Produce:
1. A scaffolded version: shorter sentences, key vocabulary defined in context, previewing headings, and a graphic organizer or sentence frames for the task. Simplify the language, not the thinking.
2. An on-level version, lightly edited for clarity, with the same task.
3. An extension version with a more demanding text or task that pushes toward analysis or application rather than simply more work.
4. A shared vocabulary list with student-friendly definitions and an example for each term.
5. A one-line note on how all three groups can share out together so no one is marked as the 'low' group.

Keep facts, names, and quotations identical across versions. Flag any place where simplifying risked changing the meaning, and confirm the reading levels match my request.

Tip: Never paste a student's name, accommodations, or IEP goals; describe needs generically and match the versions to students yourself. Read the scaffolded version aloud to check it still respects the reader; over-simplified text is its own kind of insult.

You have to deliver a training session and your source material is a policy document or a pile of notes. Use this to structure it around what people must be able to do afterward, with practice built in.

Act as a corporate trainer and instructional designer whose sessions keep people awake because they do something every ten minutes.

Training topic: [TRAINING TOPIC]
Who attends and what they can already do: [AUDIENCE AND CURRENT SKILL]
What they must be able to do after the session, specifically: [PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES]
Session length and format (in person, virtual, self-paced): [LENGTH AND FORMAT]
Source material, pasted in full: [PASTE THE SOURCE MATERIAL]

Build a slide-by-slide outline as a table: slide number, title, the one point the slide makes, conversational speaker notes (what to say, not what to read), and any activity or check.

Requirements:
- Open with why this matters to attendees' actual work, in their terms, within two slides.
- A hands-on activity, scenario, or discussion at least every ten minutes, each tied to a performance objective.
- A knowledge check near the end with an answer key, and a closing 'what I will do differently on Monday' slide.
- Use only content from the source; where it is silent on something the objectives require, mark the slide 'content needed' instead of filling it in.
- One idea per slide and under 25 words of on-screen text.

End with a facilitator checklist: materials, timing risks, and where the session is likely to run long.

Tip: Paste the outline into a slide tool like Gamma or Copilot in PowerPoint to get a first draft of the deck, then rebuild the activities by hand; they are the part of the session that changes behavior.

You need a quiz or knowledge check on material you have already written or assigned, and you want distractors that catch real misunderstandings rather than random wrong answers.

Act as an assessment writer who produces questions that test understanding and whose every answer can be traced to the source.

Source material, pasted in full: [PASTE THE SOURCE MATERIAL]
Audience and level: [AUDIENCE AND LEVEL]
Number of questions and the mix of types (multiple choice, short answer, scenario, true/false with justification): [NUMBER AND TYPES OF QUESTIONS]
Difficulty mix, for example recall, application, and analysis: [DIFFICULTY MIX]
Misconceptions I want the quiz to catch: [MISCONCEPTIONS TO CATCH]

For each question provide: the question; the options where relevant; the correct answer; a one-sentence explanation of why it is correct; the line or section of the source it comes from; and, for multiple choice, why each distractor is tempting, tied to a plausible misunderstanding.

Rules:
- Every correct answer must be supported by the source I pasted. If you cannot point to the supporting text, do not write the question.
- No trick questions, no 'all of the above', no options that differ by a single word.
- Vary the position of the correct answer.
- Write scenario questions in the audience's real context.
- Flag any question that could be ambiguous and suggest a fix.

Finish with an answer-free version ready to hand out, and a map of which objective each question tests.

Tip: Take the quiz yourself before you give it, and check each source reference; the AI will occasionally cite a line that says something slightly different. Tools that stay grounded in uploaded documents, like NotebookLM, are a good fit here.

New hires in a role learn by asking whoever is nearby, and every one of them gets a different version. Use this to turn what exists into a guide with a first-weeks sequence, checklists, and answers to the questions everyone asks.

Act as a learning and development specialist whose onboarding guides new hires actually open on day two.

The role and what it is responsible for: [ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES]
Existing documents, notes, or process descriptions, pasted: [PASTE EXISTING DOCS AND NOTES]
Systems and tools they need access to: [SYSTEMS AND TOOLS]
People they will work with, by role, and what each relationship is for: [KEY PEOPLE BY ROLE]
What a good first 30 days looks like: [FIRST 30 DAY EXPECTATIONS]
Questions new hires always ask: [COMMON NEW HIRE QUESTIONS]

Write a guide with:
1. A welcome page: what the role exists to do, in two paragraphs, and how success is measured.
2. A week-by-week plan for the first four weeks: what to learn, who to meet and what to ask them, what to shadow, and a small real task each week.
3. Checklists: access and setup, must-read documents, must-know processes.
4. A glossary of team terms and acronyms drawn from the documents.
5. An FAQ answering the common questions, with 'ask your manager' where the documents do not answer.
6. Gaps: things the role needs that none of the documents explain.

Use only what I gave you; do not invent processes or policies. Keep it friendly and concrete, addressing the reader as 'you'.

Tip: Give the guide to your next new hire with instructions to edit anything wrong or missing; their first-week edits are worth more than any review you do. The gaps list is your documentation backlog.

You have an SOP that is accurate and unreadable, and people keep doing the procedure wrong. Use this to convert it into a module with objectives, the reasons behind each step, practice scenarios, and a competency check.

Act as an instructional designer who converts procedures into training without changing the procedure.

The SOP, pasted in full: [PASTE THE SOP]
Who will be trained and their experience level: [TRAINEES AND EXPERIENCE LEVEL]
How training will be delivered (on the job, classroom, self-paced, video): [DELIVERY METHOD]
What goes wrong most often when people do this procedure: [COMMON ERRORS]
Why the procedure matters (safety, compliance, quality, customer impact): [WHY IT MATTERS]

Produce:
1. Three to five performance objectives, each starting with an observable verb.
2. The procedure chunked into stages, and within each stage the steps, with a one-line 'why' for every step that has a consequence if skipped.
3. Critical control points: the steps where the common errors happen, with the cue to watch for and the correct action.
4. Three practice scenarios of increasing difficulty, one with something going wrong mid-procedure, each with a model answer.
5. A competency checklist a supervisor can use to sign someone off, with observable criteria.
6. A one-page job aid for use at the point of work.

Rules: do not add, remove, or reorder any step. If the SOP is ambiguous, contradictory, or missing a step the objectives imply, list it under 'SOP questions for the owner' rather than resolving it yourself. Plain language except for terms the SOP defines.

Tip: Have the SOP owner review the 'why' lines and the questions list before anyone is trained; the AI's guess at why a step exists may be wrong, and a wrong reason teaches people to skip the step. Regulated procedures need the compliance owner's sign-off too.

Students are using AI whether you address it or not, and 'do not use AI' is neither enforceable nor always right. Use this to state what is allowed, what is not, how to disclose it, and how you will assess in a way that holds up.

Act as an experienced instructor and academic integrity advisor who writes AI policies students can follow and instructors can enforce.

The course or assignment and its learning goals: [COURSE OR ASSIGNMENT AND GOALS]
Student age or level: [STUDENT LEVEL]
AI uses I want to allow, and why: [ALLOWED USES]
AI uses I want to prohibit, and why: [PROHIBITED USES]
My institution's or district's policy, if any: [INSTITUTION POLICY]
How I currently assess this work: [CURRENT ASSESSMENT METHOD]

Write:
1. A policy statement under 250 words in plain, student-facing language that ties each rule to the learning goal it protects, so students understand the why.
2. A table of concrete examples for this assignment: allowed, allowed with disclosure, not allowed.
3. A disclosure format: exactly what students write, where, and how detailed (tool, purpose, what they changed).
4. Assessment adjustments that make the policy workable: process evidence, drafts, brief oral or in-class components, or a redesigned task, with the tradeoffs of each.
5. What happens on a suspected violation: a conversation first, evidence standards, and consistency with the institution's process.

Do not recommend AI detection software as evidence; explain in one sentence why it is unreliable. Flag any rule of mine that conflicts with the institution's policy or that I could not realistically enforce.

Tip: Put the policy in the assignment itself, not only the syllabus, and discuss it in class the day you assign the work. Redesigning the task so the thinking is visible beats policing, and it is the only approach that survives contact with reality.

You have a stack of papers, a rubric, and an hour. Use this to draft comments that name one strength and one next step per student, so you spend your time on the judgment rather than the typing.

Act as an experienced teacher who writes feedback students read and act on: specific, kind, and short.

The student work, with the name and any identifying details removed: [PASTE THE STUDENT WORK WITHOUT IDENTIFYING DETAILS]
The rubric or criteria: [PASTE THE RUBRIC OR CRITERIA]
What I noticed and any context about the assignment, in general terms: [WHAT YOU NOTICED]
Tone and length I want (for example: warm, direct, three to five sentences): [TONE AND LENGTH]

Draft feedback that:
1. Opens with one specific strength, quoting or pointing to the exact place in the work.
2. Names the one next step that would most improve the work against the rubric, with a concrete example of what doing it would look like.
3. Asks one question that prompts the student to think, not to guess what I want.
4. Uses language the student's level can act on, without rubric jargon.

Then give me, separately, a line for each rubric criterion with the evidence you found in the work, so I can decide the score myself. Do not assign a grade or a level; that is my call. If the work suggests a misunderstanding of the assignment rather than the content, say so.

Comment only on the work itself; do not speculate about effort, ability, or circumstances.

Tip: Strip names before pasting and use a tool your school has approved for student work; FERPA covers the work itself when it is identifiable. Rewrite at least one sentence of every comment in your own voice, because students can tell, and feedback only works when they believe you read it.