Prompt Engineering as Academic Literacy

Audience: Faculty, instructional designers, advanced staff users

Format: Hands-on workshop (2-3 hours)

Thinking Skill • Iteration • Evidence-Based Judgment

Prompting is academic literacy,
not a parlor trick.

This workshop teaches staff to write prompts as deliberate instructions that carry intent, context, and constraints. Participants practice iterative refinement, evaluate outputs for accuracy and bias, and apply discipline-aware patterns that deliver immediate value without crossing policy lines.

Audience: faculty, instructional designers, advanced users
Format: 2–3 hours, hands-on
Outcome: better prompts, safer evaluation
Why this exists: People want practical skills, and they want them now. This is the point where immediate value appears, while expectations and safeguards remain visible.
Jump to Agenda Open Prompt Studio

Desired Outcomes

Skill, judgment, and discipline-aware transfer.

Prompt Structure Mastery

Participants can write prompts that clearly communicate intent, context, constraints, and desired evidence.

Iteration as a Method

Participants refine prompts through deliberate cycles, improving clarity, relevance, and verifiability.

Evaluation Literacy

Participants can detect uncertainty, check for bias, and verify claims before using outputs professionally.

Baseline expectation: Every participant leaves with a reusable prompt framework and 3 discipline-specific prompt patterns they can use immediately.

2–3 Hour Workshop Agenda

Hands-on throughout, minimal lecture.

  • Prompting is instruction design: it encodes purpose, audience, and evidence.
  • Prompts should be auditable, another staff member should be able to see the intent.
  • Focus: “thinking on the page,” not chasing clever shortcuts.
Anchor phrase: “A good prompt makes evaluation possible.”
Intent
What are we trying to produce, and for whom (student, parent, colleague, designer)?
Context
What information must be included (standards, text excerpts, constraints, audience needs)?
Constraints
Tone, length, reading level, allowed sources, formatting, and non-negotiables.
Evidence
How the output should justify itself (steps, citations required, “show assumptions,” compare alternatives).
  • Quick build: participants convert a vague prompt into a constrained one using the framework.
  • Share-out: identify which constraint improved the output most.
  1. Round 1: Write a baseline prompt (simple, direct).
  2. Round 2: Add constraints (format, audience, length, tone).
  3. Round 3: Add evaluation requirements (flags, verification, bias check).
  4. Round 4: Add discipline context (content structure, reasoning norms).
Rule: You refine prompts until the output becomes easier to verify than to doubt.
  • Accuracy scan: highlight claims that need verification (names, dates, numbers, policies, quotes).
  • Bias scan: look for overgeneralizations, missing perspectives, deficit framing, stereotype risk.
  • Uncertainty scan: note where the model sounds certain but lacks evidence.
Verification prompt add-on
“List the claims that require verification, and label each as low, medium, or high risk.”
Bias prompt add-on
“Identify assumptions, missing perspectives, and any language that could reinforce stereotypes.”
Explanation
“Explain X for a specific audience, include examples and common misconceptions.”
Critique
“Identify strengths, weaknesses, and revision moves, then provide a revised version.”
Comparison
“Compare A and B using a fixed lens, then justify which is best for a defined purpose.”
Discipline lens
“Use the reasoning norms of this field (evidence types, argument structure, uncertainty).”
  • Participants build 3 prompts: one explanation, one critique, one comparison.
  • Each prompt includes: intent, context, constraints, evaluation requirements.
  • Share-out: swap prompts and test with a partner, revise once.
Exit artifact: a small “prompt deck” that is discipline-aware and verification-ready.
Time compression option: For a 2-hour session, keep Blocks 1, 2, 4, and 6, then weave explanation and comparison into the studio build.

Core Topics (Expanded)

Prompts as structured thinking and disciplined evaluation.

Intent, Context, Constraints

Prompts encode purpose, audience, and the rules of the task. Constraints make evaluation possible and reduce drift.

Iteration and Refinement

Prompting improves through cycles, change one variable at a time, measure output quality, then refine.

Evaluating for Accuracy and Bias

Participants learn verification habits and bias checks so outputs are not treated as automatically safe.

Prompting for Explanation, Critique, Comparison

Higher-order academic moves become repeatable prompt patterns, built for clarity, not shortcuts.

Discipline-Aware Prompting

Prompts reflect the reasoning norms of a field, evidence types, uncertainty language, and argument structure.

Policy-Aligned Value

Practical usefulness appears without risky inputs. Participants learn safe context strategies and red lines.

Prompt Studio

Reusable frameworks and add-ons.

Base Prompt Template

Role: You are a (discipline role).
Task: Produce (artifact).
Audience: (who).
Constraints: (length, tone, reading level, format).
Context: (paste allowed info).
Evaluation: list claims to verify and note assumptions.

Refinement Loop

1) Identify what failed (clarity, structure, accuracy, tone).
2) Add one constraint to fix it.
3) Require the model to show its assumptions.
4) Repeat once, then stop and verify externally.

Evaluation Add-Ons

Accuracy: “Mark what you are uncertain about.”
Bias: “Flag stereotype risk or missing perspectives.”
Comparison: “Use a fixed rubric and justify trade-offs.”

Facilitator move: require participants to write prompts that another colleague could reuse without explanation. That is the literacy test.

Discipline-Aware Prompting Examples

Patterns that transfer across fields.

Use this prompt pattern:

Prompt: “Compare (Text A) and (Text B) using the lens of (theme). Provide a thesis, 3 evidence points from each text (quote placeholders if not provided), and one counterclaim. Then list what would need verification if quotes are not provided.”

Why it works: it forces structure, not vibe, and it makes evidence requirements explicit.
Prompt: “Explain (concept) for (grade level). Include an analogy, one worked example, and 3 common misconceptions. Label any part where you are uncertain, and suggest what a teacher should verify.”

Why it works: it produces instruction-ready scaffolds and inserts uncertainty signals.
Prompt: “Critique this lesson (paste allowed excerpt). Evaluate for alignment, clarity of success criteria, cognitive load, and accessibility. Provide a revised version, and list assumptions you made.”

Why it works: it uses a rubric lens and requires an improved artifact.
Prompt: “Rewrite this message for (audience). Maintain the facts exactly as provided, improve clarity, remove ambiguity, and keep tone (firm, warm, neutral). Do not add new claims.”

Why it works: it prevents hallucinated details by forbidding new facts.
Back to Top