Prompt-writing ability is a new feedback-eliciting capacity that shapes GenAI feedback engagement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? In the paper's illustrative examples, a student who wrote specific, well-structured prompts obtained useful ChatGPT feedback while a student with vague prompts deemed the feedback useless, suggesting prompt writing should be added to feedback-eliciting capacities. → Ying Zhan 2025

Evidence¶

Ying Zhan 2025¶

Ying Zhan, David Boud, Phillip Dawson & Zi Yan (2025) Generative artificial intelligence as an enabler of student feedback engagement: a framework, Higher Education Research & Development, 44:5, 1289-1304, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2476513

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

Illustrative contrast of two students in a trial use of ChatGPT 3.5 for IELTS writing feedback at the first author's university. Student B asked a specific examiner-role prompt and received useful information; Student A's broad question yielded information 'Student A deemed useless'.

"Student B's ability to write prompts aligns well with the personalised feedback feature of ChatGPT, while Student A lacked such ability."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Effective AI use in nursing education depends on prompting skills, which participants identify as critical for obtaining accurate and reliable outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
• Only the well-specified text-only prompt produced a correct quantitative result from o4-mini, while underspecified prompts led to numerical errors and misleading final results — related
• Both ChatGPT feedback and peer feedback prompted doctoral students to actively exercise hard evaluative judgement in statistical analysis, through different challenges — related