Top 10 AI Prompts and Use Cases and in the Education Industry in Columbia

Columbia's education ecosystem is moving from pilot to practice: the University of South Carolina's Center for Teaching Excellence offers Generative AI resources and campus access to ChatGPT to help faculty redesign syllabi and assessments, while a $1.5M USC–OpenAI agreement and K–12 pilots like the Palmetto AI Pathways (bringing the PAL robotic learner to 10 schools) show institutional commitment to training and equity; local research - like USC's ABii social robot that adapts tutoring by reading student expressions - demonstrates privacy-aware, on-device AI that can boost engagement in real classrooms.

These developments mean administrators and teachers must learn prompt design, assessment redesign, and ethical safeguards now; short, practical upskilling matters.

For educators and staff seeking a career-ready route, a 15‑week AI Essentials for Work curriculum teaches prompt writing and workplace AI use, connecting classroom needs to tangible skills and safer deployment in Columbia's schools and colleges (University of South Carolina Generative AI resources for faculty, Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus - 15-week curriculum).

Bootcamp	Length	Early Bird Cost	Registration
AI Essentials for Work	15 Weeks	$3,582	Register for AI Essentials for Work (Nucamp)
Solo AI Tech Entrepreneur	30 Weeks	$4,776	Register for Solo AI Tech Entrepreneur (Nucamp)
Cybersecurity Fundamentals	15 Weeks	$2,124	Register for Cybersecurity Fundamentals (Nucamp)

“We're not just teaching AI to understand humans. We're teaching it to support them, especially when they're learning.” - Ramtin Zand

Selection focused on local applicability, classroom readiness, and ethical guardrails: prompts were chosen when they mapped directly to offerings in the University of South Carolina's Center for Teaching Excellence calendar (practical Blackboard Ultra tools, GenAI badges, and hands‑on webinars) and to local workforce priorities documented by Nucamp's local AI guides on AI-driven efficiency and upskilling; technical feasibility and content value were cross‑checked against industry patterns for content generation and agent workflows.

Priority criteria included alignment with USC workshops that faculty already attend (so a prompt can be piloted the same semester), explicit support for assessment design (rubrics, test generators), clear ethical or accessibility guidance, and low setup cost for campus IT or adjuncts.

That method produced prompts that a course team in Columbia can test during a single professional development cycle and that scale from a single assignment to department-level adoption - a concrete pathway from a one-hour webinar to measurable syllabus changes.

Sources used to verify workshop topics and local relevance include the USC CTE workshops calendar, Nucamp's local AI guides, and practical content‑generation examples from industry writing on AI agents.

Selection Criterion	USC Workshop Example (Date)
Assessment & rubric readiness	Become an AI Champion in Blackboard! - AI Test Generator / Rubric Generator (Oct 7)
Ethics & policy integration	Responsible Generative Artificial Intelligence: Empowering Tomorrow's Innovators (Sep 9)
Hands‑on tool practice	How Do I Integrate AI Tools Into My Teaching? (Sep 19)

Paperguide's AI literature tools and ChatWithPDF compress the slog of literature reviews - automating semantic search, data extraction, and fully cited report drafts so Columbia faculty, grad students, and grant teams can turn weeks of manual reading into hours of verifiable synthesis; features like Deep Research and the AI Literature Review scan millions of papers, extract methodology and tabular data, and generate structured summaries that map directly to syllabus readings or grant background sections (Paperguide AI Literature Review tool, Paperguide ChatWithPDF tool).

Local relevance is clear: the University of South Carolina's CIC AI newsletter highlights Paperguide among practical tools for faculty research workflows, making it a realistic option for campus pilot projects and course redesigns (University of South Carolina CIC AI newsletter).

The tangible payoff: extract and compare methods and figures across dozens of studies to justify a curriculum change or a one‑page grant rationale in a single afternoon.

Plan	Price (monthly / annual billed)
Free	Free (limited interactions)
Starter	$12/mo or $9/mo billed annually
Advanced	$20/mo or $16/mo billed annually

“Paperguide's new 'full document generation' feature stands out as a game-changer, rivaling even the o1 model of ChatGPT.” - Udomchoke Asawimalkit

Pair ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot deliberately when redesigning course content and syllabi for Columbia classrooms: use USC's syllabus templates to insert a clear Generative AI policy (No Use / Contextual Use / Encouraged Use) and sample language about attribution and documentation, rely on ChatGPT for drafting learning outcomes, weekly module copy, formative quiz questions and lesson scaffolds, and reserve Microsoft Copilot for any graded workflows or materials that involve regulated data (PII, FERPA, HIPAA) - a pairing recommended by USC's instructional and IT guidance (USC syllabus templates and Generative AI policy guidance, Garnet AI Foundry faculty AI tools and Copilot policy).

Include a one-paragraph GenAI rule in the syllabus that requires attribution and submission of AI exchanges or prompt logs when tools are used; that single sentence both protects student privacy and creates an auditable trail instructors can review during the same semester using USC's Fall schedule templates.

Tool	Recommended syllabus use
ChatGPT	Draft objectives, module text, formative quizzes, study guides (no PII)
Microsoft Copilot	Generate/handle graded documents and any FERPA/PII/HIPAA workflows
GenAI Policy	One-paragraph syllabus statement: permitted uses, attribution, and required AI exchange logs

Design assignments in Columbia classrooms to favor process over product: use Turnitin six tactics to prepare writing assignments in the age of AI - update AI policies, communicate expectations, redesign prompts and rubrics, require staged drafts, keep version history, and build discussion/reflection checkpoints - to make cheating harder and learning visible (Turnitin six tactics to prepare writing assignments in the age of AI).

Pair those tactics with University of South Carolina practices: add a one‑sentence GenAI policy in the syllabus, require students to attach AI exchange logs or draft history, and request a short reflection describing how AI informed (or did not inform) their thinking - this creates an auditable trail USC faculty can review alongside traditional Honor Code procedures (University of South Carolina GenAI teaching resources from the Center for Teaching Excellence, University of South Carolina academic integrity guidance on artificial intelligence).

Avoid relying solely on detectors: frame assignments to require local evidence of learning (personalized datasets, class‑specific case studies, oral debriefs), use low‑stakes drafts stored in versioned documents, and score with an AI‑misuse rubric focused on voice, reasoning, and source verification - practical steps that preserve learning while reducing false positives and courtroom‑scale disputes for Columbia instructors and students.

Turnitin Strategy	Classroom Action (Columbia example)
Update policy	One‑sentence GenAI syllabus rule + sample attribution wording
Communicate	In‑class “This/Not That” scenarios and FAQ handout
Revise assignments/rubrics	Require verifiable sources and an AI‑misuse rubric
Use the writing process	Mandatory drafts, peer review, instructor feedback loops
Version history	Work in O365/Google Docs with version logs for verification
Discuss work	Oral defense or reflective paragraph on research choices

ChatGPT Edu - available to University of South Carolina students through the Garnet AI Foundry - can rapidly turn course readings and lecture notes into tailored study guides, spaced‑practice flashcards, and customizable practice quizzes that match a student's weekly availability and course load; instructors in USC's Center for Teaching Excellence recommend using ChatGPT to create summaries, flashcards, and formative questions while reminding users to verify citations and avoid entering PII (Garnet AI Foundry for University of South Carolina students, USC Center for Teaching Excellence generative AI resources).

A concrete classroom payoff: a 40–60 page reading can become a one‑page annotated summary plus a 20‑card flashcard set in under 15 minutes, freeing class time for instructor‑led problem solving.

Prompt best practices from USC and medical‑school guides emphasize iterative prompts (summarize → simplify → create practice items), always fact‑check generated references against JSTOR/Google Scholar, and activate ChatGPT Edu with campus credentials for enhanced privacy protections before starting.

Use case	ChatGPT Edu output
Reading synthesis	One‑page annotated summaries
Recall practice	Spaced‑practice flashcards
Exam prep	Custom practice quizzes with model answers

“The rails are completely ineffective. They're barely there - if anything, a fig leaf.” - Imran Ahmed, CCDH (on AI safety concerns)

Use Grammarly and ChatGPT as a complementary writing pipeline in Columbia classrooms: ChatGPT (available to faculty and students through USC's Garnet AI Foundry) accelerates idea generation and first drafts, while Grammarly - paired with its new Authorship feature - focuses on sentence-level clarity, plagiarism checks, and transparent revision coaching that faculty can use to teach editing rather than police it (USC Garnet AI Foundry ChatGPT and Copilot guidance, Grammarly Authorship educator guide for academic writing and revision).

Crucial local detail: USC's IT guidance warns not to submit PII or FERPA‑protected content to general ChatGPT, so route sensitive work through Copilot or institution-approved systems and keep ChatGPT for brainstorming; meanwhile Authorship (beta in Google Docs) requires student consent and can show whether text was typed, pasted, or generated - turning suspicion into concrete coaching moments (e.g., a five‑minute replay that pinpoints common revision patterns and informs a 10‑minute mini‑lesson on paraphrase and citation).

This workflow preserves integrity, supports students with documented edits (SSD already recommends Grammarly for accessibility), and gives instructors verifiable, teachable data rather than opaque detector flags.

Tool	Classroom role	Key constraint
ChatGPT (Garnet AI)	Drafting, outlines, idea generation	Do not upload PII/FERPA/HIPAA
Grammarly + Authorship	Real‑time edits, plagiarism checks, revision replay for coaching	Student must enable consent; beta in Google Docs

Automated grading and feedback scaffolding with Microsoft 365 Copilot makes rubric creation and consistent student feedback practical for Columbia classrooms by turning repetitive rubric-writing into a guided, editable workflow: in Teams instructors can Create > Assignment > Add rubric > +Add rubric and choose Create AI Rubric to generate criterion language, then use the AI options to iterate until expectations match course standards.

Copilot's generated cells come prefilled with concise performance descriptors and instructors can toggle the Points switch and redistribute weights so rubric totals equal 100% - a concrete control that preserves faculty judgment.

When paired with Copilot's grading and feedback features, schools can cut grading time substantially (reported reductions of ~60–80% for essay grading), freeing faculty at USC and Columbia K–12 to focus on targeted interventions and student conferences rather than repetitive scoring.

Fill in row/column using AI

Modify rubric using AI

Microsoft support: Getting started creating rubrics with AI in Teams and Orchestry analysis of top Microsoft Copilot use cases in education provide step-by-step guidance and implementation examples for educators.

Feature	Practical note for Columbia instructors
AI Rubric generation	Use Teams > Add rubric > Create AI Rubric, then refine rows/columns
Points & weighting	Toggle Points and redistribute weights so totals equal 100%
Grading time savings	Reported 60–80% reduction in grading workload for essay-type assessments

Language-learning practice in Columbia classrooms can scale with conversational AI: Claude Interactive Language Learning Tutor for on-demand Spanish practice with personalized feedback is a practical supplement when bilingual lab hours are limited.

Comparative evaluations that included ChatGPT‑4, Gemini, and Claude have tested clinical and patient‑communication prompts involving Spanish‑speaking patients, signaling usefulness for health, education, and social‑work programs that need realistic rehearsal scenarios - see the Stanford model comparison of ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Claude for Spanish-language prompts.

Local pilots and USC AI initiatives make it feasible for Columbia instructors to prototype guided conversation prompts and rubriced practice sessions; the real payoff is predictable: repeatable, feedback-rich speaking practice students can use anytime, not just during scarce lab or tutoring hours - refer to the USC AI adoption and campus pilots guide for Columbia instructors.

Ready to practice Spanish (Español)? Start a conversation and I'll help you learn with personalized feedback!

Runway's Act‑One and Gen‑3 Alpha let Columbia instructors turn simple, low‑cost shoots into classroom-ready multimedia: Act‑One animates a still character to mirror a short driving performance (even a 30‑second at‑home clip), while Gen‑3 Alpha generates the establishing scenes, color grading, and subtitles that stitch close‑ups into coherent lessons or role‑play dialogues; this combo makes it practical to produce multiple 10‑second dialogue clips or vertical explainer videos without a studio, cutting scheduling and production barriers for busy faculty.

For technical details on Act‑One, see the Runway Act‑One research announcement and technical overview, and for a practical walkthrough and API notes, see the Datacamp Runway Act‑One tutorial.

Practical classroom payoff: one filmed driving take can produce several distinct character exchanges and format variants for flipped‑class activities, and Act‑One's subscription requirement means pilot budgeting should account for plan credits and API costs when scaling across a department.

For an instructor-focused adoption reference, see the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus for practical workplace AI and classroom applications.

Runway Plan	Price (monthly)
Basic	Free (125 credits, watermarked)
Standard	$12–$15
Pro	$28–$35
Unlimited	$76–$95

Runway Act‑One research announcement and introduction | Datacamp Runway Act‑One walkthrough and API notes | Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus and instructor adoption guide

Turn grant drafting into a local advantage by aligning proposals with University of South Carolina's existing GenAI grant pathways: use the Provost's AI Teaching Fellowship as a concrete template - its 12‑month structure, $2,500 award, required integration of GenAI into a Fall 2025 course, and mandated Final Grant Report (submitted with the CTE Grant Final Report Word Template) - to define budget line items, milestones, and reporting language that campus reviewers expect (USC Provost's AI Teaching Fellowship details and final report requirements).

Support the ethics and policy section of a proposal with evidence from recent higher‑education research on GenAI guidelines to justify evaluation plans and institutional alignment (peer‑reviewed analysis of university GenAI policies).

So what? Proposers who list the fellowship's exact award, timeline, and required deliverables can convert a small seed award into a one‑semester pilot with measurable pre/post outcomes and a campus‑approved reporting scaffold - making proposals easier to review, faster to fund, and simpler to scale into department showcases or CTE symposia.

Item	Detail
Award	$2,500 (upon successful completion)
Duration	12 months (fellowship cohort)
Program dates	March 17, 2025 – February 17, 2026
Reporting	Final report via CTE Grant Final Report Word Template and online form

An AI ethics workshop for Columbia educators should translate USC's Honor Code guidance into concrete classroom practices: start with a short syllabus template and attribution wording drawn from the University's Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence guidance, run hands‑on exercises that require instructors to review version history and simulated AI‑exchange logs, and role‑play the investigation steps (instructor report → student response → fair review) so faculty know what evidence matters in an Honor Code case; include campus resources and follow‑ups listed in the USC Center for Teaching Excellence workshops calendar so participants can enroll in “Responsible Generative AI” and “Promoting Academic Integrity” sessions immediately (USC Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence guidance, USC Center for Teaching Excellence workshops calendar, USC CIC AI newsletter and faculty AI resources).

Use the local statistic that roughly 34% of Honor Code cases in 2024–25 referenced AI as a framing slide to justify why a short, practical module - sample syllabus language, a 15‑minute version‑history demo, and an AI‑use reflection prompt for students - belongs on departmental PD agendas this semester.

Workshop component	Source / purpose
Sample GenAI syllabus statement & attribution	USC AI integrity guidance - clarifies permitted uses
Version history & document provenance demo	Investigation practices - evidentiary review
AI‑exchange log and student reflection exercise	Creates auditable trail; aligns with CTE resources

“Academic integrity is important because it creates an environment with integrity and stability. We will use academic integrity not only while in college but after college as well. Throughout college we will continue to put in countless hours of work and in the end that work has value.” - USC Student

Next steps for Columbia educators and institutions should focus on rapid, measurable pilots that pair faculty development with workforce upskilling: nominate full‑time instructors for the Provost's AI Teaching Fellowship (an intensive 12‑month program that funds $2,500 and requires GenAI integration into a Fall course, with built‑in evaluation and campus dissemination) to create a department‑level proof point (USC Provost's AI Teaching Fellowship – program details); concurrently enroll staff and instructional designers in a practical, 15‑week upskill like Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work so prompt design, rubriced assessment, and ethical use are operationalized across courses (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work – 15‑Week Syllabus).

Where appropriate, leverage community funding and training pipelines - such as Google.org's Midlands AI training grants - to extend capacity-building to nonprofits, district partners, and summer bridge programs in Columbia.

The concrete payoff: a fellowship course with pre/post learning metrics plus a trained staff cohort produces auditable syllabus changes and classroom materials within a single academic cycle, turning policy into classroom practice.

Action	Resource	Timeline
Faculty pilot & evaluation	USC Provost's AI Teaching Fellowship – program page	12 months (cohort)
Staff upskilling (prompt writing, ethics)	Nucamp AI Essentials for Work – 15‑week syllabus	15 weeks
Community training partnership	Google.org / Central Carolina Community Foundation (local AI training)	Discovery Day & ongoing workshops

“Academic integrity is important because it creates an environment with integrity and stability. We will use academic integrity not only while in college but after college as well. Throughout college we will continue to put in countless hours of work and in the end that work has value.” - USC Student