Use AI to Organize the Work Around Faculty Support, Not to Push Adoption.

I support OER and ZTC work at a community college and am preparing for a faculty conversation.

Ask me to summarize what I know about the course, the faculty member's question or concern, any current material issue, and what support options are actually available locally.

Then help me prepare:
1. 3 to 5 open-ended questions that clarify the faculty member's actual need,
2. the 2 or 3 most relevant support routes I could offer,
3. information I should have ready but should not lead with unless it becomes relevant,
4. any local details I still need to verify, and
5. a realistic next step that does not require the faculty member to redesign the whole course at once.

Do not infer the faculty member's motives, technological skill, political views, or willingness to adopt OER. Do not frame OER adoption as the only successful outcome. Keep the conversation faculty-centered and practical.

I support OER and ZTC work at a community college and want to identify a small number of campus opportunities worth exploring.

Ask me to paste the course, program, schedule, textbook-cost, adoption-status, or other local information I have. Work only from the information I provide and clearly identify missing data.

Look for practical opportunity indicators such as:
- multiple sections using the same or similar material,
- high-enrollment required courses,
- a program where most courses are already ZTC except one or two gaps,
- repeated requests for the same kind of resource,
- a course where a small supplement could remove the remaining student cost,
- existing faculty interest or an active redesign effort that I explicitly identify, and
- places where librarian, accessibility, instructional-design, or funding support could reduce the workload of a change.

Return no more than 5 opportunities in a table: Course or Area | Evidence From My Data | Why It May Be Worth Exploring | Missing Information | Possible Support Conversation.

Do not rank individual faculty, infer willingness, or label anyone resistant. Do not assume a course can become ZTC without faculty review and local verification.

I support OER and ZTC work at a community college and want to understand a possible ZTC pathway for a program or award.

Ask me to paste the official or locally used program/course sequence and whatever ZTC/OER status information I have for those courses.

Then:
1. separate required courses from electives or options,
2. identify which courses appear already ZTC or OER based only on the information I provide,
3. identify the courses where the pathway still has a cost or where status is unknown,
4. distinguish a confirmed gap from missing information,
5. note when multiple elective choices make “the pathway” more complicated than one fixed sequence, and
6. suggest the smallest set of follow-up questions needed before anyone claims the pathway is fully ZTC.

Return a table: Requirement | Current Status | Evidence | Gap or Unknown | Next Check.

Do not invent course status. Do not assume that one ZTC section means every section is ZTC. Do not treat a pathway as complete until the relevant local data has been verified.

Help me draft a concise OER or ZTC communication for community college faculty or staff.

Ask me for:
- the audience,
- the purpose of the message,
- the one action or piece of information that matters most,
- any deadline or support available, and
- any facts or links that must be included.

Then write a short message that:
- leads with why the information matters to the recipient,
- uses plain language rather than OER jargon when possible,
- makes the next step easy to see,
- does not overpromise funding, workload savings, student outcomes, or resource availability,
- distinguishes an invitation from a requirement,
- keeps caveats only where they matter, and
- uses only facts I provided or facts that can be verified from authoritative sources.

If my draft sounds too long or too promotional, simplify it. Do not add urgency, claims, or institutional endorsement that I did not provide.