Enhancing the validity of probability prompts using four generative artificial intelligence tools
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) has become a large influence on students and teachers in the mathematics classroom. Specifically, researchers found that genAI tools could solve probability questions such as “What is the probability of drawing the Queen of Hearts from a standard deck of playing cards on the first try?” These researchers also stated that the genAI tools could not be trusted when solving, “Three cards are lying face down in front of me. Two are face cards, and there are no spades. No card is next to a card of the same color. What are the odds that the card on the left is the Queen of Hearts?” However, it is unclear whether that statement is true. Thus, we verified these findings by investigating four genAI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Co-Pilot, and Claude AI) on their ability to complete the identified probability task to determine when genAI can be trusted to perform probability calculation. Using the results of this investigation, we examined these genAI models using their responses and the predictions made by the genAI trainer. The investigation implies that developing mathematical validity requires intentional instruction, including teaching students how to compare genAI’s explanations, conducting GenAI Triangulation Process, cross-checking results using independent methods or alternative tools, and justifying whether an answer is mathematically sound.
Copyright (c) 2026 Ayşe Fethiye Gemci, Amanda Gantt Sawyer, Haley Smiley, Richard Busi, Juliana Galano

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
[1]Ding, L., Li, T., Jiang, S., & Gapud, A. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 63.
[2]Sawyer, A. G. (2024). Artificial intelligence chatbot as a mathematics curriculum developer: Discovering preservice teachers’ overconfidence in ChatGPT. International Journal on Responsibility, 7(1), Article 1. doi:10.62365/2576-0955.1106
[3]Marcus, G. (2023). “Math is hard” – If you are an LLM, why does that matter? Marcus on AI. Substack. https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/math-is-hard-if-you-are-an-llm-and
[4]Sawyer, A. G., Christian, M., & Sutherland, P. (2026). Educators' discussions with a generative artificial intelligence trainer. Innovations in Pedagogy and Technology, 2(3).
[5]Stryker, C., & Kavlakoglu, E. (2024). What is artificial intelligence? IBM. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence
[6]Sharma, N. (2024). Generative AI, conversion AI, and chatbot - A breakdown. Nimble App Genies. https://www.nimbleappgenie.com/blogs/generative-ai-vs-conversational-ai-vs-chatbot/
[7]Kanbach, D. K., Heiduk, L., Blueher, G., Schreiter, M., & Lahmann, A. (2024). The GenAI is out of the bottle: Generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective. Review of Managerial Science, 18(4), 1189–1220.
[8]Stripling, J. (2025, November 19). Using AI without (really) cheating. Chronicle. https://www.chronicle.com/podcast/college-matters-from-the-chronicle/using-ai-without-really-cheating
[9]Wu, G. (2023, September 17). 8 big problems with OpenAI's ChatGPT. Make Use Of. https://www.makeuseof.com/openai-chatgpt-biggest-probelms/
[10]Sawyer, A., & Aga, Z. (2024). Counterexamples to demonstrate artificial intelligence chatbots’ lack of knowledge in the mathematics education classroom. AMTE Connections.
[12]National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2024). NCTM releases new position statement on artificial intelligence and mathematics teaching. NCTM. https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/News/NCTM-News-Releases/NCTM-Releases-New-Position-Statement-on-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Mathematics-Teaching/
[13]Yoon, H., Hwang, J., Lee, K., Roh, K. H., & Kwon, O. N. (2024). DynaMath: A dynamic visual benchmark for evaluating the mathematical reasoning robustness of vision language models. arXiv.
[14]U.S. Department of Education. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) guidance. USDOE. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/artificial-intelligence-ai-guidance
[15]The Guardian. (2025). Elon Musks xAI is accused of pollution over the Memphis supercomputer. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/24/elon-musk-xai-memphis
[16]Stahl, B. C. (2021). Ethical issues of AI. In Artificial Intelligence for a better future: An ecosystem perspective on the ethics ofAI and emerging digital technologies. Springer International Publishing, 35-53.
[17]Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, O., & Mariman, R. (2024). Generative AI can harm learning. Atelier des Futurs, 1–59.
[18]Krutka, D. G., Heath, M. K., & Willet, K. B. S. (2019). Foregrounding technoethics: Toward critical perspectives in technology and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(4), 555-574.
[19]Baum, J., & Villasenor, J. (2023). The politics of AI: ChatGPT and political bias. Brookings.
[20]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-politics-of-ai-chatgpt-and-political-bias
[21]Israel/OPT: Clock Tower X allegedly hired by Israeli government to create “pro-israel” content, training chatgpt and targeting Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, Incl. cos. response and non-responses. Business and Human Rights Centre. (n.d.). https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/israelopt-clock-tower-x-allegedly-hired-by-israeli-government-to-create-pro-israel-content-training-chatgpt-and-targeting-facebook-instagram-tiktok-youtube-incl-cos-response-and-non-responses/
[22]Murphy, R. F. (2019). Artificial intelligence applications to support K- 12 teachers and teaching. Rand Corporation, 10(1), 1-20.
[23]Future of Life Institute. (2025). AI safety index. Future of Life. https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FLI-AI-Safety-Index-Report-Summer-2025.pdf
[24]Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(3), 25-37.
[25]DAIR.AI. (2025). Elements of a prompt. Prompt Engineering Guide. https://www.promptingguide.ai/introduction/elements
[26]Han, B. (2023). 6 essential elements of AI prompt engineering: TCEPFT as BK Han’s mnemonic. Medium. https://medium.com/@BK.HAN/6-essential-elements-of-ai-prompt-engineering-tcepft-as-bk-hans-mnemonic-43e689f22ad8
[27]Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33, 1877- 1901.
[28]Shin, T., Razeghi, Y., Iv, R. L. L., Wallace, E., & Singh, S. (2020, November). Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 4222-4235).
[29]Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023, April). Why Johnny can’t prompt: How non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1- 21).
[30]Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Exploratory case study. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 358–360). SAGE Publications.
[31]Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
[32]Titan Technology. (2025). Top 10 most used genAI tools in 2025. Titan Corporation. https://titancorpvn.com/insight/technology-insights/top-10-most-used-gen-ai-tools-in-2025
[33]Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
[34]Xu, H., Chen, Y., Du, Y., Shao, N., Yanggang, W., Li, H., & Yang, Z. (2022, December). ZeroPrompt: Scaling prompt-based pretraining to 1,000 tasks improves zero-shot generalization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 (pp. 4235-4252).
[35]Langreo, L. (2024, October 24). Most teachers are not using AI. Here 's why. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/most-teachers-are-not-using-ai-heres-why/2024/01
[36]Jentoft, N., & Olsen, T. S. (2019). Against the flow in data collection: How data triangulation combined with a ‘slow’interview technique enriches data. Qualitative Social Work, 18(2), 179- 193.

