From Prompts to Pedagogy: A Pedagogical Prompting Framework for Generative AI Integration in Primary Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20466350Keywords:
Pedagogical prompting, Generative AI, Primary education, Integrative learning, Teacher education, AI literacy, Teacher judgmentAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly used by teachers to produce lesson plans, learning materials, questions, images, rubrics, and feedback. However, current discussions of prompt engineering in education often remain technically oriented, focusing on how teachers can obtain better AI outputs rather than how prompting can become a pedagogical practice that supports meaningful learning. This conceptual article proposes the Prompt-to-Pedagogy Framework, a pedagogically grounded model for transforming AI prompting from a technical input skill into an instructional design practice for integrative learning in primary education. Drawing on sociocultural theory, scaffolding, integrative learning, AI literacy, and teacher professional judgment, the article introduces pedagogical prompting as the intentional use of generative AI prompts to scaffold learners’ thinking, bridge knowledge across disciplines, facilitate co-creative classroom dialogue, and support teacher-led formative feedback. The framework consists of three phases: pre-class co-design, in-class collaborative prompting, and post-class feedback and reflection. Across these phases, AI is positioned as a limited support system rather than an autonomous teacher, evaluator, or curriculum authority. The article contributes to research on digital technology and education by shifting the focus from AI productivity and automation toward pedagogy, learner agency, ethical safeguards, and teacher professional judgment. Implications are discussed for teacher education, including AI-Pedagogy Labs, prompt portfolios, ethical micro-teaching, and reflective design practices for pre-service primary teachers.
References
Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Chen, E., Wang, D., Xu, L., Cao, C., Fang, X., & Lin, J. (2024). A systematic review on prompt engineering in large language models for K-12 STEM education. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.11123
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Gu, X., & Ericson, B. J. (2025). AI literacy in K-12 and higher education in the wake of generative AI: An integrative review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.00079
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
OECD. (2026). OECD digital education outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en
Park, J., & Choo, S. (2025). Generative AI prompt engineering for educators: Practical strategies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 40(3), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434241298954
Qian, Y. (2025). Prompt engineering in education: A systematic review of approaches and educational applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(7–8), 1782–1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251365189
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
This article is a conceptual manuscript and does not report empirical data. No datasets were generated, collected, or analyzed during the preparation of this work. Data availability is therefore not applicable.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kawiwat Wichitchokthananon (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.