Prompt engineering—the craft of writing clear, purposeful inputs for AI tools—has become a core digital literacy. Taught well, it strengthens students’ communication, critical thinking, and metacognition across subjects. This guide gives you classroom-ready routines, lesson plans, and assessment ideas that you can use tomorrow, even if your school has limited devices.
What students need to know (in plain terms)
AI tools respond to instructions. The quality of the instruction (“prompt”) shapes the quality of the response.
Context and constraints matter. Who is the audience? What style, length, or structure? What must it include or exclude?
Models can be wrong or biased. Students should verify claims, ask for sources, and compare against trusted references.
Privacy and ethics first. Never include personal data about yourself or others. Cite when content meaningfully contributes to your work.
A simple framework: S.P.E.C.S.
Teach students to design prompts with S.P.E.C.S. and then iterate.
Situation & Stakeholder
Who is speaking and to whom? (e.g., “You are a science explainer writing for Primary 5 pupils…”)Purpose
What should the output help you do? (e.g., “to compare conductors and insulators”)Examples & Evidence
Provide models, data, or quotes to ground the answer. (e.g., “Use this table of results…”)Constraints
Length, format, tone, reading level, citations, word list to include/avoid, etc.Steps & Standards
Ask the AI to show a structure or checklist; state how the response will be judged. (e.g., “Include a misconception and correct it.”)
Teacher prompt template
“You are a [role]. Write [product] for [audience] to [purpose]. Use [evidence/examples]. Follow [constraints]. Organise it into [structure/steps]. Finish with [quality checks/call to action].”
High-impact routines you can use in any subject
1) Draft → Diagnose → Improve
Draft: Students write an initial prompt using S.P.E.C.S.
Diagnose: They ask the AI, “List three ways to improve my prompt for clarity, context, and constraints.”
Improve: They refine and rerun.
Outcome: Students learn iterative writing and see how small edits change results.
2) Dual-Response Check
Ask for two different outputs from the same prompt (e.g., “argument for and against”). Students compare, identify assumptions, and decide what evidence is missing.
3) Fact-Check Sandwich
Generate a concise answer.
Students fact-check using textbooks/approved sites.
Ask the AI to revise with citations or with “only information confirmed by these sources: [insert].”
4) Role Play for Audience Awareness
Set the role and audience explicitly: “Write like a museum guide for Primary 3.” Then switch: “Now rewrite as a policy brief for school leaders.” Discuss how tone and structure shift.
5) Rubric-First Writing
Give the rubric first; have the AI produce to spec. Students mark the output against the rubric and revise the prompt (not just the answer) to close gaps.
Model safety, academic integrity, and data protection
No personal data. Prohibit names, addresses, photos, or identifiable scenarios. Use placeholders (e.g., “Student A”).
Cite sources. When AI meaningfully contributes, students acknowledge: “Generated with an AI assistant; verified and edited by me.”
Original thinking. Use AI for outlines, checklists, feedback, or exemplars—require students to add reflections, annotations, or calculations in their own words.
Bias awareness. Encourage: “List assumptions that might affect this answer” and “Suggest perspectives from Southeast Asia.”
Currency. When time-sensitive, add: “Use sources from the last 12 months and name the date of each.”
Subject-specific examples
English Language (Secondary)
Goal: Craft a comparative paragraph.
Prompt: “You are a writing coach. Help me write one comparative paragraph on how setting shapes mood in Text A and Text B. Use PEEL structure, Year 9 reading level, 140–160 words. Include one embedded quotation from each text. End with a sentence that synthesises both. Ensure accurate quotation punctuation.”
Extension: Ask for three alternative topic sentences; students pick and justify.
Science (Upper Primary)
Goal: Explain heat transfer with misconceptions.
Prompt: “You are a Primary 5 science explainer. In 120–150 words, explain conduction and convection with one everyday example in Singapore homes. Include one common misconception and correct it. Use simple sentences and a glossary of three key terms at the end.”
Practical: Feed in a results table from an experiment and ask for an observation–inference pair.
Humanities (Lower Secondary)
Goal: Source analysis.
Prompt: “You are a history tutor. Analyse this source about migration to Singapore in the 19th century. Identify the source type, purpose, audience, and two limitations. Write in bullet points (max 120 words). Avoid speculation beyond the source.”
Follow-up: “Suggest two additional sources to corroborate, and explain why.”
Computing / D&T (Upper Secondary / JC)
Goal: Specification writing.
Prompt: “You are a product manager. Create a one-page problem statement and success criteria for a mobile app that reduces food waste in HDB households. Include stakeholder needs, constraints (budget, accessibility), acceptance tests, and a short risk list. Output: markdown with headings.”
Follow-up: “Generate test cases aligned to the acceptance tests.”
A 60-minute lesson plan (plug-and-play)
Topic: Writing effective prompts with S.P.E.C.S.
Level: Lower Secondary (adapt up or down)
Outcomes: Students will (1) write a prompt that states role, purpose, evidence, constraints, and steps; (2) iterate based on AI and peer feedback; (3) validate factual claims.
Materials: Projector, timers, printed S.P.E.C.S. bookmarks, devices (pairs are fine), textbook/approved web sources.
Sequence
Hook (5 min): Show two AI answers to the same question—one vague, one precise. Quick vote: which is better and why?
Direct Instruction (10 min): Teach S.P.E.C.S. with one live demo.
Guided Practice (15 min): In pairs, students turn a weak prompt into a strong one. Use the Draft → Diagnose → Improve routine.
Fact-Check (10 min): Students verify two factual claims from their AI output and highlight edits they make.
Mini-Showcase (10 min): 3–4 pairs present their prompt + before/after outputs; class gives one warm and one cool comment.
Exit Ticket (5 min): “Rewrite one line of your prompt to improve constraints or audience.”
Homework / Extension:
“Write a reflection: Which S.P.E.C.S. element most improved your output today? Include a screenshot or pasted snippet with your edits.”
Differentiation & low-device strategies
Station Rotation:
Station A: Prompt building with sentence stems.
Station B: Paper-based “AI simulator”—students swap and act as the model, following classmates’ prompts literally to reveal ambiguities.
Station C: Verification—textbook/printout checks.
Language Support: Provide banks for tone (“formal, neutral, friendly”), structures (PEEL, CER, SEED), and verbs (“compare, justify, synthesise”).
Challenge: Ask advanced students to constrain outputs strictly (e.g., “exactly 120 words; include one counter-example”).
Assessment ideas
Quick rubric (10 points)
Criterion | 0–2 Emerging | 3–4 Developing | 5–6 Secure | 7–8 Strong | 9–10 Exemplary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clarity of Purpose | Purpose unclear | Partly stated | Clear | Clear & specific | Crystal-clear; measurable outcome |
Use of Context | Missing role/audience | Partial | Appropriate | Well-tailored | Sophisticated voice control |
Constraints & Structure | None | Some | Useful | Tight & testable | Drives high-quality output |
Evidence / Grounding | None | Vague | Relevant | Integrated | Precise with citations/data |
Verification | No checks | One check | Basic checks | Systematic | Triangulated & reflective |
Formative checks
Exit tickets as above.
“Heat map” marking: Highlight which words in the prompt did the heavy lifting.
Common pitfalls & how to fix them
Overly broad prompts → Add constraints: length, format, must-include points.
Hallucinated facts → Require citations or ask: “Only include information from these sources: [list].”
Biased or narrow perspectives → Add: “List perspectives from Southeast Asia; avoid stereotypes; include counter-arguments.”
Over-dependence on AI → Require personal annotations, hand-worked calculations, or oral explanations.
Unclear audience → Specify level and use a readability target (e.g., “Primary 4 reading level”).
Ready-to-print tools (text you can paste into a handout)
S.P.E.C.S. Prompt Builder (fill-in)
Role & Audience:
Purpose (verb + outcome):
Evidence/Examples to use:
Constraints (length, tone, format, must include/avoid):
Steps & Standards (structure, checks, success criteria):
Verification Checklist
☐ Which claims need a source?
☐ What date range is relevant?
☐ What do trusted references say?
☐ What’s missing or assumed?
☐ How will I revise my prompt/answer?
Sample prompt upgrades (before → after)
Before: “Explain photosynthesis.”
After: “You are a Primary 6 science coach. In 130–150 words, explain photosynthesis using the input–process–output structure. Include one analogy involving local plants, and end with a two-question quiz. Avoid jargon.”
Before: “Write about causes of urban heat.”
After: “You are an urban geographer writing for Secondary 3 students in Singapore. Produce a 4-point explainer on urban heat island effects in tropical cities. Use bullet points, cite at least one peer-reviewed idea, and propose two HDB-relevant mitigation strategies.”
FAQs teachers often ask
Q: Will teaching prompt engineering encourage plagiarism?
A: Not if you assess thinking, verification, and revision. Collect prompts, drafts, and reflection notes. Require oral defences or in-class application.
Q: We have few devices. Is this still feasible?
A: Yes. Use rotation, pair prompting, and paper-based simulations. Focus on prompt quality and verification; run a few whole-class demos.
Q: Which AI tool should I choose?
A: Pick one approved by your school that supports safe use and, ideally, citations. The pedagogy here transfers across tools.
Final thoughts
Prompt engineering is not about “gaming” AI—it’s about clear purpose, precise language, and responsible verification. With S.P.E.C.S., simple routines, and thoughtful assessment, you can build students’ confidence and integrity while lifting the quality of their thinking and writing.
