Teacher-Authored Prompts for Configuring Student-AI Dialogue: K-12 Classroom Implementation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
GenAI has rapidly entered instructional and learning settings as a teaching assistant or AI tutor. However, less is known about how pedagogical intent connects to the learning generated within these systems, especially when student-facing AI dialogues are fine-tuned through teacher orchestration in live classrooms. This study examines a classroom deployment of a "Classroom Teaching Aide" (TASD) system, which enables teachers to author both a teacher-to-AI setup prompt (instructional scaffold) and a student-facing conversation starter to launch AI-mediated classroom discussions. We analyze a multi-subject pilot conducted in Spring 2025, involving 20 participating teachers (16 of whom implemented the system), across 39 classrooms and 77 TASD settings, yielding 1,479 student-AI conversations with 878 unique students. Using platform logs, LLM coding with human validation, and post-study teacher interviews (N=10), we characterize teacher authoring choices and link them to enacted student-AI interaction outcomes. In deployment, student-AI conversations were largely aligned with instructional intent: 71% were fully on-track, and fewer than 1% were substantially off-track. However, a persistent design-enactment gap emerged for cognitive demand: 38% of conversations under-reached the teacher-targeted DOK level, approaching 50% when targeting DOK 3. The study also shows that explicit finish lines in the prompt reduced the DOK gap by 0.22 levels (p < .001), and "no direct answers" guardrails reduced AI final-answer rates by 8.5 percentage points. These findings position teacher-authored prompt layers as critical orchestration levers that translate pedagogical intent into structured student-AI dialogue, underscoring both their promise for scalable classroom integration and the need for additional supports to reliably sustain higher-order reasoning during enactment.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Will It Teach as Intended? How Teachers Configure Educational AI Chatbots ↗
- 2023Towards Applying Powerful Large AI Models in Classroom Teaching: Opportunities, Challenges and Prospects
- 2025Learning to Use AI for Learning: Teaching Responsible Use of AI Chatbot to K-12 Students Through an AI Literacy Module
- 2025Bridging the AI Adoption Gap: Designing an Interactive Pedagogical Agent for Higher Education Instructors
- 2025GenAITEd Ghana: A First-of-Its-Kind Context-Aware and Curriculum-Aligned Conversational AI Agent for Teacher Education
- 2024Enhanced Classroom Dialogue Sequences Analysis with a Hybrid AI Agent: Merging Expert Rule-Base with Large Language Models
- 2025Towards AI Agents for Course Instruction in Higher Education: Early Experiences from the Field
- 2026Regulating the AI Tutor: Intentions, Help-Seeking, and Self-Regulated Learning in Adolescent GenAI Use ↗