Use of Prompt Engineering for Teaching and Learning in Secondary Education: Literature Review and Research Perspective

Aim/Purpose: To address the lack of a clear pedagogical framing of prompt engineering in secondary education and to analyze how it is currently conceptualized in educational research. Background: While secondary school students increasingly use generative AI tools, prompt engineering is often treated as an implicit technical skill rather than as an explicit educational practice linked to metacognition and AI literacy. Methodology: This study adopts a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-one peer-reviewed studies published between 2021 and 2025 were selected from Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Contribution: The paper provides a structured conceptual mapping of how prompt engineering is addressed in secondary education and identifies gaps between research practices, pedagogical frameworks, and AI literacy policies. Findings: The review shows that prompt engineering is rarely framed as an explicit learning objective, that empirical evidence on cognitive and metacognitive effects is fragmented, and that ethical and reflective dimensions are inconsistently addressed. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teachers should explicitly scaffold students’ prompt design practices, integrate reflective activities on AI use, and align classroom practices with emerging AI literacy frameworks. Recommendation for Researchers: Future studies should operationalize prompt engineering as a learning objective, develop validated assessment tools, and conduct longitudinal research in secondary education contexts. Impact on Society: The findings support the development of responsible AI use in education by highlighting the need for pedagogical guidance that fosters students’ agency, critical thinking, and ethical awareness. Future Research: Future research should investigate instructional models for teaching prompt engineering across disciplines and examine its long-term effects on students’ learning strategies and epistemic beliefs.