No existing AI literacy framework explicitly names prompt construction as a competency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Long and Magerko's, Ng et al.'s, and Allen and Kendeou's frameworks could accommodate prompting in principle but none names, operationalizes, or distinguishes it. → Shahin Hossain 2026 q1 i? Teachers without explicit prompt literacy instruction default to broad, unstructured prompts, though structured prompt training raised pre-service teachers' self-efficacy. → Shahin Hossain 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Shahin Hossain 2026¶

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li, Idowu David Awoyemi, Wei Huang, Chenxi Zhou, Jujia Li, Samaa Haniya, Shapla Khanam, Tasbirun Mashreka Subaha. (2026). Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K–12 Teacher Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01705 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01705

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

Conceptual analysis of existing AI literacy frameworks (Long & Magerko 2020; Ng et al. 2021; Allen & Kendeou 2024): the authors argue that although these frameworks could in principle house prompting, "none of these frameworks explicitly names prompt construction as a competency."

"In practice, however, none of these frameworks explicitly names prompt construction as a competency, operationalizes how teachers should develop it, or distinguishes it from general AI tool use."

Shahin Hossain 2026 (2)¶

Shahin Hossain, Sima Ahmadi, Leqi Li, Idowu David Awoyemi, Wei Huang, Chenxi Zhou, Jujia Li, Samaa Haniya, Shapla Khanam, Tasbirun Mashreka Subaha. (2026). Rethinking Generative AI Literacy: An Integrative, Developmental, and Dialectical Framework for K–12 Teacher Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01705

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review attributes to Yang and Appleget (2025) that most pre-service teacher prompts were broad and unstructured, and reports that "pre-service teachers who received structured prompt training demonstrated significantly higher self-efficacy and more purposeful AI use" (Barbieri & Nguyen 2025); underlying designs are not described here.

"Yang and Appleget (2025), for instance, identified three levels of pre-service-teacher prompting and found that most prompts were broad and not purposefully structured."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Existing AI literacy frameworks treat teacher agency narrowly as tool adoption, leaving human–AI co-agency undertheorized — related
• Agentic AI invalidates the three assumptions (evaluation, reversibility, control) on which existing AI literacy frameworks rest — related
• Prominent existing AI literacy frameworks are not tailored to higher education — related
• No existing framework in the reviewed literature combined all identified inquiry phases and sub-phases, prompting development of a synthesized framework — a broader claim this one bears on