Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 108–130
UDC: 
51-77+004+378.1+378.2 +316.77

The specifics of the influence of prompt engineering integration on the implementation of educational projects: Patterns and comparative assessment

Toktarova V. I. 1 (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation), Semenova D. A. 1 (Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation)
1 Mari State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. Despite the active integration of large language models into education, systemic patterns, comparative effectiveness of prompt engineering integration levels, and sustainability of effects remain understudied. The aim of this research is to identify patterns of prompt engineering influence on educational project management, to conduct a comparative assessment of the instrumental, processual, and cognitive levels of integration, and to reveal the factors ensuring the sustainability of the obtained results.
Materials and Methods. The research methodology was built on a three-component framework. Theoretical analysis set the frame for the action research, which involved 117 master’s students divided into control and experimental groups. The statistical block included correlation and regression analysis, ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc criterion, Student's t-test, and η² calculation. Qualitative shifts were assessed through content analysis of reflective reports–this made it possible to track not only quantitative but also meaningful changes. Measurements were taken three times: before the experiment began, immediately upon completion of the project cycle, and three months later.
Results. The empirical data made it possible to identify three stable patterns. A direct relationship was found between the development of prompt competencies and the completeness of project risk identification (r = 0,73; p < 0,01). At the same time, the dynamics of efficiency turned out to be non-linear. The greatest increase occurs in the range of 45–60 prompts per project, while exceeding this threshold leads to a decline in marginal returns (R² = 0,68; p < 0,01). The functional role of prompts changes depending on the phase of the project life cycle: correlation coefficients range from 0.52 to 0.71, indicating that no single prompt solution exists for all stages. The contribution of integration levels to the total variance is hierarchically structured: the cognitive level accounts for 33% (η² = 0,33), the procedural level for 29% (η² = 0,29), and the instrumental level for 14% (η² = 0,14). All intergroup differences are statistically significant (p < 0,001). The stability of the achieved effects differs quite sharply between the groups. Three months after the withdrawal of AI support, the experimental group retained 89,5% of the indicators, while the control group retained only 65,4% (p < 0,001). Factors ensuring this stability include the following: the institutionalization of template solutions, participants’ reflexive practices, and a verification system based on the ‘human-in-the-loop’ model. According to the data, these are the factors that function as predictors of long-term effect.
Conclusions. The data obtained enabled to make three proposals that hold the status of scientific generalizations–concerning the identified patterns of prompt engineering integration, the established hierarchy of its structural components, and the mechanisms for sustaining effects over time. Prompt engineering, in the proposed interpretation, is qualified as a multi-level system comprising instrumental, organizational, and cognitive strata, which fundamentally distinguishes the presented concept from approaches developed in prior works. These theoretical constructs and empirical data provide a foundation for further research in the field of human-machine interaction in the field of educational design.

Keywords: 

Prompt engineering; Large language models; Educational project management; Three-level architecture; Project life cycle; Integration patterns; Comparative analysis of levels; Sustainability of effects; Human-machine interaction; Project activities in higher education.

For citation:
Toktarova V. I., Semenova D. A. The specifics of the influence of prompt engineering integration on the implementation of educational projects: Patterns and comparative assessment. Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 108–130. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2605.06
References: 
  1. Cain W. Prompting change: Exploring prompt engineering in large language model AI and its potential to transform education. TechTrends, 2024, vol. 68 (1), pp. 47-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00896-0
  2. Almeida P. M., Fernandes G., Santos J. M. R. C. A. Artificial intelligence tools for project management: A knowledge-based perspective. Project Leadership and Society, 2025, vol. 6, pp.  100196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100196
  3. Asghar M. Z., Burria K. U. The impact of artificial intelligence on agile project management: Enhancing team performance and project success in technology-driven organizations. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 2025, vol. 3 (4), pp. 1217-1232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59075/nf742e32
  4. Bieliaiev O. Overview of artificial intelligence-based project management tools for business representatives. Development Management, 2025, vol. 24 (3), pp. 57-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63341/devt/3.2025.57
  5. Toktarova V. I., Semenova D. A., Matrosova N. V. Digital projects: Essence, characteristics and implementation tools. Vestnik of Mari State University, 2024, vol. 18 (1), pp. 44-54. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/knmknn DOI: https://doi.org/10.30914/2072-6783-2024-18-1-44-54
  6. Toktarova V. I., Rebko O. V., Semenova D. A. Comparative analysis of models of educators’ digital competencies in the context of digital transformation of education. Science for Education Today, 2023, vol. 13 (5), pp. 79-104.  URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/mqtmiy  DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2305.04  
  7. Davlatova M. A., Speranskaya M. V. Prompt engineering as a key competence in education: Concept, characteristics, and assessment approaches. Higher Education in Russia, 2026, vol.  35  (2), pp. 53-73. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/hgzdxp DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2026-35-2-53-73
  8. Schiff D. Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: The future of artificial intelligence in education. AI & Society, 2021, vol. 36 (1), pp. 331-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01033-8
  9. Williamson B., Eynon R. Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 2020, vol. 45 (3), pp. 223-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
  10. Luckin R., Cukurova M., Kent C., du Boulay B. Empowering educators to be AI-ready. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2022, vol. 3, pp. 100076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100076
  11. Kovalevsky A. V. The model of communication with artificial intelligence as a methodological approach to prompt creation and evaluation. Scientific and Technical Libraries, 2025, no. 7, pp.  142-163. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/gojweh DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2025-7-142-163
  12. Shnaider P. A., Chernysheva A. V., Nikiforova A. D., Govorov A. I., Khlopotov M. V. Exploring the effectiveness of prompt engineering and quantized large language models in the development of academic courses. Computer Tools in Education, 2024, no. 1, pp. 32-44. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/jggiyt DOI: https://doi.org/10.32603/2071-2340-2024-1-32-44
  13. 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. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 2023, vol. 103, pp. 102274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  14. Knoth N., Tolzin A., Janson A., Leimeister J. M. AI Literacy and Its Implications for Prompt Engineering Strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2024, vol. 6, pp. 100225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225
  15. Qian Y. Prompt engineering in education: a systematic review of approaches and educational applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2025, vol. 63 (7-8), pp. 1782-1818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251365189
  16. Federiakin D., Molerov D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Maur A. Prompt engineering as a new 21st century skill. Frontiers in Education, 2024, vol. 9, pp. 1366434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1366434
  17. Hurzhii V., Nizheiko K. Integration of artificial intelligence methods into project quality management: real-time control of compliance with standards. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 2025, vol. 11 (5), pp. 207-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2025-11-5-207-213
  18. Zawacki-Richter O., Marín V. I., Bond M., Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education - where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2019, vol. 16 (1), pp. 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  19. Zia M. T., Nadim M., Khan M. A., Akram N., Atta F. The role and impact of artificial intelligence on project management. The Asian Bulletin of Big Data Management, 2024, vol. 4 (2), pp. 178-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62019/abbdm.v4i02.160
  20. Lo L. S. The CLEAR path: A framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2023, vol. 49 (4), pp. 102720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102720
  21. Lukinsky I. S., Gorsheneva I. A. Promt engineering in the educational process and scientific activity or to the question of the necessity of training to work with artificial intelligence. Psychology and Pedagogy of Service Activity, 2024, no. 4, pp. 148-154. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/hicawx
  22. Sysoyev P. V. А modern teacher's competence in the field of artificial intelligence: Structure and content. Higher Education in Russia, 2025, vol. 34 (6), pp. 58-79. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/zjmqfd DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-6-58-79
  23. Zawacki-Richter O., Marín V. I., Bond M., Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education - where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2019, vol. 16 (1), pp. 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  24. Felicetti A. M., Cimino A., Mazzoleni A., Ammirato S. Artificial intelligence and project management: An empirical investigation on the appropriation of generative chatbots by project managers. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2024, vol. 9 (3), pp. 100545.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100545
Date of the publication 31.10.2026