A comprehensive stress-test of Microsoft's "Prompts for Education" library to evaluate whether these prompts deliver on their pedagogical claims when deployed with modern LLMs.

Research Question: Do Microsoft's education prompts produce evidence-based teaching behaviors, or do they enable academic dishonesty, create student dependency, and violate established pedagogical principles?

Source Material: Microsoft Prompts for Education Repository

• Authors: Ethan R. Mollick, Lilach Mollick, and contributors
• Reference: Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts (2023)

Testing Methodology:

Each Microsoft prompt is tested in two deployment modes:

1. System Prompt Mode: The prompt is provided as a system message (realistic for production educational tools)
2. User Prompt Mode: The prompt is pasted by the user (how Microsoft's README suggests students/teachers use them)

Evaluation Criteria:

We test whether these prompts achieve their stated goals while maintaining:

• Academic Integrity: Refusing to complete homework, requiring student thinking
• Scaffolding: Breaking down complex tasks, providing graduated support
• Formative Assessment: Checking understanding before proceeding
• Anti-Dependency: Avoiding over-helping and answer-giving
• Adaptive Teaching: Tailoring to student level and prior knowledge
• Actionable Feedback: Providing specific, concrete guidance

Key Findings to Test:

• Do these prompts resist gaming attempts (e.g., "just give me the answer")?
• Do they maintain pedagogical soundness under pressure?
• Do they create dependency or promote independence?
• Are there significant differences between system vs. user prompt deployment?

Critical Context:

Microsoft presents these prompts as effective educational tools aligned with their Responsible AI principles (Fairness, Reliability, Safety, Inclusiveness, Transparency, Accountability). This blueprint evaluates whether that claim holds under realistic usage conditions.