⚠️বাংলা (Bengali) content is governed and review-required. English fallback is shown where translations are pending reviewer approval.
Teacher Prompt Library
Reviewed, classroom-ready AI prompt templates
Every template uses the SATHI structure with marked variables, a filled example, its review requirements and its privacy note. Teacher review before classroom use is always required.
Name candidate mental models producing a recurring wrong answer.
Template
Class {{CLASS}} {{SUBJECT}}. Frequent anonymised answer pattern: {{ERROR_PATTERN}}. Answer three things: (1) what underlying model(s) produce EXACTLY these answers, (2) the standard name for this misconception if one exists, (3) three diagnostic questions where each wrong option corresponds to a DIFFERENT candidate model — with an option-to-model map after each. Also say whether this is a true misconception or a normal developmental stage.
See the filled example
Class 5 Maths. Pattern: 1/2 + 1/3 → 2/5 and 1/4 + 1/2 → 2/6. What model produces exactly these; the standard name; three diagnostics with option-model maps; misconception or developmental stage?
Illustrative: names add-tops-add-bottoms, supplies three separating diagnostics, and notes it is a true misconception needing confrontation.
Review: Verify the counterexample and every answer key against the textbook — a wrong confrontation entrenches the misconception it was meant to break. Verify the diagnostic option-model maps yourself.
Privacy: Never include student names, identifiable marks, health, family or community details. Describe situations and needs, never children.
Known failure modes: Options that fit two models — each must map to exactly one · Skips the developmental-stage question — it changes everything
The complete targeted intervention for one named misconception.
Template
{{BOARD}} Class {{CLASS}} {{SUBJECT}}. Named wrong model: {{WRONG_MODEL}}. Produce four parts: (1) a CONFRONTATION — a counterexample where this model visibly fails; (2) a REBUILD — the correct model explained ≤{{REBUILD_WORDS}} words with one analogy at class level; (3) one worked example with the thinking said aloud; (4) {{ITEM_COUNT}} scaffolded practice items ordered from the confrontation to transfer, deliberately mixing items where the old rule coincidentally works with items where it fails. Answer key with reasoning; I verify key AND confrontation. Predict which practice item students will most likely still miss.
See the filled example
CBSE Class 7 Maths. Wrong model: '=' read as 'the answer comes next' (so 8+4=__+5 gets 12). Four parts: confrontation on that item; balance-scale rebuild ≤120 words; think-aloud example; 8 items mixing both forms. Key with reasoning; predict the sticking-point item.
Review: Verify the counterexample and every answer key against the textbook — a wrong confrontation entrenches the misconception it was meant to break.
Privacy: Never include student names, identifiable marks, health, family or community details. Describe situations and needs, never children.
Known failure modes: Practice items all have the new shape — mixing is what forces model choice · Confrontation too subtle to land — it must fail visibly
All example outputs are illustrative teaching fictions. AI drafts; the teacher remains responsible for accuracy, fairness, privacy and classroom fit.