CAPE Framework
Four pillars designed for the classroom. CAPE brings structured prompting to K–12 education — combining Context, Action, Parameters, and End Goal to produce standards-aligned, pedagogically sound AI outputs that teachers can trust and students can learn from.
Introduced: CAPE emerged in 2024 from the K–12 educational community as teachers sought a structured way to integrate AI into classroom instruction. The acronym stands for Context, Action, Parameters, and End Goal — four components that map naturally to lesson planning: define the learning situation, specify the instructional task, set constraints aligned to standards and student needs, and articulate the desired learning outcome. CAPE uniquely integrates chain-of-thought principles into its structure by encouraging teachers and students to think through each component sequentially before engaging the AI.
Modern LLM Status: CAPE remains highly relevant for educational contexts where prompt quality directly impacts learning outcomes. While modern LLMs like Claude, GPT-4, and Gemini are increasingly capable of interpreting vague instructional requests, the structured approach of CAPE ensures that AI-generated content consistently aligns with grade-level standards, accommodates diverse learners, and produces outputs that serve clear pedagogical goals. The framework is particularly valuable because it doubles as a teaching tool — walking students through CAPE teaches them to think critically about what they ask AI and why.
Lesson-Plan Thinking Applied to Prompts
Teachers already know how to plan instruction: identify where students are, decide what activity will move them forward, set boundaries that keep the work focused, and define what success looks like. CAPE maps this familiar planning process directly onto AI prompting — making it immediately intuitive for educators who have never written a prompt before.
CAPE turns prompt engineering into instructional design. Instead of asking AI to “explain photosynthesis,” a CAPE-structured prompt specifies the grade level and prior knowledge (Context), the instructional activity (Action), the standards and constraints (Parameters), and the measurable outcome (End Goal). The result is not a generic explanation but a targeted learning experience shaped by the same pedagogical thinking that drives effective teaching.
Think of CAPE as a lesson plan template for AI interactions. Just as a lesson plan without clear objectives produces unfocused instruction, a prompt without clear parameters produces unfocused AI output. CAPE ensures every AI interaction in the classroom has purpose, boundaries, and a measurable destination.
7th-grade life science class. Students have learned about cells and basic ecology but have not yet studied photosynthesis in depth.
Create a guided inquiry activity that walks students through the photosynthesis process using a step-by-step discovery approach.
Align to NGSS MS-LS1-6. Use vocabulary appropriate for 12–13 year olds. Include visual diagram descriptions. No more than 2 pages.
Students can explain the relationship between sunlight, carbon dioxide, water, and glucose in photosynthesis and identify where the process occurs in plant cells.
A prompt that says “explain photosynthesis” might produce a college-level biochemistry explanation or a children’s storybook version — the AI has no way to know which is appropriate. CAPE’s Context component eliminates this guesswork by specifying grade level, prior knowledge, and learning situation. The Parameters component then adds standards alignment and constraints that keep the output pedagogically appropriate and educationally useful.
The CAPE Process
Four components that build a complete educational prompt
Context — Define the Learning Situation
Describe the educational setting, student demographics, prior knowledge, and any relevant circumstances that shape the learning experience. Context tells the AI who the learners are and where they are in their educational journey — grade level, subject area, what they already know, and what challenges they face.
“I teach 10th-grade U.S. History. My students have completed a unit on the American Revolution and are now beginning the Constitutional Convention. Several students are English Language Learners who benefit from visual supports and simplified vocabulary.”
Action — Specify the Instructional Task
State what you want the AI to create or do. The Action component should describe a specific instructional activity, resource, or interaction — not a vague request. Be explicit about the type of output: a worksheet, a discussion guide, a rubric, a differentiated reading passage, or any other classroom artifact.
“Create a Socratic seminar discussion guide with 8 open-ended questions that explore the tensions between federalists and anti-federalists during the Constitutional Convention.”
Parameters — Set Constraints and Standards
Define the boundaries, standards, and requirements the output must meet. Parameters include curriculum standards alignment, reading level, time constraints, accessibility needs, format requirements, and any content restrictions. This component ensures the AI output is not just good content but appropriate content for your specific educational context.
“Align questions to Common Core RH.9-10.1 (citing textual evidence). Include text complexity at Lexile 900–1000. Provide sentence starters for ELL students. Questions should progress from comprehension to analysis to evaluation using Bloom’s taxonomy.”
End Goal — Articulate the Learning Objective
State the measurable learning outcome you expect students to achieve. The End Goal connects the AI-generated resource back to your instructional purpose. It should describe what students will know, understand, or be able to do after engaging with the material — using observable, assessable language.
“After the seminar, students will be able to compare and contrast federalist and anti-federalist positions on at least three key issues (representation, federal power, individual rights) and articulate how those debates shaped the final Constitution.”
See the Difference
Why structured educational prompts produce classroom-ready results
Casual Prompt
Make a worksheet about fractions for my math class.
Here is a worksheet on fractions with 20 practice problems covering addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of fractions. Problems range from basic to advanced difficulty...
CAPE Prompt
C: 4th-grade math class. Students can identify fractions and understand numerator/denominator but have not yet practiced adding fractions with unlike denominators.
A: Create a scaffolded worksheet that introduces adding fractions with unlike denominators using visual fraction models.
P: Align to CCSS 4.NF.A.1. Use pie chart and number line visuals. 10 problems progressing from guided examples to independent practice. Include an answer key.
E: Students can add two fractions with unlike denominators by finding a common denominator, and can verify their answers using visual models.
Adding Fractions with Unlike Denominators — Guided Worksheet
Part 1: Guided Examples (with visual models)
Look at the pie charts below. Each shows a different fraction. To add them, we first need to find a common denominator...
Part 2: Guided Practice (3 problems with partial scaffolding)
Part 3: Independent Practice (4 problems, students show work)...
Natural Language Works Too
While structured frameworks and contextual labels are powerful tools, LLMs are exceptionally good at understanding natural language. As long as your prompt contains the actual contextual information needed to create, answer, or deliver the response you’re looking for — the who, what, why, and constraints — the AI can produce complete and accurate results whether you use a formal framework or plain conversational language. But even in 2026, with the best prompts, verifying AI output is always a necessary step.
CAPE in Action
See all four components working together across educational scenarios
Context: 3rd-grade science class with mixed reading levels (Lexile 300–700). Students have been learning about the water cycle for one week. Three students have IEPs requiring simplified text with visual supports.
Action: Create three differentiated reading passages about the water cycle — one at each reading level (below grade, on grade, above grade) — each followed by 4 comprehension questions.
Parameters: Align to NGSS 3-ESS2-1. Below-grade passage: Lexile 300–400, bold key vocabulary, include labeled diagrams. On-grade passage: Lexile 500–600. Above-grade passage: Lexile 650–750, include cause-and-effect questions. All passages must cover evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.
End Goal: All students, regardless of reading level, can describe the three stages of the water cycle in sequence and explain how water moves from one stage to the next. Always verify AI-generated educational content against your curriculum standards before classroom use.
Passage A (Below Grade — Lexile 350)
Water goes on a trip that never ends. This trip is called the water cycle.
First, the sun heats up water in lakes and oceans. The water turns into a gas called water vapor. This is called evaporation. The water vapor goes up into the sky...
[Includes labeled diagram: Sun → Evaporation → Cloud → Precipitation → Collection]
Passage B (On Grade — Lexile 540)
Have you ever wondered where rain comes from? The answer is the water cycle — a continuous process that moves water around our planet...
Passage C (Above Grade — Lexile 690)
Earth’s water supply has remained remarkably constant for billions of years, continuously recycled through a process scientists call the hydrological cycle...
Context: 11th-grade AP English Language and Composition class. Students are writing argumentative essays on whether social media platforms should be regulated as public utilities. This is their third formal essay of the semester; they are familiar with thesis statements and evidence but struggle with counterargument integration.
Action: Create a detailed analytic rubric for a 5-paragraph argumentative essay, with specific criteria for counterargument handling since that is the focus skill for this assignment.
Parameters: Align to College Board AP English Language standards. 4-point scale (Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, Beginning). Include student-friendly language alongside assessment language. Weighted: counterargument criteria should be 30% of the total score. Include exemplar phrases for each performance level.
End Goal: Students can use the rubric to self-assess their essays before submission, identify specific areas for revision, and understand what distinguishes a proficient counterargument from an exemplary one. Review the rubric against AP scoring guidelines before distributing to students.
AP Argumentative Essay Rubric — Social Media Regulation
Criterion 1: Thesis & Claim (20%)
Exemplary (4): Takes a nuanced, defensible position that acknowledges complexity...
Proficient (3): States a clear, arguable thesis with appropriate scope...
Criterion 2: Counterargument Integration (30% — Focus Skill)
Exemplary (4): Presents the strongest version of opposing arguments fairly, then refutes them with specific evidence. The reader feels the counterargument was genuinely considered, not merely dismissed...
Proficient (3): Identifies a relevant counterargument and provides a logical response, though the rebuttal may lack specificity...
“What to look for in your own writing: Did you make the other side sound reasonable before explaining why your position is stronger?”...
Context: 6th-grade math intervention group (8 students). These students scored below proficient on the ratios and proportional reasoning unit assessment. They understand basic multiplication and division but struggle with setting up ratio relationships and cross-multiplication. Two students have math anxiety and shut down when faced with abstract notation.
Action: Create a hands-on ratio activity using real-world scenarios that builds from concrete manipulatives to abstract notation over three progressive difficulty levels.
Parameters: Align to CCSS 6.RP.A.1 and 6.RP.A.3. Use recipe-based and sports statistics contexts (student interest survey data). Each level should take approximately 15 minutes. Include explicit think-aloud scripts the teacher can model. Avoid timed elements to reduce anxiety triggers. Provide manipulative suggestions (physical materials).
End Goal: Students can set up a ratio from a word problem, identify equivalent ratios, and solve for an unknown value in a proportion — demonstrating understanding through both manipulative models and written notation. Verify that difficulty progression is appropriate for your specific intervention group before using.
Ratio Rescue: A Three-Level Intervention Activity
Materials Needed: Colored counters (red/blue), recipe cards, sports stat cards, ratio tables (printed), whiteboard markers
Level 1: Concrete (15 min) — “Recipe Ratios”
Teacher Think-Aloud Script: “I’m looking at this recipe that calls for 2 cups of flour for every 3 cups of sugar. Let me use my red counters for flour and blue for sugar. I’ll put out 2 reds and 3 blues. That’s my ratio: 2 to 3...”
Student Task: Using counters, build the ratio for each recipe card, then double and triple the recipe by adding more counter groups...
Level 2: Representational (15 min) — “Stats Tracker”
Students transfer counter patterns into ratio tables...
When to Use CAPE
Best for educational contexts that demand standards-aligned, differentiated output
Perfect For
Generating worksheets, discussion guides, rubrics, and assessments that align to specific grade-level standards and address diverse learning needs in a single class.
Creating multiple versions of the same content at different reading levels, with varied scaffolding, or with accommodations for IEPs and 504 plans.
CAPE doubles as a metacognitive tool — when students use the framework to build their own prompts, they practice critical thinking about what information AI needs to produce useful results.
Collaborative teams building shared prompt libraries ensure consistency by using CAPE as a common structure — every team member’s prompts cover the same four dimensions.
Skip It When
Business communications, marketing copy, or technical documentation have different needs — frameworks like CO-STAR or CRISP are better suited for audience-centered professional output.
Simple knowledge retrieval — “What year did World War I start?” — does not benefit from the full CAPE structure. Save the framework for tasks that require pedagogical planning.
When students are brainstorming or exploring ideas freely, rigid structure can constrain creativity. Use CAPE for the structured artifact creation that follows the exploration phase.
Use Cases
Where CAPE delivers the most value in education
Reading Comprehension
Generate grade-appropriate reading passages with comprehension questions differentiated by reading level, complete with answer keys and discussion prompts.
Assessment Design
Build formative and summative assessments aligned to specific standards, with varied question types and rubrics that match your instructional objectives.
IEP Accommodations
Rapidly create modified materials that meet IEP and 504 plan requirements — simplified text, visual supports, extended response scaffolds, and alternative assessment formats.
Discussion Facilitation
Generate Socratic seminar questions, debate topics, and discussion protocols calibrated to student developmental level and aligned to critical thinking standards.
Curriculum Mapping
Plan unit sequences with AI assistance, ensuring each lesson builds on prior knowledge and progresses toward summative assessment goals across a marking period.
Student AI Literacy
Teach students to construct their own CAPE prompts, building metacognitive skills about what AI needs to know and why specifying constraints produces better results.
Where CAPE Fits
CAPE bridges general prompting and education-specific instructional design
CAPE was designed with chain-of-thought principles built in. The sequential nature of Context → Action → Parameters → End Goal mirrors the step-by-step reasoning that produces better AI outputs. For complex educational tasks, combine CAPE’s structure with an explicit chain-of-thought instruction: “Think through each CAPE component step by step before generating the resource.” This pairing produces outputs that are both pedagogically structured and logically rigorous.
Related Techniques & Frameworks
Explore complementary approaches to structured prompting
Build Your CAPE Prompt
Structure your next educational prompt with all four components or find the right framework for your specific task.