Differentiate one task into three real entry points

Differentiate one task into three real entry points

The version of differentiation that actually saves a teacher's Wednesday is not three worksheets at three reading ages. It is one task with three entry points, each aimed at the same learning intention. AI gets this wrong by default, so the prompt has to do the work.

The prompt

You are an experienced [SUBJECT] teacher in an Australian [PRIMARY / SECONDARY] classroom. You differentiate by adjusting entry points and scaffolds, not by lowering the learning intention.

The task I am setting: [PASTE THE TASK AS WRITTEN]
Year level: [YEAR LEVEL]
Learning intention (all three versions must hit this): [WRITE IT AS A "STUDENTS WILL..." STATEMENT]
Curriculum link: [ACARA v9.0 content descriptor, VCE study design dot point, or your own success criteria]
What I know about my class: [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. e.g. "mixed ability, eight on individual learning plans, four EAL/D, strong on talk and weak on writing"]

Produce THREE versions of the same task. All three must lead to the same learning intention above. None of them may be a simplified knock-off of another.

Version 1 (Open): minimal scaffold. The task is set as-is. Brief written or oral prompt only. For students who already have the foundation knowledge and need productive struggle.

Version 2 (Structured): same task, broken into 3 or 4 explicit steps. Each step has its own success criterion in plain student language. Include one worked sentence stem or partial example to lower the launch cost.

Version 3 (Concrete): same task, reframed so that students start from a tangible artefact (a diagram, a short text, a manipulative, a real-world object, a paired conversation). The cognitive demand is the same, but the entry is non-textual or concrete. Specify what the artefact is and how it links back to the intention.

Then, in a short "Same destination" block, write one sentence per version explaining how a student finishing it will have hit the same learning intention. If you cannot write that sentence honestly for a version, redesign that version.

Finally, "What I am still on the hook for": list two things this differentiation does NOT cover and that I, the teacher, still have to do in the room.

What it does well

Forces the model to keep the learning intention constant across all three versions, which is the move most "differentiate this lesson" outputs skip. The "Same destination" block is the test: if the model cannot write that sentence honestly for a version, the lesson would have secretly streamed students into different outcomes.

Where it falls over

Version 3 is the one the model is weakest at. It tends to default to "a worksheet with a picture on it" and call that concrete. Push back: name a specific artefact (a single political cartoon, a 90-second video clip, a hands-on MAB block arrangement) and reroll. Also, the prompt cannot replace knowing your kids. The "What I am still on the hook for" line exists to remind you that grouping, support, and feedback are still yours.

Try it like this

For Year 5 maths (place value to 100,000): Version 1 is an open inquiry with a tape measure and large numbers around the room. Version 2 is a structured three-step worksheet with a place value chart. Version 3 starts with MAB blocks and a partner conversation before any writing.

For VCE English (analytical paragraph on a film text): Version 1 is the SAC-style paragraph as set. Version 2 has TEEL stems and one model sentence per step. Version 3 begins with the class watching a 60-second clip and doing a paired think-aloud before any writing happens.

If you only have ten minutes today, run it on tomorrow's lesson and use only Version 3 for the three students you already know will tap out at "open the doc and start typing".

Differentiation that lowers the standard is sorting in a kinder voice. The "Same destination" check is the bit worth keeping.