Worksheet and differentiation prompts

Short answer: a three-tier worksheet is judged by whether the third tier asks students to explain and compare, and whether the first tier gives enough support — not by whether tier one has six questions and tier three has three.

The commonest fake tiering

A Secondary 2 Mathematics teacher produced a three-tier worksheet on linear equations with this prompt:

Make a tiered worksheet on linear equations for Secondary 2, basic, core and challenge.

The result: ten equations to solve in the basic tier, eight in the core tier with larger numbers, five in the challenge tier with an extra bracket. Three tiers of the same thing with progressively uglier numbers. The students who actually need help are still stuck on transposition in tier one, and the strong students learn nothing new from tier three.

Differentiation does not mean increasing difficulty. It means three different entry points into the same set of learning focuses.

Why this works

For tiering to mean anything, the difference has to sit on two axes:

• Cognitive level: tier one stops at understanding and direct application, tier two requires application in a context, tier three requires analysis, comparison, explanation or creation. Students feel this difference in how long they have to think, not in how long they have to calculate.
• Amount of support: tier one supplies a step framework, a worked example, a word bank. Tier two supplies part of the framework. Tier three supplies none, and the student chooses the method.

An analogy: on one staircase, some people need the handrail, some need a landing halfway, some go straight up. Differentiation is not building three staircases of different heights; it is offering different support on the same staircase.

Our article differentiated instruction with AI covers the instructional design more fully. This lesson concentrates on the prompts.

Template 1: the three-tier worksheet

You are a materials design assistant for a Hong Kong secondary Mathematics teacher.
Task: design a three-tier worksheet.
Context: Secondary 2, unit "applications of linear equations in one unknown". Learning focus: (1) translate a word problem into an equation; (2) solve a linear equation in one unknown; (3) check whether the solution is reasonable. Prior knowledge: transposition and collecting like terms. Class profile: 32 students, about 10 still consolidating transposition, about 6 already handling two-step word problems independently. The lesson is 40 minutes and the worksheet covers the final 15 minutes plus homework.
Output format: three sections named part one, part two and extension — do not use high, middle, low or any ability label. Each section contains a one-sentence statement of its cognitive level, the learning focus numbers it addresses, the questions, and the support provided (for example a step framework or a worked example). At the end, an answer key with marking points for each question.
Tier specification: part one is understanding and direct application, supplies a five-step table (unknown, relationship, equation, solution, check) as a framework, 4 questions. Part two is application in context, supplies only a prompt for the first step, 5 questions. The extension is analysis and creation, 3 questions, of which at least one asks the student to explain where someone else's working went wrong and at least one asks the student to write and solve their own word problem.
Constraints: all three sections must address the same set of learning focuses and none may stray outside this unit; keep all solutions as integers; the extension must not achieve its difficulty by using larger numbers; if you are unsure whether a question has a unique solution, mark it "teacher to verify" rather than altering the question yourself.

The thirty-second check: does the extension section use verbs like explain, compare or design? If not, that tier is only longer, not deeper.

Template 2: a language-support version

You are a materials adaptation assistant for a Hong Kong primary Chinese Language teacher.
Task: produce a language-support version of the worksheet below for non-Chinese speaking students.
Context: Primary 4, unit "the structure of expository writing". Two non-Chinese speaking students have been in the school three years, speak fluently, have written vocabulary at about 60% of their year group, and struggle most with four-character expressions and formal written sentence patterns.
Output format: the adapted worksheet with the questions in exactly the same order as the original so both versions can run simultaneously, plus three additions — (a) a word bank before each question listing the hard words in it, an everyday spoken equivalent and one example sentence; (b) a sentence frame with gaps for each writing question; (c) a teacher notes column saying what was adapted in each question.
Constraints: do not lower the learning focus, only the language barrier; do not reduce the number of questions, keep both versions in step; draw example sentences from the daily life of Hong Kong primary students; if you are unsure whether a word appears in the primary common word list, mark it "teacher to verify".

Original worksheet:
[paste]

Template 3: SEN adaptation

You are a special educational needs support assistant for a Hong Kong primary General Studies teacher.
Task: produce an adapted version of the science inquiry worksheet below.
Context: Primary 5, unit "changes in materials". Target students: three with attention difficulties and one with dyslexia. The original worksheet has a 120-word experiment description and five questions.
Output format: the adapted worksheet containing — (a) the experiment description rewritten as numbered steps, one instruction per step, each with a tick box; (b) the same five questions, reformatted with writing space between them and command verbs in bold; (c) an alternative response option for the student with dyslexia, allowing circling or drawing instead of writing; (d) a teacher note explaining which need each adaptation serves.
Constraints: do not reduce the content, only change how it is presented and how students respond; keep each step instruction under 12 words; do not propose adaptations requiring additional equipment; if any laboratory safety matter is involved and you are unsure of it, mark it "teacher to verify" rather than writing a safety instruction yourself.

Original worksheet:
[paste]

Template 4: the extension tier and a self-assessment sheet

You are a materials design assistant for a Hong Kong secondary [subject] teacher.
Task: design an extension activity for students who have finished the core practice, plus a student self-assessment sheet.
Context: [year level], unit "[name]", learning focus: [list]. About six students finish the core questions with time to spare.
Output format: part one is the extension activity — three tasks, each requiring analysis, comparison or creation, with success criteria. Part two is the self-assessment sheet — five rows, each an observable behaviour the student ticks after finishing, for example "I can say why I chose this method".
Constraints: the extension must not simply be more questions of the same type; it must be startable without further teacher explanation; self-assessment statements must be written in the first person and describe observable behaviour, never something unverifiable like "I understand it now".

Common mistakes

• Tiering by quantity. Ten questions versus three is a difference in workload. Name the cognitive level of each tier in the prompt and the model actually changes the item types.
• Each tier addressing a different learning focus. That produces three separate homeworks, which cannot run together in one lesson and cannot be compared afterwards. Require all tiers to map to the same focuses.
• Asking for the adaptation afterwards. Generated separately, the adapted version drifts in question order and wording so students cannot work in parallel. Ask for both at once, or paste the full original into the adaptation prompt.
• Tier names that carry a judgement. "High, middle, low" printed on a worksheet is read by students. Specify neutral names in the output format line.

Going further

• A different subject: a Chinese Language extension might ask students to compare two short texts on the same topic in different genres. English Language works well with "rewrite one paragraph for a different audience and explain your choices". Visual Arts suits an 80-word artist's statement about the student's own piece.
• A different year level: primary tier one needs a complete framework; secondary tier one needs only a worked example. Adjusting the support level in the tier specification line works better than rewriting questions.
• Two needs at once: a student may need both language support and attention adaptation. Ask the output format for "one adapted version addressing both language and attention needs, with the teacher note distinguishing the two".
• Tiering from data: if you have results from the last assessment, paste class-level mastery per learning focus into the context line and ask for "the proportion of questions in each tier to follow the mastery data". That connects directly to the error-pattern summary in lesson 9.

With worksheets done, the next time sink is setting papers and writing rubrics: lesson 8, question setting and rubric prompts.