Switch course ▾
Session 2. Differentiating Materials and Drafting Feedback
Objective. Use AI to draft versions of a task with the same goal and a comment bank for common errors, then edit both before any pupil sees them.
Differentiation and feedback are the two jobs that eat teachers' evenings, and they are where AI drafts can honestly save time. They are also where careless use does most harm: a simplified text that changes the meaning, or a warm comment that praises work that has not met the criteria. This session shows what support to ask the tool for, how to keep language support honest, and how to make feedback specific enough to change what a pupil does next.
Key ideas
Change the support, not the goal
- In a mixed class every pupil works towards the same objective. Versions differ in the support: shorter sentences, key words explained, sentence starters, a picture, or an extension question.
- AI is fast at rewriting a text for reading level and at making extra questions. You decide who gets which version and you change it when a pupil grows.
- See course 5.6 (Differentiated Instruction) for the ideas; here we speed up the preparation.
Check that meaning survived
- A simpler version is often only shorter, and shorter can lose the key idea or create a wrong one ('the water goes away').
- Compare each version with the original at three points: the key term, every number, and the instruction to the pupil.
- Give versions neutral names or colours, never 'easy' and 'hard', and never put a pupil's name or level into the prompt.
Feedback drafts: the teacher edits and owns
- Give the tool the success criteria and a list of common errors (typed, with no names or marks) and ask for one short comment for each: one strength, one next step, plain words.
- Edit each comment: Is it true for this work? Is the tone right for a child? Is the next step small enough to do tomorrow? Delete praise that is not earned.
- Choose the comment for each pupil yourself. The mark and the final words are yours; the tool never grades.
Try it in your next lessons
- Make two versions of one worksheet (same question, different support) and build a comment bank of 5 errors for it. Use them in one class. Fallback: make the versions by hand with a highlighter and a list of sentence starters.
- Evidence: collect one work sample from each version and compare whether both reached the objective.
- Evidence: note how many comments you kept unchanged, edited or deleted, and how many minutes the whole job took.
What changes, what stays
| Stays the same | May change |
|---|---|
| Learning objective | Length and difficulty of the text |
| Key terms and numbers | Sentence starters, pictures, glossary |
| The question pupils answer | Extension question for those ready |
Who does what
AI can draft
- Glossary of key words
- Sentence starters
- Extension questions
- Comments for common errors
Teacher decides
- Which version each pupil gets
- Whether meaning survived
- Which comment fits which pupil
- Marks and final words
Support you can ask for, and what stays human
Good requests name one kind of support at a time: a glossary of five key words with a simple definition in the language of instruction, three sentence starters, a picture description to read aloud, or an extension question that asks 'why' or 'what if'. For pupils learning in a second language, ask for the key terms in both Uzbek and Russian, then check them against the textbook.
What stays human is the choice of who needs what, and when to remove the support. A glossary helps today and may become a crutch next month. Let pupils choose a version after two warm-up questions, and watch whether they pick the one that stretches them.
Feedback that changes the next step
Research summaries on feedback, such as the Education Endowment Foundation's, show that feedback can help a great deal but that its effect varies widely. What seems to matter is that it is specific to the task, points to a next step and that pupils get a moment in the lesson to act on it. A tool left alone tends to write friendly but general comments, so your edit is where the value is.
Keep each comment to a strength you can point to and one step small enough to try in five minutes. Then give five minutes at the start of the next lesson for pupils to try it. A comment nobody acts on is only decoration, however well it was drafted.
Examples from the classroom
Glossary and starters
Scene. Dilnoza teaches Grade 4 reading in Samarkand. She asked a tool for a five-word glossary and three sentence starters for a text about Navruz. She replaced two definitions with the textbook's own wording and removed a starter that gave away the answer. Pupils who wanted the glossary took it; two stronger readers chose the extension question instead.
Insight. The tool saved time on the draft, while the teacher guarded the meaning and the learning goal.
Five error types
Scene. Jasur teaches Grade 6 mathematics in Bukhara. After a ratio test he listed five common errors on paper without names and asked a tool for a short comment for each. He deleted three comments that said only 'good effort', rewrote two next steps in his own words and chose a comment for each exercise book. The job took about twenty-five minutes.
Insight. A comment bank gives specific feedback quickly and keeps pupil data out of the tool.
Colours, not levels
Scene. Aziz teaches Grade 7 history in Tashkent. His three versions of a source are printed on blue, green and yellow paper. After two warm-up questions each pupil picks a colour, and Aziz quietly moves a few pupils to a different colour next lesson. Nobody is called weak, and he tracks which version each pupil used for evidence.
Insight. Neutral labels and guided choice avoid permanent tracks while still giving the right support.
Common pitfalls
- Giving a simplified version that is only shorter and has lost the key idea.
- Sending a comment that praises a criterion the work has not met.
- Letting the tool suggest a mark or a level for a named pupil.
- Providing the same support to the same pupils every time without reviewing it.
Check the Easy Version, Build the Comment Bank
- In pairs (10 min): compare the original Grade 4 text with the 'easy' version from the Activity Kit. Mark what meaning is lost or wrong, then restore it in short sentences.
- In pairs (10 min): read the six anonymous pupil answers against the three success criteria and tally who met which.
- In pairs (15 min): group the errors into three types. For each type write one comment of at most 25 words: one strength and one next step. Then write the prompt you would give a tool to draft such comments (no names).
- With another pair (10 min): exchange comments. Edit one comment you received for truth, tone and size of the next step, and say what you changed.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- What meaning did the 'easy' version lose, and which of the three points (term, number, instruction) would have caught it?
- Which comment would you never send without editing, and why?
- How can you give out versions so that no pupil feels labelled?
Reflect
- Which task do you currently differentiate by hand that takes you the longest?
- When was feedback you gave too general to be useful?
- How will you tell pupils that you used a tool to draft the versions?
Try it tomorrow
- Choose one text and ask for a five-word glossary and two sentence starters, then check each definition against the textbook.
- List four common errors from one class set and edit a comment for each before you write on any exercise book.
- Give five minutes at the start of the next lesson for pupils to act on a comment.
Further reading and links
Differentiate the support, not the goal; check that meaning survived; let AI draft comments, but edit them and choose them yourself.