Prompt · Teaching

Differentiated versions of a text at three reading levels

Adapt one source text into three reading levels that keep the same key facts and vocabulary goals, with a glossary and comprehension questions, so a mixed class can study the same content together.

The prompt

You are a literacy specialist. Adapt the text below into three reading levels for the same class.

Learners: [AGE, LANGUAGE BACKGROUND, RANGE OF READING ABILITY]
Purpose of the reading: [e.g. "learn the causes of the 1929 crash before a discussion"]
Key facts that every version must keep: [LIST, OR "you choose and show me"]
Subject vocabulary students must learn: [e.g. "stock, credit, speculation"]

Original text:
"""
[PASTE TEXT]
"""

Produce:
1. Level A (supported): short sentences, one idea per sentence, about [e.g. 150] words.
2. Level B (core): close to grade level, about [e.g. 250] words.
3. Level C (extended): the full complexity plus one extra detail or source of debate.
4. A short glossary of the subject vocabulary, used in all three versions.
5. Three comprehension questions that all levels can answer, and one deeper question per level.
6. A checklist confirming that each key fact appears in every version.

Rules: do not add facts that are not in the original, except the one extra detail in Level C, which you must mark. Keep the same headings across versions so students can discuss them together.

Example output

Example (excerpt):
Level A: In the 1920s, many people bought stocks. A stock is a small part of a company. Some people borrowed money to buy them. This is called buying on credit.

Level B: During the 1920s, buying stocks became popular, and many investors borrowed money, or bought on credit, expecting prices to keep rising.

Key fact check: "Investors borrowed to buy stocks" - A yes, B yes, C yes.

When to use it

Use this prompt when one text has to work for a class with a wide range of reading abilities: language learners, students with reading difficulties and confident readers in the same room. Instead of giving weaker readers a different topic, everyone studies the same content at an accessible level, and the class can still discuss it together. It is also useful for adapting workplace documents for staff with different language skills.

How to customize it

[LEARNERS] sets the target levels. If you use a reading scale, such as CEFR levels for language learners, name it.
[KEY FACTS] protects the learning goal. Simplification that drops essential content is the main risk of adapted texts.
[SUBJECT VOCABULARY] ensures that the supported version still teaches the important words, explained rather than removed.
Adjust the word counts to your lesson length and students’ reading speed.

Why it works

Simplified texts often lose either accuracy or the vocabulary students need. This prompt keeps both by fixing the key facts and terms first, then asking for a checklist that proves each version contains them. Shared headings and shared core questions let a mixed class work together, which supports inclusion better than separate materials.

The rule against new facts reduces the risk of hallucinations slipping into material you hand out. The one marked extra detail in Level C gives stronger readers a challenge without hiding where it came from.

Tips and variations

Read all three versions before using them. Check that the simple version is not misleading, since short sentences can oversimplify cause and effect.
Ask for a version with a bilingual glossary for students who share a home language.
For a related approach to explanation, see our explain a concept at three levels and plain-language rewrite prompts.
Respect copyright when pasting published texts; adapting them for classroom use may be limited by your licence.
Our article on AI and accessibility discusses further ways to support readers.
Let students choose their level when it fits the activity, and move them up when they are ready. Labels such as A, B and C are less stigmatizing than names like easy or hard, and they are easy to explain.

#Differentiation #Reading Levels #Literacy #Teaching

More Teaching prompts

View all

Teachingintermediate

Assessment rubric builder with clear performance levels

You are an assessment specialist. Build a rubric for the task below. Task students complete: [e.g. "a 1,000-word persuasive essay on a local issue"] Learners: [AGE OR LEVEL] What the task is meant to assess: [SKILLS OR OBJECTIVES] Number of performance levels: [e.g. "4: beginning, developing, secure, excellent"] Total points or grading scale, if any: [e.g. "out of 20"] Things I do NOT want to grade here: [e.g. "handwriting", "spelling, assessed elsewhere"] Produce: 1. Four to six criteria. Each must assess one thing only, with no overlap between criteria. 2. A table: rows are criteria, columns are levels. Each cell describes what the work shows, using observable features, not vague words like "good" or "poor". 3. Points or weightings for each criterion, with a one-line reason for the weighting. 4. A student-friendly version of the same rubric, written as "I can..." statements. 5. Two common borderline cases and how to decide between the levels. Rules: each level must differ from the next in a way a marker can see in the work. If my objectives are unclear, ask me before writing the rubric.

Works with: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Any LLM

Teachingintermediate

Lesson plan with measurable learning objectives

You are an experienced teacher and instructional designer. Help me plan one lesson. Subject and topic: [e.g. "Year 9 science: photosynthesis"] Learners: [AGE OR LEVEL, CLASS SIZE, WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW] Lesson length: [e.g. "50 minutes"] Curriculum standard or goal, if any: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE] Resources available: [e.g. "projector, mini whiteboards, no lab"] Constraints or needs: [e.g. "two students with dyslexia, mixed attention spans"] Produce: 1. Two or three learning objectives that start with an observable verb (explain, compare, calculate), not "understand". 2. Success criteria: what a student who met each objective can say or do. 3. A timed plan: starter, main activities and plenary, with minutes for each, what I do and what students do. 4. Two quick checks for understanding during the lesson, and what I should do if many students get them wrong. 5. An exit task that tests each objective in under five minutes. 6. Adaptations for the needs I listed and one extension for students who finish early. Rules: keep the timings realistic for my class. Mark any fact I should verify against my textbook. Do not suggest resources I said I do not have.

Works with: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Any LLM

Teachingadvanced

Multiple-choice quiz with a rationale for every distractor

You are an assessment writer. Create a diagnostic multiple-choice quiz. Topic and learning objectives: [e.g. "fractions: comparing and adding with unlike denominators"] Learners: [AGE OR LEVEL] Number of questions: [e.g. 8] Known misconceptions, if any: [e.g. "students add numerators and denominators separately"] Source material to base questions on: [PASTE NOTES OR TEXTBOOK SECTION, OR "none"] For each question produce: 1. The question stem, clear and self-contained, without "all of the above" or "none of the above". 2. Four options of similar length and style: one correct answer and three distractors. 3. For each distractor, the specific misconception or error that would lead a student to choose it. 4. A short explanation of the correct answer that I can show students after the quiz. 5. The objective it tests and a difficulty label (easy, medium, hard). Then add a summary: which misconceptions each wrong answer pattern points to, and what to re-teach if many students choose it. Rules: base content on my source material when I provide it. Work out every answer step by step before writing the options, and flag any question where you are unsure of the correct answer.

Works with: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Any LLM