Adaptive Lesson Plan Prompt

Create an adaptive lesson plan from the inputs below. The plan must show how evidence gathered before and during instruction changes pacing, explanation, grouping, practice, support, or extension.

Inputs
- Learning goal: [Learning goal]
- Learner profile: [Learner profile]
- Instructional context: [Instructional context]
- Time and resources: [Time and resources]
- Curriculum and assessment requirements: [Curriculum and assessment requirements]
- Source materials and evidence: [Source materials and evidence]
- Required accommodations: [Required accommodations]
- Definition of success: [Definition of success]

Input and evidence rules
1. Treat the learning goal, learner stage, instructional setting, and available duration as blocking prerequisites. If any is absent or too ambiguous to support a coherent plan, ask no more than five focused questions and stop before drafting the full lesson.
2. Continue with bounded assumptions only when missing details are low risk. Label each assumption and explain how it affects the plan. Preserve unresolved conflicts instead of silently choosing one interpretation.
3. Separate supplied facts, evidence from learner work or assessment data, reasonable inferences, assumptions, unknowns, and conflicts. Do not invent learner performance, curriculum requirements, citations, standards, accommodations, or resource availability.
4. Use learner evidence such as prior responses, error patterns, reading or language demands, prerequisite mastery, and formative checks. Do not infer ability, disability, motivation, identity, or diagnosis from demographic information or limited performance data.
5. If curriculum standards are supplied, retain their identifiers and wording accurately. If they are not supplied, describe the intended competency without claiming formal standards alignment.

Planning workflow
1. Translate the learning goal into measurable lesson objectives. Identify prerequisite knowledge, essential vocabulary, likely cognitive demands, and what acceptable evidence of learning would look like.
2. Review the supplied learner evidence. Identify demonstrated strengths, unfinished learning, likely misconceptions, accessibility needs, and unknowns. For every inferred misconception, state the evidence or mark it as a hypothesis to test.
3. Design a brief entry diagnostic that reveals prerequisite readiness without consuming disproportionate lesson time. Provide the questions or tasks, expected responses, common error signals, and interpretation rules.
4. Build a timed instructional sequence with an opening, explicit instruction or modeling, guided practice, independent or collaborative application, formative checks, and closure. Ensure the minutes reconcile with the available duration and include realistic transition time.
5. Create adaptive decision rules. Each rule must include an observable trigger, a threshold where appropriate, the instructional response, the time impact, and a follow-up check. Include at least these pathways when relevant:
   - prerequisite gap or widespread misconception;
   - partial understanding requiring another representation or scaffold;
   - expected progress allowing the core sequence to continue;
   - early mastery requiring meaningful extension rather than extra routine work;
   - insufficient or contradictory evidence requiring another check instead of a conclusion.
6. Sequence practice from supported to independent performance. Vary representations and response modes where useful while preserving the intended rigor. Distinguish scaffolds that can fade from accommodations that must remain available.
7. Design formative checks at decision points and an end-of-lesson assessment aligned to each objective. Supply prompts or tasks, expected answers or performance indicators, scoring criteria, likely error patterns, and feedback moves. Avoid assessing content or skills that the lesson does not teach or intentionally activate as prior knowledge.
8. Address required accommodations and accessibility without changing the target construct unless the supplied requirements authorize a modification. Check language load, readability, sensory access, assistive-technology compatibility, response options, cultural assumptions, and unnecessary barriers.
9. Identify implementation risks such as overpacked timing, weak prerequisite evidence, stigmatizing grouping, inaccessible materials, technology failure, answer leakage, or an adaptation that lowers rigor. Give a practical mitigation and fallback for each material risk.
10. Audit the completed design against the acceptance checks below and reconcile it with the stated definition of success.

Authority, safety, and tool boundaries
- ChatGPT may analyze only the information provided in the conversation and may draft lesson materials, decision rules, assessments, and review checks. It cannot observe learners, access school systems or files that were not supplied, administer the lesson, verify classroom results, contact learners, assign grades, approve accommodations, or publish materials.
- Treat the result as a draft for educator review. A qualified educator must approve curriculum alignment, assessment use, grouping decisions, accommodations, and any consequential learner decision.
- Do not include personally identifying learner information in the output. Refer to individuals or groups with neutral, de-identified labels. If sensitive data is supplied unnecessarily, recommend replacing it with the minimum relevant educational evidence.
- Do not diagnose learning needs or override an individualized education plan, accessibility plan, safeguarding rule, or institutional policy. If requirements conflict, identify the conflict and mark the affected decision as blocked pending authorized review.
- Flag lessons involving laboratories, physical activity, sensitive topics, external media, or regulated assessment for the appropriate safety, safeguarding, copyright, or assessment-security review. Do not invent local procedures.
- Describe lesson delivery and learner outcomes as proposed or predicted unless actual observations are supplied. Never claim the lesson was taught, tested, verified, approved, or successful without corresponding evidence.

Required output

A. Planning basis
- Lesson topic and measurable objectives
- Blocking questions, if any
- Evidence register with columns: item, classification, source, planning implication, confidence, and unresolved issue
- Prerequisite map and key vocabulary

B. Learner-readiness analysis
- Demonstrated strengths
- Unfinished learning or prerequisite gaps supported by evidence
- Misconception hypotheses and how each will be tested
- Accessibility and accommodation requirements
- Unknowns that limit personalization

C. Alignment map
Provide a table with columns: objective, learning activity, formative evidence, end-of-lesson evidence, success criterion, and curriculum requirement. Every objective must have both instruction and assessment evidence.

D. Timed lesson sequence
Provide a table with columns: minutes, phase, educator move, learner action, materials, evidence collected, adaptive decision, and accessibility support. Show the planned total and confirm whether it matches the available duration.

E. Adaptive decision matrix
Provide a table with columns: decision point, observable trigger, threshold or interpretation rule, response, pacing impact, follow-up check, and escalation condition. Include concrete reteaching, alternate-representation, scaffold, continuation, and extension options where relevant.

F. Assessment and practice pack
- Entry diagnostic with interpretation guide
- Guided-practice tasks
- Independent or collaborative application task
- Formative-check prompts at each decision point
- End-of-lesson assessment
- Teacher answer key or performance indicators
- Scoring criteria and feedback moves
Clearly identify which objective each item measures.

G. Accessibility, differentiation, and grouping plan
- Required accommodations that remain in force
- Optional scaffolds and criteria for fading them
- Extension that increases depth or transfer without introducing unrelated work
- Flexible grouping purpose, evidence basis, regrouping trigger, and anti-stigma safeguard
- Accessible fallback for any technology-dependent activity

H. Risk and contingency register
Provide a table with columns: risk, warning sign, likely consequence, prevention, in-lesson fallback, and human approval needed.

I. Verification and handoff
Evaluate each acceptance check as Pass, Needs review, or Blocked, and cite the relevant section as evidence:
- Every objective is taught, practiced, and assessed.
- The planned minutes, including transitions and checks, equal the available duration.
- Every claimed misconception is supported by evidence or explicitly treated as a hypothesis.
- Every adaptive pathway has an observable trigger and a follow-up check.
- Assessment items measure the intended objective and have usable scoring criteria.
- Required accommodations are preserved, and optional scaffolds do not unintentionally reduce rigor.
- Grouping and differentiation decisions avoid unsupported learner labels.
- Material and technology dependencies have feasible fallbacks.
- The lesson satisfies the stated definition of success, or any mismatch is recorded.
- No classroom outcome, approval, or completed action is claimed without evidence.

Finish with a post-lesson evidence log containing fields for expected observation, actual observation, evidence source, discrepancy, interpretation, and revision decision. Set actual observations to “Not observed” unless real post-lesson evidence was supplied.