This differentiated instruction lesson plan template instead uses response patterns to propose temporary tasks toward one goal. Everyone then attempts the same new exit question. The teacher reviews actual evidence before deciding whether support or grouping should change.
Define the common goal and evidence
The shared target is: explain a stated cause using exact text evidence and connect it to the action. All practice routes work toward that criterion.
Use this original text:
The club moved the display indoors because rain was expected.
Ask: “Why did the club move the display indoors? Quote the words that give the reason and explain their connection to the move.”
Vanderbilt's IRIS Center describes ongoing assessment as information for refining instruction and flexible grouping as changing membership in response to needs. Use those general principles here, without copying its example students or setting a required group size. IRIS: General Principles
Confirm the actual class, language access, materials and appropriate supports. One response does not diagnose ability or justify a permanent group.
Rehearse the response-to-task decision
These three cards are fictional response patterns for planning, not responses collected from children:
| Card | Illustrative response | Evidence available | Proposed temporary task |
|---|---|---|---|
| R01 | “indoors” | Locates the result/place; does not identify the stated cause. | Find the words answering “why,” then link them to the move. |
| R02 | “because rain was expected” | Identifies the cause; explanation is absent. | Explain how that cause relates to the action. |
| R03 | “because rain was expected; the club moved indoors in response to that expected rain” | Supplies cause and connection in this fictional fixture. | Compare a counterfactual wording while preserving evidence limits. |
In class, inspect actual responses before choosing a task. A response that does not fit these patterns needs review, not automatic placement into the nearest label. Missing evidence can also call for clarification or another opportunity to respond.
Give each route useful work
R01 route: locate and connect. Ask, “Which words answer why, rather than where?” Invite the learner to mark because rain was expected and identify moved the display indoors as the action. Then ask for the connection in their own words. The marked clause is guided practice, not independent exit evidence.
R02 route: explain the link. Retain the quoted cause and ask, “What did the club do in response to the expected rain?” A planning frame can be: “The text says ____. That gives the reason for ____.” The task adds explanation rather than repeating the quote alone.
R03 route: examine the evidence boundary. Compare the phrase rain was expected with the counterfactual rain was not expected. Ask which stated reason would change and whether the revised wording tells us what the club would actually decide. The original reason would no longer apply as written; the counterfactual does not supply a new real decision. The learner must still cite the relevant words and explain their relationship to the action.
These are different amounts and types of support or extension, not three different learning goals. Record any prompts or assistance so the teacher knows what supported each practice response.
Use the proposed 30-minute sequence
| Phase | Minutes | Teacher action |
|---|---|---|
| Common launch | 4 | Present the target, original text and common question. |
| Pre-response inspection | 5 | Obtain and inspect actual short responses; use fictional cards to rehearse the decision only. |
| Teacher decision | 4 | Select temporary task/support from current evidence; record the reason. |
| Different tasks | 9 | Run locate/link, explain/link or counterfactual comparison tasks. |
| Same exit | 5 | Give everyone the new text and common criterion. |
| Next-group decision | 3 | Begin reviewing actual exit evidence; leave any unfinished decision open. |
The total is 4 + 5 + 4 + 9 + 5 + 3 = 30 minutes. These are proposed timings, not evidence of completed teaching or improved outcomes.
Recheck with new evidence
Use the same independent exit for everyone:
The team carried the papers inside because wind was rising.
Ask: “Why did the team carry the papers inside? Quote the reason and explain its connection to the action.” The separate teacher key identifies because wind was rising as the stated cause and carried the papers inside as the action.
Keep actual responses blank. Do not complete the exit by copying the practice frame for the learner. Confirm necessary access arrangements with the teacher and document any assistance; supported work should not be mislabeled independent.
| Actual review field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Pre-response evidence and reference | |
| Temporary task/support and reason | |
| Assistance during practice | |
| Actual exit response and assistance, if any | |
| Cause evidence and explanation reviewed | |
| Next support/group decision and reason |
If the exit is blank or has not been reviewed, leave regrouping undecided. When actual evidence is available, decide the next task from that evidence rather than keeping yesterday's group by default.
Copy this prompt for the lesson packet
Prepare an original US-English differentiated instruction lesson packet with one common goal, fictional pre-response cards, response-to-task matrix, timed lesson, independent exit/key and blank actual regrouping record. Do not assign ability labels, diagnoses or automatic groups.
Common goal: explain a stated cause using exact evidence and connect it to the action. Original text: “The club moved the display indoors because rain was expected.” Common question asks why, exact reason words and connection to the move.
Fictional R01 “indoors” locates result/place, not cause: guided why-word/because-clause task, then explain connection. R02 “because rain was expected” identifies cause but no explanation: prompt linking cause to action. R03 supplies cause and explanation in the fixture: extension compares “rain was not expected,” identifying changed reason without inventing the club's actual counterfactual decision. All routes retain the common evidence/explanation criterion.
Timing: 4 common launch + 5 pre-response inspection + 4 teacher decision + 9 different tasks + 5 same exit + 3 next-group review = 30 proposed minutes. Actual responses determine temporary supports, not the fictional cards. Teacher confirms actual access/supports/class needs. Record assistance; supported practice is not independent evidence.
Common new exit: “The team carried the papers inside because wind was rising.” Ask why, quote cause and connect to action. Separate teacher key: cause “because wind was rising”; action “carried the papers inside.” Actual answers blank. Fields: pre-response evidence, chosen temporary task/reason, practice assistance, actual exit/assistance, evidence/explanation review, next support/group decision/reason. Leave decisions open if response/review missing. No permanent labels, standards promise, actual children/outcomes or completed teaching claim. Native packet and maintained teacher records authoritative.
Review the support decision beside its evidence
An optional prepared HTML review in NOS can put the common goal, response cards, task routes and blank exit-review fields together. NOS supports saving and rendering HTML. Keep the printable packet and maintained teacher records authoritative; the review does not assess or regroup learners automatically.
Explore NOS to present the prepared lesson review. Keep the next grouping decision tied to actual evidence while the learning goal stays shared.