メニュー
Analyse the language demands of a classroom task to identify barriers for EAL and multilingual learners. Use when adapting tasks, planning support, or assessing linguistic accessibility.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/GarethManning/education-agent-skills --skill language-demand-analyserコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | language-demand-analyser |
| description | Analyse the language demands of a classroom task to identify barriers for EAL and multilingual learners. Use when adapting tasks, planning support, or assessing linguistic accessibility. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | eal-language-development/language-demand-analyser |
| skill_name | Language Demand Analyser |
| domain | eal-language-development |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | strong |
| evidence_sources | ["Cummins (1981, 2000) — BICS/CALP framework: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills vs. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency","Gibbons (2002, 2015) — Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom","Schleppegrell (2004) — The Language of Schooling: a functional linguistics perspective","Zwiers (2014) — Building Academic Language: meeting Common Core standards across disciplines","Bailey & Heritage (2008) — Formative Assessment for Literacy: building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"task_description","type":"string","description":"The specific classroom task students must complete"},{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age/year group"},{"field":"subject_area","type":"string","description":"The curriculum subject"}],"optional":[{"field":"language_proficiency","type":"string","description":"EAL proficiency level of target students — e.g. New to English, Early Acquisition, Developing, Consolidating, Competent"},{"field":"student_profiles","type":"array","description":"From context engine: first languages, time in English-medium schooling, specific language needs"},{"field":"task_materials","type":"string","description":"Description of texts, worksheets, or resources used in the task"},{"field":"prior_language_instruction","type":"string","description":"Language features already explicitly taught to these students"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"language_demand_profile","type":"object","description":"Analysis across four dimensions: vocabulary, grammar, discourse, and genre"},{"field":"scaffold_recommendations","type":"object","description":"Specific scaffolds for each language demand dimension"},{"field":"priority_actions","type":"array","description":"The 2–3 highest-impact scaffolds to implement if time is limited"},{"field":"teacher_language_notes","type":"string","description":"How the teacher's own language use during the task can support access"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["vocabulary-tiering-tool","scaffolded-task-modifier","academic-language-sentence-frame-generator","cognitive-load-analyser"] |
| teacher_time | 3 minutes |
| tags | ["EAL","language-demands","BICS-CALP","scaffolding","academic-language"] |
Identifies the language demands of a classroom task across four dimensions — vocabulary (Tier 1/2/3), grammar (sentence complexity, tense, voice, modality), discourse (text structure, cohesion, paragraph organisation), and genre (purpose, audience, register) — and recommends specific scaffolds for each dimension. The analysis makes visible the language that is ASSUMED by the task but rarely explicitly taught, revealing the hidden linguistic barriers that prevent EAL students from demonstrating their subject knowledge. AI is specifically valuable here because most teachers are experts in their subject content but not in the language features their tasks demand — they know what a good science conclusion looks like but may not be able to articulate the specific grammatical structures, discourse patterns, and vocabulary tiers it requires.
Cummins (1981, 2000) distinguished between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) — the conversational fluency that EAL students typically develop within 1–2 years — and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) — the academic language required for curriculum learning, which takes 5–7 years to develop. This distinction is critical because students who appear fluent in conversation may still lack the academic language needed to access curriculum tasks. Gibbons (2002, 2015) operationalised this distinction into classroom practice, showing that language demands must be identified and scaffolded explicitly — "immersion" alone is insufficient for academic language development. Schleppegrell (2004) demonstrated that school language is not simply "harder" than everyday language — it is structurally different, using nominalisation, passive voice, complex noun phrases, and abstract vocabulary in ways that everyday conversation does not. Zwiers (2014) provided a practical framework for identifying and teaching academic language across disciplines, emphasising that language demands vary by subject. Bailey & Heritage (2008) showed that language demands are present in all tasks, not just literacy tasks — a mathematics problem has language demands (reading the problem, understanding mathematical vocabulary, explaining reasoning) that are invisible to teachers but present barriers for EAL students.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in language development and EAL pedagogy, with deep knowledge of Cummins' (1981, 2000) BICS/CALP framework, Gibbons' (2002, 2015) scaffolding approach, Schleppegrell's (2004) functional linguistics analysis of school language, and Zwiers' (2014) academic language framework. You understand that every curriculum task has language demands that are often invisible to subject teachers but create significant barriers for EAL students and students with limited academic language proficiency.
Your task is to analyse the language demands of:
**Task:** {{task_description}}
**Student level:** {{student_level}}
**Subject area:** {{subject_area}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Language proficiency:** {{language_proficiency}} — if not provided, analyse demands that would affect students across a range of EAL proficiency levels, from Early Acquisition to Consolidating.
**Student profiles:** {{student_profiles}} — if not provided, assume a class where several students are developing English language learners with conversational fluency but limited academic language proficiency.
**Task materials:** {{task_materials}} — if not provided, infer typical materials for this type of task.
**Prior language instruction:** {{prior_language_instruction}} — if not provided, assume no explicit language instruction has been given for this task.
Analyse language demands across these four dimensions:
1. **Vocabulary demands (Beck et al., 2002; Zwiers, 2014):**
- **Tier 1 (everyday words):** Common words that may still be unfamiliar to EAL students — particularly idioms, phrasal verbs, and culturally specific terms.
- **Tier 2 (academic vocabulary):** High-utility words used across subjects — "analyse," "significant," "evidence," "contrast," "evaluate." These are the highest priority for explicit teaching because they appear in every subject but are rarely taught in any.
- **Tier 3 (technical vocabulary):** Subject-specific terms — "photosynthesis," "alliteration," "hypotenuse." Usually taught explicitly within the subject.
- Identify specific vocabulary demands, not just categories.
2. **Grammar demands (Schleppegrell, 2004; Gibbons, 2015):**
- Sentence complexity: simple, compound, or complex sentences required?
- Tense requirements: which tenses must students use? (Science conclusions use past tense for method, present tense for conclusions; history uses past tense throughout.)
- Voice: active or passive? (Science often requires passive voice: "the solution was heated" rather than "we heated the solution.")
- Modality: hedging language, conditional statements? ("The results suggest..." "If the temperature increased, then...")
- Nominalisation: turning processes into nouns? ("evaporate" → "evaporation"; "the water moved" → "the movement of water")
- Identify SPECIFIC grammar demands, with examples from the task.
3. **Discourse demands (Schleppegrell, 2004; Zwiers, 2014):**
- Text structure: what organisational pattern does the task require? (Chronological, cause-effect, compare-contrast, claim-evidence-reasoning)
- Cohesion: what connectives and linking devices are needed? (Causal: "because," "therefore"; Comparative: "however," "in contrast"; Sequential: "firstly," "subsequently")
- Paragraph structure: does the task require multi-paragraph organisation?
- Reference: does the task require referring back to previous points or sources?
4. **Genre demands (Gibbons, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2004):**
- What genre must students produce or comprehend? (Report, explanation, argument, narrative, recount, discussion)
- What register is required? (Formal/informal, academic/conversational, impersonal/personal)
- What is the purpose and audience? (To explain, to persuade, to describe, to evaluate)
- Are there discipline-specific genre conventions? (Science reports differ from historical arguments)
For each dimension, provide:
- The specific language demands identified
- Why these demands may be invisible to the subject teacher
- Specific, practical scaffolds to address each demand
Return your output in this exact format:
## Language Demand Analysis: [Task Description]
**For:** [Student level] [Subject area]
**Task:** [Brief task description]
### Language Demand Profile
**Vocabulary Demands**
[Tier 1, 2, and 3 vocabulary identified, with specific words listed]
**Grammar Demands**
[Specific grammatical structures required, with examples]
**Discourse Demands**
[Text structure, cohesion, and organisational requirements]
**Genre Demands**
[Genre, register, purpose, and discipline-specific conventions]
### Scaffold Recommendations
**For vocabulary:** [Specific scaffolds]
**For grammar:** [Specific scaffolds]
**For discourse:** [Specific scaffolds]
**For genre:** [Specific scaffolds]
### Priority Actions (if time is limited)
[The 2–3 highest-impact scaffolds — the ones that will make the biggest difference for EAL students accessing this task]
### Teacher Language Notes
[How the teacher's own language use during the task — instructions, explanations, questioning — can support or hinder access]
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) all four language dimensions are analysed with specific examples, (b) scaffolds are practical and specific to the task, (c) the analysis identifies language demands that a subject teacher might not notice, (d) priority actions focus on the highest-impact scaffolds, and (e) the analysis distinguishes between language that should be pre-taught and language that can be supported during the task.
Scenario: Task: "Write a conclusion for a science experiment investigating the effect of surface area on the rate of dissolving" / Student level: "Year 8" / Subject area: "Science (Chemistry)" / Language proficiency: "Several students at Early Acquisition and Developing levels"
For: Year 8 Science (Chemistry) Task: Write a conclusion for an experiment investigating the effect of surface area on the rate of dissolving
Vocabulary Demands
| Tier | Words | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 (everyday — but potentially unfamiliar to EAL) | "rate" (has everyday meaning AND scientific meaning), "surface" (abstract spatial concept), "dissolve" (not used in everyday conversation frequently), "crushed" | "Rate" is particularly problematic — EAL students may know it as "rate of pay" but not "rate of reaction." The everyday-to-academic shift catches students out. |
| Tier 2 (academic — cross-subject) | "investigate," "effect," "conclude," "significant," "therefore," "demonstrate," "evidence," "support" (as in "support the hypothesis") | These words are needed for the conclusion but are rarely taught in science lessons. "Support" is especially confusing — EAL students know it as "help/hold up" but not as "provide evidence for." |
| Tier 3 (technical — subject-specific) | "surface area," "rate of dissolving," "solute," "solvent," "particle," "collision," "hypothesis," "variable," "controlled variable" | These should have been taught during the experiment but may not be consolidated. "Surface area" is a compound noun requiring both words to make sense. |
Grammar Demands
Discourse Demands
Genre Demands
For vocabulary:
For grammar:
For discourse:
For genre:
Provide the conclusion structure template with sentence starters. This single scaffold addresses discourse demands (text structure, cohesion) and grammar demands (tense, causal connectives) simultaneously. It allows EAL students to focus their cognitive energy on the SCIENCE rather than struggling with how to organise their writing.
Pre-teach 3 key Tier 2 words: "demonstrate," "therefore," "suggest." These three words will appear repeatedly in science conclusions and are transferable to other subjects. Five minutes of explicit teaching with examples pays dividends across many future tasks.
Display the tense rule on the board. Past tense for what happened, present tense for why. This simple visual reference prevents the most common grammatical error in science conclusions and takes no lesson time — just a board display.
The analysis identifies language demands at a general level — it cannot predict the specific language challenges of individual students. A student whose first language is Spanish will face different English challenges from a student whose first language is Mandarin (e.g., article use, tense marking, word order). The teacher's knowledge of individual students' first languages and proficiency levels is essential for adapting the scaffolds.
Language demands interact with cognitive demands, and the analysis treats them separately for clarity. In practice, a student struggling with both the science concepts AND the language to express them faces a compounded challenge. The scaffolds help with language, but if the student doesn't understand the science, language scaffolds alone are insufficient. Ensure conceptual understanding is secure before focusing on language production.
The analysis assumes the teacher will use the scaffolds temporarily. Scaffolds should be progressively removed as students develop proficiency. If sentence frames are provided permanently, students may become dependent on them rather than developing independent academic language. The goal is to build capacity, not create permanent supports.