AI Projects for World Language Teachers

Write a comprehensible-input story in [target language] for my [level, Ex. novice-mid] students.

Target variety: [Ex. Mexican Spanish, Levantine Arabic, Quebec French]. Register: [Ex. casual speech between teenagers].
Vocabulary students already know: [paste your word list].
Structures they know: [Ex. present tense only, plus one past form].
The structure I am targeting in this story: [structure].
Length: about [number] words.

Rules:
- Use only the vocabulary and structures I listed. If you need a word that is not on the list, use a cognate or a proper noun.
- Repeat the target structure at least [number] times, in varied contexts, never in the same sentence frame twice in a row.
- Keep the plot simple and slightly strange, so students want to know what happens.
- Stay inside the target variety. If a word or phrasing you used belongs to a different region, say which one.

After the story, list every word you used that was not on my list, and flag anything a native speaker of that variety would not actually say.

Take this story and write it at three proficiency levels for my [target language] class.

Story: [paste it, or describe what happens].
Target variety: [Ex. Peninsular Spanish, Mandarin from mainland China]. Register: [Ex. informal narration].
My three groups are roughly at [Ex. novice-high, intermediate-low, intermediate-high].

For each version:
1. Keep the same characters, the same events, and the same ending, so all three groups can discuss the same story.
2. Change only sentence length, tense range, and vocabulary density. Do not change the plot.
3. List the tenses and structures you used, so I can check the version against the group.

Then give me four questions in [target language] that work for all three versions, worded identically.

Stay in the variety and register I named, and flag any line that reads as textbook language rather than something a person would say.

Act as a [target language] teacher adapting authentic material without stripping out what makes it authentic.

Here is the text: [paste the article, song lyric, or post].
Source and region: [Ex. a Chilean news site, a Senegalese musician].
Students are at [level]. Target variety: [variety]. Register to preserve: [Ex. journalistic, slangy, poetic].

Do this:
1. Rewrite it at my students' level, keeping every cultural reference, place name, and idiom that carries meaning.
2. Where you simplified an idiom or slang phrase, keep the original in a gloss beside it rather than deleting it.
3. List what you cut and, honestly, what nuance went with it.
4. Tell me the three lines of the original I should still show students untouched, and why.

Do not neutralize the voice into standard textbook language. If your adaptation drifts into a different regional variety than the source, say so plainly.

Here is a passage my [level] [target language] students will read: [paste it].

Target variety: [variety].

Build a glossed version:
1. Gloss only the words that will actually stop comprehension. Skip cognates and anything inferable from context.
2. Choose glosses by frequency, not difficulty: gloss the high-frequency word they will meet again, and gloss rather than teach the rare word they will not.
3. Give each gloss in [Ex. English, or simple target language], three words maximum.
4. Format it as the passage with superscript numbers, then a numbered gloss list underneath.

Aim for no more than [number] glosses. A page of glosses is not a reading.

Then list any word in the passage that belongs to a different regional variety than the one I named, and any phrasing a native speaker would not use.

Build an embedded reading set in [target language] for [level] students.

Base story: [paste it, or describe the events].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Structures students already control: [list them].

Write three versions, read in sequence:
- Version 1: the bare bones, shortest sentences, only the structures I listed.
- Version 2: the same story with added detail, description, and one new structure.
- Version 3: the full version, with the complexity a real text would have.

Rules:
- Every sentence in version 1 must still appear, recognizably, inside versions 2 and 3. That overlap is the whole point.
- Do not change names, the order of events, or the ending between versions.
- Note the new structures each version introduces.

Flag anything in version 3 that no native speaker of that variety would say.

Write comprehension questions in [target language] about this text: [paste it].

Students are at [level]. Target variety: [variety]. Register: [Ex. questions a teacher would actually ask aloud].

Rules for every question:
- The question itself uses only vocabulary and structures at or below my students' level. If they cannot read the question, it is not a comprehension question.
- The answer must be findable in the text, or inferable from it, without English.
- Vary the answer type: yes/no, either/or, one word, one phrase, one sentence. Label each.
- No question that could be answered without reading the text.

Give me [number] questions, easiest first, plus an answer key in [target language].

Then flag any question that reads like translated English rather than natural [target language], and rewrite it.

Write a dictogloss passage in [target language] for [level] students.

Target variety and region: [variety]. Register: [Ex. spoken, casual, one person telling a friend a story].
Target structure: [structure]. Known vocabulary: [paste the list].
Length: about [number] words, readable aloud in [number] seconds.

Requirements:
1. Write it for the ear: short breath groups, natural repetition, the rephrasing real speech has.
2. Repeat the target structure at least [number] times, so it is audible as a pattern.
3. Mark where I should pause when reading it aloud.
4. Give me the follow-up: the key words students should recover, and three questions to check meaning.

Do not write this like a textbook paragraph. If any line only works on the page and not out loud, flag it and fix it.

Build a pair-conversation activity in [target language] for [level] students.

Topic or situation: [describe it].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [Ex. how two classmates the same age would actually talk].
Structures I want practiced: [list them].

Give me:
1. The situation, written in [target language] at my students' level, in three sentences or fewer.
2. A phrase bank of [number] useful chunks, grouped by function (asking, agreeing, disagreeing, buying time), each with a short gloss.
3. Ten follow-up questions students can pull from when the conversation stalls.
4. One thing each partner must find out from the other, so there is a reason to keep talking.
5. A three-item self-check for after: did I ask, did I answer, did I use [structure].

Every phrase must be what a real speaker of that variety says, not a textbook equivalent. Flag any that are limited to one region.

Design an information-gap activity in [target language] for [level] students. I need both halves of the handout, not one worksheet.

Topic: [Ex. a train schedule, two versions of an apartment listing, a family tree].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Structures and vocabulary to practice: [list them].

Produce:
1. Partner A's handout, ready to copy.
2. Partner B's handout, holding different information, ready to copy.
3. The exact task: what the pair has to produce or agree on when they finish.
4. The questions each partner will need in order to get what is missing, written in [target language] at their level.
5. An answer key showing the complete information both halves add up to.

Design it so neither partner can finish alone and neither can simply hand over their sheet. Flag any wording that belongs to a different regional variety than the one I named.

Write role-play cards in [target language] for [level] students.

Setting: [Ex. a market, a doctor's office, a lost passport at an airport].
Target variety and region: [variety]. Register: [Ex. polite to a stranger, informal with a peer].
Structures and vocabulary to practice: [list them].
Number of pairs: [number].

Each card must give:
1. A goal the student has to reach through language, not a topic to chat about.
2. One thing they must not say, so they have to work around it.
3. Three or four phrases they may use, glossed.
4. A complication I hand them partway through on a slip.

Write the cards in [target language] at their level, ready to cut apart. Name the register the situation demands on each card (formal or informal address), because that choice is part of the task. Flag anything a native speaker of that variety would phrase differently.

Act as an assessment writer for [target language] speaking exams.

Here is my speaking assessment: [paste the prompt, the format, and the timing].
Rubric or framework: [paste it, Ex. ACTFL, AP, IB].
Students are at [level]. Target variety: [variety]. Register the task requires: [register].

Give me:
1. [Number] practice prompts in the exact same format, length, and difficulty as mine. Same task type, different content.
2. For one of them, a model response at the top of my rubric, written the way a strong student at this level actually speaks, including natural hesitation.
3. The specific features of that response that earn each rubric row, in my rubric's own language.
4. A near-miss response, and what keeps it one band lower.

Do not make the models sound like written essays read aloud. If any line is more formal than the task calls for, mark it.

You are going to have a conversation with me in [target language]. I am a student at [level].

Topic: [topic]. Target variety: [variety]. Register: [Ex. informal, the way a friend my own age would talk].

Rules for the whole conversation:
- Use only vocabulary and structures at or below my level: [paste the list, or name the tenses I know].
- One or two sentences per turn, and end every turn with a question.
- Do not switch to English unless I ask.
- If I make an error that blocks meaning, ask a clarifying question in [target language] instead of correcting me.
- Stay in the variety I named. Do not mix in phrasing from another region.

After [number] exchanges, stop and give me: three things I said well, one pattern to work on, and two phrases a real speaker would have used instead of mine.

Start with a greeting and one question.

Build a circling sequence in [target language] for [level] students.

The statement I am circling: [write the sentence in the target language].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [Ex. spoken classroom talk].
Known vocabulary: [list it].

Produce the full sequence in the order I should ask it:
1. The statement, said twice.
2. Yes/no questions, including the false version so students hear the negative.
3. Either/or questions.
4. Question-word questions (who, what, where, when).
5. A short personalized question that turns the statement back on a student.

Rules:
- Every question uses only the words in the original statement plus question words.
- Include the short answer I should expect, so I can recast it.
- Size it to run about four minutes at a normal classroom pace.

Write it as a script I can read straight off the page. Flag anything that would sound stilted out loud in that variety.

Write discussion questions for my [level] [target language] class on [the culture unit, film, or text].

Target region: [region]. Language of discussion: [Ex. in the target language at their level, or in English for a novice class].
What students already know about the topic: [describe it].

Give me [number] questions. Requirements:
- Every question must have at least two defensible answers. If a class could not split over it, cut it.
- At least three should put a value or assumption from the target culture next to one from students' own, without ranking either.
- No question answerable with "I liked it" or with a summary.
- If the questions are in the target language, keep them inside my students' level and add a phrase bank for agreeing and disagreeing.

For each question, tell me the two positions the room is most likely to split between, and the follow-up to ask each side.

Flag any question that assumes something about the region that is not actually true across it.

Build targeted practice for one [level] [target language] student. Use initials only, no name.

The three errors that keep appearing in their work: [list them, Ex. gender agreement on adjectives, wrong past tense, adjective before noun].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Current unit vocabulary: [paste it].

For each error:
1. One sentence explaining it in plain English, using no grammar term I have not taught.
2. Two correct and two incorrect examples side by side, so the difference is visible rather than described.
3. Ten practice sentences containing that error to fix, all built from my current unit's vocabulary.
4. Three sentences that are already correct, mixed in, so the student has to decide rather than assume everything is broken.

Give the answer key separately, with a one-line reason for each fix.

Do not correct toward a more formal register than the task needs, and flag any corrected version that a native speaker still would not say.

Explain this [target language] grammar point five different ways for [level] students: [the grammar point].

Target variety: [variety]. What students already know: [list the related structures].

Give me all five, labeled:
1. Rule-based: the shortest accurate statement of the rule.
2. Pattern-based: a table or set of examples where the pattern is visible without a rule.
3. By contrast with English: what English does, what [target language] does, and where students will transfer wrongly.
4. Examples only: eight to ten sentences that teach the point by their ordering, with no explanation at all.
5. Visual: describe a diagram, timeline, or color-coding I could put on the board.

Rules:
- Every example must be a sentence someone would actually say, in the variety I named.
- Keep every explanation under 60 words.
- Note where the rule has real exceptions, and whether they matter at this level.

Then tell me which of the five you would lead with for this specific point, and why.

Act as a linguist who works on first-language interference.

My students are English speakers learning [target language] at [level]. Target variety: [variety].
We are working on [unit or structure].

List the errors English speakers predictably make in this language, covering:
1. Word order and syntax.
2. False cognates, and words that look borrowable but are not.
3. Anything English does not mark that this language does (Ex. gender, aspect, case, tone, classifiers, levels of formality, non-manual markers).
4. Anything English marks that this language handles differently.
5. Pronunciation or signing errors that change meaning rather than just sounding foreign.

For each: the error, what students produce instead of the correct form, why English pushes them there, and how much class time it deserves.

Rank the list by how often it actually blocks communication, not by how much it would annoy a grammarian. Note where the answer differs by region.

Write an input-flood text in [target language] for [level] students.

Target structure: [structure]. I want it to appear at least [number] times.
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Known vocabulary and structures: [paste them].
Length: about [number] words. Topic: [topic].

Rules:
- The structure has to appear naturally. If a sentence exists only to hold the structure, rewrite it.
- Vary the surrounding words and sentence shapes so it does not read as a drill.
- Do not name or explain the structure anywhere in the text. Students notice it before I label it.
- Stay inside the vocabulary I listed, and flag anything you had to add.

After the text, tell me how many times the structure appears and which three sentences show it most clearly, for when I do name it.

Then flag any sentence that is grammatical but that a speaker of that variety would not produce.

Write an error-correction exercise in [target language] for [level] students.

Errors to plant, one per sentence: [list them].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Vocabulary to use: [paste your current unit list].
Number of sentences: [number].

Rules:
- Exactly one error per sentence, and nothing else wrong with it.
- Every sentence must be otherwise natural, something a person would actually say once it is fixed.
- Include [number] sentences that are already correct, unmarked, so students have to judge rather than hunt.
- Do not label which error is in which sentence on the student copy.

Give me the student handout first, ready to copy, then the key: the correction, the error type, and one line on why it is wrong.

If a sentence would be correct in a different regional variety than the one I named, say so instead of marking it wrong.

Write contrastive sentence pairs in [target language] for [level] students.

The contrast: [Ex. two past tenses, ser and estar, formal and informal address, aspect, tone pairs].
Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
Vocabulary students know: [paste it].
Number of pairs: [number].

For each pair:
1. Two sentences differing by exactly one form.
2. What each one actually means, in one short English line each.
3. A situation where a speaker would choose the first, and a situation for the second.

Rules:
- The meaning difference has to be real and consequential. If both sentences mean roughly the same thing, cut the pair.
- Use ordinary situations students can picture, not linguistics examples.
- Keep both sentences the same length where you can, so the changed form stands out.

Then give me one task where students choose between the two forms and justify the choice. Flag any pair where the distinction is collapsing in real speech in that region.

Help me build a culture lesson for [level] [target language] students about [a specific region or country, not the whole language area].

What we have already covered: [list it].
Class length: [number] minutes.

Do not give me food, festivals, or holidays. Instead:
1. Three aspects of ordinary daily life a teenager there would recognize as accurate (Ex. the school day, transport, money, phones, family expectations).
2. Two social norms that would surprise my students, and what happens if you get them wrong.
3. One issue being debated there right now, at a level students can discuss.
4. The language functions and vocabulary the lesson needs, in [target language] at their level.
5. A closing task that asks students to notice rather than to rank.

Rules:
- Be specific to the region I named. Do not generalize across every country that speaks this language.
- Mark your confidence on every factual claim, and list which ones I must verify with a native-speaker colleague or a current source before teaching. Your cultural information may be out of date.
- Flag anything that is a stereotype rather than a pattern.

Write cultural comparison prompts for [level] [target language] students.

The practice we are comparing: [Ex. how people greet, the school day, attitudes to time, family roles].
Target region: [a specific region]. My students' context: [describe your school and community].
Language of the task: [Ex. English, or the target language at their level].

Give me [number] prompts. Each one must:
1. Point at a specific, observable difference, not a generalization about a people.
2. Ask students to consider why that practice makes sense where it exists (history, geography, economics, family structure).
3. Ask them to name something their own context does that would look strange from the outside.

Rules:
- No prompt may invite ranking, judging, or "which is better."
- Avoid comparisons that flatter one side by construction.
- Acknowledge variation inside the region: a practice in a capital city is not the whole country.

For each prompt, give me the follow-up question to ask when a student answers with a stereotype.

I teach [target language] to [grade level] students and I want authentic material teenagers in [a specific region] are actually consuming.

Give me a search list, grouped:
1. Musicians and songs, with the specific song titles.
2. Films and series, with the year.
3. Creators, athletes, or public figures teenagers there follow.
4. One or two shows or channels aimed at that age group.

For each item: the exact name, roughly when it was current, why a teenager there would know it, and what language level it would suit.

Rules:
- Only real, findable things. If you are not certain something exists as you have described it, say so instead of guessing.
- Mark anything with content I should preview before showing a class.
- Tell me plainly which items you are least confident are still current. Your information about popular culture goes stale, and I am going to verify all of it before I use any of it.

Then tell me how I could check what is currently popular there myself.

Write the background my [level] [target language] students need before we watch or read [title, with year and country].

What they already know about the region: [describe it].
Language of the background: [Ex. English, or the target language at their level].

Give me:
1. Two paragraphs, about [number] words total, covering only the historical and social context without which the work does not make sense.
2. Five names, places, or events students should recognize when they come up, one line each.
3. The two moments students will misread without this context, and what they will assume instead.
4. One question to ask before we start, and one to return to at the end.
5. The regional language features in the work itself: accent, slang, signing variety, register shifts students should expect.

Rules:
- Leave out anything that is interesting but not load-bearing.
- Mark any date, name, or claim I should verify before handing this out.
- No spoilers past what students need going in.

Design an interpersonal project in [target language] for [level] students, with a real audience.

The audience: [Ex. a partner class in the target region, a local community member, a pen pal exchange].
The product: [Ex. a letter, a video introduction, a shared document, a recorded exchange of questions].
Unit content and vocabulary: [paste it].
Target variety: [variety]. Register the audience requires: [Ex. polite address to someone their own age they have never met].

Give me:
1. The task written for students, including what the audience will actually do with it.
2. The language functions it requires (introducing, asking, explaining, thanking), with the chunks for each.
3. A rubric phrased as what a student can do, aligned to [your proficiency framework].
4. The process: milestones, what I check at each, and what happens if the partner side goes quiet.
5. A short norms list for writing to someone in another country.

Be specific about register. Getting formality wrong with a real audience matters more here than any grammar error. Flag anything a speaker of that variety would phrase differently.

Build a proficiency-based rubric for this [target language] task: [paste the task].

My framework: [Ex. ACTFL, CEFR, IB, or paste your school's].
Students are at [level]. Mode: [interpretive, interpersonal, or presentational].
Target variety: [variety]. Register the task requires: [register].

Requirements:
1. Every criterion describes what the student can do, not what they failed to do. No points off for error counts.
2. Include a row for register and audience appropriateness, since that is what my students most often get wrong.
3. [Number] performance levels, each described in language a student can read and self-assess against.
4. Distinguish errors that block comprehension from errors that do not, and weight them accordingly.
5. Keep it to one page.

Also give me one sentence describing what top-level performance on this task actually sounds like, so I can norm my own grading against it. Do not reward formality for its own sake.

Give feedback on one student writing sample in [target language]. Use initials only.

Assignment: [paste it].
Rubric: [paste it].
Level: [level]. Target variety: [variety]. Register the task requires: [register].
Sample: [paste the writing with the student's name removed].

Respond with exactly this:
1. Two specific strengths, each quoting the phrase that earned it.
2. The one error pattern worth addressing now, with two examples from this sample and what the student should do instead.
3. One thing that is technically wrong but not worth mentioning yet, and why it can wait.
4. Any place where the student's phrasing is actually fine and only sounds odd because it is informal or regional. Say so rather than correcting it.

Rules: no grade, no score. Do not rewrite the piece. Under 150 words, addressed to the student.

Then list separately every correction you made, so I can check it against my own knowledge before the student sees it. You over-correct toward formal register, so mark the ones you are least sure about.

Write can-do statements for this unit of [target language]: [paste the unit's content, vocabulary, and structures].

Level: [level]. Framework: [Ex. ACTFL, CEFR, or your own]. Modes to cover: [interpretive, interpersonal, presentational].

Rules:
1. Each statement starts with "I can" and names something a student could demonstrate in the next five minutes.
2. Tie each one to a real situation, not a grammar point. Not "I can use the past tense" but "I can tell a friend what I did last weekend."
3. Include register where it matters: who the student is talking to changes the task.
4. Keep the list to [number] statements. A long list does not get used.
5. Write them at a reading level my students can use without me translating.

Add a three-column self-check beside each one: not yet, with help, on my own.

Then tell me which two statements this unit does not actually teach well enough to claim, so I can fix the unit or cut the statement.

Help me build a machine translation audit for [level] [target language] students. They already use these tools, so I am teaching them to check the output rather than pretending they do not.

The paragraph they will translate: [paste it].
Target variety: [variety]. Register the paragraph needs: [register].

Give me:
1. A student handout: the paragraph, the steps for running it through a translator, and the four things to look for (register mismatch, broken idioms, wrong regional word choice, a sentence a real speaker would not say).
2. The specific errors a translator is likely to produce on this paragraph, so I know what they should find. Mark which ones you are confident about.
3. The one line most likely to come out technically correct and completely unnatural, and why.
4. A rewrite task: fix the machine output until a speaker of that variety would accept it.
5. Three debrief questions about when a translation tool is honest to use and when it is not.

This is a language lesson, not a warning. Keep the focus on what the errors teach about the language.

Redesign this assessment so a translation tool cannot do it for the student.

Current assessment: [paste it].
Level: [level]. Target language: [target language]. Target variety: [variety]. Register: [register].
What I am actually trying to measure: [the skill].
My constraints: [Ex. class length, device policy, 30 students, no time for individual orals].

Give me:
1. Three redesigned versions: one live and spoken, one written in class under conditions I control, and one built on something only my class knows (our shared text, a class discussion, a local context).
2. For each, what it measures that the original did not, and what it gives up.
3. The one that fits my constraints best, said plainly.
4. A rubric row for unrehearsed language, phrased as a can-do.
5. What to say to students about why the assessment is built this way.

Do not propose surveillance, detection tools, or anything that requires me to prove a student cheated. Build tasks where the tool is simply not useful.