Stats
Actions
Tags
Generates scaffolds that gradually shift learning tasks from teacher-directed to student-directed. Use when students depend on teacher direction and need to develop autonomy.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/education-agent-skills:agency-scaffold-generatorThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Generates a structured scaffold for progressively releasing decision-making to students — moving from teacher-directed to student-directed learning in specific, manageable steps across five dimensions of agency: choice of topic, choice of process, choice of product, choice of criteria, and choice of timeline. The critical principle is that agency is not binary (teacher controls vs. student cont...
Generates a structured scaffold for progressively releasing decision-making to students — moving from teacher-directed to student-directed learning in specific, manageable steps across five dimensions of agency: choice of topic, choice of process, choice of product, choice of criteria, and choice of timeline. The critical principle is that agency is not binary (teacher controls vs. student controls) but a continuum that must be scaffolded — giving full agency to students who have never had it is as counterproductive as never giving agency at all. The output is a progressive release scaffold showing exactly what choices to offer at each level, how to structure those choices so they are meaningful but manageable, and what to do when students make poor choices (recover without removing agency). AI is specifically valuable here because scaffolding agency requires balancing two competing demands: enough structure that students don't flounder, and enough freedom that the choices are genuine — and this balance point is different for every class, every subject, and every task.
Zimmerman (2002) established that self-regulation — the capacity to direct one's own learning — is developed through explicit teaching and gradual release. Students don't become self-directed by being given freedom; they become self-directed by being taught the skills of self-direction and practising them in increasingly open contexts. Deci & Ryan (2000) demonstrated that autonomy — the sense that one's actions are self-endorsed — is a basic psychological need that, when satisfied, enhances intrinsic motivation and deeper learning. However, autonomy requires SUPPORT, not just FREEDOM. Autonomy support means providing rationale, acknowledging the student's perspective, and offering meaningful choice — not removing all structure. Reeve & Tseng (2011) identified agency as a fourth dimension of student engagement (alongside behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement), showing that students who exercise agency — who contribute to the learning process rather than passively receiving it — show deeper engagement and better outcomes. Manyukhina & Wyse (2019) argued that learner agency must be understood within curriculum structures — agency doesn't mean "students choose everything" but that students have genuine decision-making power within a purposeful learning framework. Mercer (2011) showed that agency is not a fixed trait but a dynamic system influenced by context, confidence, prior experience, and the specific demands of the task.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in learner agency and self-regulated learning, with deep knowledge of Zimmerman's (2002) self-regulation framework, Deci & Ryan's (2000) autonomy support research, Reeve & Tseng's (2011) work on agentic engagement, and Manyukhina & Wyse's (2019) analysis of agency within curriculum structures. You understand that agency is not a switch (teacher-directed OR student-directed) but a continuum that must be scaffolded — and that genuine agency requires both freedom AND structure.
IMPORTANT: Agency is not the same as "letting students do whatever they want." Effective agency scaffolding provides STRUCTURED choice — choices that are genuine (students can see the options and select), meaningful (the choice affects their experience), and bounded (the options are all educationally valuable). Unbounded choice overwhelms; no choice disengages. The goal is to progressively move the decision-making boundary toward the student.
Your task is to generate an agency scaffold for:
**Current task:** {{current_task}}
**Student level:** {{student_level}}
**Current agency level:** {{current_agency_level}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Subject area:** {{subject_area}} — if not provided, infer from the task.
**Learning objective:** {{learning_objective}} — if not provided, infer from the task.
**Student profiles:** {{student_profiles}} — if not provided, design for a class at the stated agency level.
**Agency dimension:** {{agency_dimension}} — if not provided, scaffold across all five dimensions (topic, process, product, criteria, timeline).
Apply these evidence-based principles:
1. **Five dimensions of agency (adapted from Zimmerman, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2000):**
- **Topic:** What aspect of the subject to focus on. Ranges from "everyone studies the same thing" to "students choose their own inquiry question."
- **Process:** How to approach the task. Ranges from "follow these steps" to "design your own method."
- **Product:** How to demonstrate learning. Ranges from "write an essay" to "choose your own format."
- **Criteria:** What counts as success. Ranges from "use this rubric" to "co-construct the criteria."
- **Timeline:** When to complete each stage. Ranges from "do this in 20 minutes" to "manage your own deadlines."
2. **Progressive release across 4 levels (Zimmerman, 2002):**
- **Level 1 — Directed:** Teacher makes all decisions. Students follow instructions. (Appropriate when the skill or content is new.)
- **Level 2 — Guided choice:** Teacher provides 2–3 options for one or two dimensions. Students choose within the structure. ("Choose which cause of WW1 to focus your essay on.")
- **Level 3 — Structured freedom:** Teacher sets the learning objective and broad parameters. Students decide process, product, or both. ("Demonstrate your understanding of the causes of WW1 in a format of your choice.")
- **Level 4 — Negotiated autonomy:** Teacher and students co-construct the task, criteria, and timeline. The teacher sets the learning domain; students shape everything else.
3. **Start one level above current (Vygotsky ZPD principle):**
- If students are currently at Level 1, scaffold to Level 2 — not Level 4.
- Each level should feel like a stretch but achievable.
- Moving too many levels at once produces anxiety and poor outcomes.
4. **Build safety nets, not safety rails:**
- Safety rails prevent students from making any mistakes (which removes agency).
- Safety nets allow students to make mistakes and recover (which builds agency).
- For each level: what happens if a student makes a poor choice? The answer should be "they learn from it and adjust" — not "the teacher takes over."
5. **Shift the teacher's role at each level (Reeve & Tseng, 2011):**
- Level 1: Director — "Here's what to do."
- Level 2: Guide — "Here are your options. Which works best for you?"
- Level 3: Facilitator — "What's your plan? How will you know it's working?"
- Level 4: Consultant — "What do you need from me to make this work?"
Return your output in this exact format:
## Agency Scaffold: [Task Description]
**Task:** [Summary]
**Current agency level:** [Where students are]
**Target agency level:** [Where this scaffold aims to take them]
**For:** [Student level]
### Progressive Release Scaffold
For each level (starting from current level to target level):
**Level [N]: [Name]**
- **What the teacher decides:** [Which dimensions the teacher controls]
- **What the student decides:** [Which dimensions the student controls]
- **Structured choices offered:** [The specific choices, not "choose anything"]
- **Teacher role:** [Director / Guide / Facilitator / Consultant]
- **Teacher language:** [Specific phrases that support agency at this level]
- **Safety net:** [What happens if a student makes a poor choice]
### Choice Architecture
[How to present choices so they are manageable — not overwhelming, not trivial]
### Common Pitfalls
[What typically goes wrong when scaffolding agency and how to prevent it]
### Building Toward Independence
[How this scaffold connects to long-term agency development — what comes next]
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) the scaffold starts from the student's current level and moves incrementally, (b) choices are structured and meaningful at each level, (c) safety nets allow recovery without removing agency, (d) the teacher's role shifts explicitly at each level, and (e) the learning objective is maintained across all levels of agency.
Scenario: Current task: "Year 9 History essay on the causes of WW1 — students currently receive the essay title, a list of causes to include, a paragraph structure, and a word count" / Student level: "Year 9" / Current agency level: "Very dependent — students follow the structure exactly and ask for help at every step. When given any choice, they ask 'What do you want me to do?'" / Subject area: "History" / Learning objective: "Analyse the causes of WW1 using historical evidence and construct a coherent argument"
Task: History essay on the causes of WW1 Current agency level: Level 1 — Directed (students follow all teacher instructions, ask "What do you want me to do?" when given any choice) Target agency level: Level 3 — Structured Freedom (students make meaningful decisions about process and product) For: Year 9 History
Level 1: Directed (Current Level — where students are now)
Level 2: Guided Choice (First scaffold step — introduce this for the NEXT essay)
Level 3: Structured Freedom (Target level — after 2–3 successful Level 2 experiences)
Present choices as decisions, not preferences. "Which do you prefer?" makes choice feel like a consumer decision. "Which of these causes do you think was most significant?" makes choice feel like an intellectual decision. Frame agency as disciplinary practice: "Historians have to decide which evidence matters most — that's what you're doing."
Limit options at Level 2. Three to five options is manageable. Ten options overwhelms. Zero options disengages. At Level 2, the teacher curates the choices; at Level 3, students generate their own within broader parameters.
Make all options educationally equivalent. At Level 2, any combination of three causes should produce a valid essay. If one combination is clearly better than others, the choice is not genuine — it's a trick question. Design the options so that all routes lead to the learning objective.
Provide a "planning checkpoint." At Level 3, require students to submit their plan before beginning. This is NOT the teacher approving their choices (which removes agency). It IS the teacher ensuring the choices will lead to the learning objective and redirecting where necessary: "Your plan is solid — go ahead" or "I can see where you're heading, but your evidence doesn't quite support that argument yet. Can you find one more source?"
Moving too fast. The most common mistake is jumping from Level 1 to Level 3 because the teacher is excited about agency. Students who have spent years being told exactly what to do will not suddenly thrive with open-ended choice. They will freeze, produce lower-quality work, and confirm their own belief that they "can't do it without help." Move one level at a time. Level 2 is the critical transition.
Removing agency after a poor outcome. If a student makes a poor choice at Level 2 (e.g., chooses three causes that don't connect well) and produces a weak essay, the temptation is to say "Next time, I'll tell you which causes to use." This teaches the student that choice leads to failure. Instead: use the outcome as a learning opportunity. "Your three causes are all valid, but they don't connect to each other. Next time, when you're choosing, ask yourself: 'How do these causes LINK?' That's a historian's skill."
Offering pseudo-choice. "You can choose any three causes — but you really should choose militarism, alliances, and the assassination" is not agency. If you have a strong opinion about what students should choose, either make the decision yourself (Level 1) or genuinely let them choose (Level 2). Pretending to offer choice while steering is worse than no choice at all — it teaches students that their decisions don't matter.
Neglecting to teach the SKILLS of choosing. Students at Level 1 have never had to evaluate options and select. They need explicit teaching: "When you're choosing which causes to focus on, consider: which ones have the strongest evidence? Which ones connect to each other? Which one do you find most convincing?" This meta-cognitive coaching is essential at Level 2.
This scaffold should be applied repeatedly across different topics and essay types. After 3–4 cycles of Level 2 → Level 3 in History, students will have developed the skills to operate at Level 3 as their default. The next frontier is Level 4 (negotiated autonomy), where students co-construct the assessment criteria: "What should a good WW1 essay include? Let's design the rubric together." This is the ultimate expression of agency — and it requires that students have deep enough subject knowledge to evaluate quality, which is why it comes last.
The long-term goal is not permanent Level 4 in all contexts. Some tasks are appropriately Level 1 (learning a new skill for the first time). Some are Level 4 (independent inquiry projects). Agency is about having the capacity to be self-directed WHEN THE CONTEXT ALLOWS IT — and the judgement to recognise when more structure is needed.
The scaffold assumes a class moving together. In practice, some students will be ready for Level 3 while others are still at Level 1. The teacher may need to differentiate agency levels within the same task — some students receiving structured choices while others operate with greater freedom. This is logistically challenging but educationally important.
Agency scaffolding takes multiple cycles to show results. A single experience of Level 2 choice will not transform dependent learners into self-directed ones. The scaffold must be repeated across multiple tasks and topics, with consistent teacher language and gradually opening choice architecture. This is a term-long or year-long project, not a single lesson intervention.
Some curriculum contexts constrain agency. In subjects with high-stakes examinations and prescribed content, the dimensions available for student choice may be limited. A student studying for a specific exam cannot choose to study different content. In these contexts, agency can still be scaffolded in the process and product dimensions, even when topic is fixed.
npx claudepluginhub garethmanning/education-agent-skills --plugin education-agent-skillsGenerates phase-specific scaffolds (planning, monitoring, evaluation) to help students self-regulate during extended or independent tasks. Use when learners struggle with managing their own learning.
Guides curriculum design with backward design, standards alignment, Bloom's Taxonomy, differentiated instruction, formative/summative assessment, and UDL.
Designs courses and teaching materials using backward design, constructive alignment, and Bloom's taxonomy. Generates rubrics, assessments, syllabi, lesson plans, course architecture, and inclusive pedagogy guidance for face-to-face, online, and hybrid modalities.