Clear up a misunderstanding in a group chat
When to use this goal
For students who read sarcasm or short replies as attacks, or whose own messages are misread, which leads to chat arguments. Present levels and reading and writing skills, not grade, decide fit.
- Baseline
- Give two mock threads and ask the student to write their next message. Score each with the rubric. Ask how they usually decide whether a message was meant to be mean.
- Tips
- Use realistic but invented threads. Accept emoji, abbreviations, and the student's own style; the rubric scores what the message does, not formal writing.
- Limits
- Replies written in a session are calmer than real ones; track real use where the student is willing. Chat norms differ between groups, so adjust the examples.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID se-cr-022.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given a mock group chat thread in which a message has been misread, the student will write a reply that checks what the other person meant, explains what they meant, and suggests a way forward independently, earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row, on 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 2 out of 8 rubric points.
- Condition
- Observable behavior
- Criterion
- Measurement method
Measurability check11 of 11 met
Met: Observable behavior. Stated as an action.
Met: Condition. Stated.
Met: Unit fits the behavior. Rubric score fits this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. Number and unit stated.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Both stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Work-sample analysis gives rubric score data.
Met: Review timeframe. Stated.
Met: Baseline and target compatible. Same unit, change in the right direction.
Met: Aligned with area of need. Still about Conflict Resolution.
Met: Level of support. Defined.
Met: Blanks filled in. Nothing left to fill in.
Checks structure and wording only. Whether the goal fits the student is the team's call.
Short-term objectives (optional)
When are objectives required?Required for students on alternate assessments (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(ii)); some states require them for everyone.
Paste into your IEP system
Most district systems have a separate box for each part of a goal. Copy them one at a time, or all at once as labeled text.
- Area of need
- Social-Emotional & Communication - Conflict Resolution
- Baseline
- 2 out of 8 rubric points.
- Annual goal439 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given a mock group chat thread in which a message has been misread, the student will write a reply that checks what the other person meant, explains what they meant, and suggests a way forward independently, earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row, on 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given a mock group chat thread in which a message has been misread
- Behavior
- The student will write a reply that checks what the other person meant, explains what they meant, and suggests a way forward independently
- Criteria
- Earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row, on 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- Schedule
- Every two weeks
Copied as plain text, with straight quotes and plain dashes.
Matching data sheet
Rubric tracker. Scores each rubric criterion and totals them.
Rubric tracker
Rubric score- Student label:
- Target:
- earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given a mock group chat thread in which a message has been misread, the student will write a reply that checks what the other person meant, explains what they meant, and suggests a way forward independently, earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row, on 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
| Date | Task / sample | Asks what the other person meant without blaming | Explains their own meaning briefly | Keeps a calm tone (no all caps, insults, or piling on) | Suggests a way forward or moves the talk to a private message or in person | Total (of 8) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score each sample with a 4-row clarifying-message rubric scored 0 to 2 per row. Attach or reference the rubric's score descriptors.
- Use the same prompt type and conditions for each scored sample.
- If two people score, check agreement on a few samples before relying on the data.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets, with formulas. Sheets print blank; no student data is stored.