Respond to a peer's comments on their work
When to use this goal
For students who react strongly to peer review or group comments on their ideas (raising their voice, deleting work, refusing to share again). Base the choice on observations of peer review and group work. This is the receiving side of peer review; giving feedback sits in peer interaction.
- Baseline
- Observe 2 or 3 peer review sessions and record each peer comment and the student's response. Note whether spoken or written comments are harder. Ask the student what kind of peer comment bothers them most.
- Tips
- The student decides whether to use the suggestion; keeping their version with a reason is a success. Teach peers a kind feedback format so the student receives usable comments. Pair with se-peer-049 if the student also gives feedback.
- Limits
- Peer comments vary in tone and quality, which affects responses. The goal measures the response, not the final product. A student who is being targeted by peers needs adult action, not a regulation goal.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID se-er-053.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, during a structured peer review session on a draft, lab report, or project, the student will respond to the peer's comment by thanking them, asking a question about it, or explaining their choice, then decide whether to use the suggestion independently in at least 4 of 5 opportunities, across 3 consecutive peer review sessions, as measured by direct observation collected at each peer review session, at least every two weeks.
Baseline: 1 of 5 opportunities.
- 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. Opportunities fits this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. Number and unit stated.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Both stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Direct observation gives opportunities 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 Emotional Regulation.
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 - Emotional Regulation
- Baseline
- 1 of 5 opportunities.
- Annual goal459 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, during a structured peer review session on a draft, lab report, or project, the student will respond to the peer's comment by thanking them, asking a question about it, or explaining their choice, then decide whether to use the suggestion independently in at least 4 of 5 opportunities, across 3 consecutive peer review sessions, as measured by direct observation collected at each peer review session, at least every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- During a structured peer review session on a draft, lab report, or project
- Behavior
- The student will respond to the peer's comment by thanking them, asking a question about it, or explaining their choice, then decide whether to use the suggestion independently
- Criteria
- In at least 4 of 5 opportunities, across 3 consecutive peer review sessions
- Evaluation method
- Direct observation
- Schedule
- At each peer review session, at least every two weeks
Copied as plain text, with straight quotes and plain dashes.
Matching data sheet
Opportunity tracker. One box per opportunity in each session.
Opportunity tracker
Opportunities- Student label:
- Target:
- in at least 4 of 5 opportunities
- Mastery rule:
- across 3 consecutive peer review sessions
- Collection schedule:
- at each peer review session, at least every two weeks
- Method:
- Direct observation
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, during a structured peer review session on a draft, lab report, or project, the student will respond to the peer's comment by thanking them, asking a question about it, or explaining their choice, then decide whether to use the suggestion independently in at least 4 of 5 opportunities, across 3 consecutive peer review sessions, as measured by direct observation collected at each peer review session, at least every two weeks.
Key: + demonstrated independently · P demonstrated with a prompt (note type) · − not demonstrated · NA no opportunity occurred
| Date | Activity / context | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | # + (of 5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Record up to 5 opportunities per session, matching the goal's denominator.
- Define in advance what counts as an opportunity so every data collector records the same thing.
- Count only + marks toward the criterion unless the goal specifies prompted responses.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets, with formulas. Sheets print blank; no student data is stored.