Revise a shared document from teacher comments
When to use this goal
For students who receive written feedback in a shared document but resolve comments without changing anything, or ignore them. Present levels should show the student can make a change when an adult points to it; the target is acting on comments on their own.
- Baseline
- Use version history to compare drafts before and after the student's revision time. Count comments that led to a matching change, out of all comments. Note which kinds of comments are skipped; comments that ask a question (what do you mean here?) are often skipped.
- Tips
- Write comments the student can act on: name the problem and a possible fix. Fewer, clearer comments work better than many. Version history in shared documents makes this goal easy to score.
- Limits
- A change that responds to a comment can still be weak; this measures responsiveness, not quality. Different teachers comment differently. Drafts with only one or two comments give coarse percentages.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID wr-exp-073.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given a typed draft in a shared document with teacher comments on content or organization, the student will make a change in the draft that responds to each teacher comment and reply to the comment with a short note saying what was changed independently with at least 80% accuracy on teacher comments, on 3 of 4 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 25% accuracy.
- 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. Percent accuracy 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 percent accuracy 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 Written Expression.
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
- Writing - Written Expression
- Baseline
- 25% accuracy.
- Annual goal433 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given a typed draft in a shared document with teacher comments on content or organization, the student will make a change in the draft that responds to each teacher comment and reply to the comment with a short note saying what was changed independently with at least 80% accuracy on teacher comments, on 3 of 4 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given a typed draft in a shared document with teacher comments on content or organization
- Behavior
- The student will make a change in the draft that responds to each teacher comment and reply to the comment with a short note saying what was changed independently
- Criteria
- With at least 80% accuracy on teacher comments, on 3 of 4 consecutive revised drafts
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- Schedule
- Every two weeks
Copied as plain text, with straight quotes and plain dashes.
Matching data sheet
Accuracy tracker. Records number correct and number attempted.
Accuracy tracker
Percent accuracy- Student label:
- Target:
- with at least 80% accuracy on teacher comments
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 of 4 consecutive revised drafts
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given a typed draft in a shared document with teacher comments on content or organization, the student will make a change in the draft that responds to each teacher comment and reply to the comment with a short note saying what was changed independently with at least 80% accuracy on teacher comments, on 3 of 4 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
| Date | Task / materials | # correct | # attempted | % accuracycorrect ÷ attempted × 100 | Support levele.g., independent, 1 verbal prompt | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score only items the student attempted unless the goal defines a fixed set of items. Use the same denominator every session.
- Percent = numerator ÷ denominator × 100. Round to one decimal place.
- Record the support actually provided, even if the goal is independent performance.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets, with formulas. Sheets print blank; no student data is stored.