Generalization data across settings

Generalization data show whether a student uses a skill outside the place and the way it was taught. A student who asks for help with a help card in the resource room but sits silent in science has learned the skill in one setting. The generalization probe is how you find that out before the annual review does.

Teaching data and generalization data answer different questions. Teaching data ask whether the student is learning. Generalization data ask whether the learning travels. The core practices that the Council for Exceptional Children and the CEEDAR Center publish for special educators include teaching students to keep and generalize new learning across time and settings.^[1] For the full set of data methods, see the IEP data collection pillar.

What you need before you start

• A goal with a clear behavior. If two adults would not score the behavior the same way, fix the operational definition first.
• Teaching data that are trending up. Probing generalization on a skill that is not yet learned in the teaching setting only shows a zero.
• A list of where the skill should happen. Ask the general education teacher, the family and the student.
• One data sheet per setting. Use the same measure as the goal, so the numbers can sit on one graph.

Step by step

Step 1: Name the three kinds of change

Generalization has three common directions. List at least one of each that matters for this student.

• Settings: a different room, the cafeteria, the bus line, home.
• People: a different teacher, a para, a peer, a parent.
• Materials: a new worksheet format, a different book, real coins instead of plastic ones.

Example: for a requesting-help goal taught in the resource room, the list might be science class, the para in the hallway and a typed request on a laptop.

Step 2: Pick two or three probe conditions

Do not try to probe every change. Pick the two or three that matter most for the student's day. A generalization probe in a setting the student never visits wastes time.

Example: the team picks science class (setting) and the math teacher (person), and leaves home for the family to report.

Step 3: Write the probe rules

A generalization probe is a test, not a lesson. Write down what the adult may do. Usually that means the natural cue only, with no prompts, no reminders before the probe and no praise for the target behavior during it.

Example: "In science, the teacher gives the normal assignment. The para watches for 20 minutes and marks each time the student is stuck and whether they use the help card within 2 minutes. No reminders."

Step 4: Set the probe schedule

Probe each condition every one to two weeks. Keep the time of day the same within a setting. If you only probe on easy days, the data will overstate the skill.

Example: science probe every other Tuesday, math teacher probe every other Thursday.

Step 5: Graph each condition as its own line

Put teaching data and each generalization condition on the same graph with separate lines or symbols. The guide to graphing IEP data shows the setup. A gap between the teaching line and the probe line is the finding; it tells you where to teach next.

Step 6: Act on the gap

If the probe line stays far below the teaching line for three probes, teach in the new setting. Common moves are practicing with the new person, using the real materials or adding a cue the student can carry, like a card taped inside a binder.

Time each step takes

Worked example: Andre's help-card goal

Andre is a fictional sixth grader. His goal: "When stuck on independent work, Andre will use a help card or raise his hand and name the hard part within 2 minutes in 4 of 5 opportunities across 3 settings, as measured by an opportunity data sheet."

His teaching data come from the resource room. Generalization probes come from science (para observes) and math (math teacher records). Each probe counts opportunities, the times Andre was clearly stuck.

By week 7 Andre met the criterion in the resource room, but used the card in only about 1 of every 4 or 5 chances in the other two classes. The goal says "across 3 settings," so it is not met.

The team acted on the gap in week 9. The resource teacher spent two sessions in science practicing the card with the science teacher present. Andre also got a small card taped inside his science folder.

Science moved first because that is where the team taught. Math followed without direct teaching, which suggests the folder card helped. The progress report states each setting's number, not an average across settings. Averaging would hide that math lagged for weeks.

Writing a generalization IEP goal

The goal should name the settings, people or materials, so the probe has something to check.

• Weak: "Andre will generalize help-seeking skills."
• Better: "Andre will use a help card or raise his hand and name the hard part within 2 minutes in 4 of 5 opportunities in each of 3 settings (resource room, science, math)."

The weak version names no behavior, setting or criterion. The better version can be probed. Help-seeking templates are on the requesting help goals page. Paste your own draft into the goal checker to catch missing parts.

Common mistakes

• Weak: probing right after a lesson on the skill. Better: probe on a different day or at least an hour later, so you see whether the skill holds without a fresh reminder.
• Weak: the teaching adult runs every probe. Better: another adult runs at least half of the probes. A student may use the skill only with the person who taught it.
• Weak: one average across settings. Better: one number per setting, graphed as separate lines.
• Weak: prompting during the probe "just this once." Better: mark the opportunity as prompted and leave it out of the independent count.
• Weak: waiting until mastery to probe. Better: start probes once the teaching line trends up, so you have a generalization baseline.

The IEP must state how progress is measured.^[2] If the goal includes settings, say in the measurement section who collects in each setting and how often. Once a skill holds across settings, keep checking it over time; the guide to maintenance probes covers that schedule. To match the measure to the goal, see how to choose a data collection method, and use the free IEP data sheets for each setting.

Frequently asked questions

Use it in IEP Atlas

• Generalization in the IEP glossary
• Opportunity trial data sheet
• Requesting help goals
• Free IEP data sheets
• Data sheet in the IEP glossary

Related guides

• IEP data collection: methods, sheets and schedules that hold up
• How to choose a data collection method for an IEP goal
• Digital vs paper IEP data collection
• Maintenance probes after mastery
• Task analysis for brushing teeth (printable steps)
• Cold probe data vs trial-by-trial data

Sources

1. High-Leverage Practices for Students with Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center
2. 34 CFR §300.320: Definition of individualized education program, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.