Following Directions IEP Goals: 1-Step to Multi-Step

Quick Answer

A strong following-directions goal specifies the number of steps, language level, wait time, and prompt rule, then measures steps or opportunities completed correctly. Keep one-, two-, and multi-step demands comparable across probes. A repeated direction changes the condition, so decide in advance whether repetition is allowed.

Anchor the wording to one reproducible unit of performance. For following directions, the core measurement is percent of clearly defined one-, two-, or multi-step directions completed in order, with prompt level recorded.

What a strong following directions goal includes

Build the goal around what makes a direction hard. In Condition → Behavior → Criterion, the condition can specify one-, two-, or multi-step directions, whether they are spoken or written, and what visual support is available. The behavior is completing the named steps in order. The criterion should pair accuracy across opportunities with the maximum prompt level allowed so a correct response after repeated adult cues is not scored as independent success.

Use 34 CFR §300.320(a)(2) as the federal measurability anchor, not as a source of a universal accuracy percentage. The IEP Team chooses the number of steps, prompt limit, and mastery rule from the student's baseline and disability-related access need.

Step accuracy — steps completed correctly ÷ steps given: Best for multi-step routines. Opportunity success — directions completed ÷ directions presented: Best for repeated classroom routines. Prompt level — independent/gesture/verbal/model/physical: Best when support fading is central.

Standardize what counts as a direction opportunity. Record the number of steps, wording or modality, response window, and prompt level, and score whether steps were completed in order. A 'three-step direction' should not sometimes be three familiar actions and other times hide new vocabulary, choices, or extra memory demands.

Following directions measures carrying out requested steps. Task initiation measures how quickly the student starts after the cue; transitions measure moving from one activity or location to the next.

If the difficulty is the move between routines rather than understanding directions, compare activity transition goals and Condition–Behavior–Criterion formula.

Control the hidden language load

Two directions can contain the same number of steps but very different processing demands. “Get your notebook and sit at the table” uses familiar actions and objects; “before you highlight the conclusion, retrieve the rubric from the side bin” adds temporal language, vocabulary, location language, and sequencing. If the goal is specifically following multi-step directions, keep those extra language demands reasonably consistent across probes.

Record whether repetition is allowed. If the condition permits one repetition, say so and score within that condition. If the goal is independent response to the first presentation, a repeated direction changes the trial. Also decide how long staff wait before prompting. Without a stable wait time, one teacher may score the same student as independent while another intervenes after five seconds and records a prompt.

If structured opportunities are new for the team, the baseline data collection guide explains how to keep conditions, denominators, and prompt definitions comparable.

How to get a baseline

A useful directions baseline can be recreated by another staff member: define the number of steps, the cue, the prompt rules, and the scoring window before collecting data. Useful sources include:

Structured opportunities with standardized one- and two-step directions. Classroom observation logs across routines. Task analyses that mark each completed step and the prompt required.

Sample directions under controlled conditions first: give comparable one- and two-step directions, record which steps are completed in order, and note the highest prompt required. Then check the same skill in natural classroom routines. The contrast tells you whether the difficulty is direction length itself or whether noise, transitions, memory load, or unclear classroom cues are changing performance.

Write down the actual direction or a coded equivalent, number of steps, whether vocabulary is familiar, allowed repetition, wait time, and prompt level. Score whether each step was completed and whether order matters. This makes it possible to distinguish a direction-following change from a change in language or memory load.

Count the steps and control the language. A 'three-step direction' should not sometimes contain three familiar actions and other times include new vocabulary, hidden choices, or extra memory demands.

Example following directions goals

These direction-following goals illustrate measurement choices only. Set the actual step length, prompt allowance, response window, and mastery pattern from the student's baseline; a student who independently follows one-step directions but needs prompts for two-step directions needs a different target from a student who misses steps even with visual support. The final goal must be individualized from the student's own baseline and support needs.

Early elementary — Given a one-step classroom direction, the student will complete the direction within 30 seconds with no more than one gestural prompt in 4 of 5 opportunities across 3 sessions. (Condition: a one-step classroom direction | Behavior: complete the direction | Criterion: within 30 seconds, ≤1 gestural prompt, 4 of 5) How to measure: structured opportunity log.

Elementary — Given a two-step familiar direction, the student will complete both steps in order with no more than one verbal repetition in 80% of opportunities across 4 weeks. (Condition: a two-step familiar direction | Behavior: complete both steps in order | Criterion: ≤1 repetition in 80% across 4 weeks) How to measure: opportunity tally with prompt code.

Elementary — Given a three-step direction supported by a visual cue, the student will complete all three steps in sequence in 4 of 5 trials across 3 sessions. (Condition: a three-step direction with visual cue | Behavior: complete all steps in sequence | Criterion: 4 of 5 across 3 sessions) How to measure: task-analysis scoring.

Middle school — Given a multi-step classroom routine posted visually, the student will complete at least 4 of 5 routine steps independently in 80% of sampled opportunities. (Condition: a posted multi-step routine | Behavior: complete routine steps | Criterion: 4 of 5 independently in 80% of opportunities) How to measure: routine checklist.

Middle school — After receiving an oral direction containing two academic actions, the student will restate the actions and complete both with no more than one clarification request in 4 of 5 trials. (Condition: an oral two-action direction | Behavior: restate and complete both actions | Criterion: ≤1 clarification request in 4 of 5) How to measure: structured direction probes.

High school — Given a teacher or supervisor direction for a familiar school or work task, the student will complete all identified steps with no more than one prompt in 85% of observed opportunities across 4 weeks. (Condition: a familiar school or work task direction | Behavior: complete all identified steps | Criterion: ≤1 prompt in 85% across 4 weeks) How to measure: task-analysis checklist.

Keep direction-following separate from language complexity

A direction can become harder for reasons that have nothing to do with the number of steps. “Get your notebook, turn to page 42, and underline the evidence” includes vocabulary, sequencing, working-memory, and material-location demands. If baseline trials use familiar classroom phrases but progress probes use novel academic language, the team may think the student lost a skill when the language demand actually changed.

For reliable probes, decide whether directions may be repeated, whether gestures or visuals count as prompts, how long the student has to begin, and whether all steps must occur in order. When receptive-language needs are part of the profile, coordinate the goal with communication data instead of treating every missed direction as inattention or noncompliance. That distinction changes both instruction and how staff interpret errors.

Define repetition, clarification, and prompting as different events

A repeated direction is not automatically the same as a prompt. Repeating the exact words may change the opportunity because the student receives a second exposure; simplifying the language may change the linguistic demand; pointing to the first step adds a gestural prompt. Decide how each event will be coded before baseline collection. Otherwise one staff member may score the response as independent while another records the same response as prompted.

Also check whether the direction itself is accessible. Long sentences, unfamiliar vocabulary, rapid speech, background noise, or missing visual access can turn a “following directions” probe into a test of language processing or access. When those factors are part of the student’s documented support needs, keep the support stable and measure performance with the intended access condition. The goal should target the skill the team actually intends to teach, not success after supports are silently removed.

How to write the matching present level

The PLAAFP should show current performance by direction length and support level—for example, strong one-step performance but low independent completion of two-step directions—and explain how that pattern affects classroom routines or instruction.

Worked present-level example: During 12 structured opportunities, Kai completed one-step directions independently on 10/12 trials and two-step directions independently on 4/12; with one verbal repetition, two-step success rose to 9/12.

Keep probes with different language complexity or repetition rules identifiable. If the team moves from familiar routines to novel academic directions, note the new demand instead of interpreting every score change as growth or regression in the same task.

Progress monitoring

Do not wait for the progress report to discover that no one has been collecting comparable data. Sample several directions per week across the settings named in the goal. Keep direction length, wait time, and prompt code consistent so the trend reflects student performance rather than staff wording. A flat two-step score with strong one-step performance may point to language processing, working memory, unfamiliar vocabulary, or prompt dependence. Test those explanations instructionally before simply lowering the criterion.

Common mistakes

Most avoidable problems show up in one of these forms:

Changing the number of steps without recording it. Repeating the direction and still scoring the response as independent. Using directions that depend on unfamiliar vocabulary. Counting noncompliance without checking comprehension. Mixing classroom routines and novel directions in one denominator. Writing 'follow directions better' with no defined opportunity.

Test the scoring rule with a sample direction. Another educator should be able to tell which steps were completed, in what order, and which prompt level applies without asking the goal writer for an interpretation.

FAQ

How do I measure one-step versus multi-step directions?

Score the number of steps completed correctly and the level of prompting needed. For a two-step direction, define whether both steps must be completed in order to count as correct or whether each step earns separate credit. Keep direction length and language complexity reasonably comparable so the data reflect following directions rather than changing task difficulty.

Should repeated directions count as prompts?

Usually yes if repetition occurs after the original cue and provides additional support, but the team should define that rule explicitly. A whole-class direction can be the initial opportunity, while a repeated individual direction can count as a prompt. Consistent coding matters because prompt dependence may change even when percent correct appears stable.

How do I separate language comprehension from following-directions behavior?

Vary and document the linguistic load. A student may fail a three-step direction because of vocabulary, syntax, memory, attention, or noncompliance, and those are not interchangeable explanations. Use structured opportunities with familiar vocabulary, compare one- and multi-step performance, and review speech-language or other data when the pattern suggests a language barrier.

Can classroom routines be used as direction-following probes?

Yes, especially when the goal concerns functional participation. Use repeated routines with clear opportunities and record the same variables each time: number of steps, response, latency if relevant, and prompts. Avoid scoring vague teacher statements or directions given while materials are unavailable, because those situations make the denominator unreliable.

When is 80% an appropriate criterion for following directions?

There is no universal percentage. The criterion should grow logically from baseline, instructional expectations, safety needs, and the opportunity structure. Eighty percent across ten opportunities is different from eighty percent across two. State the number of opportunities or trials and the prompt condition so the percentage has a clear meaning.

Need goals customized to your student?

Paste your assessment data and generate an IDEA-compliant, individualized goal in seconds.

Try it free →