Social Communication and Pragmatics IEP Goals

Pragmatic language — the ability to use communication appropriately in social contexts — underpins nearly every aspect of school success. Students who struggle with social communication may have difficulty making friends, participating in group work, navigating conflict, or understanding the unwritten rules of classroom interaction. For school-based SLPs, writing measurable pragmatics goals requires careful thought about context, frequency, and what "success" looks like in real-world settings.

Social communication disorder (SCD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are the most common diagnostic categories associated with pragmatic language deficits, but these goals are also appropriate for students with traumatic brain injury, language disorders, and attention deficits that affect social interaction.

Turn-Taking Goals

Turn-taking is a foundational conversational skill. It encompasses both waiting for a partner to finish speaking and knowing when it is appropriate to take a turn. Deficits may present as frequent interrupting, long silences, or difficulty reading cues that signal a turn change.

Given a structured two-person conversation activity, [student] will wait for a conversational partner to complete their turn before speaking in 4 of 5 opportunities as measured by clinician observation data in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.
Given a small-group discussion (3–4 peers), [student] will take turns without interrupting, using appropriate eye gaze and pause time as transition cues, in 80% of observed opportunities as measured by clinician and teacher observation in 4 of 5 sessions.
Given a structured board game or group activity, [student] will take appropriate turns and acknowledge a partner's contribution before adding their own comment in 3 of 4 opportunities as measured by clinician observation in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.

Topic Initiation, Maintenance, and Closure Goals

Balanced topic management is one of the most functionally important pragmatic skills for school-age students. Deficits in this area can make a student appear rude, inflexible, or "odd" to peers even when their vocabulary and grammar are intact.

Given a structured social scenario, [student] will initiate a relevant, context-appropriate conversation topic with a peer or adult in 3 of 4 opportunities as measured by role-play data and clinician observation in 4 of 5 sessions.
Given a structured conversation, [student] will maintain a single topic for at least 4 consecutive exchanges before introducing a new topic, in 75% of opportunities as measured by clinician observation in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.
Given verbal feedback from the clinician, [student] will recognize and respond to verbal and nonverbal signals indicating topic closure (e.g., partner looking away, shifting posture, saying "okay well") in 80% of role-play opportunities in 4 of 5 sessions.
Given a conversation in progress, [student] will use topic transitions ("that reminds me of...," "by the way...") appropriately when introducing a new topic in 75% of opportunities as measured by clinician data in 3 of 4 sessions.

Perspective-Taking Goals

Perspective-taking (or theory of mind) underlies much of social communication. Students must understand that others have thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and intentions that differ from their own. These goals are particularly relevant for students with ASD.

Given a social scenario presented via video, picture, or narrative, [student] will accurately identify the feelings and perspective of a character with 80% accuracy in structured tasks as measured by clinician data in 4 of 5 consecutive sessions.
Given a scenario in which two people have different information, [student] will correctly predict what each person knows and how they would act with 75% accuracy in structured theory-of-mind tasks in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.
Given a role-play situation, [student] will adjust their communication style (vocabulary, formality, topic) based on the listener's age, role, and knowledge in 3 of 4 opportunities as measured by clinician observation in 4 of 5 sessions.

Reading Social Cues Goals

Students who miss nonverbal cues — facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, proxemics — frequently misinterpret social situations. Goals in this area typically involve structured identification tasks before moving to naturalistic application.

Given photographs or video clips depicting facial expressions, [student] will correctly identify basic emotions (happy, sad, angry, scared, surprised, disgusted) with 90% accuracy as measured by structured identification tasks in 4 of 5 consecutive sessions.
Given a social scenario video clip, [student] will accurately interpret the nonverbal message (boredom, annoyance, excitement, discomfort) conveyed by the speaker with 75% accuracy in structured viewing tasks in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.
Given a structured partner activity, [student] will monitor a listener's nonverbal cues (eye gaze, posture, facial expression) and adjust their speaking behavior accordingly in 3 of 4 opportunities as measured by clinician observation in 4 of 5 sessions.

Conversation Repair Goals

Communication breakdowns happen in every conversation. The ability to recognize that a breakdown has occurred and repair it — by repeating, rephrasing, or asking for clarification — is a critical skill that many students with social communication difficulties lack.

Given a structured conversation in which the clinician signals a communication breakdown (e.g., "I don't understand" or "what?"), [student] will attempt an appropriate repair strategy (repeat, rephrase, add information) in 4 of 5 opportunities as measured by clinician data in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.
Given a conversation with a peer or adult, [student] will recognize when their message has not been understood and spontaneously attempt repair without clinician prompting in 3 of 4 opportunities as measured by clinician and teacher observation in 4 of 5 sessions.

Eye Contact and Personal Space Goals

Gaze and proxemics are culturally and individually variable, and goals in these areas should be calibrated carefully. For many students with ASD, requiring direct eye contact can be uncomfortable and counterproductive. Consider goals around "looking toward the speaker's face" rather than "making eye contact" to honor neurodiversity while still addressing functional communication needs.

Given a structured face-to-face conversation, [student] will orient their body and gaze toward the speaker for at least 50% of the interaction in 4 of 5 sessions as measured by clinician observation data.
Given a social scenario role-play, [student] will maintain an appropriate physical distance from a conversation partner (approximately arm's length) in 4 of 5 opportunities as measured by clinician observation in 3 of 4 consecutive sessions.

Measuring Pragmatics Goals in School Settings

Pragmatics goals are among the hardest to measure reliably because behavior varies across contexts. A student may perform beautifully in the structured therapy room but fall apart in the cafeteria. Best practice is to collect data in at least two settings — typically therapy and one naturalistic setting such as the classroom or lunchroom — using a combination of clinician observation, teacher report, and, where age-appropriate, student self-report.

Social communication goals also benefit from consultation with the student's teacher, paraprofessional, and parents, who observe the student in the contexts where skills need to generalize. Collaborative goal-setting that reflects the student's actual daily communication challenges is far more meaningful than goals drafted in isolation.