Using ACT in Schools to Turn Student Values into Goals & Action
In many school settings, goals tend to focus on deficits, compliance, or external benchmarks (for example, “complete 80% of assignments,” “reduce disruptions”). But what if the anchor for goal-setting began with what matters to the student—their values—and then built goals that move them toward living in alignment with those values, even in the presence of internal barriers (thoughts, emotions, urges)? That is the promise of applying Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACT) in educational contexts (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999).
This page provides a practical, school-ready path to go from values → concrete goals → committed actions using ACT principles, with examples, templates, and ways to evaluate outcomes. It is designed for K–12 educators, school psychologists, behavior analysts, and special education teams.
Theoretical & Empirical Foundations
ACT is a contextual behavioral approach aimed at cultivating psychological flexibility—the capacity to stay in contact with the present moment and choose or persist in value-aligned behaviors even in the presence of difficult internal experiences (Hayes et al., 1999). Six interrelated processes support this: acceptance, cognitive defusion, present-moment awareness, self-as-context, values, and committed action. Together they reduce the dominance of experiential avoidance or cognitive fusion so behavior can follow valued directions.
In schools, ACT can be embedded as a public health approach across tiers—universal, targeted, and intensive—with growing evidence for feasibility and positive outcomes, especially at targeted levels (Renshaw, Weeks, Roberson, & Vinal, 2022; Knight et al., 2022). Systematic reviews, including single-case designs, suggest ACT components can produce behavioral change in applied settings (Suarez et al., 2021). Brief, universal ACT lessons have shown modest improvements in psychological flexibility and behavioral/emotional outcomes among adolescents (Takahashi et al., 2020). Group studies indicate that integrating values and committed action can add motivational potency to goal-setting (Chase et al., 2013; Paliliunas et al., 2018). For a broader conceptual grounding on values work in ACT, see Berkout, Lopez, and Pearson (2021).
Process: From Value → Goal → Action
Use the scaffold below with students—including those with language or cognitive differences (simplify prompts, use icons, model)—to build values-aligned goals. Apply within general education, special education, or small groups. Adapt wording to your population.
| Step | Purpose | What You Do | Tips / Modifications |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Elicit student values | Anchor in what matters to them | Use a kid-friendly menu (learning, kindness, friendship, helping, growth, contribution, bravery, calm). Ask: “What kind of student do you want to be?” “What matters here?” | Use icons or pictures; allow crossing out to narrow to 2–3 values. |
| 2. Map a Matrix / Choice Point | Make internal/external visible | Draw a 2×2: bottom left = “yucky thoughts/feelings/urges,” bottom right = “away moves,” top right = “values / who I want to be,” top left = “tiny toward moves.” | Keep it visual and simple; laminate for the desk; adapt Russ Harris’s Choice Point 2.0 for students. |
| 3. Identify “toward moves” | Bridge values and actions | Ask: “What small thing this week would move you toward that value?” Generate 2–3 ideas, pick one to try now. | Start tiny to build success momentum. |
| 4. Operationalize as a goal | Make it measurable/observable | Use who, what, when, where, how much/criterion, and how measured. Example: “At independent work time, within 30 seconds of feeling stuck, raise my help card or ask a classmate.” | Avoid vague goals (“try harder”). Use clean, observable language. |
| 5. Embed support & shaping | Scaffold and plan to fade | Visual reminders, pre-correction, modeling, prompt fading; shape criteria over time. | Monitor prompt dependence; plan fading milestones. |
| 6. Commit to a routine | Make it visible and regular | Weekly plan; daily check card/tally; brief review schedule. | Use self-monitoring, teacher or peer check. |
| 7. Teach micro-routines | Respond to internal barriers | Practice a short sequence such as “Notice → Open → Choose → Do.” | Rehearse in low-stakes first; cue during real moments. |
| 8. Review, revise, generalize | Adjust and expand reach | Weekly check-in: what worked, what barriers showed up, tweak supports; probe new classes/contexts. | Use changing-criterion to step up expectations gradually. |
Template Tools (Copy/Paste for IEPs, MTSS, or Plans)
Values Interview (≈5 minutes)
- “At school, I care about being a student who __________ (helpful / curious / kind / reliable).”
- “If I acted on that value this week, I might …” (list 2–3 small actions)
- “What gets in the way (thoughts, worries, urges)?”
- “How can adults help (visual cue, prompt, model, check-in)?”
School ACT Matrix / Choice-Point Form (4 quadrants)
- Bottom left: “Yucky stuff (thoughts/emotions/urges)”
- Bottom right: “Away moves I often do”
- Top right: “Values / who I want to be”
- Top left: “Tiny toward moves / small actions I can try today”
Goal Builder
Given [class/setting], when [cue/situation], Student will [behavior aligned to value] to support [value/outcome], with [criterion], across [time/opportunities], as measured by [data method].
Daily Check Card
- Toward move for today: ________
- Times I did it: ☑ ☐ ☐ ☐ …
- Prompt used? Y / N
- Value match? Y / N
Weekly Review Rubric
- Barrier that showed up
- What micro-routine used
- What adjustment is needed
- Next target (increase, fade prompt, generalize)
Staff Fidelity Quick-Check (Yes/No)
- Did teacher prompt per plan?
- Did student get ≥ X opportunities to practice?
- Was reinforcement matched to value?
- Was data collected daily?
Sample Goals & Plans (By Grade & Domain)
| Grade / Domain | Value Domain | Toward Move | Goal Statement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early Elementary — Friendship/Kindness | “Be a friend” | Greet 1 peer during arrival | Given morning arrival, student will initiate a greeting to one peer aligned with friendship, on 4 of 5 days for 2 weeks (teacher tally + self check). |
| Upper Elementary — Learning/Perseverance | “Be a learner who tries” | Raise hand for help when stuck | During independent work, when student feels stuck, within 30 seconds student will raise a help card or ask for assistance, in 80% of opportunities across 3 sessions/day for 2 weeks (event count). |
| Middle School — Contribution/Responsibility | “Help my class” | Volunteer to hand out materials or lead cleanup | In science lab, student will take the shared role (materials distributor/cleanup lead) aligned with contribution in 4/5 labs across 3 weeks, with ≤1 prompt per lab (checklist + peer verification). |
| High School — Reliability/Future Success | “Be independent & responsible” | Start bellwork independently | At the start of each class, within the first minute, student will begin bellwork without teacher prompt, on 80% of class days over 4 weeks (timed logs). |
| Special Education — Communication/Regulation | “Finish work & stay calm” | Use break-request / resume | When internal upset cues emerge, student will use a “pause card” to request a brief break, then resume work when the timer ends (≤2 prompts) in 70% of trials across two settings for 3 weeks (event recording & latency). |
Start small (for example, greet one peer), then increase expectations over time (greet two, then three; fade prompts) using a changing-criterion design.
Using Single-Subject/Single-Case Designs to Evaluate
Single-subject (single-case) experimental designs (SCEDs) fit perfectly when you work with individual students or small groups. They enable each student to serve as their own control and support causal inference with replication and clear phase changes (Horner et al., 2005; Plavnick & Ferreri, 2013).
- Multiple baseline (across students, settings, behaviors): Stagger starts to show replication.
- Changing criterion: Step up the goal as performance stabilizes (for example, 1 greeting → 2 → 3).
- Withdrawal (ABAB)/reversal: When ethical, remove/restore an element (for example, value reminders) to test control.
- Alternating treatments: Compare prompts or ACT micro-routines (for example, matrix vs. choice point).
Ensure stable baselines, clear operational definitions, ≥5 data points per phase when feasible, minimal overlap, and replication for internal validity. Measure both the committed action (toward behavior) and generalization across settings. For methods guidance, see Horner et al. (2005) and Plavnick & Ferreri (2013).
Example SCED Plan (Single Student)
- Baseline (A): 7–10 days; record toward moves per opportunity (for example, help-requests).
- Intervention (B): Introduce values-goal package (matrix + prompt + reinforcement). Continue daily data.
- Shaping within B: After stability, raise the criterion (for example, from 5 help-requests/day to 7).
- Replication: Apply to another student or setting (multiple baseline).
- Optional ABAB: Brief withdrawal/return to test reversibility when appropriate.
Implementation Tips & Troubleshooting
- Use visuals & scaffolds. Icons, colored charts, or “value-icon tokens” anchor abstractions.
- Begin small. Tiny toward moves (30 seconds or one unit) reduce threat and build momentum.
- Pre-correct & prompt early, then fade. Cue before transitions; plan fading steps.
- Embed value-matched reinforcement. Leadership roles, peer praise, or reliability-linked privileges.
- Drill micro-routines. Overlearn “Notice → Open → Choose → Do.”
- Normalize setbacks. Values work is about returning to what matters after lapses.
- Probe generalization. Try toward moves in another class or context early.
- Collect and graph daily data. Keep visuals simple so students and staff can see trends.
- Iterate. If progress stalls, revisit values alignment or adjust supports/criteria.
- Train staff in ACT language. Phrases like “Which value are you working toward?” keep the scaffold alive.
Limitations & Considerations
- Many school ACT studies emphasize psychological or well-being outcomes more than overt academic/behavior goals; translation into behaviorally specific, values-anchored goals is still emerging (Knight et al., 2022).
- Universal, low-dose ACT shows modest effects; more rigorous trials are needed (Takahashi et al., 2020).
- Implementation fidelity matters. Without consistent cueing, data, and supports, values-linked goals risk becoming tokenistic.
- Not every student connects with “values” language; scaffold and co-create using simple visuals and examples.
- For SCEDs, ensure stable baselines and replication to support causal claims; weak designs reduce internal validity (Horner et al., 2005).
Downloadable Templates
- Values Interview (printable)
- ACT Matrix / Choice-Point (printable)
- Goal Builder (printable)
- Daily Check Card (printable)
- Weekly Review (printable)
- Staff Fidelity Quick-Check (printable)
We can export these to PDF and style with your branding on request.
Summary & Next Steps
Anchoring goals in what matters to students—and then scaffolding toward moves—provides a richer motivational context that supports meaningful engagement. Embedding ACT processes (acceptance, defusion, micro-routines) helps students persist despite internal barriers. Single-subject methods allow practical evaluation within classrooms and caseloads.
Want this content as downloadable templates (PDF) and a one-page infographic, plus internal links to your ACT hub? Join the interest list below; we’re packaging these assets for schools and districts.
References (APA)
- Berkout, O. V., Lopez, N. V., & Pearson, M. R. (2021). Working with values: An overview of approaches and constructs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 615738. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615738
- Chase, J. A., Houmanfar, R., Hayes, S. C., Ward, T. A., Vilardaga, J. P., & Follette, V. (2013). Values are not just goals: Online ACT-based values training adds to goal setting in improving undergraduate college student performance. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2(3-4), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.08.002
- Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.
- Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
- Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, D. L. (2019). Building school connectedness through mindfulness and gratitude: The impact of Kind Attention, a multiple component intervention. Contemporary School Psychology, 23(3), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0177-1
- Paliliunas, D., Belisle, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2018). A randomized trial of a brief acceptance and commitment therapy intervention for body dissatisfaction and weight self-stigma in a female college sample. Journal of American College Health, 66(7), 621-629. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431892
- Plavnick, J. B., & Ferreri, S. J. (2013). Single-case experimental designs in educational research: A methodology for causal analyses in teaching and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9230-6
- Renshaw, T. L., Weeks, S. N., Roberson, A. J., & Vinal, S. (2022). ACT in schools: A public health approach. In S. C. Hayes & S. G. Hofmann (Eds.), Process-based CBT: The science and core clinical competencies of cognitive behavioral therapy (pp. 441-457). Context Press.
- Suarez, V. D., Ruiz, F. J., Flórez, C. L., & Odriozola-González, P. (2021). Systematic review of acceptance and commitment training single-case experimental designs. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 20, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.02.005
- Takahashi, F., Iwakabe, S., & Ohtaki, Y. (2020). Brief acceptance and commitment therapy for adolescent depression: School-based single-case experimental design. Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation, 2(2), 114-131.