AAC in AACtion: Collaborative Strategies for Special Education Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologists

Abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) refers to a wide variety of communication devices, systems, tools, and strategies that support or replace spoken language. Augmentative and alternative communication users represent a range of ages, abilities, and communication needs. Support for AAC often begins in the public school setting. Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates public schools to provide adequate assistive technology for communication and training to support implementation, researchers estimate that fewer than 40% of students with communication impairments using AAC are proficient communicators. Barriers to implementation include a lack of training opportunities, limited preparation time, unfamiliarity with AAC systems, and difficulty finding evidence-based strategies for AAC. To address these, we present evidence-based strategies that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and special education teachers may use in collaboration to support students using AAC and practical tips for implementation. Strategies described include aided language modeling, core vocabulary, and communication partner support behaviors. Planning considerations for collaboration are discussed.

Keywords

collaboration speech or language impairment disability related service personnel target audience special educators assistive technology

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) refers to a wide variety of communication devices, systems, tools, and strategies that support or replace spoken language. In the United States, recent estimates indicate more than 2 million people rely on AAC to access their daily activities (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2023). This estimate includes public education, where nearly 19% of students with disabilities qualify under the eligibility of speech/language impairment (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). Augmentative and alternative communication falls under the broader umbrella of assistive technology and is an evidence-based practice (Steinbrenner et al., 2020) and an important component of service delivery for children and youth with communication challenges in our schools today (Crowe et al., 2022).

Augmentative and alternative communication can be aided or unaided. Unaided AAC modalities include unspoken methods (such as gestures and facial expressions), manual signs, and American Sign Language (ASL). These methods require users to have adequate motor control and communication partners who can accurately interpret what the individual is communicating. On the other hand, aided AAC modalities require some type of external support, such as a communication board or book with symbols, computers, handheld devices like a phone, or speech-generating devices (ASHA, 2023). Augmentative and alternative communication can be light tech, such as communication books, picture exchange systems, and vocabulary boards, or high tech, such as a speech-generating device on a dedicated machine, mobile applications for phones or tablets, or computer software programs. Aided, unaided, light-tech, and high-tech AAC options can be used alone or in combination to give a student multiple options for communicating within different contexts (Light & McNaughton, 2012). Choosing an AAC system for a student is a complex task that requires school teams to consider a student’s physical and cognitive needs, personal preferences, and academic profile (Dietz et al., 2012; Lund et al., 2017; Lynch et al., 2019).

IDEA mandates that public schools provide appropriate services and assistive technology to students with disabilities. Assistive technology is “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, §1401). Assistive technology includes technology used to enhance communication, such as AAC systems. These systems must be provided for students with disabilities based on academic needs (IDEA, 2004). The school team, including the general education teacher, special education teacher, speech-language pathologist (SLP), and other professionals working with a student, is tasked with completing a functional assessment to determine whether AAC is appropriate based on a student’s individualized needs to access the curriculum (Binger et al., 2012).

Augmentative and alternative communication is considered educationally necessary when a student requires it to access the curriculum and participate in public education (ASHA, 2023). In addition, this mandate includes providing appropriate training and technical support for school-based professionals to ensure that students have the support necessary to make adequate progress, develop language and communication skills, and engage in academic learning (Johnston et al., 2012). This may include training or technical assistance for a child with a disability to use the AAC device and training or technical assistance for educators providing services to students with disabilities (IDEA, 2004). Inadequate training and support, limited time for preparation, unfamiliarity with AAC systems, and challenges locating AAC strategies and resources are common problems reported by special education teachers working with AAC users (Andzik et al., 2019). These inadequacies negatively affect educators’ ability to provide effective AAC service delivery (Andzik et al., 2019; Baxter et al., 2012; Da Fonte et al., 2022). As a result, special education teachers estimate that less than 40% of their AAC users are proficient communicators (Andzik et al., 2018).

There are several factors that educators should consider when strategizing to support AAC users, who represent a range of ages, abilities, and communication needs. First, effective AAC intervention should address the imbalance between how language is modeled and how students are expected to communicate expressively (Light & Binger, 1998). Children who use AAC are often given language input auditorily but are expected to use a visual language system to communicate expressively. This mismatch between input teaching and output expectation is commonly referred to as “input-output asymmetry” and is illustrated in Figure 1 (O’Neill et al., 2018). If students are expected to communicate using AAC, classroom activities must include frequent modeling of AAC symbols consistent with a student’s selected system. Next, AAC intervention should focus on modeling a wide variety of vocabulary and grammatical structures that are useful, relevant, and motivating to students (Sennott et al., 2016). This intervention requires access to AAC systems that always contain a robust vocabulary and grammar system in the classroom, allowing for flexible use of language and customization based on the student’s interests and preferences (Franco et al., 2018). Finally, AAC intervention should include functional communication training for various purposes. Many teachers and SLPs focus primarily on requesting; however, students also need instruction for other communicative functions using AAC, such as rejecting, commenting, directing, and social language (Light & McNaughton, 2014; Logan et al., 2022; Tager-Flusberg et al., 2005).

Figure 1.

Input/Output Asymmetry.

Given the aforementioned considerations, teachers and SLPs may be unsure where to begin when designing curriculum and activities with AAC users in mind. To address this need, professionals should use evidence-based practices that support AAC. Evidence-based practice has been defined as “. . . the integration of best and current research evidence with clinical/educational expertise and relevant stakeholder perspectives, in order to facilitate decisions about assessment and intervention that are deemed effective and efficient for a given direct stakeholder” (Schlosser & Raghavendra, 2004, p. 3). Based on this definition, educators should consider three cornerstones of evidence-based practice when making decisions about how to support AAC in the classroom: research evidence, clinical/educational expertise, and relevant stakeholder perspectives. Identifying clinical/educational expertise and stakeholder perspectives will vary based on the needs and experiences of individual students and school teams and is beyond the scope of this article. The purpose of this article is to address the first cornerstone of evidence-based practice: the research evidence. There are several strategies that are used throughout the scientific research to support AAC users (see Table 1). These include aided language modeling, core vocabulary, and communication partner support behaviors. After describing each strategy, practical tips and examples of how these strategies may be used in collaborative planning efforts to assist AAC users are discussed.

Table 1.

Evidence-Based Strategies for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Implementation.

Strategy	Definition	References
Aided language input	An intervention in which a communication partner selects symbols on a child’s AAC system while communicating with the student. The partner may also provide a spoken model.	Binger et al. (2008), O’Neill et al. (2018), Sennott et al. (2016).
Core vocabulary	A strategy in which a communication partner focuses on modeling the most frequently occurring words in English (i.e., core vocabulary) throughout natural interactions.	Banajee et al. (2003), Beukelman & Mirenda (2013), Fallon et al. (2001)
Communication partner support behaviors	Behaviors that natural communication partners may use to promote communication with students. Although there are many supportive communication behaviors, this paper presents time delay, responsivity, and environmental adaptation.	Time delay: Binger et al. (2008); Light & Binger (1998) Responsivity: Dodd & Gorey (2014); Ogletree & Pierce (2010); Prizant et al. (2000) Environmental adaptation: Dodd & Gorey (2014); Gevarter & Zamora (2018); Kaiser et al. (2000)

Maira, a second-grade special education teacher working in an inclusive classroom, has several students with communication needs who require varying levels of support. One student, Timothy, is a bright learner with limited verbal language skills and requires support to communicate. Another, Anne, is on the autism spectrum and can communicate independently at times but uses AAC to expand her vocabulary, as well as when she is under stress and cannot access verbal language. Even though she has engaging activities that her students appear to enjoy, she’s having difficulty knowing if her students are understanding the content because they aren’t communicating with her clearly. She’s also starting to notice some challenging behaviors in class when students are frustrated that she doesn’t understand them. Maira isn’t sure what to do and how she can manage all these different forms of communication. She doesn’t have time to plan different activities for each student. She decides to consult with her school SLP, Rachel, to get ideas.

Aided Language Modeling

Aided language modeling is a well-established, best-practice strategy to improve language expression and comprehension for AAC users (Sennott et al., 2016). Augmentative and alternative communication interventions, including aided language modeling, are highly effective across various ages, disabilities, and language skills (O’Neill et al., 2018). In aided language modeling, communication partners point to or activate aided AAC symbols while speaking with AAC users (Binger & Light, 2007). Within an interaction, a communication partner may use the AAC symbols to model their own utterance or to model language that the AAC users may use to respond to a communicative overture. Depending on the student’s needs and language abilities with AAC, the communication partner can model the entire utterance (with grammatical markers) or only model keywords using core vocabulary (O’Neill et al., 2018). For example, when discussing colors of the rainbow in a science lesson, communication partners can model “The rainbow is red, blue, yellow, etc.,” or simply model using core vocabulary words, such as “I see red.” Aided language modeling may be used with any AAC system, from core vocabulary boards to speech-generating devices. Unlike a prompt, the AAC users are not expected to immediately imitate modeled AAC symbols to allow the child to observe and map the locations of icons on the system (Biggs et al., 2018). This concept of “modeling without expectation” is a key component to this strategy. Aided language modeling works well when used in a child’s naturalistic environment, making it an ideal strategy for educators to use within the context of curricular activities (Sennott et al., 2016).

In a systematic review of empirical studies on aided language modeling interventions, Biggs et al. (2018) found them to be effective in enhancing expressive communication, including improvements in social language, semantics, and grammar. They also found that children using this approach communicated more frequently, employing new vocabulary and more complex grammar structures. Moreover, these positive outcomes were consistent across various communicative functions such as asking questions, making comments, and engaging with peers. Furthermore, aided language modeling can be implemented by a wide range of communication partners, including teachers, paraprofessionals, and family members. Teaching these natural communication partners to utilize aided language modeling within the classroom environment has been found to have favorable effects on improving communication outcomes for AAC users (O’Neill et al., 2018).

The following specific tips will inform teachers and other education professionals seeking to enhance their instruction using aided language modeling:

Model without expectation. The purpose of aided language modeling is to provide input to support language mapping rather than prompt an expressive response. Therefore, it is important for educators to focus on modeling input without requiring a student to respond by repeating the model or interacting with an AAC system. Requiring certain responses from students can result in prompt dependence, in which a student will only use an AAC system to communicate when prompted by a partner (Clark & Green, 2004). A primary goal of AAC is to build communicative competence, which means that students should be able to create spontaneous, novel utterances. Modeling without expectation allows AAC users to learn what language they could use to communicate their needs, and where that language is located on their AAC systems.

Model one or two words per utterance when beginning. Many educators are unfamiliar with their students’ AAC systems, and learning the locations of useful icons, phrases, and grammatical markers can be overwhelming. When beginning with aided language modeling, it can feel less daunting to choose high-frequency, salient words that can be used across multiple contexts and are easy to locate on the system and modeling those in multiple activities. As the student’s language abilities and the educator’s comfort level with the AAC system improve, begin modeling more words and/or appropriate grammatical markers within a sentence.

Become familiar with the student’s AAC system. Take time with the student’s system and simply press buttons to locate needed vocabulary. Scan core vocabulary boards or books to identify vocabulary to model. Exploring symbol locations will allow for seamless modeling throughout the day. Familiarity with a student’s AAC system facilitates the use of the AAC system and can lead to more opportunities for aided language modeling throughout a variety of contexts (Donato et al., 2018).

Model AAC throughout the day in natural environments. Access to AAC facilitates student and staff use of AAC (Donato et al., 2018). Augmentative and alternative communication access involves having a student’s main system available, as well as a plan for backups in place if the main system is unavailable. Strategies that educators may use could include wearing manual boards on lanyards, posting manual boards or AAC symbol icons in multiple locations on the school campus, and/or ensuring that devices are charged and available and accessible every day. The school SLP may have resources available to create posters or classroom materials with AAC symbol icons.

Incorporate literacy. Shared book reading activities are an excellent starting point for modeling AAC and provide exposure to a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures. Texts may be adapted by adding picture symbols, or using concrete objects related to the story to aid in comprehension while modeling AAC (Browder et al., 2008). Activities targeting early literacy skills, such as letter-sound matching and sound/word segmentation, may be adapted to be used with concrete objects and/or the keyboard component of an AAC system (Machalicek et al., 2010).

Maira, Rachel, and the classroom paraprofessionals discuss aided language modeling, a technique where an adult models the words and grammar he/she is saying using the student’s AAC systems. Because her students use different systems, Maira works with Rachel to find posters with the home pages of her students’ devices and put them up by the whiteboard, so she can model words while she teaches whole-group lessons. They also find paper versions of her students’ devices, which they laminate and keep in the room for small-group/individual lessons, as well as if a student leaves their system at home. Finally, Rachel and Maira make lanyards for themselves and each of the staff that have picture symbols from the students’ communication devices for common words, such as “go,” “stop,” “help,” “more,” and “bathroom.” After this set up, Maira is ready. She chooses a few words that she can find easily on her students’ AAC systems—“go,” “help,” and “more.” During class, Rachel shows Maira how she can point to these words in conversations with her students. For example, during a group lesson, one student, Timothy, stands up and walks toward the water fountain with his water bottle. Rachel says, “It looks like you need to go get some water, Timothy. Let’s go together,” while pointing to the word “go” on her lanyard. After observing, Maira begins to model one word at a time, pointing to the word “go” on her students’ AAC systems when they go out to recess, to lunch, or home. As she becomes more comfortable throughout the school year, she begins to add more words to her model, as well as grammar. Rachel observes Maira speaking to a student who throws a box they can’t open. Maira says to the student, “Oh, it looks like you want some help with that. You could always tell me ‘I need help’” and models the phrase “I need help” on the students’ AAC. Although her students don’t always interact with their AAC systems, Maira knows that she is modeling ways that they can communicate and that it may take time for her students to use AAC consistently.

Core Vocabulary

Within the field of AAC, core vocabulary is typically defined as the words that are frequently occurring and commonly used by many individuals (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Fallon et al., 2001). Core vocabulary represents a relatively small set of frequently used words in conversation and written text. These words consistently make up approximately 80% of words collected in spoken and written language samples across many studies. The remaining 20% of words are referred to as fringe vocabulary. Core vocabulary consists of primarily pronouns, verbs, auxiliary verbs, prepositions, adjectives, and determiners (see Figure 2). Fringe vocabulary, on the other hand, primarily consists of nouns and is topic specific. For example, in a lesson about the scientific method, verbs such as “go,” “do,” “have,” “can”; pronouns such as “I” and “it”; and prepositions such as “up,” “in,” and “on” would be core vocabulary that may be used to describe scientific concepts. Nouns such as “hypothesis,” “observations,” and “conclusions” are fringe vocabulary (Banajee et al., 2003; Beukelman et al., 1989).

Figure 2.

Core and Fringe Vocabulary.

Unlike spoken language, AAC vocabularies are limited and often contain preselected vocabulary, rather than vocabulary chosen by the AAC user (Carlson, 1981; van Tilborg & Deckers, 2016). Vocabulary selection should be guided by the need to convey essential, functional messages, as well as the eventual development of robust language skills (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013). Core vocabulary offers a valuable starting point for educators because they are the most frequently occurring words in English and can be used in many different contexts. This flexibility allows for more opportunities to facilitate interaction for a variety of communicative functions. However, it should be noted that there continues to be a need to choose and model fringe vocabulary. Fringe vocabulary is less frequently occurring and topic specific; however, fringe vocabulary is often motivating for students and can be combined with core vocabulary to create functional, meaningful messages (Stuart et al., 1997).

Teachers and other education professionals looking to improve their instructional techniques through core vocabulary can benefit from the following specific suggestions:

Incorporate modeling of core words in classroom activities. When planning lessons, make a list of core words that describe the concepts being discussed. Plan to highlight those words in whole-group and small-group activities. Model core words using classroom visuals, core word posters or boards, or the student’s AAC system.

Create visual representations of core vocabulary words. This technique can include the creation of word walls with picture symbols, pre-made core vocabulary posters aligning with a student’s AAC system, or core vocabulary boards taped onto student desks (Witkowski & Baker, 2012).

Create a list of motivating and functional fringe words to model with core vocabulary. Teachers often know the fringe words that are both functional and motivating to students, reflecting classroom vocabulary and special interests. Words denoting colors, favorite foods, or TV characters may be motivating fringe words to incorporate into classroom activities, visual schedules, or reinforcement systems. Model these words paired with functional core vocabulary.

Use descriptive teaching methods. Descriptive teaching involves using open-ended questions when interacting with students and encouraging them to describe concepts using core vocabulary. This allows students to learn how to use language to explain what is being taught, improving concept-receptive understanding and expressive language (Witkowski & Baker, 2012). For example, in a lesson about the scientific method, a teacher can introduce the fringe word “observation.” Using descriptive teaching, she can then describe what an “observation” is using core words such as “see,” “go,” or question words and phrases, like “what do you see?” or “what is going on?”

Next, Maira and Rachel discuss the difference between “core” vocabulary and “fringe” vocabulary. Using research that Rachel found about the most common words used in English, Maira identifies five core vocabulary words that she and the staff use with the students every day: “go,” “more,” “help,” “out,” and “in.” For each student, she also identifies five fringe words that are important to them. For example, Timothy enjoys drawing characters from the show “Thomas the Train.” The team makes sure to find where the words “draw,” “Thomas,” and “train” are on his AAC device so they can model those for him too. When teaching, Maira makes sure to model the words she targeted on her core vocabulary posters on the wall next to her whiteboard and on the students’ AAC systems in small-group activities. As she feels like she has mastered modeling these words, she and her staff choose new core and fringe words to focus on to expand what they can model for their students.

Communication Partner Support Behaviors

Natural communication partners, such as teachers, paraprofessionals, and support staff, have many opportunities to interact with AAC users. However, working effectively with AAC users requires careful planning and support to promote the generalization of communication skills to multiple academic contexts (Stoner et al., 2010). Partners can use several evidence-based supportive behaviors to facilitate communication with AAC users. These include time delay, responsivity, and environmental adaptation.

Time Delay

Time delay occurs when a communication partner provides extended wait time after a conversational turn, allowing AAC users the time and opportunity to process language input, and allow time for a response (Light & Binger, 1998). Depending on the student’s cultural norms, time delay could also be paired with extended eye contact and an expectant facial expression as a cue that the AAC user is expected to respond to the partner’s communicative overture. To maintain a “flow” to conversation that is typical of spoken language, communication partners often do not provide ample response time for AAC users (Binger et al., 2008). Educators need to be cognizant of the need for AAC users to have ample time to process language and respond to communication bids using their systems.

Responsivity

Responsivity involves communication partners interpreting the meaning behind the behaviors of AAC users and responding in alignment with that interpreted meaning (Ogletree & Pierce, 2010). The idea of responding to early communicative bids of AAC users is based on approaches that consider language acquisition a transactional process (McClean & Snyder-McClean, 1978; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). For example, when infants move, make noise, or change facial expressions, caregivers react to these behaviors as signals of discomfort, pleasure, or need. By interpreting these early signals as communication, caregivers influence infants to vary their signals, and communicative intent becomes clearer (Bruner, 1975; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). When applied to AAC users, responsivity involves interpreting early communicative behaviors such as facial expressions, movements, and eye gaze as communicative bids and modeling language that AAC users may use to make their communication more salient using AAC. As language develops, partners may also consider expanding AAC users’ messages to model grammatically or semantically complete utterances (Dodd & Gorey, 2014). In this way, AAC users can develop language through motivating interactions and meaningful activities in the classroom (Prizant & Wetherby, 1998; Prizant et al., 2000).

Environmental Adaptation

Augmentative and alternative communication users require numerous opportunities for language modeling and practice with AAC. Educators can facilitate these multiple interactions by examining the educational environment and adapting it to increase opportunities for communication between AAC users and communication partners (Kaiser et al., 2000). Environmental adaptations may include incorporating motivating activities into the class schedule, such as through “baiting” the environment with materials that will elicit comment or communication or placing commonly used classroom materials in areas requiring students to communicate to access them. Other forms of environmental adaptation may include creating picture schedules and choice boards and adapting stories with picture supports from a student’s AAC system (Dodd & Gorey, 2014). Creating a language-rich environment encourages AAC users and educators to interact in a naturalistic setting, providing opportunities for AAC modeling and the development of communication skills (Gevarter & Zamora, 2018).

To promote the use of communication support partner behaviors, the following tips are recommended:

Wait 8–10 seconds after a communication bid before continuing the conversation. Allowing ample wait time allows AAC users to process aided language input and formulate a message if they would like to respond. Using this strategy (also called “time delay” in research studies) can help students with significant disabilities learn new symbols (Clark & Green, 2004).

Interpret behavior from AAC users as communication. Consider what the AAC user may be attempting to communicate, and model language on the AAC system to help meet that need. For example, if a student is looking at the door, the teacher may say, “It looks like you are thinking about going outside,” and on the device model, “go out.” This shows the child that the teacher is interpreting their behaviors as communication, as well as modeling what the child could say to meet his or her needs (Paul & Norbury, 2012).

Create a language-rich classroom environment. Use AAC symbols consistent with a student’s system in materials, books, posters, and visual schedules. For example, a teacher might choose to put icons corresponding to “They go up” at the bottom of a page of the popular children’s book “Chicka Chicka Boom Boom” to illustrate what is happening in the story. This also gives the child exposure to how their AAC symbols can be used in a real-life, motivating activity. This is only one example of how educators can use AAC systems to model aided language in everyday classroom activities. Consulting with the school SLP may reveal other opportunities for creating a language-rich environment supporting AAC as well (Dodd, 2011).

Maira and her classroom paraprofessionals work together to add core vocabulary icons from the students’ AAC systems at the bottom of each page of the picture books they are reading in class so they can model core using AAC. In the book “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” they tape the icons for “They eat breakfast” at the bottom of the first page. After they finish, they put the book on the table to put away later. Timothy comes over and looks toward it. One paraprofessional, Anne, says to him, “I see you looking at ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.’ Maybe you want to read it with me,” and models on his device, “I want book.” Anne looks at Timothy and counts silently to 8 to see what he’ll do. He looks briefly at her and then walks to another part of the room. “Bye, buddy!” she says. She was a supportive communication partner during that interaction—she gave Timothy plenty of time to respond if he wanted to, attributed meaning to his eye gaze, and provided him with something he could say using his AAC device.

Planning Considerations for SLPs and Special Educators

The strategies outlined in the previous part are well-established evidence-based techniques that SLPs and special educators can implement with all AAC users and all AAC systems. However, to maximize generalization across professionals and contexts, targeted planning and training is necessary. Although inconsistent in practice, educational team members across several research studies emphasize the importance of collaboration in promoting success for AAC users (Andzik et al., 2019; Kent-Walsh et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2001a, 2001b). When done effectively, collaboration with an emphasis on problem-solving and providing support across a variety of educational contexts can have positive effects on student socialization, the use of AAC in a variety of contexts, and peer acceptance of AAC (Stoner et al., 2010).

It may be overwhelming to attempt to implement these strategies throughout the entire day. Therefore, it would be beneficial to begin by planning 1–2 classroom activities incorporating these techniques and expand to other contexts as comfort with AAC and the strategies increases. For activity ideas or other lesson planning resources, professionals may utilize web-based resources for AAC implementation (see Table 2). A sample planning session (see Table 3) between the SLP and special education teacher should include the following discussion topics:

Identify the lesson components. What is the target of the lesson? What activities will be involved to model the target concepts?

What concepts should students learn from these activities? Work together to define the key concepts and identify core vocabulary that may be used to describe those concepts using AAC modeling.

Consider the AAC strategies that would enhance learning. When would it be appropriate to use these strategies during your planned activities? Ensure structured time for modeling AAC throughout the lesson. Explicitly defining when modeling will happen and what words will be modeled during the group lesson or in small-group activities will help staff know exactly what to do during the lesson.

Define expectations. What does success look like for each AAC user? For some students, interaction during the activity using either behavior or AAC may be their measure of success; for others, formulating utterances using multiple symbols may be more appropriate. Use each professional’s specialized knowledge of the student and their needs to define achievable goals.

Define communication partner roles. Determine who will be communication partners, who will be modeling, and how they will support each student. For example, in the context of a science lesson, the teacher’s role may be to teach the group lesson and model core vocabulary using a poster hung up on the whiteboard. In that same lesson, a paraprofessional’s role might be to move between students and model language on the students’ AAC systems or using their own manual vocabulary board.

Table 2.

List of Web-Based Resources for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Implementation.

Website	Description	Web address
Project Core	Project Core provides research and resources about implementing core vocabulary in the school setting.	https://project-core.com
AAC Language Lab	AAC Language Lab offers education and online resources for AAC, including lesson plans, manual vocabulary boards for various AAC systems, and activity ideas.	https://aaclanguagelab.com
Talking with Tech	Talking with Tech provides educational podcast episodes about various AAC topics.	https://talkingwithtech.org
PrAACtical AAC	PrAACtical AAC offers education regarding AAC implementation and strategies for professionals.	https://praacticalaac.org

Table 3.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Activity Planning Worksheet.

Activity	Targeted concepts and core vocabulary definitions	AAC strategies	Expectations—what does success look like?	Communication partner role
What activity are you planning?	What concepts do you want the student to learn?	What AAC strategies would support communication?	For each student, how do you know if they successfully used AAC in your lesson? Decide what data you will collect during the activity.	Who will be modeling? Who will be a communication partner? How will they support the student?

Table 4.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Activity Planning Example.

Activity	Targeted concepts + core vocabulary definitions	AAC strategies	Expectations—what does success look like?	Communication partner role
“What’s Matter?” science lesson and activity - Video about solids, liquids, and gases - Make “Goop” (corn starch + water) and make observations	- Solid—thing you can touch, hard, do not change, can see - Liquid—wet, not hard, can see - Gas—cannot see, light, moves fast - “Goop” observation vocabulary—hard, soft, move a lot, move a little, put, in	- Core vocabulary targets: - touch - soft - can - not - see - colors - move - put - in - Communicative function targets: describing and requesting	Timothy—interaction with AAC Liz – 2-symbol utterance 2× during lesson/activity	During lesson—teacher models using word wall with science terms and core vocabulary poster Small-group activity—paraprofessionals and teacher model on core boards and individual devices

Note. Adapted from Hill, 2009, and Soto et al., 2001b.

Data Collection and Monitoring Considerations

When planning AAC implementation in the classroom, school teams should also consider the data collection to ensure that the strategies and activities are beneficial for AAC users in the classroom (Hill, 2009). The data collected will be individualized based on student needs and their current skill level with AAC as determined by the school team’s functional assessment (Binger et al., 2012). Hill (2009) describes three transitional stages of language skills for school teams to consider when taking data for monitoring purposes with AAC users:

Stage 1: Intentional communication. In this stage, the focus for data collection is on increasing the frequency of intentional communication and the use of symbols to communicate. Teachers and SLPs should focus on modeling the functional use of AAC to make requests, reject (i.e., use words like “no” or “not), comment, and demonstrate to students how AAC can be used intentionally to meet their needs and communicate. Teams can take data on their input (i.e., their frequency of aided language input and/or use of core vocabulary and support behaviors), as well as the frequency and type (i.e., gestures, AAC, picture icons, spoken speech) of student communication and interaction.

Stage 2: Single words and spontaneous novel utterances. In this stage, data collection should focus on the use of single- and multi-word or symbol utterances. Teachers and SLPs should focus on modeling multi-word utterances, early grammatical structures (e.g., present progressive -ing), and different categories of vocabulary (i.e., pronouns, verbs, prepositions) to support semantic development and word combinations. Data collection may focus on the types of vocabulary and grammar modeled by the school team, types of vocabulary that students use, as well as use of grammar structures and number of words in student’s utterances.

Stage 3: Literacy. When students begin using language (including AAC symbols) to formulate simple to more complex sentences (i.e., sentences of about 4–6 words), staff can move toward supporting literacy skills by ensuring that students have access to the alphabet via the keyboard on an AAC system. Data collection may continue to focus on the skills listed in previous stages and may also begin to include data points related to literacy, such as identifying letters that correspond to spoken sounds, spelling errors, and formulation of more complex sentences to support writing.

There are many skills related to AAC that school teams may monitor in their data-collection efforts. The aforementioned list is only a starting point. It is crucial that school teams consider this in the planning stages of AAC implementation. The planning worksheet presented in Table 3 has a section for school teams to define what success is for each AAC user when planning classroom activities. This definition will vary between students. By defining this during the planning stages, teams have a strategy for progress monitoring for themselves and their students.

Maira and Rachel put all their skills together to plan a science lesson for the students. They use the AAC Activity Planning Worksheet (see Table 3) to plan one lesson to target the communication needs of all Maira’s students, including the AAC users. Together, they decide to use a science activity about matter. Maira maps out what she’s planning to do for the lesson—a brief description of the types of matter, a video, and an experiment making “Goop.” She also helps choose some fringe words that are important to the students because she knows them best. Rachel helps Maira come up with definitions of the words using core vocabulary and puts up core vocabulary posters and word walls to target the science vocabulary. Finally, together they decide what success with AAC looks like for each student for the lesson. They decide to use core—vocabulary and aided language modeling during the lesson. Altogether, the planning stage took about 20 minutes—now they are ready for the lesson! Collaboration made all the difference in empowering Maira to feel ready and supported to implement AAC. It will take time and repeated activities to be 100% comfortable with the strategies—but now Maira can feel confident that she is supporting all students, regardless of how they communicate.

Conclusion

Although historically considered a “last resort” intervention for students with communication needs, children across a broad range of disabilities may use AAC at some point to augment their communication skills (Romski & Sevcik, 2005). Adults with developmental disabilities recommend that educational professionals learn more about AAC to better support all students who may need extra support communicating (Donaldson et al., 2021). This is further supported by a federal mandate stating that assistive technology (and, subsequently, AAC) should be provided for students who need it to access the curriculum, as well as adequate training for staff supporting the AAC user as needed (IDEA, 2004).

Students with developmental disabilities using AAC require specialized support to become effective and efficient communicators. Speech-language pathologists and special educators each have unique knowledge about curriculum, communication development, and student needs and characteristics that can be leveraged for an effective collaborative partnership to support these students. The AAC strategies presented herein represent evidence-based techniques that SLPs and special education teachers can use with all AAC users and all AAC systems in their collaborative efforts to support communication development in the classroom. With adequate planning, these techniques are immediately actionable and can be used across educational contexts to facilitate communication opportunities for AAC users.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This vignette is a fictional retelling of a compilation of the author’s experiences in classroom-based instructional contexts, for the purpose of illustrating the application of the evidence-based practices described in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2023). Augmentative and alternative communication. https://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/aac/

Andzik

N. R.

Chung

Y. C.

Doneski-Nicol

Dollarhide

C. T.

(2019). AAC services in schools: A special educator’s perspective. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 65(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F20473869.2017.1368909

Andzik

N. R.

Schaefer

J. M.

Nichols

R. T.

Chung

Y. C.

(2018). National survey describing and quantifying students with communication needs. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2017.1339133

Banajee

Dicarlo

Buras Stricklin

(2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461031000112034

Baxter

Enderby

Evans

Judge

(2012). Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00090.x

Beukelman

D. R.

Jones

Rowan

(1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(4), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618912331275296

Beukelman

D. R.

Mirenda

(2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Paul H. Brookes.

Biggs

E. E.

Carter

E. W.

Gilson

C. B.

(2018). Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(5), 443–473. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-123.5.443

Binger

Ball

Dietz

Kent-Walsh

Lasker

Lund

McKelvey

Quach

(2012). Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.716079

10.

Binger

Berens

Kent-Walsh

Taylor

(2008). The effects of aided AAC interventions on AAC use, speech, and symbolic gestures. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1079124

11.

Binger

Light

(2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600807470

12.

Browder

D. M.

Mims

P. J.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Lee

(2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1–2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.1-2.3

13.

Bruner

J. S.

(1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000866

14.

Carlson

(1981). A format for selecting vocabulary for the nonspeaking child. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 12, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.1204.240

15.

Clark

K. M.

Green

(2004). Comparison of two procedures for teaching dictated-word/symbol relations to learners with autism. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 37(4), 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-503

16.

Crowe

Machalicek

Wei

Drew

Ganz

(2022). Augmentative and alternative communication for children with intellectual and developmental disability: A mega-review of the literature. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 34(1), 1–42. https://doi-org/10.1007/s10882-021-09790-0

17.

Da Fonte

A. M.

Boesch

M. C.

DeLuca

E. R.

Papp

S. K.

Mohler

A. E.

Holmes

E. E.

Clouse

K. A.

Young

R. D.

Urbano

. (2022). Current preparation status in AAC: Perspectives of special education teachers in the United States. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 38(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2022.2046851

18.

Dietz

Quach

Lund

S. K.

McKelvey

(2012). AAC assessment and clinical-decision making: The impact of experience. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.704521

19.

Dodd

J. L.

(2011). Creating early literacy opportunities for children with complex communication needs. In Shaughnessy

M. F.

Kleyn

(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood education (pp.43–53). Nova Science.

20.

Dodd

J. L.

Gorey

(2014). AAC intervention as an immersion model. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(2), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740113504242

21.

Donaldson

A. L.

endever

McCoy

(2021). “Everyone deserves AAC”: Preliminary study of the experiences of speaking autistic adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 6, 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-20-00220

22.

Donato

Spencer

Arthur-Kelly

(2018). A critical synthesis of barriers and facilitators to the use of AAC by children with autism spectrum disorder and their communication partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1493141

23.

Fallon

K. A.

Light

J. C.

Paige

T. K.

(2001). Enhancing vocabulary selection for preschoolers who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2001/010)

24.

Franco

Silva

Lima

Fidalgo

(2018). Towards a reference architecture for augmentative and alternative communication systems. Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro De Informática Na Educaçao-SBIE), 29, 1073. https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2018.1073

25.

Gevarter

Zamora

(2018). Naturalistic speech-generating device interventions for children with complex communication needs: A systematic review of single-subject studies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(3), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_ajslp-17-0128

26.

Hill

(2009). Data collection and monitoring AAC intervention in the schools. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(2), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac18.2.58

27.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1), 1412(a)(12)(B)(i)). https://sites.ed.Gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.105

28.

Johnston

S. S.

Reichle

Feeley

K. M.

Jones

E. A.

(2012). AAC strategies for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. Paul H. Brookes.

29.

Kaiser

A. P.

Hancock

T. B.

Nietfeld

J. P.

(2000). The effects of parent-implemented enhanced milieu teaching on the social communication of children who have autism. Early Education and Development, 11(4), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1104_4

30.

Kent-Walsh

Stark

Binger

(2008). Tales from school trenches: AAC service-delivery and professional expertise. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1079128

31.

Light

Binger

(1998). Building communicative competence with individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. Paul H. Brookes.

32.

Light

McNaughton

(2012). The changing face of augmentative and alternative communication: Past, present, and future challenges. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.737024

33.

Light

McNaughton

(2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080

34.

Logan

Iacono

Trembath

(2022). A systematic search and appraisal of intervention characteristics used to develop varied communication functions in children with autism who use aided AAC. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 90, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101896

35.

Lund

S. K.

Quach

Weissling

McKelvey

Dietz

(2017). Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_lshss-15-0086

36.

Lynch

Murray

Moulam

Meredith

Goldbart

Smith

Batorowicz

Randall

Judge

(2019). Decision-making in communication aid recommendations in the UK: Cultural and contextual influencers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(3), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1599066

37.

Machalicek

Sanford

Lang

Rispoli

Molfenter

Mbeseha

M. K.

(2010). Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use aided AAC devices: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-009-9175-3

38.

McClean

Snyder-McClean

(1978). A transactional approach to early language training. Merrill.

39.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities

40.

Ogletree

B. T.

Pierce

H. K.

(2010). AAC for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities: Ideas for nonsymbolic communicators. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-009-9177-1

41.

O’Neill

Light

Pope

(2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(7), 1743–1765. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-17-0132

42.

Paul

Norbury

(2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and communication. Elsevier Health Sciences.

43.

Prizant

B. M.

Wetherby

A. M.

(1998). Understanding the continuum of discrete-trial traditional behavioral to social-pragmatic developmental approaches in communication enhancement for young children with autism/PDD. Seminars in Speech and Language, 19(4), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1064053

44.

Prizant

B. M.

Wetherby

A. M.

Rydell

P. J.

(2000). Communication intervention issues for children with autism spectrum disorders. In Wetherby

A. M.

Prizant

B. M.

(Eds.), Autism Spectrum Disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 193–224). Paul H. Brooks.

45.

Romski

Sevcik

R. A.

(2005). Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths and realities. Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200507000-00002

46.

Schlosser

R. W.

Raghavendra

(2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610310001621083

47.

Sennott

S. C.

Light

J. C.

McNaughton

(2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638822

48.

Soto

Muller

Hunt

Goetz

(2001a). Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/aac.17.2.62.72

49.

Soto

Muller

Hunt

Goetz

(2001b). Professional skills for serving students who use AAC in general education classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/005)

50.

Steinbrenner

J. R.

Hume

Odom

S. L.

Morin

K. L.

Nowell

S. W.

Tomaszewski

Savage

M. N.

(2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team.

51.

Stoner

J. B.

Angell

M. E.

Bailey

R. L.

(2010). Implementing augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive educational settings: A case study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2010.481092

52.

Stuart

Beukelman

King

(1997). Vocabulary use during extended conversations by two cohorts of older adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331277828

53.

Tager-Flusberg

Paul

Lord

(2005). Language and communication in autism. In Volkmar

F. R.

Paul

Klin

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders: Diagnosis, development, neurobiology, and behavior (3rd ed., pp. 335–364). Wiley.

54.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Bornstein

M. H.

Baumwell

(2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72(3), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00313

55.

van Tilborg

Deckers

S. R. J. M

. (2016). Vocabulary selection in AAC: Applications of core vocabulary in atypical populations. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interests Group, 1(12), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG12.125

56.

Witkowski

Baker

(2012). Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for nonliterate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac21.3.74