AAC Device Support

Palm Beach County School District compilation of teachers modeling aided language stimulation on universal core communication boards — shows AAC modeling in action. Primarily elementary examples.

Authoritative overview of AAC systems, modeling/aided language input, and the team roles around an AAC user. Reinforces the para's implementation lane: model the system, presume competence, and follow the SLP's plan — the clinician selects, programs, and modifies the system.

Self-paced webshop on the core-vocabulary approach to AAC — the small set of high-frequency words that unlocks the most communication — and how to model and support it for a student who doesn't use speech. Directly on the para's job of implementing the SLP's AAC plan in the moment. Free account; open to out-of-state users; link-only.

The protocol builds the two in-role moves at the center of AAC device support — bridging a vocabulary gap in the moment with the closest words the device already has, and documenting the gap in writing so the SLP can add the missing vocabulary before the unit moves on — plus a third round that draws the FC boundary explicitly. In Round 1 (Gap-Bridge Map, ~12 min), participants receive a scenario in which a student's device lacks vocabulary for the current lesson unit, then complete a three-column map for each missing word: the target vocabulary item, the closest core word the device already has that spans the gap, and the exact modeling phrase they'd say aloud while pointing to the core symbol — treating imperfect access as better than sitting out, consistent with the principle in Supports for Students Who Use AAC (CPIR) that the para's role is to keep the student communicating with what's available, not wait until the device is perfect. Every modeling phrase uses observer language ('points to the 'hot' symbol while saying magma is very hot') and stops short of programming or editing the device, which is the SLP's clinical role per both the CPIR guide and Assistive Technology and AAC for Students with Autism (CDC). Round 2 (SLP Flag Note, ~12 min) shifts to the documentation side: participants draft the written note they'd bring to the SLP and teacher, naming the exact missing words, what core vocabulary bridged the gap, whether the student's device use changed during the session, and a specific request to add the vocabulary before the next unit. Partners review each other's notes for specificity (exact words named, not 'some vocabulary'), written form (not a verbal hallway mention), and scope language (no 'I added them to the device myself'). Round 3 (FC Boundary Map, ~11 min) addresses the hardest scenario in this skill: a coworker suggesting Facilitated Communication. Participants receive three AAC-support vignettes, one involving an FC suggestion, and write for each: the evidence-based alternative, the name of the SME to route the decision to (the SLP), and the one sentence that redirects clearly without escalating — because FC is not evidence-based and is actively opposed by ASHA, so the redirect is both a scope and a safety call. The load-bearing constraint across all three rounds — reflected in the skill description and the Assistive Technology Supports in the IEP guide (CPIR) — is that vocabulary selection, device programming, and communication-system decisions belong to the SLP and team; the para implements what's authorized, models with what's there, and flags what's missing in writing.

Free self-paced modules on augmentative and alternative communication — how AAC systems work, modeling language on a device, and supporting a student who communicates without speech — with a certificate on completion. Grounds the para's role of implementing the SLP's AAC plan in daily interaction. Free registration; open to anyone; link-only.

Self-paced webshop on selecting and implementing AAC across the communication continuum — how the pieces of a student's system fit together and where your in-the-moment modeling fits in. Free account; open to out-of-state users; link-only.