Augmentative and Alternative Communication, September 2005 VOL. 21 (3), pp.

195–204

Communication Partner Instruction in AAC: Present

Practices and Future Directions
JENNIFER KENT-WALSHa* and DAVID MCNAUGHTONb

a
University of Central Florida; bThe Pennsylvania State University

The success of communicative interaction is dependent on the communication skills of each

individual participating in the exchange. Accordingly, in the case of an interaction involving
an individual using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), the success of the
interaction depends not only on the skills of this individual, but also on those of the
communication partner. Current literature indicates that communication partner instruction
is a critical intervention component. Furthermore, there is evidence that, with instruction,
communication partners can learn to use facilitative interaction skills and strategies to better
support the communication of individuals using AAC. To date, however, little attention has
been paid to the most effective and efficient instructional methods for communication partner
intervention programs. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an eight-step strategic model for
use in communication partner instruction programs, and identify future research directions
related to this model.

Keywords: Augmentative and Alternative Communication; Communication Partners;

Facilitators; Instruction; Training

INTRODUCTION heavily on the interaction skills of the commu-

Just as a dance couldn’t possibly be a dance
unless people moved to it, so language
doesn’t become communication until people
grow to understand and express it back. It
has to be a two-way exchange. This is why
‘‘communicating’’ is an action word (Stae-
hely, 2000, p.1).
Communication is a dynamic and transactional
process, in which communication partners conti-
nually influence each other throughout the course
of their interactions (Blackstone, 1991, 1999;
Cumley & Beukelman, 1992; Light, Roberts,
DiMarco, & Greiner, 1998; McNaughton &
Light, 1989). Thus, communicative interactions
are dependent on the communication skills of
each individual participating in the interaction. In
the case of an interaction involving an individual
who has complex communication needs and uses
augmentative and alternative communication
(AAC), the success of the interaction will depend
nication partner.
Individuals who use AAC interact with a wide
range of communication partners, who play a
variety of roles in their lives. Communication
partners, as referenced in this paper, include
individuals who (a) primarily have relationships
of a social nature with individuals who use AAC
(e.g., parents, siblings, peers, friends, and collea-
gues); and (b) primarily have relationships of an
educational or care nature with individuals who
use AAC (e.g., teachers, health care professionals,
personal care attendants, residential facility staff
members); that is, facilitators as defined by
Cumley and Beukelman (1992, p. 111). Regard-
less of the nature of the relationship, commu-
nication partners must be able to send and receive
messages (i.e., interact) successfully with indivi-
duals who use AAC in order to experience
effective communicative interactions. Some of
these individuals may be skilled communicators
who are able to interact with individuals who use
AAC in supportive and successful manners with-
out a great deal of explicit instruction (Cumley &

*Corresponding author. Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 162215, Orlando, FL
32816-2215, USA. Tel.: 407-823-4800. Fax: 407-823-4816. E-mail: jkent@mail.ucf.edu

ISSN 0743-4618 print/ISSN 1477-3848 online # 2005 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication
DOI: 10.1080/07434610400006646
196 JENNIFER KENT-WALSH AND DAVID MCNAUGHTON
Beukelman, 1992; Light & Binger, 1998). Obser-
vations of communication dyads, however, have
provided evidence that many communication
partners use communication behaviors that do
not effectively support positive communicative
interactions (e.g., Light, Collier, & Parnes,
1985a).
Communication partners have been noted to
(a) dominate communicative interactions; (b) ask
predominantly yes/no questions; (c) take the
majority of conversational turns; (d) provide few
opportunities for individuals using AAC to
initiate conversations or to respond during
conversations; (e) frequently interrupt the utter-
ances of individuals using AAC; and (f) focus on
the communication technology or technique
instead of the individual using AAC or his or
her message (Blackstone, 1999; Light, Collier, &
Parnes, 1985a). In such interactions, individuals
using AAC have been noted to (a) play passive
roles (e.g., initiate few interactions, respond only
in obligatory contexts); (b) produce a limited
range of communicative functions; and (c) use
restricted linguistic forms (Blackstone, 1999;
Light, 1988; Light et al., 1985a; Light, Collier,
& Parnes, 1985b).
Past research provides clear evidence that many
communication partners need to learn how to
successfully interact with individuals who use
AAC (Light, 1997; Sigafoos, 1999). Accordingly,
a need has been identified in the literature to
develop and examine the efficacy of communica-
tion partner intervention programs that are
sensitive to communication partners’ needs
(Cumley & Beukelman, 1992). Some clinicians
have begun to provide communication partner
instruction in an effort to support the successful
communicative participation of individuals who
use AAC (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Glennen
& DeCoste, 1997; Light & Binger, 1998).
Over the past 15 years, there has been published
documentation of the content (i.e., the targeted
communication skills) of AAC instructional
programs designed for communication partners
and investigations into the efficacy of these
programs (Carter & Maxwell, 1998). The devel-
opment of this line of research, however, has been
sporadic and the areas of instructional focus for
these programs have varied widely. Some authors
have included instruction that has targeted only
communication partner interaction skills (e.g.,
Carter & Maxwell, 1998; Light, Dattilo, English,
Gutierrez, and Hartz, 1992). Many other authors
have also included instruction for communication
partners about (a) how to operate specific AAC
systems (e.g., Bruno & Dribbon, 1998; Culp &
Carlisle, 1988); and (b) position AAC systems in
the physical environment or conduct activities
involving communication in natural environ-
ments (e.g., Basil & Soro-Camats, 1996; Bornman
& Alant, 1999; Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, &
Goetz, 1996).
Despite these differences in instructional
program content, the communication partner
intervention literature has been relatively consis-
tent in identifying effective interaction skill
targets. In the literature to date, for example,
various combinations of the following four
interaction skills have been repeatedly identified
as intervention targets for the communication
partners of individuals with developmental
disabilities: (a) use of extended conversational
pause time or expectant delay (i.e., increased
conversational pause time + communication
partner initiation of eye contact with the
individual using AAC); (b) being responsive to
communicative attempts; (c) use of open-ended
questions; and (d) modeling of AAC system use
(Kent-Walsh & Light, 2003). Although these
intervention targets will not be appropriate for
all communication partners who interact with
individuals who use AAC, we present them here
as examples of the types of interaction skills that
can be targeted. It is noteworthy that, while
intervention targets are most often targeted
individually with instructional programs
described in the literature to date, there are few
specific guidelines for how these skills should be
implemented during interactions with individuals
who use AAC.
Investigations of the previously described
instructional activities have provided evidence of
positive changes both in the interaction skills of
communication partners, and in the social-
pragmatic skills of individuals who use AAC.
Following instruction, communication partners
have been noted to be less dominating in their
interactions with individuals who use AAC and to
provide increased opportunities for these indivi-
duals to communicate (e.g., Iacono, Chan, &
Waring, 1998; Light, et al., 1992). In addition,
increases in conversational participation and
turn-taking skills (frequency of initiations,
responses, and overall conversational reciprocity)
and in the range of communicative functions
expressed by individuals who use AAC have also
been observed (Basil & Soro-Camats, 1996; Heim
& Baker-Mills, 1996; Light et al., 1985b; Light, et
al., 1992).
Although these results have been promising,
the positive results reported in the published
research may not reflect the typical daily
experience of most individuals who use AAC.
Instead, many individuals who use AAC report
that even communication partners who receive
training and are charged with supporting the
 COMMUNICATION PARTNER INSTRUCTION
development of new skills often fail to use
effective facilitator strategies (Estrella, 2000;
Price, 2000). Communication partners also have
reported that traditional in-service and other
training activities fail to provide the expertise
needed to support the development and long-
term use of targeted communication skills
(Todis, 1996). The lack of generalization of
targeted communication skills that has been
reported (e.g., Hunt, Alwell, and Goetz, 1991)
provides further evidence that there is a need to
identify evidence-based and robust communica-
tion partner instructional procedures.
An additional problem has been the lack of
attention paid to the instructional methods or
variables that, in other fields, have been
demonstrated to have important impacts on
instructional success (Beukelman, 1991). Absent
from the literature, as well, is a model for the
development of communication partner instruc-
tion programs. In light of these considerations,
our aims in this paper are to (a) propose a model
for communication partner instruction that can
be applied when targeting all types of commu-
nication partner interaction skills: and (b)
suggest future directions for research designed
to improve communication partner interaction
skills and enhance outcomes for individuals who
use AAC.
AN INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR
COMMUNICATION PARTNER
INSTRUCTION
Communication has been defined as ‘‘. . . an
inherently strategic, goal-oriented enterprise in
which communicators often plan and enact
behaviors designed to influence others’’
(Burgoon, LePoire, & Rosenthal, 1995, p. 287).
The strategic nature of communication becomes
particularly apparent when considering the steps
involved in instructing communication partners
of individuals who use AAC in the acquisition
and application of a series of new communication
skills. In the context of communication partner
instruction in AAC, learners are asked (a) to
selectively and sequentially apply new commu-
nication skills in order to address the challenges
of communicating effectively with individuals
who use AAC, and (b) to support the commu-
nication of these individuals in a wide variety of
contexts.
Strategy instruction is a method for teaching
individuals to apply a series of multi-step
procedures to address a specified challenge. It
has been closely associated with long-term
generalized use of new skills (Kameenui &
197
Simmons, 1990). In other fields (e.g., education),
strategy instruction has been effectively used in
situations requiring similarly complex cognitive
operations, such as solving mathematical
problems (e.g., Maccini & Hughes, 2000) and
reading comprehension (Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin,
2000).
Despite the apparent relevance of strategy
instruction to training communication partners
in AAC, there have been no known attempts in
the literature to systematically evaluate an
instructional intervention for communication
partners that incorporates all of the steps
typically identified as important in strategy
instruction. Although many of the described
communication partner training interventions
contain at least some of the recommended
strategy instruction steps (e.g., providing practice
implementing the targeted interaction strategy in
a controlled environment and in the natural
environment, describing the targeted interaction
strategy to communication partners and illustrat-
ing the benefits of implementing the strategy),
none of the studies reviewed contained all of the
instructional steps or strictly followed the
sequence typically recommended in the literature
(e.g., Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark,
1991) for strategy instruction (Kent-Walsh &
Light, 2003).
In light of this gap in the literature, we propose
a model for communication partner instruction
that is based on the strategy instruction model of
Ellis et al. (1991). This particular model was
chosen because it provides evidence-based
instructional guidelines to assist learners in
acquiring targeted strategies, implementing these
strategies across a variety of activities, and
maintaining their long-term use (Ellis et al.,
1991). We suggest that it will be useful both for
the evaluation of previous research in commu-
nication partner instruction, as well as for use as a
powerful tool in the development and evaluation
of future interventions.
The procedures relating to each instructional
stage in the model are described in upcoming
sections. Each individual stage is illustrated with
an example from current literature in AAC
communication partner instruction for indivi-
duals with developmental disabilities that
included the implementation of one or more
(but not all) of the recommended strategy
instruction stages. Table 1 provides an overview
of the eight suggested stages of instruction
according to Ellis et al.’s (1991) model, as adapted
for use in communication partner instruction.
It should be noted that the focus of the model
presented here is on the procedures for instructing
communication partners to implement specific
198 JENNIFER KENT-WALSH AND DAVID MCNAUGHTON

TABLE 1 Overview of the Eight Suggested Stages of Communication Partner Instruction

Stage Description

1 Pretest and commitment to instructional
program
2 Strategy description
3 Strategy demonstration
4 Verbal practice of strategy steps
5 Controlled practice and feedback
6 Advanced practice and feedback
7 Posttest and commitment to long-term
strategy use
8 Generalization of targeted strategy use
Instructors take pretest measurements of communication partners’ spontaneous use of
the targeted strategy and the communicative participation of the individuals who use
AAC in the natural environment. Instructors introduce the targeted strategy and the
training protocol to communication partners.
Instructors introduce the targeted strategy and the training protocol to communication
partners. Instructors and communication partners discuss communication partners’
pre-test strengths and weaknesses in implementing the targeted strategy. Communica-
tion partners commit to participating in the instructional program in order to acquire
the targeted strategy.
Instructors describe the targeted strategy and its component skills, as well as the
method for remembering the steps involved in implementing the strategy.
Instructors discuss the impact of implementing the targeted strategy with commu-
nication partners and with individuals who use AAC and/or their parents or caregivers.
Instructors model use of the targeted strategy (and its component skills) and give
metacognitive explanations of all steps performed.
Communication partners practice naming and describing all steps required to
implement the targeted strategy.
Communication partners practice implementing the targeted strategy in controlled
environments with gradual fading of instructor prompting and feedback.
Communication partners practice implementing the targeted strategy in multiple
situations within the natural environment, with gradual fading of instructor prompting
and feedback.
Instructors document and review communication partners’ mastery of the targeted
strategy and check performance against the baseline of communication partners’
strategy implementation and the communicative participation of the individuals who
use AAC.
Instructors elicit feedback on the impact of the communication partners’ implementa-
tion of the targeted strategy from the individuals who use AAC and/or their parents or
caregivers. Instructors assist communication partners in generating action plans for
maintenance and generalization of the targeted strategy.
Communication partners practice implementing the targeted strategy across a wide
range of settings and plan for long-term implementation of the strategy.

interaction strategies; it is assumed that parallel

instruction would also be occurring with indivi-
duals who use AAC to maximize their use of
effective interaction strategies. It should also be
noted that the instructional model could be
implemented when targeting any interaction
strategy for use by communication partners of
individuals who use AAC; that is, beyond the
implementation of the interaction skills presented
here for illustrative purposes (i.e., use of
expectant delay, responsivity to communicative
attempts, use of open-ended questions, and
modeling of AAC system use). Targeted strategies
will undoubtedly vary according to the needs of
individuals who use AAC and the skills of their
communication partners. Therefore, measure-
ment procedures to track changes in (a) how
communication partners implement targeted
strategies and (b) the communicative participa-
tion of individuals who use AAC should be
developed to correspond with both the targeted
communication partner strategies and the
targeted interaction skills for individuals who
use AAC1.
Stage 1: Pretest and Commitment to Instructional
Program
Stage 1 of the instructional model proposed in
this paper is designed to ensure that communica-
tion partners are motivated and committed to
learning a new strategy for interacting with
individuals who use AAC, and that baseline
performance measurements are taken. During
this stage of intervention, baseline measurements
of communication partners’ spontaneous use of
targeted strategies in natural environments are
collected; and communication partners are intro-
duced to targeted strategies and their component
skills, as well as the overall instructional program.
The results of baseline measurements, as well as
the effects of communication partners’ perfor-
mances on the communicative participation of
individuals who use AAC, are discussed with
communication partners, who are then asked to
make some form of commitment to participating
in the instructional program and to acquiring the
targeted skills. Oral or written assurances of
commitments are often used during this stage.
 COMMUNICATION PARTNER INSTRUCTION
McNaughton and Light (1989) illustrated the
implementation of part of Stage 1 in their
description of a training program implemented
with group home staff who supported a young
woman with an intellectual disability who used
AAC. During an initial meeting, the instructor
introduced the communication partners to the
team-oriented approach to AAC assessment that
would be used. The instructor then videotaped
pre-intervention interactions between the young
woman who used AAC and the communication
partners. In addition, videotapes were made of
the interactions between the young woman and
the investigators, who made use of targeted
strategies to promote interaction (e.g., a prompt-
ing hierarchy involving the use of conversational
pause time, open-ended questions, physical
prompts, and modeled utterances). At a subse-
quent in-service training session, the instructor
reviewed and discussed these videotaped interac-
tions with the communication partners. They
compared the participation of the individual who
used AAC during the pre-intervention interac-
tions with the communication partners and
during interactions with the investigators, who
implemented the targeted strategies. The group
home staff members acknowledged that the
individual who used AAC participated at a higher
rate when provided with the appropriate support
and that this was a desired goal. Based on the
increased participation level of the individual who
used AAC that was observed when the interaction
strategies were implemented, individualized train-
ing goals were set and documented.
It may be tempting to eliminate this initial stage
from a communication partner instructional
program in the interest of saving time. Research
has shown, however, that learners who are
oriented to their pre-intervention skills and who
make formal commitments to acquiring new skills
are more successful in their efforts to acquire
these skills and in implementing complex cogni-
tive strategies (e.g., Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, &
Schiller, 1997; McLaughlin, 1991). In Stage 1,
making commitments rather than instruction is
addressed; however, it is the foundation upon
which successful training programs can be built.
Stage 2: Strategy Description
The purpose of this stage is to clearly describe the
component skills necessary to implement the
targeted strategy and to discuss their positive
effects. During this second stage of intervention,
instructors orient communication partners to the
various steps involved in implementing the
targeted strategy and describe the general char-
acteristics of situations in which the strategy can
199
be used. In an effort to prompt communication
partners to compare their old communication
behaviors with the targeted strategy, instructors
typically encourage open and detailed discussions
among communication partners and individuals
who use AAC and/or their parents or caregivers,
with an emphasis on how the targeted strategy
might be used in individual situations.
In their training program for classmates of
elementary school students who used AAC,
Carter and Maxwell (1998) implemented a
variation of the previously described Stage 2
procedures. During the initial stages of this
particular instructional program, the instructors
described the necessary skills to implement the
targeted strategy: establishing eye contact, asking
questions, waiting 5 s for a response, and
responding to the communicative attempts of
the individual who used AAC. In addition,
communication partners and instructors in the
Carter and Maxwell (1998) training program
discussed situations in which communication
partners might implement the targeted strategy,
as well as the advantages of applying the strategy
and disadvantages of not applying the strategy in
such situations.
Researchers have noted that, unless targeted
strategies are relevant to learners and applicable
in their natural environments, they will not
implement such strategies on an ongoing basis
(Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000;
Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995). There-
fore, this stage of instruction is necessary not only
to orient communication partners to the targeted
strategy and the component skills they will be
learning, but also to deepen their understanding
of the strategy’s relevance to their individual
situations. It is important that communication
partners have an opportunity to discuss, in a
supportive atmosphere, the potential impact of a
targeted strategy on their interactions with
individuals who use AAC.
Stage 3: Strategy Demonstration
In Stage 3, the instructor reviews the targeted
strategy and provides a demonstration of how to
perform each step. This demonstration includes a
process of thinking aloud, during which the
instructor models the process of self-cuing,
problem solving, and progress monitoring.
During this phase, communication partners are
prompted to become increasingly involved in
practicing the metacognitive and physical acts of
implementing the targeted strategy; they are
provided with the required level of instructor
prompting to enable them to do so successfully.
As an example, the communication partner would
200 JENNIFER KENT-WALSH AND DAVID MCNAUGHTON
be encouraged to discuss the thought process
involved in making strategy implementation
decisions (e.g., ‘‘I noticed that Sarah was staring
at the book, so I understood that to be her choice
and gave her the book to read.’’).
Light and her colleagues (1992) provided an
example of how Stage 3 can be implemented as
part of their examination of the efficacy of a
program designed to teach interaction strategies
to support the communication of two young
adults who used AAC. In this program, the
instructor demonstrated use of the targeted
strategies both during role plays with commu-
nication partners and during interactions with
individuals who used AAC.
This type of modeling or demonstration has
been touted as the heart of strategy instruction
(Schumaker, 1989). Examples of effective imple-
mentation provide learners with a clear illustra-
tion of the targeted strategies. This step provides
a critical bridge between discussion of targeted
strategies and the learner’s use of them.
Stage 4: Verbal Practice of Strategy Steps
The verbal practice stage helps to ensure that
communication partners have a solid grasp of the
steps involved in applying the targeted strategy.
Communication partners are asked to describe
and explain the importance of each step in the
targeted strategy. Subsequently, they are asked to
commit the strategy steps to memory using rote
rehearsal. At times, it may be helpful for the
instructor to create a point-form summary or an
acronym of the strategy steps to be learned.
Carter and Maxwell (1998), for example,
summarized the four steps of their strategy
(establishing eye contact, asking questions, wait-
ing 5 s for a response, and responding to
communicative attempts) as ‘‘look, ask, wait,
and respond’’ (p. 85). The goal is for commu-
nication partners to reach a level of automaticity
in their ability to recall the steps, so that attention
can be directed towards the appropriate use of the
strategy in real-life situations. To date, only
Carter and Maxwell have incorporated techni-
ques to promote automaticity when instructing
communication partners in the use of interactions
strategies. Greater attention to the development
of automaticity may promote improved main-
tenance and generalization of target behaviors by
communication partners (Carnine, 1989; Dough-
erty & Johnson, 1996).
Stage 5: Controlled Practice and Feedback
This stage has two instructional goals: (a) to build
communication partners’ confidence and fluency
with respect to implementing the targeted strat-
egy; and (b) to gradually allow communication
partners to assume control of monitoring their
effective use of the targeted strategy. In order to
accomplish these goals, instructors can carefully
control and manipulate the contexts in which
communication partners practice implementing
targeted strategies and the amount of instructor
mediation that is provided during practice
sessions. Communication partners may benefit
from some initial practice sessions, during which
only the instructor, the partner, and the indivi-
dual who use AAC are present, for example.
During these practice sessions, instructors can
gradually fade the use of prompts, cues, and
feedback, as communication partners become
more proficient in implementing the strategies.
By the end of Stage 5, communication partners
should be implementing the targeted strategies
successfully and independently in familiar situa-
tions.
One example of implementation of the
controlled practice and feedback stage can be
seen in McNaughton and Light’s (1989) training
program for the group home staff of an individual
who used AAC. Before communication partners
were asked to implement the targeted strategies in
the group home setting (which included other
staff members and residents with disabilities),
communication partners were given an opportu-
nity to practice implementing the strategies in a
quiet setting with only the instructor, the
communication partner, and the individual who
used AAC present. In this manner, communica-
tion partners were not distracted by other job
demands. Rather, they were able to concentrate
solely on their interactions with the individual
who used AAC, as well as the prompting and
feedback provided by the instructor. Practice in
this controlled setting was continued until
instructor prompting and cuing were no longer
needed for communication partners to implement
the targeted strategy successfully.
According to Gersten et al. (1997), failure to
provide focused and sustained feedback during
instruction results in learners erratically imple-
menting targeted strategies. The controlled prac-
tice and feedback stage allows instructors to
provide specific feedback to communication
partners on an individual basis. During this stage,
instructors and communication partners have the
opportunity to develop individualized applica-
tions for targeted strategies. Developing a sense
of ownership of the strategy by communication
partners through modeling and encouragement of
strategy use has been reported to result in the
following important outcomes: (a) increased
automaticity of strategy use; and (b) development
 COMMUNICATION PARTNER INSTRUCTION
of metacognitive knowledge about targeted
strategies (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Pressley,
Ross, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984).
Stage 6: Advanced Practice and Feedback
This stage is designed to effect a shift in
communication partners’ learning—from how to
perform the targeted strategies in controlled
environments to how to apply the strategies to
meet the demands typically found in natural
environments. In a sense, this stage is the real test
of communication partners’ mastery of targeted
strategies (Ellis et al., 1991, p. 17). Although this
stage requires communication partners to practice
strategy use in the natural environment, it still
allows for needed instructor support and
guidance. In fact, this support, which is gradually
faded, is critical to the process associated with
communication partners’ learning to proficiently
use and adapt targeted strategies in a wide variety
of situations. The communication partners learn
to discriminate when the targeted strategies are
appropriate for meeting the demands of specific
situations. The gradual fading of support results
in a deliberate change from instructor-mediated
feedback and monitoring to individual self-
regulated behavior, in which the communication
partners evaluate the successfulness of their own
behavior (e.g., Pintrich, 2000).
In the protocol for a parent training program
examined by Basil (1992), several practice sessions
in the home environment were included. The
parents interacted with their children during
naturally occurring activities at home and the
instructors prompted and encouraged the parents
throughout these interactions. In this manner, the
parents were able to receive support and
assistance when they encountered difficulties in
implementing the targeted strategies in the
natural environment.
Instructional interventions that are effective
only in tightly controlled settings have been noted
to hold little promise for effecting meaningful or
long-term changes in behavior (Gersten et al.,
1997). The prompting and feedback provided in a
natural environment assist communication part-
ners to assimilate targeted strategies into their
daily routines, which, in turn, increases the
chances for maintenance of learned strategies
(Gersten et al., 1997).
Stage 7: Posttest and Commitment to Long-Term
Strategy Use
Stage 7 in the strategy acquisition process is
designed to focus on documenting mastery of the
targeted strategies and planning for their main-
201
tenance and generalization. Communication part-
ners are made aware of their success in mastering
targeted strategies, and the positive impact that
this has had on the individual who uses AAC.
Feedback on the impact of the communication
partners implementing the targeted strategies is
also sought from the individuals who use AAC
and/or their caregivers. Instructors encourage
communication partners to celebrate this success
and assist them in generating action plans for
maintenance and generalization of targeted
strategies.
McConachie and Pennington (1997) collected
data to document communication partners’
implementation of targeted strategies at the end
of a 12-week instructional program for teachers
and school support personnel. The investigators
also provided opportunities for communication
partners to plan for maintenance and general-
ization of targeted strategies. The communica-
tion partners were assisted in the development of
action plans for implementing targeted strategies
across settings, situations, and time. The instruc-
tors also assisted the communication partners in
identifying additional students who could benefit
from the implementation of the targeted strate-
gies, in identifying additional settings that were
conducive to the application of the strategies,
and in specifying how they would ensure
maintained implementation of targeted strategies
over time.
Gersten et al. (1997) noted that many strategy-
training efforts have failed to result in general-
ization beyond the training setting because of the
lack of attention to the transition from the
acquisition process to the generalization process.
It may seem natural for instructors to terminate
intervention when communication partners have
achieved mastery of the targeted strategies; long-
term and meaningful behavioral change, however,
is the ultimate goal of any instructional program.
Therefore, it is important for instructors to assist
communication partners to plan for long-term
and flexible use of acquired strategies.
Stage 8: Generalization of Targeted Strategy Use
The overall purpose of this final stage of
instruction is to assist the communication
partners to use acquired strategies in a wide
variety of situations. Instructors assist the
communication partners to learn to (a) identify
when and where to use the acquired strategies, (b)
develop methods for remembering to use the
acquired strategies appropriately, (c) adapt the
acquired strategies to meet the challenges of new
problems and demands, (d) receive and use
feedback to develop goals and plans to improve
202 JENNIFER KENT-WALSH AND DAVID MCNAUGHTON
performance, and (e) incorporate the acquired
strategies and strategy adaptations into the
communication partners’ permanent repertoires
of problem solving strategies. Following this
intensive series of generalization sessions, instruc-
tors need to continue to periodically monitor
communication partners’ use of acquired skills
over an extended period of time.
Schlosser et al. (2000) described an instruc-
tional program in which they trained school
professionals working with a student who used
AAC across a variety of settings. These research-
ers provided an example of how to implement
some of the steps involved in the generalization
phase of communication partner instruction; they
assisted the school professionals in developing
plans for using targeted strategies in a variety of
classroom settings, and provided on-line feedback
and prompting for these educational profes-
sionals as they attempted to apply targeted
strategies across classroom settings.
Learners who make use of specific strategies in
a small number of settings often do not
automatically use these strategies in novel situa-
tions (Ellis, Lenz, & Sabornie, 1987a, 1987b).
Therefore, this generalization stage is necessary to
ensure communication partners are able to make
use of targeted strategies across a range of
situations. Since it is impossible to anticipate the
application difficulties that may arise when simply
planning for generalized application of acquired
strategies, as is required in Stage 7, it is necessary
for instructors to assist communication partners
to use and modify targeted strategies. This is the
final active step taken by instructors to ensure
that communication partners benefit maximally
from the training program.
Summary
In summary, the proposed strategy instruction
protocol offers a useful model for providing
communication partner instruction to enhance
outcomes for individuals who use AAC. In the
past, instructional programs focused largely on
short-term interventions to train communication
partners to apply selected interaction skills and
strategies. Although some of the strategy instruc-
tion steps have been included in isolation in past
investigations, there have been no reports in the
literature to date in which the efficacy of
implementing a fully-developed strategy instruc-
tion approach to communication partner instruc-
tion in AAC has been examined. In studies to
date, although the isolated implementation of
various strategy instruction steps sometimes led
to isolated improvement, changes in partner
behavior were typically not observed across time
in a variety of environments (e.g., Bornman &
Alant, 1999; Heim & Baker-Mills, 1996). The use
of a teaching model based on strategy instruction
provides clear guidelines for the implementation
of eight stages of instruction to ensure that
communication partners acquire targeted strate-
gies, and make generalized and continued use of
them.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Although the literature contains examples of
successful use of isolated strategy instruction
steps in communication partner interventions,
there is no published research to support the
efficacy of implementing the entire instructional
sequence. Therefore, what follows is a list of
some initial research directions to evaluate the
efficacy of the proposed model. Future research
is necessary to: (a) investigate the effects of
using the strategy instruction model proposed in
this paper to train communication partners to
acquire interaction strategies reported in the
current literature and to examine the impact of
this partner training on the communication,
language, and speech skills of individuals who
use AAC; (b) perform comparative analyses of
the effects of using variations of the strategy
instruction model proposed in this paper (e.g., a
seven step protocol that does not include the
verbal practice stage) to identify the most
efficient, effective, and relevant instructional
protocol for communication partner instruction
in AAC; (c) perform comparative analyses of
the effects of using alternative formats for
implementing the strategy instruction model
proposed in this paper (e.g., completing Stages
1 through 3 via the Internet) to determine
whether or not there are more cost-effective
ways to implement the instructional program;
and (d) investigate the effects of implementing
the strategy instruction model proposed in this
paper with a variety of communication partners
(e.g., adults, children, friends of individuals who
use AAC, professionals who work with indivi-
duals who use AAC).
Although unique instructional challenges are
presented within the field of AAC, there may be
much that can be learned from research efforts in
related fields. The use of the strategy instruction
model has resulted in important outcomes in
teaching a wide variety of strategies (Harris &
Pressley, 1991). We believe that the evidence
presented in this paper makes a strong case for
the investigation of strategy instruction with
communication partners of individuals who use
AAC.
 COMMUNICATION PARTNER INSTRUCTION
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Janice Light,
Dr. Katherine Hustad, and Dr. Carol Miller for
their suggestions and assistance throughout the
development of this paper.
Note
1 The reader is referred to Light (1999) for a more complete
discussion of measurement issues related to AAC inter-
ventions.
References
Basil, C. (1992). Social interaction and learned helplessness
in severely disabled children. AAC: Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 8, 188 – 199.
Basil, C., & Soro-Camats, E. (1996). Supporting graphic
language acquisition by a girl with multiple impairments.
In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative
and alternative communication: European perspectives
(pp. 270 – 288). San Diego: Singular.
Beukelman, D. R. (1991). Magic and cost of communicative
competence. Augmentative and Alternative Communica-
tion, 7, 2 – 10.
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and
alternative communication: management of severe commu-
nication disorders in children and adults (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet, M. (2000).
Designing professional development that works. Educa-
tional Leadership, 57(8), 28 – 38.
Blackstone, S. (1991). Intervention with the partners of AAC
consumers. Augmentative Communication News, 4(2), 1 – 6.
Blackstone, S. (1999). Clinical News: Communication
Partners. Augmentative Communication News, 12(1), 1 – 3.
Bornman, J., & Alant, E. (1999). Training teachers to
facilitate classroom interaction with autistic children
using digital voice output devices. South African Journal
of Education, 19(4), 364 – 373.
Bruno, J., & Dribbon, M. (1998). Outcomes in AAC:
Evaluating the effectiveness of a parent training program.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14(2), 59 –
70.
Burgoon, J. K., LePoire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995).
Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target commu-
nication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in
dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 31, 287 – 321.
Carnine, D. (1989). Designing practice activities, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 603 – 607.
Carter, M., & Maxwell, K. (1998). Promoting interaction
with children using augmentative communication
through a peer-directed intervention. International Jour-
nal of Disability, Development and Education, 45, 75 – 96.
Culp, D. M., & Carlisle, M. (1988). PACT pilot study:
communication description and results. In D. M. Culp &
M. Carlisle (Eds.), PACT: Partners in augmentative
communication training (pp. 135 – 142). Tucson, AZ:
Communication Skill Builders.
Cumley, G. D., & Beukelman, D. (1992). Roles and
responsibilities of facilitators in augmentative and alter-
native communication. Seminars in Speech and Language,
13, 111 – 118.
203
Dougherty, K. M., & Johnson, J. M. (1996). Overlearning,
fluency, and automaticity. Behavior Analyst, 19, 289 – 282
Ellis, E., Deshler, D., Lenz, B., Schumaker, J., & Clark, F.
(1991). An instructional model for teaching learning
strategies. Focus on exceptional children, 23(6), 1 – 24.
Ellis, E. S., Lenz, B. K., & Sabornie, E. J. (1987a).
Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to
natural environments: Part 2. Research into practice.
Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 6 – 24.
Ellis, E. S., Lenz, B. K., & Sabornie, E. J. (1987b).
Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to
natural environments: part 1. Critical agents. Remedial
and special education, 8(1), 6 – 21.
Estrella, G. (2000). Confessions of a blabber flinger. In M.
Fried-Oken & H. A. Bersani (Eds.), Speaking up and
spelling it out (pp. 31 – 45). Baltimore. MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to
the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means
to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional
Children, 62(1), 52 – 66.
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997).
What we know about using research findings: Implica-
tions for improving special education practice. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 466 – 476.
Glennen, S. L., & DeCoste, D. C. (1997). Handbook of
augmentative and alterative communication. San Diego,
CA: Singular Publishing.
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive
strategy instruction: interactive strategy construction.
Exceptional Children, 57, 392 – 404.
Heim, M. J., & Baker-Mills, A. E. (1996). Early development
of symbolic communication and linguistic complexity
through augmentative and alternative communication. In
S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative
and alternative communication: European perspectives
(pp. 232 – 248). San Diego: Singular.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996).
Creating socially supportive environments for fully
included students who experience multiple disabilities.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handi-
caps, 21(2), 53 – 71.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1991). Establishing
conversational exchanges with family and friends: Mov-
ing from training to meaningful communication. The
Journal of Speech Education, 25, 305 – 319.
Iacono, T., Chan, J., & Waring, R. (1998). Efficacy of a
parent-implemented early language intervention based on
collaborative consultation. International Journal Lan-
guage & Communication Disorders, 33, 281 – 303.
Jitendra, A.K., Hoppes, M.K., & Yan-Ping (2000). The role
of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruc-
tion. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127 – 139.
Kameenui, E., & Simmons, D. (1990). A taxonomy of
knowledge forms and instructional requirements, Design-
ing Instructional Strategies: The prevention of academic
learning problems (Vol. 58 – 85). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kent-Walsh, J., & Light, J. (2003). Communication partner
training in AAC: A literature review. Paper presented at
the Pennsylvania Speech-Language-Hearing Association
annual convention, Harrisburg, PA. Retrieved January
10, 2004, from http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/*jkent/presen-
tations.htm.
Light, J. (1988). Interaction involving individuals using
augmentative and alternative communication systems:
State of the art and future directions. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 4, 66 – 82.
204 JENNIFER KENT-WALSH AND DAVID MCNAUGHTON
Light, J. (1997). ‘‘Communication is the essence of human
life’’: Reflections on communicative competence. Aug-
mentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 61 – 70.
Light, J. (1999). Do augmentative and alternative commu-
nication interventions really make a difference?: The
challenges of efficacy research. Augmentative and Alter-
native Communication, 15(1), 13 – 24.
Light, J., & Binger, C. (1998). Building communicative
competence with individuals who use augmentative and
alternative communication. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Light, J., Collier, B., & Parnes, P. (1985a). Communicative
interaction between young nonspeaking physically dis-
abled children and their primary caregivers: Part I –
Discourse patterns. Augmentative and Alternative Com-
munication, 1, 74 – 83.
Light, J., Collier, B., & Parnes, P. (1985b). Communicative
interaction between young nonspeaking physically dis-
abled children and their primary caregivers: Part II -
Communicative function. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 1, 98 – 107.
Light, J., Dattilo, J., English, J., Gutierrez, L., & Hartz, J.
(1992). Instructing facilitators to support the commu-
nication of people who use augmentative communication
systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35,
865 – 875.
Light, J., Roberts, B., DiMarco, R., & Greiner, N. (1998).
Augmentative and alternative communication to support
receptive and expressive communication for people with
autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 153 –
180.
Maccini, P., & Highes, C.A. (2000). Effects of a problem-
solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance
of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 10 – 21.
McConachie, H., & Pennington, L. (1997). In-service
instruction for schools on augmentative and alternative
communication. European Journal of Disorders of Com-
munication, 32, 277 – 288.
McLaughlin, M. (1991). Enabling professional development:
what have we learned?, Staff development for education in
the 90s: new demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp.
61 – 82). New York: Teachers College Press.
McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (1989). Teaching facilitators to
support the communication skills of an adult with severe
cognitive disabilities: A case study. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 5, 35 – 41.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-
regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 452 –
494). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pressley, M., Ross, K. A., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S.
(1984). The role of strategy utility knowledge in children’s
decision making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 38, 491 – 504.
Price, S.P. (2000). My early life and education. In M. Fried-
Oken & H. A. Bersani (Eds.), Speaking up and spelling it
out, (pp. 105 – 114). Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Schlosser, R. W., McGhie-Richmond, D., Blackstein-Adler,
S., Mirenda, P., Antonius, K., & Janzen, P. (2000).
Training a school team to integrate technology mean-
ingfully into the curriculum: Effects of student participa-
tion. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 31 –
44.
Schumaker, J. B. (1989). The heart of strategy instruction.
Strategram, 1(4), 1 – 5.
Sigafoos, J. (1999). Creating opportunities for augmentative
and alternative communication: Strategies for involving
people with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 15, 183 – 190.
Staehely, J. (2000). Prologue: The communication dance. In
M. Fried Oken & H. A. Bersani, Jr. (Eds.), Speaking up
and spelling it out: Personal essays on augmentative and
alternative communication, (pp. 1 – 12). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Todis, B. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive
technology in educational settings. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 13, 49 – 61.