Communication Boards¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (1 causal, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q4 · 1 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Communication boards are visual displays — physical or electronic — that present symbols, photographs, words, or phrases a learner can point to, select, or activate to communicate. They are a low- or mid-tech form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) used when speech is absent, unreliable, or insufficient. Boards range from a single laminated core-word sheet to dynamic speech-generating apps with hundreds of vocabulary items.

Design Implications¶

Communication boards convert expressive language demands into recognition and selection tasks, offloading the production demands that make verbal communication inaccessible for some learners. Because they pair visual symbols with meaning and often with spoken output, they can support receptive vocabulary and symbol-learning alongside expression Dual coding improves recall. [+M]. Critically, effectiveness depends on the communication environment: boards work best when partners are trained to model symbol use on the board themselves (aided language stimulation), not merely wait for the learner to point [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A vocabulary set matched to the learner's receptive level and daily communicative contexts — core words (high-frequency, reusable) plus personally relevant fringe vocabulary
• Consistent availability: the board must be present across settings, or communication opportunities vanish
• Trained communication partners (teachers, peers, family) who model board use and respond to selections as communicative acts
• Ongoing review and customization as the learner's skills and needs change

Constraints¶

• Requires the learner to understand symbol–referent relationships; learners without symbolic understanding need pre-symbolic supports (objects, photographs) first [-M]
• Static boards have fixed vocabulary; if the board lacks the word the learner needs, communication fails and frustration can increase [-M]
• Partner behavior is the limiting factor: untrained partners ask yes/no questions, direct the board, or ignore initiations, sharply reducing communicative exchanges [-S]
• Aided AAC does not reliably suppress speech development — a long-standing concern contradicted by evidence [~S] — but boards alone, without speech modeling, may limit spoken-language growth for some learners

Implementation Variability¶

• Low-tech: laminated core boards, flipbooks, quick-fire phrase boards for playgrounds and cafeterias
• High-tech: speech-generating devices and apps (e.g., Proloquo2Go, TouchChat, CoughDrop) with dynamic pages and auditory output
• Vocabulary organization: activity-specific boards (pragmatic organization) versus core-word boards organized by part of speech (developmental organization); core-word systems better support generative language
• Partner training formats: in-person coached modeling, peer-mediated instruction, or video-based partner training

Target Learners¶

• Individuals with autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, apraxia of speech, intellectual disability, or aphasia who have limited or unreliable speech [~M]
• Beginning communicators who need a means to express requests and reject before speech emerges; AAC intervention is associated with gains in speech production rather than losses Millar et al. meta-analysis of AAC effects on speech. [+M]
• Learners with adequate visual acuity and motor access (pointing, eye gaze, switch access); adaptations required otherwise

Target Learning Goals¶

• Expressive communication: requesting, rejecting, commenting, and social interaction
• Receptive and expressive vocabulary growth and early symbol use [~M]
• Participation and access: enabling inclusion in instruction, Act It Out activities, and classroom discourse that would otherwise exclude the learner

Instructions¶

1. Assess the learner's symbolic level, motor access, and current communication functions (what they already express and how).
2. Select and customize vocabulary — start with a small set of high-frequency core words plus motivating fringe items; involve the learner and family in choosing content.
3. Train partners to use aided language stimulation: model selections on the board while speaking, expand the learner's single-symbol selections into two- and three-symbol combinations.
4. Embed across contexts — the board must travel to lunch, recess, and Application tasks, with peers trained as communication partners, not just adults.
5. Monitor and expand — track communicative functions used, add vocabulary as the learner plateaus, and fade partner prompting toward spontaneous initiation.

Related Strategies¶

• Accommodations — communication boards function as an expressive-language accommodation within broader universal design
• Visual Supports — boards are one member of the visual-support family that also includes schedules and cue cards
• Peer-Mediated Instruction — training classmates as communication partners is among the strongest evidence-based delivery models for AAC
• Enable students with complex communication needs to respond nonverbally by pointing to multiple-choice answer options during shared text reading

Examples¶

• Project Core (UNC Chapel Hill) — a research-validated implementation of low-tech core boards with professional development for teachers of students with significant disabilities.
• Proloquo2Go — an iPad-based speech-generating app with customizable core/fringe vocabulary, used as a high-tech communication board.
• Hospital and community boards — standardized quick-communication boards (e.g., Patient Provider Communication) for adults with temporary loss of speech in medical settings.

Key Sources¶

• Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Brookes Publishing.
• Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(3), 357–374. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)
• Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 212–230. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/021)
• Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. A. (2005). Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths and realities. Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174–185. doi:10.1097/00001163-200507000-00002