Full Goal

During structured and natural shared-experience activities (book reading, video clips, science observations, snack, outings), with partner-modeled commenting on the AAC system and no requesting-specific cues (‘what do you want?’), [Student] will produce comments using core vocabulary (e.g., ‘look,’ ‘cool,’ ‘big,’ ‘like,’ ‘gross,’ ‘not like’) in response to or about shared events across at least 5 spontaneous comments per day on 3 consecutive school days, with at least 3 different core words used and comments occurring in at least 2 contexts, as measured by partner-recorded tally with brief context note (what was happening when the comment was produced) and AAC system data logs where available.

Why Commenting Specifically

AAC goal banks are notoriously requesting-heavy. Requesting is operationally easy to set up (motivating item, blocked access, communication opportunity) and produces clear data. But communication is not requesting. Children who only have access to “want,” “more,” and “help” on their AAC system have transactional communication, not full communicative competence.

The Light & McNaughton (2014) communicative competence framework identifies multiple pragmatic functions: requesting, refusing, commenting, asking questions, sharing information, directing attention, expressing emotions, social closeness. Goals that address only requesting underestimate the user’s communicative range.

Commenting also expands the kinds of partner responses that are possible. A child who only requests is in an instrumental relationship with adults around them. A child who comments invites response, shared attention, and reciprocity. This shifts the social dynamic.

Neurodiversity-Affirming Notes

• AAC commenting is communication, not “extra.” Some teams treat commenting as a luxury skill addressed after requesting is “mastered.” This is backwards. Commenting opportunities exist throughout the day and are foundational to communicative competence.
• Comments don’t need to match adult expectations. A child commenting “gross” on a vegetable, “loud” on a song, or “not like” on an activity is communicating preference, observation, and identity. Score the comment, not its agreement with adult interpretation.
• Modeling without requiring imitation. Aided language input means partners use the AAC system to comment alongside the student, without prompting “your turn” or requiring matching output. The student’s commenting emerges from modeling exposure, not from compliance with prompts.
• No requesting cues. “What do you want?” is the most common adult-to-AAC-user utterance and the most likely to constrain communication to requesting. The goal explicitly excludes this prompt during commenting probes.
• Multimodal counts. A vocalization, gesture, facial expression, or other body-based comment paired with AAC selection is one comment. Do not score modality fidelity.

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• Core vocabulary set includes commenting words. The AAC system needs to have core words usable for comments, not just request words. Common commenting cores: look, like, not like, cool, big, little, gross, more, again, different, fun, boring, here, there, no. Audit the system before writing this goal.
• Aided language input is happening across the day. Partners model commenting on the AAC system many times per day in many contexts. Without consistent modeling, commenting rarely emerges. If this is not in place, modeling is the precursor goal.
• Shared-experience contexts. Identify and document specific contexts that work as commenting opportunities: book reading is classic but everything from weather observation to lunch reactions to bus-window viewing can support commenting.
• Wait time matters. AAC users need processing time before responses. Partners should pause expectantly after modeling rather than prompting or moving on. Coach this.
• Data collection method. A simple tally with a one-line context note (“at recess, swing”) works in school settings. AAC system data logs can supplement. Specify the method.
• Avoid forcing comments. “Tell me what you think” prompts produce compliance, not commenting. The goal is spontaneous initiation in response to shared experience.
• Family/team training. Commenting modeling at home is as valuable as in school. Coordinate with caregivers; provide modeling examples to take home.

Clinical Notes

The 5-comments-per-day functional criterion (vs. percentage accuracy) reflects what commenting really looks like. Comments are scattered through the day in response to whatever happens. Asking for “80% accuracy” doesn’t make sense — accurate against what?

Requiring at least 3 different core words and at least 2 contexts prevents the goal from being met by repeated use of one word in one context. The generative use across contexts is the indicator of pragmatic flexibility.

This goal sits in a broader implementation plan that includes: robust AAC system, partner training (foundational — see Kent-Walsh meta-analysis), aided language input across the day, environmental arrangement that surfaces commenting opportunities, and patience with timeline. Children whose commenting emerges quickly are the exception; emergence over months is typical and meaningful.

Commenting frequently emerges in particular contexts before generalizing (e.g., the student comments during book reading first, then during snack, then more broadly). Document the contexts where commenting first appears — that’s the generalization seed.

Pair this goal with requesting and with other pragmatic-function goals (refusing, asking questions, directing attention) for a balanced AAC plan. A child working only on commenting and not refusing is missing equally important communicative ground.

Related Goals

• Requesting with Core Vocabulary on Robust AAC System — companion goal targeting requesting; together they cover two foundational pragmatic functions
• Descriptive Teaching for AAC Symbol Generalization — vocabulary expansion goal
• Communication Partner Training for AAC — partner-side goal supporting commenting