Full Goal

Across structured activities and natural communication opportunities, with the AAC system organized to support descriptive teaching (core words accessible on a single page or with consistent location), [Student] will combine 2-3 core words to describe or refer to a fringe item, action, or concept (e.g., ‘big yellow’ for ‘banana,’ ‘go up’ for ‘elevator,’ ‘cold sweet’ for ‘ice cream’) across at least 8 spontaneous descriptive combinations per week, with at least 5 unique descriptive combinations and at least 3 contexts represented, as measured by partner-recorded language sample with brief context note and AAC system data logs where available.

Why Descriptive Teaching

Symbol-based AAC has a structural problem: any specific item the user wants to refer to requires either a dedicated symbol or some way to generate the reference using existing vocabulary. Loading the system with thousands of fringe symbols is inefficient (the user can’t access them all in real time) and never complete (the user will encounter new items).

Descriptive teaching is the alternative: teach the user to describe what they want to say using a small set of versatile core words. Instead of needing a dedicated “elevator” symbol, the user might say “go up.” Instead of “ice cream,” “cold sweet.” This generalizes — the user can refer to new items with no new vocabulary needed.

Van Tatenhove’s work and the broader PrAACtical AAC clinical literature articulate this approach explicitly. It is increasingly the dominant approach in AAC implementation, particularly for young learners and learners with strong language potential.

Neurodiversity-Affirming Notes

• Descriptive combinations are creative communication. A user who says “big yellow” for “banana” is doing language work, not falling short of the “real” word. Score the description, not the agreement with adult-naming conventions.
• No one-right-answer. Multiple descriptive combinations for the same referent are all valid. “Big yellow” and “yellow long” and “fruit yellow” all reference banana. Track variety, not match-to-template.
• Build the core, not the fringe. Adding more fringe items each time a user encounters a new thing creates a high-maintenance, hard-to-navigate system. Building generative core use is more sustainable and more empowering.
• AAC users have always done this. Experienced AAC users describe to navigate around symbol gaps as a matter of course. This goal makes the strategy explicit and teaches it deliberately rather than leaving it as a workaround the user develops on their own.
• No “wrong” descriptive combinations. If a user combines “big” + “wet” and the listener doesn’t understand what’s being referenced, that’s a repair opportunity — not an error. Coach repair as a parallel skill.

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• Core vocabulary access is robust. The system needs to have core words readily accessible — ideally a single core page or consistent location across pages. If the user has to navigate multiple pages to combine 2 core words, the cognitive and motor load makes descriptive combinations impractical.
• Two-symbol combinations are emerging or established. Descriptive teaching requires the user to be combining at least 2 symbols. If the user is at single-symbol level, that’s the precursor goal.
• Partners model descriptive combinations. Aided language input includes modeling descriptive uses. Partners say “go up” while modeling on the system before getting on an elevator. This is the teaching mechanism.
• Don’t pre-script combinations. “When you want banana, say ‘big yellow’” turns descriptive teaching into rote scripting. Model multiple possible descriptions and let the user generate their own.
• Data method. Language sampling across a week with brief context notes is feasible. AAC system data logs can supplement if the system tracks word use.
• Generalization criteria. At least 5 unique combinations and 3 contexts ensures the goal isn’t met by repeated use of one combination. The pragmatic flexibility is the target.
• Cultural and linguistic considerations. Descriptive combinations in different languages or cultural contexts may differ. Bilingual AAC users may describe differently in each language — respect that.

Clinical Notes

The 8-combinations-per-week criterion is set as a count (not percentage) because descriptive combinations are episodic and high-impact. A user who produces 8 novel descriptive combinations across the week is demonstrating substantial generative language use.

Requiring at least 5 unique combinations prevents the user from meeting the goal by saying “big yellow” 8 times. The variety is the indicator of strategy use.

Three contexts represented prevents context-bound learning. A user who uses descriptive combinations only at snack time hasn’t generalized the strategy; they have a snack-time script.

Descriptive teaching does not eliminate the need for some fringe vocabulary. Names of family members, specific places, frequently-referenced items still warrant their own symbols. The strategy is primarily descriptive, not exclusively descriptive.

The Boenisch & Soto (2015) and Banajee et al. (2003) core-vocabulary research provides the empirical basis for which words are most useful in core. Combinations from these high-frequency core words produce the broadest descriptive reach.

For school-age users, descriptive teaching pairs with literacy development. Users who develop literacy can spell out items they cannot describe with available core, expanding their referential reach further. Coordinate with literacy goals.

Related Goals

• Requesting with Core Vocabulary on Robust AAC System — foundational core use; descriptive teaching extends this
• Commenting with Core Vocabulary on AAC System — different pragmatic function using overlapping core vocabulary
• Communication Partner Training for AAC — partner-side goal supporting descriptive teaching