Full Goal

Across at least 3 contexts (snack, play, transitions) and with at least 2 different partners, given the AAC system available throughout the day and motivating items/activities accessible but not pre-handed, [Student] will use a core word (or core+fringe combination, e.g., ‘want,’ ‘more,’ ‘go,’ ‘help,’ ‘open’) on the AAC system to request across at least 10 spontaneous requests per day on 3 consecutive school days, with at least 3 different core words used, as measured by partner-recorded tally and language sample from AAC system data logs where available.

Neurodiversity-Affirming Notes

AAC goals have historically been written from a deficit frame: “the student will use AAC to request” assumes the student is failing to use spoken language. The neurodiversity-affirming reframe is that AAC is a primary, valid mode of communication — not a fallback. Implications:

• AAC use is the goal, not a workaround. A student who requests with AAC has communicated. Do not score down for not vocalizing or not using spoken approximations alongside.
• Robust system, robust access. Restricting vocabulary to “what the student can use right now” creates the deficit the restriction was meant to address. The system should contain language well beyond the student’s current expressive range. Project Core and similar frameworks operationalize this.
• Aided language input is the engine. Partners model on the system constantly. The student’s output is downstream of partner input. Build partner training into the goal context.
• Sensory access. Visual contrast, button size, motor demand, fatigue, and positioning all gate AAC use. A “non-use” episode may be access failure, not communication failure.
• Presume competence. The goal text and the team’s posture should assume the student has things to say. Goals that target rote “I want [item]” sentence frames before the student has had time with the system underestimate what’s possible.

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• System has been selected and trialed. SGD, picture board, partner-assisted scanning — specify which system, which vocabulary set, which access method. “AAC” alone is not a system.
• Core vocabulary set is identified. Pick 5–10 core words to model and track for this goal cycle. Common starting cores: more, want, go, stop, help, open, all done, look, here, mine. The exact set depends on the student’s interests and contexts.
• Partners are trained. Kent-Walsh et al. (2015) meta-analysis shows partner instruction is one of the most consistent moderators of AAC outcomes. Untrained partners drag a goal’s data toward zero. Build partner training into the IEP service grid.
• Motivating items, not pre-handed. The condition explicitly requires the student to initiate. Pre-handing the snack creates no request opportunity. This requires environmental setup: blocked access, paused routines, delayed responses (with safety considered).
• Tally method. Specify who tallies and on what (paper grid, app, system data log). Across-day counts only work if the tally happens reliably. AAC system data logs can be a primary or backup source if the system logs button hits.
• What counts as “spontaneous.” Define operationally. A request after a “what do you want?” prompt is partner-cued, not spontaneous. A request after a long delay with no prompt is spontaneous.

Clinical Notes

The 10-requests-per-day criterion is more functional than a percentage. AAC requesting is a low-floor, high-ceiling skill: a student going from 0 to 10 spontaneous requests per day is a transformative gain, even if a “percent accuracy” calculation would not capture it.

Requiring at least 3 different core words prevents the goal from being met by repetitive use of a single word (“more, more, more”). The point is generative use of core, not high-frequency use of one button.

This goal sits within a broader AAC implementation plan. A robust system, partner training, aided language input throughout the day, and environmental arrangement are all preconditions. If any of those are absent, work on those — don’t treat the student as the limiting factor.

Light & McNaughton’s communicative competence framework (linguistic, operational, social, strategic) is a useful lens for tracking what else needs goals beyond this one. Requesting is one social-functional category; commenting, refusing, asking questions, and directing attention are all separate competence areas with their own goal needs.

Related Goals

• (No companion AAC goal yet — see ASHA AAC Practice Portal and Light & McNaughton’s competence framework for related goal patterns including commenting, refusing, and partner-training goals.)