ISAAC Barcelona July, 2010 - Writing IEP Goals for Emergent Communicators

Sep 28, 2026

A July 2010 ISAAC Barcelona handout by Linda J. Burkhart (with Gayle Porter) focuses on writing IEP goals for emergent communicators, emphasizing communicative autonomy and receptive input first. It critiques how aided language cannot simply be “put in the environment,” and how educational settings often mismatch data needs with children’s learning processes. The handout highlights assessment challenges, limits on measuring progress by frequency, and the need for flexible, context-appropriate goals that prioritize appropriateness over quantity and avoid early demands for correctness.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Writing IEP Goals for Emergent Communicators

Communicative autonomy and receptive input first

Two paths to aided language use

Challenges in educational settings and measurement

Appropriateness vs. quantity in pragmatic communication

Designing flexible communication goals and objectives

ISAAC Barcelona July, 2010 | Writing IEP Goals for Emergent Communicators | | | --- | --- | | Linda Burkhart [linda@lindaburkhart.com](linda@lindaburkhart.com) | Gayle Porter [Gayle.porter@cpec.com.au](Gayle.porter@cpec.com.au) | | Language is learned by being immersed in a native language environment, where the child can freely interact with, and try out her developing skills | | --- | |
| Catch 22 ! • Aided language does not naturally exist in the environment • Children cannot spontaneously learn something that is not there • Child can only demonstrate ability to use what has been set up for use • Others can only be influenced by child’suse of what has been set up to use Remembering the Intent of Augmentative Communication: Communicative Autonomy •Enable an individual to say what they want to say, when they want to say it Receptive Input First • Aided language stimulation (Goossens’, Crain & Elder, 1992) • System for Augmenting Language (Romski & Sevcik, 1992) • Natural Aided Language (Cafiero, 1998) Two Paths to Aided Language Use: 1. Based on the comprehension of speech. (Similar to second language learning) 2. Very limited or no comprehension of spoken language and acquire a communication system without reference to speech. -Independent creation of a meaning system with AAC language forms . (similar to first language learning) Linda J. Burkhart, [linda@Lburkhart.com](linda@Lburkhart.com) [www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle](www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle) Porter, [gayle.porter@cpec.com.au](gayle.porter@cpec.com.au) 1 ISAAC Barcelona July, 2010 Some Children Need Years of Input Before Developing Expressive Language Especially if they are Not Processing Spoken Language | Beginning Communicators talk on their own topic first | | | --- | --- | | | | Significant Sensory-Motor Challenges • Difficulty learning clear consistent movements for communication • Difficulty processing sensory input • Difficulty performing movements to participate in assessments • May take years to be clear to everybody Emergent Expressive Language • Emerges from child’s intent • Child’s agenda • Early attempts are responded to as meaningful and shaped over time within meaningful contexts •Requiring too much‘correctness’early in the language learning process, can derail the developmental process, by undermining the child’s confidence asa learner Linda J. Burkhart, [linda@Lburkhart.com](linda@Lburkhart.com) [www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle](www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle) Porter, [gayle.porter@cpec.com.au](gayle.porter@cpec.com.au) 2 ISAAC Barcelona July, 2010 Many communication turns are non-obligatory Problems with Learning Language in Educational Settings • Mismatch between need for data and the needs of the child • Typical classroom interaction patterns are set up for children who already have language skills • Mostly one way-teacher instructing, kids responding • Not suited to following the child’s lead Problem: •How do you measure progress during the initial receptive language learning? •How do you measure beginning expression in natural contexts? Linda J. Burkhart, [linda@Lburkhart.com](linda@Lburkhart.com)[ ](linda@Lburkhart.com)[www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle](www.Lburkhart.com & Gayle) Porter, [gayle.porter@cpec.com.au](gayle.porter@cpec.com.au) Education is becoming more and more focused on measurable outcomes • This is a positive direction: • Holding teachers and therapists more accountable • Drive to focus on learning instead of just care • Looking at curriculum and literacy • Increasing Expectations When answering questions becomes the focus of language instruction and testing: • Then the natural process of language learning through interaction is disrupted • The child then begins to assume a more passive role and put her efforts into‘pleasing’the adult , instead of expressing her own ideas In Research and Clinical Practice: Pragmatic Use of C

FAQs

Why does the handout stress communicative autonomy in IEP goals?

It argues that the goal should enable the individual to say what they want to say, when they want to say it, supporting meaningful communication rather than adult-directed performance.

What are the two paths to aided language use described in the handout?

One path is based on comprehension of speech, similar to second-language learning; the other involves very limited or no comprehension of spoken language, allowing acquisition of a communication system without reference to speech.

How should pragmatic communication be measured according to the handout?

Pragmatic use is measured by appropriateness in specific contexts, not by quantity, because appropriateness depends on interaction with communication partners.

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Lucas Martin