Comprehensive Individualized Curriculum and Instructional Design

appropriate language input (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Romski & Sevcik, 1996). However, these individuals rarely observe models of AAC use, creating what Smith & Grove (2003) called an asynchrony of language input to output. That is, these individuals experience spoken language as input, but are expected to communicate expressively using AAC. Consequently, a number of AAC interventions have been developed in an attempt to provide this missing language input to individuals with CCN as a way to stimulate language gains (see single-subject meta-analysis; Sennott, Light, & McNaughton, 2014). For clarity and conciseness, Sennott et al. (2014) used the term AAC modeling to consolidate and describe the various types of language input provided through AAC modalities. Various AAC modeling intervention packages have positively impacted four different language areas: (a) pragmatics in the form of turn taking (e.g. Kent-Walsh, Binger, & Hasham, 2010); (b) semantics in the form of receptive and expressive vocabulary (e.g. Drager et al., 2006); (c) syntax in the form of increasing multi-symbol utterances (e.g. Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo, & Rivera, 2008); and (d) morphology in the form of increased use of target structures (Binger, Maguire-Marshall, & Kent-Walsh, 2011). analysis results also indicated that because of the packaged nature of the interventions, parsing out modeling as the sole independent variable impacting student performance was difficult. In addition to the AAC modeling variable, time delay, and responding or recasting, were included in the majority of the reviewed packaged interventions. Those three intervention variables have been included in a 31