Communication is a fundamental human right and a prerequisite for meaningful participation in education and society. Yet across Europe, many autistic children who do not rely on spoken language continue to experience systemic barriers to communication access. Spoken language remains positioned as the normative and preferred mode of communication within educational systems, while augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is frequently misunderstood and undervalued. Combined with limited funding, training, and support, this leaves many children without effective means to participate fully in education and society.

International research suggests that approximately 30% of autistic individuals do not develop functional speech (Lorah et al., 2021). This has profound implications for education systems, particularly given the rapid expansion of autism-specific educational provision across Europe. In Ireland, between 2013 and 2023, the number of special classes increased by over 600%, with 89% designated for autistic learners (Travers, 2023), reflecting similar trends across Europe. Given that many learners in these settings are likely to rely on AAC, its effective implementation is no longer a specialist concern but a core educational issue.

AAC encompasses a range of approaches that supplement or replace speech, with high-tech AAC (e.g. speech-generating devices) offering particular potential to support autonomy and complex language use (Topia & Hocking, 2012). A strong evidence base indicates that high-tech AAC enhances participation and quality of life for autistic children and young people, without inhibiting speech development (Ganz et al., 2015; Light et al., 2019). However, access to technology alone is insufficient; effective AAC use depends on interaction, modelling, and sustained implementation across everyday contexts (Lorah et al., 2021; Norrie et al., 2021).

Against this backdrop, this paper presents an evaluation of the AsIAm AAC Support Programme in Ireland, a national initiative providing high-tech AAC devices alongside information, guidance, and support for autistic children under 18 who are non-speaking or minimally speaking. The study examines how knowledge about AAC is generated, mobilised, and enacted across home and school contexts, and what this means for equitable access to communication in education. 

Guided by the RE-AIM implementation science framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), the research enables a systematic examination of how evidence-informed AAC practices are adopted, enacted, and sustained across different programme models and educational contexts. A mixed-methods design captured the perspectives of multiple knowledge actors, including families, educators, and minimally speaking children themselves. Preliminary findings show that access to AAC was largely parent-led, inconsistent, and shaped by systemic barriers. While effectiveness of AAC was reflected in increased agency, participation, and communicative opportunities for children and families, adoption, implementation, and sustainability across contexts were contingent on adult confidence, school engagement, and access to ongoing support. These findings highlight the situated and relational nature of AAC implementation, illustrating how knowledge does not travel seamlessly from research to practice but is mediated by local conditions, institutional priorities, and the diverse expertise of families, educators, allied professionals, and advocacy organisations.

In alignment with the ECER 2026 theme “Knowing and Acting", this study foregrounds the gap between what is known about effective AAC practice and how such knowledge is mobilised in real-world settings. By evaluating an initiative that connects families, educators, and an advocacy organisation, the paper highlights how research can be translated into practice while remaining sensitive to local contexts and systemic complexities. The implications are significant for educators, researchers, and policymakers seeking to strengthen inclusive communication practices and uphold children’s rights to participation in increasingly complex educational ecosystems.

The evaluation of the AAC Programme was guided by the RE-AIM framework, which provided an overarching structure for examining programme reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance across multiple socioecological levels (Glasgow et al., 2019). RE-AIM was selected due to its strong alignment with the aims of the evaluation and its capacity to address realist questions concerning what works, for whom, in what contexts, how, and why (Holtrop et al., 2021). Beyond child communication outcomes, the framework supported examination of how AAC access occurred, how supports were delivered, and how AAC use can be sustained across contexts, including classrooms. RE-AIM was used as a flexible organising framework to guide data collection, analysis, and integration, while allowing inductive insights to emerge from participant accounts. The use of this implementation science framework is novel in education research, and offers a useful model for conceptualising implementation processes in future research. A mixed-methods design was employed, combining a cross-sectional parent survey with qualitative interviews and focus groups. An advisory group, comprising stakeholders with expertise in AAC, disability advocacy, and family support, was established to inform study design, recruitment materials, and interpretation of findings. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional Research Ethics Committee. The survey aimed to provide an overview of programme reach, engagement, satisfaction, and perceived impact across a larger cohort, while qualitative methods enabled in-depth exploration of experiences across different AAC access pathways. Recruitment occurred in two stages, with AsIAm acting as a gatekeeper to distribute study information and the survey link. Quantitative data were collected via an anonymous online survey completed by 49 parents of children participating in AsIAm AAC programmes. Parents were invited to opt into follow-up qualitative participation through a separate consent process to ensure survey anonymity. Following parental consent, children were invited to participate. Children’s interviews were conducted flexibly in recognition that no single method is suitable for all children or circumstances. Interview approaches were adapted to children’s communication profiles and aligned with best practice principles for enabling children's participation (Kazmierczak-Murray, O’Mahony & Carey, 2024). In total, qualitative data were generated from 21 participants, including seven parents, eight speech and language therapists, two AsIAm programme staff, two teachers, and two children. All qualitative data were analysed using Framework Analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive stage using RE-AIM as a shared analytic reference point.

In line with the conference theme “Knowing and Acting”, the findings show how AAC knowledge is enacted across families, schools, and other stakeholders, often in response to gaps in statutory provision. Reach: Access to AAC was most often achieved through informal, parent-led routes rather than statutory pathways. Families typically learned about the programme through word of mouth, schools, or professional networks, and almost half of the children had not received speech and language therapy prior to participation. While the programme mitigated statutory delays, access remained uneven, differing by geography, language barriers, and parental advocacy. Effectiveness: Change was described by participants as increased agency, participation, and emotional regulation. Children used AAC to make choices and express preferences, sometimes for the first time. Parents reported less frustration and more confidence, while professionals observed greater engagement across home and school. Social outcomes were less consistently reported and tended to emerge gradually. Adoption: Uptake varied and was influenced by adult confidence, ongoing modelling, and school engagement. Parents often felt overwhelmed early on, while use in schools depended on staff knowledge and attitudes to AAC. Implementation and Maintenance: Implementation depended on the quality of support. Autism-informed, neuro-affirmative input supported shared understanding and competence. Sustained use was strengthened by embedding AAC in home, school, and community contexts. Parent networks also normalised AAC use and reduced isolation. Although grounded in Ireland, the findings reflect wider European patterns of diagnostic gatekeeping, uneven school capacity, and reliance on family advocacy. RE-AIM provides a transferable lens for examining AAC implementation across education systems. Questions for European colleagues: How are learners who are minimally speaking provided access to their right to communicate? What is the role of schools in the realisation of this right? How are learners who use AAC included in education research? What further knowing and acting is needed?

Ganz, J.B. (2015). AAC Interventions for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: State of the Science and Future Research Directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31, 203 - 214. Glasgow, R. E., Harden, S. M., Gaglio, B., Rabin, B., Smith, M. L., Porter, G. C., Ory, M. G., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2019). RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: Adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, Article 64. Holtrop, J. S., Estabrooks, P. A., Gaglio, B., Harden, S. M., Kessler, R. S., King, D. K., Kwan, B. M., Ory, M. G., Rabin, B. A., Shelton, R. C., & Glasgow, R. E. (2021). Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e126 Kazmierczak-Murray, S., O’Mahony, K., & Carey, A. (2024). Scoping document on the inclusion of disabled children and young people in participation in decision-making. Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Light, J., McNaughton, D., Beukelman, D., Fager, S. K., Fried-Oken, M., Jakobs, T., & Jakobs, E. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in augmentative and alternative communication: Research and technology development to enhance communication and participation for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 1–12. Lorah, E. R., Holyfield, C., Griffen, B., & Caldwell, N. (2021). A systematic review of evidence-based instruction for individuals with autism using mobile augmentative and alternative communication technology. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-022-00334-6 Norrie, C. S., Waller, A., & Hannah, E. F. (2021). Establishing context: AAC device adoption and support in a special-education setting. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(2), 1-30. Topia, M., & Hocking, C. (2012). Enabling development and participation through early provision of augmentative and alternative communication. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 24–30. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). Routledge. Travers, J. (2023). Special Class Provision in Ireland: Where We Have Come from and Where We Might Go. Education Sciences, 13(9), 859.