Talk-in-Interaction Research

Publications

Quick, N., & Geist, L. (in press). What Are We Really Teaching? Investigating Form Requirements for Children Who Use AAC. Qualitative Research in Communication Differences and Disorders.

Quick, N., Geist, L., Erickson, K. (2026). Using Conversation Analysis to Examine Individual Components of a Multicomponent Intervention. Qualitative Research in Communication Differences and Disorders, 17, 28-55. https://doi.org/10.3138/qrcdd-2025-0006

Quick, N., Geist, L. & Erickson, K. (2025). AAC-mediated classroom participation: Calling on and coming back​. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 15, 297-330. https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/jircd-2024-0013

Nader, D. (2024). Making meaning with AAC: Examining interactions between exemplary AAC SLPs and children who use AAC. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [Speech and Hearing Science].https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/k643bc43m

Presentations

Upcoming

Nader, D. (2026). Exemplary AAC SLPs Making Meaning with Children who use AAC: Attuning, Modeling, and More. American Speech-language and Hearing Association (ASHA) 2026 Convention, Indianapolis, IN. Scheduled: Friday, November 20, 2026, 11:00 AM EDT

Geist, L., Nader, D., Erickson, K., & McMillion, A. (2026). Interactional Practices that Influence the Participation of Children Who Use AAC During Literacy Instruction. American Speech-language and Hearing Association (ASHA) 2026 Convention, Indianapolis, IN. Scheduled: Friday, Nov 20, 2026, 1:30 PM EDT.

Erickson, K., Geist, L., McMillion, A., & Nader, D. (2027). FOCI: A Video Analysis Tool to Strengthen Communication Intervention & Outcomes. Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) 2027 Conference, Orlando, FL. Scheduled: Saturday, Jan 23, 2027 9:45 AM – 10:45 AM EST

Past

Quick, N., & Geist, L. (2025). Focusing on Form Versus Meaning During AAC-mediated Instruction. American Speech-language and Hearing Association (ASHA) 2025 Convention, Washington, DC. [Download Handout]

Nader, D. (2024). Exemplary AAC SLPs Supporting Children Who Use AAC in Meaningful Interactions. Paper presented virtually at the International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) “Vibes of AAC” Virtual Conference, October 2024.

Nader, D. (2024). Making Meaning with AAC: Examining Interactions Between AAC SLPs and Children who use AAC. Paper presented at the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) 2024 Conference, Orlando, FL.

Nader, D. (2023). Making Meaning with AAC: Examining Interactions Between AAC SLPs and Children who use AAC.Paper presented at the American Speech-language and Hearing Association (ASHA) 2023 Convention, Boston, MA.

Quick, N. & Geist, L. (2022). Interaction during robust receptive vocabulary instruction in AAC: A conversational analysis. American Speech-language and Hearing (ASHA) 2022 Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Research Briefs

Quick, N.A., Geist, L.A., & Erickson, K.A. (2025). AAC-mediated classroom participation: Calling on and coming back. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 15(4), 297-330. https://doi.org/10.3138/jircd-2024-0013

Introduction

Calling on and coming back is an instructional practice in which a teacher calls on a student to begin composing a response while group instruction continues and then returns later for them to share their completed response. The practice is often used with students who use AAC and aimed at providing more time for composition. This study used conversation analysis to investigate the practice with one student (Jared) as he interacted during group instruction.

Essential Findings

  • Jared indicated understanding the question assigned to him yet consistently attempted to respond to questions posed to the whole group.
  • Jared used embodied and linguistic communication to indicate he wanted to participate with the group rather than work in a separate parallel track.
  • Jared’s messages were either not acknowledged or met with confusion and the need for repair because they did not match the initial question posed to only him.
  • Communication breakdowns involving Jared were addressed by the classroom adults rather than directed at Jared.
  • Meeting the teacher’s expectations would have required Jared to disengage from the group and miss the continued instruction and class discourse.

Take-Aways

Calling on and coming back resulted in the student’s responses being misaligned with the teacher’s expectations, even though he was clearly attempting to contribute in meaningful ways to the class discourse. The practice resulted in exclusion rather than inclusion. Although calling on and coming back may work for some students in certain situations, it should be used with caution and offered as a choice for the student rather than assigned by the teacher.

Download Word or PDF

Quick, N., Geist, L., Erickson, K. (2026). Using Conversation Analysis to Examine Individual Components of a Multicomponent Intervention. Qualitative Research in Communication Differences and Disorders, 17, 28-55. https://doi.org/10.3138/qrcdd-2025-0006

Introduction

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions typically comprise multiple components, with limited information regarding the contribution of each individual component. Principles of conversation analysis (CA) were used to study individual components of a vocabulary intervention for students who cannot rely on speech alone and benefit from access to AAC. The individual components that were closely examined included (a) leveraging multiple response modes, (b) providing multiple exemplars, and (c) making connections between new and known words.

Essential Findings

  • CA can be successfully applied to deepen understanding of multiple component interventions at the individual component level.
  • Close inspection at the component level can provide actionable insights to improve the design and implementation of an intervention.
  • The individual components of the vocabulary intervention each contributed to successful interactions and participation with fewer trouble sources and increased learning opportunities observed for the student.
  • When adults demonstrated a clear preference for aided AAC and did not accept other modes of communication, a delay in progressivity and diminished opportunities to participate and experience multiple exemplars were reported.
  • When the student’s preferred modes of communication were leveraged, increased opportunities to participate in the class discourse and receive feedback on his contributions to the lesson were reported.

Take-Aways

Video analysis and CA were successfully applied to examine teaching and learning interactions during a multicomponent vocabulary intervention. Close inspection at the component level provided actionable insights to improve the design and implementation of individual intervention components.

Download Word or PDF

Nader, D. (2024). Making meaning with AAC: Examining interactions between exemplary AAC SLPs and children who use AAC [Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. https://doi.org/10.17615/qh2r-2420

Introduction

Children who use AAC rely on more than technology to participate. Successful communication depends on how communication partners notice, interpret, and respond to children’s multimodal signals. AAC intervention often emphasizes compliance, prompting, or AAC use, leading interactions to become transactional rather than relational, limiting engagement and autonomy. This study examined how  SLPs interacted with children who used AAC during therapy sessions to identify the qualities that make interactions rich, dynamic, and meaningful.

Essential Findings

  • Attunement is a defining feature of high-quality AAC interactions. Across interactions, communication functioned as a collaborative, dialogic process rather than a sequence of elicited responses. Key findings included:
  • SLPs continuously adjusted their language, pacing, physical positioning, and goals in response to children’s engagement, affect, and interests.
  • Children’s communication was interpreted multimodally; AAC output, gaze, gestures, and body orientation were all treated as meaningful contributions.
  • When messages were ambiguous or incomplete, SLPs used contextual knowledge and shared relational history to make meaning
  • Aided language modeling was used frequently but flexibly, supporting conversational flow and shared meaning instead of targeting vocabulary.
  • Strong, trusting relationships enabled children to act as active partners and supported sustained engagement.

Take-Aways

Attunement-based practices may lead to more meaningful communication experiences and improved outcomes for children who use AAC. Communication is distinctly dialogic: socially situated, collaborative, and responsive, rather than a sequence of isolated turns or skill demonstrations.

  • Meaningful AAC interaction depends on attunement.
  • All communication counts. Treating gaze, movement, affect, and AAC use as meaningful supports participation and shared understanding.
  • Flexibility, empathy, respecting autonomy and cooperation support engagement.
  • AAC practice and partner training may benefit from prioritizing relational and interactional competence alongside technical AAC skills.

Download Word or PDF

Quick, N., & Geist, L. (in press). What Are We Really Teaching? Investigating Form Requirements for Children Who Use AAC. Qualitative Research in Communication Differences and Disorders.

Introduction

Children who use AAC often rely on multiple modes of communication, including aided AAC systems, gestures, eye gaze, and other embodied forms of expression. Classroom instruction frequently has a dual focus: supporting understanding of academic content while also teaching specific communication and language forms. This microanalytic study examined interactions during literacy instruction between an elementary student who used a speech-generating device and his teacher. The researchers investigated moments when the teacher treated the student’s form of expression as problematic and initiated repairs, and interactions during which the same forms were accepted.

Essential Findings

  • The same forms of expression were sometimes accepted and at other times not.
  • Shared attention to meaning supported participation and instructional flow.
  • Repairs focused on form often interrupted progressivity.
  • Expectations for form were not always clearly communicated.
  • Requests for complete sentences or specific AAC forms sometimes emerged unexpectedly during ongoing interactions.
  • Shifts created competing priorities, with the teacher focusing on linguistic form while the student focused on communicating meaning.
  • Honoring preferred communication modes increased opportunities for participation.
  • When embodied communication and efficient AAC responses were recognized as meaningful contributions, the student had greater opportunities to engage in classroom discourse and receive feedback related to lesson content.

Take-Aways

Instructional decisions about form matter. When form-focused requirements are inconsistent, unexpected, or require students to redundantly communicate information they have already conveyed, valuable instructional time may be lost. When the goal is to teach specific linguistic forms, clearly communicate that expectation. Students should not have to guess whether the focus is on demonstrating knowledge or demonstrating a particular form of communication.

Download Word or PDF

Annotated Bibliography of Research Studies

An annotated collection of studies focused on communication, interaction, and aided communication for children with disabilities, especially those who use eye‑gaze technology or speech‑generating devices (SGDs). Each entry includes a citation, a brief overview, and a link to the full study.

Learn More

Scroll to Top