When families first explore communication options for their child, the question comes up fast: should we try sign language, an AAC app, or something else entirely? It feels like a fork in the road, and the pressure to choose correctly can be intense.
Here's the honest answer. It's rarely an either/or decision. Most children benefit from using multiple communication methods, and research strongly supports this multimodal approach. But understanding the strengths and limitations of each option will help you make informed decisions for your family.
Sign Language: Strengths and Considerations
Sign language has a long history as a communication tool for children with speech delays. Many families start with baby signs or modified ASL (American Sign Language) signs because they're free, always available, and don't require any equipment.
What sign language does well
- Always available. Your child's hands go everywhere. No device to charge, carry, or forget at home.
- Develops motor planning. Forming signs builds fine motor skills and the motor planning pathways that also support speech production.
- Fast for familiar partners. Between a child and a parent who both know the signs, communication can be quick and natural.
- No barrier to entry. You can start today with no equipment, no app, and no cost.
Where sign language can be challenging
- Communication partner dependency. Signs only work when the other person knows them too. A child who signs "more" at the park may not be understood by other children or unfamiliar adults.
- Motor demands. Some children have fine motor difficulties that make producing clear signs challenging. Cerebral palsy, low muscle tone, and motor planning difficulties can all affect signing ability. Children with Down syndrome, for example, often have hypotonia that makes precise hand shapes harder to form, which is one reason many families in that community move toward device-based AAC.
- Vocabulary ceiling. While ASL itself has thousands of signs, most families and school teams learn a limited set. This can restrict how much a child can express.
- Visibility issues. Signs require the communication partner to be looking. In a busy classroom, a child's signs can be easily missed.
AAC Apps and Devices: Strengths and Considerations
AAC apps like SabiKo turn a tablet into a speech-generating device. The child selects symbols on a screen, and the app speaks the words aloud. This is sometimes called "high-tech AAC."
What AAC apps do well
- Understandable by everyone. The device speaks out loud. Any person in the room can understand the message, even if they've never met the child before.
- Large vocabulary capacity. Apps can hold thousands of words organized in categories and pages. There's no practical limit to how much vocabulary you can add.
- Visual support. Symbols paired with text provide visual scaffolding. Children who are strong visual learners often thrive with symbol-based systems.
- Consistent output. The symbol for "water" always looks the same and always produces the same speech output. This consistency helps with learning.
- Customizable. You can add photos, custom symbols, and vocabulary specific to your child's life. SabiKo lets you build personalized boards for different contexts.
Where AAC apps can be challenging
- Requires a device. Tablets need charging. They can break. They get left at home. In water-based activities like bath time or swimming, a tablet isn't practical.
- Learning curve. Navigating pages and finding words takes practice. Both the child and the family need time to learn the system.
- Cost considerations. While SabiKo is free, some AAC apps carry significant costs. The device itself (a tablet) is also an expense.
- Stigma. Some families worry about their child being "the kid with the device." This concern is real, though it's decreasing as tablets become more common in classrooms.
The Research Says: Use Both
Here's what the evidence actually tells us. Children who use multiple communication methods tend to have better outcomes than those limited to a single approach.
Multimodal communication is natural
Loncke (2014) described the concept of multimodal communication, noting that all humans naturally combine speech, gesture, facial expressions, and other signals when they communicate. Restricting a child to only one mode of communication is actually the unnatural approach. Supporting multiple modes gives the child flexibility to use whatever works best in each situation.
Millar, Light, and Schlosser (2006)
Their systematic review found that AAC interventions, including sign language, picture-based systems, and speech-generating devices, did not reduce speech production. Across different AAC types, the pattern was the same: more communication options led to more communication overall, not less.
Romski and Sevcik (2005)
Their longitudinal research demonstrated that children using speech-generating devices alongside other strategies showed gains in both comprehension and production of spoken language. The AAC served as a scaffold that supported development across all communication modes.
Light and McNaughton (2014)
Light and McNaughton studied communicative competence in AAC users and found that successful communicators used whatever tools and strategies were available to them. The most competent communicators were not those with the "best" single system but those with the most flexible repertoire of communication methods.
Practical Comparison
Here's a side-by-side look at how the two approaches compare in everyday situations:
| Situation | Sign language | AAC app |
|---|---|---|
| Bath time / water play | Works well, no device needed | Device can't get wet |
| Talking to strangers | May not be understood | Device speaks aloud, understood by all |
| Noisy environments | Visual, works in noise | Audio may be hard to hear |
| Car rides | Hard for driver to see | Device can speak from the back seat |
| Large vocabulary needs | Limited by what partners know | Thousands of words available |
| Fine motor challenges | May be difficult to form signs | Tap-based, requires less precision |
| Quick, familiar exchanges | Very fast between trained partners | May require navigating pages |
| School / group settings | Can be missed by teacher | Audible to the whole room |
How Families Make It Work in Practice
Here are patterns that work well for many families:
Start with both, then follow your child's lead
Introduce a few key signs (more, stop, help, all done) alongside a simple AAC board or app. Watch which method your child gravitates toward in different situations. Some children prefer signing during physical play and the app during seated activities. Others develop a clear preference for one over the other.
Use signs as a bridge
Many families use signs as a quick, always-available bridge while their child learns a more comprehensive AAC system. Signs fill the gap during the weeks and months it takes to build fluency with a device.
Match the tool to the context
The best approach is often the most practical one. Signs in the bathtub. The app at the dinner table. A communication board in the car. Let the situation determine the tool.
Keep communication partners in the loop
Whatever combination you choose, make sure the important people in your child's life know how to use it. Send a quick video to grandparents showing the signs your child knows. Print a reference sheet for the babysitter. Share the app with the school team.
So Which Should You Choose?
If your child has strong fine motor skills and you have a small circle of regular communication partners who can learn signs, sign language is a great place to start. It's free, immediate, and always available.
If your child needs to communicate with many different people, needs a large vocabulary, or has motor challenges that make signing difficult, an AAC app will likely become the primary tool. SabiKo is a solid starting point because it's free and customizable.
Most likely, your child will use both. And that's the best answer of all. Give them every possible way to be heard, and let them show you what works.
Download SabiKo free to add a powerful tool to your child's communication toolkit.
References
- Loncke, F. (2014). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Models and Applications for Educators, Speech-Language Pathologists, Psychologists, Caregivers, and Users. Plural Publishing.
- Millar, D.C., Light, J.C., & Schlosser, R.W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 248-264.
- Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R.A. (2005). Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths and realities. Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174-185.
- Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1-18.