This sub-theme relates to the programme theory tenet of increased awareness, of which opportunities were provided via the provision of the copy of the book (Lombard, 2007) to all participating parents and staff; the eight lessons delivered by the researcher to the pupils, the content of which was also emailed to the parents, and the reference file given to each child which contained their individual sensory profiles, lesson
summaries/exercises and strategies for future reference.
Four of the five children (Vince, Simon, Tom and Adi) acknowledged that they had learned something new, with the sensory profiling, analogy of a tree, information about underlying biology and individual differences highlighted. Tom felt that he knew most of it, however, as he already had the involvement of the occupational therapy service. Peter,
Does it do exactly what it says
on the tin?
'I didn't know that before'. ' It makes sense of behaviour' Practical strategies for positive change.
'We are all individual;
we all have our
137
the fifth child, who was reported by staff to have speech and language difficulties and did not appear to understand all the lessons, felt that he learned more from a song on ‘You tube’. He was interested in raising his parents’ awareness of his sensory needs, however, and considered the provision of his sensory profile an important way of achieving this.
The fact that the children persevered with all eight sessions on a voluntary basis, would all recommend, to a certain extent, the programme to children in other ARBs and Simon commenting that it was more interesting than lessons, was also encouraging.
The parents were very positive about the programme even though three of the four families interviewed had considerable prior knowledge of sensory issues. They reported an increased awareness of sensory issues in all their children, particularly appreciating that the programme was ‘geared at’ the child himself. One commented that ‘this felt different’ from sensory profiling in the past, because her son was directly involved, which she considered ‘invaluable’. Several parents reported that their children were now more vocal about their sensory needs. Several also commented on increased insight for themselves, as well as their children. When asked if there was anything they disliked about the programme, the predominant response was that there was nothing to dislike as it was a very interesting, useful and positive approach. Vince’s mother questioned whether it might be ‘too much’ for some people, however.
The ARB staff were more cautious in their response than the parents. One commented that whilst ‘it has probably gone over Mark’s head’, (the 6th child aged 11, who was withdrawn) both the staff and his parents had ‘probably’ become more aware. With respect to the five children who completed the programme, all were perceived to be more aware, other than Simon, who was considered the exception.
138 Table 32
Illustrative Quotes for Sub-theme ‘I didn’t know that before’
Children Parents Staff
Simon: Yea, the amygdala, was quite interesting, as I didn’t know about that before, and the whole leaves and the roots system was actually quite well produced and well thought out. It was consistent pretty much. (Lines 12-15).
Vince: Um (..) it was interesting getting to know how different people think up here and whether they were leaves or roots, (…) yea (…) and calming techniques. (Lines 73- 75).
Peter: Well, I think that the programme did help me a bit, but it is mostly the song I heard on You tube. (Lines 338-339). Adi: Um interesting stuff about the brain (..) the amygdala, and how it can go (..) how it can make you sick if you are stressed and stuff.
Adi: I found it all interesting really. (Lines 418-422).
Tom: Well I already said I think the profile thing might be helpful (..) yea, I think the profile thing might have been helpful about the careers but I’m not sure about anything else because I mean I knew a bit about the amygdala and (..) (Lines 160- 163).
Simon’s mother: I think for me and for my son, um, definitely I feel it's been more insightful, I think I've gained more insight into Simon’s sensory needs, more than I had before, definitely, um (.) because I thought, I don't think I thought I knew it all, but I thought, oh yeah, I know about sensory needs, but I have gained more, definitely gained more insight. (Lines 2278-2284).
Peter’s mother; I suppose I do things automatically that I don’t realise. Until I actually broke it down using this, I didn’t realise why I was doing it. (Lines 2018-2020).
Vince’s mother: He liked the idea of the visual thing of the tree and that sort of struck a chord with him, um (.) and little things about (.), um (.) sensory things about working alone, you know, little things have dropped out in conversation’.(Lines 3027- 3030).
Simon’s mother; I just see it as a positive. I think the programme, just learning more about himself, is very positive. (Lines 2300-2302).
Researcher…Has the programme helped? ((long pause)) Anyone like to make a comment?
Staff 1: Yes and no. I’d say that it’s helped with certain students when in terms of they know they can talk about their sensory needs and things that they might have needed. But I would say that for some students it has not been (.) overwhelmingly helpful. (Lines 493-497).
Staff 1: Yes, I’d say all of them are more aware of their own needs now. (Lines 579-580). Staff 2: Simon is the exception…because I don’t think that anything would work unless we experimented over a long period of time over the music and (…) (Lines 581- 584).
Staff 4: So Vince. It’s had an impact on Vince. And he talks about kinda things being a sensory thing. Vince is very closed though. He doesn’t really talk about his feelings or, you know, how things are affecting him, but you know. He will say and has said things like ‘I suppose the reason why I don’t like it in busy corridors is because of my sensory needs because I don’t like the noise’. So, there’s a bit of, you know, as a bare minimum, this raising of awareness of himself so, (.) yeah.