From identifying this gap in the use of co-design to create MSE, I designed a study were I worked collaboratively with a group of 11 neurodivergent children aged 12-15 at Crosby High School. For this I worked closely with the children in creative workshops and feedback session, were the children designed sensory objects that they would like to see in a sensory room. The objects were designed based on the needs of the children provided by the children’s teachers, parents/guardians. This project is necessary because working closely with neurodiverse children and creating sensory objects based on their responses to specific objects and textures, will allow us to see if this approach is more beneficial for the children, rather than basing the design on the outcomes of similar research projects that do not have a co-design element.

​

The study had been rigorously planned and split into Phase 1; online survey, creative workshops and initial feedback session and Phase 2; creation and installation of sensory objects in a allocated room at Crosby High School, observations on children interacting with their co-designed sensory objects, verbal and written feedback in questionnaires. After gaining ethics approval for Phase 1 I began each intervention with the gatekeeper, parent’s/guardians and children.

​

Phase 1

​

Intervention 1:

An initial online survey created by the PI (primary investigator) will be circulated, asking teachers and the children’s parents/guardians about the needs of their child - what types of materials, colours, sounds or lights their children can interact with or are sensitive to. This will take teachers and parents/guardians approximately 20-30 minutes to complete, however they will be given a 2-week window for the gatekeeper to issue the survey to the parents/guardians and allowing the parents/guardians time to complete it and submit back to the PI. At this stage if consent is given by the parents/guardians but assent is not given by the child then they will not take part in the research. The children’s needs will then be taken into consideration when planning the creative co-design workshops and inform what should be excluded from the activities and final multi-sensory room. Pseudonyms will link the survey answers to the children (produced by the gatekeeper to ensure that the PI has no link to the parents/guardians).

​

Reflection:

​

In reflection the first intervention proved to have some limitations, however has educated me on how I would direct a study differently in the future. For example due to a delay in the parents/guardians accessing the survey it resulted in them being completed at a later date. The gatekeeper also informed me that some of the parents/guardians had literacy difficulties and therefore needed additional support from the staff via telephone to understand the survey questions. I am now aware that when using external participants it is more appropriate to add extra time into your timeline and when creating surveys, more thorough information is needed in the event of participants being unable to understand what is being asked of them.

​

Intervention 2:

​

After the survey answers are submitted, one week of in-classroom creative workshops with school children and teachers will be arranged. There will be an initial workshop that will allow the PI to ask the children to think about a specific theme for the proposed multi-sensory room. The children will then be asked to draw some objects that they would like to see in the MSE, relating to the chosen theme of the room. The PI will also show some examples of sculptural objects to the children and teachers that they have made previously, allowing the children to gain a sense of the art style the PI uses. The session will take approximately 45-60 minutes, allowing for regular breaks. Teachers will be present at all times to observe and facilitate the session.

​

Reflection:

​

Once meeting the children, they expressed to me their excitement for participating in the study, with P1 saying “I’m so excited for this, I’ve been thinking about this for weeks”. The gatekeeper allowed for the session to be 1hour 30minutes, finishing at the end of the school day. This meant that the children’s routine wouldn’t be altered too much, as this can sometimes be difficult for neurodivergent individuals. After showing a short powerpoint to the children, introducing the project and presenting some of my previous sculptures, I asked the class to collectively choose a theme for the sensory room. A teacher, who was assigned to assist me throughout the study, suggested that we split the children into groups and create 3 mind maps for the themes: space, jungle and underwater. From this the children could write down possible ideas for each theme and the theme with the most ideas would be the winning theme, the underwater theme was chosen. This allowed the children to work together as a team and effectively resulted in a fair decision being made for the theme of the room. This suggestion from the teacher also demonstrated how beneficial it is to have assistance from somebody who has more experience in the field and somebody who has a deeper understanding of the children. The children then created drawings of potential sensory objects that they would like to see in the room.

​

Intervention 3:

​

Two weeks after the first idea generation workshop there will be an in-classroom workshop for the school children to play with some sensory objects that have been created by the PI in response to the children’s drawings. Verbal feedback will be documented by the PI in a journal to use for evaluation and include anonymously in the final report. The session will take approximately 45-60 minutes and allowing for regular breaks, and teachers will be present at all times to observe and facilitate the session.

​

Reflection:

​

From this point the timeframe and schedule of each intervention would be changed, due to absence of children or other activities needing to be attended within the school. I felt it wouldn't be appropriate to begin making any objects at this point as some children were absent in the first session and those that were present, needed to be more specific in their designs, using colour etc. This meant that all participants would be on the same page, and I would have a clearer understanding of their designs. From this point I decided that it would be more efficient to complete all creative workshops with the children first before the feedback sessions as this allowed the children to create designs that would be to their best standard and, also ensure that they wouldn’t lose interest in the study, as from meeting the children it is clear that they’re more engaged when doing practical exercises.

​

Intervention 4:

​

One week after the feedback session there will be another creative workshop where the PI will bring in different materials and textures (that the teachers and parents/guardians have deemed suitable) for the children to play with and help the PI to choose what materials (fabrics and colours) would fit best for each co-designed sensory object. The session will take approximately 45-60 minutes and allowing for regular breaks and teachers will be present at all times to observe and facilitate the session.

​

Reflection:

​

This session was really effective as it allowed the children to be more specific in the materials and fabrics that they would like their sensory objects to be made from. The online survey completed prior to the study worked effectively in helping me understand each child's sensory needs as I learned that participant 1 was sensitive to the colour purple and participant 8 was sensitive to the sound of felt fabric. This is ensured that alternative materials were given to those children to reduce discomfort. The children then took their chosen swatches and put them into a plastic wallet, alongside a description of what the material will be used for e.g yellow felt submarine, inside - teddy stuffing, this allowed me to keep the work organised.

​

In Multisensory Rooms and Environments, occupational therapist Susan Fowler discusses both ‘respect’ and ‘choice’ in terms of how individuals should treat disabled people within and around sensory objects and rooms. Fowler states “respect also means that support people should take the time to see what people like and when they have had enough or want a change” (Fowler,2008) and as for choice, “people with profound and multiple disabilities are often not given the opportunity to make choices … time needs to be spent with people … which gives an indication of whether or not they like or dislike certain foods, clothing or activities” (Fowler,2008). This notion was also applied to this study, as combing the online survey and the multiple creative workshops it allowed the children to make choices or changes to ideas and, also allowed me to become familiar with their sensory needs.

​

Intervention 5:

​

Two weeks after the second creative workshop there will be a feedback session where the PI will present the new co-designed objects made for the children to play with, allowing for verbal and written feedback from the teachers and children to be obtained and recorded in the PI’s notebook. The session will take approximately 45-60 minutes and allowing for regular breaks, and teachers will be present at all times to observe and facilitate the session.

​

Reflection:

​

This feedback session was altered slightly as I presented to the children drawings on my ipad that I had created from their designs and allowed for the children to give suggestions on any alterations they would like. During this session I asked the children to collectively co-design a video that would be projected into the room as this is something multiple children asked for within their initial designs. We used apps such as; pexels and youtube to download free media, with each child choosing various underwater videos and sounds that I would later collate into a soothing projection for the room. From the initial survey I learned the vast majority of the group were sensitive to loud noise therefore I ensured the videos were played on an acceptable volume and, also suggested to the children that we include headphones in the room as this will allow the children to choose if they want to listen or just watch.

​

Intervention 6:

​

Two weeks after the feedback session there will be the final creative workshop where the PI will ask the children to create mini maquettes of what they would like the room to look like. Small cardboard boxes (shoebox size) will be used to create models of MSE, using craft materials to portray the sculptures like air-drying clay or papier-mâché. This will help the PI in combing co-design and co-curation of the sensory room. The session will take approximately 45-60 minutes and allowing for regular breaks, and teachers will be present at all times to observe and facilitate the session.

​

Reflection:

​

This session was inspired by Gregory Herbert's Contours of the Earth (2022) as Herbert expressed that this activity was successful when working with children to co-design a sensory room. However in Herbert's project the sensory room would be used purely for public engagement within a gallery setting . I asked the children to display their clay models within small shoe boxes (see images in gallery) as this would resemble the room that we would be using for the sensory room and will allow the children to demonstrate how they would like their sensory objects to be displayed e.g the ceiling, floor or wall.

​

Intervention 7:

​

Two weeks after the creative workshop there will be a final feedback session. The PI will bring in the final body of work created across all interventions – soft sculptures and room maquettes. This will be the children’s and teacher’s last chance to discuss any final points and provide feedback.

​

Reflection:

​

This session was altered due to School half term and absence etc, therefore I invited the children to the Art & Design building to give them a tour of my studio space, this was suggested by a teaching assistant as it would keep the children engaged in the study and excited about visiting a university. During this session I presented to the children some objects that I had made so far and allowed for them to suggest alterations, however this wasn't necessary. The children also completed the first half of the questionnaire were they were asked; 

1. Have you enjoyed this experience of co-designing a sensory room? Give a reason why.
2. What was your favourite workshop activity?
3. If you could change anything about the workshops what would it be, can you think of any other art activities?

​

Phase 2 of the study could not proceed due to the schools other curricular activities that the children had to attend and the teaching assistants not being available. The ethics approval of Phase 2 was also granted, however was overdue, therefore this will be completed at a later date.