Reusable learning objects related to sensory processing

Reusable Learning Objects
Related to Sensory Processing:
What Are the Possibilities?
By
Bryan M. Gee, PhD, OTR/L, BCP, Kiersten Moholy,
MOTR/L, Kimberly Lloyd, MOTR/L, and Anthony Seikel,
PhD, CCC-SLP
Please do not copy with out permission from the author

Caregiver/Parent Education
 Center-based Sensory Processing
(SP) playgroups
 Education on 8 sensory processing
related concepts
 Increased:
 Perceived understanding of SP
concepts
 Identification of child’s SP issues
 Perceived efficacy of sensory diet
activities (heavy work & deep
pressure)
(Gee & Nwora, 2011)
o Caregiver face to face SP
education group
o Parents/caregivers (n = 10)
o Improvement with
o Caregivers’ self-perceived
knowledge of SP concepts
o Actual knowledge of SP
concepts
o Self-rated competency for
dealing with children
exhibiting behaviors
related to SP
(Gee & Peterson in press)

Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs)
 New approach to increase
accessibility
 Definition
 “any digital resource that can be
used and reused to support
learning” (Wiley, 2002, p. 6)
 “discrete units of learning” (Lymn,
Bath-Hextall, & Wharrad, 2008)
Image from www.dominknow.com

RLO Characteristics
Reusable Information Object (RIO)
RIOs:
discrete chunks of shared, raw content,
meaningful to the application user.
blocks of text or media objects.
metadata tags are used as essential components.
appropriate granularity and use of context
“frames” allow RIOs to be used in a variety of
applications.
(Northrup, 2007)

RLO Characteristics
RLORIO 1
RIO 2
RIO 3
RIO 4
RIO 5
RIO 6
ROI 7
• Seven (+) or (-) two ROI’s for each RLO
(Northrup, 2007)Please do not copy with out permission from the author

RLOs Characteristics
RAID = delineates RLOs from other instructional
tools (Northrup, 2007)
Reusability = to be used over and over, in multiple
contexts, multiple users, same user
Accessibility = by individual user; repositories for
access
Interoperability = utilized across multiple
instructional/virtual contexts
Durability = subject matter examined for currency,
accuracy, appropriateness

RLO Characteristics
Single objective = one learning objective per RLO
Granularity = discrete; no context within RLO content
Framing = shaped by the way in which they are
placed within instructional content
Stringing = linear order in which an RLO may be
placed with another RLO
Combinability = ability to be combined with other
learning objects, instructional activities, assessment
tools; framed within larger context; to increase scope
(Gee, Strickland, & Salazar, 2014)

Field-Testing Reusable Learning Objects Related
to
Sensory Over-Responsiveness
• Ethnographic Narrative approach Semi-
structured interview:
• Rate: level of importance of each RLO to
relevance for caregivers; comfort with
elements; difficulty for caregivers to
understand
• Describe: interaction with format, exposure
to similar format; recommendations for use
with caregivers, modifying RLOs

Sensory Processing related RLOs
RLO Topic w/ single objective

RLO Design & Devlopment
 Based upon:
 Tropics from previous study (Gee & Peterson, in press)
 parent/caregiver education sources
 Miller (2006; 2014) – Sensational Kids
 Bailer & Miller (2011) – No Longer A SECRET
 Contents: text, image, video, & narration
 Adobe Captivate delivery format
 Embedded in a community LMS

Difficulty of Content
RLO Topic Subject Matter Difficulty
Sensory Processing A, B1
Sensory Processing Difficulties
Tactile Sensory Processing
Auditory Sensory Processing
Proprioception C, B2
A SECRET

Level of Importance
RLO Topic Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3
Sensory Processing A, B, C
Sensory Processing
Difficulty
A, B, C
Tactile Sensory Processing A B C
Auditory Sensory
Processing
A B, C
Proprioception A B, C
A SECRET A, B, C

Results
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Code Frequency

Ratings:
Coding Examples
Code Example
Cognitive Load: Content “But again, more modules would be better, just
‘cause there’s a lot of information. So once I got to,
like, sensory modulation, I almost felt like,
overwhelmed by what I had just learned.” – B
Cognitive Load: Time “’Cause I thought all of it was very relevant, and I
don’t know that I would want to exclude any of it.
But it didn’t seem like the timeframe allotted
allowed me to read and to really listen to her.” – A
Accessibility: Learning
Styles
“I really liked the videos, and I liked the table down
at the bottom. And maybe it’s just that I’m more
visual, so that was helpful for me. I understood things
a lot better once I saw those.” – B
Instructional Sequence “I think it was really good to start out with the
nervous system. And kind of give them an idea of
what you’re working with, and then to, I like that
you’re going into sensory processing. I think I like the
flow of it.” - B

Results:
Coding Examples
Code Example
Reusability:
Customizability
“All eight of them covered would be beneficial. And like you
said, going into wanting this to be an overall one you pick the
areas where they’re problematic or struggling, and I think that
would probably be the next step.” - A
Application:
Usefulness of
Content to
Caregiver
Interviewer: “Do you feel like it’s valuable for caregivers to view
this information?”
B: “Oh absolutely. It’s good because it kind of sets the
foundation, so this is what we’re talking about, we’re talking
about sensory processing in general. And then we’re talking
about the mechanisms, we’re talking about where kids might
have difficulty. And I think one thing that really kept standing out
was that the child is not doing this on purpose and I think that
that is really key for parents to know, is that the child isn’t doing
this deliberately.”Please do not copy with out permission from the author

Results:
Coding Examples
Code Example
Application: Lack of
Opportunity to
Facilitate Transfer of
Learning
“If they were already able to change the environment, or
add sensory tools for calming, or change the activity, they
wouldn’t need me. But usually by the time I get there they’re
just like, ‘Please do something!’ So that’s why I say I don’t
think even reading that information that they’d be able to
utilize that table for discussion to the extent that it could be.
‘Cause I feel like it could just be such a great tool but I just
don’t know that they could get there on their own without
having the concrete examples throughout.” – C
Application: Optimal
Use
“I think I might want to do one module and then discuss it
with them, and just say, ‘Do you have any questions or any
concerns? What’d you take away from it? How would you
apply it?’ So I think in small doses I would recommend it.” – B

Discussion
 Starting to capture RLO design, use
 Convenient supplements for caregivers according to child’s needs
 Limited understanding of RLOs
 Believed use contingent upon client; limited examples of reuse
 Feasibility of Use
 Support for use with caregivers = contingent upon client needs
 Optimal use = Supplemental tool: use in discussion with OT
 Customizability = Tailor to individual client’s areas of concern
 Delivery
 Mac/PC, tablet, smart phone, etc.

Package Instructional Items

Custom Instructional Items

What if?
 Caregiver education was delivered/accessed…….
 Prior to an occupational therapy assessment via e-learning/mobile
learning?
 Via tablets, smart phones etc.?
 During a given occupational therapy treatment session caregivers
were prescribed instruction that related to the planned home
program?
 Clients/caregivers could engage/interact with education that was
dynamic, reusable, and accessible based upon learning
preference?

 Coming soon!A
SECRET
Attention
Sensation
Emotion
Regulation
Culture
Relation-
ships
Environ-
ment
Task

Questions

Contact Info
Bryan Gee, PhD, OTR/L, BCP
geebrya@isu.edu
(208) 282-3629

References
Baharev, E., & Reiser, C. (2010). Using telepractice in parent training in early autism.
Telemedicine and e-Health, 16(6), 727-731.
Baker, A. E. Z., Lane, A., Angley, M. T., & Young, R. L. (2008). The relationship between sensory
processing patterns and behavioural responsiveness in autistic disorder: A pilot study.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 867-875.
Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe, M. D., Stone, W. L., & Watson, L. R. (2006). Sensory Experiences
Questionnaire: Discriminating sensory features in young children with autism,
developmental delays, and typical development. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47(6), 591-601.
Bialer, D., & Miller, L. (2011). No longer A SECRET: Unique common sense strategies for children
with sensory or motor challenges. London, England: Perigee.

References
Gee, B., & Strickland, J. (2012). Unpublished manuscript.
Glang, A., McLaughlin, K., & Schroeder, S. (2007). Using interactive multimedia
to teach parent advocacy skills: An exploratory study. Journal of Heard
Trauma Rehabilitation, 22(3), 196-203.
Gordon D. A., & Rolland-Stanar, C. (2003). Lessons learned from the
dissemination of Parenting Wisely, a parent training CD-ROM. Cognitive
and Behavioral Practice, 10, 312-323.
Hanna, K., & Rodger, S. (2002). Towards family-centered practice in paediatric
occupational therapy: A review of the literature on parent-therapist
collaboration. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 49, 14-24.
Kranowitz, C. (2006). The out-of-sync child. London, England: Perigee.
Gee, B., & Nwora, A. (2011). Enhancing caregiver perceptions using center-
based sensory processing playgroups: Understanding and efficacy.
Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 4, 276-290.Please do not copy with out permission from the author

References
Levasseur, M. (2010). Do rehabilitation professionals need to consider their
clients’ health literacy for effective practice? Clinical Rehabilitation, 24,
756-765.
Lymn, J. S., Bath-Hextall, F., & Wharrad, H. J. (2008). Pharmacology
education for nurse prescribing students – a lesson in reusable learning
objects. BMC Nursing, 7(2), 1-11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-7-2
Miller, L. (2006). Sensational kids: Hope and help for children with sensory
processing disorder. London, England: Perigee.
Nefdt, N., Koegel, R., Singer, G., & Gerber, M. (2009). The use of a self-
directed learning program to provide introductory training in pivotal
response treatment to parents of children with autism. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(1), 23-32.
Northrup, P. T. (Ed.). (2007). Learning objects for instruction: Design and
evaluation. IGI Global.
Wiley, D. A. (Ed.). (2002). The instructional use of learning objects.
Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association
for Educational Communications & Technology.

Reusable learning objects related to sensory processing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Reusable learning objects related to sensory processing

Similar to Reusable learning objects related to sensory processing (20)

More from The American Occupational Therapy Association

More from The American Occupational Therapy Association (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reusable learning objects related to sensory processing