The influence of Sensory Gardens on the behaviour of children with special educational needs

Hazreena Hussein, PhD

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya

reenalambina@um.edu.my

AicE-Bs 2010 ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment – Behaviour Studies Theme: Children, Youth and Environments

Overview

• WHY? • WHAT? • HOW?

• FINDINGS?

Introduction

Why bother to study Sensory Gardens?

• Lack of research done on the topic

• Access survey - barriers in the campus

• Interest and PASSION ‘Sensory gardens cannot be designed without

considering the human element. Unlike traditional display gardens that are meant to be observed from a distance, sensory gardens draw the visitor into touch, smell and actively experience the garden with all senses’

Shoemaker, C.A. (2001:195)

Experience the Sense of Touch and Smell

The Initial Study

WHAT is the study all about? - Preliminary questions

- Preliminary site studies

- Issues and benefits issues and benefits.ppt

- The theory of affordance

- Aim and objectives of the study: To observe and record how users responded to and engage with the individual behaviour settings in a sensory garden; investigate the design process and intentions of the landscape architect; investigate  the  teachers  and  therapists’  thoughts  and  experiences  with  reference to the benefits and problems in having the sensory garden; and assess opportunities  for  users’  activity  in  the  sensory  garden.  

‘Every  special  school  has  slightly  different  needs.  The  sensory  garden    will  reflect  those needs so no sensory garden will be the same. They might have similar

elements but there will always be an emphasis upon the needs of their individual children’  (Jefferies, K.; 2007)

The Research Method

HOW did the researcher approach the data collection?

Research Methodology Process The research stages on the left side and the research methods on the right side, in descending order

Case Study: Lyndale Special School, UK Zone A: Rainbow Walk

767sq.m Boardwalk, grass, pathway, trees.

Zone B:

Water Garden

223sq.m Boardwalk, interactive fountain with talking tubes, pond with marginal plants, slate stone channels.

Zone C:

Green Space

337sq.m Artwork display, covered tunnel, seating, sloping lawn, musical pipe, pathway, raised beds with herbs and scented plants, textured wall.

Zone D:

Woodland Garden

556sq.m Artwork display, boardwalk with rope railing, sloping lawn, trees, variety of sound stimuli.

Zone A: Rainbow Walk 2 senses (8 activities), 2 phy.soc. (8 activities)

Zone B: Water Garden 3 senses (10 activities), 2 phy.soc. (3 activities)

Zone C: Green Space 4 senses (23 activities), 2 phy.soc. (12 activities)

Zone D: Woodland Garden 3 senses (12 activities), 2 phy.soc. (8 activities)

The Analysis 1. Zone C (Green Space) afforded users to

engage with the settings, thus spent a longer time in this zone where, sensory experience were emphasised.

2. Zone A (Rainbow Walk) recorded the highest median time spent per user as teachers used this zone for their outdoor classroom.

3. Zone B (Water Garden) recorded the least frequency of sensory affordances and the lowest median time spend per user because the sensory experiences offered there were limited.

Frequencies of sensory stimulation, physical (mobility) and social skills recorded in the sensory garden of the Lyndale Special School, according to the zones

Key Findings • 2 key findings:

1. The layout of pathway and accessibility (highest number of users) SENSORY

2. Sensory value (greater time spend per user)

The study significance and original contribution of knowledge

Important message to landscape architects:

Evidently a full multi-sensory environment that engaged users with the physical elements, not the visual alone.

The value of a place is not determined by its appearance or aesthetic qualities but by its physical properties and the different activities that they afford (Gibson, 1979; Whitehouse et al., 2001)

The  concept  of  affordance,  and  the  essential  qualities  of  a  children’s  natural  environment have been described by Sebba (1991)  as  ‘children judge the natural setting  not  by  its  aesthetics  but  by  how  they  interact  with  the  environment’.

TRAIL

One morning, a group of teachers and students with various kinds of impairment were walking hand in hand, through the sensory garden of the school to find the perfect tree to do some tree-rubbing. As they neared a huge shady tree, a teacher said, ‘Let’s  feel  this  tree’. She placed her hands on the tree trunk.

A student moved his hands over the bark and slid his arms around the trunk until they met. His face was  touching  the  bark  and  he  said,  ‘This is the perfect tree!’  So  they  all  got  out  their  paper  and  pencils and started a tree-rubbing activity.

Zone A (Rainbow Walk) of the Lyndale Special School