1. 1 17th EECERA Annual Conference Prague 29th Aug – 1st Sept 2007 MEANINGS OF A PEER GROUP OF A CHILD WITH MOTOR DYSFUNCTION – EXPERIENCES OF CONDUCTIVE EDUCATION SANNA UOTINEN (MEd.) E-mail: sanna.uotinen@edu.jyu.fi Department of Special Education University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND

2. 2 HABILITATION OF A CHILD  Interest of this study: family with a child with motor dysfunction, cerebral palsy  Child receives therapies one to five times / week (Autti-Rämö 2003; Von Wendt et al 2001)  Therapy of a child most commonly organized child-therapist, one-to-one session (Heinämäki 2004; Koivikko & Sipari 2006; Rantala 2002; Viitala 1998)  Child’s motivation is challenge (Autti-Rämö 2004; Kiviranta & Jokinen 2004)

3. 3 CONDUCTIVE EDUCATION (CE)  Unified system of habilitation that promotes children and adults with motor disorders to function more independently.  Based on the work of Hungarian doctor and educationalist András Pető (1893-1967).  An educational approach to habilitation. Philosophy and way of action to learning and teaching.  The aim is to develop the entire personality. One should became an independent, active person within a social group.  Child is seen as active, working participant in the process  conscious learning.  Parents training.

4. 4 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CE Groups Groups Task series Task series Facilitation, rhythmical intention Facilitation, rhythmical intention Conductor Conductor Environment, equipment Environment, equipment

5. 5 http://www.fortschrittwuerzburg.selbsthilfe- wue.de/1145983215.htmlhttp://www.fortschrittwuerzburg.selbsthilfe- wue.de/1145983215.html. (Printed 11.5.2007)

6. 6 http://www.cenaar.org/photos/photos.htmhttp://www.cenaar.org/photos/photos.htm (Printed 11.5.2007)

7. 7 CONNECTION TO VYGOTSKY (e.g. Jernqvist 1985) o Teaching in the Zone of proximal development o Development from social to psychological level, first between people then within the child o Guidance of a more advanced person, scaffolding – facilitating o Meaning of the environment o Meaning of speech

8. 8 CONDUCTIVE EDUCATION IN FINLAND  CE is not part of our official early intervention services  Some schools and day-care centers have applied CE in their practices  CE is also implemented through short- term courses  Parents interest

9. 9 RESEARCH DATA AND METHOD  27 families with a child with motor dysfunction.  Families attended a three-to four-week CE course in year 2001 in Finland.  Data were collected by group interview two times and by video during the courses. The follow-up interviews were made for 10 families in 2004-2005 at their home.  The interviews were conducted as theme interviews and data were analyzed by qualitative methods.

10. 10 CHILDREN’S AGES CHILD’S YEAR OF BIRTH NUMBER OF CHILDREN (N=27) Year 20001 Years 1998-19975 Years 1996-199511 Years 1994-19923 Years 1989-19883 The exact birth year is unknown 4

11. 11 AIM OF THE STUDY 1. How does the current habilitation system respond to parents expectations? 2. In what way conductive education contributes the child, in parents’ opinion?  Changes in child’s behavior?  CHILDREN’S MUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN A GROUP? 3. How does conductive education support parenthood? 4. What kind of factors affect the implementation of habilitation in daily life?

12. 12 MEANINGS OF A PEER GROUP  Group was seen important with itself  Group was seen with diversity of meanings, not just focusing physical development  Children’s mutual relationships: 1. Group as model and source of motivation 2. Group as a place to learn to work to together 3. Group as place for friendships 4. Group versus individuality

13. 13 1. GROUP SWEEPS YOU IN o The presence of others important o Just little physical or verbal contact between children o Child as an observer o Motivation o Model

14. 14 2. GROUP TEACHES YOU TO WORK TOGETHER LEARNING TO WORK TOGETHER WAITING YOUR TURN COURAGE TO ACT IN A GROUP CONCENTRATING HELPING THE OTHER

15. 15 3. YOU CAN BUILD FRIENDSHIPS IN A GROUP o Some friendships o Importance of seeing other children with similar situation o Normally therapist-child one-to-one session

16. 16 4. INDIVIDUALITY versus COLLABORATION o Individuality of the program o Individual goals but shared doing o More collaborative doing was hoped for

17. 17 CONCLUSION  Presence of a group was valued positively by parents, as in previous studies (e. g. Lind 2000, Sigafoos et al 1993)  Motivation, co-operative skills  Importance of meeting peers  Use of peer groups in habilitation  Child’s point of view!

18. 18 THANK YOU! sanna.uotinen@edu.jyu.fi Department of Special Education University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND sanna.uotinen@edu.jyu.fi