The ASI 1 redesign did not begin with a course outline. It began with data. Data-driven ASI Education.
As our modular programme year comes to a close, we are delighted to share feedback from more than 500 students who studied with us this year. More than 90 per cent rated their Overall Experience and Module Content as “Excellent” or “Very Good”, with learners repeatedly highlighting the quality of teaching, the value of group activities, the support from knowledgeable lecturers, and the importance of practical examples, case studies and opportunities to apply learning.
That feedback is joyful to receive, of course. But it is also useful.
It tells us what is working. It tells us what learners value. It tells us which parts of the learning experience support confidence, belonging and application. It also helps us notice what needs to be protected when a programme is redesigned.
The ASI Wise 2024/2025 student feedback video captures that learner voice beautifully, with students describing the modules as “amazing”, “very informative” and “highly recommended”. One learner summed it up in a way that stayed with us: “This is definitely a module that every therapist would benefit from completing.”
So, the redesign of ASI 1 was not driven by dissatisfaction. It was driven by responsibility.
When learners tell us that the learning is strong, supportive and relevant, the question becomes sharper. How do we keep what is valued, while making sure the first stage of the learning pathway still reflects the practice realities therapists are now facing?
That was the heart of the ASI 1 redesign.
The audit behind the redesign
Kath Smith’s Porto presentation gives the clearest account of the deeper data trail that shaped this thinking.
The rolling audit of feedback and data about case study client ages and clinical dilemmas began in 2017 to consider implications for education, practice and workforce development in the UK and Ireland. It explored trends in sensory integration and processing, trauma exposure and emotional regulation challenges in a large anonymised dataset of clinical cases. The aim was not simply to describe practice. It was to use this data to enhance curriculum design and teaching practice for professionals working in sensory integration and related fields.
That point matters.
This was not data collected for the sake of collecting data. It was data collected to shape education.
The complete audit analysis included 101 cases after incomplete entries were removed from an original 400 data sets. For ASI 1, this was important because the first stage of learning shapes everything that follows.
It is where learners begin to build shared language.
It is where they first connect theory with practice.
It is where they begin to understand fidelity, assessment, participation, therapeutic use of self, sensory foundations and the complexity of real lives.
So, when the later module data showed that practice had changed, ASI 1 had to respond.
What the student data told us
The learner feedback from more than 500 students gave us one layer of the picture.
Students valued the interactive nature of the programme. They valued learning with others, not simply receiving information. They valued the combination of clear teaching, group discussion, case examples and practical application.
That helped us protect the things that matter most.
The ASI 1 redesign, therefore, needed to keep learning relational, active, and practice-focused. It needed to maintain the warmth, support and lecturer expertise that students consistently rated highly. It also needed to strengthen the bridge between learning and use.
The feedback told us that learners do not want less depth.
- They want depth that helps them practise.
- They want clarity that can travel into services.
- They want examples that feel real.
- They want safe spaces to think, ask, test ideas and apply learning.
That is why the redesign was not about adding more content for the sake of it. It was about better positioning the first module so learners could make sense of sensory integration from the beginning, in the contexts where they actually work.
What the case data told us
The clinical data told us something equally important. Referrals are rarely “sensory integration only”.
Kath’s Porto presentation identifies this as a shift from earlier UK trends, especially in paediatrics between 2010 and 2015. Learners now need to hold sensory integration and processing more alongside emotional wellbeing, neurodevelopmental context and physical health as standard, not as optional extras.
This changed the job of ASI 1.
The first module could no longer sit as a neat introduction to theory, with complexity waiting politely for later. The complexity was already there.
Learners were already meeting children, young people and adults whose participation was shaped by sensory integration and processing differences alongside sleep, stamina, pain, trauma exposure, medical complexity, medication effects, emotional regulation, movement, attention, relationships and everyday demands.
The data made that visible.
In Kath’s Porto presentation, the complexity comparison shows mean complexity scores rising from 9.40 in 2019 to 2021, to 11.24 in 2022 to 2023, and 11.54 in 2024 to 2025. Complexity was coded across mental health, neurodevelopment, physical health and participation impacts.
That is a powerful teaching signal.
When practice becomes more complex, education must become more integrated.
Participation had to move earlier
One of the strongest messages from the data was that sensory integration learning needed to connect with participation from the very beginning.
In the Porto presentation, the unmet participation needs chart shows a wide spread across occupational domains. The highest areas included education, work or study, attention and executive function, social connection and relationships, self-care and daily living, movement and motor skills, community access, sleep and rest, energy and arousal, digestion, pain, play, leisure and meaningful activity.
That is not a narrow clinical picture. It is a life picture.
It tells us that ASI 1 needed to support learners to think beyond “sensory difficulties” as isolated features. From the start, learners needed to ask how sensory integration and processing differences shape what people need, want and are expected to do.
- In school.
- At home.
- At work.
- In relationships.
- In movement.
- In rest.
- In play.
- In community life.
- In belonging.
This is why the redesign needed to foreground participation more clearly and earlier. It was not enough to understand sensory systems. Learners needed to begin connecting sensory integration with occupation, identity, wellbeing, context and meaningful everyday life.
The lifespan lens mattered too
The age distribution in the case data also challenged the programme to widen its lens.
The data included children, adolescents, adults and older adults, with less than 50 percent younger children who have traditionally been the focus of sensory integration. Our audit measures told an interesting story – 47.4 per cent child cases, 25.9 per cent adolescent cases (13 + with bigger bodies and need to consider playfulness beyond childhood in individual intervention), 24.1 per cent adult cases and 2.6 per cent older adult cases.
That does not reduce the importance of paediatric practice. It strengthens the need for language and practice skills that travel.
ASI 1 had to offer foundations that could support learners working across different settings, age groups, and service pressures. It needed to avoid quietly teaching sensory integration as though it only belongs in one part of practice.
The redesign, therefore, needed to make space for the wider reality of ASI-informed work across the UK and Ireland, while still holding the core theory clearly.
Trauma, regulation and relational safety could not sit at the edges
The trauma coding in the data was another important driver.
Kath’s Porto presentation notes trauma coded in 51 per cent of ASI2 cases and 40 per cent of ASI3 cases.
That finding did not mean ASI 1 needed to become trauma training. It meant ASI 1 needed to be more honest about lived experience.
Learners needed support to think about how sensory integration and processing differences sit within emotional wellbeing, relational safety, neurodevelopmental context and regulation. They needed language that was careful, neuro-affirming and grounded in participation.
This was especially important because learners were already asking these questions in tutor groups and Communities of Practice.
The qualitative data on tutoring and fidelity showed that learners were thinking deeply about how to practise well. They were asking about fidelity beyond childhood, emotional and relational safety, adult playfulness, sensory-motor activity, and how to measure or chart activity that offers the right sensory affordances beyond clinic settings, including outdoors, in pools and in restricted environments.
In other words, learners were not simply asking, “What does the theory say?”
They were asking, “How do I apply this safely and well here?”
That question had to shape ASI 1.
The redesign decision
Looking back, the redesign of ASI 1 was driven by three connected forms of data.
Learner feedback showed that students value interactive, supportive, practical and well taught learning.
Clinical case data showed that practice is becoming more complex, with sensory integration and processing sitting alongside emotional wellbeing, neurodevelopmental context, physical health and participation.
Tutor and fidelity data showed that learners needed clearer early support for reasoning, adaptation, relational safety and applying core ASI principles beyond ideal clinic conditions.
Together, those data sources pointed in the same direction.
ASI 1 needed to become more than an introduction.
It needed to become a stronger foundation for contemporary practice.
It needed to protect the quality learners already valued, while better preparing them for the complexity they were already holding.
What changed in the thinking
The redesign was not about making ASI 1 heavier.
It was about making it better positioned.
The data told us that ASI 1 needed to:
- bring participation into the learning earlier
- connect sensory integration with real practice contexts
- support learners to think across ages and services
- introduce complexity without overwhelming new learners
- strengthen links between theory, application and reflection
- keep the interactive and supportive learning experience that students valued
- make the pathway into later modules clearer and more purposeful
That is the essence of the redesign.
Not more for the sake of more.
Better because the data asked for better.
A data-informed education cycle
The Porto presentation also notes that Ulster University requires ASI Wise to review the programme offer annually in line with the approved agreed learning offer. It also describes ASI Wise’s commitment to continued additional learning resources that meet Community of Practice needs.
That matters because it shows that the ASI 1 redesign sits within a living education cycle.
- We review.
- We listen.
- We analyse.
- We notice.
- We redesign.
- We teach.
- We gather feedback.
- We continue learning.
The feedback from more than 500 students this year gives us confidence that the learning community remains strong. The case data gives us clarity about why the programme needed to evolve. The tutor and fidelity data shows us where learners need support to make the journey from knowledge into practice.
That is what data informed education should do.
It should not remove the warmth, humanity or creativity from learning.
It should help us protect them.
Closing
The ASI 1 redesign was not a cosmetic update.
It was a response to evidence.
A response to learner voice. A response to clinical complexity. A response to tutor insight. A response to the changing realities of practice across the UK and Ireland. The data told us that students value what we offer.
It also told us that practice is changing. So ASI 1 changed too.
And that is the point of an intentional review.
Not to change everything.
To change the right things, for the right reasons, so that learners are better supported to take sensory integration learning back into real practice.