FASE 3 RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA APLICACIÓN DE LA UNIDAD

In January 2015, a two-week pilot study was conducted at the Columbia Museum of Art to investigate the feasibility of the proposed mixed methods research design that combined quantitative and qualitative techniques. Therefore, the pilot study intended to test the data collection instruments and refine the overall design. The pilot study involved six autistic children aged 5 to 15. The subjects were recruited with the help of the Autism Academy of South Carolina. The pilot study subjects visited the museum twice

accompanied by parents and in some cases by therapists. The first visit focused on the Landscapes theme, while the theme for the second visit was Warm and Cool colors. To test the clarity of the survey questions, the parents were asked to fill out the parent pre- visit survey form before the first pilot visit. At the beginning of the pilot study, the parents were also instructed to fill out the Social Responsiveness Scale form to determine the ease with which they could record their responses and the time it took them to

complete the form.

The pilot study also intended to test the behavioral observation sheet which in its original version featured fifteen behavior indicators grouped into three broad categories: Learning, Social Interaction, and Communication. During the two-week pilot program, two graduate student observers tallied instances of the behavior of interest to the researcher and recorded additional comments in the “Observer Comments” area of the

observation sheet. The pilot testing revealed problems with the current design of the observation sheet and the need to reduce the number of observable behaviors and thus increase the observation accuracy. Based on the outcomes of the pilot study, the

researcher redesigned the behavioral observation sheet to limit the number of observable behaviors to three, namely Asking Questions, Answering Questions, and Making

Requests for Self. These behaviors were deemed relevant to the research question of the study. They were selected because they best reflected the cognitive and communicative activity of the autistic children participating in the museum access program.

After the second visit, the parents were asked to fill out the post-visit survey form that included a combination of open-ended and closed questions. The researcher aimed to test the logistics of the survey as well as the survey form itself. In addition, the parents were asked to complete the post-visit Social Responsiveness Scale. Little change was observed between the pre- and post-visit Scale scores due to the short duration and the limited impact of the pilot on the study subjects.

Finally, task evaluation was the last data collection instrument to be tested in the pilot study. The CMA staff measured the accuracy and completion time of topic-specific tasks performed by the study participants before and after the gallery tour during each of the two museum visits. Interference from the parents and/or therapists undermined the validity of the data collected via task evaluation. Based on the pilot testing, appropriate modifications were made to the data collection procedures and instruments in preparation for the formal study. Besides the above-mentioned changes to the behavioral observation sheet, an important modification was made to the task evaluation process. After a

evaluation procedure one-on-one with each study participant. Although this modification required greater involvement of the CMA staff and graduate student assistants, it allowed the researcher to streamline task evaluation and enhance the quality of the data collected through this method in the formal study.

3.9 Summary

This chapter discussed the choice of the methodology for the current study. To answer the main research question of the study: How does the museum experience influence learning and behaviors of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder?, the researcher employed the mixed methods design. Data were collected through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, including the parent pre-program and post-program survey, the standardized Social Responsiveness Scale, the behavioral observation of the study participants in the naturalistic museum setting, topic-specific task evaluation called “the measurable,” and the follow-up semi-structured parent interview. The wide variety of techniques allowed the researcher to collect data directly from the study participants (through behavioral observations and task evaluations) and indirectly from their parents (through the surveys, parent ratings of the Social

Responsiveness Scale, and responses to the follow-up interview questions).

Using the mixed methods approach, the researcher was able to collect rich data to both quantify and at the same time better understand the impact of non-traditional

learning environments, such as museums, on learning and socialization of autistic children. Due to the presence of the interpretive aspect, the validity criteria used in empirical research alone were not sufficient for the current research. Therefore, data triangulation was an important consideration when choosing a methodological approach

to this study because of the complex nature of its central phenomenon. Glesne (2015) points out the fact that by increasing the number of data-gathering methods, the

investigator can arrive at more multidimensional findings. Throughout the current study, the researcher aimed not only to find quantifiable evidence of the effect the museum environment had on knowledge acquisition and communication of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder but also to investigate parent perspectives on the museum setting as an alternative learning environment for children with special needs. By collecting and analyzing data gathered from multiple sources, the researcher was able to view the phenomenon of the study from more than one angle and thus increase the study

trustworthiness by eliminating or reducing the number of potential discrepancies in the interpretation of the findings.