Digital Learning in Speech-Language Pathology, Phoniatrics, and Otolaryngology: Interdisciplinary and Exploratory Analysis of Content, Organizing Structures, and Formats.

communication disorders digital learning e-learning mobile phone otolaryngology phoniatrics speech-language pathology

Journal

JMIR medical education
ISSN: 2369-3762
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Educ
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101684518

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Jul 2021
Historique:
received: 13 02 2021
accepted: 03 06 2021
revised: 16 05 2021
entrez: 27 7 2021
pubmed: 28 7 2021
medline: 28 7 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The digital revolution is rapidly transforming health care and clinical teaching and learning. Relative to other medical fields, the interdisciplinary fields of speech-language pathology (SLP), phoniatrics, and otolaryngology have been slower to take up digital tools for therapeutic, teaching, and learning purposes-a process that was recently expedited by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many current teaching and learning tools have restricted or institution-only access, there are many openly accessible tools that have gone largely unexplored. To find, use, and evaluate such resources, it is important to be familiar with the structures, concepts, and formats of existing digital tools. This descriptive study aims to investigate digital learning tools and resources in SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology. Differences in content, learning goals, and digital formats between academic-level learners and clinical-professional learners are explored. A systematic search of generic and academic search engines (eg, Google and PubMed); the App Store; Google Play Store; and websites of established SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology organizations was conducted. By using specific search terms and detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant digital resources were identified. These were organized and analyzed according to learner groups, content matter, learning goals and architectures, and digital formats. Within- and between-learner group differences among 125 identified tools were investigated. In terms of content, the largest proportion of tools for academic-level learners pertained to anatomy and physiology (60/214, 28%), and that for clinical-professional learners pertained to diagnostic evaluation (47/185, 25.4%). Between groups, the largest differences were observed for anatomy and physiology (academic-level learners: 60/86, 70%; clinical-professional learners: 26/86, 30%) and professional issues (8/28, 29% vs 20/28, 71%). With regard to learning goals, most tools for academic-level learners targeted the performance of procedural skills (50/98, 51%), and those for clinical-professional learners targeted receptive information acquisition (44/62, 71%). Academic-level learners had more tools for supporting higher-level learning goals than clinical-professional learners, specifically tools for performing procedural skills (50/66, 76% vs 16/66, 24%) and strategic skills (8/10, 80% vs 2/10, 20%). Visual formats (eg, pictures or diagrams) were dominant across both learner groups. The greatest between-group differences were observed for interactive formats (45/66, 68% vs 21/66, 32%). This investigation provides initial insights into openly accessible tools across SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology and their organizing structures. Digital tools in these fields addressed diverse content, although the tools for academic-level learners were greater in number, targeted higher-level learning goals, and had more interactive formats than those for clinical-professional learners. The crucial next steps include investigating the actual use of such tools in practice and students' and professionals' attitudes to better improve upon such tools and incorporate them into current and future learning milieus.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The digital revolution is rapidly transforming health care and clinical teaching and learning. Relative to other medical fields, the interdisciplinary fields of speech-language pathology (SLP), phoniatrics, and otolaryngology have been slower to take up digital tools for therapeutic, teaching, and learning purposes-a process that was recently expedited by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many current teaching and learning tools have restricted or institution-only access, there are many openly accessible tools that have gone largely unexplored. To find, use, and evaluate such resources, it is important to be familiar with the structures, concepts, and formats of existing digital tools.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This descriptive study aims to investigate digital learning tools and resources in SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology. Differences in content, learning goals, and digital formats between academic-level learners and clinical-professional learners are explored.
METHODS METHODS
A systematic search of generic and academic search engines (eg, Google and PubMed); the App Store; Google Play Store; and websites of established SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology organizations was conducted. By using specific search terms and detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant digital resources were identified. These were organized and analyzed according to learner groups, content matter, learning goals and architectures, and digital formats.
RESULTS RESULTS
Within- and between-learner group differences among 125 identified tools were investigated. In terms of content, the largest proportion of tools for academic-level learners pertained to anatomy and physiology (60/214, 28%), and that for clinical-professional learners pertained to diagnostic evaluation (47/185, 25.4%). Between groups, the largest differences were observed for anatomy and physiology (academic-level learners: 60/86, 70%; clinical-professional learners: 26/86, 30%) and professional issues (8/28, 29% vs 20/28, 71%). With regard to learning goals, most tools for academic-level learners targeted the performance of procedural skills (50/98, 51%), and those for clinical-professional learners targeted receptive information acquisition (44/62, 71%). Academic-level learners had more tools for supporting higher-level learning goals than clinical-professional learners, specifically tools for performing procedural skills (50/66, 76% vs 16/66, 24%) and strategic skills (8/10, 80% vs 2/10, 20%). Visual formats (eg, pictures or diagrams) were dominant across both learner groups. The greatest between-group differences were observed for interactive formats (45/66, 68% vs 21/66, 32%).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This investigation provides initial insights into openly accessible tools across SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology and their organizing structures. Digital tools in these fields addressed diverse content, although the tools for academic-level learners were greater in number, targeted higher-level learning goals, and had more interactive formats than those for clinical-professional learners. The crucial next steps include investigating the actual use of such tools in practice and students' and professionals' attitudes to better improve upon such tools and incorporate them into current and future learning milieus.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34313592
pii: v7i3e27901
doi: 10.2196/27901
pmc: PMC8367137
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e27901

Informations de copyright

©Yuchen Lin, Christiane Neuschaefer-Rube. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 27.07.2021.

Références

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Mar 1;145(3):203-204
pubmed: 30676632
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Nov 29;5(4):e233
pubmed: 27899341
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 18;20(5):e189
pubmed: 29776900
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27
pubmed: 25760773
Med Teach. 2008 Jun;30(5):455-73
pubmed: 18576185
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019 Sep 26;6(2):e13966
pubmed: 31573922
SN Compr Clin Med. 2020 Sep 22;:1-6
pubmed: 32984766
Med Teach. 2008 Jun;30(5):474-89
pubmed: 18576186
Inform Med Unlocked. 2020;20:100432
pubmed: 32959020
Laryngorhinootologie. 2017 Mar;96(3):175-179
pubmed: 28099982
Lancet. 2015 Feb 7;385(9967):484-6
pubmed: 25468156
Anesth Analg. 2017 Mar;124(3):807-818
pubmed: 28151816
JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Mar 12;4(1):e29
pubmed: 25768939
Med Educ Online. 2020 Dec;25(1):1781378
pubmed: 32552578
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 Jun;17(3):230-40
pubmed: 25833074
Laryngorhinootologie. 2019 Mar;98(S 01):S253-S289
pubmed: 31096301
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 May;88(5):323, A
pubmed: 20461215
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020 Aug 31;7:2382120520933855
pubmed: 32944651
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 14;22(8):e19827
pubmed: 32667899
Med Educ. 2012 Jan;46(1):71-9
pubmed: 22150198
BMC Med Educ. 2012 Nov 13;12:112
pubmed: 23145840
Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2015 Oct;100(5):244-51
pubmed: 26033788
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017 Winter;37(1):61-66
pubmed: 28252469
Future Healthc J. 2020 Oct;7(3):189-192
pubmed: 33094221
Med Teach. 2011;33(12):e644-50
pubmed: 22225446
Telemed J E Health. 2018 Jun;24(6):425-432
pubmed: 29227206
J Allied Health. 2008 Spring;37(1):53-62
pubmed: 18444440
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jan 8;6(218):218fs2
pubmed: 24401938
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):212-20
pubmed: 26078410
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Aug 8;17(1):130
pubmed: 28789645
Can Med Educ J. 2020 Aug 06;11(4):e62-e69
pubmed: 32821303
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 9;13(8):e0201513
pubmed: 30092095
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011 Dec;13(6):469-79
pubmed: 21846166
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 10;4(2):e72
pubmed: 27287964
J Public Health (Oxf). 2013 Mar;35(1):157-63
pubmed: 23097260
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019 Feb 21;28(1):136-147
pubmed: 31072156
Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(5):
pubmed: 29018048
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Sep 1;144(9):802-806
pubmed: 30335882

Auteurs

Yuchen Lin (Y)

Clinic for Phoniatrics, Pedaudiology & Communication Disorders, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Christiane Neuschaefer-Rube (C)

Clinic for Phoniatrics, Pedaudiology & Communication Disorders, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Classifications MeSH