Lin Yuchen, Neuschaefer-Rube Christiane
Clinic for Phoniatrics, Pedaudiology & Communication Disorders, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
JMIR Med Educ. 2021 Jul 27;7(3):e27901. doi: 10.2196/27901.
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.
数字革命正在迅速改变医疗保健以及临床教学与学习。相对于其他医学领域，言语语言病理学（SLP）、语音学和耳鼻喉科学等跨学科领域在采用数字工具用于治疗、教学和学习目的方面进展较慢——这一进程最近因新冠疫情而加速。尽管许多当前的教学工具限制访问或仅限机构访问，但仍有许多可公开获取的工具在很大程度上未被探索。为了查找、使用和评估此类资源，熟悉现有数字工具的结构、概念和格式很重要。
本描述性研究旨在调查言语语言病理学、语音学和耳鼻喉科学中的数字学习工具和资源。探讨学术水平学习者与临床专业学习者在内容、学习目标和数字格式方面的差异。
对通用和学术搜索引擎（如谷歌和PubMed）、应用商店、谷歌Play商店以及知名的言语语言病理学、语音学和耳鼻喉科学组织的网站进行了系统搜索。通过使用特定的搜索词以及详细的纳入和排除标准，确定了相关数字资源。这些资源根据学习者群体、内容、学习目标和架构以及数字格式进行了整理和分析。
对125个已识别工具在学习者群体内部和之间的差异进行了调查。在内容方面，学术水平学习者的工具中最大比例与解剖学和生理学相关（60/214，28%），临床专业学习者的工具中最大比例与诊断评估相关（47/185，25.4%）。在两组之间，解剖学和生理学方面的差异最大（学术水平学习者：60/86，70%；临床专业学习者：26/86，30%）以及专业问题方面（8/28，29%对20/28，71%）。关于学习目标，学术水平学习者的大多数工具针对程序技能的执行（50/98，51%），临床专业学习者的工具针对接受性信息获取（44/62，71%）。与临床专业学习者相比，学术水平学习者有更多支持更高层次学习目标的工具，特别是用于执行程序技能的工具（50/66，76%对16/66，24%）和战略技能的工具（8/10，80%对2/10，20%）。视觉格式（如图片或图表）在两个学习者群体中都占主导地位。在交互格式方面观察到最大的组间差异（45/66，68%对21/66，32%）。
本调查为言语语言病理学、语音学和耳鼻喉科学中可公开获取的工具及其组织结构提供了初步见解。这些领域的数字工具涉及多种内容，尽管学术水平学习者的工具数量更多，针对更高层次的学习目标，并且比临床专业学习者的工具具有更多的交互格式。关键的下一步包括调查此类工具在实践中的实际使用情况以及学生和专业人员的态度，以便更好地改进此类工具并将其纳入当前和未来的学习环境。
