语音学和语言病理学的电子学习:在增强和替代交流中免费获取工具的探索性分析。

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jessica Büchs, Christiane Neuschaefer-Rube
{"title":"语音学和语言病理学的电子学习:在增强和替代交流中免费获取工具的探索性分析。","authors":"Jessica Büchs, Christiane Neuschaefer-Rube","doi":"10.2196/63392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is a therapeutic approach and modality of expression for patients with limited or no expressive language. Speech-language pathologists and phoniatricians need to be competent in AAC to treat patients with complex communication needs. For knowledge acquisition and enhancement in AAC, a significant number of e-learning tools are available. To improve e-learning in AAC, it is essential to understand the attributes of these tools, such as formats, content areas, learning styles, or learning goals. However, these structures have yet to be investigated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>With this study, we aimed to (1) explore free access AAC e-learning tools that are appropriate for students and professionals of phoniatrics and speech-language pathology; (2) gain insight into formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals; and (3) investigate structural differences within and between basic and advanced learner level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2023, we conducted a systematic web-based search with defined search terms in PubMed, peDOCS, Google Scholar, Google, the Apple App Store, and the Google Play Store in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines and piloting a protocol for data abstraction and validation. Inclusion criteria were free access, a mandatory minimum AAC content, and the use of the English or the German language. Social networks, video-sharing platforms, blogs, and forums were excluded. We analyzed formats (websites, online courses, apps, and podcasts), content areas (types of AAC, diagnostics, therapy, and other content areas), learning styles (visual, auditory, and audio-visual), and learning goals (receptive and performative) within and between basic and advanced level tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 131 tools, of which 57 (43.5%) were basic level and 74 (56.5%) were advanced level. Of these 131 tools, 105 (80.2%) were websites, 21 (16%) were online courses, 3 (2.3%) were apps and 2 (1.5%) were podcasts. Only 12 out of 74 (16.2%) tools for advanced learners offered performative tasks. For basic learners no such tasks could be identified. For learning style, all basic tools and most of the advanced level tools were \"visual (text)\" (57/57, 100% basic vs 66/74, 89.2% advanced). In terms of content, advanced level tools pertained more often to \"diagnostics\" (28/57, 49.1% basic vs 65/74, 87.8% advanced) and \"therapy\" (17/57, 29.8% basic vs 64/74, 86.5% advanced). Advanced level courses were more likely online courses (2/57, 3.5% basic vs 19/74, 25.7% advanced) and more often showed audio-visual learning styles compared with basic level tools (5/57, 8.8% basic vs 27/74, 36.5% advanced).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that free-access AAC tools for phoniatrics and speech-language pathology varied in formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals. Furthermore, we found differences within and between learner levels. Thus, we established a basis for future research in e-learning in AAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"11 ","pages":"e63392"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"e-Learning in Phoniatrics and Speech-Language Pathology: Exploratory Analysis of Free Access Tools in Augmentative and Alternative Communication.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Büchs, Christiane Neuschaefer-Rube\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/63392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is a therapeutic approach and modality of expression for patients with limited or no expressive language. Speech-language pathologists and phoniatricians need to be competent in AAC to treat patients with complex communication needs. For knowledge acquisition and enhancement in AAC, a significant number of e-learning tools are available. To improve e-learning in AAC, it is essential to understand the attributes of these tools, such as formats, content areas, learning styles, or learning goals. However, these structures have yet to be investigated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>With this study, we aimed to (1) explore free access AAC e-learning tools that are appropriate for students and professionals of phoniatrics and speech-language pathology; (2) gain insight into formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals; and (3) investigate structural differences within and between basic and advanced learner level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2023, we conducted a systematic web-based search with defined search terms in PubMed, peDOCS, Google Scholar, Google, the Apple App Store, and the Google Play Store in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines and piloting a protocol for data abstraction and validation. Inclusion criteria were free access, a mandatory minimum AAC content, and the use of the English or the German language. Social networks, video-sharing platforms, blogs, and forums were excluded. We analyzed formats (websites, online courses, apps, and podcasts), content areas (types of AAC, diagnostics, therapy, and other content areas), learning styles (visual, auditory, and audio-visual), and learning goals (receptive and performative) within and between basic and advanced level tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 131 tools, of which 57 (43.5%) were basic level and 74 (56.5%) were advanced level. Of these 131 tools, 105 (80.2%) were websites, 21 (16%) were online courses, 3 (2.3%) were apps and 2 (1.5%) were podcasts. Only 12 out of 74 (16.2%) tools for advanced learners offered performative tasks. For basic learners no such tasks could be identified. For learning style, all basic tools and most of the advanced level tools were \\\"visual (text)\\\" (57/57, 100% basic vs 66/74, 89.2% advanced). In terms of content, advanced level tools pertained more often to \\\"diagnostics\\\" (28/57, 49.1% basic vs 65/74, 87.8% advanced) and \\\"therapy\\\" (17/57, 29.8% basic vs 64/74, 86.5% advanced). Advanced level courses were more likely online courses (2/57, 3.5% basic vs 19/74, 25.7% advanced) and more often showed audio-visual learning styles compared with basic level tools (5/57, 8.8% basic vs 27/74, 36.5% advanced).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that free-access AAC tools for phoniatrics and speech-language pathology varied in formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals. Furthermore, we found differences within and between learner levels. Thus, we established a basis for future research in e-learning in AAC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"e63392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/63392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/63392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:辅助和替代沟通(AAC)是一种治疗语言障碍或无语言表达的方法和表达方式。语言病理学家和语音学家需要在AAC中有能力治疗有复杂沟通需求的患者。对于AAC的知识获取和增强,有大量的电子学习工具可用。为了改进AAC中的电子学习,有必要了解这些工具的属性,例如格式、内容领域、学习风格或学习目标。然而,这些结构还有待研究。目的:通过本研究,我们旨在(1)探索适合学生和语音病学和语言病理学专业人员的免费AAC电子学习工具;(2)深入了解格式、内容领域、学习风格和学习目标;(3)研究初级和高级学习者水平内部和之间的结构差异。方法:在2023年,我们根据PRISMA(系统评价和meta分析的首选报告项目)2020指南和试点数据抽象和验证协议,在PubMed、peDOCS、谷歌Scholar、谷歌、Apple App Store和谷歌Play Store中进行了系统的基于网络的搜索,并定义了搜索词。纳入标准是免费访问,强制性最低AAC内容,以及使用英语或德语。社交网络、视频分享平台、博客和论坛被排除在外。我们分析了基本和高级工具内部和之间的格式(网站、在线课程、应用程序和播客)、内容领域(AAC类型、诊断、治疗和其他内容领域)、学习风格(视觉、听觉和视听)和学习目标(接受和执行)。结果:共鉴定出131种工具,其中基础水平57种(43.5%),高级水平74种(56.5%)。在这131个工具中,105个(80.2%)是网站,21个(16%)是在线课程,3个(2.3%)是应用程序,2个(1.5%)是播客。在74个面向高级学习者的工具中,只有12个(16.2%)提供了执行任务。对于基础学习者来说,没有这样的任务可以确定。就学习风格而言,所有的基本工具和大多数高级工具都是“可视化(文本)”的。(57/57, 100%基础vs 66/74, 89.2%高级)。就内容而言,高级工具更多地属于“诊断”(28/57,49.1%的基础vs 65/74, 87.8%的高级)和“治疗”(17/57,29.8%的基础vs 64/74, 86.5%的高级)。高级课程更可能是在线课程(2/57,3.5%基础课程vs 19/74, 25.7%高级课程),与基础水平工具相比,更经常显示视听学习风格(5/57,8.8%基础课程vs 27/74, 36.5%高级课程)。结论:我们的研究表明,语音病学和语言病理学的免费AAC工具在格式、内容领域、学习方式和学习目标方面各不相同。此外,我们还发现了不同学习者水平之间的差异。从而为今后在AAC进行电子学习的研究奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
e-Learning in Phoniatrics and Speech-Language Pathology: Exploratory Analysis of Free Access Tools in Augmentative and Alternative Communication.

Background: Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is a therapeutic approach and modality of expression for patients with limited or no expressive language. Speech-language pathologists and phoniatricians need to be competent in AAC to treat patients with complex communication needs. For knowledge acquisition and enhancement in AAC, a significant number of e-learning tools are available. To improve e-learning in AAC, it is essential to understand the attributes of these tools, such as formats, content areas, learning styles, or learning goals. However, these structures have yet to be investigated.

Objective: With this study, we aimed to (1) explore free access AAC e-learning tools that are appropriate for students and professionals of phoniatrics and speech-language pathology; (2) gain insight into formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals; and (3) investigate structural differences within and between basic and advanced learner level.

Methods: In 2023, we conducted a systematic web-based search with defined search terms in PubMed, peDOCS, Google Scholar, Google, the Apple App Store, and the Google Play Store in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines and piloting a protocol for data abstraction and validation. Inclusion criteria were free access, a mandatory minimum AAC content, and the use of the English or the German language. Social networks, video-sharing platforms, blogs, and forums were excluded. We analyzed formats (websites, online courses, apps, and podcasts), content areas (types of AAC, diagnostics, therapy, and other content areas), learning styles (visual, auditory, and audio-visual), and learning goals (receptive and performative) within and between basic and advanced level tools.

Results: We identified 131 tools, of which 57 (43.5%) were basic level and 74 (56.5%) were advanced level. Of these 131 tools, 105 (80.2%) were websites, 21 (16%) were online courses, 3 (2.3%) were apps and 2 (1.5%) were podcasts. Only 12 out of 74 (16.2%) tools for advanced learners offered performative tasks. For basic learners no such tasks could be identified. For learning style, all basic tools and most of the advanced level tools were "visual (text)" (57/57, 100% basic vs 66/74, 89.2% advanced). In terms of content, advanced level tools pertained more often to "diagnostics" (28/57, 49.1% basic vs 65/74, 87.8% advanced) and "therapy" (17/57, 29.8% basic vs 64/74, 86.5% advanced). Advanced level courses were more likely online courses (2/57, 3.5% basic vs 19/74, 25.7% advanced) and more often showed audio-visual learning styles compared with basic level tools (5/57, 8.8% basic vs 27/74, 36.5% advanced).

Conclusions: Our study showed that free-access AAC tools for phoniatrics and speech-language pathology varied in formats, content areas, learning styles, and learning goals. Furthermore, we found differences within and between learner levels. Thus, we established a basis for future research in e-learning in AAC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信