Technology-mediated learning in speech-language and hearing sciences: a comparison between three learning methods about the orofacial miofuncional system

The objective of this study was to compare three learning methods as means of teaching Anatomy and Physiology of the Orofacial Myofunctional System (OMFS) in relation to clinical performance and learning motivation to second- year Speech-Language and Hearing Sciences undergraduate students. The study was conducted with 36 students which were participants after signing a free and informed consent. Each student was randomly allocated to one of three groups: Group I (GI) - 12 participants in the Interactive Method 1 (MI1); Group II (GII) - 12 participants in the Interactive Method 2 (MI2); Group III (GIII) - 12 participants in the Traditional Method (MT). Learning methods were applied during weekly complementary study schedule (one hour), after the discipline lectures. After the conclusion of the three learning methods application, a clinical performance assessment was applied and it was required from the students to apply a clinical assessment following the criteria stablished in the Expanded protocol of Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation with scores. On another day, the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey questionnaire (IMMS) was applied for evaluating the students' learning motivation. The questionnaire assesses four aspects of motivation: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction (ARCS model) as judged by the student. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software version 21. The comparison of scores between the groups for both the clinical performance assessment and learning motivation assessment was performed by ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test. The significance level adopted was of 5%. The results indicated that no differences were identified between the three groups in relation to the clinical performance assessment. Regarding the between groups comparison for learning motivation, the groups differed in all evaluated aspects and total score (F2,33 = 3691.17 p < 0.001). The GII had the highest overall score (GI x GII...