home.social
Sign in Create account

#learningstrategy — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #learningstrategy, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Reda Sadki @[email protected] ·

    Comparative analysis of workforce development models in the global malaria elimination agenda

    The stagnation in global malaria mortality reduction has forced a re-evaluation of the tools and strategies currently deployed in high-burden countries.

    While biological challenges such as insecticide resistance and parasite mutations are well-documented, a critical bottleneck remains the capacity of the human workforce to implement technical strategies with precision.

    The transition from control to elimination requires a fundamental shift in workforce development.

    It demands moving beyond the passive transmission of technical knowledge toward models that recognize the value of the health worker.

    People who work for health, especially those who engage directly with communities, are likely to possess unique insights into local transmission dynamics and community behavior.

    This analysis reviews four predominant capacity-building architectures currently active in the malaria landscape.

    These initiatives are assessed based on their ability to scale to the district and community levels, their cost-effectiveness, and their capacity to validate and utilize the tacit knowledge held by local staff.

    Malaria learning model 1. The academic massive open online course model

    The most prominent example of the digital transmission model is the MalariaX series offered by Harvard University.

    This initiative utilizes the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) format to democratize access to high-level scientific knowledge.

    Strengths

    The primary strength of this model is the unparalleled quality of its technical content.

    It provides participants in low-resource settings with direct access to global experts and the latest scientific evidence regarding vector biology, epidemiology, and immunology.

    The digital format allows for infinite scalability in terms of access.

    Anyone with an internet connection can technically access the material.

    This eliminates the geographical barriers that often exclude peripheral health workers from elite training.

    Limitations

    The model suffers from the “know-do” gap.

    While it effectively transmits theoretical knowledge, it lacks a structural mechanism to ensure this knowledge is applied to local realities.

    The pedagogy relies heavily on passive consumption of video lectures which reinforces the hierarchy of “expert” versus “learner.”

    It fails to account for the specific needs of local health workers who must adapt global scientific principles to context-specific challenges, such as unexpected climate shifts or community resistance.

    The assessment mechanisms verify knowledge retention rather than the ability to navigate these local complexities.

    Consequently, it undervalues the learner’s own experience and offers no channel for the “global expert” to learn from the “local expert” who is managing the disease daily.

    Malaria learning model 2. The normative cascade training model

    The World Health Organization (WHO) and national malaria programs typically rely on the cascade model to disseminate new guidelines.

    This approach involves training a core group of master trainers at the national level who then train regional officers, who in turn train district and facility staff.

    Strengths

    This model ensures strong alignment with national policy and global normative guidance.

    It maintains a clear chain of command and reinforces the authority of the Ministry of Health.

    It is particularly effective for standardization, such as ensuring that a specific treatment protocol for severe malaria is introduced uniformly across the health system.

    Weaknesses

    The cascade model is plagued by the dilution of quality as training moves down the chain.

    Information is frequently distorted or simplified by the time it reaches the community health worker.

    Structurally, it treats the health worker as a passive vessel to be filled with instructions rather than a thinking professional who understands the local ecosystem.

    It is also prohibitively expensive and logistically heavy.

    It often relies on per diems that distort participant motivation and create a “training aristocracy” where access is determined by seniority rather than need.

    Crucially, this model often interprets local adaptation as non-compliance.

    It fails to recognize that frontline workers often deviate from protocols not out of ignorance but out of necessity, driven by supply chain ruptures or specific community demands that only they understand.

    Malaria learning model 3. The fellowship model

    Initiatives such as the African Leadership and Management Training for Impact in Malaria Eradication (ALAMIME) represent the fellowship model.

    These programs target high-potential program managers for intensive, long-term leadership development, often in partnership with universities.

    Strengths

    This model addresses the critical “soft skills” gap identified in malaria elimination policy reviews.

    It moves beyond technical biology to teach management, advocacy, and financial planning.

    By focusing on African leadership, it actively works to decolonize the expertise hierarchy and fosters strong regional ownership.

    The cohort-based approach builds deep professional bonds among future leaders of national malaria programs.

    Weaknesses

    The fundamental limitation is scalability and exclusivity.

    These programs are resource-intensive and reach a small number of individuals per year.

    While they produce high-quality leaders at the top, they cannot reach the critical mass of district and community personnel required to execute malaria strategies.

    This reinforces a top-heavy leadership structure that ignores the need for “micro-leadership” at the facility level.

    It overlooks the reality that a district nurse or community health worker must also exercise leadership and diplomacy every day to secure community trust.

    By focusing on the elite, this model inadvertently devalues the significance of the leadership required at the last mile.

    Malaria learning model 4. The field epidemiology training program model

    The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) functions as a learning-by-doing apprenticeship.

    Residents work within the health system to investigate outbreaks and analyze surveillance data under the mentorship of experienced epidemiologists.

    Strengths

    This model closely aligns learning with work.

    It is an “applied” model where the output of the training is often a tangible public health product.

    It effectively builds data literacy and analytical capacity.

    It grounds the learner in the reality of the field rather than the theory of the classroom.

    Weaknesses

    Like the fellowship model, the FETP is difficult to scale due to the requirement for intense, one-on-one mentorship.

    It is a high-cost intervention per learner.

    Furthermore, the rigorous focus on surveillance and epidemiology often overshadows the operational implementation challenges faced by generalist health workers.

    While it produces excellent surveillance officers, it does not necessarily equip the broader workforce to utilize their own data for local decision-making.

    It often extracts data for central analysis rather than empowering local staff to interpret the trends they witness daily.

    This failure to devolve analytical power ignores the fact that local workers are often the first to notice anomalies, such as climate-driven shifts in vector behavior, long before they appear in national databases.

    Four recommendations to strengthen malaria learning and capacity-building

    The current landscape of malaria capacity building reveals a functional and epistemic schism.

    The academic and normative models excel at defining what needs to be done but fail to support the workforce in how to do it within their specific constraints.

    The fellowship and apprenticeship models build deep capacity but are structurally incapable of reaching the volume of workers necessary for elimination.

    A significant gap exists for a model that combines the scalability of digital platforms with the implementation rigor of the apprenticeship approach.

    To achieve malaria elimination, future initiatives need to:

    1. Move beyond knowledge verification to value validation.
    2. Recognize that local health workers are not the problem to be fixed but the owners of the solution.
    3. Utilize the existing workforce rather than parallel structures.
    4. Replace financial incentives with the professional motivation that comes from having one’s local knowledge recognized and used to solve the problems they face every day.

    References

    General context & the “know-do” gap

    Model 1: The academic MOOC model (MalariaX)

    Model 2: The normative cascade model and incentives

    Model 3: The fellowship model (ALAMIME)

    • ALAMIME. African Leadership and Management Training for Impact in Malaria Eradication. Makerere University School of Public Health.
      https://alamime.musph.ac.ug/
    • Couper, I., Ray, S., Blaauw, D., et al. (2018). Curriculum and training needs of mid-level health workers in Africa: a situational review from Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 553.
      https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3362-9

    Model 4: The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP)

    Strategic recommendations and value validation

    #globalHealth #globalMalariaEliminationAgenda #HRH #learningCulture #learningStrategy #malaria #workforceDevelopment
    #workforcedevelopment #malaria #learningstrategy #learningculture #hrh #globalmalariaeliminationagenda
  2. Reda Sadki @[email protected] ·

    Comparative analysis of workforce development models in the global malaria elimination agenda

    The stagnation in global malaria mortality reduction has forced a re-evaluation of the tools and strategies currently deployed in high-burden countries.

    While biological challenges such as insecticide resistance and parasite mutations are well-documented, a critical bottleneck remains the capacity of the human workforce to implement technical strategies with precision.

    The transition from control to elimination requires a fundamental shift in workforce development.

    It demands moving beyond the passive transmission of technical knowledge toward models that recognize the value of the health worker.

    People who work for health, especially those who engage directly with communities, are likely to possess unique insights into local transmission dynamics and community behavior.

    This analysis reviews four predominant capacity-building architectures currently active in the malaria landscape.

    These initiatives are assessed based on their ability to scale to the district and community levels, their cost-effectiveness, and their capacity to validate and utilize the tacit knowledge held by local staff.

    Malaria learning model 1. The academic massive open online course model

    The most prominent example of the digital transmission model is the MalariaX series offered by Harvard University.

    This initiative utilizes the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) format to democratize access to high-level scientific knowledge.

    Strengths

    The primary strength of this model is the unparalleled quality of its technical content.

    It provides participants in low-resource settings with direct access to global experts and the latest scientific evidence regarding vector biology, epidemiology, and immunology.

    The digital format allows for infinite scalability in terms of access.

    Anyone with an internet connection can technically access the material.

    This eliminates the geographical barriers that often exclude peripheral health workers from elite training.

    Limitations

    The model suffers from the “know-do” gap.

    While it effectively transmits theoretical knowledge, it lacks a structural mechanism to ensure this knowledge is applied to local realities.

    The pedagogy relies heavily on passive consumption of video lectures which reinforces the hierarchy of “expert” versus “learner.”

    It fails to account for the specific needs of local health workers who must adapt global scientific principles to context-specific challenges, such as unexpected climate shifts or community resistance.

    The assessment mechanisms verify knowledge retention rather than the ability to navigate these local complexities.

    Consequently, it undervalues the learner’s own experience and offers no channel for the “global expert” to learn from the “local expert” who is managing the disease daily.

    Malaria learning model 2. The normative cascade training model

    The World Health Organization (WHO) and national malaria programs typically rely on the cascade model to disseminate new guidelines.

    This approach involves training a core group of master trainers at the national level who then train regional officers, who in turn train district and facility staff.

    Strengths

    This model ensures strong alignment with national policy and global normative guidance.

    It maintains a clear chain of command and reinforces the authority of the Ministry of Health.

    It is particularly effective for standardization, such as ensuring that a specific treatment protocol for severe malaria is introduced uniformly across the health system.

    Weaknesses

    The cascade model is plagued by the dilution of quality as training moves down the chain.

    Information is frequently distorted or simplified by the time it reaches the community health worker.

    Structurally, it treats the health worker as a passive vessel to be filled with instructions rather than a thinking professional who understands the local ecosystem.

    It is also prohibitively expensive and logistically heavy.

    It often relies on per diems that distort participant motivation and create a “training aristocracy” where access is determined by seniority rather than need.

    Crucially, this model often interprets local adaptation as non-compliance.

    It fails to recognize that frontline workers often deviate from protocols not out of ignorance but out of necessity, driven by supply chain ruptures or specific community demands that only they understand.

    Malaria learning model 3. The fellowship model

    Initiatives such as the African Leadership and Management Training for Impact in Malaria Eradication (ALAMIME) represent the fellowship model.

    These programs target high-potential program managers for intensive, long-term leadership development, often in partnership with universities.

    Strengths

    This model addresses the critical “soft skills” gap identified in malaria elimination policy reviews.

    It moves beyond technical biology to teach management, advocacy, and financial planning.

    By focusing on African leadership, it actively works to decolonize the expertise hierarchy and fosters strong regional ownership.

    The cohort-based approach builds deep professional bonds among future leaders of national malaria programs.

    Weaknesses

    The fundamental limitation is scalability and exclusivity.

    These programs are resource-intensive and reach a small number of individuals per year.

    While they produce high-quality leaders at the top, they cannot reach the critical mass of district and community personnel required to execute malaria strategies.

    This reinforces a top-heavy leadership structure that ignores the need for “micro-leadership” at the facility level.

    It overlooks the reality that a district nurse or community health worker must also exercise leadership and diplomacy every day to secure community trust.

    By focusing on the elite, this model inadvertently devalues the significance of the leadership required at the last mile.

    Malaria learning model 4. The field epidemiology training program model

    The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) functions as a learning-by-doing apprenticeship.

    Residents work within the health system to investigate outbreaks and analyze surveillance data under the mentorship of experienced epidemiologists.

    Strengths

    This model closely aligns learning with work.

    It is an “applied” model where the output of the training is often a tangible public health product.

    It effectively builds data literacy and analytical capacity.

    It grounds the learner in the reality of the field rather than the theory of the classroom.

    Weaknesses

    Like the fellowship model, the FETP is difficult to scale due to the requirement for intense, one-on-one mentorship.

    It is a high-cost intervention per learner.

    Furthermore, the rigorous focus on surveillance and epidemiology often overshadows the operational implementation challenges faced by generalist health workers.

    While it produces excellent surveillance officers, it does not necessarily equip the broader workforce to utilize their own data for local decision-making.

    It often extracts data for central analysis rather than empowering local staff to interpret the trends they witness daily.

    This failure to devolve analytical power ignores the fact that local workers are often the first to notice anomalies, such as climate-driven shifts in vector behavior, long before they appear in national databases.

    Four recommendations to strengthen malaria learning and capacity-building

    The current landscape of malaria capacity building reveals a functional and epistemic schism.

    The academic and normative models excel at defining what needs to be done but fail to support the workforce in how to do it within their specific constraints.

    The fellowship and apprenticeship models build deep capacity but are structurally incapable of reaching the volume of workers necessary for elimination.

    A significant gap exists for a model that combines the scalability of digital platforms with the implementation rigor of the apprenticeship approach.

    To achieve malaria elimination, future initiatives need to:

    1. Move beyond knowledge verification to value validation.
    2. Recognize that local health workers are not the problem to be fixed but the owners of the solution.
    3. Utilize the existing workforce rather than parallel structures.
    4. Replace financial incentives with the professional motivation that comes from having one’s local knowledge recognized and used to solve the problems they face every day.

    References

    General context & the “know-do” gap

    Model 1: The academic MOOC model (MalariaX)

    Model 2: The normative cascade model and incentives

    Model 3: The fellowship model (ALAMIME)

    • ALAMIME. African Leadership and Management Training for Impact in Malaria Eradication. Makerere University School of Public Health.
      https://alamime.musph.ac.ug/
    • Couper, I., Ray, S., Blaauw, D., et al. (2018). Curriculum and training needs of mid-level health workers in Africa: a situational review from Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 553.
      https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3362-9

    Model 4: The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP)

    Strategic recommendations and value validation

    #globalHealth #globalMalariaEliminationAgenda #HRH #learningCulture #learningStrategy #malaria #workforceDevelopment
    #globalhealth #globalmalariaeliminationagenda #hrh #learningculture #learningstrategy #malaria
  3. Reda Sadki @[email protected] ·

    The global health community has long grappled with the challenge of providing effective, scalable training to health workers, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

    In recent years, digital learning platforms have emerged as a potential solution, promising to deliver accessible, engaging, and impactful training at scale.

    Imagine a digital platform intended to train health workers at scale.

    Their theory of change rests on a few key assumptions:

    1. Offering simplified, mobile-friendly courses will make training more accessible to health workers.
    2. Incorporating videos and case studies will keep learners engaged.
    3. Quizzes and knowledge checks will ensure learning happens.
    4. Certificates, continuing education credits, and small incentives will motivate course completion.
    5. Growing the user base through marketing and partnerships is the path to impact.

    On the surface, this seems sensible.

    Mobile optimization recognizes health workers’ technological realities.

    Multimedia content seems more engaging than pure text.

    Assessments appear to verify learning.

    Incentives promise to drive uptake.

    Scale feels synonymous with success.

    While well-intentioned, such a platform risks falling into the trap of a behaviorist learning agenda.

    This is an approach that, despite its prevalence, is a pedagogical dead-end with limited potential for driving meaningful, sustained improvements in health worker performance and health outcomes.

    It is a paradigm that views learners as passive recipients of information, where exposure equals knowledge acquisition.

    It is a model that privileges standardization over personalization, content consumption over knowledge creation, and extrinsic rewards over intrinsic motivation.

    It fails to account for the rich diversity of prior experiences, contexts, and challenges that health workers bring to their learning.

    Most critically, it neglects the higher-order skills – the critical thinking, the adaptive expertise, the self-directed learning capacity – that are most predictive of real-world performance.

    Clicking through screens of information about neonatal care, for example, is not the same as developing the situational judgment to adapt guidelines to a complex clinical scenario, nor the reflective practice to continuously improve.

    Moreover, the metrics typically prioritized by behaviorist platforms – user registrations, course completions, assessment scores – are often vanity metrics.

    They create an illusion of progress while obscuring the metrics that truly matter: behavior change, performance improvement, and health outcomes.

    A health worker may complete a generic course on neonatal care, for example, but this does not necessarily translate into the situational judgment to adapt guidelines to complex clinical scenarios, nor the reflective practice to continuously improve.

    The behaviorist paradigm’s emphasis on information transmission and standardized content may stem from an implicit assumption that health workers at the community level do not require higher-order critical thinking skills – that they simply need a predetermined set of knowledge and procedures.

    This view is not only paternalistic and insulting, but it is also fundamentally misguided.

    A robust body of scientific evidence on learning culture and performance demonstrates that the most effective organizations are those that foster continuous learning, critical reflection, and adaptive problem-solving at all levels.

    Health workers at the frontlines face complex, unpredictable challenges that demand situational judgment, creative thinking, and the ability to learn from experience.

    Failing to cultivate these capacities not only underestimates the potential of these health workers, but it also constrains the performance and resilience of health systems as a whole.

    Even if such a platform achieves its growth targets, it is unlikely to realize its impact goals.

    Health workers may dutifully click through courses, but genuine transformative learning remains elusive.

    The alternative lies in a learning agenda grounded in advances of the last three decades learning science.

    These advances remain largely unknown or ignored in global health.

    This approach positions health workers as active, knowledgeable agents, rich in experience and expertise.

    It designs learning experiences not merely to transmit information, but to foster critical reflection, dialogue, and problem-solving.

    It replaces generic content with authentic, context-specific challenges, and isolated study with collaborative sense-making in peer networks.

    It recognizes intrinsic motivation – the desire to grow, to serve, to make a difference – as the most potent driver of learning.

    Here, success is measured not in superficial metrics, but in meaningful outcomes: capacity to lead change in facilities and communities that leads to tangible improvements in the quality of care.

    Global health leaders faces a choice: to settle for the illusion of progress, or to invest in the deep, difficult work of authentic learning and systemic change, commensurate with the complexity and urgency of the task at hand.

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

    https://redasadki.me/2024/06/30/learn-health-but-beware-of-the-behaviorist-trap/

    #behaviorism #eLearning #healthTraining #HealthLearn #HRH #HumanResourcesForHealth #learningCulture #learningStrategy #workforceDevelopment

    #behaviorism #elearning #healthtraining #healthlearn #hrh #humanresourcesforhealth
  4. Reda Sadki @[email protected] ·

    Many health leaders are highly analytical, adaptive learners who thrive on solving complex problems in dynamic, real-world contexts.

    Their expertise is grounded in years of field experience, where they have honed their ability to rapidly generate insights, test ideas, and innovate solutions in collaboration with diverse stakeholders.

    In January 2021, as countries were beginning to introduce new COVID-19 vaccines, Kate O’Brien, who leads WHO’s immunization efforts, connected global learning to local action:

    “For COVID-19 vaccines […] there are just too many lessons that are being learned, especially according to different vaccine platforms, different communities of prioritization that need to be vaccinated. So [everyone]  has got to be able to scale, has got to be able to deal with complexity, has got to be able to do personal, local innovation to actually overcome the challenges.”

    https://youtube.com/live/uvv-g0lXy4c

    In an Insights Live session with the Geneva Learning Foundation in 2022, she made a compelling case that “the people who are working in the program at that most local level have to be able to adapt, to be agile, to innovate things that will work in that particular setting, with those leaders in the community, with those families.”

    https://youtube.com/live/nCB20y49hBI

    However, unlike Kate O’Brien, some senior leaders in global health disconnect their own learning practices and their assumptions about how others learn best.

    When it comes to designing learning initiatives for their teams or organizations, these leaders may default to a more simplistic, behaviorist approach.

    They may equate learning with the acquisition and application of specific skills or knowledge, and thus focus on creating structured, content-driven training programs.

    The appeal of behaviorist platforms – with their promise of efficient, scalable delivery and easily measured outcomes – can be seductive in the resource-constrained, results-driven world of global health.

    Furthermore, leaders may hold assumptions that health workers – especially those at the community level – do not require higher-order critical thinking skills, that they simply need a predetermined set of knowledge and procedures.

    This view is fundamentally misguided.

    A robust body of scientific evidence on learning culture and performance demonstrates that the most effective organizations are those that foster continuous learning, critical reflection, and adaptive problem-solving at all levels.

    Health workers at the frontlines face complex, unpredictable challenges that demand situational judgment, creative thinking, and the ability to learn from experience.

    Failing to cultivate these capacities not only underestimates the potential of these health workers, but it also constrains the performance and resilience of health systems as a whole.

    The problem is that this approach fails to cultivate the very qualities that make these leaders effective learners and problem-solvers.

    Behaviorist techniques, with their emphasis on passive information absorption and narrow, pre-defined outcomes, do not foster the critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative capacity needed to tackle complex health challenges.

    They may produce short-term gains in narrow domains, but they cannot develop the adaptive expertise required for long-term impact in ever-shifting contexts.

    To help health leaders recognize this disconnect, it is useful to engage them in reflective dialogue about their own learning processes.

    By unpacking real-world examples of how they have solved thorny problems or generated novel insights, we can highlight the sophisticated cognitive strategies and collaborative dynamics at play.

    We can show how they constantly question assumptions, synthesize diverse perspectives, and iterate solutions – all skills that are essential for navigating complexity, but are poorly served by rigid, content-focused training.

    The goal is not to dismiss the need for foundational knowledge or skills, but rather to emphasize that in the face of evolving challenges, adaptive learning capacity is the real differentiator.

    It is the ability to think critically, to imagine new possibilities, to learn from failure, and to co-create with others that drives meaningful change.

    By tying this insight directly to leaders’ own experiences and values, we can inspire them to champion learning approaches that mirror the richness and dynamism of their personal growth journeys.

    Ultimately, the most impactful health organizations will be those that not only equip people with essential skills, but that also nurture the underlying cognitive and collaborative capacities needed to continually learn, adapt, and innovate.

    By recognizing and leveraging the powerful learning practices they themselves embody, health leaders can shape organizational cultures and strategies that truly empower people to navigate complexity and drive transformative change.

    This shift requires letting go of the illusion of control and predictability that behaviorism offers, and instead embracing the messiness and uncertainty of real learning.

    It means creating space for experimentation, reflection, and dialogue, and trusting in people’s inherent capacity to grow and create.

    It is a challenging transition, but one that health leaders are uniquely positioned to lead – if they can bridge the gap between how they learn and how they seek to enable others’ learning.

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

    https://redasadki.me/2024/06/30/why-health-leaders-who-are-critical-thinkers-choose-rote-learning-for-others/

    #adaptiveLearning #coCreation #criticalThinking #healthLearning #immunization #ImmunizationAgenda2030 #KateOBrien #leadership #learningCulture #learningStrategy #peerLearning

    #adaptivelearning #cocreation #criticalthinking #healthlearning #immunization #immunizationagenda2030