Online learning completion rates in context: Rethinking success in digital learning networks

The comprehensive analysis of 221 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) by Katy Jordan provides crucial insights for health professionals navigating the rapidly evolving landscape of digital learning. Her study, published in the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, examined completion rates across diverse platforms including Coursera, Open2Study, and others from 78 institutions. 

• With median completion rates of just 12.6% (ranging from 0.7% to 52.1%), traditional metrics may suggest disappointment. Jordan’s multiple regression analysis revealed that while total enrollments have decreased over time, completion rates have actually increased. 
• The data showed striking patterns in how participants engage, with the first and second weeks proving critical—after which the proportion of active students and those submitting assessments remains remarkably stable, with less than 3% difference between them. 
• The research challenges common assumptions about “lurking” as a participation strategy and provides compelling evidence that course design factors significantly impact learning outcomes. 

These findings reveal important patterns that can transform how we approach professional learning in global health contexts.

Beyond traditional completion metrics

For global health epidemiologists accustomed to face-to-face training with financial incentives and dedicated time away from work, these completion rates might initially appear appalling. In traditional capacity building programswhere participants receive per diems, travel stipends, and paid time away from work. Outcomes such as “completion” are rarely measured. Instead, attendance remains the key metric. In fact, completion rates are often confused with attendance. From this perspective, even the highest MOOC completion rate of 52.1% could be interpreted as a dismal failure.

However, this interpretation fundamentally misunderstands the different dynamics at play in digital learning environments. Unlike traditional training where external incentives and protected time create artificial conditions for participation, MOOCs operate in the reality of participants’ everyday professional lives. They typically do not require participants to stop work in order to learn, for example. The fact that up to half of enrollees in some courses complete them despite competing priorities, no financial incentives, and no dedicated work time represents remarkable commitment rather than failure.

What drives completion?

The data reveals three significant factors affecting completion:

The critical engagement period occurs within the first two weeks—after which participant behavior stabilizes. This insight aligns with what emerging networked learning approaches have demonstrated in practice.

Rather than judging digital learning by metrics designed for classroom settings, we must recognize that participation patterns reflect authentic integration with professional practice. The measure of success is not just how many complete the formal course, but how learning connects to real-world problem-solving and contributes to sustained professional networks.

Moving beyond MOOCs: Health learning networks

The Geneva Learning Foundation’s approach offers a distinctly different model from traditional MOOCs. While MOOCs typically deliver standardized content to individual learners who progress independently, the Foundation’s digital learning initiatives are fundamentally network-based and practice-oriented. Rather than focusing on content consumption, their approach creates structured environments where health professionals connect, collaborate, and co-create knowledge while addressing real challenges in their work.

These learning networks differ from MOOCs in several key ways:

• Participants engage primarily with peers rather than pre-recorded content
• Learning is organized around actual workplace challenges rather than abstract concepts
• The experience builds sustainable professional relationships rather than one-time course completion
• Assessment occurs through peer review and real-world application rather than quizzes or assignments
• Structure is provided through facilitation and process rather than predetermined pathways

The Foundation’s experience with over 60,000 health professionals across 137 countries demonstrates that when learning is connected to practice through networked approaches, different metrics of success emerge:

• Knowledge application: Practitioners implement solutions directly in their contexts
• Network formation: Sustainable learning relationships develop beyond formal “courses”
• Knowledge creation: Participants contribute to collective understanding
• System impact: Changes cascade through health systems

Implications for global health training

For epidemiologists and health professionals designing learning initiatives, these findings suggest several strategic shifts:

The future of professional learning

The research and practice point to a fundamental evolution in how we approach professional learning in global health. Rather than replicating traditional per diem-driven training models online, the most effective approaches harness the power of networks, enabling health professionals to learn continuously through structured peer interaction.

This perspective helps explain why seemingly low completion rates should not necessarily be viewed as failure. When digital learning is designed to create lasting networks of practice—where knowledge emerges through collaborative action—completion metrics capture only a fraction of the impact.

For health systems facing complex challenges that include climate change, pandemic response, and health workforce shortages, this networked approach to learning offers a promising path forward—one that transforms how knowledge is created, shared, and applied to improve health outcomes globally.

Reference

Jordan, K., 2015. Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. IRRODL 16. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112

Sculpture: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

#completionRates #learningMetrics #MOOCs #networkedLearning #onlineEducation #onlineLearning #professionalLearning

What is networked learning?

Networked learning happens when people learn through connections with others facing similar challenges. Think about how market traders learn their business – not through formal classes, but by connecting with other traders, sharing tips, and learning from each other’s experiences. This natural way of learning through relationships is what networked learning tries to support.

5 key features of networked learning:

Why networked learning matters for health work:

Health systems are full of isolated practitioners who could benefit from each other’s knowledge:

• A nurse who developed an effective patient education approach
• A community health worker who found a way to reach remote households
• A clinic manager who improved medicine supply systems
• A doctor who adapted treatment guidelines for local conditions

Networked learning connects these isolated pockets of knowledge, allowing good ideas to spread and adapt across different contexts.

Unlike traditional training that pulls people away from their work for workshops, networked learning happens through ongoing connections that support everyday problem-solving. When health workers participate in networked learning, they gain access to a community of practice that continues to provide support long after formal training ends.

Networked learning doesn’t replace expertise, but it recognizes that valuable knowledge exists throughout the health system – not just at the top. By connecting this distributed knowledge, networked learning helps good practices spread more quickly and adapt more effectively to local needs.

#globalHealth #learningStrategy #networkedLearning

The cost of inaction: Quantifying the impact of climate change on health

This World Bank report ‘The Cost of Inaction: Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries’ presents new analysis of climate change impacts on health systems and outcomes in the regions that are bearing the brunt of these impacts.

Key analytical insights to quantify climate change impacts on health

The report makes three contributions to our understanding of climate-health interactions:

First, it quantifies the massive scale of climate change impacts on health, projecting 4.1-5.2 billion climate-related disease cases and 14.5-15.6 million deaths in LMICs by 2050. This represents a significant advancement over previous estimates, which the report demonstrates were substantial underestimates.

Second, it illuminates the profound economic consequences, calculating costs of $8.6-20.8 trillion by 2050 (0.7-1.3% of LMIC GDP). The report employs both Value of Statistical Life and Years of Life Lost approaches to provide a range of economic impact estimates.

Third, it reveals stark geographic inequities in impact distribution, with Sub-Saharan Africa bearing approximately 71% of cases and nearly half of deaths, while South Asia faces about 18% of cases and a quarter of deaths. This spatial analysis helps identify where interventions are most urgently needed.

Policy implications and systemic perspectives

The report’s findings point to several critical policy directions:

• The need for systemic rather than disease-specific interventions emerges as a central theme. The authors explicitly advocate for strengthening entire health systems rather than pursuing vertical disease programs.
• The economic analysis makes a compelling case for immediate action, demonstrating that the costs of inaction far exceed potential investment requirements for climate-resilient health systems.
• The geographic distribution of impacts highlights the need for globally coordinated responses while prioritizing support for the most vulnerable regions.

The findings suggest that transforming systems to address climate change impacts on health requires not just technical solutions but fundamental rethinking of how health systems are organized and financed in vulnerable regions.

This aligns with recent scholarship on complex adaptive systems and organizational transformation in global health.

The report’s emphasis on systemic approaches represents a significant shift in thinking about climate-health interventions. This merits unpacking on several levels:

What about the health workforce facing impacts of climate change on health?

Between this clear-eyed assessment and effective action lies a critical implementation gap.

Interestingly, the report gives limited explicit attention to the health workforce dimension of climate-health challenges. Yet that is precisely where we need to focus attention, given that:

• Health workers based in communities are first responders to climate-related health emergencies
• Workforce capacity significantly determines a health system’s adaptive capabilities
• Climate change itself affects health worker distribution and effectiveness

Given the report’s emphasis on systemic approaches, the lack of detailed discussion about human resources for health represents a missed opportunity to explore what effective action might look like.

The Geneva Learning Foundation’s network, developed through nearly a decade of research and practice, has led us to identify a path for supporting the health workforce to strengthen preparedness and response in response to climate change impacts on health.

The network already connects over 60,000 health workers. They represent all job roles, rank, and levels of the health system.

One distinguishing feature of this network is its deep integration with existing government health systems. Over half of network participants are government employees, from community health workers to district officers to national planners.

62% of participants work in remote rural areas, 47% serve urban poor populations, and 21% operate in conflict zones.

These are not just statistics: they represent an unprecedented capability to mobilize knowledge and action where it’s most needed.

Since 2023, network participants have been sharing observations, experiences, and insights of climate change impacts on health. 

The model connects different levels of health systems:

• Community-based health workers share ground-level observations
• District managers identify emerging patterns
• National planners gauge system-wide implications
• Global partners access real-time insights

When a malaria control officer in Kenya observes changing disease patterns due to altered rainfall, the network enables rapid sharing of this insight with colleagues working on water safety, nutrition, and primary care. These cross-domain connections do not need to be left to chance – they can be enabled through structured peer learning processes that transcend traditional programme, geographic, and hierarchical boundaries

This creates what organizational theorists call “embedded transformation” – where system change emerges through existing structures rather than requiring new ones.

Rather than creating new coordination mechanisms, the network enables:

• Health workers to learn directly from peers in other programs
• Rapid identification of cross-cutting challenges
• Spontaneous formation of problem-solving groups
• Systematic sharing of effective practices

Rather than replacing existing structures, TGLF’s model demonstrates how digital networks can enable health systems to:

• Maintain necessary specialization while fostering crucial connections
• Enable rapid learning and adaptation across programs
• Optimize resource use through enhanced coordination
• Build system-wide resilience through structured peer learning

Such a network enables what complexity theorists call “distributed sensing” that can provide:

• Early warning of emerging threats
• Rapid sharing of local solutions
• System-wide learning from local innovations
• Continuous adaptation to changing conditions

This has led us to posit that investment in such emergent digital networks could enable health systems to maintain necessary specialization while fostering crucial connections across domains.

This is obviously critical to respond to the systems-level complexity of climate change impacts on health.

Reference

Uribe, J.P., Rabie, T., 2024. The Cost of Inaction: Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1596/42419

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Share this:

• WhatsApp
• Email
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Telegram
• Reddit
• Print
• Pocket
• Mastodon
• Nextdoor

#digitalLearning #globalHealth #health #JuanPabloUribe #LMICs #networkedLearning #peerLearning #TamerRabie #TheCostOfInactionQuantifyingTheImpactOfClimateChangeOnHealth #TheGenevaLearningFoundation #WorldBank

Knowing-in-action: Bridging the theory-practice divide in global health

The gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation remains one of the most persistent challenges in global health. This divide manifests in multiple ways: research that fails to address practitioners’ urgent needs, innovations from the field that never inform formal evidence systems, and capacity building approaches that cannot meet the massive scale of learning required. Donald Schön’s seminal 1995 analysis of the “dilemma of rigor or relevance” in professional practice offers crucial insights for “knowing-in-action“. It can help us understand why transforming global health requires new ways of knowing – a new epistemology.

Listen to this article below. Subscribe to The Geneva Learning Foundation’s podcast for more audio content.

https://youtu.be/MvrW5ct8uuw

Schön’s analysis: The dilemma of rigor or relevance

Schön begins by examining how knowledge becomes institutionalized through education. Using elementary school mathematics as an example, he describes how knowledge is broken into discrete units (“math facts”), organized into progressive modules, assembled into curricula, and measured through standardized tests. This systematization shapes not just content but the entire organization of time, space, and institutional arrangements.

From this foundation, Schön introduces his central metaphor of two contrasting landscapes in professional practice that prevent “knowing-in-action”. As he describes it:

“In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the use of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowlands, problems are messy and confusing and incapable of technical solution.”

The cruel irony, Schön observes, lies in the relative importance of these terrains: “The problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or to society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern.”

This creates what Schön calls the “dilemma of rigor or relevance” – practitioners must choose between remaining on the high ground where they can maintain technical rigor or descending into the swamp where they must rely on experience, intuition, and what he terms “muddling through.”

The historical roots of the divide

Schön traces this dilemma to the epistemology embedded in modern research universities. Drawing on Edward Shils’s historical analysis, he describes how American scholars returning from Germany after the Civil War brought back “the German idea of the university as a place in which to do research that contributes to fundamental knowledge, preferably through science.”

This was, as Schön notes, “a very strange idea in 1870,” running counter to the prevailing British model of universities as sanctuaries for liberal arts or finishing schools for gentlemen. The new model first took root at Johns Hopkins University, whose president embraced the “bizarre notion that professors should be recruited, promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their contributions to fundamental knowledge.”

This shift created what Schön terms the “Veblenian bargain” (named after Thorstein Veblen), establishing a separation between:

• Research universities focused on “true scholarship” and fundamental knowledge
• Professional schools dedicated to practical training

Knowing-in-action in global health: From fragmentation to integration

The historical division between theory and practice that Schön identified continues to shape global health in profound and often problematic ways. This manifests in three interconnected challenges that demand our urgent attention: the knowledge-practice gap, the scale challenge, and the complexity challenge. Yet emerging approaches suggest potential paths forward, particularly through structured peer learning networks that could help bridge Schön’s “high ground” and “swamp.”

Three fundamental challenges

Challenge #1: The knowing-in-action divide

The separation between research institutions and field practice creates not just an academic concern but a practical crisis in healthcare delivery. Consider the response to COVID-19: while research institutions rapidly generated new knowledge about the virus, frontline health workers struggled to translate this into practical approaches for their specific contexts. Their hard-won insights about what worked in different settings rarely made it back into formal evidence systems, epitomizing the one-way flow of knowledge that impoverishes both research and practice.

This pattern repeats across global health. Research agendas, shaped by academic incentives and funding priorities, often fail to address practitioners’ most pressing challenges. A community health worker in rural Bangladesh facing complex challenges around vaccine hesitancy may struggle to find relevant guidance – while global experts are convinced that they already have all the answers. Meanwhile, local solutions to building vaccine confidence remain uncaptured by formal knowledge systems.

The rise of implementation science attempts to bridge this divide, yet often remains subordinate to “pure” research in academic hierarchies. This reflects Schön’s observation about the privileging of high ground problems over swampy ones, even when the latter hold greater practical significance.

Challenge #2: The scale imperative

Traditional approaches to professional education face fundamental limitations in meeting the massive need for health worker capacity building. The World Health Organization projects a shortfall of 10 million health workers by 2030, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Conventional training approaches that rely on cascading knowledge through workshops and formal courses can reach only a fraction of those who need support.

More fundamentally, these knowledge transmission models prove inadequate for addressing complex local realities. A standardized curriculum developed by experts, no matter how well-designed, cannot anticipate the diverse challenges health workers face across different contexts. When a district immunization manager in Nigeria must adapt vaccination strategies for nomadic populations during a drought, they need more than pre-packaged knowledge – they need ways to learn from others who are facing similar challenges.

Resource constraints further limit the reach of conventional approaches. The cost of traditional training programmes, both in money and time away from service delivery, makes it impossible to scale them to meet the need. Yet the human cost of this capacity gap, measured in preventable illness and death, demands urgent solutions.

Challenge #3: The complexity conundrum

Contemporary global health faces challenges that fundamentally resist standardized technical solutions. Climate change exemplifies this complexity, creating cascading effects on health systems and communities that cannot be addressed through linear interventions. When rising temperatures alter disease patterns while simultaneously disrupting cold chains for vaccine delivery, no single technical fix suffices.

Similarly, emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases demand responses that cross traditional boundaries between animal and human health, environmental factors, and social determinants. Health workforce development must grapple with complex systemic issues around motivation, retention, and capacity building. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how traditional approaches to health system strengthening often prove inadequate in the face of complex adaptive challenges.

Emerging solutions: A new paradigm for learning and practice

Recent innovations suggest promising approaches to bridging these divides through structured peer learning networks. Digital platforms enable health workers to share experiences and solutions across geographical boundaries, creating new possibilities for scaled learning that maintains local relevance.

Solution #1: The power of structured peer learning

Experience from digital learning networks demonstrates how structured peer interaction can enable more efficient and effective knowledge sharing than traditional top-down approaches. When health workers can directly connect with peers facing similar challenges, they not only share solutions but collectively generate new knowledge through their interactions.

These networks provide mechanisms for validating practical knowledge through peer review processes that complement traditional academic validation. A successful intervention developed by a rural clinic in Thailand can be critically examined by peers, adapted for different contexts, and rapidly disseminated across the network. This creates a more dynamic and responsive knowledge ecosystem than traditional publication cycles allow.

Solution #2: Network effects and collective intelligence

The potential of practitioner networks extends beyond simple knowledge sharing. When properly structured, these networks create possibilities for:

Most importantly, these networks can help bridge Schön’s high ground and swamp by creating dialogue between different forms of knowledge and practice. They provide spaces where academic research can inform field practice while simultaneously allowing field insights to shape research agendas.

Four principles toward knowing-in-action for global health

Drawing on Schön’s call for a “new epistemology,” we can identify four principles for transforming how we know what we know in global health:

Principle #1: Valuing multiple forms of knowledge

The complexity of contemporary health challenges demands recognition of multiple valid forms of knowledge. The practical wisdom developed by a community health worker through years of service deserves attention alongside randomized controlled trials. This requires challenging existing hierarchies of evidence while maintaining rigorous standards for validating knowledge claims.

Principle #2: Enabling knowledge creation from practice

Health workers must be supported as knowledge producers, not just knowledge consumers. This means creating structures for systematically capturing and validating field insights, building evidence from implementation experience, and enabling continuous learning from practice. Digital platforms can provide scaffolding for this knowledge creation while ensuring quality through peer review processes.

Principle #3: Scaling through networked learning

Traditional scaling approaches that rely on standardization and top-down dissemination must be complemented by networked learning to create and amplify knowing-in-action. This means building systems that can:

Principle #4: Embracing complexity

Rather than seeking to reduce complexity through standardization, health systems must build capacity for working effectively within complex adaptive systems. This means supporting adaptive learning, enabling context-specific solutions, and building capacity for systems thinking at all levels.

The challenges facing global health today demand new ways of creating, validating, and sharing knowledge. By embracing approaches that bridge Schön’s high ground and swamp, we may find paths toward health systems that are both more rigorous and more relevant to the communities they serve.

Looking forward

Schön’s analysis helps explain why traditional approaches to global health knowledge and learning often fall short. More importantly, it points toward solutions that could help bridge the theory-practice divide to support knowing-in-action:

Schön’s insights remain remarkably relevant to contemporary global health challenges. His call for a new epistemology that can bridge theory and practice speaks directly to our current needs. By embracing new approaches to learning and knowledge creation that honor both rigor and relevance, we may find ways to address the complex challenges that lie ahead.

The key lies not in choosing between high ground and swamp, but in building new kinds of bridges between them – bridges that can support the massive scale of learning needed while maintaining the local relevance essential for impact. Recent innovations in peer learning networks and digital platforms suggest this bridging may be increasingly possible, offering hope for more effective global health practice in an increasingly complex world.

The challenge now is to develop and implement these bridging approaches at the scale needed to support global health workers worldwide. This will require new ways of thinking about knowledge, learning, and practice – ways that honor both the rigor of research and the wisdom of experience. The future of global health may depend on our success in this endeavor.

Listen to the AI podcast deep dive about this article

https://youtu.be/Mm8iRc227Y8

Reference

Schön, Donald A., 1995. Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544673

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Share this:

• WhatsApp
• Email
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Telegram
• Reddit
• Print
• Pocket
• Mastodon
• Nextdoor

#1 #2 #3 #4 #CollectiveIntelligence #DonaldASchön #epistemology #globalHealth #knowDoGap #networkedLearning #peerLearning #scale

Experience-sharing sessions in the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030: A novel approach to localize global health collaboration

As immunization programs worldwide struggle to recover from pandemic disruptions, the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) offers a novel, practitioner-led approach to accelerate progress towards global vaccination goals.

From March to June 2022, the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) conducted the first Full Learning Cycle (FLC) of the Movement for IA2030, engaging 6,185 health professionals from low- and middle-income countries.

A cornerstone of this programme was a series of 44 experience-sharing sessions held between 7 March and 13 June 2022. These sessions brought together between 20 and 400 practitioners per session to discuss and solve real-world immunization challenges.

IA2030 case study 16, by Charlotte Mbuh and François Gasse, offers valuable insights from these experience-sharing session:

Download the full case study: IA2030 Case study 16. Continuum from knowledge to performance. The Geneva Learning Foundation.

For every challenge shared during the experience sharing sessions, there was always at least one member who had encountered or was encountering the same challenge and had carried out measures to resolve it.

These sessions provided a space to share practical stories that are making a difference – and supported participants in considering their relevance to their own situations.

Experience sharing also helped build confidence and motivation.

Members were able to identify with experiences shared, realizing they were not alone in facing similar challenges.

The sessions covered a wide range of critical immunization topics.

For instance, a participant from Nigeria discussed strategies for reaching zero-dose children in Borno state.

Facing the challenge of reaching approximately 600,000 unvaccinated children, the presenter received practical suggestions from peers, including developing a zero-dose reduction operational plan, leveraging new vaccine introductions, and partnering with the private sector for evening vaccination services.

In another session, a subnational Ministry of Health staff member from Côte d’Ivoire presented challenges related to cross-border immunization campaigns.

Peers shared experiences of organizing cross-border meetings to identify unvaccinated children, synchronize efforts, and involve community representatives in the process.

Such context-specific, experience-based advice exemplifies the unique value of peer learning in addressing complex health system challenges.

The case study of 44 sessions highlights how these sessions fostered multiple types of learning simultaneously.

Participants reported learning from each other’s experiences, experiencing the power of solving problems together across distances, feeling a growing sense of belonging to a community, and connecting across country borders and health system levels.

A district-level Ministry of Health staff member from Ghana encapsulated the impact: “I have linked up with expert vaccinators worldwide through experience sharing and twinning. I have become more competent and knowledgeable in the area of immunization, and work confidently.”

This sentiment was echoed by many participants who found value not only in acquiring new knowledge but also in expanding their professional networks and gaining confidence in their problem-solving abilities.

The case study also reveals the adaptability of the approach in responding to unique contexts.

This resilience underscores the potential of digital platforms to democratize access to expertise and foster global collaboration.

However, the study also identifies areas for improvement.

• Participants expressed a desire for more follow-up support and opportunities to continue their peer learning groups beyond the initial sessions.
• Additionally, the need for better integration of community engagement strategies was identified as a key area for future development.

To contextualize these findings, we can turn to a 2022 study by Watkins et al., which evaluated a prototype of these experience-sharing sessions known as Immunization Training Challenge Hackathons (ITCH), conducted in 2020.

The ITCH methodology, developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF), informed the design of the 2022 IA2030 Movement sessions.

Watkins et al. found that the ITCH approach fostered four simultaneous types of learning: peer, remote, social, and networked.

These four types of learning operate simultaneously during ITCH sessions, creating a synergistic effect. 

For instance, a participant might learn a new cold chain management technique (peer learning) from a colleague in another country (remote learning), feel supported by the global community in implementing this new technique (social learning), and then share their adaptation of this technique with others across various levels of the health system (networked learning).

From an epidemiological perspective, this approach to learning could be compared to how we understand disease transmission and intervention effectiveness.

Just as multiple factors contribute to disease spread and control, these multiple learning types contribute to knowledge dissemination and capacity building in the immunization field.

The value of this approach lies in its potential to rapidly disseminate practical, context-specific knowledge and solutions across a global network of immunization professionals.

This can lead to faster adoption of best practices, more innovative problem-solving, and ultimately, improvements in immunization program performance that could contribute to better disease control outcomes.

While this approach may seem unconventional compared to traditional training methods in the immunization field, the evidence presented by Watkins et al. suggests that it can be a powerful complement to existing capacity-building efforts, particularly in resource-constrained settings where access to formal training opportunities may be limited.

This multifaceted approach allowed participants to not only acquire new knowledge but also to expand their professional networks and gain confidence in their problem-solving abilities—findings that align closely with the outcomes observed in the 2022 IA2030 Movement sessions.

The Watkins study emphasized the importance of building confidence and motivation through peer learning experiences, a theme strongly echoed in the Mbuh case study.

Furthermore, Watkins et al. highlighted the potential of this approach to create a “space of possibility” for innovation and problem-solving, which is evident in the diverse and creative solutions shared during the 2022 sessions.

Both studies underscore the significance of peer-led, digital learning experiences in accelerating progress towards global health goals.

By fostering peer learning and digital collaboration, these approaches empower health workers to turn global strategies into effective local action.

References

Mbuh, C., Gasse, F., Jones, I., Sadki, R., Brooks, A., Zha, M., Steed, I., Sequeira, J., Churchill, S., Kovanovic, V., 2022. IA2030 Case study 16. Continuum from knowledge to performance. The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7014392

Watkins, K.E., Sandmann, L.R., Dailey, C.A., Li, B., Yang, S.-E., Galen, R.S., Sadki, R., 2022. Accelerating problem-solving capacities of sub-national public health professionals: an evaluation of a digital immunization training intervention. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08138-4

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Share this:

• WhatsApp
• Email
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Telegram
• Reddit
• Print
• Pocket
• Mastodon
• Nextdoor

#CharlotteMbuh #continuousLearning #FrançoisGasse #FullLearningCycle #IA2030 #IA2030CaseStudies #ImmunizationAgenda2030 #ITCH #KarenEWatkins #learningCulture #MovementForImmunizationAgenda2030 #networkedLearning #peerLearning #remoteLearning #TheGenevaLearningFoundation

A warm invitation to join an online & in-person workshop/make-athon on 16 May as part of the Networked Learning Conference 2024.

'Generating Al Alternatives: Collaborating and Creating Intersections' facilitated by Louise Drumm, @helenbeetham, @catherinecronin and me. Use this critical and creative space to explore #AIAlternatives.

Register at: https://lnkd.in/eF42WUkZ

#NetworkedLearning #NLC2024