@haraldschirmer ich stimme Dir sicher zu.
Aber ich habe - leider - zu viele Menschen erlebt, die in dem jeweiligen Kontext so lange "herumgeschubst" wurden, dass sie schlicht nicht glaubten, dass für sie Veränderung und Lernen möglich sei - selbst wenn sie offensichtlich vieles gelernt hatten.
Und gerade diese Menschen dürften mMn viel vom #peerlearning profitieren.
Dank #clcamp26 denke ich seit gestern über #peerlearning nach.
Ich habe Fragen:
- Wie lassen sich Leute erreichen, die eher nicht online aktiv sind? Das Fediverse - sehr überschaubarer, oder?
- Wie lässt sich die Führung in Organisationen überzeugen, dass die verwendete Zeit sinnvoll genutzt wird?
- Wie lassen sich Menschen überzeugen, selber ins Tun zu gehen, die jahrelang paternalisiert wurden?
- Wie lassen sich Dritte (Gerichte, Zertifizierer, ..) überzeugen, dass wirklich etwas gelernt wurd?

Du bist Soloselbstständig und hast noch nie von Peer Learning gehört?
Oder du hast davon gehört und möchtest dazu mehr erfahren bzw. mit anderen in den Austausch gehen?
Prima: Ich freu mich, dich in meiner kostenfreien Community begrüßen zu dürfen 👉 https://www.skool.com/peer-learning-community-7659/about?ref=1e42222e0e474ec984b400a5249dd665 👈

#solopreneur #peerlearning #skoolcommunity
https://www.skool.com/peer-learning-community-7659/about?ref=1e42222e0e474ec984b400a5249dd665

Peer Learning Community

Mit Fokus auf Soloselbstständige & Freelancers erkunden wir die Lernkultur von Mensch zu Mensch in Mastermind, LernCircle, Barcamp, Coworking, ...

@haraldschirmer
Haben sogar #clc Beiträge aus vergangenen Jahre n hier im #Mastodon zum
#peerlearning
Hinterlassen 🤩

( oder suchst du anders ? )

#Peerlearning gab es auf unserer Instanz noch nicht als #Hashtag - das können wir ändern - oder folgt dem Hashtag (auch wenn es noch nichts gibt) - um mitzubekommen, wenn etwas kommt

Traditional conferences are obsolete because a standardized approach for education & training to support creative work is obsolete.

https://www.conferencesthatwork.com/index.php/event-design/2016/10/traditional-conferences-are-obsolete

#meetings #EventDesign #obsolescence #PeerLearning #eventprofs

Rethinking human resources for malaria control and elimination in Africa

The comprehensive policy review by Halima Mwenesi and colleagues “Rethinking human resources and capacity building needs for malaria control and elimination in Africa” argues that the stagnation in global malaria progress is fundamentally a human resources crisis rather than solely a biological or technical failure.

The authors posit that the current workforce is insufficient in number and ill-equipped with the necessary skills to navigate the complex transition from malaria control to elimination.

It is a critical indictment of the status quo in malaria training and offers a roadmap for structural reform.

This article summarizes key points from the policy review and examines how The Geneva Learning Foundation’s peer learning-to-action model could be used by national programmes to transform the health workforce.

The mismatch between training and operational needs

The authors identify a severe imbalance in training priorities where capacity building has historically favored biomedical and basic sciences such as entomology and parasitology.

While essential, this focus has led to a neglect of operational, translational, and implementation sciences.

The report highlights that while the global community produces high-level scientists who understand the parasite, it fails to produce “translational scientists” who can bridge the gap between global guidelines and local realities.

This has resulted, they argue, in a workforce lacking the practical competencies to operationalize complex elimination strategies that require precision and adaptation.

The deficit in leadership and social sciences

A major finding is the specific deficit in so-called “soft skills” and social sciences which are increasingly critical as programs move toward elimination.

The authors argue that modern malaria control requires competencies in leadership, health diplomacy, anthropology, sociology, and political analysis.

Program managers currently lack the training to navigate complex political landscapes, mobilize domestic resources, or engage effectively with communities to sustain interventions.

The review emphasizes that understanding community behavior and social determinants is as critical as understanding vector behavior but this is rarely reflected in curricula.

Data illiteracy and the failure of surveillance

The paper identifies pervasive “data illiteracy” across the workforce.

Health workers collect vast amounts of data to satisfy donor reporting requirements but often lack the skills to interpret or use it for local decision-making.

This results in a “data-rich but information-poor” environment.

As countries move toward elimination, the need for real-time, granular surveillance becomes paramount.

The current workforce is unable to perform the rapid data analysis required to detect and respond to outbreaks at the sub-national level.

Fragmentation and lack of coordination

The review critiques the fragmentation of investments in training, capacity-building, and technical assistance driven by donor agendas.

It notes a lack of coordination among donors and agencies which leads to a proliferation of uncoordinated short courses and workshops that do not necessarily align with national strategic plans.

This fragmentation is exacerbated by a lack of data on the workforce itself.

Many countries lack a central registry of malaria personnel which makes it impossible to forecast needs, plan for attrition, or manage career pathways.

The call for structural transformation

The authors call for a radical shift toward “South-South” collaboration where African institutions take the lead in training.

They advocate for moving away from ad hoc workshops toward institutionalized, long-term capacity building.

Crucially, they recommend the use of digital platforms to democratize access to knowledge for mid-level and community-based cadres who are often excluded from elite fellowships.

How can learning science help transform malaria training investments into tangible health worker performance?

For a global health epidemiologist accustomed to viewing disease control through the lens of biological interventions and coverage rates, the human resource crisis described by Mwenesi and colleagues represents a “delivery failure” of validated tools.

The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) learning science model functions as a structural intervention designed to repair broken delivery mechanisms in global health and humanitarian response.

The following analysis translates the TGLF approach into terms recognizable to an epidemiologist or program manager who operates with the assumption that training is primarily about the transmission of technical knowledge.

Moving from passive transmission to implementation fidelity

Epidemiologists understand that a vaccine with high efficacy in a trial often has low effectiveness in the real world due to poor administration or cold chain failure.

Similarly, Mwenesi et al. identify that technical malaria guidelines fail because the “human infrastructure” cannot implement them.

Traditional training assumes that if you lecture health workers on a protocol, which is a transmission of information, they will execute it.

This is a “single-loop” assumption.

The TGLF model introduces an “implementation loop.”

Instead of merely receiving information, learners in the TGLF network must design a micro-project to apply the new guideline in their specific district, execute it, and report back on the results using their own local data.

This turns the workforce from passive recipients of protocols into active testers of implementation fidelity.

It directly addresses the “translational science” gap identified in the paper by forcing the learner to translate theory into practice immediately.

Sceptics often argue that this approach places an undue burden on an already overworked workforce.

However, the TGLF model embeds learning into the workflow itself.

This is not additional work but rather “learning-based work.”

Participants do not create hypothetical projects.

They identify a bottleneck they are currently facing, such as a specific pocket of malaria transmission, and use the learning cycle to address it.

This transforms the training from an external interruption into an operational support mechanism.

By embedding learning into the workflow, it operationalizes Mwenesi’s call for translational science.

It considers the daily struggle of the health worker as a form of structured scientific inquiry: they hypothesize a solution, test it, and report the results.

This is implementation as science.

Operationalizing data use for local decision-making

Mwenesi notes that health workers collect data but do not use it.

In the TGLF model, data is not something sent “up” to the ministry.

It is the raw material for peer support and feedback.

In a TGLF peer learning exercise, a district medical officer in Ghana shares their case management data to compare performance with a peer in Uganda.

They share because they want to, not because they are required to.

This creates a social incentive to understand and analyze one’s own data.

It builds the “data literacy” the authors call for not through abstract statistics courses but through the practical necessity of explaining one’s own performance to a colleague.

This process transforms data from a compliance burden into a tool for local problem-solving.

Is there a risk that peer learning will pool ignorance?

Is there a valid concern regarding the risk of “pooled ignorance” where peers might reinforce incorrect practices?

The TGLF model mitigates this through “structured emergence.”

The model does not dismiss expert knowledge but uses global guidelines as the “anchor” for local problem-solving.

In this system, a health worker cannot simply state an opinion.

They must submit an action plan that is peer-reviewed against a rubric derived from WHO guidelines.

This process ensures fidelity to technical standards while allowing for necessary local adaptation.

The aggregation of thousands of these peer-reviewed plans creates a new form of rigorous, practice-based evidence that complements expert guidance.

Scaling “soft skills” through structured peer review

The review calls for leadership and diplomacy skills but notes these are hard to teach in workshops.

The TGLF model builds these skills implicitly through its pedagogical structure.

When a participant submits an action plan, they must receive and respond to critical feedback from peers in other countries.

They must negotiate differing viewpoints and defend their technical choices.

This mimics the “health diplomacy” and leadership dynamics required in real-world program management.

Furthermore, because they must engage community stakeholders to implement their projects, they practice the anthropological and social engagement skills Mwenesi identifies as missing.

They learn leadership not by studying a theory of leadership but by leading a change initiative in their facility.

While some experts argue that soft skills require “hard contact” in physical spaces, TGLF results suggest that physical proximity often limits a worker to their known environment and existing biases.

The TGLF model introduces a form of “cosmopolitan localism.”

When a nurse in rural Nigeria must explain her challenge to a peer in urban India, she is forced to articulate her context with a clarity and diplomacy not required when speaking to a neighbor.

This defiance of distance fosters a quantum leap in communication capabilities.

Participants report that the skills learned in negotiating these digital, cross-cultural peer relationships directly translate to better engagement with their physical-world colleagues and community leaders.

Addressing the incentive structure and correcting expertise asymmetry

The paper critiques the “brain drain” and the reliance on experts from the Global North.

TGLF operationalizes the “South-South” collaboration recommended by the authors by creating a flat digital hierarchy.

In this model, the “expert” is not a visiting consultant from Geneva but a peer who has successfully solved the problem in their own context.

A nurse in Nigeria learns how to improve bed net usage from a nurse in Kenya who solved that exact refusal issue last month.

This actually results in greater interest, comprehension, and use of official guidelines.

It also validates local knowledge and creates the “critical mass of thinking professionals” that Mwenesi argues is essential for elimination.

It shifts the source of authority from external experts to the collective intelligence of the network.

Transforming the economy of per diem

A common critique of moving away from face-to-face training is the reliance of health workers on per diems for financial survival.

Mwenesi implies that the current system is unsustainable.

The TGLF model operates on the evidence that per diem-driven training often restricts access to a “training aristocracy” of recurrent participants while excluding the frontline workers who most need the knowledge.

TGLF replaces the financial incentive with a professional survival incentive.

In the Nigeria Immunization Collaborative, over 4,300 health workers participated without per diems.

They did so because the program addressed the specific pain points of their daily work.

This filters the workforce for “positive deviants,” or those with high intrinsic motivation who are most likely to drive elimination efforts, rather than those primarily motivated by daily subsistence allowances.

A “surveillance system” for human resources and performance

Finally, the review notes the lack of registries and data on the workforce itself.

The TGLF digital network acts as a real-time sensor of workforce capacity.

By engaging thousands of health workers simultaneously, the platform generates data on who is active, what problems they are facing, and where their skills are deficient.

For an epidemiologist, this is equivalent to a surveillance system for human resources.

It provides the visibility needed to forecast gaps and target interventions precisely, replacing the “blind” proliferation of uncoordinated workshops with a data-driven approach to capacity building.

Regarding concerns that digital platforms fail in low-resource settings due to poor connectivity, TGLF utilizes a “cognitively quiet” design that functions on low-bandwidth connections and mobile devices.

This design respects the technological reality of the African context.

Data from the Teach to Reach program, which has engaged over 60,000 participants in remote, ongoing peer learning activities , demonstrates that when the technology is adapted to the user rather than the other way around, participation rates exceed those of physical workshops.

This scale allows for the identification of systemic patterns and workforce gaps that would be invisible in a smaller, face-to-face cohort.

Reference

Mwenesi, H., Mbogo, C., Casamitjana, N., Castro, M.C., Itoe, M.A., Okonofua, F., Tanner, M., 2022. Rethinking human resources and capacity building needs for malaria control and elimination in Africa. PLOS Glob Public Health 2, e0000210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000210

Reda Sadki (2023). How do we reframe health performance management within complex adaptive systems?. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/mx5qr-qet97

Reda Sadki (2024). Prioritizing the health and care workforce shortage: protect, invest, together. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/zzqr4-9g482

Reda Sadki (2024). Protect, invest, together: strengthening health workforce through new learning models. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/g24b4-7fj64

Reda Sadki (2024). What is double-loop learning in global health?. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/s4xtw-b7274

Reda Sadki (2024). World Malaria Day 2024: We need new ways to support health workers leading change with local communities. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/yrn1r-hpz62

#brainDrain #cosmopolitanLocalism #dataQualityAndUse #doubleLoopLearning #HalimaMwenesi #healthWorkerMotivation #healthWorkerPerformance #healthWorkforce #HRH #implementationScience #leadership #learningStrategy #learningBasedWork #localization #malaria #peerLearning #performance #softSkills #TeachToReach #translationalScience

Evaluation of a capacity building intervention on malaria treatment for children

The study by Ayodele Jegede and colleagues “Evaluation of a capacity building intervention on malaria treatment for under-fives in rural health facilities in Niger State, Nigeria” provides a rigorous evaluation of a standard “cascade training” intervention.

The intervention followed the classic global health model where national experts trained state trainers who then trained local government area facilitators who were supposed to train frontline health workers.

The results expose deep structural flaws in this approach.

The most damning finding was the “reach gap.”

Despite the intervention being fully funded and implemented, the cascade broke down before reaching the frontline.

Only 54% of the health workers who actually treat febrile children reported receiving the training.

The transmission of knowledge stopped at the facility in-charge level and did not filter down to the lower-level cadres who manage the bulk of the patient load.

Consequently, the study found no statistically significant difference in appropriate treatment practices between the intervention and control groups.

The study also illuminated the persistence of the “know-do” gap.

Even where testing rates increased, appropriate treatment did not necessarily follow.

A critical finding was that while health workers in the intervention arm correctly withheld artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) from children who tested negative for malaria, they frequently substituted them with other inappropriate antimalarials or antibiotics.

This suggests that the training taught them the technical rule (“no ACT for negatives”) but failed to teach the adaptive clinical skill of how to manage a negative diagnosis and patient expectations.

Finally, the study highlighted the futility of training in the absence of system support.

Significant stock-outs of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) and ACTs occurred in the intervention facilities.

On many visit days, half the facilities had no ACTs available.

The authors conclude that capacity building cannot be an isolated activity and must be embedded within a functioning supply chain and health system.

Analysis through the lens of learning science

This study provides the empirical “counter-factual” that justifies TGLF’s evidence-based rejection of the cascade training model.

It illustrates precisely why a digital-first and direct-to-learner approach is necessary from an epidemiological and operational perspective.

Overcoming transmission loss

The finding that the cascade reached only 54% of workers is a powerful argument for TGLF’s networked learning approach.

By using digital platforms to connect directly with individual health workers on their own devices, TGLF bypasses the “frozen middle” layers of hierarchy where cascade training stalls.

TGLF does not rely on a facility manager to pass on a message but invites both the frontline worker and the manager to join the conversation directly.

From rote compliance to critical thinking

The behavior of the health workers who stopped giving ACTs but switched to other inappropriate drugs demonstrates the failure of “single-loop” learning.

They learned the what (do not give ACT) but not the why or the how (clinical reasoning and stewardship).

TGLF’s “double-loop” learning model addresses this by engaging workers in peer dialogue about why they feel compelled to prescribe drugs for negative cases.

This might include patient pressure or fear of complications.

The model helps them develop strategies to manage those pressures rather than just memorizing a guideline.

Resilience in the face of system failure

The study shows that stock-outs rendered the training ineffective.

In a traditional model, the health worker is a passive victim of these stock-outs.

In TGLF’s “challenge-based” learning model, a worker is likely to be the first one to identify “frequent stock-outs” as their primary challenge.

The network would then connect them with peers who have solved similar supply chain issues.

This might be through better forecasting, redistribution from nearby clinics or advocacy with district officials.

TGLF aims to transform the worker from a passive recipient of training into an active agent of system change who can navigate the very barriers that defeated the intervention in Niger State.

Reference

Jegede, A., Willey, B., Hamade, P., Oshiname, F., Chandramohan, D., Ajayi, I., Falade, C., Baba, E., Webster, J., 2020. Evaluation of a capacity building intervention on malaria treatment for under-fives in rural health facilities in Niger State, Nigeria. Malar J 19, 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03167-y

Reda Sadki (2024). Why does cascade training fail?. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/j8vg0-yng46

Reda Sadki (2024). What is double-loop learning in global health?. Reda Sadki: Learning to make a difference. https://doi.org/10.59350/s4xtw-b7274

#AyodeleJegede #capacityBuilding #cascadeTraining #doubleLoopLearning #knowDoGap #malaria #Nigeria #peerLearning

5 reasons why our current systems of learning are broken – and how to fix them

Reda Sadki’s writing explores how systems of learning matter when tackling complex challenges across global health, humanitarian aid, and education.

Over twelve years of articles on his blog, he has built a cohesive argument for why our current systems of learning are broken and how we might fix them.

Since 2016, his work at The Geneva Learning Foundation has demonstrated how to turn such rethinking into new ways to learn and lead in the face of critical threats to our societies.

Here are five themes that define his work.

1. The failure of traditional systems of learning and the peer learning alternative

One of Sadki’s most persistent arguments is that the humanitarian and global health sectors are addicted to ineffective models of training.

He questions the “workshop culture” that flies experts around the world at great cost with little measurable impact.

He argues that this “sage on the stage” model assumes knowledge flows only one way: from the expert to the ignorant practitioner.

He is equally critical of digital replacements that merely replicate this dynamic.

In Why gamification is a disaster for humanitarian learning, he warns that dressing up behaviorist drills with points and badges does not foster the critical thinking needed in crisis zones.

He expands on this in Experience and blended learning: two heads of the humanitarian training chimera, arguing that “transmissive” learning fails to prepare professionals for volatility and complexity.

Instead, Sadki advocates for peer learning networks where practitioners teach and learn from each other.

As he explains in What learning science underpins peer learning for Global Health?, the goal is not to transmit information but to foster the “co-creation” of new knowledge that is directly applicable to local contexts.

2. Epistemic justice: valuing communities as systems of learning

Sadki frequently uses the philosophy of Donald Schön to distinguish between the “high ground” of theory and the “swampy lowlands” of practice.

He argues that global health suffers from “epistemic injustice” – a systematic devaluation of the experiential knowledge held by local health workers.

In Knowing-in-action: Bridging the theory-practice divide in global health, he makes the case that the gap between global guidelines and local reality can only be bridged by recognizing frontline workers as knowledge creators, not just recipients.

He challenges the hierarchy that dismisses local insights as mere “anecdote.”

In Anecdote or lived experience: reimagining knowledge for climate-resilient health systems, he proposes a new framework where the collective stories of thousands of health workers shape a new, rigorous form of evidence.

In Critical evidence gaps in the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change, he points out that the most rigorous science can miss the vital signals that only those working in communities can see.

3. Artificial intelligence as a co-worker

While many in education view Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a threat to integrity or a tool for cheating, Sadki frames it as a transformative partner.

He argues that we are entering a new epoch where AI will not just be a tool we use, but a “co-worker” we collaborate with.

In A global health framework for Artificial Intelligence as co-worker to support networked learning and local action, he outlines how AI can support the “human” parts of learning – such as feedback and synthesis – without replacing human agency.

He explores the profound shifts in how we will interact with technology in The agentic AI revolution: what does it mean for workforce development?, describing a future where “AI agents” handle coordination, freeing humans to focus on judgment and ethics.

He pushes this further in Why YouTube is obsolete: From linear video content consumption to AI-mediated multimodal knowledge production, suggesting that AI will fundamentally change how we consume information, moving us away from linear formats like video lectures toward dynamic, interactive knowledge creation and retrieval.

4. Learning culture as the driver of learning systems

Sadki insists that learning is not an event but a culture.

Drawing heavily on the research of Karen E. Watkins and Victoria Marsick, he argues that an organization’s “learning culture” is the single best predictor of its ability to adapt and perform.

In Learning culture: the missing link in global health between learning and performance, he explains that without a culture that supports inquiry, dialogue, and risk-taking, even the best training programs will fail.

He identifies specific weaknesses in current systems, noting in Why lack of continuous learning is the Achilles heel of immunization that health systems often prioritize task completion over the continuous learning necessary to improve those tasks.

This theme connects deeply to leadership.

He argues in What is the relationship between leadership and performance? that true leadership is not about authority but about fostering an environment where learning can happen at every level of the hierarchy.

5. New ways to bridge the gap from policy to action

Finally, Sadki focuses relentlessly on the “know-do” gap, the disconnect between global policy and local implementation.

He argues that guidelines often fail because they are designed without the input of those who must implement them.

In Why guidelines fail: on consequences of the false dichotomy between global and local knowledge in health systems, he dissects how the separation of “thinkers” (global experts) and “doers” (local staff) dooms many initiatives.

He offers concrete examples of how to close this gap, such as in The Nigeria Immunization Collaborative: Early learning from a novel sector-wide approach model for zero-dose challenges, where thousands of health workers used peer learning to identify root causes of vaccine inequity that central planners had missed.

This theme emphasizes that the solution is not more “technical assistance” from the outside, but better mechanisms to unlock the problem-solving capacity that already exists within communities.

Beyond learning: a new operating system in global development

Taken together, these themes provide the specifications for a new operating system in global development, one that moves beyond the limitations of the models of today.

  • Sadki’s work challenges the sector to recognize its most undervalued asset: the collective intelligence of the health and humanitarian workforce.
  • By dismantling the barriers between the “high ground” of policy and the “swampy lowlands” of practice, his framework constructs a learning ecosystem where artificial intelligence amplifies human connection and local insights continuously refine global strategy.
  • This evolution—from episodic workshops to continuous, networked problem-solving—offers a pragmatic path to close the persistent gap between investment and outcome.

In a resource-constrained world, unlocking this latent capacity is not merely an ethical choice, but a strategic imperative to build systems resilient enough for an unpredictable future.

#blendedLearning #epistemicJustice #learning #learningStrategy #peerLearning #workshopCulture