Using Innovative Instructional Technology to Meet Training Needs in Public Health

Abstract

Technology and distance learning can potentially enhance the efficient and effective delivery of continuing education to the public health workforce. Public Health Training Centers collaborate with instructional technology designers to develop innovative, competency-based online learning experiences that meet pressing training needs and promote best practices. We describe one Public Health Training Center’s online learning module design process, which consists of five steps: (1) identify training needs and priority competencies; (2) define learning objectives and identify educational challenges; (3) pose hypotheses and explore innovative, technology-based solutions; (4) develop and deploy the educational experience; and (5) evaluate feedback and outcomes to inform continued cycles of revision and improvement. Examples illustrate the model’s application. These steps are discussed within the context of design practices in the fields of education, engineering, and public health. They incorporate key strategies from across these fields, including principles of programmatic design familiar to public health professionals, such as backward design. The instructional technology design process we describe provides a structure for the creativity, collaboration, and systematic strategies needed to develop online learning products that address critical training needs for the public health workforce.

Keywords

workforce development continuing education distance education technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (2008). 2007 State Public Health Workforce Survey results. Retrieved from http://www.astho.org/Programs/Workforce-and-Leadership-Development/2007-State-Public-Health-Workforce-Survey-Results/

Bartholomew

L. K.

Parcel

G. S.

Kok

Gottlieb

N. H.

Fernandez

M. E.

(2011). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Bereiter

(2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9, 321-327.

Bloom

Krathwohl

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. London, England: Longmans.

Bower

Kelsey

Moretti

(2011). Brownfield action: An inquiry based multimedia simulation for teaching and learning environmental science. Science Education & Civic Engagement, 3, 7-14.

Cook

(2007). Web-based learning: Pros, cons and controversies. Clinical Medicine, 7(1), 37-42.

Cook

Dupras

(2004). A practical guide to developing effective web-based learning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 698-707. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30029.x

The Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice. (2010). Core competencies for public health professionals. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/Core_Public_Health_Competencies_III.pdf

Cross

(2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London, England: Springer.

10.

Edelson

D. C.

(2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105-121. doi:10.2307/1466722

11.

Elwyn

Kreuwel

Durand

M. A.

Sivell

Joseph-Williams

Evans

Edwards

(2011). How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: A process map. Patient Education and Counseling, 82, 260-265. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.034

12.

Gilmore

(2012). Needs and capacity assessment strategies for health education and health promotion (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

13.

Green

Kreuter

(2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Funding opportunity announcement: Public Health Training Centers program (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.516). Washington, DC: Author.

15.

Institute of Medicine. (2003). Who will keep the public healthy: Educating public health professionals for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

16.

Kirkpatrick

(2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

17.

Mayer

R. E.

(2002). Multimedia learning. In Brian

H. R.

(Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol.41, pp. 85-139). New York, NY: Academic Press.

18.

Merriam

S. B.

Caffarella

R. S.

Baumgartner

L. M.

(2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Norman

(1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

20.

Robertson

(2006). Mastering the requirements process (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

21.

Schon

(1990). The design process. In Howard

V. A.

(Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center (pp. 110-141). New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Simon

(1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

Wallas

(1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

25.

Wiggins

McTighe

(2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.