Pub Date : 2022-04-29DOI: 10.1177/23733799221089578
B. Lindsay, Emily P. Bernier, J. Boman, M. Boyce
Postsecondary students’ ability to learn is affected by their mental health and wellbeing. Research in the teaching and learning context, however, has predominantly focused on teaching practices that facilitate motivation, learning, and academic success while overlooking the importance of student mental health and wellbeing. The current study aimed to fill this gap by using qualitative interviews to explore student perspectives on current and possible future supports that can cultivate student mental health and wellbeing in the teaching and learning context. Through 14 one-on-one interviews with students, five major themes were developed: (1) prioritize mental health, (2) provide and guide to accessible supports, (3) increase mental health literacy, (4) foster connections and social support, and (5) strengthen best practices in teaching and learning. Students emphasized that the institution has a role to play in several of these areas and elaborated on what practices and policies were least and most supportive of student mental health and wellbeing in teaching and learning. This study has implications for higher education institutions, and how they promote mental health and wellbeing, disseminate information and resources, and how faculty and staff can support students through their policies (e.g., flexibility in deadlines), course materials (e.g., assessments), course delivery (e.g., equity, diversity, and inclusion [EDI] considerations), and interactions (e.g., normalizing mental health conversations).
{"title":"Understanding the Connection Between Student Wellbeing and Teaching and Learning at a Canadian Research University: A Qualitative Student Perspective","authors":"B. Lindsay, Emily P. Bernier, J. Boman, M. Boyce","doi":"10.1177/23733799221089578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799221089578","url":null,"abstract":"Postsecondary students’ ability to learn is affected by their mental health and wellbeing. Research in the teaching and learning context, however, has predominantly focused on teaching practices that facilitate motivation, learning, and academic success while overlooking the importance of student mental health and wellbeing. The current study aimed to fill this gap by using qualitative interviews to explore student perspectives on current and possible future supports that can cultivate student mental health and wellbeing in the teaching and learning context. Through 14 one-on-one interviews with students, five major themes were developed: (1) prioritize mental health, (2) provide and guide to accessible supports, (3) increase mental health literacy, (4) foster connections and social support, and (5) strengthen best practices in teaching and learning. Students emphasized that the institution has a role to play in several of these areas and elaborated on what practices and policies were least and most supportive of student mental health and wellbeing in teaching and learning. This study has implications for higher education institutions, and how they promote mental health and wellbeing, disseminate information and resources, and how faculty and staff can support students through their policies (e.g., flexibility in deadlines), course materials (e.g., assessments), course delivery (e.g., equity, diversity, and inclusion [EDI] considerations), and interactions (e.g., normalizing mental health conversations).","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47088833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1177/23733799211070544
David Johnson, Rishtya M. Kakar, Robin Zahrndt, Pete Walton
Development of critical thinking skills is an important outcome in education, though pedagogies to both promote and evaluate critical thinking present challenges and vary greatly. In this article, we describe the development and use of a formative and generalizable rubric that leverages the Paul-Elder model for critical thinking, and in particular, Intellectual Standards. When used consistently, this Intellectual Standards Rubric for Critical Thinking (ISRCT) provides regular and specific insight to students about strengths and weaknesses, related to critical thinking, that are reflected in their work. The ISRCT can also be used to assess multiple components of the same assignment, which allows instructors to measure critical thinking competency development in greater detail and provide this feedback to students. Though Public Health is the discipline and context for the development and application of this evaluation methodology, the ISRCT is adapted from an agnostic critical thinking framework and model, and thus, could be utilized for a variety of disciplines and diverse assignments.
{"title":"Student Evaluation Using an Intellectual Standards Rubric for Critical Thinking","authors":"David Johnson, Rishtya M. Kakar, Robin Zahrndt, Pete Walton","doi":"10.1177/23733799211070544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211070544","url":null,"abstract":"Development of critical thinking skills is an important outcome in education, though pedagogies to both promote and evaluate critical thinking present challenges and vary greatly. In this article, we describe the development and use of a formative and generalizable rubric that leverages the Paul-Elder model for critical thinking, and in particular, Intellectual Standards. When used consistently, this Intellectual Standards Rubric for Critical Thinking (ISRCT) provides regular and specific insight to students about strengths and weaknesses, related to critical thinking, that are reflected in their work. The ISRCT can also be used to assess multiple components of the same assignment, which allows instructors to measure critical thinking competency development in greater detail and provide this feedback to students. Though Public Health is the discipline and context for the development and application of this evaluation methodology, the ISRCT is adapted from an agnostic critical thinking framework and model, and thus, could be utilized for a variety of disciplines and diverse assignments.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49084872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-26DOI: 10.1177/23733799211069993
O. Ezezika, Nancy Johnston
Reflective writing may be undervalued as purely expressive rather than a critical or an academic tool in undergraduate public health biology courses. When grounded in course concepts and academic learning, a reflective essay can be a learning tool for students that helps them use discipline knowledge and apply it to real-world issues. Studies on teaching reflection have identified its value for training students in critical thinking and improving self-regulated learning. Considering Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle framework, in this article, we detail the design, implementation, and evaluation of a reflective writing assignment integrated into a lower-year undergraduate public health biology course. Through the design and implementation of the reflective writing assignment, four key lessons are drawn. First, reflective writing assignments facilitate learning and course enjoyment. Second, writing workshops improve the quality of reflective writing assignments. Third, a detailed grading rubric clarifies expectations for students and creates consistency in grading. Fourth, reflective writing assignments can help teachers effectively evaluate how students apply the knowledge gained from the course to promote personal and community health. By implementing the reflective assignment, we have created a narrative on how reflective writing could maximize learning in public health pedagogy and provided recommendations and lessons for course designers and instructors to consider in light of Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle framework.
{"title":"Development and Implementation of a Reflective Writing Assignment for Undergraduate Students in a Large Public Health Biology Course","authors":"O. Ezezika, Nancy Johnston","doi":"10.1177/23733799211069993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211069993","url":null,"abstract":"Reflective writing may be undervalued as purely expressive rather than a critical or an academic tool in undergraduate public health biology courses. When grounded in course concepts and academic learning, a reflective essay can be a learning tool for students that helps them use discipline knowledge and apply it to real-world issues. Studies on teaching reflection have identified its value for training students in critical thinking and improving self-regulated learning. Considering Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle framework, in this article, we detail the design, implementation, and evaluation of a reflective writing assignment integrated into a lower-year undergraduate public health biology course. Through the design and implementation of the reflective writing assignment, four key lessons are drawn. First, reflective writing assignments facilitate learning and course enjoyment. Second, writing workshops improve the quality of reflective writing assignments. Third, a detailed grading rubric clarifies expectations for students and creates consistency in grading. Fourth, reflective writing assignments can help teachers effectively evaluate how students apply the knowledge gained from the course to promote personal and community health. By implementing the reflective assignment, we have created a narrative on how reflective writing could maximize learning in public health pedagogy and provided recommendations and lessons for course designers and instructors to consider in light of Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle framework.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49039394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1177/23733799221074626
Gemma A. Leonard, Jill W. Lassiter, R. Hammill, Carrie W. Lecrom
Students who participate in service-learning courses are given the opportunity to apply the knowledge they develop in the classroom to real-world settings while meeting community needs. This study explores how service-learning pedagogy contributes to interpersonal professional skill development in pre-health undergraduate students attending a small, liberal arts college in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Students were enrolled in a required course within the health and exercise science department and were pursuing health-related careers. They partnered with local organizations where they engaged marginalized community members in physically active games and programs to promote health. Students then participated in reflective assignments that were qualitatively analyzed. In total, 103 essays and 10 focus groups were coded and interpreted. Three themes emerged as pre-health professional skills developed through the course: communication, perspective taking, and motivating others. Students indicated that service-learning experiences helped them improve in these areas or brought awareness to their struggles with these skills. This study describes how service-learning pedagogy can be used to expand the interpersonal skills of undergraduate students necessary to promote health in all related professions.
{"title":"Service-Learning and the Development of Interpersonal Skills in Pre-Professional Undergraduate Students","authors":"Gemma A. Leonard, Jill W. Lassiter, R. Hammill, Carrie W. Lecrom","doi":"10.1177/23733799221074626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799221074626","url":null,"abstract":"Students who participate in service-learning courses are given the opportunity to apply the knowledge they develop in the classroom to real-world settings while meeting community needs. This study explores how service-learning pedagogy contributes to interpersonal professional skill development in pre-health undergraduate students attending a small, liberal arts college in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Students were enrolled in a required course within the health and exercise science department and were pursuing health-related careers. They partnered with local organizations where they engaged marginalized community members in physically active games and programs to promote health. Students then participated in reflective assignments that were qualitatively analyzed. In total, 103 essays and 10 focus groups were coded and interpreted. Three themes emerged as pre-health professional skills developed through the course: communication, perspective taking, and motivating others. Students indicated that service-learning experiences helped them improve in these areas or brought awareness to their struggles with these skills. This study describes how service-learning pedagogy can be used to expand the interpersonal skills of undergraduate students necessary to promote health in all related professions.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41677427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-06DOI: 10.1177/23733799211070207
C. Merzel
With this volume, Pedagogy in Health Promotion proudly enters its eighth year of publication. As noted by founding Editor Emeritus, Stephen Gambescia, the journal was created to fill a major gap in the dissemination of scholarly teaching practice in health promotion and public health (Gambescia, 2015a). The journal’s goal is to advance pedagogical research and practice by “catalyze[ing] professional and scientific exchange among education scholars and practitioners in public health and health promotion” (Auld & Bishop, 2015, p. 5). I underscore this purpose by reminding our readers and contributors of the journal’s subtitle: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. In short, Pedagogy in Health Promotion aims to improve teaching practice and its outcomes by means of pedagogical scholarship. This focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning (known as SoTL) in health promotion and public health guides the journal’s review and selection of submissions. We aim to publish high quality scholarly papers that inform teaching research and practice and provide replicable lessons for the community of health promotion and public health educators. A question many would-be SoTL scholars ask is: Where and how to start? Over the years, Pedagogy in Health Promotion has published a number of editorials and commentaries that offer perspectives for shifting teaching endeavors into the scholarly domain. I encourage would-be contributors to investigate this helpful archive. A good place to start is the piece summarizing the history and evolution of SoTL by McBride and Kanekar (2015) who provide a succinct characterization of the how and why of SoTL: “To be scholarly, good teaching must also include assessment and evidence gathering, be informed not only by the latest ideas in the field but also by current ideas about teaching the field, and be open to peer collaboration and review” (p. 10). They suggest that those new to SoTL can begin by incorporating results of pedagogical research into their courses and program curricula. For ideas on pursuing pedagogical scholarship to help advance the field of health promotion, read Glanz’s thoughtful commentary (Glanz, 2017). A defining element of all scholarship is the ability to make meaningful contributions to the existing knowledge base. This presents particular challenges for pedagogical scholarship, which often is based on (very) small numbers of students, courses, and institutions and relies on observational designs. We can look to qualitative research as a guide for surmounting some of these methodological hurdles. As discussed by Gambescia (2015b) and Cavalcanti de Aguiar (2017), rich qualitative descriptions of pedagogical contexts, settings, and processes are essential for helping other educators understand and master good teaching practice. Indeed, explanatory qualitative scholarship may be of greater relevance and utility than research focused mainly on measuring a narrow set of outcomes in a limited study popu
{"title":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion: Our Focus Is The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","authors":"C. Merzel","doi":"10.1177/23733799211070207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211070207","url":null,"abstract":"With this volume, Pedagogy in Health Promotion proudly enters its eighth year of publication. As noted by founding Editor Emeritus, Stephen Gambescia, the journal was created to fill a major gap in the dissemination of scholarly teaching practice in health promotion and public health (Gambescia, 2015a). The journal’s goal is to advance pedagogical research and practice by “catalyze[ing] professional and scientific exchange among education scholars and practitioners in public health and health promotion” (Auld & Bishop, 2015, p. 5). I underscore this purpose by reminding our readers and contributors of the journal’s subtitle: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. In short, Pedagogy in Health Promotion aims to improve teaching practice and its outcomes by means of pedagogical scholarship. This focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning (known as SoTL) in health promotion and public health guides the journal’s review and selection of submissions. We aim to publish high quality scholarly papers that inform teaching research and practice and provide replicable lessons for the community of health promotion and public health educators. A question many would-be SoTL scholars ask is: Where and how to start? Over the years, Pedagogy in Health Promotion has published a number of editorials and commentaries that offer perspectives for shifting teaching endeavors into the scholarly domain. I encourage would-be contributors to investigate this helpful archive. A good place to start is the piece summarizing the history and evolution of SoTL by McBride and Kanekar (2015) who provide a succinct characterization of the how and why of SoTL: “To be scholarly, good teaching must also include assessment and evidence gathering, be informed not only by the latest ideas in the field but also by current ideas about teaching the field, and be open to peer collaboration and review” (p. 10). They suggest that those new to SoTL can begin by incorporating results of pedagogical research into their courses and program curricula. For ideas on pursuing pedagogical scholarship to help advance the field of health promotion, read Glanz’s thoughtful commentary (Glanz, 2017). A defining element of all scholarship is the ability to make meaningful contributions to the existing knowledge base. This presents particular challenges for pedagogical scholarship, which often is based on (very) small numbers of students, courses, and institutions and relies on observational designs. We can look to qualitative research as a guide for surmounting some of these methodological hurdles. As discussed by Gambescia (2015b) and Cavalcanti de Aguiar (2017), rich qualitative descriptions of pedagogical contexts, settings, and processes are essential for helping other educators understand and master good teaching practice. Indeed, explanatory qualitative scholarship may be of greater relevance and utility than research focused mainly on measuring a narrow set of outcomes in a limited study popu","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43242791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/23733799211057531
Katherine M. Johnson, J. Liddell, Alyssa M. Lederer, Sydney Sheffield
Online coursework is becoming a teaching and learning staple in higher education, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is minimal literature regarding academic courses for campus sexual violence prevention, particularly comparing online versus face-to-face modalities. This study examined whether the effectiveness of a semester-long credit-bearing course (GESS 1900), designed to educate first year college students about correlates of sexual violence in order to ultimately reduce campus sexual violence, differed by instructional mode. Two cohorts had completed GESS 1900 in-person when the COVID-19 pandemic struck; the third cohort was taught entirely online through synchronous instruction and with the exact same faculty instructors and course materials. This created a natural experiment to compare outcomes by instructional mode. We used a quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest survey design to compare in-person (n = 92) versus online (n = 45) GESS 1900 students across eight previously validated attitudinal measures related to gender, sexuality, and sexual violence. Results from a two-way, mixed-factorial ANOVA showed no significant differences related to instructional mode on seven of the eight measures. Findings further showed change over time in the desired direction for all students, regardless of instructional mode; many measures showed different starting points for the two groups, but similar rates of change over time. Thus both in-person and synchronous online versions of GESS 1900 were effective in shaping positive student outcomes. The findings have important implications for educators seeking new or multiple delivery methods to educate college students about the pressing health concern of sexual violence.
{"title":"Does Instructional Mode Alter the Effectiveness of a Curricular Response to Campus Sexual Violence?","authors":"Katherine M. Johnson, J. Liddell, Alyssa M. Lederer, Sydney Sheffield","doi":"10.1177/23733799211057531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211057531","url":null,"abstract":"Online coursework is becoming a teaching and learning staple in higher education, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is minimal literature regarding academic courses for campus sexual violence prevention, particularly comparing online versus face-to-face modalities. This study examined whether the effectiveness of a semester-long credit-bearing course (GESS 1900), designed to educate first year college students about correlates of sexual violence in order to ultimately reduce campus sexual violence, differed by instructional mode. Two cohorts had completed GESS 1900 in-person when the COVID-19 pandemic struck; the third cohort was taught entirely online through synchronous instruction and with the exact same faculty instructors and course materials. This created a natural experiment to compare outcomes by instructional mode. We used a quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest survey design to compare in-person (n = 92) versus online (n = 45) GESS 1900 students across eight previously validated attitudinal measures related to gender, sexuality, and sexual violence. Results from a two-way, mixed-factorial ANOVA showed no significant differences related to instructional mode on seven of the eight measures. Findings further showed change over time in the desired direction for all students, regardless of instructional mode; many measures showed different starting points for the two groups, but similar rates of change over time. Thus both in-person and synchronous online versions of GESS 1900 were effective in shaping positive student outcomes. The findings have important implications for educators seeking new or multiple delivery methods to educate college students about the pressing health concern of sexual violence.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65682043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/23733799211062245
Eboni E. Haynes, M. Gwynn, Oluwatosin A. Momodu, B. Olatosi
Background. Little is known about the use of project management in public health research and practice in the U.S. Research from other countries supports the use of project management (PM) principles to successfully manage public health programs and research, prevent delays, and reduce costs. However, knowledge of PM training in public health schools and programs is limited. This study sought to (1) determine the extent to which PM training is offered to public health students in schools and programs in the U.S. accredited by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), (2) examine why project management courses are not offered, and (3) identify the challenges faced in offering PM courses. Methods. In May 2019, an online survey was distributed to 178 CEPH-accredited schools and programs in public health in the U.S. Thirty-seven percent of schools/programs completed the survey. Results. About 75% of CEPH-accredited schools and programs that responded do not offer PM training. However, respondents deemed PM skills and training critical for the success of students. Primary challenges included lack of qualified instructors, course cost, lack of school/program interest, perceived lack of student interest, and unfamiliarity of the benefits of PM to public health. Discussion. Opportunities abound for administrators to familiarize themselves with the evidence that PM training helps prepare students for the public health workforce. Identifying qualified faculty and funding to support curriculum development, the implementation of PM competencies by CEPH, and additional research are needed to encourage the adoption of PM in schools/programs of public health.
{"title":"Project Management Training in Schools and Programs of Public Health in the United States","authors":"Eboni E. Haynes, M. Gwynn, Oluwatosin A. Momodu, B. Olatosi","doi":"10.1177/23733799211062245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211062245","url":null,"abstract":"Background. Little is known about the use of project management in public health research and practice in the U.S. Research from other countries supports the use of project management (PM) principles to successfully manage public health programs and research, prevent delays, and reduce costs. However, knowledge of PM training in public health schools and programs is limited. This study sought to (1) determine the extent to which PM training is offered to public health students in schools and programs in the U.S. accredited by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), (2) examine why project management courses are not offered, and (3) identify the challenges faced in offering PM courses. Methods. In May 2019, an online survey was distributed to 178 CEPH-accredited schools and programs in public health in the U.S. Thirty-seven percent of schools/programs completed the survey. Results. About 75% of CEPH-accredited schools and programs that responded do not offer PM training. However, respondents deemed PM skills and training critical for the success of students. Primary challenges included lack of qualified instructors, course cost, lack of school/program interest, perceived lack of student interest, and unfamiliarity of the benefits of PM to public health. Discussion. Opportunities abound for administrators to familiarize themselves with the evidence that PM training helps prepare students for the public health workforce. Identifying qualified faculty and funding to support curriculum development, the implementation of PM competencies by CEPH, and additional research are needed to encourage the adoption of PM in schools/programs of public health.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49412821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/23733799211060726
Debra Mattison, Laura Smith, Kate Balzer, Vinoothna Bavireddy, T. Bishop, K. Farris, M. Fitzgerald, Daniel F. Rulli, Nicole E. Trupiano, O. Anderson
The Longitudinal Interprofessional Family-Based Experience (LIFE) was developed to address the need for longitudinal, experiential IPE opportunities that bring students together with real patient-family units with an intentional plan for multiple qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures. LIFE engaged 48 early learners from eight health science schools at a large midwestern university in ongoing team skill-based interactions coupled with real patient experiential learning over 11 weeks. Student teams were introduced and encouraged to apply the socio-ecological model (SEM) and social determinants of health (SDH) while collaboratively exploring the impact of the patient-family’s interface with the healthcare system and community during two consecutive patient-family interviews. A creative collaboration with the health system’s Office of Patient Experience, provided eight patients who had experienced chronic illness and treatment in the healthcare system, who engaged with the learners as both teachers as well as evaluators in this experience. LIFE is a framework model that has applicability and adaptability for designing, implementing, and sustaining experiential IPE. Initial summary data regarding outcomes for students are presented as well as considerations to increase accessible and sustainable authentic IPE experiences through untapped patient and community collaborations.
{"title":"Longitudinal Interprofessional Family-Based Experience (LIFE): An Authentic Experiential Interprofessional Education Learning Framework","authors":"Debra Mattison, Laura Smith, Kate Balzer, Vinoothna Bavireddy, T. Bishop, K. Farris, M. Fitzgerald, Daniel F. Rulli, Nicole E. Trupiano, O. Anderson","doi":"10.1177/23733799211060726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211060726","url":null,"abstract":"The Longitudinal Interprofessional Family-Based Experience (LIFE) was developed to address the need for longitudinal, experiential IPE opportunities that bring students together with real patient-family units with an intentional plan for multiple qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures. LIFE engaged 48 early learners from eight health science schools at a large midwestern university in ongoing team skill-based interactions coupled with real patient experiential learning over 11 weeks. Student teams were introduced and encouraged to apply the socio-ecological model (SEM) and social determinants of health (SDH) while collaboratively exploring the impact of the patient-family’s interface with the healthcare system and community during two consecutive patient-family interviews. A creative collaboration with the health system’s Office of Patient Experience, provided eight patients who had experienced chronic illness and treatment in the healthcare system, who engaged with the learners as both teachers as well as evaluators in this experience. LIFE is a framework model that has applicability and adaptability for designing, implementing, and sustaining experiential IPE. Initial summary data regarding outcomes for students are presented as well as considerations to increase accessible and sustainable authentic IPE experiences through untapped patient and community collaborations.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44389849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-02DOI: 10.1177/23733799211061281
Heather L. Henderson, M. Sendall
Historically, the work of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) scholars has been grounded in multidisciplinary connections to educational psychology and pedagogical research. SoTL research and commentary intends to answer questions about what is, what is possible, what works, and what conceptual frameworks explain learning, teaching, and pedagogy (Hutchings, 2000). Pedagogy in Health Promotion provides examples of the rich variety and scope of the scholarship of teaching and learning. SoTL work observes and comments on teaching practice (Flores et al., 2021; Kratzke et al., 2021), develops and tests theories and evidence-based frameworks (Kuganathan et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2021), provides quantifiable explanations (Blavos et al., 2022; Foutch et al., 2022), pursues qualitative explorations (Muzaffar et al., 2020), engages in experimental research (Djulus et al., 2020), increases our ability to be compassionate and inclusive (James et al., 2020; Mezuk et al., 2021) and shares deep reflections about our collective experience of teaching and learning (Derreth et al., 2021). Combined, these scholarly endeavors help us to better understand how to provide effective and supportive education to health promotion and public health students, develop and challenge critical skills for health promotion and public health practice and ultimately, benefit communities and populations, and improve health outcomes. The scholarship of teaching and learning is grounded in rigorous empirical methodologies and underpinned by attested theories and frameworks. Commonly, SoTL scholars take cues from educational psychology, sociology, or behavioral psychology. Learning theories generated from these disciplines are logical companions for health promotion and public health pedagogy because they offer a structure to drive empirical enquiry and better understand learning and teaching in health promotion. As a community of scholars, we are obliged to challenge our learning and teaching practice. However, failure to situate our learning and teaching within a theoretical context, fails to uphold standards of rigor expected from a research community. Consequently, it is bequest us all to ensure health promotion and public health pedagogy is embedded in learning and teaching theories and frameworks. As SoTL scholars, we are curious about our practice. We use our intuition, anecdotes, and observations to pique questions about how and why we learn and how to better our teaching practice (Chick, 2018). We begin by asking meaningful questions, reviewing the SoTL literature, making connections between educational research and practice and thinking about theories of pedagogy which can inform our learning and teaching practice within the context of our disciplinary field. We select the theory or framework which best resonates with our enquiry to help revise and clarify our question. Reviewing educational theorists such as Weber, Marton, Bandura, and others helps shape the quest
从历史上看，教学奖学金（SoTL）学者的工作一直以教育心理学和教学研究的多学科联系为基础。SoTL的研究和评论旨在回答关于什么是、什么是可能、什么有效以及什么概念框架解释学习、教学和教育学的问题（Hutchings，2000）。《健康促进教育学》提供了丰富多样性和范围的教学和学习学术的例子。SoTL的工作观察和评论教学实践（Flores等人，2021；Kratzke等人，2021），开发和测试理论和循证框架（Kuganathan等人，2021年；Miller等人，2021，提高了我们富有同情心和包容性的能力（James等人，2020；Mezuk等人，2021），并分享了对我们集体教学经验的深刻反思（Derreth等人，2021年）。综合起来，这些学术努力有助于我们更好地了解如何为健康促进和公共卫生学生提供有效和支持性的教育，发展和挑战健康促进和公众卫生实践的关键技能，最终造福社区和人群，改善健康结果。教学学术以严格的实证方法为基础，并以经过验证的理论和框架为基础。SoTL学者通常从教育心理学、社会学或行为心理学中获得线索。这些学科产生的学习理论是健康促进和公共卫生教育学的逻辑伴侣，因为它们提供了一个结构来推动实证研究，更好地理解健康促进中的学习和教学。作为一个学者群体，我们有义务挑战我们的学习和教学实践。然而，未能将我们的学习和教学置于理论背景下，未能坚持研究界所期望的严谨标准。因此，确保健康促进和公共卫生教育学融入学习和教学理论和框架是我们所有人的遗产。作为SoTL的学者，我们对我们的实践感到好奇。我们利用我们的直觉、轶事和观察来引发关于我们如何学习以及为什么学习以及如何更好地进行教学实践的问题（Chick，2018）。我们首先提出有意义的问题，回顾SoTL文献，将教育研究与实践联系起来，思考教育学理论，这些理论可以为我们在学科领域的学习和教学实践提供信息。我们选择最能与我们的调查产生共鸣的理论或框架，以帮助修正和澄清我们的问题。回顾韦伯、马顿、班杜拉等教育理论家有助于形成我们提出的问题。生态、健康信念、社会认知、理性行动等理论模型有助于塑造我们设计计划的方式。这些精炼而集中的问题为最合适的方法提供了信息，确保预期问题得到回答，并且调查结果是相关的、有用的和有价值的。观察、访谈和焦点小组、实验方法、案例研究以及反思性的教学实践有助于我们探索什么是有效的，理解什么是可能的，学习什么是可能，理论是否会随着时间的推移而成立，并帮助我们采取行动。当我们使用最合适的方法来探索支撑我们实证研究的理论或框架时，我们会对如何改善教学和学生成绩有更深入的了解。在这样做的过程中，我们渴望研究生保持好奇心，充满强烈和批判性的探究感，不怕挑战当前健康促进和公共卫生实践的现状。1061281 PHPXXX10.1177/23723799211061281健康促进教育学Henderson and Sendall编辑2021
{"title":"Positioning the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Firmly in the Center of Health Promotion Pedagogy","authors":"Heather L. Henderson, M. Sendall","doi":"10.1177/23733799211061281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211061281","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, the work of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) scholars has been grounded in multidisciplinary connections to educational psychology and pedagogical research. SoTL research and commentary intends to answer questions about what is, what is possible, what works, and what conceptual frameworks explain learning, teaching, and pedagogy (Hutchings, 2000). Pedagogy in Health Promotion provides examples of the rich variety and scope of the scholarship of teaching and learning. SoTL work observes and comments on teaching practice (Flores et al., 2021; Kratzke et al., 2021), develops and tests theories and evidence-based frameworks (Kuganathan et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2021), provides quantifiable explanations (Blavos et al., 2022; Foutch et al., 2022), pursues qualitative explorations (Muzaffar et al., 2020), engages in experimental research (Djulus et al., 2020), increases our ability to be compassionate and inclusive (James et al., 2020; Mezuk et al., 2021) and shares deep reflections about our collective experience of teaching and learning (Derreth et al., 2021). Combined, these scholarly endeavors help us to better understand how to provide effective and supportive education to health promotion and public health students, develop and challenge critical skills for health promotion and public health practice and ultimately, benefit communities and populations, and improve health outcomes. The scholarship of teaching and learning is grounded in rigorous empirical methodologies and underpinned by attested theories and frameworks. Commonly, SoTL scholars take cues from educational psychology, sociology, or behavioral psychology. Learning theories generated from these disciplines are logical companions for health promotion and public health pedagogy because they offer a structure to drive empirical enquiry and better understand learning and teaching in health promotion. As a community of scholars, we are obliged to challenge our learning and teaching practice. However, failure to situate our learning and teaching within a theoretical context, fails to uphold standards of rigor expected from a research community. Consequently, it is bequest us all to ensure health promotion and public health pedagogy is embedded in learning and teaching theories and frameworks. As SoTL scholars, we are curious about our practice. We use our intuition, anecdotes, and observations to pique questions about how and why we learn and how to better our teaching practice (Chick, 2018). We begin by asking meaningful questions, reviewing the SoTL literature, making connections between educational research and practice and thinking about theories of pedagogy which can inform our learning and teaching practice within the context of our disciplinary field. We select the theory or framework which best resonates with our enquiry to help revise and clarify our question. Reviewing educational theorists such as Weber, Marton, Bandura, and others helps shape the quest","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42264383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1177/23733799211052761
C. Merzel
{"title":"Message From the Editor-in-Chief","authors":"C. Merzel","doi":"10.1177/23733799211052761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211052761","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48370639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：