Coaching and mentoring programs sometimes called “fellowships” have been upheld as the gold standard for developing leaders in global health. For example, a fellowship in the field of immunization was recently advertised in the following manner. We will not dwell here on the ‘live engagements’, which are expert-led presentations of technical knowledge. We already know that such ‘webinars’ have very limited learning efficacy, and unlikely impact on outcomes. (This may seem like a harsh statement to global health practitioners who have grown comfortable with webinars, but it is substantiated by decades of evidence from learning science research.) On the surface, the rest of the model sounds highly effective, promising personalized attention and expert guidance. The use of a project-based learning approach is promising, but it is unclear what support is provided once the implementation plan has been crafted. It is when you consider the logistical aspects that the cracks begin …
How does the scalability of peer learning compare to expert-led coaching ‘fellowships’?
By connecting practitioners to learn from each other, peer learning facilitates collaborative development. ow does it compare to expert-led coaching and mentoring “fellowships” that are seen as the ‘gold standard’ for professional development in global health? Scalability in global health matters. (See this article for a comparison of other aspects.) Simplified mathematical modeling can compare the scalability of expert coaching (“fellowships”) and peer learning Let N be the total number of learners and M be the number of experts available. Assuming that each expert can coach K learners effectively: For N>>M×KN>>M×K, it is evident that expert coaching is costly and difficult to scale. Expert coaching “fellowships” require the availability of experts, which is often optimistic in highly specialized fields. The number of learners (N) greatly exceeds the product of the number of experts (M) and the capacity per expert (K). Scalability of one-to-one peer learning By comparison, peer learning turns …