Global Mental Health: Trauma and Recovery

1. Global Mental Health: Trauma and Recovery The Master's Certificate Program offers a transformative training experience to create a network of global leaders in mental health recovery. Our mission is to maximize a scientific and cultural approach and methodology to reduce suffering, minimize disability, and increase resiliency for the more than one billion survivors of violence and disaster worldwide. On-site training in Orvieto, Italy: November 5-18, 2006 Web-based training: November 20, 2006 – May 20, 2007

2. PROJECT 1 BILLIONFRAMEWORK FOR MENTAL HEALTH RECOVERY I. Policy/Legislation RECOVERY VI. Linkage to Economic Development/ Human Rights II. Financing V. Role of International Agencies III. Science-Based Mental Health Services IV. Multi-Disciplinary Education

3. 3 Tracks • The master’s certificate program will have 3 tracks in • year 1: • Lectures and web-based modules • Small case discussion groups and supervision • Personal biographies (biosketches)

4. Lectures and Web-based Modules • Goal 4 Students will be helped to improve science-based, • culturally adaptable mental health policy and services in their • work. • Faculty lecture on-site in Orvieto then guide a module covering the topic in greater depth over the web. • The content is built around the Mental Health Action Plan and accompanying Book of Best Practices from Project 1 Billion • The content is grounded in faculty members extensive experience in health/mental health teaching and field work.

5. Case Discussion Groups • Goal 4 Often isolated in their daily work, students are in need of supervision. • Students participate in small case discussion groups while in Italy and continue to meet as small groups with a faculty supervisor in the web-based portion of the course. • Students are provided with clinical and policy case formats and model cases to create a system for sharing experiences and discussing these in small groups.

6. Healing Environment Narrative • Goal 4Narratives are personal biographies that open up the private experience of the doctor or policy maker to a wider audience and provide a healing narrative. • Students create a visual narrative on what they do in the field from day-to-day. • Narratives will be either video and/or audio and still images. • Narratives will be showcased over the web and discussed by students during web-based training.

7. How were Content Decisions made • Project One Billion, Master Class, Peru Training. • Had faculty lined up from Project 1 Billion. Some vetting before course happened. • Master Class - knew how to run small group discussions and bring together group in Italy • Peru training - experiential learning and evaluation of student comfort with various aspects of the course.

8. What Got Left out for Year One • Oral Histories - interviewing one trauma survivor and developing a plan for helping them heal. • This would have served as a final thesis. • One Case Study with simulation - In-depth case study following all points of mental health action plan with MUVE type simulation activity where we would do role-play. • Teaching students how to edit their visual narratives while we were f2f and/or taking on some of the editing process for them. Trade off is that we may get few films.

9. Early Design Decisions • Blended Learning Model with f2f in small town in Italy instead of Rome. • Universal Design for Learning - try to build for the maximum range of learners possible • Transformative Learning Experience - not just skill transfer.

10. How did we make design decisions • Experience with other Models - UT Texas Telecampus, T502, T560, taught in ATutor before • UTTC • computer system requirements, • unit test in the first week to get everyone up to speed. • T502 • modeling good rhetoric in async, • materials on how to learn online, • creation of podcasts, • use of wikis • T560 • overall UDL approach led to use of multiple media to represent information and multiple strategies to support learning. Different sources of motivation. • Selection of ATutor and blended learning model in line with all of this.

11. How did we make design decisions cont. • Advisors and Weekly Meetings at HPRT over one year and • Meetings with Chris Dede (both HPRT and me) • Dialogue with Design Team - • Since September bi-weekly meetings • Still making them! • Orvieto tested that some things appeared like good ideas.

12. Technology to Support Design and Content Decisions • ATutor • FTP accounts • In F2F lectures projected with powerpoint and small group discussion • Computer lab in Orvieto with two training sessions (we almost did not have this!)

13. What got left by the wayside year one: technology • Epresence - fell by the wayside. • Camera kits to help students make their own visual narratives. • Having all students build their own websites and then create a learning network out of these. • Early talk of using collaborative software such as Groove (written into the grant proposal). • Mostly because we were not ready for this level of tech sophistication and also because ATutor is a multi-dimensional system.

14. Main Challenges • Trusting technology will work without prior experience. There is something challenging about trusting a non physical process. • Training faculty and getting buy in for something new • Range in skill levels of students. Important that all those involved in training don’t hand hold too much or too little. • Huge amount of work for a small design team.

15. Main Challenges Continued • Faculty need to provide lecture and module content to HPRT. Very difficult to explain to faculty the difference between content and design. • Faculty need to be trained to teach on the web. • Different faculty come from different philosophies on education. Medical model is hard to change! • Film maker example - hard to understand how quickly technology has progressed. • Staying out of Higher Ed Bureaucracy!!!