Co-Chairs Orientation

1. Co-Chairs Orientation • March 23, 2010 & March 29, 2010

2. Agenda • Welcome and thanks • Introductions by co-chairs • Overview of ASPH • UGPH Learning Outcomes Development Project • Background • Progress to date: charges, domains, guidelines • Next steps: process, flowchart • Learning outcomes development • Review of resource guide • Project roles • Planning for first core workgroup meeting • Additional resources • ASPH website • Comments and questions • Adjourn

3. The Association of Schools of Public Health, established in 1953, is the only national organization representing the accredited schools of public health in North America. ASPH and its member schools support and strengthen public health through graduate and professional education, research, and service.

4. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Charge “The committee recommends that all undergraduates should have access to education in public health.” Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? 2003

5. ASPH Task Force on Undergraduate Education • Task force initiated, November 2003 • Consensus Conference, November 2006 • Undergraduate Public Health Education Meeting, May 2008 • Undergraduate PH Learning Outcomes Development project launched, September 2009

6. Leadership Group Chair: Donna Petersen, dean, University of South Florida College of Public Health • Susan Albertine, senior director, LEAP State Initiatives, Association of American Colleges and Universities; • Ruth Gaare Bernheim, associate professor and director of the MPH program and division of public health policy and practice, University of Virginia; • Jeffrey Johnson, associate dean for admissions/student affairs/career services, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine; • Ian Lapp, associate dean for academic affairs, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; • Peggy Leatt, associate dean for academic affairs, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health; • Daniel McDonald, educational program specialist, Office of Workforce and Career Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; • Richard Riegelman, professor, The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services; • Carleen Stoskopf, dean at San Diego State University Graduate School of Public Health; • Terrie Wetle, professor of medical science and associate dean of medicine for public health and public policy, Brown University; • Randy Wykoff, dean at East Tennessee State University College of Public Health; and • James Yager, senior associate dean for academic affairs, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. RG, SI, P.6

7. Project Consensus Statement • ASPH is taking the lead to draw together graduate academic public health leaders and representatives from the liberal arts and sciences to identify the learning outcomes necessary for graduates of institutions of higher education (educated citizenry). RG, S1, P.3

8. Project Consensus Statement (continued) • The aim is to define what every undergraduate should know and be able to do to improve health and eliminate health disparities in populations around the world. RG, S1, P.3

9. Project Consensus Statement (continued) • A growing number of institutions are seeking guidance on the optimal format and content of UGPH education, especially at universities without accredited schools of public health or accredited programs. • Many issues and trends in the field are contributing to this situation (student interest, university pressures, accreditation changes, workforce gaps, etc.) RG, S1, P.3

10. Phase 1 to Phase 2 This first broad-based UGPH learning outcomes development effort (Phase 1) will provide the foundation for later initiatives to define specific competencies for undergraduate degree programs, both majors and minors, in public health (Phase 2). RG, S1, P.3

11. Project Charge To identify and specify undergraduate-level student learning outcomes for the "educated citizen" by: • Defining what every undergraduate should know and be able to do to promote population health both locally and globally. • Outlining other essential student attributes and characteristics for improving health and eliminating health disparities in populations around the world. RG, S1, P.17

12. UGPH Learning Outcomes Domains 1. Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World as it Relates to Individual and Population Health 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills 3. Personal and Social Responsibility 4. Integrative and Applied Learning* Leadership Group decided on domains, using the AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) as the framework. *Domain 4 focuses on methods and best instructional and learning practices and will be considered by all the workgroups after they complete identification of their domain-specific learning outcomes. RG, S1, P. 5

13. Domain Co-Chairs RG, S1, P.7-9

14. Guidelines for Co-Chairs * Keep in mind the variety of efforts in refining undergraduate education: • Increasing student interest in both domestic and global health. • College and university financial interests – public health education as a business model. • Student-centered curriculum planning and learning. • IOM emphasis on the "educated citizen" regarding health – public health and health care. * Identify essential knowledge, skills and other attributes/characteristics for educating both undergraduate "citizens" and future public health professionals. * Consider the needs for formal faculty development regarding instructional integration of the model. * Emphasize student-centered learning versus faculty-centered teaching. RG, S1, P.17

15. Project Flowchart Leadership Group Meeting (in-person) Model development, key tenets, processes, and initial identification of learning outcome domains. September 2009 Call for Participants and Domain Membership Appointment of core workgroup co-chairs and members, and resource group members. November 2009-March 2010 Leadership Group Meeting Review of learning outcome domains and leadership group recommendations. January 2010 Modified Delphi Surveys and Conferencing Round I: April 2010 Round II: June 2010 Round III: August 2010 March - August 2010 Model Integration – Version 1.0 (in-person) Leadership Group and Core Workgroup Co-chairs integrate domains 1, 2 and 3 and advise on domain 4. September 2010 Review and Model Finalization ASPH Leadership and external audiences. October 2010-March 2011 April 2011 Dissemination to the Field See detailed project timeline: Section 1, Page 15 of the Resource Guide.

16. Learning Outcomes Development

17. Domain 1 – Preliminary Core Constructs Domain 1. Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World as it Relates to Individual and Population Health • Foundational Areas of Study: - Arts - Environmental Awareness & Sustainability - Human Health - Humanities - Natural Sciences • Community Awareness & Navigation • Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political • Influences on Health • Global Health • Population Health and Disparities • Public Health Biology - Determinants of Health - Disease Process - Disease Prevention RG, S1, P.5

18. Domain 2 – Preliminary Core Constructs Domain 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills • Analytic Thinking & Problem solving • Collaboration - Relationship/Coalition Building - Teamwork • Communication • Health Information Access, Critical Review, and • Management • Health Promotion • Performance/Outcome Assessment • Strategy and Solution Planning - Intervention • Quantitative Interpretation • Systems Thinking - Organizational Awareness RG, S1, P.5

19. Domain 3 – Preliminary Core Constructs Domain 3. Personal and Social Responsibility • Advocacy and Altruism • Civic Engagement • Cultural Awareness & Inclusiveness • Ethical Reasoning • Governmental Roles & Responsibilities • Health Promotion & Education • Leadership • Lifelong Learning • Social Compact & Accountability RG, S1, P.5

20. Domain 4 – Preliminary Core Constructs Domain 4. Integrative and Applied Learning • Action-based learning outcomes vs. knowledge transfer • Student-centered learning vs. faculty focused teaching • Active/Experiential Learning • Evidence-based Problem-Solving • Innovative Thinking • Portfolio Development • Reflection • Rubric-based Evaluation • Student Engagement • Teamwork Note: This domain will be considered after learning outcomes are identified for domains 1-3. It will illustrate best practices and instructional methods for achieving the learning outcomes. RG, S1, P.5

21. Glossary of Terms RG, S2, P.1

22. Definitions of Learning Outcomes • Very similar to the definitions for the word “competency”– often used interchangeably. • The knowledge, skills, and values acquired through a student's participation in an educational activity. • www.scoea.bc.ca/glossary2001.htm 2001 • Delineation of what a student is expected to know, understand or be able to do on completion of a process of learning.www.londonmet.ac.uk/registry/$related-information/apel/apelforstudents/glossary.cfm 2002 • The knowledge, skill or behavior that is gained by a learner after instruction is completed and may include the acquisition, retention, application, transfer, or adaptability of knowledge and skills. • www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/glossary.php 2007 • The specific information or skills that are the focus of student learning during a given lesson. • www.pa.org/about/glossary_misc.php 2004 • Statements indicating the end result for a learner following a learning activity; usually stated in what a person can observe the learner doing at the end of a learning activity.www.teach-nology.com/glossary/terms/l/ 1998 RG, S2, P.4

23. RG, S2, P.5

24. RG, S2, P.6

25. RG, S2, P.7

26. OVERVIEW: BLOOM'S TAXONOMIES OF EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES In the early 1950's, Benjamin S. Bloom, an educational psychologist at the University of Chicago led a series of conferences with over 30 "expert" educational leaders to address the lack of consensus and communication difficulties among educators in relation to identifying, prioritizing and assessing educational outcomes. The results of these conferences led to a theoretical framework to be used to facilitate communication about curriculum development and assessment among educators. In 1956, Bloom, et al published the first Taxonomy of Educational Outcomes in the cognitive (thinking, remembering and problem solving) domain for enhancing educational development. The taxonomy was expected to be of assistance to all teachers, administrators, professional specialists and researchers dealing with curricular and evaluation problems by facilitating communication across the various educational arenas. By using the Taxonomy as a set of standard classifications, it was expected that educators should be able to better define the many nebulous terms often encountered in curriculum development and evaluation initiatives. Bloom, et al's theoretical framework addressed educational outcomes in three major areas: Cognitive Domain – those outcomes/objectives that deal with recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills. (This domain today remains the one most central to traditional curriculum development programs and to standardized test development and instrumentation). Affective Domain – objectives, which describe changes in interest, attitudes and values, and the development of appreciation and adequate adjustment. (This domain is often the most difficult to describe due to the lack of clarity and agreement among educators in their specification of appropriate behaviors for assessment. As well, using procedures in this domain remain somewhat primitive by today's evaluation standards). Psychomotor Domain – Those objectives addressing manipulative or motor skill areas, i.e., ice skating, surgical procedures, (This was the last of the three educational domains to be classified in the 1970’s). RG, S2, P.8

27. Illustrative Verbs/Behaviors – Cognitive Domain 1.0 Knowledge (of):specifics—facts, terms: ways and means of dealing with specifics—conventions, trends, sequences, classifications, categories, criteria, and methods; universals and abstractions—principles, generalizations, theories, and structures Recall List Specify Describe Define Match Identify State 2.0 Comprehension: translation; interpretation; and extrapolation Interpret Express Determine Explain Draw conclusions consequences Clarify Predict Respond to… Discuss Draw conclusions Provide examples of… Etc. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education Goals RG, S2, P.12

28. RG, S2, P.14

29. RG, S2, P.15

30. RG, S2, P.16

31. RG, S2, P.17

32. Project Roles ASPH Staff Liz Weist Christine Plepys Kate Howe Leadership Group Dean Petersen, Chair Consultant Judith Calhoun Domain Core Workgroups Domain Resource Groups RG, S1, P.16

33. Project Roles • Leadership Group • Chaired by Dean Petersen and made up of 12 individuals; • Guide the project and define the model framework; • Specify development guidelines and recommendations for core workgroup consideration; • Recommend stakeholders to include among participants; • Communicate with constituent groups and key partners about the project and take in ideas and concerns; • Participate in meetings, conference calls, and e-mails to advance the project; and • (Encouraged) Participate in workgroups and respond to Delphi Surveys. Core Workgroup Co-Chairs • One co-chair from public health and one co-chair from liberal arts and sciences; • Lead core workgroup through development process; • Participate in co-chair orientation, all core workgroup conference calls and one in-person meeting; • Assist core workgroup members with the identification and specification of related domain core constructs and specific learning outcomes; • Respond to Delphi Surveys; • Consult with all core workgroup members in developing, revising, finalizing, and presenting proposed listing of Domain-specific learning outcomes; and, • Assist in disseminating updates to partners and taking in ideas and concerns about the project. RG, S1, P.16

34. Project Roles (cont.) • Core Workgroup Members • Includes 10 participants from public health and liberal arts and sciences; • Participate in all core workgroup conference calls; • Refine domain-specific core constructs; • Identify and specify “candidate” learning outcomes for Delphi survey process – 10-12 per member; and, • Respond to all Delphi Surveys. • Resource Group Members • Includes participants from public health, liberal arts and sciences and other organizations; • Participate in resource group orientation and core workgroup conference calls for rounds two and three of the Delphi Surveys; and, • Respond to Delphi Surveys two and three. RG, S1, P.16

35. Project Roles (cont.) Consultant • Guides participants in learning outcomes development methodologies and processes; • Advises on resources; • Guides framework development for the project; • Assists in preparation of materials; and • Assists in developing, revising, validating, editing, finalizing, and presenting learning outcomes for approval. ASPH Staff • Implement project and assure completion of deliverables; • Direct project-related communications; and • Ensure reports and documentation are complete. RG, S1, P.16

36. Leadership Group Recommendations for Core Workgroup Deliberation and Planning • Review the work of the Association of American Colleges & University’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) Initiative • Build upon the LEAP Framework and its four domains • Tailor all to the Public Health Profession • Update knowledge regarding outcome/competency-based education from the resource materials • Include both essential knowledge, skills, and other attributes for all undergraduate students in line with the goals for an "educated citizenry" • Balance the learning outcomes so that the entire array of Bloom's Taxonomy is considered (i.e. emphases beyond just Level 1.0 Knowing and 2.0 Comprehending) • Consider the impact of the Affective Domain on student growth • Insure the following regarding workgroup membership: • Public Health and Liberal Arts & Sciences academic representation • Student participation and active involvement • Leadership Group member representation • Include ASPH partners and other key stakeholder organizations in the review and input processes • See pages 18-19, Section II of the Resource Guide • for full listing of recommendations.

37. First Core Workgroup Assignment • Review preliminary core constructs for your core workgroup’s domain. • Identify, specify, and submit additional core constructs deemed essential to the domain (if any). • Develop a list of 10-12 key undergraduate student “candidate” learning outcomes for the domain, written in observable and measurable terms.

38. Additional Resources Available on ASPH website: http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=1085 Send resources to cplepys@asph.org for posting.

39. Comments and Questions