Service Learning in Public Health: Exploring the Benefit to Host Agencies in CDC's Public Health Associate Program

Abstract

The “learn by doing” approach to training is common in the public health field and is a core component of service-learning programs. Trainee satisfaction, learning, and application of learning have been studied. What is less understood is the perspective the agencies that host trainees. This study aimed to identify whether and how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) adds value to the agencies that host trainees during two-year field assignments. A qualitative exploratory study design consisting of 9 semi-structured telephone interviews with PHAP host agency supervisors was used. Results suggested that PHAP increased host agencies’ capacity by assigning capable trainees to host agencies. Trainees made quality contributions that led to agency and/or community-wide improvements and positively affected the agencies’ culture. Further evaluation of the host perspective is necessary, as coupled with the trainee’s perspective, will provide a more holistic understanding of program value.

Avanzando metas de desarrollo sostenible mediante el aprendizaje del servicio de salud pública

“…In fact, service learning has been defined as "..a pedagogical approach that promotes students' civic engagement and intellectual growth, and is based on the principles of experiential learning" (11) . In addition to the important benefits of "learning by doing" (12) and extending classroom learning into the community, perhaps one of the most important characteristics of service learning is in "fostering a sense of caring for others" (13) .…”

Assessing Participants’ Experiences in a Service-Learning Program: A Psychometric Evaluation

“…Service learning is a pedagogic approach that uses a combination of instructional coursework, hands-on learning experiences in community settings, and professional mentorship (Cashman & Seifer, 2008;Furco, 1996;Rosing, Reed, Ferrari, & Bothne, 2010;Sobelson, Young, Wigington, & Duncan, 2016;Wigington, Sobelson, Duncan, & Young, 2017). The reciprocal relationship between participants and the organizations hosting them distinguishes service learning from other types of training programs (Furco, 1996;Rosing et al, 2010).…”

“…The reciprocal relationship between participants and the organizations hosting them distinguishes service learning from other types of training programs (Furco, 1996;Rosing et al, 2010). Service-learning programs have become common in public health because they can recruit and develop the next generation of public health workers while simultaneously building the capacity and capabilities of hosting organizations and communities (Cashman & Seifer, 2008;Dick et al, 2014;Johansson et al, 2014;Seifer, 1998;Thacker, Koo, & Delany, 2008;Wigington et al, 2017).…”

“…Given the utility and growing popularity of service-learning programs, it has become important to systematically evaluate them. These types of programs benefit from evaluation because findings can guide program improvement efforts, demonstrate effectiveness, and aid in decisionmaking (Holland, 2001;Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006;Potter, Barron, & Cioffi, 2003;Sobelson et al, 2016;Wigington et al, 2017). However, evaluation of these types of programs is challenging because of their complex design; by nature, service-learning programs include diverse, onthe-job learning components, including professional development and mentorship.…”

“…However, evaluation of these types of programs is challenging because of their complex design; by nature, service-learning programs include diverse, onthe-job learning components, including professional development and mentorship. In addition, trainees may be dispersed among various communities, and programs may last months or years (Cashman & Seifer, 2008;Cashman, Seifer, & Unversagt, 2003;Dick et al, 2014;Duncan & Auerbach, In Press;Furco, 1996;Goldberg & Coufal, 2009;Johansson et al, 2014;Kenworthy-U'Ren, Petri, & Taylor, 2006;Rosing et al, 2010;Wigington et al, 2017). Despite these challenges, evaluation remains essential (Johansson et al, 2014;Medina et al, 2015;Potter et al, 2003;Sobelson et al, 2016).…”