Involving Public Health Graduate Students and Trainees in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Process

We have engaged students in two main types of SoTL projects focused on the course level or curriculum level. At the course level, we have conducted mixed-methods evaluations in three MPH courses that applied interactive pedagogical approaches or community-engaged learning. These evaluations have involved surveys and focus groups to examine student experiences and learning (Lang, Walker, Steiner, & Woodruff, 2018) or community partner involvement and feedback (Comeau et al., 2019). At the curriculum level, we conducted a content analysis to assess the training of health educators in how to intervene upon structural determinants of health (Komro, Lang, Walker, & Harper, 2018).

Students and pre- and postdoctoral trainees were involved in the SoTL projects to different extents depending on the complexities and purposes of the SoTL project, as well as the student or trainee’s availability and interest. Pre- and postdoctoral trainees usually had a high level of involvement in the SoTL projects. Trainees can serve as external evaluators of course-level projects when they are uninvolved in the course. The trainees’ previous training in evaluation and data collection allows them to take part in the conceptualization of the studies, oversee MPH research assistants, lead the recruitment and consent process, and manage data collection. Trainees also work collaboratively with faculty on data analysis and manuscript preparation.

On some projects, MPH students had high levels of involvement, such as collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. Some students also contribute as coauthors on manuscripts and presentations. In other cases, MPH students were brought onto the team to support recruitment, data collection, and/or analysis. Highly involved students were often engaged throughout the SoTL project, whereas students with less involvement might focus on one aspect of the process (e.g., transcribing audio from focus groups). Several students continued on a SoTL project team even after they graduated. Their work included contributing to a manuscript, presenting posters at conferences, or collecting and analyzing focus group data.

Benefits

The benefits for students and trainees include experience working on a research team and applying training in research and evaluation methods (e.g., moderating focus groups), developing project management skills, and disseminating results through academic publications and presentations. Flexibility in how students are involved can allow students to receive financial support through research assistantships or fulfill course requirements. For example, students have conducted evaluations of pedagogical approaches as the projects for their Program Evaluation course.

Pre- and postdoctoral trainees also gain experience in supervision and mentorship of MPH students. Mentoring experiences can provide graduate students with opportunities for professional development and other benefits, such as positive and reciprocal relationships with students and personal insights (Reddick, Griffin, Cherwitz, Cérda-Pražák, & Bunch, 2012). For trainees interested in academic careers, engagement in SoTL also promotes the awareness of evidence-based and effective methods of teaching, which they may then be more likely to implement in their own careers.

Benefits to faculty include the ability to feasibly conduct SoTL projects, both related to courses they teach and on other topics of interest. Of note, we intentionally aim to separate instructors from the evaluation proceedings to minimize potential pressure for enrolled students to participate in an SoTL study. Involving trainees as external evaluators provides instructors the ability to be removed from recruitment and data collection when evaluating courses they are teaching. While the instructors supervise the study team throughout the process, they do not see the data until it is deidentified, thus protecting participant confidentiality. Faculty are also able to develop relationships with mentees at different levels of their training.

At the departmental or programmatic level, SoTL approaches allow for in-depth feedback on courses and curriculum elements. Qualitative methods, such as focus groups, can provide feedback on courses that are more in-depth and informative than traditional course evaluations (Lang & Walker, in press). Student voices, from both students as participants and researchers, are an important aspect of conducting SoTL work that could affect their learning. Similar to community-based participatory approaches common in health promotion research and practice (Israel et al., 1998), student perspectives are instrumental for interpreting findings, identifying priorities for action steps, and informing a shared understanding of student needs (Otis & Hammond, 2010).

Challenges

A main challenge to implementing and involving students in SoTL projects is the time-intensive nature of receiving approval or determinations from the institutional review board and the process of recruitment, data collection, and analysis, particularly for mixed-methods evaluations. MPH students have full class schedules and, often, other positions that limit their availability for additional work. Resources are necessary to hire students as graduate research assistants. Additionally, as MPH students graduate and doctoral students progress to other stages of their program, frequent training of new graduate research assistants is needed.

Issues of representation and power dynamics are important to consider when developing SoTL projects. Faculty must be attentive to who is chosen to participate and how they are involved. Common methods for choosing students and trainees for research projects, such as faculty invitation or an application process, may limit the types of students who are involved (Felten et al., 2013). Given the importance of including perspectives from across the diverse student body, faculty should be intentional about building their research teams. Additionally, faculty should be aware of the inherent power dynamics between themselves and students, and critically examine the degree to which students are collaborators (Allin, 2014; Healey et al., 2016). It is important to delineate roles for students, including being clear about their level of involvement and collaboration. It is also important for faculty and students to be flexible in allowing students to take on more responsibility, when appropriate, as they gain skills and confidence (Acai et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Students and trainees are in the unique position of being both immersed in the training process and in transition to professional roles in health promotion research and practice. Therefore, they provide an important perspective that differs from that of faculty, who design and facilitate delivery of public health curricula. As key stakeholders of their training, students and trainees should be intentionally involved in pedagogical research that could affect their learning. Identifying ways to engage students and trainees in SoTL offers opportunity for furthering their methodological training as well as facilitating the evaluation of pedagogical approaches. Students and trainees have the potential to contribute to the development of a strong evidence base for effective teaching models in public health education.