| Literature DB >> 35596195 |
Shadi Saleh1,2, Dayana Brome1, Rania Mansour3, Tracy Daou1, Amar Chamas1, Hady Naal4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is consistently plagued with humanitarian crises while having little response capacity. Despite their obvious growing need, there exist limited educational opportunities for humanitarian workers to develop their capacity in humanitarian topics. The present study evaluates an online training program, the Humanitarian Leadership Diploma (HLD), which targeted humanitarian workers across the MENA region.Entities:
Keywords: Conflict; E-learning; Global health; Humanitarian crisis; Humanitarian workers; Middle East and North Africa; Online learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35596195 PMCID: PMC9121609 DOI: 10.1186/s13031-022-00460-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Confl Health ISSN: 1752-1505 Impact factor: 4.554
Fig. 1Development, delivery, and evaluation of HLD program
Overview of courses
| This course provides key tools and techniques on how to actively manage humanitarian projects and programs. It was delivered synchronously and spanned between 29 September and 10 November 2019. A total of 25 registrants were enrolled in this course, 21 completed it, and 4 dropped out | This course covers approaches on how humanitarian organizations and teams can construct monitoring and evaluation systems, plans and tools. It was delivered synchronously and spanned between 25 November and 29 December 2019. A total of 21 registrants were enrolled in this course and completed it | This course discusses the basics of financial management and accounting with a special focus on how to identify and select proper budgeting and reporting tools for humanitarian projects. It was delivered synchronously and spanned between 08 January and 12 February 2020. A total of 19 registrants were enrolled in this course and completed it | This course discusses how humanitarian managers and officers can apply effective managerial and leadership communication skills when working with teams and stakeholders in conflict sensitive humanitarian contexts. It was delivered synchronously and asynchronously, and spanned between 22 February and 29 March, 2020. A total of 20 registrants were enrolled in this course, 19 completed it, and 1 dropped out |
| This course provides practical negotiation and mediation tools for frontline humanitarian workers to address recurring challenges and dilemmas of humanitarian negotiation in complex environments and humanitarian crisis settings. It was delivered synchronously and asynchronously and spanned between 08 April and 13 May 2020. A total of 19 registrants were enrolled and completed this course | This course provides key tools and techniques on how to effectively organize and lead humanitarian responses and conduct emergency needs assessment in the context of humanitarian disasters. It was delivered synchronously and asynchronously and spanned between 01 June and 05 July 2020. A total of 20 registrants were enrolled in this course, 19 completed it, and 1 dropped out | The course discusses the role of International Human Rights Law (IHL) and International Humanitarian Rights Law (IHRL) in conflict settings and the ways and means to enforce adherence to both sets of rules. It was delivered asynchronously and spanned between 15 July and 19 August 2020. A total of 21 registrants were enrolled in this course, 20 completed it, and 1 dropped out | This course demonstrates the ability to apply fundamentals of humanitarian leadership and coordination in humanitarian settings and translate them into practice according to specific features of the context. It was delivered asynchronously and spanned between 14 September and 18 October 2020. A total of 18 registrants were enrolled in this course and completed it |
Components of the individual level semi-structured interview guide and organizational level open-ended questions
| Tool | Questions |
|---|---|
| Individual level, semi-structured interview guide | 1. Describe your learning experiences during your participation in the training |
| 2. How did the online learning modality influence your learning process? | |
| 3. Describe your knowledge in humanitarian leadership after your participation in the training | |
| 4. Describe your practices in humanitarian leadership after your participation in the training | |
| 5. How did the training impact your capability to learn new skills? | |
| 6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the training program? | |
| 7. Describe, if any, changes that you have noticed in your performance within the organization after completing the training | |
| 8. Since your completion of the training have you initiated any changes in the practices and/or policy of your organization? | |
| 9. Based on the knowledge acquired from the courses, have you been able to develop or implement new strategic plans in humanitarian settings? | |
| Organizational level, open-ended questions | 1. Describe the performance of the learner within the organization since their completion of the training |
| 2. Describe the strengths/weaknesses of the [blended, face-to-face, or online] training in facilitating the access of the learner to related education | |
| 3. Describe (if any) barriers that limited the application of the learners’ acquired skills into the organization following their participation in the training |
Demographics of sample across all courses
| Demographics | Categories | Course or more n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 15 (56%) |
| Male | 13 (44%) | |
| Age | 20–25 | 6 (22%) |
| 26–30 | 10 (37%) | |
| 31–35 | 5 (19%) | |
| 36–40 | 3 (11%) | |
| 41–45 | 3 (11%) | |
| Educational level | Bachelor’s degree | 16 (59%) |
| Master’s degree | 10 (37%) | |
| Professional degree | 1 (4%) | |
| Nationality | Egyptian | 2 (7%) |
| Iraqi | 1 (4%) | |
| Jordanian | 1 (4%) | |
| Lebanese | 15 (51%) | |
| Palestinian | 1 (4%) | |
| Sudanese | 2 (7%) | |
| Syrian | 2 (7%) | |
| Turkish | 1 (4%) | |
| Yemenis | 1 (4%) | |
| Tunisian | 1 (4%) | |
| French | 1 (4%) | |
| Country of residence | Egypt | 2 (7%) |
| Iraq | 1 (4%) | |
| Jordan | 1 (4%) | |
| Lebanon | 16 (58%) | |
| Palestine | 0 (0) | |
| Sudan | 2 (7%) | |
| Syria | 1 (4%) | |
| Turkey | 1 (4%) | |
| Yemen | 1 (4%) | |
| Tunisia | 1 (4%) | |
| France | 1 (4%) |
Learners’ pre and post-test knowledge assessment stratified by course
| Courses | Pre-test | Post-test | Paired t test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | Sig | |||
| Course 1 (n = 25) | 59.46 | 22.16 | 77.60 | 11.49 | − 2.714 | 14 | |
| Course 2 (n = 21) | 78.85 | 9.76 | 82.18 | 8.24 | − 1.767 | 17 | .095 |
| Course 3 (n = 19) | 51.12 | 4.30 | 79.34 | 3.13 | − 5.621 | 18 | |
| Course 4 (n = 20) | 40.07 | 15.83 | 65.46 | 18.27 | 4.447 | 18 | |
| Course 5 (n = 19) | 52.63 | 15.12 | 77.63 | 12.28 | − 6.673 | 18 | |
| Course 6 (n = 19) | 57.04 | 2.74 | 82.77 | 3.08 | − 5.463 | 19 | |
| Course 7 (n = 21) | 49.52 | 3.53 | 87.34 | 2.96 | − 8.101 | 19 | |
| Course 8 (n = 18) | 69.41 | 8.80 | 84.49 | 11.52 | − 5.409 | 17 | |
Bolder numbers in the table point towards statistical results that are significant (all numbers that are < 0.05)
Course 1 = Project Management in humanitarian settings; course 2 = Humanitarian Programming Monitoring and Evaluation; course 3 = Budgeting and Reporting for Humanitarian Programming; course 4 = Interpersonal Communication Skills for Humanitarian Managers; Course 5 = Mediation and Negotiation in Crisis Settings; Course 6 = Disaster Management: Leading Humanitarian Response; Course 7 = Fundamentals of Humanitarian Action in Practice; Course 8 = Humanitarian Leadership and Coordination
Course evaluation results stratified by learning modality and by course or more
| Evaluation component | Learners’ evaluation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| %Synchronous (n = 25) | %Synchronous and asynchronous (n = 20) | %Asynchronous (n = 21) | %Course or more* (n = 28) | |
| The course objectives were clearly stated or presented | 18 (71.7) | 18 (91.4) | 18 (86.8) | 23 (83.2) |
| The content was relevant to my needs | 16 (62.3) | 17 (84.5) | 16 (76.3) | 21 (74.5) |
| The course objectives were fulfilled | 17 (67.9) | 18 (89.7) | 17 (84.2) | 22 (80.5) |
| I would take another course via this delivery method | 19 (77.4) | 18 (89.7) | 20 (97.4) | 24 (87.3) |
| The allocated time for the course was appropriate | 16 (62.2) | 16 (82.8) | 19 (89.5) | 21 (77.1) |
| The pace of the course was appropriate | 17 (66.0) | 16 (79.3) | 19 (89.5) | 21 (77.2) |
| The course content was organized and easy to follow | 17 (66.1) | 18 (89.7) | 17 (84.2) | 22 (79.8) |
| My knowledge and competence in this subject matter increased | 18 (73.6) | 18 (89.7) | 19 (89.5) | 23 (83.9) |
| I have gained useful competencies from this course | 17 (69.8) | 17 (84.5) | 18 (86.8) | 22 (79.9) |
| I am satisfied with the overall quality of the course | 17 (66.1) | 17 (86.2) | 17 (84.2) | 22 (78.5) |
| I would recommend this course to others | 18 (73.6) | 16 (82.7) | 17 (84.2) | 22 (79.8) |
| I am willing to participate in future courses held by GHI | 20 (81.1) | 19 (98.3) | 20 (94.7) | 26 (91.3) |
| The instructor was well prepared and knowledgeable about the topic | 19 (77.4) | 18 (91.3) | 19 (92.1) | 24 (86.6) |
| The instructor communicated information clearly and effectively | 19 (75.5) | 17 (86.2) | 18 (86.8) | 23 (82.5) |
| The instructor stimulated interest in this subject | 16 (66) | 16 (82.8) | 17 (84.2) | 21 (77.1) |
| I am satisfied with the overall performance of the instructor | 19 (77.3) | 17 (86.3) | 18 (86.9) | 23 (83.3) |
*Course or more refers to the overall number of participants who completed the entire diploma
Presentation of Qualitative Data and Emerging Themes
| Category 1: Strengths |
|---|
| Codes: |
| New, pleasant, and beneficial learning experience that encouraged future participation in online modalities |
| Learning objectives and expectations of courses were met through the online learning modality |
| Allowed for better time-management, planning, and organization |
| Flexibility with timing offered allows the diversification of learners from different organizations and different countries |
| Reliable and credible information is provided in a time-efficient manner, along with proper guidance and support from instructors |
| Facilitated accessibility to courses at one’s own convenience |
| A reference of information that can be referred to any point |
| Self-paced learning allows for enhancement of learning process and uptake of information |
| Allowed course content to be comprehensive and inclusive |
| Online platform design was user friendly, well-organized, and easy to navigate |
| Variation in presenting information was positively perceived and facilitated comprehension of information |
| No hindrance of communication with professors as they were available and responsive via email |
| Convenient for those who are not comfortable in a class setting |
| Decreased gender-bias and increased acceptance in work setting |
| Codes: |
| The availability of a diploma in the humanitarian field that is very much in demand and interest, was perceived to be unique, and not easily available, especially in the middle east setting |
| Diploma from a reputable institution, such as AUB, was regarded as a major added value to the CV |
| Codes: |
| Course objectives were clearly stated and matched its content |
| Course was well structured and delivered in a detailed manner. The provision of details allowed learner to respond to workplace needs |
| Diploma is complementary, beneficial, and covers all the information needed in the humanitarian work setting |
| Content was considered to be novel despite previously attending several trainings in the humanitarian field |
| Increased engagement due to originality of content allowed for acquisition of information directly from an expert in the field |
| Assignments were suitable, fostered greater understanding, and were applicable in the work setting |
| Codes: |
| Instructors were knowledgeable, cooperative, supportive, and met high professional standards |
| Instructors seemed eager to convey knowledge and personal experience in a simple and effective manner |
| Enhancement of abilities due to instructor’s superior knowledge and experience in the humanitarian work |
| Instructors provided constructive feedback in a timely manner |
| Having a variety of specialized facilitators was positively perceived |
| Codes: |
| Significant attainment, enhancement, and clarification of previously established knowledge and skills, particularly those that are applicable in areas of conflict |
| Enhancement of knowledge and skills translated into improved work performance and expansion of scope work |
| Development of skills that allowed learner to become an independent learner |
| Increased understanding of organizational work and coworker’s duties in the humanitarian field allowed for effective engagement and coordination with work peers |
| Improved self-evaluation through setting indicators to monitor work performance |
| Learner became more systematic in his/her approach to work, as he/she understands the aspects and processes of humanitarian work better |
| Increased capacity and output in terms of carrying out online sessions to other learners |
| Increased initiative to be involved in humanitarian projects and reported positive feedback from learner’s co-workers |
| Introduction of new methods to carry out work-related tasks; such as material/templates provided by the course |
| Implementation of policy changes and involvement in strategic planning on the organizational and national level |
| Codes: |
| Increased familiarity with overall concept of the humanitarian field increased capability and readiness to work on humanitarian projects |
| Enhanced knowledge allowed for career and personal advancement in the humanitarian field |
| Learner encouraged to complete more diplomas that certify his/her expertise in the humanitarian field and to seek out more educational opportunities |
| Online learning modality allowed for continuity of education especially in regions of instability or in times of a global pandemic |
| Learner considers his/her input to be more valuable and considers himself/herself to be an asset |
| Increased self-confidence as a result of the proper guidance that ensured conveyance of accurate information |
| Increased perceived self-efficacy in carrying out job-related tasks |
| Codes: |
| Limited ability to learn new skills due to lack of practice |
| Inability to change work performance or practice due to time constraints, COVID situation, and restrictions by scope of work |
| Inability to initiate major changes in policies due to time constraints, employment status, and COVID situation |
| Inability to implement new strategic plans as this is beyond some of the learners’ capacity, expertise, and scope of work, and due to preexisting functional policies |
| Codes: |
| Doesn’t allow for proper engagement and interaction with peers and professors |
| Diploma lacked an important aspect which is the exchange of experience and knowledge with people from different backgrounds |
| Learning process was hindered due to minimal engagement; especially with courses that are not theoretical and require practice |
| Doesn’t allow for proper engagement and interaction with peers and professors |
| Codes: |
| Diploma didn’t sustain same quality level, as standard decreased gradually |
| Negative feedback on excessive delivery of theoretical rather than practical information |
| Presence of information that was considered basic and insufficient for those with previous experience |
| Negative feedback on time allocated for some courses as some could have been presented in a more concise manner, while others needed additional time to be covered |
| Redundancy and overlap of some information |
| Interactive blocks included an overload of information |
| Suspected incoherence between course content and some assignment questions, and across some courses |
| Lack of clarity on some assignment questions |
| Concerns over exams’ lengths considering the unstable internet connection and the learners’ personal preoccupations |
| Administration of quizzes at the end of the course; rather than during, hindered proper self-evaluation |
| Evaluation through MCQs, rather than written, was considered to be inefficacious |
| Limited feedback or corrections for some exams and assignments |