The Master of Philosophy in Applied

Epidemiology (MAE) Program: Using a blended face-to-face and online model to teach field epidemiology

O’Connor B, Patel MS, Davis S, Kirk M National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health,

Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra

2

Outline

• Overview of MAE program

• Method of delivery

• Our experience

• Challenges and strengths

• Next steps

MAE Program

• Australia’s field epidemiology training program

• Established at National Centre for Epidemiology &

Population Health (ANU) in 1991

• Two years full-time

– 3 months teaching

– Remainder time spent in placement

• Field and academic supervisor

• Bound volume

– Core competencies

• Oral exam

3

Revised Structure

Master of Philosophy in Applied Epidemiology (MPhil Research Degree)

Field Placement

Methods in Applied

Epidemiological Research

6 Units

Data analysis

6 Units

Public health surveillance

6 Units

Outbreak Investigation

6 Units

Thesis

Issues in Applied

Epidemiology

6 Units

4

Graduate Certificate in Applied Epidemiology

Revised Structure

Master of Philosophy in Applied Epidemiology (MPhil Research Degree)

Field Placement

Outbreak Investigation

6 Units

Public health surveillance

6 Units

Data analysis

6 Units

Methods in Applied

Epidemiological Research

6 Units

Thesis

Issues in Applied

Epidemiology

6 Units

5

Graduate Certificate in Applied Epidemiology

Course Delivery

• 4 day intensive

– Face to face

• 4-6 sessions pre-post intensive

– 10-15% curriculum taught in classroom and

online simultaneously

– Using Adobe Connect TM

6

7

Assessment of course delivery

• Students

– ongoing feedback

– evaluations

– assessment against learning objectives

• Lecturer

– informal and formal feedback

– feedback from guest lecturers

8

Our experience

• 3 semesters, 6 courses, 95 students

• Blended delivery

– 40% students offsite linked in by Adobe ConnectTM

– 60% students in classroom

– Guest presenters linked in by Adobe ConnectTM

– Interactive session

– Sessions recorded

• Other modes – discussion boards, pre-recorded

sessions

9

Strengths

• Students: worked well overall

– Being able to ask questions

– Being able to connect students in remote

locations

• Students results were consistent across

locations

• Access to offsite guest lecturers

• Good model for our class sizes

10

Challenges

• Predominantly IT and infrastructure – firewalls, internet speed, sound

– limited screen sharing

• Session preparation – Increased set-up time

– Structure the interaction

• Some lack of flexibility – Immediate student feedback

– Informal interaction student - teacher

11

Next steps to improve student and

teacher experience

• Improve learning space facilities

– Sound

– Better use of microphones

• Consider using other platforms

• Consider online only sessions

• Formal evaluation of model

12

Acknowledgements

• Co-authors

• Previous MAE staff

• M Phil(AE), Grad Cert(AE) and MPH

students

• Guest lecturers

13

14