Tag: The Geneva Learning Foundation

  • The great unlearning: notes on the Empower Learners for the Age of AI conference

    The great unlearning: notes on the Empower Learners for the Age of AI conference

    Artificial intelligence is forcing a reckoning not just in our schools, but in how we solve the world’s most complex problems. 

    When ChatGPT exploded into public consciousness, the immediate fear that rippled through our institutions was singular: the corruption of process.

    The specter of students, professionals, and even leaders outsourcing their intellectual labor to a machine seemed to threaten the very foundation of competence and accountability.

    In response, a predictable arsenal was deployed: detection software, outright bans, and policies hastily drafted to contain the threat.

    Three years later, a more profound and unsettling truth is emerging.

    The Empowering Learners AI 2025 global conference (7-10 October 2025) was a fascinating location to observe how academics – albeit mostly white men from the Global North centers that concentrate resources for research – are navigating these troubled waters.

    The impacts of AI in education matter because, as the OECD’s Stefan Vincent-Lancrin explained: “performance in education is the learning, whereas in many other businesses, the performance is performing the task that you’re supposed to do.” 

    The problem is not that AI will do our work for us.

    The problem is that in doing so, it may cause us to forget how to think.

    This is not a distant, dystopian fear.

    It is happening now.

    A landmark study presented by Vincent-Lancrin delivered a startling verdict: students who used a generic, answer-providing chatbot to study for a math exam performed significantly worse than those who used no AI at all.

    The tool, designed for efficiency, had become a shortcut around the very cognitive struggle that builds lasting knowledge.

    Jason Lodge of the University of Queensland captured the paradox with a simple analogy.

    “It’s like an e-bike,” he explained. “An e-bike will help you get to a destination… But if you’re using an e-bike to get fit, then getting the e-bike to do all the work is not going to get you fit. And ultimately our job… is to help our students be fit in their minds”.

    This phenomenon, dubbed “cognitive offloading,” is creating what Professor Dragan Gasevic of Monash University calls an epidemic of “metacognitive laziness”.

    Metacognition – the ability to think about our own thinking – is the engine of critical inquiry.

    Yet, generative AI is masterfully engineered to disarm it.

    By producing content that is articulate, confident, and authoritative, it exploits a fundamental human bias known as “processing fluency,” our tendency to be less critical of information that is presented cleanly. 

    “Generative AI articulates content… that basically sounds really good, and that can potentially disarm us as the users of such content,” Gasevic warned.

    The risk is not merely that a health worker will use AI to draft a report, but that they will trust its conclusions without the rigorous, critical validation that prevents catastrophic errors.

    Empower Learners for the Age of AI: the human algorithm

    If AI is taking over the work of assembling and synthesizing information, what, then, is left for us to learn and to do?

    This question has triggered a profound re-evaluation of our priorities.

    The consensus emerging is a radical shift away from what can be automated and toward what makes us uniquely human.

    The urgency of this shift is not just philosophical.

    It is economic.

    Matt Sigelman, president of The Burning Glass Institute, presented sobering data showing that AI is already automating the routine tasks that constitute the first few rungs of a professional career ladder.

    “The problem is that if AI overlaps with… those humble tasks… then employers tend to say, well, gee, why am I hiring people at the entry level?” Sigelman explained.

    The result is a shrinking number of entry-level jobs, forcing us to cultivate judgment and adaptive skills from day one.

    This new reality demands a focus on what machines cannot replicate.

    For Pinar Demirdag, an artist and co-founder of the creative AI company Cuebric, this means a focus on the “5 Cs”: Creativity, Curiosity, Critical Thinking, Collective Care, and Consciousness.

    She argues that true creativity remains an exclusively human domain. “I don’t believe any machine can ever be creative because it doesn’t lie in their nature,” she asserted.

    She believes that AI is confined to recombining what is already in its data, while human creativity stems from presence and a capacity to break patterns.

    This sentiment was echoed by Rob English, a creative director who sees AI not as a threat, but as a catalyst for a deeper humanity.

    “It creates an opportunity for us to sort of have to amplify the things that make us more human,” he argued.

    For English, the future of learning lies in transforming it from a transactional task into a “lifestyle,” a mode of being grounded in identity and personal meaning.

    He believes that as the value of simply aggregating information diminishes, what becomes more valuable is our ability “to dissect… to interpret or to infer”.

    In this new landscape, the purpose of learning – whether for a student or a seasoned professional – shifts from knowledge transmission to the cultivation of human-centric capabilities.

    It is no longer enough to know things.

    The premium is on judgment, contextual wisdom, ethical reasoning, and the ability to connect with others – skills forged through the very intellectual and social struggles that generic AI helps us avoid.

    Empower Learners for the Age of AI: Collaborate or be colonized

    While the pedagogical challenge is profound, the institutional one may be even greater.

    For all the talk of disruptive change, the current state in many of our organizations is one of inertia, indecision, and a dangerous passivity.

    As George Siemens lamented after investing several years in trying to move the needle at higher education institutions, leadership has been “too passive,” risking a repeat of the era when institutions outsourced online learning to corporations known as “OPMs” (online programme managers) that did not share their values: “I’m worried that we’re going to do the same thing with AI, that we’re just going to sit on our hands, leadership’s going to be too passive… and the end result is we’re going to be reliant down the road on handing off the visioning and the capabilities of AI to external partners.”

    The presidents of two of the largest nonprofit universities in the United States, Dr. Mark Milliron of National University and Dr. Lisa Marsh Ryerson, president of Southern New Hampshire University, offered a candid diagnosis of the problem.

    Ryerson set the stage: “We don’t see it as a tool. We see it as a true framework redesign for learning for the future.” 

    However, before any institution can deploy sophisticated AI, it must first undertake the unglamorous, foundational work of fixing its own data infrastructure.

    “A lot of universities aren’t willing to take two steps back before they take three steps forward on this,” Dr. Milliron stated. “They want to jump to the advanced AI… when they actually need to go back and really… get the basics done”.

    This failure to fix the “plumbing” leaves organizations vulnerable, unable to build their own strategic capabilities.

    Such a dynamic is creating what keynote speaker Howard Brodsky termed a new form of “digital colonialism,” where a handful of powerful tech companies dictate the future of critical public goods like health and education.

    His proposed solution is for institutions to form a cooperative, a model that has proven successful for over a billion people globally.

    “I don’t believe at the current that universities have a seat at the table,” Brodsky argued. “And the only way you get a seat at the table is scale. And it’s to have a large voice”.

    A cooperative would give organizations the collective power to negotiate with tech giants and co-shape an AI ecosystem that serves public interest, not just commercial agendas.

    Without such collective action, the fear is that our health systems and educational institutions will become mere consumers of technologies designed without their input, ceding their agency and their future to Silicon Valley.

    The choice is stark: either become intentional builders of our own solutions, or become passive subjects of a transformation orchestrated by others.

    The engine of equity

    Amid these profound challenges, a powerfully optimistic vision for AI’s role is also taking shape.

    If harnessed intentionally, AI could become one of the greatest engines for equity in our history.

    The key lies in recognizing the invisible advantages that have long propped up success.

    As Dr. Mark Milliron explained in a moment of striking clarity: “I actually think AI has the potential to level the playing field… second, third, fourth generation higher ed students have always had AI. They were extended families… who came in and helped them navigate higher education because they had a knowing about it.”

    For generations, those from privileged backgrounds have had access to a human support network that functions as a sophisticated guidance system.

    First-generation students and professionals in under-resourced settings are often left to fend for themselves.

    AI offers the possibility of democratizing that support system.

    A personalized AI companion can serve as that navigational guide for everyone, answering logistical questions, reducing administrative friction, and connecting them with the right human support at the right time.

    This is not about replacing human mentors.

    It is about ensuring that every learner and every practitioner has the foundational scaffolding needed to thrive.

    As Dr. Lisa Marsh Ryerson put it, the goal is to use AI to “serve more learners, more equitably, with equitable outcomes, and more humanely”.

    This vision recasts AI not as a threat to be managed, but as a moral imperative to be embraced.

    It suggests that the technology’s most profound impact may not be in how it changes our interaction with knowledge, but in how it changes our access to opportunity.

    Technology as culture

    The debates from the conference make one thing clear.

    The AI revolution is not, at its core, a technological event.

    Read the article: Why learning technologists are obsolete

    It is a pedagogical, ethical, and institutional one.

    It forces us to ask what we believe the purpose of learning is, what skills are foundational to a flourishing human life, and what kind of world we want to build.

    The technology will not provide the answers.

    It will only amplify the choices we make.

    As we stand at this inflection point, the most critical task is not to integrate AI, but to become more intentional about our own humanity.

    The future of our collective ability to solve the world’s most pressing challenges depends on it.

    Do you work in health?

    As AI capabilities advance rapidly, health leaders need to prepare, learn, and adapt. The Geneva Learning Foundation’s new AI4Health Framework equips you to harness AI’s potential while protecting what matters most—human experience, local leadership, and health equity. Learn more: https://www.learning.foundation/ai.

    References

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

  • Pour retrouver les enfants congolais non vaccinés, il est question des fumoirs à poisson et du dialogue inter-religieux

    Pour retrouver les enfants congolais non vaccinés, il est question des fumoirs à poisson et du dialogue inter-religieux

    Au deuxième jour de leurs travaux en direct, les professionnels de la santé congolais sont passés de la découverte à l’exploration des causes profondes qui laissent des centaines de milliers d’enfants exposés aux maladies évitables par la vaccination. Ils découvrent que les racines du problème sont souvent là où personne ne les attend: dans l’économie de la pêche, le dialogue avec les églises ou la gestion des camps de déplacés.

    Lire également: En République démocratique du Congo, la traque des enfants « zéro dose » passe par l’intelligence collective des acteurs de la santé

    Les analyses, plus fines, révèlent des leviers d’action insoupçonnés, démontrant la puissance d’une méthode qui transforme les soignants en stratèges.

    « La séance d’hier, c’était une séance de découverte, mais aujourd’hui, c’était une séance d’exploration. Explorer, c’est aller en profondeur. Il faut sonder ».

    Ces mots de Fidèle Tshibanda Mulangu, un participant congolais, résument la bascule qui s’est opérée ce mercredi 8 octobre.

    Après une première journée consacrée au partage des défis, la dynamique a changé.

    L’objectif n’était plus seulement d’identifier les problèmes, mais de les disséquer avec une précision accrue.

    Dans le cadre de l’initiative menée par La Fondation Apprendre Genève et ses partenaires — le ministère de la Santé de la RDC, l’UNICEF et Gavi — les participants ont été invités à appliquer une deuxième fois la méthode d’analyse des causes profondes.

    L’effet a été immédiat.

    « La séance d’hier m’a permis de comprendre que ce que je pensais être une cause profonde n’était qu’une cause intermédiaire », a ainsi partagé Hermione Raissa Tientcheu Ngounou, illustrant la sophistication croissante des analyses.

    Le dialogue rompu entre la foi et la santé publique

    Au cœur du Kasaï, un groupe de travail a de nouveau abordé la question des églises de réveil hostiles à la vaccination.

    Mais cette fois, l’analyse a dépassé le constat d’un obstacle religieux. « Les fidèles, lorsqu’ils tombent malades, ne vont pas dans les structures sanitaires, mais ils préfèrent rester dans des centres de prière », a expliqué le rapporteur du groupe, décrivant une rupture de confiance avec le système de santé formel.

    En poussant la réflexion, les participants ont conclu que le vrai problème était « l’absence d’un cadre de concertation formel entre le système de santé et les confessions religieuses ».

    La cause profonde n’était donc pas la foi, mais une faillite institutionnelle.

    Une prise de conscience qui a immédiatement fait émerger des solutions.

    « Dans le contexte des églises de réveil, les leaders de ces églises doivent être nos alliés », a insisté un participant, Mwamialumba Fidel.

    Vacciner dans le chaos de la guerre

    Dans le Nord-Kivu, une autre discussion a porté sur la vaccination des populations déplacées.

    Confrontés à une cause première comme la guerre, hors de leur portée, les soignants ont fait preuve d’un pragmatisme remarquable.

    L’analyse ne s’est pas enlisée dans un sentiment d’impuissance.

    Le groupe a rapidement identifié une faille concrète dans le système.

    « Pour les déplacés, le grand problème est que les enfants arrivent sans carnet de vaccination, et on ne sait pas comment les intégrer dans le PEV de routine », a partagé Clémence Mitongo.

    La cause racine n’était donc plus le conflit, mais « le manque de stratégie spécifique pour la prise en charge de ces enfants » une fois en sécurité.

    Le groupe a ainsi transformé un problème insoluble en un défi organisationnel sur lequel il est possible d’agir.

    Au-delà des frontières, une leçon d’économie locale

    La richesse des échanges a été amplifiée par la participation de professionnels d’autres pays.

    Un des cas les plus édifiants est venu de Madagascar, où 93 enfants d’un village de pêcheurs n’étaient pas vaccinés.

    « Les femmes sont obligées d’accompagner les hommes pour la vente du poisson. Et quand elles reviennent, nos équipes sont déjà parties », a expliqué le rapporteur du groupe.

    La cause profonde, révélée par l’analyse, n’avait rien de sanitaire.

    C’était l’absence d’un fumoir pour conserver le poisson, qui forçait les femmes à s’absenter.

    L’impact de cet exemple a été puissant.

    « Ce cas du Madagascar est très édifiant et illustre parfaitement la pertinence de l’analyse approfondie », a commenté Alphonse Kitoga.

    Une pédagogie de l’action

    Ces cas pratiques illustrent la maturation rapide des participants.

    La méthode des « cinq pourquoi », introduite la veille, est devenue un outil maîtrisé, un réflexe analytique.

    « C’est une nouvelle approche pour nous », a affirmé Baudouin Mbase Bonganga. « Le fait de travailler en groupe, de partager les expériences, ça nous a vraiment enrichis ».

    L’exercice ne vise pas à transmettre un savoir, mais à cultiver une compétence: la capacité de chaque professionnel à devenir un fin diagnosticien des problèmes de sa communauté et un architecte de solutions adaptées.

    De l’analyse à l’action

    Cette journée d’exploration intensive n’est qu’une étape.

    Les participants ont jusqu’au vendredi 10 octobre pour soumettre la première version de leur projet de terrain, où ils appliqueront ces analyses à leurs propres communautés.

    L’initiative démontre qu’en s’appropriant les bons outils, les acteurs de terrain peuvent rapidement monter en puissance.

    Comme l’a brillamment résumé Papa Gorgui Samba Ndiaye: « Cette méthode permet de contextualiser réellement les problèmes, et ce qui est bien, c’est qu’on sort des solutions toutes faites… Ça nous amène à innover ».

    Le mouvement est en marche, et il est porté par ceux qui, chaque jour, sont en première ligne.

    Image: Peer learning exercise, as seen from The Geneva Learning Foundation’s livestreaming studio.

  • En République démocratique du Congo, la traque des enfants « zéro dose » passe par l’intelligence collective des acteurs de la santé

    En République démocratique du Congo, la traque des enfants « zéro dose » passe par l’intelligence collective des acteurs de la santé

    KINSHASA et LUMUMBASHI, le 7 octobre 2025 (La Fondation Apprendre Genève) – « Ces jeunes filles qui ont des grossesses indésirables, quand elles mettent au monde, elles ont tendance à laisser les enfants livrés à eux-mêmes », explique Marguerite Bosita, coordonnatrice d’une organisation non gouvernementale à Kinshasa.

    « Ce manque d’informations sur les questions liées à la vaccination se pose encore plus, car ces enfants grandissent exposés à des difficultés de santé ».

    Sa voix, émanant d’une mission de terrain dans la province du Kongo Central, s’est jointe à des centaines d’autres ce 7 octobre 2025.

    Il s’agissait de la deuxième journée d’un exercice d’apprentissage par les pairs de 16 jours visant à identifier et à atteindre les enfants dits « zéro dose » en République démocratique du Congo (RDC).

    Ce sont ces centaines de milliers de nourrissons qui n’ont reçu aucun vaccin pour les protéger de nombreuses maladies.

    Pour les 1 617 professionnels de la santé inscrits à cet exercice, il ne s’agissait pas d’un webinaire de formation classique, mais d’une étape importante d’un mouvement bien plus large.

    Organisé par La Fondation Apprendre Genève, cet exercice est une pierre angulaire du Mouvement congolais pour la vaccination à l’horizon 2030 (IA2030).

    Il bénéficie du soutien du ministère de la Santé de la RDC à travers son Programme élargi de vaccination (PEV), de l’UNICEF et de Gavi, l’Alliance du Vaccin.

    L’initiative renverse le modèle traditionnel de l’aide internationale.

    Au lieu de s’appuyer sur des experts extérieurs, elle part d’un postulat aussi simple qu’il est conséquent.

    La meilleure expertise pour résoudre les défis de première ligne se trouve chez les travailleurs de la santé eux-mêmes.

    La composition de cette cohorte témoigne de la profondeur de l’initiative.

    Plus de la moitié des participants proviennent des niveaux périphériques et infranationaux du système de santé, là où la vaccination a lieu.

    Un professionnel sur cinq travaille au niveau central, assurant un lien essentiel entre les politiques nationales et les réalités du terrain.

    Le profil des participants est tout aussi varié.

    Un tiers sont des médecins, 30 % des agents de santé publique, suivis par les agents de santé communautaire (13 %) et les infirmiers (9 %).

    Fait marquant, près de la moitié d’entre eux travaillent directement pour le ministère de la Santé à travers le Programme élargi de vaccination (le «PEV»).

    Cette forte proportion de personnel gouvernemental, complétée par une représentation significative de la société civile et du secteur privé, ancre fermement l’initiative dans une appropriation nationale.

    Le regard du terrain

    « Les défis sont tellement grandioses », a déclaré Franck Kabongo, consultant en santé publique à Lubumbashi, dans la province du Haut-Katanga.

    En effet, les défis décrits par les participants sont immenses.

    Il a souligné deux obstacles majeurs.

    D’une part, la difficulté d’atteindre les enfants dans les communautés reculées.

    Car les problèmes logistiques représentent un « casse-tête» pour de nombreux acteurs de santé impliqué dans la vaccination.

    Pour Mme Bosita à Kinshasa, le problème est profondément social.

    Son organisation soutient les enfants vulnérables, y compris les orphelins et ceux qui vivent dans la rue, dont beaucoup sont nés de jeunes mères sans suivi médical.

    « Il n’y a pas assez de sensibilisation sur le terrain par rapport à cette notion », a-t-elle déploré, expliquant sa volonté d’intégrer la vaccination dans le travail de son association.

    Ces témoignages, partagés dès les premières minutes, ont brossé un tableau saisissant d’un corps de métier dévoué.

    Ils luttent contre un enchevêtrement complexe de barrières logistiques, sociales et informationnelles qui laissent les enfants les plus vulnérables sans protection.

    À la recherche des causes profondes

    Le cœur de l’exercice n’est pas seulement de partager les problèmes, mais de les disséquer.

    Grâce à une analyse de groupe structurée, les participants s’exercent à la technique des « cinq pourquoi ».

    Cette méthode vise à dépasser les symptômes pour trouver la véritable cause fondamentale d’un problème.

    Lors d’une session plénière, Charles Bawande, animateur communautaire dans la zone de santé de Kalamu à Kinshasa, a présenté un dilemme courant.

    Une forte concentration d’enfants zéro dose parmi les communautés de rue, très mobiles et souvent peu scolarisées.

    Au départ, le problème semblait être un simple manque d’information.

    Mais au fur et à mesure que le groupe a creusé, une réalité plus complexe est apparue.

    Pourquoi les enfants sont-ils manqués?

    Parce que les travailleurs de santé communautaires, les relais communautaires, ne disposent pas des informations nécessaires.

    Pourquoi n’ont-ils pas ces informations?

    Parce qu’ils n’assistent souvent pas aux séances d’information essentielles.

    Pourquoi n’y assistent-ils pas?

    Parce qu’ils sont occupés par d’autres activités.

    « Ils doivent vivre, ils doivent manger… ils sont locataires, ils doivent payer le loyer », a expliqué M. Bawande.

    La dernière question a révélé le cœur du problème.

    Pourquoi sont-ils occupés par d’autres choses?

    Parce que leur travail de relais communautaire est entièrement bénévole.

    Alors qu’on attend d’eux qu’ils agissent comme des volontaires, beaucoup sont des parents et des chefs de famille qui doivent donner la priorité à leur gagne-pain.

    Un problème qui semblait être un simple déficit d’information s’est révélé être ancré dans la précarité économique du système de santé bénévole.

    Une mosaïque de défis partagés

    Lorsque les participants se sont répartis en près de 80 petits groupes, leurs discussions ont révélé un large éventail d’obstacles, chacun profondément lié au contexte local.

    Les rapports des groupes ont dressé une carte riche et détaillée des freins à la vaccination à travers le vaste pays.

    Près de Goma, dans le Nord-Kivu, le groupe de Clémence Mitongo a identifié l’insécurité due à la guerre comme une barrière principale qui a déplacé les populations et perturbé les services de santé.

    Dans la province du Kasaï, le groupe de Yondo Kabonga a mis en lumière l’impact des rumeurs, de la désinformation et des barrières géographiques comme les ravins et les rivières.

    Ailleurs, d’autres groupes ont fait état de la résistance issue de convictions religieuses, certaines églises enseignant à leurs fidèles que la foi seule suffit à protéger leurs enfants.

    Un autre groupe a discuté du cas des réfugiés revenus d’Angola, où l’ignorance des parents concernant le calendrier vaccinal constitue un obstacle majeur.

    Ce diagnostic collectif a démontré la puissance du modèle d’apprentissage par les pairs.

    Aucun expert ne pourrait à lui seul posséder une compréhension aussi fine et étendue des défis à l’échelle nationale.

    Une nouvelle façon d’apprendre

    Cet exercice est fondamentalement différent des programmes de formation traditionnels.

    Il s’agit d’un parcours pratique où les participants deviennent des créateurs de connaissances et leaders des actions qui en découlent.

    Au cours du programme, chaque participant développera son propre projet de terrain, qu’il partagera avec son équipe, son centre de santé ou son district.

    Il s’agit d’un plan concret pour s’attaquer à un défi « zéro dose » dans sa propre communauté.

    Après avoir soumis une version préliminaire d’ici le vendredi 10 octobre, ils entreront dans une phase d’évaluation par les pairs.

    Chaque participant recevra les retours de trois collègues et, en retour, en fournira à trois autres, contribuant ainsi à renforcer le travail de chacun par l’intelligence collective.

    Tracer une voie à suivre

    L’étape suivante pour ces milliers de professionnels de la santé est de consolider leurs discussions de groupe et de poursuivre le travail sur leurs projets individuels avant l’échéance de vendredi.

    Le parcours se poursuivra avec des phases consacrées à l’évaluation par les pairs, à la révision des projets et, enfin, à une assemblée générale de clôture pour partager les plans améliorés.

    Cet exercice intensif est plus qu’un simple événement.

    Il est un catalyseur pour le Mouvement congolais pour la vaccination à l’horizon 2030.

    L’objectif est de traduire la stratégie mondiale du Programme pour la vaccination à l’horizon 2030 en actions tangibles, menées localement, qui produisent un impact réel.

    La solution, comme le suggère ce mouvement, ne se trouve pas dans des lignes directrices venues de Genève, mais dans la sagesse, la créativité et l’engagement combinés de milliers de praticiens congolais, travaillant ensemble à travers tout le pays.

    Illustration: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

  • How practitioners in Ukraine and across Europe built a self-sustaining peer learning network to support children

    How practitioners in Ukraine and across Europe built a self-sustaining peer learning network to support children

    When military fathers started arriving at her centre in Bulgaria, sharing challenges they faced with their own children, Irina V. found herself drawing on lessons learned not from textbooks, but from conversations with fellow practitioners scattered across a war zone.

    “What I learned about providing psychological first aid (PFA) to children actually helped me in working with parents of children in crisis,” Irina explained during a recent video call with professionals across Europe supporting children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

    That call was the first annual meeting of an entirely volunteer-driven network of practitioners – some working within kilometres of active combat – who teach each other how to better support children. This network emerged from an innovative certificate peer learning programme supported by the European Union’s EU4Health programme, developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

    An organization like “Everything will be fine Ukraine” maintains operations within 20 kilometres of active fighting while supporting 6,000 children across three eastern regions. During online peer learning activities, some participants manage air raid interruptions, power outages, and repeated displacement of both staff and families they serve.

    “The most powerful solutions often emerge when professionals can learn directly from each other’s experience,” TGLF’s Charlotte Mbuh noted. “But knowledge sharing and learning are necessary but insufficient. Through the ‘Accelerator’ mechanism, we showed that participation results in measurable improvements in children’s wellbeing.”

    Learning in crisis

    The programme that connected Irina to her peers has achieved something that aid organizations typically spend years trying to build. In less than a year, 331 organizations representing 10,000 staff and volunteers joined a peer learning network that now reaches over one million Ukrainian children. Ninety-one volunteers across 13 countries now serve as focal points, recruiting participants and adapting materials to local contexts. The cost per participant is 87 per cent lower than European training averages. And rather than winding down as initial funding expires, the network is expanding.

    Most remarkably, 76 per cent of participants are based in Ukraine itself—not in the European host countries the programme originally planned to serve.

    IFRC’s longstanding commitment to integrating mental health into humanitarian response created the institutional framework that made this achievement possible. Speaking at the  EU4Health final event in Brussels in June, IFRC Regional Director for Europe Birgitte Bischoff Ebbesen called IFRC’s effort “the most ambitious targeted mental health and psychosocial support response in the history of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.”

    TGLF’s specific focus was to explore how online peer learning could support Red Cross staff and volunteers, together with other organizations and networks that support children.

    IFRC’s Panu Saaristo explains: “Peer learning creates a horizontal approach where practitioners facing similar challenges can support each other directly. This is really consistent with our community-led and volunteer-driven action led by local volunteers. When tools and approaches are shared peer-to-peer, we see solutions that are both more sustainable and more locally owned.”

    The power of learning from and supporting each other

    What makes this network different is its rejection of the traditional aid model, where experts tell local workers what to do. Instead, practitioners learn from and support each other.

    The approach addresses a fundamental problem in crisis response: conventional training cannot keep pace with rapidly evolving challenges on the ground. When a teacher in Poland encounters a child showing signs of distress linked to their experiences, she can connect within hours to a social worker in Ukraine who has dealt with similar cases.

    Katerina W., who worked with Ukrainian refugee students in Slovakia, described creating “safe corners” and “art corners” where children could communicate when trauma left them unable to speak. She shared these techniques not with a supervisor, but with hundreds of peers facing similar challenges across Europe.

    “The practical knowledge and real-life examples inspired me to adapt my methods and approach challenges with greater empathy and creativity,” said Jelena P., an education professional from Croatia who participated in the network.

    Jennifer R., who founded Teachers for Peace to provide free online lessons to war-affected Ukrainian children, explains the urgent need: “Many of my students show signs of distress that affected their learning. My challenge is to equip volunteer teachers with the right tools so they can feel confident and support the students beyond language learning.”

    Building something that lasts

    The network provides resources for what aid workers call “psychological first aid” or “PFA” for children—the immediate support provided to children experiencing crisis-related distress. This includes listening without pressure, addressing immediate needs, and connecting children with appropriate services.

    But the real innovation lies in how knowledge spreads and gets turned into action. Practitioners connect to share challenges and problem-solve solutions. The agenda emerges from their actual needs, not predetermined curricula.

    “At traditional training, we acquire knowledge and practice skills to get diplomas or certificates,” explained Anna Nyzkodubova, a Ukrainian PFA leader who became a facilitator to support her colleagues. “But here, when we learn through peer-to-peer principles, we grow professionally and make our contribution to solving real cases and real challenges.”

    This peer learning model has proven so effective that the Geneva Learning Foundation announced in August it would continue the programme for five additional years. 

    “We saw that amongst those we had reached, this included practitioners working close to the front lines of armed conflict, working in very difficult conditions,” said Reda Sadki, Executive Director of The Geneva Learning Foundation, which coordinates the network. “Rather than limiting effectiveness, these challenging conditions revealed significant demand for peer learning. This is why we decided to continue these activities.”

    Scale through connection

    The network’s growth defies conventional wisdom about aid work. Rather than adding overhead, the growing size of the network enhances learning by providing more diverse experiences and perspectives. A social worker in eastern Ukraine might develop an approach that helps a teacher in Croatia facing similar challenges.

    Participants access six different types of activities, from short self-guided modules in multiple languages to intensive month-long programs where they implement specific projects and document results. The variety accommodates practitioners with different schedules and experience levels while maintaining quality through peer review and a strong child protection and mutual support framework.

    A different kind of aid

    The programme represents a broader shift in how international assistance might work. Rather than extracting knowledge from affected communities to inform distant decision-makers, it amplifies local expertise and creates connections between practitioners facing similar challenges.

    For Irina, working with Ukrainian refugees far from her home country, the network provided something invaluable: the knowledge that she was not alone, and that solutions existed within her professional community.

    “I realized the importance of separating psychotherapeutic long-term assistance and psychological first aid, especially when working with children who may be at risk of harming themselves,” she said, describing an insight that emerged from group discussions about recognizing when cases require specialist referral.

    As the programme enters its next phase, its founders are proposing additional innovations, including apps where practitioners can log experiences and reflect on challenges while building evidence of what works across different contexts.

    The model suggests a fundamental reimagining of how knowledge can strengthen local action in crisis response—not from experts to recipients, but between peers who understand each other’s reality because they live it every day. If properly supported, this model could reinforce its importance in the blueprint for future humanitarian action.

    References

    1. Sadki, R., 2025. How practitioners in Ukraine and across Europe built a self-sustaining peer learning network to support children. https://doi.org/10.59350/25pa2-ddt80
    2. Sadki, R., 2025. PFA Accelerator: across Europe, practitioners learn from each other to strengthen support to children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.59350/redasadki.21155
    3. Sadki, R., 2025. Peer learning for Psychological First Aid: New ways to strengthen support for Ukrainian children. https://doi.org/10.59350/dgpff-n9d63
    4. Sadki, R., 2024. Support of children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine: Bridging practice and learning through the sharing of experience. https://doi.org/10.59350/zbb4v-hay69
    5. The Geneva Learning Foundation and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2025. Діти у кризових ситуаціях, спільноти підтримки – Застосування першої психологічної допомоги для підтримки дітей, які постраждали від гуманітарної кризи в україні. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.14901474
    6. The Geneva Learning Foundation, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2025. Children in Crisis, Communities of Care – Psychological first aid for children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.14732092
    7. The Geneva Learning Foundation and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2024. Перша психологічна допомога дітям, які постраждали внаслідок гуманітарної кризи в Україні – Досвід дітей, опікунів та помічників. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13730132
    8. The Geneva Learning Foundation and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2024. Psychological first aid in support of children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine: Experiences of children, caregivers, and helpers. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13618862

    The initial development and implementation of this programme (2023-2025) was funded by the European Union through a project partnership with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). All ongoing activities, content, and their delivery from 1 September 2025 are the sole responsibility of The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF).

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

  • The practitioner as catalyst: How a global learning community is turning frontline experience into action on health inequity

    The practitioner as catalyst: How a global learning community is turning frontline experience into action on health inequity

    “In this phase of my life, I want to work directly with the communities to see what I can do,” said Dr. Sambo Godwin Ishaku, a public health leader from Nigeria with over two decades of experience. His words opened the second day of The Geneva Learning Foundation’s first-ever peer learning exercise on health equity. They also spoke to the very origin of the event itself.

    The Geneva Learning Foundation’s Certificate peer learning programme for equity in research and practice was created because thousands of health workers like Dr. Ishaku joined a global dialogue about equity and demanded a new kind of learning—one that moved beyond theory to provide practical tools for action.

    This inaugural session on 9 September 2025, called “Discovery Day,” was a direct answer to that call. It was not a lecture, but a three-hour, high-intensity workshop where the participants’ own experiences of inequity became the curriculum.

    The goal for the day was one step in a carefully designed 16-day process: to help practitioners see a familiar problem in a new way, setting the stage for them to build a viable action plan they can use in their communities.

    The anatomy of unfairness

    The session began with practitioners sharing true stories of systemic failure. These accounts gave a human pulse to the clinical definition of health inequity: the avoidable and unjust conditions that make it harder for some people to be healthy.

    To demonstrate how to move from story to analysis, the entire cohort engaged in a collective diagnosis. They focused on a first case presented by Dr. Elizabeth Oduwole, a retired physician, about a 65-year-old man unable to afford his diabetes medication on a meager pension. Together, in a live plenary, they used a simple analytical tool to excavate the root causes of this single injustice.

    The tool, known as the “Five Whys,” is less about power and more about simplicity. Its strength lies in its accessibility, providing a common language for a cohort of remarkable diversity. In this programme, community health workers, doctors, nurses, midwives, and others who work for health on the front lines of service delivery make up the majority of participants. They work side-by-side as peers with national-level staff and international partners. Government staff comprise over 40% of the group.

    The group’s collective intelligence peeled back the layers of Dr. Oduwole’s story. The man’s inability to afford medicine was not just about poverty (Why #1) , but about a lack of government policy for the elderly (Why #2). This, in turn, was linked to a lack of advocacy (Why #3) , which stemmed from biased social norms that devalue the lives of older adults (Why #4). The root cause they uncovered was a deep-seated cultural belief, passed down through generations, that this was simply the natural order of things (Why #5). In minutes, the problem had transformed from a financial issue into a profound cultural challenge.

    A crucible for discovery

    With this shared experience, the practitioners were plunged into a rapid series of timed, small-group workshops. In these intense breakout sessions, they applied the same methodology to situations each group identified.

    The stories that emerged were stark. One group analyzed the experience of a participant from Nigeria whose father died after being denied oxygen at a hospital because the only available tank was being reserved for a doctor’s mother. Their analysis traced this act back to a root cause of systemic decay and a breakdown in the ethics of the health profession. Another group tackled the insidious spread of health misinformation preventing rural girls in a conflict-afflicted area from receiving the HPV vaccine, identifying the root cause as an inadequate national health communication strategy.

    A learning community was born in these workshops. They became a crucible where practitioners, often isolated in their daily work, connect with peers who understand their struggles. By unpacking a real-world problem together, they practice the skills needed for their final course project: a practical action plan due at the end of the week, which they will then have peer-reviewed and revised.

    The process is designed to generate unexpected insights. Day 2, “Discovery,” is followed by Day 3, “Exploration,” both dedicated to this intensive peer analysis. By the end of the journey, each participant will have an action plan to tackle a local challenge, one that is often radically different from what they might have first envisioned, because it targets a newly discovered root cause.

    The session ended, as it began, with the voices of health workers. The chat filled with a sense of energy and purpose. “We are all eager to learn, to know more, and to make an equitable Africa,” wrote Vivian Abara, a pre-hospital emergency services responder . “We’re really, really ready to go the whole nine yards and do everything, help ourselves, hold each other’s hand and move.”

    About The Geneva Learning Foundation

    The Geneva Learning Foundation is an organization that helps health workers from around the world learn together as equals. It offers the Certificate peer learning programme for equity in research and practice, where health professionals work with each other to make health care more fair for everyone, both in how care is given and in how health is studied. The first course in this programme is called EQUITY-001 Equity matters, which introduces a method called HEART. This method helps you turn your experience into a real plan for change. HEART stands for Human Equity, Action, Reflection, and Transformation. This means you will learn to see inequity in health (Human Equity), create a practical plan to do something about it (Action), think carefully about the problem to find its root cause (Reflection), and make a lasting, positive change for your community (Transformation).

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

  • What is The Geneva Learning Foundation’s Impact Accelerator?

    What is The Geneva Learning Foundation’s Impact Accelerator?

    Imagine a social worker in Ukraine supporting children affected by the humanitarian crisis. Thousands of kilometers away, a radiation specialist in Japan is trying to find effective ways to communicate with local communities. In Nigeria, a health worker is tackling how to increase immunization coverage in their remote village. These professionals face very different challenges in very different places. Yet when they joined their first “Impact Accelerator”, something remarkable happened. They all found a way forward. They all made real progress. They all discovered they are not alone.

    The Impact Accelerator is a simple, practical method developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation that helps professionals turn intent into action, results, and outcomes. It has worked equally well in every country where it has been tried. It has helped people – whatever their knowledge domain or context – strengthen action and accelerate progress to improve health outcomes. Each time, in each place, whatever the challenge, it has produced the same powerful results.

    The social worker joins other professionals facing similar challenges. The radiation specialist connects with safety experts dealing with comparable concerns. The health worker collaborates with others working to improve immunization. Each group shares a common purpose.

    What makes the Impact Accelerator different?

    Most training programs teach you something and then send you away. You return to your workplace full of ideas but face the same obstacles. You have new knowledge but struggle to apply it. (Some people call this “knowledge transfer” but it is not only about knowledge. Others call this the “applicability problem”.) You feel alone with your challenges.

    The Impact Accelerator works differently. It stays with you as you implement change. It connects you with others facing similar challenges. It helps you take small, concrete steps each week toward your bigger goal.

    Each Impact Accelerator brings together professionals working on the same type of challenge. Social workers who support children join with others who do the same – but the group may also include teachers and psychologists they do not usually work with. Safety specialists connect with safety specialists, but also people in other job roles. It is their shared purpose that makes this diversity productive:  every discussion, every shared experience, every piece of advice directly applies to their work.

    Think of it like learning to ride a bicycle. Traditional training is like someone explaining how bicycles work. The Impact Accelerator is like having someone run alongside you, keeping you steady as you pedal, cheering when you succeed, and helping you get back on when you fall. Everyone learns to ride, together. And everyone is going somewhere.

    How does the Impact Accelerator work?

    The Impact Accelerator follows a simple weekly rhythm that fits into daily work. It is learning-based work and work-based learning.

    Monday: Set your goal

    Every Monday, you decide on one specific action you will complete by Friday. Not a vague hope or a grand plan. One concrete thing you can actually do.

    For example:

    • “I will create a safe space activity for five children showing signs of trauma.”
    • “I will develop a visual guide for the new radiation monitoring procedures.”
    • “I will meet with three community leaders to discuss vaccine concerns.”

    You share this goal with others in the Accelerator. This creates accountability. You know that on Friday, your peers will ask how it turned out.

    Wednesday: Check in with peers

    Midweek, you connect with others in your group who face the same type of challenges. You share what is working, what is difficult, and what you are learning.

    This is where magic happens. Someone else tried something that failed. Now you know to try differently. Another person found a creative solution. Now you can adapt it for your situation. You realize you are part of something bigger than yourself.

    Friday: Report and reflect

    On Friday, you report on your progress. Did you achieve your goal? What happened when you tried? What did you learn?

    This is not about judging success or failure. Sometimes the most valuable learning comes from things that did not work as expected. The important thing is that you took action, you reflected on what happened, and you are ready to try again next week.

    Monday again: Build on what you learned

    The next Monday, you set a new goal. But now you are not starting from zero. You have the experience from last week. You have ideas from your peers. You have momentum.

    Week by week, action by action, you make progress toward your larger goal.

    The power of structured support in the Impact Accelerator

    The Impact Accelerator provides several types of support to help you succeed.

    Peer learning networks

    You join a community of professionals who understand your challenges because they face similar ones. 

    Each Impact Accelerator brings together people working on the same type of challenge. This shared purpose means that every suggestion, every idea, every lesson learned is likely to be relevant to your work. The learning comes not from distant experts but from people doing the same work you do. Their solutions are practical and tested in real conditions like yours.

    Guided structure

    While you choose your own goals and actions, the Accelerator provides a framework that keeps you moving forward. The weekly rhythm creates momentum. The reporting requirements ensure reflection. The peer connections prevent isolation.

    This structure is like the banks of a river. The water (your energy and creativity) flows freely, but the banks keep it moving in a productive direction.

    Expert guidance when needed

    Sometimes you need specific technical input or help with a particular challenge. The Accelerator provides “guides on the side” – experts who offer targeted support without taking over your process. They help you think through problems and connect you with resources, but you remain in charge of your own change effort.

    What participants achieve

    Across different countries and different challenges, Impact Accelerator participants report similar outcomes.

    Increased confidence

    “Before, I knew what should be done but felt overwhelmed about how to start. Now I take one step at a time and see real progress.” This confidence comes from successfully completing weekly actions and seeing their impact.

    Tangible progress

    Participants do not just learn about change; they create it. A vaccination program reaches new communities. Safety procedures actually get implemented. Children receive support when they need it. The changes may start small, but they are real and they grow.

    Expanded networks

    “I used to feel like I was the only one facing these problems. Now I have colleagues across my country who understand and support me.” These networks last beyond the Accelerator, providing ongoing support and collaboration.

    Enhanced problem-solving

    Through weekly practice and peer exchange, participants develop stronger skills for analyzing challenges and developing solutions. They learn to break big problems into manageable actions and to adapt based on results.

    Resilience in facing obstacles

    Every change effort faces barriers. The Accelerator helps participants expect these obstacles and work through them with peer support rather than giving up when things get difficult.

    How can the same methodology work everywhere?

    The Impact Accelerator has succeeded across vastly different contexts – from supporting children in Ukrainian cities to enhancing radiation safety in Japanese facilities to improving immunization in Nigerian villages. Each Accelerator focuses on one specific challenge area, bringing together professionals who share that common purpose. Why does the same approach work for such different challenges?

    The answer lies in focusing on universal elements of successful change:

    • Breaking big goals into weekly actions;
    • Learning from peers who understand your specific context and challenges;
    • Reflecting on what works and what does not;
    • Building momentum through consistent progress; and
    • Creating accountability through a community united by shared purpose.

    Each group focuses on their specific challenge and context, but the process of creating change remains remarkably similar.

    A typical participant journey in the Impact Accelerator

    Let us follow Yuliia, a social worker in Ukraine helping children affected by the humanitarian crisis.

    Week 1: Getting started

    Yuliia joins the Impact Accelerator after developing her action plan. Her big goal: establish effective psychological support for 50 displaced children in her community center within three months.

    On Monday, she sets her first weekly goal: “During daily activities, I will observe and document how 10 children are affected.”

    By Friday, she has detailed observations. She notices that loud noises sometimes cause reactions in most children, and several withdraw completely during group activities. This gives her concrete starting points.

    Week 2: Building on learning

    Based on her observations, Yuliia sets a new goal: “I will create a quiet corner with calming materials and test it with three children who are withdrawn.”

    During the Wednesday check-in, another social worker shares how she uses art therapy for non-verbal expression with traumatized children. A colleague working in a different city describes success with sensory materials. Yuliia incorporates both ideas into her quiet corner.

    The quiet corner proves successful – two of the three children spend time there and begin to engage with the materials. One child draws for the first time since arriving at the center.

    Week 3: Creative solutions

    Yuliia’s new goal: “I will develop a simple ‘feelings chart’ with visual cues and introduce it during morning circle time.”

    Her peers from Ukraine and all over Europe – all working with children – help refine the idea. A psychologist from another region shares that abstract emotions are hard for traumatized children to identify. She suggests using colors and weather symbols instead of facial expressions. Another colleague recommends making the chart interactive rather than static.

    The feelings chart becomes a breakthrough tool. Children who never spoke about their emotions begin pointing to images. Yuliia’s colleagues can better understand and respond to children’s needs.

    Week 4: Scaling what works

    Energized by success, Yuliia aims higher: “I will train two other staff members to use the quiet corner and feelings chart, and create a simple guide for these tools.”

    By now, Yuliia has concrete evidence that these approaches work. She documents specific examples of children’s progress. Her guide is so practical that the center director wants to share it with other locations.

    The ripple effect

    Yuliia’s tools spread throughout the network of centers supporting displaced children. Through the Accelerator network, colleagues adapt her approaches for different age groups and settings. Soon, hundreds of children across Ukraine benefit from these simple but effective interventions.

    The evidence of impact

    The true test of any approach is whether it creates lasting change. Impact Accelerator participants consistently report:

    • Specific improvements in their work that they can measure and document;
    • Sustained changes that continue after the Accelerator ends;
    • Solutions that others adopt and spread;
    • Professional growth that enhances all their future work; and
    • Networks that provide ongoing support and learning.

    These outcomes appear whether participants work on mental health support in Ukraine, radiation safety in Japan, or immunization in Nigeria. The challenges differ, but the pattern of success remains consistent.

    How we prove the Accelerator makes a difference

    In global health, the biggest challenge is proving that your intervention actually caused the improvements you see. This is called “attribution.” How do we know that better health outcomes happened because of the Impact Accelerator and not for other reasons?

    The Geneva Learning Foundation solves this challenge through a three-step process that connects the dots between learning, action, and results.

    Step 1: Measuring where we start

    Before participants begin taking action, they document their baseline – the current situation they want to improve. For example:

    • A social worker records how many children show severe trauma symptoms.
    • A radiation specialist documents current safety incident rates.
    • A health worker notes the vaccination coverage in their area.

    These starting numbers give us a clear picture of where improvement begins.

    Step 2: Tracking progress and actions

    Every week, participants complete “acceleration reports” that capture two things:

    • The specific actions they took; and
    • Any changes they observe in their measurements.

    This creates a detailed record connecting what participants do to what happens as a result. Week by week, the picture becomes clearer.

    Step 3: Proving the connection

    Here is where the Impact Accelerator becomes special. When participants see improvements, they must answer a crucial question: “How much of this change happened because of what you learned and did through the Accelerator?”

    But they cannot just claim credit. They must prove it to their peers by showing:

    • Exactly which actions led to which results;
    • Why the changes would not have happened without their intervention; and
    • Evidence that their specific approach made the difference.

    This peer review process is powerful. Your colleagues understand your context. They know what is realistic. They can spot when claims are too bold or when someone is being too modest. They ask tough questions that help clarify what really caused the improvements.

    After the first-ever Accelerator in 2019, we compared the implementation progress after six months between those who joined this final stage and a control group that also developed action plans, but did not join.

    Why this method works

    This approach solves several problems that make attribution difficult:

    1. Traditional studies often cannot capture the complexity of real-world change. The Impact Accelerator’s method shows not just that change happened, but how and why it happened.
    2. Self-reporting can be unreliable when people work alone. But when you must convince peers who understand your work, the reports become more accurate and honest.
    3. Numbers alone do not tell the whole story. By combining measurements with detailed descriptions of actions and peer validation, we get a complete picture of how change happens.

    The invitation to act

    Around the world, professionals like you are transforming their work through the Impact Accelerator. They start with the same doubts you might have: “Can I really create change? Will this work in my context? Do I have time for this?”

    Week by week, action by action, they discover the answer is yes. Yes, they can create change. Yes, it works in their context. Yes, they can find time because the Accelerator fits into their real work rather than adding to it.

    The Impact Accelerator does not promise overnight transformation. It offers something better: a proven process for creating real, sustainable change through your own efforts, supported by peers who understand your journey.

    If you work in a field where you seek to make a difference, the Impact Accelerator can help you move from good intentions to meaningful impact. The same process can work for you.

    The question is not whether the Impact Accelerator can help you create change. The question is: What change do you want to create?

    Your journey can begin Monday.

    Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2025

  • PFA Accelerator: across Europe, practitioners learn from each other to strengthen support to children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine

    PFA Accelerator: across Europe, practitioners learn from each other to strengthen support to children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine

    In the PFA Accelerator, practitioners supporting children are teaching each other what works.

    Every Friday, more than 240 education, social work, and health professionals across Ukraine and Europe file reports on the same question: What happened when you tried to help a child this week?

    Their answers – grounded in their daily work – are creating new insights into how Psychological First Aid (“PFA”) works in active conflict zones, displacement centers, and communities hosting Ukrainian families. These practitioners implement practical actions with children each week, then share what they learn with colleagues from all over Europe who face similar challenges.

    The tracking reveals stark patterns. More than half work with children showing anxiety, fear, and stress responses triggered by air raids, family separation, or displacement. Another 42% focus on children struggling to connect with others in unfamiliar places—Ukrainian teenagers isolated in Polish schools, families in Croatian refugee centers, children moved from eastern Ukraine to western regions.

    “We have a very unique experience that you cannot get through lectures,” said PFA practitioner and Ukrainian-language facilitator Hanna Nyzkodobova during Monday’s session, speaking to over 200 of her peers. “The Ukrainian context is not comparable to any other country.”

    Locally-led organizations leading implementation

    The programme’s most striking feature is its reach into organizations operating closest to active hostilities—precisely where support needs are most acute and convention training programs may not operate. For example, the charitable foundation “Everything will be fine Ukraine” implements approaches within 20 kilometers of active fighting, supporting 6,000 children across Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv regions. Weekly reports from their participants document how psychological first aid help when air raid sirens interrupt sessions or when families face repeated displacement.

    Posmishka UA, Ukraine’s largest participating organization with over 400 staff members, demonstrates how peer learning can support local actors directly at scale. During Monday’s learning session, Posmishka participants shared experiences from work in local communities that would be difficult to capture through conventional research or training approaches.

    South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University has integrated the program across 339 faculty and 3,783 students, bringing PFA into the work of its Mental Health Center. Youth Platform is now offering PFA to 600 young people aged 14-35 across five Ukrainian regions, while the All-Ukrainian Public Center “Volunteer” scales implementations to over 10,000 children nationwide.

    These partnerships reveal something crucial: when crisis response is most urgent, peer learning between local actors may prove more effective and sustainable than waiting for external expertise and costly training to develop solutions.

    Learning what works through implementation

    The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), within the project Provision of quality and timely psychological first aid to people affected by Ukraine crisis in impacted countries, supported by the European Union, created what they call the PFA Accelerator—a component of a broader certificate program reaching over 330 organizations supporting more than 1 million children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. This “Accelerator” methodology emerged from recognizing that new approaches are necessary in unprecedented crises. When children face trauma from active conflict, family separation, and repeated displacement simultaneously, guidelines can help but cannot tell you how to adapt to your specific situation.

    The breakthrough lies in turning scale from an obstacle into an advantage. Rather than trying to train individuals who then work in isolation, the programme creates learning networks where practitioners immediately share what works, what doesn’t, and why.

    Analysis of the first 60 action plans shows PFA Accelerator participants setting specific, measurable goals: 88% of those working with anxious children plan concrete emotional regulation activities rather than vague “support” approaches.

    Iryna from Kryvyi Rih reported that schools actively sought partnerships after her initial outreach succeeded: “They wanted us to come to them,” she said, describing how her mobile facilitation team exceeded the goal she set for herself in the Accelerator – because she managed to help school administrators recognize the value of Psychological First Aid (PFA) for children.

    Practical innovations emerge from necessity

    The weekly implementation requirement forces creative problem-solving with limited resources. Mariya from Zaporizhzhia described combining parent and child sessions: “We conducted joint sessions with psychosocial support, where together we learned calming techniques and did exercises oriented toward team building.” This approach addressed both parent stress and child needs while optimizing scarce time and space resources.

    In the PFA Accelerator, other participants can then share their feedback – or realize that Mariya’s local solution can help them, too. “The exchange of experience that happens on this platform is very important because someone is more experienced, someone less experienced,” noted participant Liubov during the Ukrainian session.

    Such practical adaptations become documented knowledge shared across the network. However, in the first week, although 82% identify colleague support as their primary resource, only 49% initially planned collaborative approaches involving other adults. The peer feedback process helps participants recognize such patterns and adjust their methods accordingly.

    Defying distance to solve problems together

    What emerges is not only better implementation of existing approaches—it’s new knowledge about how psychological support works under difficult conditions. The weekly reports create rapid feedback loops showing which approaches help children cope with ongoing uncertainty, how to maintain therapeutic relationships during displacement, and which interventions remain effective when basic safety cannot be guaranteed.

    The programme operates across Ukraine and 27 European countries, supported by over 80 European focal points and more than 20 organizational partners. This enables pattern recognition impossible without scale. Practitioners can better discern which approaches work across different contexts, how cultural differences affect intervention effectiveness, and which methods prove most adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances.

    The larger significance extends beyond Ukraine. By demonstrating how local actors can rapidly develop and refine effective practices when given proper structure for peer learning, the programme offers a model for responding to other crises where traditional expert-led approaches prove too slow or disconnected from local realities. Sometimes the most valuable expertise exists not in training manuals but in the accumulated experience of practitioners working directly with affected populations.

    Learn more and enroll in the PFA Accelerator: https://www.learning.foundation/ukraine-accelerator

    This project is funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of TGLF and IFRC, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

  • AI podcast explores surprising insights from health workers about HPV vaccination

    AI podcast explores surprising insights from health workers about HPV vaccination

    This is an AI podcast featuring two hosts discussing an article by Reda Sadki titled “New Ways to Learn and Lead HPV Vaccination: Bridging Planning and Implementation Gaps.” The conversational format involves the AI hosts taking turns explaining key points and sharing insights about Sadki’s work on HPV vaccination strategies. While the conversation is AI-generated, everything is based on the published article and insights from the experiences of thousands of health workers participating in Teach to Reach.

    The Geneva Learning Foundation’s approach

    Throughout the podcast, the hosts explore how the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) has developed a five-step process to improve HPV vaccination implementation through their “Teach to Reach” program. This process involves:

    1. Gathering experiences from health workers worldwide
    2. Analyzing these experiences for patterns and innovative solutions
    3. Conducting deep dives into specific case studies
    4. Bringing national EPI planners into the conversation
    5. Synthesizing and sharing knowledge back with frontline workers

    The hosts emphasize that this approach represents a shift from traditional top-down strategies to one that values the collective intelligence of over 16,000 global health workers who implement these programs.

    Surprising findings

    The AI hosts discuss several findings from peer learning that may seem counterintuitive, including:

    • Tribal communities often show less vaccine hesitancy than urban populations, potentially due to stronger community ties and trust in traditional leaders
    • Teachers sometimes have more influence than health workers when it comes to vaccination recommendations
    • Simple, clear communication is often more effective than complex strategies
    • Religious institutions can become powerful allies when approached respectfully
    • Male community leaders can be crucial advocates for what’s typically framed as a women’s health issue

    Effective implementation strategies

    The hosts highlight various successful implementation approaches mentioned in Sadki’s article:

    • Cancer survivors serving as powerful advocates
    • WhatsApp groups connecting community health workers for information sharing
    • Engaging schoolchildren as messengers to initiate family conversations
    • Integrating vaccination efforts with existing women’s groups
    • Community theater and traditional storytelling methods
    • Less formal settings often producing better results than clinical environments

    System-level insights

    The podcast discussion reveals that successful vaccination programs don’t necessarily require abundant resources. Instead, key factors include:

    • Strong leadership and clear vision
    • Commitment to continuous learning
    • Community mobilization and trust-building
    • Leveraging informal networks
    • Prioritizing social factors over technical ones
    • Local adaptation rather than standardization

    The AI hosts conclude by reflecting on how these principles challenge global health epidemiologists to reconsider their roles—moving beyond data analysis to becoming facilitators who empower communities to develop their own solutions.

  • A generative AI podcast dialogue exploring The Geneva Learning Foundation’s progress in 2024

    A generative AI podcast dialogue exploring The Geneva Learning Foundation’s progress in 2024

    This experimental podcast, created in collaboration with generative AI, demonstrates a novel approach to exploring complex learning concepts through a conversational framework that is intended to support dialogic learning. Based on TGLF’s 2024 end-of-year message and supplementary materials, the conversation examines their peer learning model through a combination of concrete examples and theoretical reflection. The dialogue format enables exploration of how knowledge emerges through structured interaction, even in AI-generated content.

    Experimental nature and limitations of generative AI for dialogic learning

    This content is being shared as an exploration of how generative AI might contribute to learning and knowledge construction. While based on TGLF’s actual 2024 message, the dialogue includes AI-generated elaborations that may contain inaccuracies. However, these limitations themselves provide interesting insights into how knowledge emerges through interaction, even in artificial contexts.

    You can read our actual 2024 Year in review message here.

    Pedagogical value and theoretical implications of a generative AI conversational framework

    Structured knowledge construction: The conversational framework illustrates how knowledge can emerge through structured dialogue, even when artificially generated. This mirrors TGLF’s own insights about how structure enables rather than constrains dialogic learning.

    Multi-level learning: The dialogue operates on multiple levels:

    • Direct information sharing about TGLF’s work
    • Modeling of reflective dialogue
    • Meta-level exploration of how knowledge emerges through interaction
    • Integration of concrete examples with theoretical reflection

    Network effects in learning: The conversation demonstrates how different types of knowledge (statistical, narrative, theoretical, practical) can be woven together through dialogue to create deeper understanding. This parallels TGLF’s observations about how learning emerges through structured networks of interaction.

      We invite listeners to consider:

      • How a conversational framework enables exploration of complex ideas
      • The role of structure in enabling knowledge emergence
      • The relationship between concrete examples and theoretical understanding
      • The potential and limitations of AI in supporting dialogic learning

      This experiment invites reflection not just on the content itself, but on how knowledge and understanding emerge through structured interaction – whether human or artificial.

      Your insights about how this generative AI format affects your understanding will help inform future explorations of AI’s role in learning.

      What aspects of the conversational framework enhanced or hindered your understanding?

      How did the interplay of concrete examples and reflective discussion affect your learning?

      What difference did it make that you knew before listening that the conversation was created using generative AI?

      We welcome your thoughts on these deeper questions about how learning happens through structured interaction.

    1. How can we reliably spread evidence-based practices at the speed and scale modern health challenges demand?

      How can we reliably spread evidence-based practices at the speed and scale modern health challenges demand?

      At a symposium of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) Annual Meeting, I explored how peer learning could help us tackle five critical challenges that limit effectiveness in global health.

      1. Performance: How do we move beyond knowledge gains to measurable improvements in health outcomes?
      2. Scale and access: How do we reach and include tens of thousands of health workers, not just dozens?
      3. Applicability: How do we ensure learning translates into changed practice?
      4. Diversity: How do we leverage different perspectives and contexts rather than enforce standardization?
      5. Complexity: How do we support locally-led leadership for change to tackle complex challenges that have no standard solutions?

      For epidemiologists working on implementation science, peer learning provides a new path for solving one of global health’s most persistent challenges: how to reliably spread evidence-based practices at the speed and scale modern health challenges demand.

      The evidence suggests we should view peer learning not just as a training approach, but as a mechanism for viral spread of effective practices through health systems.

      How do we get to attribution?

      Of course, an epidemiologist will want to know if and how improved health outcomes can be attributed to peer learning interventions.

      The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) addresses this fundamental challenge in implementation science – proving attribution – through a three-stage process that combines quantitative indicators with qualitative validation.

      The process begins with baseline health indicators relevant to each context (such as vaccination coverage rates, if it is immunization), which are then tracked through regular “acceleration reports” that capture both metrics and implementation progress.

      Rather than assuming causation from correlation, participants must explicitly rate the extent to which they attribute observed improvements to their intervention.

      The critical innovation comes in the third stage: those claiming attribution must “prove it” to the community of peers, by providing specific evidence of how their actions led to the observed changes – a requirement that both controls for self-reporting limitations and generates rich qualitative data about implementation mechanisms.

      This methodology has proven particularly valuable in complex interventions where randomized controlled trials may be impractical or insufficient.

      What are examples of peer learning in action?

      Here are three examples from The Geneva Learning Foundation’s work that demonstrate scale, reach, and sustainability.

      Within four weeks, a single Teach to Reach cohort of 17,662 health workers across over 80 countries generated 1,800 context-specific experiences describing the “how” of implementation, especially at the district and community levels.

      In Côte d’Ivoire, working with Gavi and The Geneva Learning Foundation, the national immunization team used TGLF’s model to support community engagement. Within two weeks, over 500 health workers representing 85% of the country’s districts had begun implementing locally-led innovations. 82% of participants said they would use TGLF’s model for their own needs, without requiring any further assistance or support.

      In TGLF’s COVID-19 Peer Hub, 30% of participants successfully implemented recovery plans within three months – a rate seven times higher than a control group that did not use TGLF’s model.

      Participants who actively engaged with peers were not only more likely to report successful implementation, but could demonstrate concrete evidence of how peer interactions contributed to their success, creating a robust framework for understanding not just whether interventions work, but how and why they succeed or fail across different contexts.

      Quantifying learning

      Using a simple methodology that measures learning efficacy across five key variables – scalability, information fidelity, cost effectiveness, feedback quality, and uniformity – we calculated that properly structured peer learning networks achieve an efficacy score of 3.2 out of 4, significantly outperforming both traditional cascade training (1.4) and expert coaching (2.2).

      But the real breakthrough came when considering scale. When calculating the Efficacy-Scale Score (ESS) – which multiplies learning efficacy by the number of learners reached – the differences became stark:

      • Peer Learning: 3,200 (reaching 1,000 learners)
      • Cascade Training: 700 (reaching 500 learners)
      • Expert Coaching: 132 (reaching 60 learners)

      Learn more: Calculating the relative effectiveness of expert coaching, peer learning, and cascade training

      The mathematics of scale

      For epidemiologists, the mechanics of this scaling effect may feel familiar.

      In traditional expert-led training, if N is the total number of learners and M is the number of available experts who can each effectively coach K learners, we quickly hit a ceiling where N far exceeds M×K.

      TGLF’s model transforms this equation by structuring interactions so each learner gives and receives feedback from exactly three peers, guided by expert-designed rubrics.

      This creates a linear scaling pattern where total learning interactions = 3N, allowing for theoretically unlimited scale while maintaining quality through structured feedback loops.

      Information loss and network resilience

      One of the most interesting findings concerns information fidelity. In cascade training, knowledge degradation follows a predictable pattern:

      $latex K_n = K \cdot \alpha^n&s=3$

      where Kn is the knowledge at the nth level of the cascade and α is the loss rate at each step. This explains why cascade training, despite its theoretical appeal, consistently underperforms.

      In contrast, TGLF’s peer learning-to-action networks showed remarkable resilience. By creating multiple pathways for knowledge transmission and building in structured feedback loops, the system maintains high information fidelity even at scale.

      Learn more: Why does cascade training fail?

      References

      Arling, P.A., Doebbeling, B.N., Fox, R.L., 2011. Improving the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice and Information Systems in Healthcare: A Social Network Approach. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics 6, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.4018/jhisi.2011040104

      Hogan, M.J., Barton, A., Twiner, A., James, C., Ahmed, F., Casebourne, I., Steed, I., Hamilton, P., Shi, S., Zhao, Y., Harney, O.M., Wegerif, R., 2023. Education for collective intelligence. Irish Educational Studies 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2250309

      Watkins, K.E., Sandmann, L.R., Dailey, C.A., Li, B., Yang, S.-E., Galen, R.S., Sadki, R., 2022. Accelerating problem-solving capacities of sub-national public health professionals: an evaluation of a digital immunization training intervention. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08138-4