Content uploaded by Susi Varvayanis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susi Varvayanis on Oct 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, 1–12, Fall 2020 19:es7, 1
ABSTRACT
Experiential learning is an eective educational tool across many academic disciplines, in-
cluding career development. Nine dierent institutions bridged by the National Institutes
of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training Consortium compared their exper-
iments in rethinking and expanding training of predoctoral graduate students and post-
doctoral scholars in the biomedical sciences to include experiential learning opportunities.
In this article, we provide an overview of the four types of experiential learning approaches
our institutions oer and compare the learning objectives and evaluation strategies em-
ployed for each type. We also discuss key factors for shaping experiential learning activi-
ties on an institutional level. The framework we provide can help organizations determine
which form of experiential learning for career training might best suit their institutions and
goals and aid in the successful design and delivery of such training.
INTRODUCTION
Experiential learning is a hands-on educational process that produces knowledge and
skills through a combination of experience, reflection, conceptualization of the expe-
rience, and use of learned ideas to make decisions or solve problems (Kolb, 1984).
This mode of learning is valuable when applied to graduate career exploration, when
doctoral students and postdocs seek to gain an understanding of various professions
and job cultures, assess whether their skill sets are a good fit, and further develop their
transferable skills in order to make informed career decisions (Schnoes et al., 2018;
Chatterjee et al., 2019). Just as these PhD students and postdoctoral fellows (collec-
tively referred to as “trainees”) may rely on experiential learning in a laboratory set-
ting to hone their research and technical skills, hands-on learning can be similarly
beneficial for career development.
Although there are many valuable approaches and components to the career explo-
ration process that do not include experiential learning, such as traditional lectures,
seminars, career panels, advising, and mentoring, those formats are more passive,
require less engagement from the trainees, and do not provide the experience of being
“in the shoes” of the professional. Experiential learning opportunities, however, allow
for the trainee to be immersed in the actual (or simulated) work environment, acquire
Audra Van Wart,†‡§ Theresa C. O'Brien,‡§ǁ* Susi Varvayanis,¶ Janet Alder,#
Jennifer Greenier,@ Rebekah L. Layton,** C. Abigail Stayart,†† Inge Wefes,‡‡
and Ashley E. Brady§§
†Fralin Biomedical Research Institute and Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Virginia Tech,
Roanoke, VA 24016; ǁUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143; ¶Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853; #Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ 08854; @University of California
Davis, Davis, CA 95616; **University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599;
††University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60618; ‡‡University of Colorado Denver–Anschutz Medical
Campus, Aurora, CO 80045; §§Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232
Applying Experiential Learning to Career
Development Training for Biomedical
Graduate Students and Postdocs:
Perspectives on Program Development
and Design
Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
Submitted Dec 11, 2019; Revised Jun 18, 2020;
Accepted Jun 23, 2020
DOI:10.1187/cbe.19-12-0270
§These authors contributed equally to this work
and should be regarded as joint rst authors.
‡Present address: Brown University, Providence, RI
02912.
*Address correspondence to: Theresa C. O'Brien
(Theresa.OBrien@ucsf.edu).
© 2020 A. Van Wart, T. C. O'Brien, etal. CBE—Life
Sciences Education © 2020 The American
Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed
by The American Society for Cell Biology under
license from the author(s). It is available to the
public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–
Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-sa/3.0).
“ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell
Biology®” are registered trademarks of The
American Society for Cell Biology.
CBE Life Sci Educ September 1, 2020 19:es7
ESSAY
19:es7, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
and apply skills needed in particular careers, and complete
hands-on projects directly related to that profession (Binder
et al., 2015).
The motivation for incorporating experiential learning into
career development opportunities is grounded in the well-es-
tablished concept of self-efficacy. Albert Bandura (1994)
described how practicing and experiencing a specific task will
lead to increased confidence in a person's ability to perform this
task, and this positive belief in oneself feeds back into better
performance of the task at hand. Self-efficacy is experi-
ence-based and serves as a foundation for successful perfor-
mance (Lent et al., 1994). Indeed, at the undergraduate level,
hands-on research experiences have proven effective in build-
ing self-efficacy and research skills, two variables that can pre-
dict student aspirations for research careers (Adedokun et al.,
2013). Following this logic, opportunities to experiment with
careers with which they were previously unfamiliar, even on a
small scale, can lead to trainees' increased self-efficacy and
enhanced confidence in career decision making. This concept
further maintains that even rejection of a career path, after the
small-scale career experience, is a valuable outcome, as it will
prevent a trainee from making an uninformed job commitment,
which might ultimately lead to disappointment, frustration, dis-
engagement, and underperformance.
As the biomedical research workforce continues to expand
and diversify, integrating experiential learning into the gradu-
ate curriculum has tremendous value in helping trainees iden-
tify career paths that will be right for them, especially consider-
ing that currently only a minority of all U.S.-trained PhD
graduates will enter the professoriate (National Institutes of
Health [NIH], 2012; Schillebeeckx et al., 2013; Offord, 2016;
Langin, 2019). Further, exposure to opportunities for recogniz-
ing the transferability of their existing skill sets, and for devel-
oping new skills, can prepare trainees for job satisfaction across
a wide range of careers in academia and beyond (Sinche et al.,
2017). Until relatively recently, traditional graduate programs
have provided students with only limited exposure to careers
outside academia. To address this training discrepancy in the
biomedical sciences, the NIH established the Broadening Expe-
riences in Scientific Training (BEST) Program in 2013, award-
ing grants to 17 institutions to pilot career and professional
development programs that enhance the preparedness of PhD
graduates and postdocs entering the biomedical workforce,
both within and outside academia (Meyers et al., 2016; Lara
et al., 2020; Lenzi et al., 2020). All of the NIH BEST programs
incorporated experiential learning opportunities (NIH, 2017),
which have been refined over the 5-year grant period through
local assessment and sharing of successes, challenges, and best
practices.
In this article, we describe the range of experiential learning
approaches our institutions offer and classify them into four
types: job simulations, employer site visits, job shadowing, and
internships. We compare the structure, duration, resource
requirements, learning objectives, and assessment strategies
employed for each type with the goal of helping institutions
determine which approach will best serve their local environ-
ments. In addition, we discuss key strategies for implementa-
tion based on our collective experience. We hope the frame-
work we provide here will inspire and encourage readers to
create or expand experiential activities that help graduate
students and postdocs achieve successful and fulfilling careers
in research and beyond.
DEFINING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING ACTIVITIES:
FOUR TYPES
Experiential learning approaches can incorporate a vast spec-
trum of activities that provide hands-on experience and learn-
ing, both inside and outside a classroom setting. For the pur-
pose of this article, we focus on experiential learning activities
that are immersive or include an element of practicing or exer-
cising a skill or set of skills. After performing a cross-site com-
parison of the BEST Program–associated experiential learning
activities delivered by our nine institutions during the award
period (over 5 years and involving hundreds of trainees), we
classified them into four major types: job simulation, site visits,
job shadowing, and internships, as described in Table 1 and
detailed in the following sections. Beyond the experience itself,
most of the described activities also include either concurrent or
subsequent reflections, which are intended to help participants
articulate the impact that the experience had on their career
decision making. As a component of the eight principles of good
practice for all experiential learning activities, the National
Society for Experiential Learning defines “reflection” as a criti-
cal element to elevate simple experience to a learning experi-
ence (National Society for Experiential Education, 1998). This
is an element we highly recommend incorporating into all activ-
ities through an exercise, discussion, postassignment, or survey
designed for looking back on and considering the experience.
Our comparison of experiential learning activities developed
across the BEST Consortium revealed that the activities tended
to include the simulation of duties involved in a specific job,
experience in a physical workplace, or both. For example, job
simulations focus on the practice of tasks that are involved in a
specific job and need not actually involve immersion in the
work environment, whereas site visits and job shadowing at
work locations constitute a temporary immersion in the envi-
ronment. Experiential learning in the form of internships blends
immersion and simulation. These experiential learning exam-
ples differ along other key dimensions, including the time com-
mitment for the participants, location, institutional and staff
involvement, and the role of mentors. Specific examples from
individual BEST institutions are provided below (see also
Table 1). Our selection is not intended to be comprehensive, but
rather to give program directors, administrators, faculty, and
trainees ideas for how experiential learning can be incorpo-
rated into institutional programming at different doses and
with varied budgets.
Job Simulation
Job simulations are organized, hands-on activities that are often
case or scenario based and provide trainees with the experience
of performing a set of tasks that would be required in a specific
professional environment (see Table 1). For example, a job sim-
ulation for a patent agent in the arena of intellectual property
may involve reading a patent application, interviewing the sci-
entist who proposed the innovation, and using online databases
to assess prior art. Simulations often take place in 1 day or less
and can be facilitator led (usually in a classroom or learning
studio setting, but sometimes offered at the job site) or self-di-
rected via an online platform. This flexibility makes job
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020 19:es7, 3
Experiential Learning for PhD Trainees
simulations an attractive choice in circumstances in which
travel or in-person opportunities are limited.
Job simulations typically include a period of reflection,
which may be achieved through guided exercises, a reflec-
tion-discussion, or an informational interview with a profes-
sional from that career field. In contrast to an internship, in
which the trainee often receives in-depth training and is
required to complete a project for the company or organization,
a job simulation is not generally expected to yield a usable
deliverable or provide a service of value. Rather, a job simula-
tion exercise should inspire next steps for additional training or
reveal whether or not the particular career path aligns well with
a trainee's skills, interests, or values.
One example of job simulations uses an in-person series of
full- or half-day workshops branded as “mini-internships”
(Virginia Tech, n.d.). These job simulation workshops are offered
primarily at the home institution and are delivered by external
PhD-level professionals from a variety of career paths such as
science policy, industry, or publishing. Before each mini-intern-
ship, a Virginia Tech faculty member host works with the guest
professional(s) to set learning objectives and guide the design of
the team-based job simulation exercises. For example, one
TABLE 1. Types of experiential learning opportunities oered by BEST programsa
aThis table describes the four types of experiential learning opportunities offered by the BEST programs. Although there is substantial variation within each type, key
differences exist in the amount of time trainees commit to the experience, where the activities take place, whether there is staff coordination. and the extent to which
mentorship is provided by external professionals.
19:es7, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
science policy job simulation workshop required trainees to
negotiate and present a consensus policy position for their mock
scientific society, negotiating between two groups with opposing
policy viewpoints. Actual policy experts from nonprofit and gov-
ernment agencies guided the trainees through the exercise. In
another example, a PhD-level science reporter from broadcast
media led trainees through development of a news story, which
they subsequently recorded and evaluated. Following the activ-
ity session, participants engage in a reflective discussion with the
professional(s), during which they are also directed to additional
training to grow related skill sets and networking opportunities.
Job simulations also can be delivered via online platforms,
for instance, the “Inter-SECT: Interactive Simulation Exercises
for Career Transitions” developed for PhD-level trainees in both
the sciences and humanities at Washington University (Nguyen,
2019), which is used by UCSF BEST Motivating Informed Deci-
sions (MIND) trainees (University of California San Francisco
(UCSF) BEST MIND trainees participate). The job simulation is
a self-guided activity that contains the background and instruc-
tions to complete a task related to the trainee's career of inter-
est. Simulations include, but are not limited to, job tasks associ-
ated with careers in advocacy, market analysis, clinical trials,
journal editing, medical writing, regulatory affairs, education
outreach, patent law, and university administration. Partici-
pants monitor and track their progress in the program and com-
plete a self-reflection guide to determine whether further inves-
tigation into a particular career track is warranted. At the
conclusion of the exercise, a framework is provided for setting
up an informational interview with a professional in order to
learn more about the career path. This program is completely
free and available online to any individual so that all universi-
ties can promote the use of this resource as an experiential
career exploration platform (NIH, 2017; Langin, 2018).
In addition to offering job simulations as stand-alone activi-
ties, some institutions have incorporated them as one compo-
nent of more time-intensive courses or training programs. For
example, at one institution, trainees with an interest in a teach-
ing career can take a series of six training sessions on teaching
skills and pedagogy that incorporate a 15-minute teaching sim-
ulation and preparation of a teaching philosophy statement for
a mock job application (CU Denver/Anschutz Medical Campus).
The simulated teaching deliverables are evaluated by expert fac-
ulty teachers and critiqued by peers. Pre- and postassessments
measure the self-efficacy of the trainees regarding their specific
skill competence and reveal whether the training had an impact
(Hartley et al., 2019). Similar examples for teaching-focused
careers can be found throughout the Center for Integration of
Research Teaching and Learning Network (CIRTL, 2019) and
the successful Institutional Research and Career Development
Awardee (Rybarczyk et al., 2011; Eisen and Eaton, 2017) pro-
grams, in which training opportunities include experiential
learning principles to improve mentoring, teaching, and com-
munication as well as diversity and inclusion practices.
Employer Site Visits
The employer site visit format was adopted by a number of BEST
institutions as a way for trainees to engage in workplace explo-
ration. As described in Table 1, site visits usually entail a small
group of trainees spending anywhere from 2 hours to a full day
at a company location where the visit is immersive, observa-
tional, and informational. Employer site visits are generally
organized by university staff or by trainees in collaboration with
professionals and often include coordination with the on-site
human resources department of the company. Site visits typically
include a tour of the facility, a briefing about the company, and a
panel discussion including employees of the company at various
stages in their professional careers, ranging from entry-level PhD
positions to the most senior management and high-level com-
pany officers (e.g., chief operating officer, vice president, chief
scientist). Panels may focus on a single type of career at the com-
pany (e.g., bench research) or may include a wide variety of
roles (e.g., R&D scientists, regulatory affairs professionals, busi-
ness development managers, and project managers). Represen-
tatives from human resources might present on the recruiting,
application, and interview processes and address issues such as
company benefits and convey the overall company culture.
Because employer site visits can accommodate groups of
trainees, the format also works well when organized locally by
one or more programs at a single institution (e.g., collaboration
between the FUTURE Program and the Internship and Career
Center at University of California Davis [UC Davis]) or by a
consortium of regional institutions, exemplified by Enhancing
Local Industry Transitions Through Exploration, a collaboration
between the University of North Carolina’s Training Initiatives
in Biomedical & Biological Sciences (TIBBS)/Immersion Pro-
gram to Advance Career Training (ImPACT), National Institute
of Environmental and Health Sciences Office of Fellows' Career
Development, and Duke University's Office of Postdoctoral Ser-
vices. These collaborative models leverage the employers' time
as well as that of the institutional staff organizing the visits and
have the added benefit of trainees from different programs or
institutions getting to interact around career exploration.
Some institutions (University of Chicago, Cornell University,
Virginia Tech, and Vanderbilt University) have also employed
the “trek” format, which consists of 2–4 days of employer site
visits in a geographic location chosen for its proximity to certain
industries or career types that are well represented in that area.
A primary goal of the trek format is to highlight the wide variety
of company sizes, structures, and cultures that exist within a
high-density region of the country. Past treks include career
pathways in biopharma (Boston), entrepreneurship (Silicon
Valley), data science/computational biology (San Francisco Bay
Area), and science policy (Washington, DC). Typically, between
four and 10 senior graduate students or postdoctoral fellows
are selected through a competitive application process to partic-
ipate in a trek, and each day consists of 1–4 site visits, usually
organized and coordinated by university staff.
Whether as a stand-alone activity or a more intensive
engagement such as a trek, employer site visits allow trainees to
get a sense of what it would be like to work with a particular
employer. They experience firsthand the physical work spaces
and also get a glimpse into the professional environment and
workplace culture. As a result of participating, trainees have
reported feeling better informed and able to evaluate whether
they can see themselves working for the company they have
just visited (Supplemental Figure S1).
Job Shadowing
Several institutions have chosen to use job shadowing to enable
their trainees to gain practical career experience. As described
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020 19:es7, 5
Experiential Learning for PhD Trainees
in Table 1, job shadowing consists of accompanying profession-
als in their workplaces in a one-on-one relationship. The goal of
the shadowing experience is to understand the professional
environment and skills required for that career and create con-
tacts on-site (Herr and Watts, 1988). These engagements are
often initiated by university staff and last anywhere from 1 to
10 days, which may be spread out over as much as a semester.
Shadowing is arranged on an individual basis, offers a flexible
schedule, and is tailored exactly to the trainee's career interests.
Because the trainees are simply observing a professional, there
is no specific work product completed at the end of this experi-
ence. Job shadowing builds on the immersive benefits that
employer site visits offer by giving trainees the opportunity to
observe the workplace in action. Through the experience, they
come to understand the work culture, including how employees
interact with one another, how work products are developed
and presented, and how work is evaluated.
At one institution (Rutgers University) trainees are eligible to
apply for a shadowing experience once they have demonstrated
prior engagement with career development activities on cam-
pus. Program staff match about 20 trainees per year with a pro-
fessional in a local company or organization whose job aligns
with a trainee's interest. These professionals have included
bench scientists, regulatory affairs experts, public policy special-
ists, consultants, medical communications professionals, patent
lawyers, and a range of other experts from the nonprofit and
industry sectors. The trainees spend about 72 hours shadowing
one or more individuals at the host site and experiencing the
workplace over the course of a semester. Although hands-on
training is not required, sometimes trainees are given small tasks
and generate deliverables. Trainees complete self-reflection
assignments and hosts complete evaluations of the trainees.
Another less resource-intensive approach is to implement
mechanisms that support and encourage trainees to identify
their own job shadowing experiences. For example, one univer-
sity (Virginia Tech) implemented a competitive travel award
program to help offset expenses for traveling to various job set-
tings for the purpose of job shadowing. In the application, train-
ees must provide details on the opportunity, including their
motivation for pursuing the experience, how their time would
be spent, expected gains, and how they will share what they
learned with other trainees. The trainees are responsible for ini-
tiating and planning the shadowing experience through use of
their own personal or professional networks, reaching out to
alumni, or through contacts identified through other Virginia
Tech–BEST activities. However, guidelines (National Society for
Experiential Education, 1998) for trainees and the job shadow
host, as well as for writing letters of inquiry, are available
through the university career office. This model also affords
trainees the opportunity to experience job settings that may not
be available near the institution and promotes the dissemina-
tion of these experiences through trainee blogs, social media,
and in-person formats.
Internships
Internships are a broadly recognized form of experiential learn-
ing used in many academic domains, such as undergraduate
career development and master's student professional training
(Professional Science Master's, n.d.), that provide the academic
trainee firsthand experience in a formal work environment.
Indeed, a systematic review of 57 peer-reviewed articles found
that experiential learning in the form of business internships
improved chances of employment, enhanced job and social
skills, and assisted the trainees in determining a career path
(Velez and Giner, 2015). Business internships have also been
associated with higher academic performance and greater
employment outcomes (Knouse et al., 1999) and have been
suggested to create more realistic expectations that positively
influence later job satisfaction.
Internships developed for biomedical trainees by our BEST
institutions have focused on a variety of career areas, including
science/medical communication, nonprofit management, data
science, regulatory affairs, advocacy/policy, and business devel-
opment and venture capital, among others. Most internships
take place off campus in a company, nonprofit organization, or
government office and provide the invaluable experience of
receiving hands-on training in a professional setting. Trainees
are typically assigned a project and are taught the skills neces-
sary to complete the project, which often results in a deliverable
such as a report, study, presentation, or publication.
The landscape for internships for biomedical trainees has
changed significantly over the past decade. Although disci-
pline-specific opportunities existed as early as 1988, such as the
NIH Biotechnology Predoctoral Training Program (National
Institute of General Medical Sciences [NIGMS], 1988), which
requires an industrial internship, and career-specific programs
followed, such as the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technol-
ogy Policy Fellowship (National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
neering, and Medicine, 2009), it was not until much later that
more formalized, institutionally driven internship programs for
biomedical graduate students began to emerge (e.g., Graduate
Student Internships for Career Exploration Program at UCSF;
Schnoes et al., 2018; Internship and Career Center at UC Davis).
The BEST Program catalyzed the development of additional
programs, starting in 2013. A year later, guidance from the
Office of Management and Budget clarified for faculty and
administrators that trainees appointed to research grants have
a dual role as trainees and employees (NIH, 2014), thus remov-
ing one potential barrier for institutions to allow participation
in internships. Indeed, recognizing the important role that
internships play in enhancing trainees' professional and career
development, the National Science Foundation now provides
additional incentive for NSF trainees to engage in mentored
collaborative research internships (NSF, 2015).
The role of the academic institution in facilitating intern-
ships can vary, ranging from taking full responsibility for identi-
fying and developing the internship to empowering trainees to
find and pursue their own internships. In all cases, program
staff provide support through facilitation of paperwork, such as
processing leave of absence requests or assisting with continu-
ing benefits/payroll enrollment if trainees remain on institu-
tional funds, referrals to resources, or having NSF-funded fac-
ulty support intern funding applications. Several of our
institutions have created a credit-bearing internship course that
all students can register for, including international students on
F1 visas, in order to be granted Curricular Practical Training
and maintain their immigration status (Homeland Security,
n.d.; International Student, n.d.). The NSF also offers supple-
mental funding for up to 6 months for graduate students seek-
ing nonacademic research internships (NSF, 2018).
19:es7, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
While the traditional “full-time for 3–6 months” internship
format was employed successfully by several BEST institutions
(e.g., UCSF; Schnoes et al., 2018), other programs experimented
with shorter or part-time internship models. For example, the
UNC Chapel Hill ImPACT Program empowers trainees to iden-
tify the internship host, and then the trainee is supported by
program staff to formally apply for and develop a 160-hour
internship format that best suits both parties, either across mul-
tiple months (part-time) or for a single month (full-time).
Intern, internship host, and faculty advisors are all asked to
complete postinternship evaluations, which are collected by the
ImPACT team.
Internships at both Vanderbilt Augmenting Scholar Prepara-
tion and Integration with Research-Related Endeavors (ASPIRE)
and U Chicago myCHOICE (Chicago Options in Career Empow-
erment) are strictly limited to a part-time format (8-10 hours/
week maximum for 10–12 weeks) and in both cases, it is the
program staff who recruit potential hosts (both internal and
external to the university) and formalize internships. ASPIRE
and myCHOICE both select trainees through a formal applica-
tion process, and at the culmination of the internship, both the
intern and host complete evaluation surveys that offer an
opportunity for self-reflection. An advantage of these part-time
internships is that they can be pursued contemporaneously
with graduate and postdoctoral research.
Some BEST programs (e.g., UC Davis FUTURE Program)
focus on empowering trainees to find and pursue their own
internships and provide support by linking trainees to opportu-
nities for internships. The process of identifying and applying
for an on-campus or off-campus internship is thus driven by the
trainee, which is a viable model when staff resources are
limited.
While off-campus internships are well recognized for their
exposure to professional nonacademic settings, the on-campus
internship model is particularly flexible and works well in
research-adjacent fields, including technology transfer, corpo-
rate relations, biosafety, or internal review board administra-
tion. For example, at Cornell's Technology Licensing Office,
interns learn how to perform prior art searches or relevant liter-
ature evaluations for a technology, work with intellectual prop-
erty lawyers, help create one-page documents to market a new
disclosure or patent application, and pitch ideas to potential
clients. These on-campus internships are especially beneficial
for schools that are located in a region with less biomedical
industry. Similar to job shadowing, these experiences require
minimal paperwork to establish and are well suited for gradu-
ate students and postdocs who need flexible internship sched-
ules or international scholars who cannot perform work at
off-campus sites.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR BEST EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
To tackle the broad career and professional development goals
outlined earlier, each institution designed its experiential learn-
ing activities to meet particular learning objectives, which are
an important component of any educational program. Learning
objectives describe the intended outcomes that learners should
achieve as a result of participating in an educational activity
and outline the demonstrable skills or knowledge that should
be acquired by the participants. Developing training activities
with a clear and thoughtful set of learning objectives in mind is
extremely helpful in effectively designing, delivering, and eval-
uating the success of these educational activities. In some cases,
programming may require formal approval by the various gov-
erning bodies at our institutions, in which case learning objec-
tives and assessment implementations may be a necessary com-
ponent of program design. While not all BEST awardee
institutions considered formal learning objectives for each
experiential activity, doing so has certainly aided in program
design and the creation of assessment tools to ensure we are
developing evidence-based approaches toward career and pro-
fessional development training (Millet et al., 2008).
Interestingly, a review of our collective BEST experiential
learning activities identified a set of common and highly priori-
tized learning objectives that we aimed for our trainees to meet,
listed in Table 2. Although a quantitative comparison of assess-
ment results among all activity types was not part of the BEST
experimental design, the table provides an empirical assess-
ment of the extent to which the common learning objectives
were typically met through each experiential learning approach.
We further classified these learning objectives into three import-
ant categories based on how they would be met by the trainee:
1) directly through the completion of a task or process (experi-
ential), 2) requiring self-reflection and higher-level thinking
(reflective), or 3) involving planning and/or application of new
knowledge toward future actions (prospective).
Notably, the majority of our activities aimed to meet objec-
tives within each of these categories that spanned the many
levels of learning from simple to complex, as defined by Bloom's
taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956). For exam-
ple, some objectives focused on the more concrete, knowl-
edge-based goals of understanding and remembering (e.g.“Ex-
plain job expectations”), while others focused on applying and
analyzing (e.g., “Compare pathways for pursuing careers in a
given area”). Other objectives were indicators of more complex
and abstract levels of learning such as the analyze, evaluate,
and create domains (e.g., “Identify one's skills gap for achieving
success in a particular work sector” or “Expand network with
individuals in an industry sector of interest”).
Three categories of learning objectives are reviewed in the
following sections, reflecting the four types of experiential
learning activities we have delivered.
Experiential
These learning objectives assess the ability to acquire and use
knowledge obtained through direct experience, such as obser-
vation of activities within one or more work environments,
engaging intellectually with professionals in that environment,
or completing tasks to learn or practice new skills. Each of the
four activity types were viewed to be successful in meeting
experiential learning objectives to some extent, although the
participating institutions observed that activities allowing for
more extensive observational or hands-on opportunities, such
as job shadowing and internships, were best positioned for
addressing these types of objectives. By contrast, less-intensive
activities like employer site visits, which typically do not involve
the practice of skills or other experiences to provide firsthand
visibility into challenges or decision making, often did less to
promote new knowledge or skills for meeting higher-level
learning objectives in this category.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020 19:es7, 7
Experiential Learning for PhD Trainees
Reflective
These objectives are often met through a period of reflection
directly associated with the delivered activities (either through-
out the experience as it unfolds, or at a postactivity discussion
session) or through subsequent reflection on an individual basis
(such as through revising one's individual developmental plan
[IDP] postactivity or written assignments; Vincent et al., 2015).
Reflective objectives often require having done some level of
self-assessment and subsequent evaluation of one's skills, val-
ues, and interests as they relate to the experience of a particular
career path. They may require weighing prior experiences and
assumptions to form new conclusions that influence future
actions. Cultivating reflective practices encourages participants
to internalize what they have learned such that they may not
only recall learned information, but also construct meaning,
understand how learned elements relate to one another, and
develop actionable plans based on learned concepts.
Just as with experiential objectives, reflective objectives
were included for all four types of educational activities deliv-
ered at our institutions, with the expectation that longer, more
in-depth career exposure activities would go further in meeting
these objectives for the learners. For example, institutions did
not expect learners to pursue employer site visits if their pri-
mary learning objective was to determine the alignment of the
career with their skills, interests, and values. Instead, in that
case, the trainee would be encouraged to pursue an internship
or job shadowing experience, where this objective could be
achieved more readily.
Prospective
Learning objectives in this category reflect the value of the
activity for producing future tangible items or next steps. For
example, an activity may provide the knowledge, contacts, or
tools for trainees to expand their professional networks, iden-
tify future activities for expanding relevant skill sets, determine
appropriate professional organizations for future participation,
or even produce a deliverable for inclusion in their portfolios
and or to enhance their curricula vitae. For trainees interested
in producing a tangible deliverable as evidence of their ability
to apply the learned skill set (such as a publication, patent
application, or even a start-up company), internships are an
ideal format, and a deliverable of some sort (i.e. report, presen-
tation, poster) is typically a required component of the experi-
ence. However, internships are often time and resource inten-
sive, and participation is limited. Thus, job simulations may
also be a good format for producing a small-scale deliverable or
at least conveying knowledge required for learners to produce
future deliverables.
TABLE 2. Common learning objectives for experiential learning activities across institutions a
Learning objective
Job simulation
or project
Employer
site visit
Job
shadowing Internship
Experiential
Describe the workplace structure and environment. ••• •••
Summarize key job tasks and daily workflow. • • •• •••
Explain job expectations and standards for the profession. • • •• •••
Develop a new vocabulary for the job. • • •• •••
Demonstrate new skills for résumé building and future job prospects. • •• •••
Apply new knowledge or skills to produce a deliverable. • • •
Execute job tasks with proficiency. •
Explain key challenges and decision making needed for the job/industry. • •• •••
Compare/contrast multiple different professional environments. • • • •
Compare pathways for pursuing careers in a given area. • • • ••
Reflective
Confidently explain one's transferable skill sets. • • •• •••
Relate professional responsibilities and expectations of employees in a specific
industry to one's personal values.
• • •• •••
Rate one's interest in the problems and tools of a specific industry. • • •• •••
Determine whether one's skills and interests align with the career/job. • •• •••
Identify one's skills gap for achieving success in a particular work sector. • • • •••
Prospective
Assess and revise career development plan. • • • •••
Expand network with individuals in an industry sector of interest. • • • •••
Produce a deliverable that can described or shared. • •••
Identify most relevant professional organizations to become involved with. • • •• •••
Identify most appropriate training opportunities for addressing deficiencies or
expanding skill sets.
• • •• •••
aThis table contains examples of key learning objectives that were shared across institutions for their experiential learning activities in career and professional devel-
opment. Learning objectives are categorized as experiential (met directly through the hands-on experience of the activity), reflective (requiring self-reflection and
higher-level thinking), and prospective (relating to decisions on future plans and application of new knowledge). The capacity of each experiential learning activity
for meeting these learning objectives will vary and has been scored qualitatively as low (•), medium (••), or high (•••) for each objective based on the authors'
experiences.
19:es7, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
Thus, a variety of common learning objectives can be met to
various extents through all four experiential learning approaches
that are important for career exploration and professional skill
building. While there are, of course, many other learning out-
comes institutions may consider in their program design, those
outlined here can serve as a good starting point for individuals
looking to design, structure, and evaluate new experiential
learning activities. As indicated in Table 2, each approach has a
different capacity for meeting particular objectives, which
needs to be balanced against other factors, such as time com-
mitment, resources required to deliver the activity, trainee
goals, and institutional culture. For example, despite the clear
advantages of internships in experiencing a profession, institu-
tions noted that job simulations required less commitment on
the part of trainees and fewer institutional, staff, and mentor-
ship resources, making them an attractive option for exploring
a wide spectrum of job-related skills. Shorter experiential learn-
ing formats are also ideal for synergizing with other activities,
such as informational interviews; when combined, these activi-
ties may tackle a broader range of learning objectives. Ulti-
mately, experiential learning activities should be considered
valuable components of a well-rounded professional develop-
ment program that collectively targets and measures a range of
learning outcomes.
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING
A variety of evaluation methods and tools can be employed as
part of an institution's assessment plan to ensure that both indi-
vidual learning objectives and broader programmatic goals are
met. In Table 3, we provide an overview (including definitions
and examples) of some key evaluation methods that have been
used at our institutions; these can vary with respect to the ease
of administration, time commitment, and level of expertise
required.
Surveys are the most commonly used evaluation method
across our programs, given their ease of administration and
their efficiency for gathering input on a variety of program
aspects for formative and summative assessment as well as the
ability to collect anonymous data. However, surveys are indirect
measures and thus are not the tools best suited for evaluating
skill attainment. Furthermore, survey language can bias the
results.
For more direct measures, some institutions employed
assignments or performance assessments conducted by experts in
the field (Hartley et al., 2019; Wortman-Wunder and Wefes,
2020). While more time-consuming to implement and review,
these mechanisms are effective ways to assess individual trainee
competence regarding specific skills and may encourage stron-
ger performance if embedded within a course.
Interviews or focus groups led by experienced evaluators can
also require substantial time and resources (question prepara-
tion, interviews, recording/transcription services, and data
analysis), but are effective at gauging the perceived value of
experiential learning opportunities for career decision making
and for the overall training experience.
Finally, outcome tracking can provide useful information on
program effectiveness toward career preparation (e.g., whether
trainees identified and achieved their career goals) and high-
light trends that suggest how programs should evolve over
time (e.g., include emerging career fields). However, effec-
tively tracking trainee career trajectories after exiting the insti-
tution can be challenging and time-consuming and relies on
using a clear and consistent career taxonomy (Mathur et al.,
2018).
Once collected, the results of these program evaluations can
be valuable when shared with different audiences at the institu-
tion. For trainees, self-reports and assignments (such as reflec-
tions, IDPs, and projects) can be included in e-portfolios and
incorporated into their annual performance discussions with
their advisors to inform new career and professional develop-
ment goals (Vincent et al., 2015). For program managers, the
results can be used to create formative assessments, guide prun-
ing of less-effective experiences, improve existing programming,
and identify new opportunities to address gaps. For graduate
programs, publishing results of evaluations and career outcomes
can augment recruitment and retention success and potentially
inform curricular gaps. When shared with faculty, evaluation
results may increase buy-in/support for trainee participation in
future experiential learning activities. Applications for training
grants and other funding mechanisms can also be enhanced by
the addition of professional development activities for which
efficacy is supported by assessment and outcomes data (e.g., see
the NIGMS expectations for including experiential learning,
career exploration, and outcomes transparency in T32 training
grant applications; NIH, 2020). Finally, positive results may
increase the willingness of employers to support experiential
learning activities and may also be crucial in seeking funding
from institutional leaders, alumni, and other sources.
Ultimately, all institutions must identify metrics that align
with their culture, priorities, and strategic goals and create an
evaluation plan accordingly. The decision of timing, frequency,
and method of assessment will be defined by the nature of the
activities planned, the practicability of conducting the assess-
ment, possible survey fatigue, and pressing deadlines. A pre/
post design may be optimal in some cases, and a retrospective
onetime survey may be more efficient in other cases. The most
important consideration should be how the data can be ana-
lyzed and used to inform and guide the improvement of future
program offerings and their evaluations.
KEY FACTORS FOR SHAPING INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC
APPROACHES
All academic institutions must consider a number of unique fac-
tors when determining the type, breadth, and quantity of expe-
riential learning opportunities they can offer to graduate stu-
dents and postdocs. Our BEST institutions have shared best
practices over the course of the past 5 years and have identified
several key considerations that can support successful and sus-
tainable program development (e.g., NIH, 2017). Several insti-
tutions have adopted a broader approach to experiential learn-
ing to encompass all doctoral science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics disciplines and even social sciences, human-
ities, and arts (e.g., Cornell University; Wayne State University,
n/d/). They have found that the interactions across the interdis-
ciplinary foci of the participants enriches the experiences and
might even enable broader institutional support. For example,
when asked what aspect of the program was most valuable, a
trainee at UC Davis reported, “One of the best parts of the
FUTURE Program was the cohort itself. I loved having life and
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020 19:es7, 9
Experiential Learning for PhD Trainees
career discussions with other grad students and post-docs. I
loved seeing my experiences mirrored in others as well as hear-
ing new perspectives.” Although the experiences described in
this paper are focused on biomedical trainees, it is clear that the
same principles apply across disciplines.
Local Expertise. For universities just getting started with grad-
uate- and postdoc-level experiential learning, we recommend
starting small and trying one or two activities that seem man-
ageable within the institution's capabilities. Matching program-
ming to the available campus expertise and leveraging the insti-
tution's strengths are well advised. For example, if a university
is strong in specific areas of expertise (e.g., policy, law, entrepre-
neurship, tech transfer), campus partners in these fields might
be eager to help plan or facilitate experiential learning opportu-
nities. Such a partnership could be designed to be mutually
beneficial, especially when it can bring together multiple units
across the institution that share similar professional develop-
ment goals.
Geographic Location. While it is desirable to expose trainees
to the full breadth of careers represented within the biomedical
workforce, this breadth of expertise is not equally represented
across all geographic locations. For example, some universities
are not located near a hub of biopharma companies, which can
be a disadvantage for PhD scientists potentially interested in
industry careers. These geographic limitations may guide
implementation of specific types of experiential learning, such
as job simulation or employer site visit treks, and make others,
such as industry internships, less feasible.
Sta Allocation. Most institutions do not have sufficient staff to
implement all of their ideas for career and professional develop-
ment, including experiential learning programming. Finding
ways to leverage existing staff and offer less staff-intensive expe-
riential learning opportunities are effective strategies when
building or expanding a program. Some universities take a less
staff-intensive approach to facilitating (vs. developing) intern-
ships by advertising existing opportunities to participants and
equipping them with the knowledge and tools to organize and
pursue internship opportunities on their own. Alternatively,
facilitating on-campus job shadowing opportunities with PhDs
employed in university staff roles may also be more manageable.
Support of trainee-led career-affiliation groups who are
interested in planning and implementing their own program-
ming is a productive way to multiply the effectiveness of limited
staffing resources while increasing project and program man-
agement skills of the trainees involved. This successful model
has been embraced by many student organizations (Advancing
Science and Policy and Cornell Graduate Consulting Club at
TABLE 3. Evaluation methods used for assessment of experiential learning activities and programsa
Method Description Examples Common uses and measures
Survey A series of questions designed to
gather opinions and insight about
program activities and experi-
ences (usually using an online
tool)
• Skill survey pre- and postexperi-
ential learning event
• Retrospective survey on perceived
value of specific activity
(workshop, career trek, etc.) or
entire program
• Measure self-reports on select
learning objectives and satisfac-
tion with activity
• Indirectly measure longitudinal
impact of an activity (pre/post)
Assignment An assigned task designed to assess
(and potentially develop) skills,
such as written products, visual
demonstrations, projects, or
presentations
• Science policy brief (or science
communication blog)
• Completion of a consulting
project
• Construction of a museum display
• Reflection essay describing an
informational interview
• Directly measure whether a skill
has been attained
• Ensure an action item has been
performed or a deliverable
produced
Performance assessment Review submitted by an expert in the
field who has thorough knowl-
edge of trainee's performance in
an experiential learning activity
(e.g., internship supervisor)
• Letter of reference from supervi-
sor of internship or other
experiential learning activity
• Completion of an evaluation
rubric
• Directly assess the extent to which
an objective has been met
• Define areas for individual
improvement
• Assess efficacy of activity in
meeting standards of an expert
Interview Structured discussion or questioning
of individual trainees or a focus
group to gain qualitative input at
the program level
• Focus group with standardized
questions about the experiential
learning activities facilitated by
the program
• Exit interviews
• Identify unexpected benefits of
activity and areas for improve-
ment
• Identify new learning objectives
Outcome tracking First job placement in career- field of
choice; subsequent career
outcomes
• Matching of LinkedIn job titles of
former trainees with their career
interests (defined by a standard
career taxonomy)
• Measure long-term impact of
activity on career decisions
• Relate results of other evaluation
methods (e.g., surveys) to career
outcomes
aThis table contains examples of the methods used to evaluate experiential learning activities and programs at the authors’ institutions. The methods vary in terms of
their applicability to specific assessment goals (e.g., presenting to stakeholders, scholarly publication, internal program adjustments, individual feedback) and the tai-
lored resources required to deploy them for a given activity or program.
19:es7, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
Cornell, ComSciCon franchises across North America). A similar
outcome has been observed when a single workshop has led to
the development of exclusively student- and postdoc-driven
interest groups, for example, the Academia-Industry-Alliance,
at the University of Colorado Denver/Anschutz Medical Cam-
pus; this BEST Program spin-off organizes many career develop-
ment opportunities, including an annual Biotechnology
Mini-Symposium to which all local biotech companies are
invited.
Alumni Participation. We have found that alumni networks
can provide a rich source of qualified individuals who are eager
to give back to the university and happy to participate in expe-
riential learning activities (on-site or remotely), often without
any expectation of compensation. For example, alumni may
conduct individualized, Web-based tours or in-depth informa-
tional interviews or may travel to participate in-person in expe-
riential learning activities, such as case-based projects or
hands-on workshops with a job simulation component. Indeed,
combining remote activities such as online workshops with
in-person career consultations is an especially useful strategy
when geographic or financial constraints exist. For institutions
that are fortunate enough to be located in regions with an
extensive local alumni network, alumni can be a valuable
resource for hosting shadowing or local internship opportuni-
ties at their employment sites. Alumni participation may be
solicited in a number of ways, such as through the institution's
Office of Alumni Relations (or equivalent), directories, data col-
lection or social media sites managed by graduate and postdoc-
toral training programs, or personal connections of the staff or
faculty (such as former trainees or colleagues from the institu-
tion). Ultimately, we have received overwhelmingly positive
feedback from our participating alumni (see Supplemental
Table S1 for representative feedback) and conclude that efforts
to meaningfully engage alumni and create a culture of giving
back benefit everyone involved (Lara et al., 2020).
Faculty Advocacy. One recurrent concern regarding career
program development relates to faculty perception of time that
trainees spend on professional development activities, includ-
ing experiential learning. Increasingly transparent data show
that the majority of trainees are entering careers outside aca-
demic tenure-track positions, for which additional training is
highly beneficial (NIH, 2012; Coalition for Next Generation Life
Science, 2019). Concern over extended time to degree for those
who participate in professional development events, including
internships, seems to be unfounded (Schnoes et al., 2018;
Cornell University, Rutgers University, University of Chicago,
University of North Carolina, Vanderbilt University, Virginia
Tech, unpublished results). In fact, spending time exploring and
preparing for careers can increase the motivation to complete
graduate or postdoctoral training, resulting in a greater focus
on research progress (Mathur et al., 2018; Watts et al., 2019;
UNC, unpublished data). Efforts to build faculty support can be
achieved through broadly sharing doctoral career outcomes
with faculty to enhance their awareness of careers that PhD
graduates are actually pursuing. These data can be accompa-
nied by information about experiential learning opportunities
for trainees at their universities, which can help augment their
own mentorship. Identifying prominent faculty champions to
help message the potential benefits of experiential learning
activities within their departments is also a valuable strategy to
build support. Success of experiential learning programs is con-
tingent on open discussion about career goals between trainee
and mentor, which can be facilitated through the use of tools
such as the IDP (Vincent et al., 2015). Additional incentives to
embrace professional development activities are increasingly
provided by national funding sources that predicate funding on
the existence of career development support structures at the
institution (NIGMS, n.d.). This is an excellent example of how
national entities are leveraging their institutional capital to
bring about culture change.
Ineligible Populations. Not all trainees are able to participate
in specific types of training activities due to visa restrictions.
Time constraints and the conditions set by particular funding
mechanisms may also prevent postdoctoral scholars from par-
ticipating in certain activities such as internships. Being aware
of these limitations and providing a variety of experiential
learning activities that are compatible with such limitations will
ensure that the needs of international and other scholars are
being met.
CONCLUSIONS
The collective experiences of our nine institutions demonstrate
that career-focused experiential learning for PhD-level trainees
can occur in many forms. Lessons learned include: 1) experien-
tial learning activities vary broadly and can be effective even on
a small scale, which may be especially important for institutions
new to experiential learning programming or with resource
constraints; 2) there should be components of both practical
engagement and reflection to maximize the benefits of experi-
ential learning; 3) regardless of the form of experiential learn-
ing, evaluations of the activity should be intentional, planned in
advance, and aligned with predetermined learning objectives;
and finally, 4) sharing of information and programming experi-
ences across the BEST Consortium has made the insights
described here possible. Thus, we strongly encourage others to
continue sharing across the broader training community. In
sum, introducing experiential learning in a variety of doses and
formats can be extremely beneficial to the professional develop-
ment of trainees and does not have to be expensive, unilateral,
or time/resource-intensive. Our experiences described here pro-
vide a framework that can aid in the design and development of
experiential learning programs that meet the needs of biomed-
ical graduate and postdoctoral trainees across a range of
institutions.
Note. During revision of this article, the landscape for biomed-
ical training has shifted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As fac-
ulty, trainees, and employers now lean more heavily on virtual
and online platforms, while limiting in-person interactions, this
presents both challenges and opportunities for incorporating
experiential learning into biomedical training. While the job
simulation format described here provides an avenue for gain-
ing career insight and experience without being physically pres-
ent at an employer's site, there is also new opportunity and
need to create innovative solutions for delivering internships
remotely, and for bringing trainees “on-site” for virtual visits
and shadowing.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020 19:es7, 11
Experiential Learning for PhD Trainees
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our work would not have been possible without the participa-
tion and valuable feedback from the many graduate students
and postdoctoral trainees at our institutions. We are also grate-
ful for our dedicated faculty, staff, and external partners, who
have contributed to experiential learning activities in a variety
of ways, including delivering content, hosting internships and
site visits, and providing constructive input. We would like to
specifically acknowledge the following individuals for contribu-
tions to program conceptualization, delivery, data collection,
and/or assessment: Natalie Alpert, Avery August, Brent Bowden,
Tammy Collins, Millie Copara, Susan Engelhardt, Michael Fried-
lander, Bill Lindstaedt, Rachel Reeves, Michael Roach, Chris
Schaffer, Molly Starback, Dawayne Whittington, Kimberley D.
Wood, Keith Yamamoto, and Angela Zito. Finally, we would like
to acknowledge our colleagues throughout the BEST Consor-
tium for valuable discussions and sharing of best practices
through monthly meetings and our annual symposia. This work
was generously supported by NIH grants DP7OD018428
(A.V.W.), DP7OD018420 (T.C.O.), DP7OD18425 (S.V.),
DP7OD020314 (J.A.), DP7OD020317 (R.L.L.), DP7OD020316
(C.A.S.), DP7OD018423 (A.E.B.), DP7OD018426 (J.G.), and
5DP7OD018422 (I.W.).
REFERENCES
Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., & Burgess,
W. D. (2013). Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students'
aspirations for research careers: Mediating eects of research self-e-
cacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 940–951. doi:
10.1002/tea.21102
Bandura, A. (1994). Self ecacy. In Ramachaudra, V. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
Binder, J. F., Baguley, T., Crook, C., & Miler, F. (2015). The academic value of
internships: Benets across disciplines and student backgrounds. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 41, 73–82.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green.
Center for Integration of Research Teaching and Learning. (2019). Home
page. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from www.cirtl.net
Chatterjee, D., Ford, J. K., Rojewski, J., & Watts, S. W. (2019). Exploring the
impact of formal internships on biomedical graduate and postgraduate
careers: An interview study. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar20.
doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-09-0199
Coalition for Next Generation Life Science. (2019). Home page. Retrieved
June 6, 2019, from http://nglscoalition.org
Eisen, A., & Eaton, D. C. (2017). A model for postdoctoral education that pro-
motes minority and majority success in the biomedical sciences. CBE—
Life Sciences Education, 16(4)doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-03-0051
Hartley, L. M., Ferrara, M. J., Handelsman, M. M., Rutebemberwa, A., & Wefes,
I. (2019). Principles and strategies for eective teaching: A workshop for
pre- and postdoctoral trainees in the biomedical sciences. Journal of
Microbiology & Biology Education, 20(3). doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1689
Herr, E. L., & Watts, A. G. (1988). Work shadowing and work-related learning.
Career Development Quarterly, 37, 78–86.
Homeland Security. (n.d.). Study in the states: F-1 curricular practical training
(CPT). Retrieved June, 6, 2019, from https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/
sevis-help-hub/student-records/fm-student-employment/f-1
-curricular-practical-training-cpt
International Student. (n.d.). Working in the USA. Retrieved June, 6, 2019,
from www.internationalstudent.com/study_usa/way-of-life/working-
in-the-usa
Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. R., & Harris, E. W. (1999). The relation of college in-
ternships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal
of Employment Counseling, 36(1), 35–43. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1920.1999
.tb01007.x
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Langin, K. (2018, October 1). Like virtual reality for careers: A new online re-
source helps scientists explore job options. Science. Retrieved June 18,
2020, from www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/10/virtual-reality-careers
-new-online-resource-helps-scientists-explore-job-options
Langin, K. (2019). Private sector nears rank of top Ph.D. employer. Science,
363(6432), 1135. doi: 10.1126/science.363.6432.1135
Lara, L. I., Daniel, L., & Chalkley, R. (Eds.). (2020). BEST: Implementing career
development activities for biomedical research trainees. (1st ed.). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cog-
nitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. doi: 10.1006/
jvbe.1994.1027
Lenzi, R. N., Korn, S. J., Wallace, M., Desmond, N. L., & Labosky, P. A. (2020).
The NIH “BEST” programs: Institutional programs, the program evalua-
tion, and early data. FASEB Journal, 34(3), 3570–3582. doi: 10.1096/
.201902064
Mathur, A., Brandt, P., Chalkley, R., Daniel, L., Labosky, P., Stayart, C., & Meyers,
F. (2018). Evolution of a functional taxonomy of career pathways for bio-
medical trainees. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2(2), 63–
65. doi: 10.1017/cts.2018.22
Meyers, F. J., Mathur, A., Fuhrmann, C. N., O'Brien, T. C., Wefes, I., Labosky, P.
A., …& Chalkley, R. (2016). The origin and implementation of the Broad-
ening Experiences in Scientic Training programs: An NIH common fund
initiative. FASEB Journal, 30(2), 507–514. doi: 10.1096/.15-276139
Millet, C. M., Payne, D. G., Dwyer, C. A., Stickler, L. M., & Alexiou, J. J. (2008).
A culture of evidence: An evidence-centred approach to accountability
for student learning outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2009). Chris-
tine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Pro-
gram. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/
pga/policyfellows
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). (1988). Biotechnol-
ogy Predoctoral Training Program. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from www
.nigms.nih.gov/training/instpredoc/pages/PredocDesc-Biotechnology
.aspx
NIGMS. (n.d.). NIGMS guidance on best practices for training in the respon-
sible conduct of research. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from www.nigms.nih.
gov/training/pages/responsibleconduct.aspx
National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2012). Biomedical Research Workforce
Working Group Report. Bethesda, MD.
NIH. (2014). OMB clarifies guidance on the dual role of student and postdoc-
toral researchers (NOT-OD-15-008). Retrieved June 18, 2020, from
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-les/NOT-OD-15-008.html
NIH. (2017). Internships and experiential learning—BEST Practices Workshop.
Retrieved June, 6, 2019, from www.nihbest.org/2017best-practic-
es-workshop/workshop-1-internships-and-experiential-learning
NIH. (2020). NIH funding opportunity announcement PAR-17-341: National
Institute of General Medical Sciences Ruth L. Kirschstein National Re-
search Service Award (NRSA) Predoctoral Institutional Research Training
Grant (T32). Retrieved May 27, 2020, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/
guide/pa-les/par-17-341.html
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2015). Dear Colleague letter: NSF Grad-
uate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)—Graduate Research Intern-
ship Program (GRIP) (NSF 16-015). Retrieved June 18, 2020, from www
.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16015/nsf16015.jsp
NSF. (2018). Dear Colleague letter: Non-academic research internships for
graduate students (INTERN) supplemental funding opportunity (NSF 18-
102). Retrieved June 18, 2020, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18102/
nsf18102.pdf
National Society for Experiential Education. (1998). Eight principles of good
practice for all experiential learning activities. Retrieved June, 6, 2019,
from www.nsee.org/8-principles
Nguyen, T. (2019). InterSECT job simulations: Interactive simulation exercises
for career transitions. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://intersectjobsims
.com
19:es7, 12 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 19:es7, Fall 2020
A. Van Wart, T. C. O’Brien, et al.
Velez, G. S., & Giner, G. R. (2015). Eects of business internships on students,
employers, and higher education institutions: A systematic review. Jour-
nal of Employment Counseling, 52(3), 121–130. doi: 10.1002/joec.12010
Vincent, B. J., Scholes, C., Staller, M. V., Wunderlich, Z., Estrada, J., Park, J.,
… & DePace, A. H. (2015). Yearly planning meetings: Individualized devel-
opment plans aren't just more paperwork. Molecular and Cellular, 58(5),
718–721. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.04.025
Virginia Tech. (n.d.). Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training at Virginia
Tech. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from http://info.vtc.vt.edu/best
Watts, S. W., Chatterjee, D., Rojewski, J. W., Shoshkes Reiss, C., Baas, T.,
Gould, K. L., … & Ford, J. K. (2019). Faculty perceptions and knowledge of
career development of trainees in biomedical science: What do we (think
we) know? PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210189
Wayne State University. (n.d.). Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training
(BEST). Retrieved August 8, 2019, from https://gradschool.wayne.edu/best
Wortman-Wunder, E., & Wefes, I. (2020). Scientic writing workshop im-
proves condence in critical writing skills among trainees in the biomed-
ical sciences. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1). doi:
10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1843
Oord, C. (2016, December 31). Addressing biomedical science's PhD problem.
The Scientist. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from https://www.the-scientist
.com/careers/addressing-biomedical-sciences-phd-problem-32258
Professional Science Master's. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved June, 6, 2019,
from www.professionalsciencemasters.org
Rybarczyk, B., Lerea, L., Lund, R. K., Whittington, D., & Dykstra, L. (2011). Post-
doctoral training aligned with the academic professoriate. BioScience,
61(9), 699–705. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.8
Schillebeeckx, M., Maricque, B., & Lewis, C. (2013). The missing piece to
changing the university culture. Nature Biotechnology, 31(10), 938–941.
doi: 10.1038/nbt.2706
Schnoes, A. M., Caliendo, A., Morand, J., Dillinger, T., Naziger-Hirsch, M.,
Moses, B., … & O'Brien, T. C. (2018). Internship experiences contribute to
condent career decision making for doctoral students in the life scienc-
es. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar16. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-08-0164
Sinche, M., Layton, R. L., Brandt, P. D., O'Connell, A. B., Hall, J. D., Freeman, A.
M., …& Brennwald, P. J. (2017). An evidence-based evaluation of transfer-
rable skills and job satisfaction for science PhDs. PLoS ONE, 12(9),
e0185023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185023
