Null effects of boot camps and short-format training for PhD students in life sciences

Abstract

Many PhD programs incorporate boot camps and summer bridge programs to accelerate the development of doctoral students' research skills and acculturation into their respective disciplines. These brief, high-intensity experiences span no more than several weeks and are typically designed to expose graduate students to data analysis techniques, to develop scientific writing skills, and to better embed incoming students into the scholarly community. However, there is no previous study that directly measures the outcomes of PhD students who participate in such programs and compares them to the outcomes of students who did not participate. Likewise, no previous study has used a longitudinal design to assess these outcomes over time. Here we show that participation in such programs is not associated with detectable benefits related to skill development, socialization into the academic community, or scholarly productivity for students in our sample. Analyzing data from 294 PhD students in the life sciences from 53 US institutions, we found no statistically significant differences in outcomes between participants and nonparticipants across 115 variables. These results stand in contrast to prior studies presenting boot camps as effective interventions based on participant satisfaction and perceived value. Many universities and government agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation) invest substantial resources in boot camp and summer bridge activities in the hopes of better supporting scientific workforce development. Our findings do not reveal any measurable benefits to students, indicating that an allocation of limited resources to alternative strategies with stronger empirical foundations warrants consideration.graduate training | boot camp | research skills | doctoral education

Barriers to Integration of Bioinformatics into Undergraduate Life Sciences Education

“…One of our key findings is that faculty who have participated in informal training like workshops or boot camps report the need for training more than faculty with no training or faculty with formal training. This result is similar to that reported by Feldon et al, who suggest that boot camps and short workshops are not very effective for PhD students in the life sciences (34). Therefore, it may be useful to conduct a follow-up survey to address the deficits expressed by faculty with informal training.…”

Providing Transferable, Professional Skills for the Next Generation of Scientific Professionals through an Outreach Opportunity

“…SitC Annotator training is not meant to be a comprehensive course covering all aspects of DBER research. Previous work has shown that short trainings, such as this, have limited success in producing long-term changes (Schussler 2015, Feldon 2017. However, there is also evidence showing that undergraduate students who explored teaching, but did not ultimately enter the profession, retain positive and lasting changes in interest in future volunteering in public schools and in intentions to support outreach efforts in the workplace (Whang-Sayson et al, 2017).…”

“…Previous work has shown that short training experiences such as this have had limited success in producing longterm changes (Schussler, 2015;Feldon, 2017). This training can be seen as an "on-ramp" for students to explore DBER and is not meant to be a comprehensive course.…”

Integrating case studies into graduate teaching assistant training to improve instruction in biology laboratory courses

“…Research-based literature in this area cautioned us against short-term GTA training programs (3,26,27). However, the reality of academic life is that sometimes long-term training programs in the specific area of teaching are not possible for a number of reasons (3,28,29), and this is where short term-training programs, even though not ideal, can be beneficial for GTA preparation (29,30,31).…”