Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 385–398 | Cite as

A Study of Synchronous, Online Professional Development Workshops for Graduate Students and Postdocs Reveals the Value of Reflection and Community Building

  • Sarah Chobot HokansonEmail author
  • Sharisse Grannan
  • Robin Greenler
  • Donald L. Gillian-Daniel
  • Henry CampaIII
  • Bennett B. Goldberg
Article

Abstract

Designers of professional development activities and programs within higher education generally believe workshop learning outcomes and learner-created materials are what graduate students and postdoctoral scholars value from participating in these activities. We created a new structure for online synchronous workshops that integrates active learning, participant reflection, and skill development. Our design was informed by the hypothesis that participants value the work that they do and the materials they create during our online workshops. In our evaluations we examined students’ self-reported behavioral and attitudinal changes and perspectives on professional development. We learned that participants considered their sense of community and opportunities for reflection to be valued elements of the workshops. We found that these workshops added to students’ self-reflective practices and skill-building processes. Participants suggested that workshops should integrate active learning and skills application with deliberate reflection and community building to increase the potential for long-term change.

Keywords

Professional development Online synchronous learning Graduate students Postdocs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to Catherine Jett for assisting with survey data analysis.

References

  1. Austin, A. E., Campa, H., III, Pfund, C., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Mathieu, R., & Stoddart, J. (2009). Preparing STEM doctoral students for future faculty careers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, G. (2005). Doctors without orders: Highlights of the sigma xi postdoc survey. American Scientist, 93(3), supplement not paginated.Google Scholar
  4. Denecke, D., Feaster, K., & Stone, K. (2017). Professional development: Shaping effective programs for STEM graduate students. Retrieved from https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_ProfDev_STEMGrads16_web.pdf
  5. Fuhrmann, C. N. (2016). Enhancing graduate and postdoctoral education to create a sustainable biomedical workforce. Human Gene Therapy, 27, 871–879.  https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2016.154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuhrmann, C. N., Halme, D. G., O'Sullivan, P. S., & Lindstaedt, B. (2011). Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-02-0013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodwin, S. S. (2014). iBiology: Communicating the process of science. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 25, 2217–2219.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-02-0756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helm, M., Campa, H., III, & Moretto, K. (2012). Professional socialization for the Ph.D.: An exploration of career and professional development preparedness and readiness for Ph.D. candidates. Journal of Faculty Development, 26, 5–23.Google Scholar
  10. Hill, L., & Austin, A. E. (2016, September). The impact of multi-institutional STEM reform networks: A case study of CIRTL. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Hokanson, S. C., Campa, H. III, & Goldberg, B.B. (2017, March). Professional development re-imagined: Designing active learning workshops for postdocs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, S. P., McGee, R., Pfund, C., & Branchaw, J. (2015). Mentoring up: Learning to manage your mentoring relationships. In G. Wright (Ed.), The mentoring continuum: From graduate school through tenure (pp. 133–154). Syracuse, NY: The Graduate School Press.Google Scholar
  13. McDaniels, M., Pfund, C., & Barnicle, K. (2016). Creating dynamic learning communities in synchronous online courses: One approach from the Center for the Integration of research, teaching and learning (CIRTL). Online Learning, 20, 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 broadening experiences in scientific training programs: An National Institutes of Health common fund initiative. The FASEB Journal, 30, 507–514.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.15-276139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  16. Pfund, C., Mathieu, R., Austin, A., Connolly, M., Manske, B., & Moore, K. (2012). Advancing STEM undergraduate learning: Preparing the nation's future faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2012). Science PhD career preferences: Levels, changes, and advisor encouragement. PLoS One, 7(5), e36307.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tuffour, I. (2017). A critical overview of interpretative phenomenological analysis: A contemporary qualitative research approach. Journal of Health Communication, 2(4), 2–52.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-1654.100093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wei, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 529–545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, S. N., Thakore, B. K., & McGee, R. (2015). Coaching to augment mentoring to achieve faculty diversity: A randomized controlled trial. Academic Medicine, 91, 1128–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson-Grau, R. (2019). Outcome harvesting: Principles, steps, and evaluation applications. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Chobot Hokanson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharisse Grannan
    • 2
    • 6
  • Robin Greenler
    • 3
  • Donald L. Gillian-Daniel
    • 4
  • Henry CampaIII
    • 5
  • Bennett B. Goldberg
    • 6
  1. 1.Sarah Chobot Hokanson, Office of the ProvostBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.DePaul University Career CenterChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL)University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Delta Program in Research, Teaching and LearningUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  5. 5.The Graduate SchoolMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  6. 6.Searle Center for Advancing Learning and TeachingNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations