Challenge Statement

Graduate-level wet laboratory courses are rare. An examination of the 25 top-ranked graduate biomedical engineering (BME) programs (27 total schools) shows that only 7 provide graduate-level laboratory courses covering cell culture [1]. Central to the multidisciplinary study of BME is the acquisition of a vast array of skills, ranging from computational modeling to biomaterials development [2]. Among these proficiencies, cell culture takes a prominent place [3]. At the University of Florida, 60% percent of our incoming BME graduate students indicated a research interest in either “Biomaterials & Regenerative Medicine” or “Molecular & Cellular Engineering” from the six research areas as defined by the department’s website. While these research areas commonly require a mastery of cell culture techniques, many new graduate students have limited cell culture experience and must address this deficit during the first year of their graduate studies. Historically in our program, this deficit was addressed by ad hoc training provided by senior graduate students from the first-year student’s matched laboratory. Although this ad hoc method is used by programs across higher education for training new students in facilities, we identified limitations. For example, the onboarding process was not an option for newly established laboratories, which had no senior personnel, and did not engage our Master’s student population. In addition, this practice could have potentiated improper technique since there were no standardized training protocols across labs. Therefore, we identified an opportunity to create a scalable professional development solution that was both accessible and standardized.

Here, we detail a student-led, five-session workshop that serves as an introduction to the fundamentals and techniques of cell culture for graduate students with little to no prior relevant experience. The workshop objectives are to (1) provide valuable experience in cell culture techniques to current BME graduate students to advance their skill set and (2) strengthen their applications to match into BME laboratories.

Novel Initiative

Despite overwhelming evidence on the benefits of active learning [4,5,6], a common method for content delivery to graduate students is still lecture-based courses [7]. However, skill-based boot camps are rising in popularity, especially in multidisciplinary fields such as BME [8,9,10]. These workshops engage students with hands-on learning experiences and fundamental laboratory skills while improving technical competence to assist students in gaining a competitive edge when looking for research positions or industry jobs post-graduation [11]. In addition, an intensive workshop traditionally requires less time and money to equip students with the necessary fundamentals, which increases the likelihood of student participation. Efforts to move towards active learning thus far have largely focused on the undergraduate curriculum. Currently, the University of Florida provides a semester-long Cellular Engineering Laboratory course that teaches BME undergraduate students the basic principles of cell culture; however, no such paradigm exists for the BME graduate program. To address this, we created a five-session workshop that targets graduate students seeking to increase their familiarity with cell culture fundamentals.

Workshop Organization and Content

The workshop was organized and led by two senior-level graduate students who will be identified as graduate student instructors in the context of this article. These individuals were responsible for developing the budget and syllabus, coordinating with department leadership for financial support, and collaborating with the graduate academic team to develop the curriculum of the workshop. Additional graduate student volunteers were recruited as teaching assistants (TAs) to assist during the hands-on portion of the workshop sessions. TAs were required to have experience in cell culture to volunteer. The workshop utilized equipment and lab space borrowed from the undergraduate Cellular Engineering Course, including 8 biosafety cabinets (BSCs), 2 incubators, 2 centrifuges, a water bath, pipet-aids, and micropipettes. Consumables were purchased with departmental support and a registration fee from each attendee.

The workshop covered a range of cell culture techniques including aseptic technique, cell thawing, feeding, passaging, seeding, and freezing. Each student cultured their own set of cells over the 2-week workshop, and each workshop session built on skills learned in the previous session. In addition to basic cell culture maintenance, the students completed basic immunocytochemistry staining and a metabolic assay with their cell cultures. A more detailed breakdown of the topics covered in each workshop session is included in the workshop syllabus (Supplemental Material 1).

Each 3.5-h long workshop session was divided into two sections: a lecture and a practicum. During the lecture, graduate student instructors covered the necessary information to complete the experimental protocols and provided additional scientific background on methods. After the lecture, students transitioned to the practicum, which is the hands-on portion of the workshop. The laboratory and general workflow are shown in Fig. 1. First, two working students completed the experimental protocol in full in the BSC, while two observing students examined their peers' work and provided constructive feedback on the working student’s techniques. After the working student completed their experiment, the working student and the observing student switched roles, which allowed all four students to gain hands-on experience. One TA with prior expertise in cell culturing oversaw experiments for two BSCs. Using this ratio, the TAs were available to answer any lingering questions regarding lecture material or experimental techniques while critiquing the working student’s technique to ensure proper safety without hindering the roles of the observing student.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Example classroom workflow for the hands-on portion of the graduate student cell culture workshop. The maximum capacity of this layout is 32 students

Full size image

Rooted in the principles of active learning, this initiative amalgamates near-peer guidance and collaborative learning to enhance knowledge retention and overall student satisfaction.

Near-Peer Mentorship

Near-peer mentorship refers to a teaching approach where a more experienced individual, referred to as a near-peer, facilitates the learning of their peers [12]. The advantages of near-peer learning include enhanced understanding, increased approachability, immediate feedback, peer-led innovation, and cost-effectiveness [13]. Overall, near-peer learning leverages the power of peer connections and mutual understanding to create a supportive and effective learning experience. In this workshop, we utilized two instances of near-peer learning. As mentioned previously, we recruited a minimum of one student with previous cell culture experience to volunteer as TA for every eight students enrolled in the workshop. One drawback of near-peer mentorship is the lack of formal pedagogical training, which can result in the potential spreading of misconceptions. To combat this, the workshop utilized an additional two senior graduate student instructors who not only had a significant background in cell culturing but also had previously served as a TA for the undergraduate Cellular Engineering Laboratory. Being in a similar academic stage, the graduate student instructors create a comfortable space for TAs and enrolled students to seek guidance, ask questions, and discuss challenges.

Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning involves students working together in groups to achieve common learning goals. It has been demonstrated that collaborative learning helps students retain information more thoroughly, deeply, and efficiently when compared to that done individually [14]. Through mentoring peers, students find new ways to articulate the research protocols as well as the purpose of each step in the process, which results in a deeper understanding of highly complex concepts [13, 15]. To facilitate collaborative learning, BSC groups were assigned based on pre-workshop self-assessment scores regarding laboratory confidence. This ensured that each BSC had students with varying laboratory confidence levels, allowing less confident students to learn from more experienced peers. While near-peer learning provides an opportunity for graduate student instructors and TAs to develop teaching and communication skills, collaborative learning allows for a student to receive constant feedback from peers on their technique and for groups to benefit from different confidence and experience levels of group members.

Demographics

To date, we have provided this professional development to three cohorts of participants. Briefly, we had 11 M.S., 10 Ph.D., and 1 post-doctoral student participate in 2020, 14 M.S., 10 Ph.D., and 1 senior undergraduate student in 2022, and 5 M.S. and 14 Ph.D. students in 2023. The majority of students enrolled were male, BME Ph.D. students. This workshop was originally designed to target graduate students in BME; however, students from other departments, such as chemical or mechanical and aerospace engineering enrolled due to the broad extent of cell culture applications (Fig. 2). When asked why students wanted to take this workshop, a range of answers were received; however, themes such as improving knowledge, resume building, and developing good standard operating procedures were commonplace. Sample responses are shown from 10 students in Table 1.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Demographics of students enrolled in the Graduate Student Cell Culture Workshop. Distribution of enrolled students a gender, b residency status, c degree pursued, and d major

Full size image
Table 1 Representative responses from students who registered for the workshop when asked, “Why do you want to take this workshop?”
Full size table

Assessment of Student Success

Learning outcome surveys were primarily used to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop from cohorts 2 and 3. Pre- and post-learning surveys were administered online and contained a combination of open-ended and 5-point Likert-scale questions. Likert-scale questions probed students’ confidence with skills and concepts related to cell culture. Qualitative questions asked the students for their perspective or opinion on the workshop (e.g., “Why did you take this workshop?”, “Was this workshop a valuable experience for you, why/why not?”, “Please provide feedback on what we could improve upon.”). Data were analyzed only for students who completed both the pre- and post-learning surveys. All student responses were anonymous or de-identified.

After completing the workshop, students reported significant improvement in all cell culture- and wet-laboratory-related skills assessed (Figs. 3, 4). In addition to increasing laboratory skills, this workshop also bolstered students’ confidence in laboratory safety and chemical and biological waste disposal (Fig. 5). These results quantitatively show the impact of leveraging near-peer and collaborative learning in a workshop series. Beyond increasing graduate students’ cell culture competency, we also found that participants’ confidence in instructing others on concepts learned in the workshop increased. Five participants from cohorts 1 and 2 returned as workshop TAs for future cohorts. While not directly measured, the impact of collaborative and near-peer learning was clear in post-survey follow-up questions. When asked “Was this workshop a valuable experience for you, why or why not?”, student responses commonly cited the advantages of connecting with their peers and receiving individual feedback from instructors and TAs in a low-stress environment. Example responses from 10 students are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Results of average student responses for pre- and post-surveys for cell culture-specific skills. Significance was determined using a paired samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test (N = 41, *p < 0.0001)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Results of average student responses for pre- and post-surveys for other wet laboratory skills. Significance was determined using a paired samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test (N = 41, *p < 0.0001)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Results of average student responses for pre- and post-surveys for general laboratory safety and waste management. Significance was determined using a paired samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test (N = 41, *p < 0.0001)

Full size image
Table 2 Representative responses from students at the end of the workshop when asked, “Was this workshop a valuable experience for you, why/why not?”
Full size table

Reflection

As instructors, from our vantage point, the most notable outcome of this workshop was building a community of students interested in cell culture-related research at the University level. Expanding enrollment to all graduate students, irrespective of their laboratory affiliation, facilitated greater accessibility to learning cell culture. This inclusive approach accommodated individuals interested in advancing either their professional development or research objectives. In addition, by employing standardized teaching practices for cell culture, students can better navigate learning a difficult skill and ensure more robust, reliable, and reproducible results. Importantly, we believe the workshop will foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, networking, and professional development.

Although this workshop provided graduate students with the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of cell culture, the intensity of learning these skills in such a short period presented considerable challenges. To foster a low-stakes learning environment, the graduate student instructors employed self-reported surveys to assess the impact of the workshop. Although providing valuable insights into the students’ perceptions, self-reported surveys may not reflect the actual skills gained. Incorporating objective assessments or external evaluations would further validate the impact of this workshop series, but it may deter student and TA enrollment due to the increased workload. To avoid conflict with class schedules, we elected to hold the sessions in the evening at the start of the Spring semester. While holding the sessions in the evening ensured the availability of the students, they generally did not enjoy having to stay late and were especially frustrated if a session ran over time. In addition, it can be difficult to maintain students’ interest and willingness to learn for over 3 h, so an increased number of sessions with decreased session length may be advisable. Holding this initiative at the start of the Spring semester minimized conflict with course requirements that arise mid-semester and was more accessible to our first-year international student population who described the Fall semester as an overwhelming transition period. However, this timing does not engage first-year graduate students who need to learn cell culture upon arrival to perform research in their matched laboratory. Therefore, other institutions should carefully consider the timing of this workshop prior to implementation.

When providing anonymous feedback, students commonly requested either a semester-long course, with shorter sessions and more laboratory assays, or an additional workshop series that expands upon the fundamentals learned and addresses the question, “How do you learn more from here?” (Table 3). The availability of resources is also a limitation of this professional development series. To maintain a ratio of four students to one BSC, we are limited by the number of BSCs available. As such, the current capacity for this initiative is 32 students. To scale up this course, we would need both increased space and funds for more BSCs or we would need to offer the workshop multiple times a year. In addition, this workshop is currently run solely by graduate student instructors and TAs who volunteer their time. Near-peers have their own academic commitments and thus have a limited amount of time that they can dedicate to facilitating the learning of the workshop participants. Therefore, it may be necessary to provide compensation to expand upon the graduate student cell culture workshop.

Table 3 Representative responses from students at the end of the workshop when asked to provide detailed feedback on what we could improve upon
Full size table

Overall, we found that implementing a graduate student-focused hands-on workshop series not only increased the accessibility of complex skills like cell culture to all graduate students but also provided graduate students with the opportunity to build community and gain more experience disseminating their knowledge in a low-stakes environment. The education framework and materials provided (Supplementary Materials 1–4) make this initiative easily adaptable for other institutions seeking to enrich the teaching of BME-related skills to their graduate students.