Computational Biophysics Workshop - Atlanta, Mar. 21-25, 2011
General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Atlanta
March 21-25, 2011
Questionnaire: Gila Budescu, TCB Group, UIUC, and modified by
David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC
Analysis and report: David Brandon, TCB Group,
UIUC
The NIH Resource for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics is headed by Klaus Schulten, and Co-PIs Z. Luthey-Schulten, L. Kale, E. Tajkhorshid, and A. Aksimentiev. As part of its outreach, the Resource offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Resource and its co-sponsors presented a five-day (March 21-25, 2011) workshop at the Microelectronics Research Center on the Georgia Institute of Technology (aka, 'Georgia Tech') campus in Atlanta, Georgia. Resource faculty and one guest lecturer provided morning lectures, and teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Resource software, and tutorials consisting of text and computer files. Participants included scientists from Georgia Tech who were participating in a class, as well as other scientists from the Atlanta area, from around the country and around the world.
Workshop lectures were provided by K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten, with a guest lecture by Jeff Skolnick of the Center for the Study of Systems Biology at Georgia Tech on Monday, March 21. Teaching assistants were graduate students from TCBG and the Luthey-Schulten group. Tutorials and preparation of the laptops was provided by the graduate students and by other Resource staff, and on-site the tutorial sessions were led by the graduate students. The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions, with an emphasis on the latter. On the last day of the workshop, participants were asked to complete a general evaluation form consisting of questions about the lectures, hands-on tutorial sessions, outcomes, and overall satisfaction. A copy of the form is available here, with results described below.
In the summary below, participant 'agreement' with a statement is calculated by adding together the 'agree' and 'strongly agree' percentages from the tables below, e.g., in the first item of the first table below agreement is assessed at 97% (50% agree + 47% strongly agree). Due to rounding, some cumulative percentages in the table may exceed 100%. The number of participants responding to each question is indicated by the 'N' count in each table. Attendance varied during the workshop, with some attending lectures but not tutorials, and with some days more popular than others. At a maximum the workshop drew 51 participants, resulting in a response rate for the general evaluation form of ~63%.
I. Outcomes
Nearly all participants (97%) indicated that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in the field of computational and theoretical biophysics, and a high proportion (88%) felt that the workshop taught techniques directly applicable to their careers. A strong majority also felt that the the workshop presented material relevant to their research (82%), and that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics. Less than half (47%) reported that the workshop significantly improved their computational skills.
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The Workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Computational and Theoretical Biophysics. | 32 | 3% | 50% | 47% | ||
| 2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. | 32 | 3% | 3% | 13% | 47% | 34% |
| 3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. | 32 | 6% | 16% | 31% | 28% | 19% |
| 4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. | 32 | 3% | 9% | 44% | 44% | |
| 5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. | 32 | 13% | 6% | 41% | 41% |
II. Lectures
With regards to lectures, all responding participants (100%) indicated that the instructors subject knowledge was good, and nearly all participants (97%) indicated that the lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. A high percentage (94%) of participants also indicated that instructors provided real-world examples, and explained their material well. A high proportion (87-91%) indicated that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity, that daily question and answer sessions were beneficial, that the level of the lectures was appropriate, that the underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear, and that the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. Over three quarters (78%) of participants indicated that the lectures were coordinated between instructors.
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. | 32 | 28% | 72% | |||
| 2. The instructors explained the material well. | 32 | 6% | 44% | 50% | ||
| 3. The instructors provided real-world examples. | 32 | 6% | 28% | 66% | ||
| 4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. | 32 | 3% | 3% | 16% | 34% | 44% |
| 5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. | 32 | 3% | 38% | 59% | ||
| 6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. | 32 | 13% | 34% | 53% | ||
| 7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. | 32 | 13% | 38% | 50% | ||
| 8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. | 32 | 6% | 6% | 44% | 44% | |
| 9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. | 32 | 9% | 41% | 50% | ||
| 10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. | 32 | 9% | 44% | 47% |
III. Hands-On Sessions
Nearly all responding participants (94-97%) felt that hands-on sessions were important for the learning process of the workshop, that concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding, that the tutorials provided sufficient instructions, and that there were enough teaching assistants to help participants. A slight smaller but still high proportion of participants (88-91%) indicated that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions, that tutorials accommodated differing levels of expertise, that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures, and that tutorials accommodated differing interests of participants. A majority of participants (81%) also indicated that the hands-on sessions were long enough.
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. | 32 | 3% | 19% | 78% | ||
| 2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. | 32 | 3% | 38% | 59% | ||
| 3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. | 32 | 3% | 9% | 6% | 47% | 34% |
| 4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. | 32 | 3% | 9% | 47% | 41% | |
| 5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. | 32 | 3% | 6% | 38% | 53% | |
| 6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. | 32 | 3% | 3% | 44% | 50% | |
| 7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. | 32 | 3% | 3% | 47% | 47% | |
| 8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. | 32 | 13% | 47% | 41% | ||
| 9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. | 32 | 9% | 44% | 47% |
IV. Environment & Technical Resources
Questions about environment and technical resources refer to the physical context of the workshop (housing, conference room, etc.) and technologies needed to carry off the workshop (computing hardware, software, projection systems, other). It should be noted that due to the volume of participants at this event, a group of about 16 participants was put into an overflow room during tutorials periods, so that there was sufficient room for all participants to "spread out" and complete their work. Results show that nearly all participants (97%) found the lecture room projection system adequate, and nearly all of those staying at the Georgia Tech Hotel (94%) felt that the hotel provided adequate accommodations. Majorities of participants (88%) indicated that the software used in the workshop ran well on their laptop, and that the lecture room was conducive to learning (84%).
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The software used in the Workshop ran well on my (circle one: Windows/Mac/Linux) laptop. | 32 | 3% | 9% | 41% | 47% | |
| 2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. | 32 | 3% | 13% | 34% | 50% | |
| 3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. | 32 | 3% | 44% | 53% | ||
| 4. The Georgia Tech Hotel provided sufficient accommodations (hotel guests only). | 17 | 6% | 18% | 76% |
V. Communication & Dissemination
Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. All participants (100%) indicated the workshop web site was informative about the event. A high proportion indicated that instructors were readily available for Q&A outside of lecture periods (93%), that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful (91%), and that emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful (90%).
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. | 32 | 3% | 3% | 34% | 59% | |
| 2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. | 32 | 47% | 53% | |||
| 3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. | 32 | 9% | 34% | 56% | ||
| 4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. | 32 | 9% | 28% | 63% |
VI. Overall Satisfaction
A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop. Nearly all participants (97%) indicated that the workshop was well organized, and that they would recommend the workshop to others. A high proportion (94%) also indicated that they would recommend the workshop to others. A majority of participants also indicated that the he balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (87%), and that the workshop addressed their research needs.
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The Workshop was well organized. | 32 | 3% | 28% | 69% | ||
| 2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. | 32 | 3% | 9% | 31% | 56% | |
| 3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. | 32 | 3% | 16% | 31% | 50% | |
| 4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. | 32 | 6% | 44% | 50% | ||
| 5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. | 32 | 3% | 28% | 69% |
VII. Comments
Participants were solicited for comments in four areas, 1) suggestions for improving the workshop, 2) suggestions for similar workshops, 3) most valuable/least valuable/future workshop topics, and 4) other comments. An inexhaustive list of comments in each area is provided below; a compilation of raw statements can be obtained by e-mailing workshop+atlanta@ks.uiuc.edu. If a comment was made in one area of the open questions, it is generally not repeated again in another area below.
- Suggestions for improving the workshop:
- This workshop was very helpful. I would recommend more emphasis on some of the problems with simulations and how to avoid them. Overall, this workshop was outstanding and I am very thankful to all of you for your dedication and work towards disseminating very useful information and practices.
- Generally people had very diverse interests & experience. It would be useful to divide it up into smaller more focused groups (e.g. membrane protein specific). Overall though the workshop was really useful.
- Would prefer the lectures to be much more oriented on how to run simulations/adjusting systems than on examples from the lectures published research.
- Suggestions for similar workshops:
- Maybe a tutorial on how to calculate kinetics and related problems with MD maybe of interest to many.
- Maybe make the free energy tutorials more newbie-friendly.
- Please consider other countries also – at least Europe. Its very difficult to travel from Europe to USA.
- Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
- Protein-ligard binding, steered molecular dynamics, and application of forces were the most applicable to my research.
- The most valuable topics include the introduction to dynamics theory and suggestions of setting up the system.
- The overall tutorials were useful & should be done before the workshop. I enjoyed the bioinformatics, parameterization, topology, and membrane protein tutorials best.
- Other comments:
- Special thanks to Ke Chen. She did a great work to help with technique questions
- Congratulations for the staff! Lectures, tutorials etc. were all well developed and organized. For sure it was a successful workshop.
- Thanks all the organizers Great experience.
