Computational Biophysics Workshop - Boston, Dec. 5-9, 2004

TCB Hands-on Workshop in Boston

General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop held at the Colonnade Hotel, Boston

December 5-9, 2004

Questionnaire: Gila Budescu, TCB Group, UIUC, and modified by David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC
Analysis and report: Brijeet Dhaliwal, TCB Group, UIUC, and David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC

The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), an NIH Resource for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics is headed by Klaus Schulten, and CO-PIs Z. Luthey-Schulten,  L. Kale, and R. Skeel. As part of its outreach, the Resource offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Resource participated in a one-week (December 5-9) workshop sponsored by the Beckman Institute, and the National Institutes of Health, at The Colonnade Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts.  The Colonnade Hotel provided facilities, internet access, and organization of the workshop, while the Resource provided instructors, lectures, tutorials, and 20 Apple G4 laptops loaded with needed software and tutorial files.

Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), E. Tajkhorshid (UIUC), and P. O'Donoghue (UIUC).  Two Resource graduate students and one post-doctoral student from the UIUC School of Chemical Sciences accompanied the lecturers to the workshop and provided instructional support on-site.  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.

At the end of the week, students leaving the program were asked to complete a general evaluation questionnaire. The general evaluation form asks about topics such as outcomes of the program, ratings of attributes of lectures and tutorials, organization and communication, and so on; click here to see the form used.  Participation in the evaluation was voluntary.  A total of 19 general evaluation forms were returned, providing an overall response rate of 95%.  Demographically, education levels of participants were high; the majority of attendees were doctorates, or PhD candidates.

The results of the general evaluation questionnaire are summarized below, within the following sections:

All responses in the following tables are reported in percentages, rows adding up to 100%. Not all respondents answered to all items; the number of responses per item is presented next to each question.

 

Table I. Distribution of Outcome Ratings

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

I.1. The Workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Computational and Theoretical Biophysics

19

5.3

36.8

57.9

I.2 The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics.

19

10.5

42.1

47.4

I.3 The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills.

18

16.7

44.4

38.9

I.4  The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career.

19


15.8

84.2

I.5 The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research.

18

5.6

33.3

61.1

Items I.1-5 refer to desired outcomes.  The majority of  respondents agreed that the workshop broadened their understanding of the field (94.7%).  Most respondents agreed that the workshop strengthened their research abilities (89.5%).  The majority of respondents agreed that the school significantly improved their computational skills (83.3%), that they acquired useful techniques (100%) and that the material was relevant to their own research (94.4%).

Table II. Distribution of Lecture Ratings

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

II.1 The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good.

19


5.3

94.7

II.2 The instructors explained the material well.  

19

5.3

26.3

68.4

II.3 The instructors provided real-world examples.

19


21.1

78.9

II.4  The instructors were prepared for the lectures.

19


10.5

89.5

II.5  The lectures were coordinated between instructors.

19


21.1

78.9

II.6  Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field.

19


15.8

84.2

II.7 The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field.

19

5.3

36.8

57.9

II.8  The level of the lectures was appropriate.

19

5.3

57.9

36.8

II.9  The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear.

19

5.3

5.3

31.6

57.9

II.10 We were exposed to a well representative range of techniques.

19

5.3

5.3

47.4

42.1

II.11 The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity.

19


21.1

78.9

Items II.1-11 address the level, scope, and quality of the lectures. The majority of respondents rated the speakers' knowledge good (100%), agreed that the instructors explained the material well (94.7%), provided real-world examples (100%), were prepared for lectures (100%), and coordinated the lectures with other instructors (100%). There was agreement that the lectures incorporated recent developments (100%), and captured the field essentials (94.7%). Most respondents found the level of the lectures to be appropriate (94.7%). In addition, most respondents felt that the rationale of techniques was clear (89.5%), and that the range of techniques presented was representative of the field (89.5%). The majority of respondents agreed that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity (100%).

Table III. Distribution of Research Tutorial Ratings

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

III.1 The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop.

19

5.3

15.8

78.9

III.2 The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures.

19


36.8

63.2

III.3 The hands-on sessions were long enough.

19


26.3

73.7

III.4 The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures.

19

5.3

21.1

73.7

III.5 TAs were well-prepared to answer questions.

19


26.3

73.7

III.6 There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments.

19


5.3

94.7

Items III.1-6 deal with the level, quality, and scope of the hands-on tutorials. Most respondents agreed that the hands-on sessions were important for the learning process during the workshop (94.7%).  Most concurred that the concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding of the lectures (100%), hands-on sessions were long enough (100%), hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures (94.8%), the TAs were well-prepared to answer questions (100%), and there were sufficient instructions to proceed with hands-on assignments(100%). 

Table IV. Distribution of Environment & Technical Resources Ratings



Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

IV.1  The Apple Powerbook G4s were adequate for the exercises.

19

5.3

21.1

73.7

IV.2  The Apple Powerbook G4s ran smoothly.

19


21.1

78.9

IV.3  It was easy to learn how to use the Apple Powerbook G4s.

19


31.6

68.4

IV.4 The software used in the Workshop ran well on the Apple Powerbook G4s.

19


15.8

84.2

IV.5  The lecture rooms were conducive to learning.

19

5.3

10.5

31.6

52.6

IV.6 The projection system was sufficient for the lectures.

19


5.3

21.1

10.5

63.2

IV.7 The Colonnade Hotel provided sufficient accommodations.

19

5.3

5.3

5.3

15.8

68.4

Items IV.1-7 address the effectiveness of the physical environment and technical support during the workshop.  Most of these items refers to the Apple Powerbook G4 laptop computers set up for the workshop.  Most respondents agreed  that the laptops were adequate for the exercises (94.8%), ran smoothly (100%), and were easy to learn how to use (100%).  All respondents agreed that the software used in the  ran well on the laptops (100%).  Many agreed that the lecture room was conducive to learning(84.2%), the projection system was sufficient for the lectures (73.7%).  Most respondents felt that the Colonnade Hotel provided sufficient accommodations (84.2%).

Table V. Distribution of Communication & Dissemination Ratings



Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

V.1 Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods.

18


16.7

83.3

V.2 The daily noon Q&A period was beneficial.

18

5.6

11.1

11.1

72.2

V.3 The Workshop web site was informative before the school started.

19

26.3

47.4

26.3

V.4 The Workshop web site was informative during the school period.

15

6.7

40.0

26.7

26.7

V.5 The online information was up-to-date.

18

5.6

27.8

50.0

16.7

V.6 The online material was organized.

19

26.3

42.1

31.6

V.7 There was sufficient information about evening activities during the workshop.

17

23.5

29.4

5.9

41.2

Items V.1-7 were designed to assess the effectiveness of the workshop communication and dissemination efforts and tools.  Respondents agreed that the instructors were available outside the lecture periods (100%), and the majority of the respondents agreed that the daily Q&A period was beneficial (83.3%).  Some respondents were satisfied that the website was informative before (73.7%) and during (53.4%) the workshop, and that the online information was up-to-date (66.7%).  Most agreed that the online material was well organized (73.7%).  Less than half agreed that there was sufficient information about evening activities during thw workshop (47.1%).

Table VI. Distribution of General Organization Ratings

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

VI.1 The number of participants was reasonable.

18


22.2

77.8

VI.2 The cost of the Workshop was reasonable.

18


5.6

94.4

VI.3There were enough TAs and support staff to help the participants.

18


5.6

94.4

VI.4 The evening social activities enhanced the Workshop experience.

17

5.9

11.8

11.8

17.6

52.9

Items VI.1-4 evaluate the general organization of the school.  All respondents agreed that the numbers of participants was reasonable (100%),  the cost of the workshop was reasonable (100%),  and the number of TAs and support staff was sufficient (100%). Most agreed that the evening social activities enhanced the Workshop (70.5%).

Table VII. Distribution of Satisfaction Ratings



Strongly disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

N

%

%

%

%

%

VII.1 Overall technical support was good.

18


11.1

88.9

VII.2 Overall general support was good.

18



100.0

VII.3 The Workshop was well organized.

18


11.1

88.9

VII.4 The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal.

18


33.3

66.7

VII.5 The Workshop addressed my research needs.

18


55.6

44.4

VII.6 Overall, the Workshop met my expectations.

18

5.6

16.7

77.8

tems VII.1-6 were intended to measure attendees satisfaction across the various workshop components. The results show that the participants were satisfied with the school. All respondents agreed that technical support (100%), and general support (100%) was good, not to mention the workshop was well organized (100%).  There was also an optimal balance of lectures and hands-on sessions (100%). A majority indicated the school addressed their research needs (100%), and a majority also felt that the  workshop met their expectations at (94.5%).

VII. Comments

14 of the 19 respondents took the time to answer two open-ended items, 1) "What suggestions do you have for improving the workshop", and b) "What suggestions do you have for similar workshops?". Their comments, in their own words, can be requested from the  organizers by emailing brandon@ks.uiuc.edu.

Specific comments from the daily lectures and tutorials, are available here.

While hard to reliably quantify and less than systematic, open-ended comments can provide insight into some important matters that may be improved and others, not covered by the questionnaire and beyond the control of the organizers. Generally, the comments touch on participants wanting more and/or earlier information about the summer school, wanting more or less information on particular topics, and compliments about the workshop.  Overall, the many narrative responses do indicate that the participants cared enough about the school to take the time to write them down, which reflects a certain level of commitment and satisfaction on their part, regardless whether the comments are positive or negative. They also shed more light on some participant expectations and provide new ideas to consider for future training efforts.