General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Bremen, Germany

October 17-21, 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 Center 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 Center offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Center and the Centre Européen de Calcul Atomique et Moléculaire (CECAM) presented a five-day (October 17-21, 2011) workshop a at the Conference Hall in the Campus Center at Jacobs University Bremen in Bremen, Germany. Center faculty provided morning lectures, and teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Center software, and tutorials consisting of text and computer files. Participants included graduate students and postdoctoral scientists from around the world.

Workshop lectures were provided by Center faculty K. Schulten and E. Tajkhorshid. Teaching assistants were graduate students from TCBG and the Computational Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Group. Tutorials and software used in the workshop were developed by Center members, with 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.

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 91% (27% agree + 64% 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 46 participants, with 22 completing the evaluation form, resulting in a response rate of ~48%.

I. Outcomes

A high majority of participants (91%) indicated that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in the field of computational and theoretical biophysics, that the workshop taught techniques directly applicable to their careers (88%), that the the workshop presented material relevant to their research, and that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics (85%). A strong majority (82%) felt that the material presented at the workshop was relevant to their research, and just over half (58%) 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     9% 28% 63%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 33   3% 12% 42% 42%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 33   18% 24% 39% 18%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 33   6% 6% 24% 64%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 33     18% 30% 52%

II. Lectures

With regards to lectures, all responding participants (100%) indicated that the instructors subject knowledge was good, and that instructors provided real-world examples. A high majority (94-97%) of respondents indicated that instructors explained material well, that daily question and answer periods were beneficial, that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field, and that instructors stimulated participant intellectual curiosity. Strong majorities (88-91%) found that the level of lectures was appropriate, and that the underlying rationale of techniques presented was clear. Majorities of those responding (76-78%) indicated that lectures were coordinated between instructors, and that the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field.

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 33     0% 9% 91%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 33     3% 9% 88%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 33     0% 24% 76%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 32     22% 31% 47%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 33     6% 52% 42%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 33   3% 21% 36% 39%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 33     9% 45% 45%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 33     12% 48% 39%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 33     6% 27% 67%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 33     3% 42% 55%

III. Hands-On Sessions

Nearly all responding participants (97%) felt that the hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the workshop, that the concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased their understanding of the lectures, and that there were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. Strong majorities also indicated that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions (94%), that there was sufficient teaching staff to help participants (91%), that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures (88%), and that tutorial options accommodated differing interests of participants. Smaller majorities indicated that tutorial options accommodated differing expertise levels of participants (84%), and that hands-on sessions were long enough (67%).

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 33     3% 27% 70%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 33     3% 48% 48%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 33   6% 27% 24% 42%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 33   9% 3% 45% 42%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 32     6% 31% 63%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 32     3% 25% 72%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 33     9% 21% 70%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 33     12% 33% 55%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 32   3% 13% 44% 41%

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). Results show that all participants (100%) found the lecture room was conducive to learning, and that the College Nordmetall provided sufficient accommodations (only those who stayed there were directed to reply). A majority of participants indicated that software used in the workshop ran well on their laptop (97%), and that the projection system was sufficient for the lectures (79%).

  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. 33     3% 27% 70%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 33       33% 67%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 33     21% 27% 52%
4. The College Nordmetall provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 29       24% 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 that instructors were readily available to respond to questions outside of the lecture periods, that emails about setting up laptops for the workshop were helpful, and that that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful. Nearly all participants (95%) indicated that the workshop web site was informative about the event.

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 32       25% 75%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 33     6% 39% 55%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 33       30% 70%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 33       18% 82%

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, that the workshop met their expectations, and that they would recommend the workshop to others. High majorities also indicated that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (94%), and that the workshop addressed their research needs (88%).

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 33     3% 6% 91%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 33     6% 55% 39%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 33   3% 9% 52% 36%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 33     3% 33% 64%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 33     3% 12% 85%

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+bremen@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:
    • I think different free energy methods (umbrella; metadynamics) would be an interesting topic
    • Social dinner
    • At times, the wlan in the lecture hall/tutorial hall was really, really bad (laggy, unreachable, packet losses, slow speed) --> improvement: reliable internet connection during the tutorials.
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • Theme-based workshops, online maybe, like the membrane channels or webinars, online viewable lectures
    • Maybe organize a workshop around an experimental technique (xray, EM, SAXS, AFM . . .)
    • Give more lectures on the methods and application. Its better if participants have the chance to discuss their own research and then get the guide of professors.
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • I think the most useful are those concerning parameterization of novel residue and improving the force field, because in case of difficulties students can be helped by professors.
    • Since I come from a molecular biology field, I found particularly useful the lectures regarding the algorithms of the simulations
    • Shape-based coarse graining tutorial, of course NAMD tutorial are helpful. All topics are important in learning the NAMD and its applications.
  • Other comments:
    • Great workshop! The private talks with the professors, the TAs and the other participants were (at least for me) the highlight of the workshop. They were all very "accessible" and eager to converse.
    • Great workshop! I really enjoyed myself and learned a lot. You should do those more often in Europe.
    • Thanks for such a nice workshop!