Computational Biophysics Workshop - Champaign, Aug. 10-14, 2009

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Champaign, Illinois

August 10-14, 2009

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 presented a five-day (August 10-14, 2009) workshop at the iHotel and Conference Center in Champaign, Illinois. Resource faculty provided morning lectures, and teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Resource software, and tutorials consisting of text and computer files.

Workshop lectures were provided by K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. 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 90% (38% agree + 52% strongly agree). Due to rounding, some cumulative percentages in the table 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 21 participants, hence we will place the response rate for the general evaluation form at about 70%.

I. Outcomes

With regards to outcomes, all participants (100%) indicated the workshop taught them techniques directly applicable to their career, and nearly all (94%) found that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in computational and theoretical biophysics and that material presented in the workshop was relevant to their research. A high majority (87%) felt the workshop improved their ability to carry out research in the area of theoretical and computational biophysics, but less than half (40%) answered that the workshop improved significantly 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. 15     7% 47% 47%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 15     13% 40% 47%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills 15   13% 47% 20% 20%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 15       47% 53%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 15     7% 27% 67%

II. Lectures

All participants (100%) found that lectures stimulated their intellectual curiosity, and nearly all (93-94%) participants indicated that instructors provided real-world examples, that lectures were coordinated between instructors, that instructor's knowledge of the subjects was good, and that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. A high percentage (86%) indicated that the range of lectures captured the essentials of the field, and that the underlying rationale of techniques presented was clear. Further, majorities indicated that instructors explained the material well (80%) and that the level of lectures was appropriate (67%).

 

N

 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 15     7% 7% 87%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 15   7% 13% 13% 67%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 15     7% 27% 67%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 15     7% 27% 67%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 15     7% 33% 60%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 14     14% 43% 43%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 15   7% 27% 27% 40%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 14     14% 36% 50%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 14       36% 64%

III. Hands-on Sessions

The hands-on sessions refers to the afternoon tutorial sessions, during which participants completed work on their own laptops. All participants (100%) agreed that the hands-on sessions were important to the workshop, that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions, and that there were enough instructional staff on hand to help participants during hands-on sessions. A high majority (93%) of participants indicated that the hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures, that sufficient instructions were provided to proceed with the hands-on sessions, and that the tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. Majorities also indicated that the hands-on sessions were long enough (87%), and that the concrete examples provided in the tutorials increased understanding of lecture material

 

N

 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 15       33% 67%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 15     20% 33% 47%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 15   7% 7% 27% 60%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 14   7%   53% 40%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 15       36% 64%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 15     7% 33% 60%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 15       20% 80%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 15     7% 20% 73%

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). All participants (100%) agreed that the iHotel provided sufficient accommodations and that the projection system was sufficient for lectures. Smaller percentages (86%) agreed that the lecture room used was conducive to learning, and that the software used in the workshop ran well on their laptops.

 

N

 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1. The software used in the Workshop ran well on my (Windows/Mac/Linux) laptop 14   7% 7% 29% 57%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 14   7% 7% 36% 50%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 14       36% 64%
4. The iHotel provided sufficient accommodations. 14       21% 79%


V. Communication & Dissemination

Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. A high majority (92-93%) of participants indicate that instructors were readily available for questions and answers outside of lecture periods, that emails about setting up their laptops for the workshop were helpful, and that the workshop website was informative about the event. Slightly smaller majorities indicate that the evening sessions at the Beckman Institute were helpful (91%) and that evening social events were beneficial (84%).

 

N

 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 14     7% 14% 79%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. 13     8%   92%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 14     7% 14% 79%
4. The evening sessions at the Beckman Institute were helpful. 12     8% 8% 83%
5. The evening social activities were beneficial. 13     15% 46% 38%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop. All participants (100%) agree that the workshop was well organized, and a high majority (93%) indicate that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal and that the workshop met their expectations.  A majority  (87%) also indicated that the workshop addressed participant research needs.

 

N

 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 15       27% 73%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 15     7% 40% 53%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 15     13% 47% 40%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 15    

7%

 33% 60%

V. Comments

Participants were solicited for comments in three areas, 1) suggestions for improving the workshop, 2) suggestions for similar workshops, and 3) 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+champaign09A@ks.uiuc.edu. If a comment was made in one area of the open questions, it is not repeated again in another area below.

  • Suggestions for improving the workshop:
    • send out information/links to tutorials early, at least a month before workshop starts
    • consider calculation time tutorials may require on laptops for some tutorials
    • have a "best MD work" prize in addition to the "protein beauty" prize
    • use a more defined transportation schedule for transport to Beckman Institute
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • record lectures - so that valuable information is not lost
    • break participants into beginners/advanced, or by usage, to make it more specialized
    • have workshops closer to Beckman Institute
    • incorporate lectures with hands-on segments, so participants not sitting in place for so long
  • Other comments:
    • Thank you! This was a wonderful workshop and wonderful experience!
    • I sincerely thank the organizers, TAs, and everyone involved in this workshop for their kind help. I learned a lot.
    • The Workshop was overall amazing. It was very fun, & the TA’s & professors were easy to engage in discussion. TAs are very helpful & very interested in their work.
    • Provide more information at website about acceptance to the workshop
    • Dr. K. Schulten’s daily round was no trivial matter. It was important for me to have a real good guidance in thinking and developing ideas about how to apply molecular modeling to my project. It is hard for a novice to do it alone. Also, it was very encouraging.