Computational Biophysics Workshop - Lake Tahoe, May 23-27, 2005

TCB Hands-on Workshop in Lake Tahoe Evaluation

General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop in Lake Tahoe

May 23-27, 2005

Questionnaire: Gila Budescu, TCB Group, UIUC, and modified by David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC
Analysis and report: Molly Punke, 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 (May 23-27) workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, at the Granlibakken Conference Center and Resort in Tahoe City, California.  The Granlibakken Conference Center site provided facilities, internet access, and catering for the workshop, while the Resource provided instructors, curricula, 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 Zan Luthey-Schulten (UIUC).  Two Resource graduate students 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 14 general evaluation forms were returned or entered online, providing an overall response rate of 70%.  Demographically, education levels of participants were high; about a third of attendees were doctorates, roughly another third had a Master's degree, and a final third described themselves as undergraduates.

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.
 

I.  Outcome


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
I.1. The Workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Computational and Theoretical Biophysics.
 14

7
 21
 71
I.2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics.
 14
7
36
 57
I.3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills.
 14
 7
 7
 14
 50
 21
I.4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career.
 14

14
 29
 57
I.5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research.
 14

14
 21
 64

Items I.1-5 refer to desired outcomes.  The majority of  respondents agreed that the workshop broadened their understanding of the field (92%).  Most respondents agreed that the workshop strengthened their research abilities (93%).  The majority of respondents agreed that the Workshop significantly improved their computational skills (71%), that they acquired useful techniques (86%) and that the material was relevant to their own research (85%).
 

II.  Lectures


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
II.1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good.
 14


7
 93
II.2. The instructors explained the material well.
 14


40
 60
II.3. The instructors provided real-world examples.
 14

7
 33
 60
II.4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures.
 14


7
 93
II.5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors.
 14

13
 40
 47
II.6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field.
 14

20
80
II.7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field.
 14
7
 7
 60
 27
II.8. The level of the lectures was appropriate.
 14

13
 47
 40
II.9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear.
 14

13
 27
 60
II.10. We were exposed to a well representative range of techniques.
 14
7
 7
 40
 47
II.11. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity.
 14

7
 33
 60

Items II.1-11 address the level, scope, and quality of the lectures. All respondents rated the speakers' knowledge good, and agreed that the instructors explained the material well, and were prepared for the lectures.  A majority of respondents felt that the instructors provided real-world examples (93%), and coordinated the lectures with other instructors (87%). Most of the respondents were in agreement that the lectures incorporated recent developments (80%), and captured the field essentials (87%). Most respondents found the level of the lectures to be appropriate (87%). In addition, most respondents felt that the rationale of techniques was clear (87%), and that the range of techniques presented was representative of the field (87%). The majority of respondents agreed that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity (93%).
 

III.  Hands-on Sessions


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
III.1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop.
 14

14
 14
 71
III.2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures.
 14
7
 14
 14
 64
III.3. The hands-on sessions were long enough.
 14
 7
 29
 14
 14
 36
III.4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures.
 14


43
 57
III.5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions.
 14

14
 29
 57
III.6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments.
 14

7
 21
 71

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 (85%).  Most concurred that the concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding of the lectures (78%).  All respondents agreed that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures.  Most respondents felt the TAs were well-prepared to answer questions (86%), and there were sufficient instructions to proceed with hands-on assignments (92%).  However, half of the respondents were unsure or felt that the hands-on sessions were not long enough (50%).
 

IV.  Environment & Technical Resources


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
IV.1. The Apple Powerbook G4s were adequate for the exercises.
 14


50
 50
IV.2. The Apple Powerbook G4s ran smoothly.
 14


50
 50
IV.3. It was easy to learn how to use the Apple Powerbook G4s.
 14
7
 7
 36
 50
IV.4. The software used in the Workshop ran well on the Apple Powerbook G4s.
 14

7
 36
 57
IV.5. The lecture rooms were conducive to learning.
 14

7
 43
 50
IV.6. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures.
 14


14
 86
IV.7. The Granlibakken Resort provided sufficient accommodations.
 14

7
 7
 86

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.  All respondents agreed that the laptops were adequate for the exercises and ran smoothly.  Most respondents felt that the machines were easy to learn how to use (86%).  Most respondents agreed that the software used in the  ran well on the laptops (93%).  Most agreed that the lecture room was conducive to learning (93%), and that the Granlibakken Resort provided sufficient accommodations (93%).  All respondents agreed that the projection system was sufficient for the lectures.
 

V.  Communication & Dissemination


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
V.1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods.
 14


21
 79
V.2. The daily noon Q&A period was beneficial.
 14


21
 79
V.3. The Workshop web site was informative before the workshop started.
 14
7
57
 36
V.4. The Workshop web site was informative during the workshop period.
 14
 7
 7
 29
 29
 29
V.5. The online information was up-to-date.
 14
7
 14
 50
 29
V.6. The online material was organized.
 14

29
 36
 36
V.7. There was sufficient information about evening activities during the workshop.
 14

21
 50
 29

Items V.1-7 were designed to assess the effectiveness of the workshop communication and dissemination efforts and tools.  All respondents agreed that the instructors were available outside the lecture periods and that the daily Q&A period was beneficial.  The majority of respondents were satisfied that the website was informative before (93%) and during (58%) the workshop, and that the online information was up-to-date (79%).  Most agreed that the online material was well organized (72%).  Most respondents felt that there was sufficient information about evening activities during the workshop (79%).
 

VI.  General Organization


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
VI.1. The number of participants was reasonable.
 14


29
 71
VI.2. The cost of the Workshop was reasonable.
 14
 7

21
 71
VI.3. There were enough TAs and support staff to help the participants.
 14


29
 71
VI.4. The evening social activities enhanced the Workshop experience.
 13
 8
8
 15
 69

Items VI.1-4 evaluate the general organization of the workshop.  All respondents agreed that the numbers of participants was reasonable and that there were enough TAs and support staff to help the participants.  Most respondents agreed that the cost of the workshop was reasonable (92%),  and that the evening social activities enhanced the Workshop (84%).
 

VII.  Overall Satisfaction


 N
 strongly disagree
%		 disagree
%		 unsure
%		 agree
%		 strongly agree
%
VII.1. Overall technical support was good.
 14


21
 79
VII.2. Overall general support was good.
 14


14
 86
VII.3. The Workshop was well organized.
 14

7
 7
 86
VII.4. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal.
 14
21
 7
 36
 36
VII.5. The Workshop addressed my research needs.
 14

21
 29
 50
VII.6. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations.
 14

7
 21
 71

Items VII.1-6 were intended to measure attendees satisfaction across the various workshop components. The results show that the participants were satisfied with the workshop. All respondents agreed that technical support and general support was good.  Most respondents agreed that the workshop was well organized (93%), that there was an optimal balance between lectures and hands-on sessions (72%), and that the workshop addressed their research needs (79%).  A majority felt that the workshop met their expectations (92%).