Computational Biophysics Workshop - Odense, October 12-16, 2015
General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Odense, Denmark
October 12-16, 2015
The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), the NIH Center for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics is headed by Klaus Schulten, and Co-PIs Zan Luthey-Schulten, Laxmikant Kale, Emad Tajkhorshid, and Aleksei 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 organized a one-week (October 12-16, 2015) workshop at the University of Southern Denmark.
The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by Klaus Schulten (UIUC), Emad Tajkhorshid (UIUC), and Chris Chipot, (UIUC and CNRS.) Teaching assistants from the research group of each faculty member helped participants during the hands-on tutorial sessions. Tutorials and software used in the workshop were developed by Center members. 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 outcomes, lectures, hands-on tutorial sessions, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, overall satisfaction, and questions soliciting open comments.
Highlights of the results include 95% of participants indicating an increased understanding of computational and theoretical biophysics, 80% of participants indicating that the workshop addressed their research needs, and 100% of participants indicating they would recommend the workshop to others.
| 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. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. | 20 | 0% | 10% | 10% | 45% | 35% |
| 3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. | 20 | 5% | 5% | 35% | 40% | 15% |
| 4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. | 20 | 5% | 10% | 20% | 25% | 40% |
| 5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. | 20 | 5% | 15% | 5% | 35% | 40% |
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 0% | 5% | 90% |
| 2. The instructors explained the material well. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 3. The instructors provided real-world examples. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 35% | 65% |
| 5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 40% | 55% |
| 6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% | 70% |
| 7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field | 18 | 0% | 0% | 17% | 17% | 67% |
| 8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 20% | 65% |
| 9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 55% | 30% |
| 10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 10% | 30% | 55% |
| 11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. | 20 | 0% | 10% | 25% | 25% | 40% |
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 40% | 60% |
| 3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 30% | 30% | 40% |
| 4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 20% | 30% | 50% |
| 5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 50% | 35% |
| 6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 40% | 60% |
| 8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 20% | 30% | 50% |
| 9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 25% | 50% | 25% |
IV. Environment and Technical Resources
| 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. | 20 | 5% | 5% | 5% | 50% | 40% |
| 2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 30% | 30% | 35% |
| 3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 15% | 40% | 25% | 20% |
| 4. The hotel provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). | 13 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 39% | 62% |
V. Communication and Dissemination
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. | 19 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 26% | 74% |
| 2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 40% | 55% |
| 3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% | 70% |
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The Workshop was well organized. | 19 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 26% | 74% |
| 2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 35% | 50% |
| 3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. | 20 | 5% | 10% | 5% | 45% | 35% |
| 4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 50% | 50% |
| 5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 80% |
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. 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 would recommend reading of tutorials before workshop for people who see VMD on the first time."
- "I was hoping for some "added value" for the tutorials. One can complete the tutorials in one's own home without attending the workshlp so having us do the same tutorials here in Odense was a bit disappointing. Perhaps we could have some "tips and tricks" or in-depth discussion about some of the tutorials i.e. the added value that one can only get by attending a workshop such as this."
- Suggestions for similar workshops:
- "More emphasis could perhaps be put on the philosophy of MD, why it was initiated and where it is going, i.e. broaden the lectures a bit more."
- "Interested: Coarse-grained Simulation"
- Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
- "I really enjoyed the lectures on force fields and statistical mechanics. As a quantum chemist I like to see where QM gets into the picture."
- "I was expecting a lot from "free energy calculations" but it was really complicated to grasp in one day."
- Other comments:
- "I have been to many similar workshops wiht great lecturers and interesting topics. This was the best."
- "I felt everyone really accessible and helpful. I actually learnt more by discussing my project with Lecturers and TA."
- "It is good if participants can introduce themselves shortly at the beginning, then we can easier make connections to people working on similar topics using similar approaches."
