Online Workshop

General Evaluation of the Online Workshop on Simulating Membrane Channels

August 1-4, 2011

Questionnaire: Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group
Analysis and report: David Brandon, TCB group, UIUC

After the completion of the online workshop, participants were asked to complete a general evaluation form consisting of questions about participation, outcomes, lecture and lecture video, the conference call, tutorials, organization, and overall satisfaction. Several open questions about the workshop were also asked. A copy of the evaluation form can be found here. Results are below. Due to rounding, not all percentages add up to 100%.

I. Participation

N
1. I viewed the streaming lecture. 9
2. I participated in the conference call 5
3. I worked through (even partially) the Membrane Proteins tutorial. 8
4. I worked through (even partially) the Simulation of Water Permeation through Nanotubes tutorial. 8
5. I interacted with a teaching assistant(s) 3

 

II. Outcomes

N
Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Unsure 
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Membrane Protein Simulations. 10     10% 40% 50%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Membrane Protein Simulations. 10   10% 10% 60% 20%
3. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 10     10% 70% 20%
4. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 10       50% 50%

 

III. Lecture and Lecture Video

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The lecture captured the overall essentials of the topic. 9   56% 44%
2. The level of the lecture was appropriate. 9   11% 44% 44%
3. The lecture provided real-world examples. 9   11% 11% 56% 22%
4. The lecture incorporated recent developments in the field. 8   63% 38%
5. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear.
 9   11% 44% 44%
6. The lecture stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 9   11% 44% 44%
7. The lecturer's knowledge of the subject was good. 9   11% 22% 67%
8. The lecturer explained the material well. 9   11% 33% 56%
9. The video quality of the lecture was good. 9   33% 67%
10. The audio quality of the lecture was good. 9   44% 56%
11. The PowerPoint slides were a useful accompaniment to the lecture. 9   11% 11% 78%

 

IV.  Conference Call

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The conference call was a valuable part of the Workshop. 5     20% 20% 60%
2. The conference call enhanced my understanding of other course material. 5     20% 20% 60%
3. The number of participants involved in the conference call was practical. 5     20% 20% 60%

 

V. Workshop Tutorials and Assistants

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The tutorials are important for the learning process in the Workshop. 8       38% 63%
2. The concrete examples in the tutorial(s) increased my understanding of other Workshop content. 8     13% 50% 38%
3. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the tutorial(s). 8     13% 63% 25%
4. The teaching sssistants were well-prepared to answer questions.. 4     25% 25% 50%

 

VI. Organization

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop web site was informative. 9     11% 33% 56%
2. Emails about the Workshop were informative. 9       44% 56%
3. The Workshop application and registration process was reasonable. 9       44% 56%

 

VII. Overall Satisfaction

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 10     20% 40% 40%
2. More online workshops like this one should be developed. 10   10%   20% 70%
3. I would participate in other online workshops like this one. 10   10%   20% 70%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 10   10% 10% 30% 50%

VIII. Comments

The evaluation form also solicited written responses to two open questions, on improving the Workshop, and suggestions for similar workshops. The number of comments per question varied; all comments per question are listed below.

What suggestions do you have for improving the Workshop?

  • I think it is a great idea to have a conference call at the final of the workshop it is very important, however I had to rush with the second tutorial in order to get it done until the conference call. Because I did not have a vast experience working with NAMD/VMD it took me a little bit more than the usual time and effort to complete the learning tutorials, so I would recommend to give five days to complete the workshop instead of four.
  • I would like more material to work with, perhaps doled out on a daily basis. I completed the tutorials and watched the lectures on the first day with the assumption that there would be more material the following day. A customized tutorial that is not readily available on the TCBG's website would be more beneficial. I also would like to see some hands-on training available through the video lectures, and not just theoretical information about NAMD and VMD. A walkthrough of some advanced techniques would be great.
  • Perhaps use some other conference software such as GoToMeeting.
  • I would have liked to print the powerpoint slides.
  • It would be better if you could grant permissions to download the streaming lecture in order to use in future.

What suggestions do you have for similar workshops?

  • It will be useful to have a TA so we can discuss in more detail the NAMD configuration files.
  • A how-to for the VMD plug-ins.
  • It would be more useful if you could add more content related to biological membrane systems and proper explanations related to data analysis.