Computational Biophysics Workshop - Pittsburgh, Jun. 10-14, 2013
General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop held at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
June 10-14, 2013
Questionnaire: TCBG
Analysis and report: David
Brandon, TCB group, UIUC
The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), 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 participated in a one-week (June 10-14, 2013) workshop co-sponsored by the National Center for Multiscale Modeling of Biological Systems (MMBioS) at the University of Pittsburgh, and held at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The PSC provided the classroom and administrative support, while instructional duties were split up amongst TCBG and CMMBS faculty.
The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), E. Tajkhorshid (UIUC), I. Bahar (MMBioS), T. Lezon (MMBioS), and A. Bakan (MMBioS); teaching assistants from both groups helped participants during the hands-on tutorial sessions. 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 total of 23 evaluation forms were returned, providing an overall response rate of 85%. In terms of demographics, education levels of participants were high, including seven doctorates, four postdoctoral associates, and 15 graduate students. A copy of the general evaluation 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 100% (22% agree + 78% 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.
I. Outcomes
All participants (100%) indicated that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in the field of computational and theoretical biophysics. A high proportion (96%) reported that the workshop taught techniques directly applicable to their careers, and that the the workshop presented material relevant to their research. Most participants (91%) indicated that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics, and nearly three-fourths of participants 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. | 23 | 22% | 78% | |||
| 2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. | 23 | 9% | 17% | 74% | ||
| 3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. | 23 | 4% | 22% | 30% | 43% | |
| 4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. | 23 | 4% | 9% | 87% | ||
| 5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. | 23 | 4% | 22% | 74% |
II. Lectures
With regards to lectures, all participants (100%) indicated that the instructor's subject knowledge was good, that instructors provided real-world examples, that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field, and that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity. A high proportion (96%) of participants reported that instructors explained their material well, that the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field, and that the underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. A strong majority of participants (91%) also indicated that lectures were coordinated between instructors, and that the level of lectures was appropriate. Majorities of participants also indicated that the daily question and answer session was beneficial (86%) and the participant presentations were valuable to workshop (80%).
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. | 23 | 13% | 87% | |||
| 2. The instructors explained the material well. | 23 | 4% | 26% | 70% | ||
| 3. The instructors provided real-world examples. | 23 | 4% | 96% | |||
| 4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. | 23 | 9% | 26% | 65% | ||
| 5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. | 23 | 13% | 87% | |||
| 6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. | 23 | 4% | 35% | 61% | ||
| 7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. | 23 | 9% | 26% | 65% | ||
| 8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. | 23 | 4% | 30% | 65% | ||
| 9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. | 22 | 23% | 77% | |||
| 10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. | 22 | 14% | 14% | 73% | ||
| 11. The Tuesday presentations by participants were a valuable addition to the Workshop. | 20 | 10% | 10% | 30% | 50% |
III. Hands-On Sessions
All responding participants (100%) found that hands-on sessions were important for the learning process of the workshop. A high proportion (96%) of participants reported that concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding, and that there were enough teaching assistants to help participants. A strong majority (91%) of responding participants found that the hands-on sessions were long enough, that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures, that the tutorials provided sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments, that tutorials accommodated differing levels of expertise, and that tutorials accommodated differing interests of participants. The majority of participants (87%) also reported that that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions.
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. | 23 | 100% | ||||
| 2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. | 23 | 4% | 22% | 74% | ||
| 3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. | 23 | 9% | 39% | 52% | ||
| 4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. | 23 | 4% | 17% |
78% | ||
| 5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. | 23 | 4% | 9% | 35% | 52% | |
| 6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. | 22 | 5% | 32% | 64% | ||
| 7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. | 23 | 4% | 30% | 65% | ||
| 8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. | 23 | 4% | 4% | 22% | 70% | |
| 9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. | 23 | 4% | 4% | 22% | 70% |
IV. Environment and 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 that the projection system was adequate for lectures, and a high proportion (96%) indicated the lecture room was conducive to learning. With regards to software used in the workshop, a majority (89%) found that the software ran well on the computers they used at the event.
| 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. | 19 | 5% | 42% | 53% | ||
| 2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. | 23 | 4% | 30% | 65% | ||
| 3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. | 23 | 26% | 74% |
V. Communication and Dissemination
Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. All participants (100%) indicated the workshop web site was informative about the event, and that instructors were readily available for Q&A outside of lecture periods. High proportions of participants also indcated that emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful (95%), and that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful (83%).
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. | 23 | 22% | 78% | |||
| 2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. | 23 | 26% | 74% | |||
| 3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. | 22 | 5% | 32% | 64% | ||
| 4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. | 23 | 17% | 22% | 61% |
VI. Overall Satisfaction
A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop. A high proportion of participants (96%) indicated that the workshop addressed their research needs, that the workshop met their expectations, and that they would recommend the workshop to others. Majorities of participants also indicated that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (91%), and that the workshop was well organized (87%).
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The Workshop was well organized. | 23 | 13% | 9% | 78% | ||
| 2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. | 23 | 9% | 35% | 57% | ||
| 3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. | 23 | 4% | 26% | 70% | ||
| 4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. | 23 | 4% | 13% | 83% | ||
| 5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. | 23 | 4% | 96% |
VII. Comments
The evaluation form also solicited written responses to open questions, on subjects such as improving the workshop, suggestions for similar workshops, the value of workshop topics, and an area for open responses. The number of comments per question varied; sample comments per question are listed below. Full comment results can be requested from the organizers by emailing workshop+pitts2013@ks.uiuc.edu.
What suggestions do you have for improving the Workshop?
- Longer hours would benefit the hands-on sessions (perhaps starting lecture at 0800 or extending longer than 1800). Sometimes I felt I could use more time for the tutorials.
- Instructions could show how to do some project one by one, in hands-on session. Make networks between participants themselves and participants with professors. Extend the computer lab working time.
- I suggest that the students should complete VMD and NAMD to understand the basis and have a foundation prior to attending workshop. This allows students to focus on the more advanced topics. The structure of the workshop was very well organized.
What suggestions do you have for similar workshops?
- I would keep things largely the same. I think one of the best things about the workshop was how much time we had to work on the things that interested us individually.
- Coarse-graining seems to be a field of it's own. A workshop on CG could be of interest to me.
- I would great appreciate a workshop dedicated to topics of combing MD and CryoEM or some sort of combination of MD and experimental techniques. Overall, good workshop, though I would definitely recommend it to others.
What topics were most valuable / least valuable to you? What topics do you think should be covered in future workshops?
- I have been working this for some time so I knew a little. Still I found the fundamental topology and parameterizations useful. Esp. parameterization of new chemical mobility.
- I would have liked to see more technical details about NAMD functionality. I would have been useful for me if we went over some tutorials (NAMD) looking into the many choices of parameters in more detail and see their impact on the simulation. The tutorials work. It would have been useful to see things that don't work and trouble shoot them
- All topics were very valuable to my research. I think more time can be focused on FEP calculations.
Other comments?
- I have been quite pleased with attending - teachers/professors are very interested in helping me with my own problems and they were all nice and approachable.
- The workshop was great! I learned a lot and made connections with other people working in the field. Organization/logistics was very good. Everyone was very approachable and helpful. Thank you!
- The workshop was outstanding overall and I appreciated the individual interactions with the instructors. The breadth of the workshop was great for introducing new tools for my research. The tutorials are also excellent and useful for continuing study after the workshop. Thank you.
