Computational Biophysics Workshop - Pittsburgh, May 19-23, 2014

General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop held at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center

May 19-23, 2014

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 (May 19-23, 2014) 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 and group members.

The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), A. Aksimentiev (UIUC), I. Bahar (MMBioS), T. Lezon (MMBioS), and C. Chennubhotla (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 outcomes, lectures, hands-on tutorial sessions, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, and overall satisfaction. Several options for open comments were provided as well. A total of 22 evaluation forms were returned, providing an overall response rate of 81%. A copy of the general evaluation form is available here.

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 95% (36% agree + 59% 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.

Highlights of the results include 95% of participants indicating an increased understanding of computational and theoretical biophysics, 100% of participants agreeing the lecturers explained the material well, 95% agreement that there were enough teaching assistants to aid participants, and 100% of participants indicating they would recommend the workshop to others.

I. Outcomes

  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. 22     5% 36% 59%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 22     18% 36% 45%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 22 5% 5% 18% 41% 32%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 22     18% 27% 55%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 22     9% 50% 41%

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 22       9% 91%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 22       32% 68%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 22   5%   14% 82%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 21   5% 5% 43% 48%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 22     9% 14% 77%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 21     10% 38% 52%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 22   9% 5% 23% 64%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 22   5%   41% 55%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 22   5% 5% 23% 68%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 22   5% 9% 14% 73%
11. The Tuesday presentations by participants were a valuable addition to the Workshop. 14   14% 21% 21% 43%

III. Hands-On Sessions

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 22 5%   5% 14% 77%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 22   9% 5% 32% 55%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 21 5% 5% 10% 38% 43%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 21     10% 29% 62%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 21   5% 5% 24% 67%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 21   5% 10% 29% 57%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 21   5%   29% 67%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 21     10% 43% 48%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 21 5%   19% 33% 43%

V. 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. 21   5% 24% 33% 38%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 21       29% 71%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 21     5% 24% 71%

VI. Communication and Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 21     10% 33% 57%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 21     10% 24% 67%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 20     25% 20% 55%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 21     5% 19% 76%

VII. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 21     5% 14% 81%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 21 5% 5% 5% 19% 67%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 21   10% 14% 38% 38%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 21   5% 5% 29% 62%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 21       38% 62%

 

VII. Comments

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. An inexhaustive list of comments in each area is provided below; a compilation of raw statements can be obtained by e-mailing workshop+pitts2014@ks.uiuc.edu. 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:
    • "For tutorial sessions, if TAs can have demos followed by hands-on will be greatly appreciated."
    • "Great one-week workshop. Thoughtful organization. Keep it on for more scientists and students."
    • "This workshop had a nice array of topics. I think that the structure and format was really well done. The flow was very nice and allowed for continuity."
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • "A website for advertisting this and related workshops would be useful. An RSS/atom feed could be set up. LinkedIn exposure would be effective as well."
    • "Advanded NAMD - how to set up your own systems; answer more specific dynamics questions; more sophisticated; what are the science considerations given specific research questions. Programming for Bio Applications - more geared towards coding/scripting aspects, e.g., understanding NAMD parallelization, GPU accelerated NAMD, adding features to ProDy, etc."
    • "For future workshops: a tutorial/more extensive on tcl and how to generate psf files in general; how to parameterize force fields."
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • "GPU computing for MD should be emphasized as it is an extremely cost-effective way to massively improve performance."
    • "Most useful: NAMD, VMD, ProDY. Least useful: DruGUI. An introduction to Tcl scripting might be useful for some participants."
    • "Everything was valuable. Druggability and Sequence/Evo. was most interesting to me (biased)."
  • Other comments:
    • "I really liked the informative emails and help from the organizers. The location of the Ruskin Hall and the lecture room was close enough for us not to get lost in the city. Thank you for everything, it is a very enjoyable and educative experience."
    • "This workshop was amazing! Thank you so much for organizing this and admitting me to the workshop."
    • "Really good workshop! Very good and knowledgeable instructors."