Computational Biophysics Workshop - Pittsburgh, June 6-10, 2016
General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Pittsburgh, June 6-10, 2016
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.
| 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% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 10% | 55% | 35% |
| 3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. | 20 | 0% | 20% | 15% | 50% | 15% |
| 4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 10% | 55% | 35% |
| 5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 50% | 45% |
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 2. The instructors explained the material well. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 3. The instructors provided real-world examples. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 30% | 65% |
| 4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 20% | 20% | 55% |
| 6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field | 20 | 0% | 5% | 15% | 25% | 55% |
| 8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 10% | 35% | 55% |
| 9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 20% | 30% | 45% |
| 10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 25% | 70% |
| 11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 40% | 60% |
| 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% | 0% | 40% | 60% |
| 2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 20% | 50% | 30% |
| 3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 20% | 45% | 35% |
| 4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. | 20 | 5% | 0% | 15% | 35% | 45% |
| 5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 10% | 40% | 50% |
| 6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 0% | 30% | 65% |
| 7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 5% | 20% | 70% |
| 8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 20% | 65% |
| 9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 40% | 45% |
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. | 19 | 0% | 0% | 16% | 47% | 37% |
| 2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% | 70% |
| 4. The University of Pittsburgh Bouquet Gardens provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). | 16 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 31% | 69% |
V. Communication and Dissemination
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 5% | 25% | 65% |
| 2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. | 19 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 32% | 63% |
| 3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. | 20 | 0% | 5% | 25% | 20% | 50% |
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The Workshop was well organized. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 75% |
| 2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 10% | 35% | 55% |
| 3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 15% | 40% | 45% |
| 4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 5% | 40% | 55% |
| 5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. | 20 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% | 70% |
