Computational Biophysics Workshop - Pittsburgh, May 16-20, 2011

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

May 16-20, 2011

Questionnaire: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
Analysis and report: David Brandon, TCB group, UIUC

The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), the NIH Resource 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 Resource offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Resource participated in a one-week (May 16-20, 2011) workshop sponsored by the National Resource for Biomedical Supercomputing (NRBSC) at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The NRBSC provided the classroom, and computer lab used for the workshop, as well as covering hotel, honorarium, and travel costs, while TCBG provided lectures and tutorials, and covered printing costs.

The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), Z. Schulten (UIUC),  and E. Tajkhorshid (UIUC); teaching assistants from TCBG 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 17 evaluation forms were returned, providing an overall response rate of 68%. In terms of demographics, education levels of participants were high, including 10 doctorates, and 15 graduate students. A copy of the 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 94% (12% agree + 82% 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 improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics. A high proportion (94%) reported that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in the field of computational and theoretical biophysics, taught techniques directly applicable to their careers, and that the the workshop presented material relevant to their research. Just over half (59%) 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.
17
6%
    
12%
82%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics.
17
      
47%
53%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills.
17
  
6%
35%
24%
35%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career.
17
    
6%
29%
65%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research.
17
    
6%
41%
53%

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 instructors explained their material well, that lectures were coordinated between instructors, that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field., that the underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear, that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity, and the daily question and answer sessions were beneficial. Nearly all participants (94%) agreed the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field, and that the level of lectures was appropriate.

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 17       6% 94%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 17       29% 71%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 17       12% 88%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 17       6% 94%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 17       18% 82%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 17     6% 24% 71%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 17     6% 29% 65%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 17       41% 59%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 17       29% 71%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 17       24% 76%

III.  Hands-On Sessions

All responding participants (100%) found that hands-on sessions were important for the learning process of the workshop, that concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding, that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures, that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions, that tutorials accommodated differing levels of expertise, and that tutorials accommodated differing interests of participants. Nearly all (94%) of participants indicated that the tutorials provided sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. A high proportion of those responding (88%) indicated that the hands-on sessions were long enough, and that there were enough teaching assistants to help participants.

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 17       12% 88%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 17       12% 88%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 17     12% 24% 65%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 17       12% 88%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 17       18% 82%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 17     6% 6% 88%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 17     12% 6% 82%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 17       29% 71%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 17       35% 65%

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%) indicated that the software used in the workshop ran well on provided computer stations, and that the workshop hotel provided sufficient accommodations. Nearly all participants (94%) agreed that the lecture room was conducive to learning, and that the projection system adequate for lectures.

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The software used in the Workshop ran well on the provided computer stations. 17       12% 88%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 17     6% 12% 82%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 17     6% 6% 88%
4. The Workshop hotel provided sufficient accommodations (hotel guests only). 17       12% 59%

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, that instructors were readily available for Q&A outside of lecture periods, that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful (91%), and that emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful (90%).

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 17       18% 82%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 17       18% 71%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 17       24% 59%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 17       18% 82%

VI. Overall Satisfaction

A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop.All participants (100%) indicated that the workshop was well organized, that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal, that the workshop met their expectations, and that they would recommend the workshop to others. Nearly all participants (94%) indicated that the workshop addressed their research needs.

N Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 17       6% 94%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 17       24% 76%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 17     6% 24% 71%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 17       18% 82%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 17       6% 94%

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 brandon@ks.uiuc.edu.

What suggestions do you have for improving the Workshop?

  • I suggest that we extend the hands-on session to the night.
  • I think the workshop can assume people are familiar with or can easily pick up how to use VMD.  Start lectures instead w/ intro to NAMD.
  • Extending the workshop session.  Couple of days will be better.
  • None.  Most effective workshop I’ve attended, so I can’t think of anything that needs improvement.

What suggestions do you have for similar workshops?

  • More expert tutorials on accelerated sampling & biasing techniques.
  • Before coming here to workshop it is advisable to release the participants emails so that they can co-ordinate well before coming her and form a definitive set of problems in discussing their scientific problems.
  • Bioinformatics/sequence analysis/structural bioinformatics    Structure Prediction 
  • I’d love a workshop focusing on the cellular level models briefly covered on the final day.

What topics were most valuable / least valuable to you? What topics do you think should be covered in future workshops?

  • Nanotubes the most valuable.
  • Most valuable – instruction to MD with NAMD, introduction to Topology, Parameters, an Structure files.
  • Most valuable – membrane proteins….Other topic – more detail about namd conf. parameters – lectures on other biasing/free energy/ accelerated sampling methods.
  • Valuable – free energy, MD, Membrane Protein. Less valuable – bio informatics

Other comments?

  • Very interesting workshop. Learned a lot about MD with NAMD.
  • Great job and well done! Thank you all!
  • Thanks for everything! Also like the fact that the tutorials were flexible, so that people that used NAMD/VMD could work on their own projects instead of being forced on going through the tutorials. The disposition to discuss our projects giving us insight was very good. I will definitely recommend. Maybe you could give us accommodation for Friday night? Otherwise some of us need to leave earlier and miss part of the workshop in order to stay for all the day.