Computational Biophysics Workshop - San Diego, Jul. 12-16, 2010

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at San Diego, California

July 12-16, 2010

Questionnaire: Gila Budescu, TCB Group, UIUC, and modified by David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC
Analysis and report: David Brandon, TCB Group, UIUC

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 presented a five-day (July 12-16, 2010) workshop at the National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. Resource faculty provided morning lectures, and teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Resource software, and tutorials consisting of text and computer files.

Workshop lectures were provided by K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. Teaching assistants were graduate students from TCBG and the Luthey-Schulten group. Tutorials and preparation of the laptops was provided by the graduate students and by other Resource staff, and on-site the tutorial sessions were led by the graduate students.  The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions, with an emphasis on the latter. 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 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 90% (38% agree + 52% strongly agree). Due to rounding, some cumulative percentages in the table exceed 100%. The number of participants responding to each question is indicated by the 'N' count in each table. Attendance varied during the workshop, with some attending lectures but not tutorials, and with some days more popular than others. At a maximum the workshop drew 33 participants, hence we will place the response rate for the general evaluation form at about 55%.

I. Outcomes

With regards to outcomes, all participants (100%) indicated that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in computational and theoretical biophysics. Nearly all participants (94%) responded that the workshop taught them techniques directly applicable to their career, and that the workshop was relevant to their research (89%). A majority of participants also indicated that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in theoretical and computational biophysics (78%), and that the workshop significantly improved their computational skills (65%).


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. 18       17% 78%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 18     22% 28% 50%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 17   6% 29% 29% 35%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 18     6% 39% 56%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 18     11% 39% 50%

II. Lectures

All participants (100%) found that the instructor's subject knowledge was good, that instructors explained the material well, that instructors provided real-world examples, and that lectures were coordinated between instructors. A high majority of participants indicate that instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity (94%), that daily question and answer sessions were useful (89%), that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field (89%), and that the underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear (88%). Slightly smaller proportions of participants found that the level of the lectures was appropriate (82%) and that the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field (72%).


N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 18 17% 83%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 18 33% 67%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 18 28% 72%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 18 56% 44%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 18 6% 6% 33% 56%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 18 28% 17% 56%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 17 18% 35% 47%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 17 12% 53% 35%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 18 6% 33% 61%
10. The daily noon Q&A period was beneficial. 18 11% 28% 61%

III. Hands-on Sessions

The hands-on sessions refers to the afternoon tutorial sessions, during which participants completed work on their own laptops. All participants (100%) found that there were enough teaching assistants and instructional staff for participants. Nearly all participants (94%) indicated that the hands-on sessions were important for the workshop learning process, that the concrete examples in the tutorials increased understanding of the lectures, that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures, that there were sufficient instructions for the hands-on work, that tutorial options accommodated differing interests of participants, and that tutorial options accommodated differing expertise levels of participants. A majority of participants also found that hands-on sessions were long enough (89%), and that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions (88%).

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 18 6% 33% 61%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 18 6% 44% 50%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 18 6% 6% 44% 44%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 18 6% 50% 44%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 17 6% 6% 41% 47%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 17 6% 35% 59%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 17 29% 71%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 18 6% 33% 61%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 18 6% 33% 61%

IV. Environment & 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). All participants (100%) agreed that the conference room projection system was sufficient for lectures, and a majority (83%) found that the workshop room was conducive to learning. Most participants (83%) agreed that the software used in the workshop ran well on their laptop. Of those participants staying at the workshop hotel, a majority (79%) agreed that the hotel provided sufficient accommodations.

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. 18 17% 44% 39%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 18 17% 39% 44%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 18 33% 67%
4. The Hilton La Jolla provided sufficient accommodations (hotel guests only). 14 7% 14% 36% 43%

 
V. Communication & Dissemination

Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. All participants (100%) found that the workshop website was informative about the event, and nearly all participants (94%) indicated that emails about setting up laptops for the workshop were helpful. A majority of participants (83%) indicated that instructors were readily available for questions and answers outside of the lecture periods.

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 18 17% 17% 67%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 18 28% 72%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 18 6% 28% 67%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop. All participants (100%) agree that the workshop was well organized, that the workshop met their expectations, and that they would recommend the workshop to others. A majority of participants (88%) also indicated that the balance between lectures and hands-on work was optimal, and that the workshop addressed their research needs.


N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 16 50% 50%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 17 12% 59% 29%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 17 12% 35% 53%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 17 29% 71%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 17 12% 88%


V. 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+champaign09A@ks.uiuc.edu. If a comment was made in one area of the open questions, it is not repeated again in another area below.

  • Suggestions for improving the workshop:
    • change the order of lectures, so that basic information provided in the last two lectures is presented earlier
    • more discussion on advanced techniques such as free energy calculation
    • have separate tracks - one for new users, one for advanced users
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • details for setting up an effective MD computational environment
    • more hands-on VMD and NAMD scripting
    • increase the amount of fundamental concepts in the lectures
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • no consensus in comments about value of topics
    • algorithm development suggested as a topic
    • known problems with force fields suggested as a topic
  • Other comments:
    • A great workshop to learn techniques associated with NAMD.
    • Thank you very x 100000 much for the best quality workshop! I really enjoyed the whole workshop . . . it wasn’t just fun but very informative and educational! THANKS
    • Great job! Thanks a lot.