NIH Resource for Macromolecular Modeling & Visualization University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• Program

• Instructors

• Lectures

• Tutorials

• Participants

• Photo Gallery

• Evaluation

• Announcement

• Home

Computational Biophysics Workshop - San Francisco, Jun. 26-30, 2005

 

General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop in San Francisco

June 26-30, 2005

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

The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), an NIH Resource for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics is headed by Klaus Schulten, and Co-PIs Z. Luthey-Schulten and L. Kale. As part of its outreach, the Resource offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Resource organized a one-week (June 26-30) workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation at the Club Quarters-San Francisco Hotel in San Francisco, California.  The Club Quarters-San Francisco Hotel site provided facilities, internet access, and catering for the workshop, while the Resource provided instructors, lectures, tutorials, and 20 Apple G4 laptops loaded with needed software and tutorial files.

Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), E. Tajkhorshid (UIUC), and Zan Luthey-Schulten (UIUC).  Three graduate students accompanied the lecturers to the workshop and provided instructional support on-site.  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.

At the end of the week, students leaving the program were asked to complete a general evaluation questionnaire. The general evaluation form asks about topics such as outcomes of the workshop, ratings of attributes of lectures and tutorials, organization and communication, and so on; click here to see the form used.  Participation in the evaluation was voluntary.  A total of 19 general evaluation forms were returned, providing an overall response rate of 95%.  Demographically, education levels of participants were high, with a majority of participants indicating having obtained a PhD or participation in a doctoral program.

All responses in the following tables are reported in percentages, rows adding up to 100%. Not all respondents answered to all items; the number of responses per item is presented next to each question. References to 'agreement' among respondents is calculated by adding together the percentages for the 'agree' and 'strongly agree' responses.

I.  Outcome

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
I.1. The Workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Computational and Theoretical Biophysics.	19				58	42
I.2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics.	19			16	37	47
I.3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills.	18	6	17	44	17	17
I.4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career.	19		5	5	68	21
I.5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research.	19		5	5	42	47

Items I.1-5 refer to desired outcomes.  All respondents agreed that the workshop broadened their understanding of the field.  Most respondents agreed that the workshop strengthened their research abilities (84%).  Most respondents agreed that they acquired useful techniques (89%) and that the material was relevant to their own research (89%).  Some respondents (44%) were unsure that the workshop had increased their computational skills, though about one-third (34%) did indicate a significant increase.  Also, a majority indicated that the workshop taught them techniques applicable to their career (89%) and was relevant to their research (89%).

 

II.  Lectures

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
II.1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good.	19				21	79
II.2. The instructors explained the material well.	19				47	53
II.3. The instructors provided real-world examples.	19			5	37	58
II.4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures.	19				37	63
II.5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors.	19			5	42	53
II.6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field.	19			11	53	37
II.7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field.	18			11	56	33
II.8. The level of the lectures was appropriate.	19			16	53	32
II.9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear.	19			16	53	32
II.10. We were exposed to a well representative range of techniques.	19			11	58	32
II.11. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity.	19			5	42	53

 Items II.1-11 address the level, scope, and quality of the lectures. All respondents rated the speakers' knowledge good, and all agreed that the instructors explained the material well.  Most agreed that the instructors provided real-world examples (95%) and all thought the instructors were prepared for the lectures.  A majority of respondents felt that the instructors coordinated the lectures with other instructors (95%). Most of the respondents were in agreement that the lectures incorporated recent developments (89%) and that the range of lectures captured the field essentials (89%). Most respondents found the level of the lectures to be appropriate (85%). Also, most respondents felt that the rationale of techniques was clear (85%) and that they were exposed to a well representative range of techniques (90%). The majority of respondents agreed that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity (95%).

 

III.  Hands-on Sessions

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
III.1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop.	19			5	21	74
III.2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures.	19			5	53	42
III.3. The hands-on sessions were long enough.	18	6	17		44	33
III.4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures.	18			6	39	56
III.5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions.	18				39	61
III.6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments.	18	6		6	33	56

Items III.1-6 deal with the level, quality, and scope of the hands-on tutorials.  Most respondents felt that the hands-on sessions were important (95%) and that the concrete examples in the tutorials increased their understanding of the lectures (95%).  A majority felt that the hands-on sessions were long enough (77%).  Most respondents agreed that the hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures (95%) and that there were enough instructions to do the hands-on assignments (89%).  All respondents felt that the TAs were well-prepared to answer questions.

 

IV.  Environment & Technical Resources

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
IV.1. The Apple Powerbook G4s were adequate for the exercises.	18			6	33	61
IV.2. The Apple Powerbook G4s ran smoothly.	18			11	33	56
IV.3. It was easy to learn how to use the Apple Powerbook G4s.	18		6	6	39	50
IV.4. The software used in the Workshop ran well on the Apple Powerbook G4s.	18			6	28	67
IV.5. The lecture rooms were conducive to learning.	18	17	6	33	28	17
IV.6. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures.	18				33	67
IV.7. The Club Quarters-San Francisco hotel provided sufficient accommodations.	16		19	6	44	31

Items IV.1-7 address the effectiveness of the physical environment and technical support during the workshop.  Most of these items refers to the Apple Powerbook G4 laptop computers set up for the workshop.  Most of the respondents felt that the laptops were adequate for the exercises (94%), ran smoothly (89%), were easy to learn (89%), and ran the software well (95%).  All respondents agreed that the projection system was sufficient for the lectures, and most felt that the Club Quarters-San Francisco hotel provided sufficient accommodations (75%).  However, less than half of the respondents agreed that the lecture rooms were conducive to learning (44%).

 

V.  Communication & Dissemination

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
V.1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods.	18	6	6		33	56
V.2. The daily noon Q&A period was beneficial.	18				61	39
V.3. The Workshop web site was informative before the school started.	18			6	44	50
V.4. The Workshop web site was informative during the school period.	17			29	41	29
V.5. The online information was up-to-date.	18			28	39	33
V.6. The online material was organized.	18			17	39	44
V.7. There was sufficient information about evening activities during the school.	17	12	12	35	24	18

Items V.1-7 were designed to assess the effectiveness of the workshop communication and dissemination efforts and tools.  Most respondents agreed that the instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods (89%), and all felt that the daily Q&A period was beneficial.  A majority of respondents were satisfied that the website was informative before (94%) and during (70%) the workshop, and that the online information was up-to-date (72%).  Most respondents agreed that the online material was well organized (83%).  However, only a minority of respondents felt that there was sufficient information about evening activities during the school (42%).

 

VI.  General Organization

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
VI.1. The number of participants was reasonable.	18				39	61
VI.2. The cost of the Workshop was reasonable.	18			6	22	72
VI.3. There were enough TAs and support staff to help the participants.	18				22	78
VI.4. The evening social activities enhanced the Workshop experience.	18	6	11	33	22	28

Items VI.1-4 evaluate the general organization of the school.  All respondents agreed that the numbers of participants was reasonable, and that there were enough TAs and support staff.  A majority of respondents felt that the cost was reasonable (94%) and half (50%) of the respondents felt that the evening social activities enhanced the Workshop experience.

 

VII.  Overall Satisfaction

	N	strongly disagree %	disagree %	unsure %	agree %	strongly agree %
VII.1. Overall technical support was good.	18			6	39	56
VII.2. Overall general support was good.	18				44	56
VII.3. The Workshop was well organized.	18				33	67
VII.4. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal.	18			11	50	39
VII.5. The Workshop addressed my research needs.	18		6		44	50
VII.6. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations.	18			6	33	61

Items VII.1-6 were intended to measure attendees satisfaction across the various workshop components. The results show that the participants were satisfied with the school.  Most respondents felt that technical support overall was good (95%), and all were in agreement that general support was good and that the workshop was well organized.  Most felt that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (89%), that the workshop addressed their research needs (94%).  A majority of respondents felt that the workshop met their expectations (94%).