Computational Biophysics Workshop - Talca, Nov. 14-16, 2006

TCB Hands-on Workshop in San Francisco

General Evaluation of the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Workshop in Talca, Chile

November 14-16, 2006

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
Spanish translation: Molly Punke

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, 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. In cooperation with the University of Talca in Talca, Chile, and several sponsoring groups, the Resource organized a three-day (November 14-16) workshop. The University of Talca provided lecture and computer laboratory facilities, internet access, and catering for the workshop, while the Resource provided instructors, lectures, and tutorials.

Workshop lectures were given by Alek Aksimentiev. Two 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, satisfaction, and so on. As participants largely spoke Spanish, the general evaluation form was translated from an English version to a Spanish version. Participation in the evaluation was voluntary.  A total of 24 general evaluation forms were returned out of 40 distributed, providing an overall response rate of 60%. 

All responses in the following tables are reported in percentages, rows adding up to ~100% (some variation due to rounding). Not all respondents answered 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. 24   4 13 33 50
I.2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 24     8 46 46
I.3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 24   13 38 29 21
I.4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 24     13 17 71
I.5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 24     4 33 63

Items I.1-5 refer to desired outcomes.  A majority of respondents (83%) agreed that the workshop broadened their understanding of the field of computational and theoretical biophysics, and that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics (92%). Half of respondents (50%) felt the workshop significantly improved their computational skills. Majorities indicated that the workshop taught them techniques applicable to their career (88%), and was relevant to their research (96%).

II.  Lectures

  N Strongly disagree % Disagree % Unsure % Agree % Strongly agree %
II.1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 24       13 88
II.2. The instructors explained the material well. 24     4 21 75
II.3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 24       29 71
II.4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. 24     4 17 79
II.5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 23     9 9 83
II.6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 24         100
II.7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 24     13 42 46
II.8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 24       29 71
II.9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 24   4 13 38 46
II.10. We were exposed to a well representative range of techniques. 24     4 33 63
II.11. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 24     4 29 67

 

Items II.1-11 address the level, scope, and quality of the lectures. All respondents (100%) rated the speakers' knowledge good, and a majority (96%) agreed that the instructors explained the material well.  All agreed that the instructors provided real-world examples (100%) and a majority thought the instructors were prepared for the lectures (96%).  A majority of respondents felt that the instructors coordinated the lectures with other instructors (92%). All respondents were in agreement that the lectures incorporated recent developments in the field (100%) and that the range of lectures captured the field essentials (88%). All respondents found the level of the lectures to be appropriate (100%). Also, most respondents felt that the rationale of techniques was clear (84%) and that they were exposed to a well representative range of techniques (96%), and that the instructors stimulated their intellectual curiosity (96%).

III.  Hands-on Sessions-Tutorials/Labs
 

  N Strongly disagree % Disagree % Unsure % Agree % Strongly agree %
III.1. The tutorial/lab sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 24       8 92
III.2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 24     8 21 71
III.3. The tutorial/lab sessions were long enough. 24 8 13 17 25 38
III.4. The tutorial/lab sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 24     8 25 67
III.5. There were enough TAs and support staff to help the participants. 24     8 25 67
III.6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 24     13 8 79
III.7. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the tutorial/lab assignments. 23     4 9 87

Items III.1-7 dealt with the level, quality, and scope of the hands-on tutorials.  All respondents felt that the hands-on sessions were important (100%). A majority indicated that the concrete examples in the tutorials increased their understanding of the lectures (92%), that the hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures (92%), that the teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions (87%), and that there were sufficient instructions to do the hands-on assignments (96%).  A smaller majority felt that the hands-on sessions were long enough (63%).

IV.  Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly disagree % Disagree % Unsure % Agree % Strongly agree %
IV.1. Overall technical support was good. 24       17 83
IV.2. Overall general support was good. 24       13 88
IV.3. The Workshop was well organized. 24       25 75
IV.4. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 24   4 8 33 54
IV.5. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 24     4 42 54
IV.6. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 24     4 13 83

Items IV.1-6 were intended to measure attendees satisfaction across the various workshop components. All respondents felt that technical support overall was good (100%), that general support was good (100%) and that the workshop was well organized (100%).  Most felt that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (87%), that the workshop addressed their research needs (96%), and that the workshop met their expectations (96%).

Funded by a grant from
the National Institute of
General Medical Sciences
of the National Institutes
of Health