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

• Program

• Instructors

• Lectures

• Tutorials

• Participants

• Photo Gallery

• Evaluation

• Announcement




• Univ. Talca Site

• Home

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

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

Lectures and Tutorials Evaluation

Questionnaire, analysis, and report: David Brandon, Kathryn Walsh and Klaus Schulten, TCB group, UIUC

At the end of each day of the workshop participants were asked to evaluate the workshop's lectures and tutorials.  Rankings of the relevance of the lectures and tutorials were solicited, as were open comments about each lecture and tutorial. Participation in the evaluation was voluntary.  The Lectures & Tutorials Feedback Form was translated from its English version to a Spanish version for use with the primarily Spanish-speaking participants of the workshop.

Summaries for the lectures and tutorials are comprised of three elements, 1) the proportion rating the relevance of the lecture or tutorial as highly relevant (i.e. 'very good' + 'excellent' ratings; see Table 1: Summary of Relevance Statistics below) and 2) select comments considered illustrative of respondent opinion, and 3) text summarizing the main points of the total body of comments for a lecture or tutorial.  As is frequently the case with surveys, not all respondents answered all questions; the number of responses for the relevance ratings (r=) and comments (c=) are listed next to the name of each lecture and tutorial summary, e.g. (N: r=34, c=8).

Some issues to consider when reading the comments: 

• Written comments, particularly when comments are extreme in one direction or the other, tend to stick in one's head more so than statistics that may present a more accurate summary of opinion.
• There may not be enough comments to provide a sample size that can be considered representative of the entire workshop population; e.g. for one lecture there are two comments.  Further, those responding are self-selected, i.e. those who went through with completing the evaluation form may or may not be representative of a 'typical' attendee. 
• Due to varying backgrounds, education, and experiences, for any lecture or tutorial there was likely always someone new to the topic who needed more time, help and explanation, and at the same time someone very experienced who wanted more breadth and/or depth on the topic.

Summaries are organized below by day, lecture, and tutorial, and can be located using the navigation table below or by scrolling down the page.

 

Day 1

Day 1 Lecture: Introduction to VMD and NAMD (N: r=18, c=8)

Most respondents, 89%, rated the lecture as highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "Very useful for the needs of structural biologists."
• "I think that the class was an excellent tool to get a good insight to the software, part of the theory and the capabilities giving us some incredible examples of the application of the programs."

Other comments suggest the participants would have liked less content on some topics, and more on other areas, but generally were appreciative of the lecture.

Day 1 Tutorial 1: VMD/Molecular Graphics (N: r=19, c=10)

A majority of respondents, 89%,  found the tutorial content highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "Very good tutorial!"
• "The tutorial is a good material for learning how to use this software in an easy way."

Some content indicated participants wanting more detail in some areas, and more time for the tutorial.

Day 1 Tutorial 2: NAMD Molecular Dynamics/Steered Molecular Dynamics (N: r=12, c=3)

A majority of respondents, 83%,  found the tutorial content highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "Good, but extensive! Where is the time?
• "Very complete tutorial."

A third comment indicates the tutorial is clearly written.

Day 2

Day 2 Lecture 1: Simulation of Membrane Proteins (N: r=19, c=4)

At a 95% relevance rating, most respondents found the lecture content to be highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "It was a good introduction to the methodology applied in the process of putting a transmembrane protein into the membrane."
• "The class was very relevant and the teacher very clear. The real-life application of the techniques was really interesting."

Additional comment posed a response to an issue arising during the lecture, while another suggested more hints on generation of simulation protocols be added.

Day 2 Lecture 2: Analysis of Membrane Channel Simulations (N: r=16, c=3)

At a 94% relevance rating, most respondents found the lecture content to be highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "The class was very interesting, well-done, and focused on the relevant problems. I liked the real-life examples."
• "Very clear. The emphasis in the relationship between simulation and experiment was very enlightening."

A third comment was also complimentary of the lecture.

Day 2 Tutorial 1: Membrane Channels Setup (N: r=19, c=5)

Nearly all respondents, 90%, rated the tutorial relevance as very high.  Sample comments are:

• "This was the best lab by far."
• "It was easy to follow."

Other comments were also complimentary, but also indicated that participants felt they could have completed the tutorial on their own, and that analysis tools could be added to the tutorial.

Day 2 Tutorial 2: Membrane Channels Analysis (N: r=16, c=2)

Nearly all respondents, 94%, rated the tutorial relevance as very high.  Sample comments are:

• "Very good tutorial. I think it will be useful for my work. Help from the teachers was really good and useful."
• "I think it may be useful to add comments within the scripts to explain what they are doing."

No additional comments were provided.

Day 2 Tutorial 3: Images and Movies (N: r=10, c=1)

Nearly all respondents, 90%, rated the tutorial relevance as very high.  Sample comments are:

• "Unfortunately time did not allow me to do this tutorial so I can’t give an opinion."

No additional comments were provided.

Day 3

Day 3 Lecture 1:  Introduction to Tcl Forces and SMD (N: r=15, c=3)

A majority of respondents, 73%, rated the relevance of the lecture as high.  Sample comments are:

• "The lecture was very good and useful. Alek managed to explain in simple words these useful tools."
• "It was an excellent demonstration of this kind of tools, but there is a lack of a little more detailed explanation of the physics behind this method, although it seems to be very simple."

A third comment suggests the participant

Day 3 Lecture 2:  Simulations of Biomolecular/Inorganic Systems (N: r=13, c=3)

A majority of respondents, 84%, rated the relevance of the lecture as very high.  Sample comments are:

• "Just perfect"
• "Really deep and interesting class. It showed us a new (at least for me) elegant and interesting application of nanotechnology. I really appreciated Alek’s dedication to make us understand this complex topic."

A third comment indicates the participant is looking forward to using the tools described in the lecture.

Day 3 Tutorial 1: Custom Forces (N: r=13, c=2)

The rated relevance of the tutorial was high, with a relevance rating from respondents of 77%.  Sample comments are:

• "It was really useful. Thanks to Marcos and David’s help I could understand the maths of the methods and greatly improve my understanding of Tcl. I find the method itself to have useful applications."
• "The description of the scripts is the most relevant part of this tutorial because this could lead us to apply this protocol to our systems. I think that this is one of the more productive tutorials."

No additional comments were provided.

Day 3 Tutorial 2: Simulations of Biomolecular/Inorganic Systems (N: r=9, c=4)

All participants (100%) rated this tutorial as highly relevant.  Sample comments are:

• "This seems to be a powerful material, well developed and an excellent tool to be actualized in the latest research in bionanotechnology . . "
• "As all the tutorials, this is very well-prepared."

Other comments indicate participants appreciated the level of detail in the tutorials, but wanted more time for completion.

---

The complete set of comments is available by e-mailing workshop+talca@ks.uiuc.edu to request the comments.  

---

 

Table 1: Summary of Relevance Statistics

 

---

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

Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology // National Institutes of Health // National Science Foundation // Physics, Computer Science, and Biophysics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign