Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, Feb. 11-15, 2012

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana

February 11-15, 2012

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

The NIH Center 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 Center offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Center presented a five-day (February 11-15, 2012) workshop a at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology in Urbana, Illinois. Center faculty provided morning lectures, while both teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Center software, along with tutorials consisting of text and computer files. Participants included graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and professors from around the world.

Workshop lectures were provided by Center faculty K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. Teaching assistants were graduate students from TCBG and the Computational Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Group. Tutorials and software used in the workshop were developed by Center member.  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.

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 91% (27% agree + 64% 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. 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 24 participants, with 17 completing the evaluation form, resulting in a response rate of ~77%.

I. Outcomes

All participants (100%) indicated that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in the field of computational and theoretical biophysics, and nearly all (94%) found that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in the field of theoretical and computational biophysics. Most participants (88%) indicated that the workshop taught techniques directly applicable to their careers, and that the material presented at the workshop was relevant to their research. All but about a fourth of participants indicated that the workshop significantly improved their computational skills (76%).

  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       18% 82%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 17     6% 41% 53%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 17     24% 59% 18%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 17   6% 6% 24% 65%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 17   6% 6% 24% 65%

II. Lectures

With regards to lectures, all responding participants (100%) indicated that the instructors subject knowledge was good, that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field, that the underlying rationale of techniques presented was clear, and that instructors stimulated participant intellectual curiosity. Nearly all participants (94%), found that instructors explained material well, that instructors provided real-world examples, that lectures were coordinated between instructors, and that daily question and answer periods were beneficial. Most participants indicated that the level of lectures was appropriate (88%), and that the range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field (82%).

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 17         100%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 17     6% 6% 88%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 17     6%   94%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 17     6% 18% 76%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 17       6% 94%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 17     18% 35% 47%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 17     12% 29% 59%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 17       29% 71%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 17       29% 71%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 17     6% 18% 76%

III. Hands-On Sessions

All responding participants (100%) felt that the hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the workshop, that the concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased their understanding of the lectures, and that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions. Nearly all participants (94%) found that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures, that there were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments, and that that there was sufficient teaching staff to help participants. Most participants felt that tutorial options accommodated differing expertise levels of participants (88%), that that tutorial options accommodated differing interests of participants (82%), and hands-on sessions were long enough (76%).

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 17       29% 71%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 17       41% 59%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 17   6% 18% 35% 41%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 17     6% 41% 53%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 17       65% 35%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 17     6% 41% 53%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 17     6% 29% 65%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 17     18% 24% 59%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 17     12% 29% 59%

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%) indicated that the projection system was sufficient for the lectures, and that the Illini Union Hotel provided sufficient accommodations (note: only those staying at the hotel were to reply to this question). Nearly all participants (94%) indicated that the lecture room was conducive to learning, and that software used in the workshop ran well on their laptop.

  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. 17     6% 29% 65%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 17   6%   41% 53%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 17       18% 82%
4. The College Nordmetall provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 14       7% 93%

V. Communication & Dissemination

Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. All participants (100%) indicated that instructors were readily available to respond to questions outside of the lecture periods, and that that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful. Nearly all participants (94%) indicated that the workshop web site was informative about the event, and that emails about setting up laptops for the workshop were helpful.

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 17       12% 88%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 17     6% 6% 88%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 17     6% 18% 76%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 17         100%

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 workshop met their expectations, that they would recommend the workshop to others, that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal, and that the workshop addressed their research needs.

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 17         100%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 17       24% 76%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 17       29% 71%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 17       29% 71%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 17       12% 88%

VII. 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+urbana2012@ks.uiuc.edu. If a comment was made in one area of the open questions, it is generally not repeated again in another area below.

  • Suggestions for improving the workshop:
    • Perhaps have a more structured way to incorporate our own personal research and a more comprehensive list of programs that may be useful to us during the workshop and maybe brief overviews of the tutorials and applications.
    • A room set up for the hands-on part that facilitates communications (e.g., round tables) would be even better.
    • Maybe institute a brief tutorial on fancier movie-making methods. This was great, I wish my whole lab could have attended!
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • The current workshop covers a number of different topics. It could be interesting to have some advanced workshops focusing on specific topics.
    • Other techniques useful in MD such as Replica Exchange or QM/MM.
    • You could do a VMD workshop for experts, teaching more about the script part.
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • The topology/parameteriziation is probably most usefult to me. I would have liked a section on conformational sampling.
    • Maybe expand one more day for bioinformatics?
    • Most: membrane proteins and various ways of extracting information; also, the general how-to mechanics of how to set up and MD run. Least: not much . . the last day a little less applicable, but still interesting.
  • Other comments:
    • Both instructors and TAs were very knowledgeable, nice and helpful. Thank you very much for having me.
    • Thank you for the workshop! You provided professional, friendly atmosphere. I am ready to apply the knowledge to my own research topics.
    • Great and very successful workshop!