Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, Oct. 22-26, 2012

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana

October 22-26, 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 (October 22-26, 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.

Morning conceptual lectures were provided by Center faculty K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. TCBG staff, scientists, and participants provided lectures during evening sessions. 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 members.  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 outcomes, lectures, hands-on tutorial sessions, evening lecture sessions, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, and overall satisfaction. A copy of the form is available here; summary tables of results are below.

I. Outcomes

  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   6%   22% 72%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 18     11% 50% 39%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 18 6% 6% 28% 44% 17%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 18   6% 6% 56% 33%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 18     11% 50% 39%

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 18       28% 72%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 18       33% 67%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 18       39% 61%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 18     6% 44% 50%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 18     11% 39% 50%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 18     6% 56% 39%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 18     11% 61% 28%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 18       61% 39%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 18     6% 50% 44%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 18       39% 61%

III. Hands-On Sessions

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 18     11% 11% 78%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 18     11% 39% 50%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 18   11% 28% 33% 28%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 18       56% 44%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 18   11% 17% 44% 28%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 18   6% 6% 33% 56%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 18 6%   6% 39% 50%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 18     11% 33% 56%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 18       39% 61%

IV. Evening Lecture Sessions

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The content of the evening lectures was relevant to my work. 18   17% 28% 39% 17%
2. The evening sessions were long enough. 18     17% 33% 50%
3. The presentations by TCBG staff and scientists were a good addition to the workshop. 18     6% 44% 50%
4. Presentations by workshop participants were a good addition to the workshop. 18 6%   22% 56% 17%
5. Overall, the evening sessions were beneficial to the workshop. 18   11% 17% 39% 33%

V. Environment & Technical Resources

  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     11% 22% 67%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 18     6% 22% 72%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 18       28% 72%
4. The Hampton Inn provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 16       19% 81%

VI. Communication & Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 18     6% 39% 56%
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%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 18     6% 22% 72%

VII. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 17       29% 71%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 17     24% 47% 29%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 17     18% 41% 41%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 17       53% 47%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 17       18% 82%

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+urbana2012oct@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:
    • "At least one day without evening lectures."
    • "If the handouts for the lectures were provided, they will be helpful for us to make notes."
    • "TAs giving basic tutorial demos of NAMD and VMD on screen of Day 1 would help."
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • "Lecture class from program developers."
    • "Maybe one protein:protein, protein:ligand emphasis."
    • "Longer span of workshops (10 days)."
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • "I would like to see more whole cell and larger coarsegrain simulations."
    • "Most valuable - statistical analysis of proteins."
    • "Sequence analysis not my area."
  • Other comments:
    • "It is a great workshop. I actually learned a lot more than I expected! Thank you!"
    • "Nice workshop, nice TAs and teachers. Well organised."
    • "Thank you so much for such a great workshop to all."