Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, Nov. 18-22, 2013

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana

November 18-22, 2013

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

The UIUC's Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group (TCBG), 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 organized a one-week (November 18-22, 2013) workshop at the Center's home offices in the Beckman Institute, on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus, in Urbana, Illinois.  The Center provided all workshop cotent, as well as the classroom, housing, catering, and printing costs.

The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by K. Schulten (UIUC), Z. Schulten (UIUC), E. Tajkhorshid (UIUC), and A. Aksimentiev (UIUC). TCBG staff members also provided short lectures after lunch on four of the five workshop dates. Teaching assistants from the research group of each faculty member helped participants during the hands-on tutorial sessions. 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, after-lunch lectures, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, overall satisfaction, and questions soliciting open comments. A copy of the form is available here; summary tables of results are below.

Highlights of the results include 95% of participants indicating an increased understanding of computational and theoretical biophysics, 95% of participants indicating they would recommend the workshop addressed their research needs, and 95% of participants indicating they would recommend the workshop to others.

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. 19     5% 16% 74%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 19     11% 32% 58%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 19 5% 11% 11% 53% 21%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 19     11% 26% 63%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 19     11% 47% 42%

 

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 19       5% 95%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 19       32% 68%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 19       21% 79%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 19     11% 37% 53%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 19       26% 68%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 19     11% 26% 63%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 19   5% 5% 37% 53%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 19     5% 32% 58%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 19       21% 79%
10. The daily Q&A period was beneficial. 19     5% 37% 58%

 

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. 19     5% 16% 74%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 19     21% 32% 42%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 19     21% 32% 47%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 19   5% 11% 32% 53%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 19     5% 47% 47%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 19     21% 47% 32%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 19       42% 58%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 19   5% 11% 26% 53%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 19   5% 11% 32% 47%

 

IV. After-Lunch Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The content of the after-lunch lectures was relevant to my work. 19   11% 37% 32% 21%
2. The lecturers' knowledge of the subjects was good. 19       47% 53%
3. The lecturers explained the material well. 19       47% 47%
4. The lecturers provided real-world examples. 19     5% 37% 58%
5. The after-lunch lecture sessions were a good addition to the Workshop. 19     11% 47% 42%

 

V. Environment and 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. 19     5% 47% 47%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 19       26% 74%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 19     5% 11% 84%
4. The Illini Union Hotel provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 16     6% 19% 75%

 

VI. Communication and Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 19       16% 84%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 19     5% 32% 63%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 18     6% 11% 83%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 19       11% 89%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 19     5% 11% 84%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 18     11% 22% 67%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 19     5% 32% 63%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 19     11% 21% 68%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 19   5%   11% 84%

 

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+urbana2013nov@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:
    • "Lecture & tutorial on coarse graining would be useful to my research, incorporation VMD with other packages like LAMMPS & GROMACS would have been interesting."
    • "Perhaps makes the workshop a little longer, such as 10 days to two weeks. It's a little tight for me."
    • "Workshop was run very nicely and professionally, only compliments and no complaints or suggestions."
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • "I would be interested in NAMD & VMD being used in inorganic chemistry."
    • "I thought the overall setup for the workshop was really good. Iwould keep the lecture/hands on format. I might be good to have all the talks before the lunch break and then have just the tutorials in the afternoon."
    • "Split the workshop into two: novice and new users by tool and technology, and advanced concepts and simulations."
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • "Setting up the system crucial, tcl vs. phyhon, scripting in VMD important, and however scripts should be explained during lectures."
    • "+GPU processing and DNA-Protein Systems were most (the intro tutorial and parameter files were also good), and bioinformaties was least useful. For future workshops, working with ForceFields and parameters other than CNARMM maybe helfpful."
    • "In fact every day there was something new to learn, in spite of my having used NAMD and VMD for more than 2 years. If I had to remark any, it would be the aspects concerning the gamut of biological systems that can be simulated. Protein-DND interaction, protein-membranes, membranes, viruses. The network analysis was also by itself quite illustrating. I learned techniques to ionize systems before MD, which is a good point in any system. Combining materials with biological molecules with nanopores was also very important an example to inquire on new type of materials and devices."
  • Other comments:
    • "Everybody were so helpful and it was awesome that the really clever people were interested in what the attendants work with. I got to talk to Jim and hopefully something really good for my project will come out of it. It was nice to talk to Emad and Klaus too!"
    • "Thank you very much for the opportunity. The lecturer, materials and the TA's were very helpful. Thank you for sharing with us, some of hour inspiring work. Some day I hope I would be able to make some useful contribution to the field of science I consider this workshop as a turning point in my research career. Thank you!"
    • "Thank you very much for the workshop and the friendliness of all the lecturers and organizers. I hope and believe that the relationship with this group will only strengthen in the future since work in the field of biology cannot neglect simulations as an important tool for design on analysis of biological systems. Certainly, though time is very limiting, there are some tutorials that sometimes can't be done during the allocated time."