General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana, April 17-21, 2017

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, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, overall satisfaction.

 

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. 22 0% 0% 0% 18% 82%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 21 0% 0% 5% 38% 57%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 22 0% 5% 23% 36% 36%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 22 0% 0% 18% 32% 50%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 22 0% 5% 5% 26% 64%

 

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 22 0% 0% 0% 5% 95%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 22 0% 0% 0% 14% 86%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 22 0% 0% 9% 23% 68%
4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. 22 0% 0% 5% 9% 86%
5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 22 0% 5% 4% 18% 73%
6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 22 0% 0% 0% 14% 86%
7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field 22 0% 0% 0% 32% 68%
8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 22 0% 0% 0% 23% 77%
9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 22 0% 0% 5% 36% 59%
10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 21 0% 0% 0% 29% 71%
11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. 22 0% 0% 5% 36% 59%

 

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. 22 0% 0% 5% 13% 82%
2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 21 0% 5% 14% 29% 52%
3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 22 0% 0% 9% 18% 73%
4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 22 0% 4% 18% 23% 55%
5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 22 4% 0% 4% 32% 60%
6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 22 0% 0% 0% 27% 73%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 21 0% 0% 5% 24% 71%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 22 0% 4% 14% 9% 73%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 22 0% 0% 13% 14% 73%

 

IV. 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. 22 0% 4% 18% 23% 55%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 22 0% 0% 4% 14% 82%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 21 0% 0% 4% 29% 67%
4. The University of Pittsburgh Bouquet Gardens provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 14 0% 0% 0% 29% 71%

 

V. Communication and Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 22 0% 0% 0% 23% 77%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. 22 0% 0% 0% 32% 68%
3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 22 0% 0% 4% 14% 82%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 22 0% 0% 5% 9% 86%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 22 0% 0% 14% 18% 68%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 22 0% 0% 5% 27% 68%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 22 0% 0% 4% 23% 73%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 22 0% 0% 5% 9% 86%