Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, Nov. 29 - Dec. 3, 2010

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana, Illinois

November 29 - December 3, 2010

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

The NIH Resource 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 Resource offers workshops to introduce and transfer its programs and technological solutions to the biomedical community. The Resource presented a five-day (November 29 - December 3, 2010) workshop at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Resource faculty provided morning lectures, and teaching assistants and faculty led afternoon hands-on sessions using Resource software, and tutorials consisting of text and computer files.

Workshop lectures were provided by K. Schulten, E. Tajkhorshid, and Z. Luthey-Schulten. Teaching assistants were graduate students from TCBG and the Luthey-Schulten group. Tutorials and preparation of the laptops was provided by the graduate students and by other Resource staff, and on-site the tutorial sessions were led by the graduate students.  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, with results described below.

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% (30% agree + 61% strongly agree). Due to rounding, some cumulative percentages in the table exceed 91%. 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 31 participants, resulting in a response rate for the general evaluation form of ~75%.

I. Outcomes

With regards to outcomes, a strong majority of participants felt that the workshop broadened their understanding of concepts and principles in computational and theoretical biophysics (91%) and that the workshop taught them techniques applicable to their career (83%). A majority of participants also indicated that the workshop material was relevant to their research (78%), and that the workshop improved their ability to carry out original research in theoretical and computational biophysics (74%). Just under half of participants (43%) responded that the workshop significantly improved their computational skills.


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. 23     9% 30% 61%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 23     26% 35% 39%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 23   17% 39% 13% 30%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 23   4% 13% 35% 48%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 23   13% 9% 39% 39%

II. Lectures

All participants (100%) found that the instructor's subject knowledge was good, that instructors explained the material well, and that the instructors provided real-world examples. Nearly all participants indicated that instructors explained material well (96%), that the range of the lectures captured the essentials of the field (96%), that the underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear (96%), and that the instructors stimulated their scientific curiousity (96%). A majority also found that lectures were coordinated between instructors (83%), that lectures incorporated recent developments in the field (91%), that the level of the lectures was appropriate (78%), and that daily question and answer periods were beneficial (83%).


N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors’ knowledge of the subjects was good. 23       17% 83%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 23     4% 39% 57%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 23       22% 78%
4. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 23   4% 13% 39% 43%
5. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 23     9% 39% 52%
6. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field. 23     4% 48% 48%
7. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 23   4% 17% 35% 43%
8. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 23     4% 48% 48%
9. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 23     4% 30% 65%
10. The daily noon Q&A period was beneficial. 23   9% 9% 17% 65%

III. Hands-on Sessions

The hands-on sessions refers to the afternoon tutorial sessions, during which participants completed work on their own laptops. Nearly all participants (96%) agreed that the hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the workshop. A strong majority also indicated that the hands-on sessions increased their understanding of lectures (91%), that teaching assistants were well-prepared to answer questions, that there were sufficient instructions for the hands-on assignments (91%), and that tutorial options accommodated varying levels of expertise of participants (91%). A majority of participants also indicated that the hands-on sessions were long enough (83%), that hands-on sessions were coordinated with lectures (87%), that there were enough teaching assistants (87%), and that tutorial options accommodated varying interests of participants (87%).

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop. 23     4% 35% 61%
2. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 23     9% 39% 52%
3. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 23 9%   9% 30% 52%
4. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 23   4% 9% 35% 52%
5. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 23     9% 26% 65%
6. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 23     9% 30% 61%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 23     13% 22% 65%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 23   9% 9% 17% 65%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 23     9% 30% 61%

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%) agreed that the software used in the workshop ran well on their laptop. Participant majorities indicate that the lecture room was conducive to learning (87%), and that the conference room projection system was sufficient for lectures (87%). And, all of those participants (100%) who stayed at the workshop hotel workshop (the Hampton Inn) indicated it provided sufficient accommodations.

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. 23   35% 65%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 23 13% 30% 57%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 23 13% 26% 61%
4. The Hamton Inn provided sufficient accommodations (hotel guests only). 21     24% 76%

 
V. Communication and Dissemination

Items about communication and dissemination refer to how TCBG communicates with participants before and during the workshop. All participants (100%) found that instructors were readily available for questions and answers outside of the lecture periods, and that that the worskhop website was informative about the event. A strong majority of participants indicate that organizational emails before the workshop were helpful (95%), and that emails about setting up laptops for the workshop were helpful (95%).

N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 23       39% 61%
2. The Workshop web site was informative about the event. 23       43% 57%
3. The emails about setting up laptops for the Workshop were helpful. 22     5% 23% 73%
4. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 22     5% 27% 68%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

A final set of questions asked participants about their overall satisfaction with the workshop. All participants (100%) indicated that the workshop met their expectations, and strong majorities indicated that the workshop was well organized (96%) and that the would recommend the workshop to others (96%). A majority indicated that the workshop met their research needs (91%), and that the balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal (73%).


N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 23     4% 38% 57%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 22     27% 32% 41%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 23     9% 48% 43%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 23       39% 61%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 23     4% 22% 74%


V. 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+champaign09B@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:
    • It may be better to have some other more specific workshops in the future to fit the needs of specific people. This workshop is great for people new to the field though.
    • Dedicated sessions to target specific research problems would be more helpful. For example, additional sessions where participants get to choose from areas like folding, aggregation, membrane etc with a specific discussion session arranged for it.
    • More in depth and advanced topics.
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • Workshop for free energy calculation and other computational methods.
    • Do more online workshops. I had a great time in Urbana-Champaign but I will not be able to come here very often for workshops from far away and I still have a lot to learn from you.
    • It may be better to have some other more specific workshops in the future to fit the needs of specific people. This workshop is great for people new to the field though.
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • Most valuable topology/ parameterization. Least valuable: Bioinformatics. These should be free energy lecture in the future.
    • Force field lecture was the best one for me as well as the SMD parts. I also, enjoyed parts of the bioinformatics. I would like to see more info/lectures about SMD of protein and liquid/ tutorials. The tutorial could add relevant TCI script used in research (published papers) such as scripts for random expulsion. I would like to see more discussion about force field develop met (polanzable force fields) how the new parameters can be designed what type of calculations / experiments) which could inspire people to investigate this.
    • Coarse-grained knowledge is needed. It’s too little now.
  • Other comments:
    • Overall its’ an excellent workshop. Instructors are well prepared. TAs are nice and helpful.
    • A very good thing I liked about the TCBG workshop is the large selection n of tutorials and lots of “free time” that allowed participants of various backgrounds and motives to pursue individual goals and retreat. My only suggestion would be to move the “Parameter for classical force field” lecture to an earlier day, since a provided a very good “big picture” for MD research. Otherwise, I thought the programmed schedule was very well coordinated, and I greatly enjoyed and appreciate the opportunity of participating in the TCBT workshop
    • This is a really valuable experience for me. Thank you for organizing the workshop!