Online Workshop
Evaluation of the Online Workshop on Simulating Membrane Channels
November 28 - December 1, 2011
Questionnaire: Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group
Analysis and report: David
Brandon, TCB group, UIUC
After the completion of the online workshop, participants were asked to complete an evaluation form consisting of questions about participation, outcomes, lecture and lecture video, the conference call, tutorials, organization, and overall satisfaction. Several open questions about the workshop were also asked. A copy of the evaluation form can be found here. Results are below.
I. Participation
| N | |
| 1. I viewed the streaming lecture | 6 |
| 2. I participated in the conference call | 3 |
| 3. I worked through (even partially) the Membrane Proteins tutorial | 5 |
| 4. I worked through (even partially) the Simulation of Water Permeation through Nanotubes tutorial | 3 |
| 5. I interacted with a teaching assistant(s) | 0 |
II. Outcomes
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The workshop broadened my understanding of concepts and principles in the field of Membrane Protein Simulations. | 7 | 71% | 29% | |||
| 2. The workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Membrane Protein Simulations. | 7 | 14% | 57% | 29% | ||
| 3. The workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. | 7 | 14% | 43% | 43% | ||
| 4. The material presented in the workshop was relevant to my research. | 7 | 14% | 14% | 71% |
III. Lecture and Lecture Video
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The lecture captured the overall essentials of the topic. | 6 | 67% | 33% | |||
| 2. The level of the lecture was appropriate. | 6 | 67% | 33% | |||
| 3. The lecture provided real-world examples. | 6 | 50% | 50% | |||
| 4. The lecture incorporated recent development in the field. | 6 | 17% | 33% | 50% | ||
| 5. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. | 6 | 17% | 33% | 50% | ||
| 6. The lecture stimulated my intellectual curiosity. | 6 | 17% | 33% | 50% | ||
| 7. The lecturer's knowledge of the subject was good. | 6 | 33% | 67% | |||
| 8. The lecturer explained the material well. | 6 | 33% | 67% | |||
| 9. The video quality of the lecture was good. | 6 | 50% | 50% | |||
| 10. The audio quality of the lecture was good. | 6 | 33% | 67% | |||
| 11. The PowerPoint slides were a useful accompaniment to the lecture. | 6 | 17% | 83% |
IV. Conference Call
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The conference call was a valuable part of the workshop. | 4 | 25% | 75% | |||
| 2. The conference call enhanced my understanding of other course material. | 4 | 75% | 25% | |||
| 3. The number of participants involved in the conference call was practical. | 4 | 50% | 50% |
V. Workshop Tutorials and Assistants
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The tutorials are important for the learning process in the workshop. | 6 | 17% | 83% | |||
| 2. The concrete examples in the tutorial(s) increased my understanding of other workshop content. | 6 | 17% | 33% | 50% | ||
| 3. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the tutorial(s). | 6 | 50% | 50% | |||
| 4. The teaching sssistants were well-prepared to answer questions (skip if you had no contact with the TAs). | 4 | 25% | 75% |
VI. Organization
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The workshop web site was informative. | 7 | 43% | 57% | |||
| 2. Emails about the workshop were informative. | 7 | 43% | 57% | |||
| 3. The workshop application and registration process was reasonable. | 7 | 43% | 57% |
VII. Overall Satisfaction
| N | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Unsure | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1. The workshop addressed my research needs. | 7 | 14% | 14% | 71% | ||
| 2. More online workshops like this one should be developed. | 7 | 100% | ||||
| 3. I would participate in other online workshops like this one. | 7 | 14% | 86% | |||
| 4. I would recommend this workshop to others. | 7 | 14% | 86% | |||
| 5. Overall, the workshop met my expectations. | 7 | 43% | 57% |
VIII. Comments
The evaluation form also solicited written responses to three open questions, on improving the sorkshop, suggestions for similar workshops, and how participants learned about the workshop. The number of comments per question varied; example comments per question are listed below.
What suggestions do you have for improving the Workshop?
- I would like to request you some changes in the workshop schedule. If it possible, could you please change the timings of workshop relevant to the Asian countries timings.
- Probably, it would be helpful if there were records of the previous conference call. The conference call was pretty useful.
- 1. If provide more examples, the workshop would be better. 2. Some advanced tutorials should be provided
What suggestions do you have for similar workshops?
- A free energy calculation workshop would be very useful.
- The no of video lectures must be increased as during lectures the presentor addressed some topics which they had discussed in last lectures which we had no any knowledge about. I think if you are refering to any previous lecture it must be uploaded too.
- Focus on VMD (There are several powerful features in VMD that some people are not aware of because they only look for what they want at the moment and miss other useful abilities of VMD in processing and analyzing their data).
How did you learn about this workshop? Where should workshops be advertised?
- A friend of mine send me link considering that my work is in alignment with this workshop i-e glycine ion channel studies.
- I learned through VMD webpage
- Email from NAMD
