Computational Biophysics Workshop - Pittsburgh, June 1-5, 2015

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Pittsburgh, PA

June 1-5, 2015

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 Zan Luthey-Schulten, Laxmikant Kale, Emad Tajkhorshid, and Aleksei 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 (June 1-5, 2015) workshop at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.

The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by Klaus Schulten (UIUC), Zan Luthey-Schulten (UIUC), Ivet Bahar (U of Pittsburgh), Chakra Chennubhotla (U of Pittsburgh), Indira Shrivastava (U of Pittsburgh), and Timothy Lezon (U of Pittsburgh). 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, environment and technical resources, communication and dissemination, overall satisfaction, and questions soliciting open comments.

Highlights of the results include 96% of participants indicating an increased understanding of computational and theoretical biophysics, 87% of participants indicating that the workshop addressed their research needs, and 91% 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. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 21.7% 73.9%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 23 0% 4.3% 13% 30.4% 52.2%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 23 0% 13% 17.4 43.5 26.1
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 23 0% 0% 8.7% 47.8% 43.5%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 23 0% 0% 13% 43.5% 43.4%

 

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 23 0% 0% 0% 4.3% 95.7%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 23 0% 0% 0% 34.8% 65.2%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 23 0% 0% 0% 8.7% 91.3%
4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. 23 0% 0% 0% 4.3% 95.7%
5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 23 0% 0% 0% 34.8% 65.2%
6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 23 0% 0% 0% 8.7% 91.3%
7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field 22 0% 4.5% 9.1% 22.7% 63.6%
8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 21.7% 73.9%
9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 23 0% 0% 8.7% 21.7% 69.6%
10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 26.1% 69.6%
11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. 23 0% 0% 0% 26.1% 73.9%

 

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. 23 4.3% 0% 4.3% 17.4% 73.9%
2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 23 0% 0% 8.7% 52.2% 39.1%
3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 23 0% 0% 13% 30.4% 56.5%
4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 23 4.3% 0% 0% 47.8% 47.8%
5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 23 0% 0% 8.7% 30.4% 60.9%
6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 23 0% 4.3% 4.3% 30.4% 60.9%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 23 0% 8.7% 0% 26.1% 65.2%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 23 0% 8.7% 4.3% 26.1% 60.9%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 23 8.7% 0% 21.7% 34.8% 34.8%

 

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. 20 5% 0% 5% 50% 40%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 17.4% 78.3%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 17.4% 78.3%
4. The University of Pittsburgh Bouquet Gardens provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 15 6.7% 0% 6.7% 33.3% 53.3%

 

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% 4.5% 22.7% 72.7%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 26.1% 69.6%
3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 23 0% 0% 4.3% 26.1% 69.6%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 23 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 23 0% 4.3% 4.3% 21.7% 69.6%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 23 0% 4.3% 8.7% 39.1% 47.8%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 23 0% 4.3% 8.7% 13.0% 73.9%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 23 0% 0% 8.7% 13% 78.3%

 

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+pitts2015@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 might be nice to have at least one session on non-protein biomolecules"
    • "I would have tutorial "lectures" go more slowly. We can't type as fast as someone cutting and pasting commands. We can't type as fast as people who use this software regularly."
  • Suggestions for similar workshops:
    • "More focused workshops may help some of us. One on MD (mostly). One on Coarse Graining (mostly)."
    • "This workshop, again, was excellent. It would be neat to have a whole workshop week dedicated to a single program (eg ProDy) or a single problem (eg Druggability, Evolution)."
  • Most/least valuable topics and suggestions for future workshop topics
    • "I would like having 1 day after all to solve a real problem(s) using combination of methods."
    • "Topics to be covered: how to analyze MD trajectories, good practices in MD"
  • Other comments:
    • "Great Workshop! All of the lecturers were well-spoken & very knowledgable about their particular topics. The composition of attendees was also excellent. And I had the opportunity to interact with people in different stages of their careers."
    • "It would be great if a section of the days or seminar was dedicated to presenting research questions to participants to see if information has been absorbed. For example, Dr. Bahar presenting "Protein A is hypothesized to do B w/ question C, how can these tools be applied to answer/prove that?""