Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, April 6-10, 2015

General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana, IL

April 6-10, 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 (April 6-10, 2015) workshop at the The Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology in Urbana, Illinois. The Center provided all workshop content, as well as the classroom, catering, and printing costs.

The program of the workshop consisted of lectures and hands-on sessions. Workshop lectures were given by Klaus Schulten (UIUC), Zan Luthey-Schulten (UIUC), Emad Tajkhorshid (UIUC), Alek Aksimentiev (UIUC), and Chris Chipot (CNRS and UIUC). 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. At the end 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, and overall satisfaction.

Highlights of the results include 100% of participants indicating an increased understanding of computational and theoretical biophysics, 93.8% of participants indicating that the workshop addressed their research needs, and 100% 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. 16 0% 0% 0% 18.8% 81.3%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 16 0% 0% 0% 37.5% 62.5%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 16 0% 0% 12.5% 31.3% 56.3%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 16 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 16 0% 6.3% 0% 25% 68.8%

 

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 16 0% 0% 0% 18.8% 81.3%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 16 0% 0% 0% 31.3% 68.8%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 16 0% 0% 0% 18.8% 81.3%
4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. 16 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 87.5%
5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 18.8% 75.0%
6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 16 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 87.5%
7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field 16 0% 0% 6.3% 25.0% 68.8%
8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 16 0% 6.3% 0% 31.3% 62.5%
9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 16 0% 0% 12.5% 43.8% 43.8%
10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 31.3% 62.5%
11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 6.3% 87.5%

 

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. 16 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%
2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 23 0% 0% 0% 31.3% 68.8%
3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 16 0% 0% 12.5% 31.3% 56.3%
4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 15 0% 0% 0% 46.7% 53.3%
5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 16 0% 0% 0% 37.5% 62.5%
6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 16 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 16 0% 0% 0% 37.5% 62.5%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 16 0% 6.3% 0% 43.8% 50.0%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 56.3% 37.5%

 

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. 16 6.25% 0% 0% 37.5% 56.3%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 16 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 14 0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4%
4. The Comfort Suites Hotel provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 16 0% 0% 12.5% 18.8% 68.8%

 

V. Communication and Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 31.3% 62.5%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. 16 0% 0% 0% 37.5% 62.5%
3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 16 0% 0% 0% 31.3% 68.8%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 16 0% 0% 0% 18.8% 81.3%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 16 0% 12.5% 0% 31.3% 56.3%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 16 0% 4.3% 6.3% 50.0% 43.8%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 16 0% 0% 6.3% 31.3% 62.5%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 16 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 87.5%