Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, April 17-21, 2017
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.
| 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% |
| 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% |
| 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% |
| 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% |
