General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana, September 10-14, 2018

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.

 

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. 12 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics. 12 0% 0% 8% 25% 67%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills. 12 8% 8% 42% 17% 25%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career. 12 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research. 12 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%

 

II. Lectures

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good. 12 0% 0% 0% 17% 83%
2. The instructors explained the material well. 12 0% 8% 0% 17% 75%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples. 12 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures. 12 0% 0% 0% 17% 83%
5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors. 12 0% 17% 0% 25% 58%
6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field. 12 0% 0% 8% 25% 67%
7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field 12 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%
8. The level of the lectures was appropriate. 12 0% 0% 0% 17% 83%
9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear. 12 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity. 12 0% 0% 17% 8% 75%
11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial. 12 0% 0% 25% 17% 58%

 

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. 12 0% 8% 25% 33% 34%
2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments. 12 0% 8% 25% 33% 34%
3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures. 11 0% 0% 27% 27% 46%
4. The hands-on sessions were long enough. 12 0% 17% 17% 25% 41%
5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures. 12 0% 0% 8% 25% 67%
6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions. 12 0% 8% 17% 42% 33%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants. 12 8% 0% 8% 17% 67%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants. 11 0% 0% 0% 27% 73%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants. 11 0% 0% 0% 45% 55%

 

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. 11 0% 9% 9% 27% 55%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning. 12 0% 0% 0% 8% 92%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures. 12 0% 0% % 8% 92%
4. The University of Pittsburgh Bouquet Gardens provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you). 4 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%

 

V. Communication and Dissemination

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods. 12 0% 0% 0% 17% 73%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event. 12 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful. 12 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%

 

VI. Overall Satisfaction

  N Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized. 12 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal. 12 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs. 12 0% 0% 8% 33% 59%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations. 12 0% 8% 0% 8% 84%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others. 12 0% 0% 8% 0% 92%