Computational Biophysics Workshop - Urbana, July 18-20, 2018
General Evaluation of the Computational Biophysics Workshop at Urbana, July 18-20, 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.
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.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
2. The Workshop improved my ability to carry out original research in the field of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics.
7
0%
0%
43%
43%
14%
3. The Workshop improved significantly my computational skills.
7
0%
0%
29%
57%
14%
4. The Workshop taught me techniques directly applicable to my career.
7
0%
29%
14%
29%
28%
5. The material presented in the Workshop was relevant to my research.
7
0%
29%
14%
29%
28%
N
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. The instructors' knowledge of the subjects was good.
7
0%
0%
14%
29%
57%
2. The instructors explained the material well.
7
0%
0%
14%
29%
57%
3. The instructors provided real-world examples.
7
0%
0%
14%
14%
72%
4. The instructors were prepared for the lectures.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
5. The lectures were coordinated between instructors.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
6. Lectures incorporated recent developments in the field.
7
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
7. The range of lectures captured the overall essentials of the field
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
8. The level of the lectures was appropriate.
7
0%
0%
14%
43%
43%
9. The underlying rationale of the techniques presented was clear.
7
0%
0%
14%
43%
43%
10. The instructors stimulated my intellectual curiosity.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
11. The daily Q & A period was beneficial.
7
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
N
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. The hands-on sessions were important for the learning process in the Workshop.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
2. There were sufficient instructions to proceed with the hands-on assignments.
7
0%
0%
14%
57%
29%
3. The concrete examples in the hands-on tutorials increased my understanding of the lectures.
7
0%
0%
14%
29%
57%
4. The hands-on sessions were long enough.
7
0%
0%
0%
29%
71%
5. The hands-on sessions were coordinated with the lectures.
7
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
6. TAs were well-prepared to answer questions.
7
0%
0%
14%
14%
72%
7. There were enough TAs / instructional staff to help the participants.
7
0%
0%
14%
14%
72%
8. The tutorial options accommodated the differing interests of participants.
5
0%
0%
20%
40%
40%
9. The tutorial options accommodated the differing expertise levels of participants.
5
0%
0%
20%
40%
40%
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.
5
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
2. The lecture room was conducive to learning.
6
0%
0%
17%
33%
50%
3. The projection system was sufficient for the lectures.
6
0%
0%
17%
33%
50%
4. The recommended hotels provided sufficient accommodations (answer if applicable to you).
2
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
V. Communication and Dissemination
N
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. Instructors were readily available for Q&A outside the lecture periods.
6
0%
0%
0%
17%
83%
2. The Workshop website was informative about the event.
5
0%
0%
0%
40%
60%
3. The organizational emails before the Workshop were helpful.
6
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
N
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. The Workshop was well organized.
6
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
2. The balance between lectures and hands-on sessions was optimal.
6
0%
0%
0%
67%
33%
3. The Workshop addressed my research needs.
6
0%
17%
17%
33%
33%
4. Overall, the Workshop met my expectations.
6
0%
0%
0%
33%
67%
5. I would recommend this Workshop to others.
6
0%
0%
0%
17%
83%