| second mtg | third mtg |  fourth mtg | fifth mtg | sixth mtg | seventh mtg | eighth mtg | ninth mtg | tenth mtg | eleventh | twelfth | thirteenth | fourteenth |fifteenth |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Prior to start of semester, Tues. 8-25-09

Tues. 8-25-09

I have reviewed the meeting notes from last semester. It is clear that it is time to wrap up some projects and focus more on a single line of research. The single line will be applying cognitive principles to education. Some of the cognitive principles that apply to learning are the generation, testing, and spacing effects. Problem comparison is a cognitive principle that is being studied by, for example, Rittle-Johnson and Star, as well as others, as suggested in the reviews of the Mechanical Feature Matching paper. Rittle-Johnson and Star cited Richland, Holyoak, and Stigler, 2004, which is a paper that came out of an IES (Institute for Education Science) grant. The IES project on applying cognitive science in education is discussed in the seminal articles from the Observer that instigated my interest in this area of research. So, it is all tying together.

My most important step now is to read the Rittle-Johnson and Star articles, as well as others suggested in the reviews, and use them for ideas for research. Next I can look for funding opportunities, perhaps through the IES project, perhaps through the NIH version of the NSF's office for funding research at undergrad institutions. Finding out what would be the NIH's version of that should be another next step.


Another possible research avenue might be metacognitive knowledge of the effectiveness of the cognitive principles, especially given that comparison is considered one of them, and I have results from CP3 along those lines.

Catrambone: Making subgoals obvious improves transfer

Metacognition about cognitive principles: Given the opportunity to select what pairs of problems to practice on for HW, would students select pairs that are good analogies, thus supporting future transfer?



Comparing what? Here, one possibility is a very simple experiment. This one should be kept very simple at first in order to be efficient. In the meantime, we should find someone in Education who is willing to collaborate and ask them for ideas on more real-classroom-relevant questions.

T=Surface features: average test scores as percent correct
S=Surface features: sales and discounts
D=Surface features: distance, speed, and time
F=Unknown/solution procedure: Find final average percent correct
I= Unknown/solution procedure: Find intitial percent correct

Same surface features condition (control): Train: TF TF    Test: MF DF TI MI DI  or barebones:  MF TI
Differ surface features condition (experi):  Train: TF MF    Test: SF DF TI MI DI  or barebones:  SF  TI


Theoretical idea: Some researchers (G & H) have shown that two examples are better than one for transfer, provided they are compared. But others (Kornell & Bjork) have shown that spacing/interleaving is better than massed for retention and transfer. As a possible way to reconcile these results, Gick & Patterson have shown the benefit of comparing contrasting examples. What should teachers do when presenting examples to help students learn underlying principles? Should they present pairs that are alike in terms of underlying structure (while different in surface features) (as G & H and something like Kornell & Bjork) or pairs that are alike in surface features, while different in underlying structure (as Gick & Patterson did). We should find someone in education willing to frame this in terms of a practical application question.

What I need the research assistants the most for is to create stimulus materials, run subjects, and code data (including reliability checks). Some may also be able to help by reviewing literature and summarizing.

It looks like the project(s) we should start are:

Comparing what? (the 8/27/09 huge amount of counterbalancing idea) Have students compare algebra word problems that differ in surface features and examine effects on transfer to new surface features and to a new procedure. In a separate experiment, have them compare problems that differ in solution procedure. However, the solution procedures should not be extremely different in difficulty. Get lots of data on what the subjects are thinking.

Metacognitive knowledge of the usefulness of cognitive principles for learning. This could be a survey.

Bring both ideas to someone in Ed. department to look for collaborators.

We need to advertise for more people. Plug the benefits for experimental and stats, the trips.

The next meeting will be for Talon and Stephanie, then Samantha, then Kirsten.

Need to send relevant papers to people. And get people on the Lab group folder.

Ryan Lab Group Meetings

Fall 2009 (20103)

First Week of Fifteen, Tues. 9-1-09

Tues. 9-1-09

Present: Kirsten Williams, Talon Krebs, Samantha Crist, and Stephanie Martin.

CP3 crew

Need to contact John Andracchio, and the others to get this one finished up.

Live Local/Global crew

Kirsten will make one more try at getting the binders back from the old research assistants. If not, she will just make the large Navon letters according to her memory of the size. For the small Navon letters, she will check back in the meeting notes to find out who Patricia had contaced in IT that could help. She will then work on setting up the experiment in the Academic forum. We need to get some new researchers to help her.


Fear and Disgust crew

Samantha Crist had run some subjects in PR2 face to face. So she can find out how much data is collected in the face to face version, code it, and put a presentation together. It could be a presentation at EPA in NYC in March. We should get some new researchers to help her.

New Members

Talon Krebs - and Stephanie Martin - could get the simple versions of the new comparing problems studies going while I contact someone in education.


| back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Second Week of Fifteen, Tues. 9-8-09

Tues 9-8-09:

This meeting is for Talon, Stephanie, and the new Tom Converse

(Classes are on the Monday schedule)

Here are the ideas from the Ideas For Future Research section of the Mechanical Feature Matching paper:

Start by doing showing the benefit of the manipulation in the lab, then try to show the benefit in a classroom.

1. Do students represent problems according to the surface features (solutions - target substances; times traveled - distances) or according to principles (partial amts - whole amounts - ratios). If according to surface features, what kinds of training would lead them to represent according to principles?

To measure problem representation, perhaps a questionnaire with Likert items. "I think of this problem as being about solutions containing acid", "I think of this problem as being about the ratio of a part to a whole".

Perhaps Likert items like "This (acid) problem is similar to this other (acid) problem because they are both about solutions and containing acid", This (acid) problem is similar to this sales problem because they are both about ratios of a part to a whole."

Perhaps a similarity rating task, where they rate the similarity of an acid problem to another acid problem, and an acid problem to a sales problem, or a group average problem.

2. The effect of self-explanations on students' problem representations. Perhaps the self-explanations could be prompted (as in ?Gick and Patterson?).  The prompts could be based on the Likert statements above.

3. The effects of self-explaining the feature matching.

4. The effects of making the relations (the equality relation particularly) more salient.



Present: Stephanie Martin, Tom Converse (new)

First we will do a very simple lab experiment. This does not even address any of the questions above.  It just tests the effect of training by comparing two different surface features, vs. the same surface features on transfer to new surface features and transfer to a new procedure.

Got them started on this experiment:   The effect of comparing two problems with different surface features.

T= testing                     F=find final ratio
M=mixture                    I = find initial ratio
S=sales


Training pairs:                               Test problems

TF    TF                               TF                 MF               TI            MI
                                           TF                  SF                TI            SI

TF   MF                               TF                 MF               TI           MI
                                           MF                 SF                MI          SI

Stephanie, and Tom (and later Talon) will dig up the problems out of the CP3 problems.

| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Third Week of Fifteen, Tues. 9-15-09

Tues 9-15-09:

(Tom Converse will not be able to continue)

This Meeting is with Samantha:

PR2 - Do we have data from PR2 face to face in the lab that has not even been looked at?
        How much PR2 web in the lab data do we have? Should we collect more or go with what we have?

No meeting.

| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Fourth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 9-22-09

This meeting is for Kirsten

======================
Email from Samantha Crist 9/15/09 (exerpt):

I tried to count up the data from the web PR2 that you sent me and Mara and I had trouble figuring out when a new subject started.  Mara never emailed me back about it either, and I know she had said that she had class today during the meeting time.  Is there another time you would like me to come meet with you, or should I just come as soon as possible?

My response:

For now, meet me as soon as you can in the 4-5 hour on Tues. I can't set up some other meeting time.

Any time you don't get a response from a fellow res. asst. be persistent. Email her again the next day, try getting a cell phone number, whatever you have to do. Research assistants have to stay in touch with each other. I'll also email Mara. But you keep trying.

Each subjects data ends with "endline". Then the new subject begins. First, count up all the lines starting from that date we had said to start at. Then, copy over just those lines to a new file. Put "web_face_to_face" in the file name. Keep that file, but also create a new file in which you can delete bad data. Data is bad if they made no responses. The responses are the eight, single digit numbers, just before "endline". It is okay if there is some missing responses, as long as not all of them are missing. Also, if two lines came from the same IP address, one immediately after the other, and both have identical data, then that is bad data. It indicates that the same person did it twice. Actually that shouldn't happen in the web face to face version. They shouldn't have messed up with the research assistant looking over their shoulder. But I guess it's possible.

Once you have the file with just the "web_face_to_face" data, with all the bad lines cleaned out, that is the final usable data. I need to know how much of that there is.

If you need more info or help try to catch me some time I'm available. Go to my website http://faculty.kuztown.edu/rryan and click on "My teaching schedule" and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Be sure to have everything you need with you when you come. For example, have your log, so you can take notes if necessary, and have any files you need, such as the data, on a flash drive so I can look at it on my computer if necessary.

Hope that helps.
========================


Tues 9-22-09

Meeting with Kirsten on the Local/Global study comparing the size of the Navon letters.

Present: Kirsten, Kevin Konkolics (new)

Kirsten is trying to contact Dr. Denise Bosler in Com Design - 484-646-4631- 610-324-6915, but not having any luck. I left a message for her on her cell phone.

Kirsten has at least one hard copy of the large Navon letters. I asked her to please memorize the sizes that we need the letters to be and the viewing distance we need in order to get the visual angles we need.

We will spend one more week trying to find a way to reduce the global Navon letters without reducing the local letters. If we can't get the help we need, we'll find another way to make them. We may have to type them up.

Eureka! We contacted Dr. Bosler. Kirsten will meet with her next Tuesday to learn how to do them on a MAC. Then she can finish on a MAC in a lab.

I briefed Kevin on the Local / Global study.

Kevin will work with her.



Samantha Crist stopped in to get caught up on PR2. I told here that I had emailed Mara that we need to get PR2 web in the lab running again so we get more subjects. She will get together with Mara, and pick a time that both of them can spend about an hour with me getting trained in how to post the study on the web and get it running.

| previous | back to top | next |


================================
My email to Kevin 9/23/09:

Kevin,

You should now have permission to access the Ryan Lab group folder. Try going to:
stucluster/Shared/Psychology/Ryan Lab Group/2007-2008/Loc_glob_live/Literature

Start by reading Macrae & Lewis (2002), then Perfect (2003). From there, you could look through the various papers, reading just the abstracts first, to see if you can find something relevant to the issue of the size of the Navon letters.

-- Dr. Ryan
==================================

Fall 2009 (20103)

Fifth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 9-29-09

Tues 9-29-09:

This meeting is for Stephanie and Talon

First we will do a very simple lab experiment. This does not even address any of the questions above.  It just tests the effect of training by comparing two different surface features, vs. the same surface features on transfer to new surface features and transfer to a new procedure.

++++++++++++++++++ BEGIN: FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING++++++++++++++++++++++++

Got them started on this experiment:   The effect of comparing two problems with different surface features.

T= testing                     F=find final ratio
M=mixture                    I = find initial ratio
S=sales


Training pairs:                               Test problems

TF    TF                               TF                 MF               TI            MI
                                           TF                  SF                TI            SI

TF   MF                               TF                  SF               TI            SI
                                           MF                 SF                MI          SI

+++++++++++++++++END: FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What they need is problems to use as materials and a procedure.

We'll call this experiment "Comparing Problems 4: The effect of comparing different versus the same same surface features on transfer to a third set of surface features and a new procedure


Meeting:

Present: Stephanie

Talon did not come to the meeting. I emailed him that I need him on CP3.

I had put some materials that Stephanie can use to make up the problems in the Ryan Lab group folder. I created a sub folder in 2009-2010 called Comparing Problems 4.

In that folder I also put a text file with the above diagram for the experiment.

IMPORTANT: Notice the diagram is a little different than what it was in the notes for 9/8/09. That is because I realized that for a new-surface features problem for the TF MF trained group, the new surface features had to be always S, not M.

Stephanie will also have to create new Testing surface features problems. I explained to her how to set them up so that there are even numbers and no decimals.

We also talked about procedure. We want to be able to run lots of subjects. So the training will be just one pair of problems. They will be worked out and will include instruction in the equation. The subjects will keep those problems in front of them when they try to do their test problems. Therefore, there will not be the extensive training that has been done in previous experiments. The will be more like just noticing how to apply the worked example, including the equation, to the test problems. That will risk getting ceiling performance, but in the past the problem has always been floor performance. If there is ceiling performance, then we can degrade the training, perhaps by removing the equation.

It is in this issue of the procedure for such a lab study that I need the help of Education faculty to guide me to an interesting question. What factors affect a person's ability to do the lab task described above may be of very little interest in Education. So I need to find out what would be of interest. Thus, even if this experiment is not something that would be interesting enough to get published, it can at least serve as a way to get Education faculty involved to try to change it to make it worthy of some interest.

| previous | back to top | next |


Fall 2009 (20103)

Sixth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 10-6-09

Tues. 10-6-09:

==================
Mara stopped in on Thurs. 10/1/09 to show me what she found out about the data for PR2 web - lab so far. We found only 11 SSs that were from the IP address of the computer in OM 294A (156.12.40.128). There were about 12 or so more from 156.12.40.78. I called IT to have them tell me where that computer is. It might be the one in my office, but I'm not sure.

I showed Mara how to make time slots. We made some. So PR2 web lab is now up and running again.

========================
This meeting is for Samantha Crist and Mara regarding PR2
Also for Stephanie to check her progress on making materials for CP4


Meeting:
Samantha and Mara did not come to this meeting. I don't recall hearing from them in advance.
Stephanie emailed me that she might not be able to make it, or might be late. As it turned out she did not make the meeting either.

Nicole Flewelling and Heather Shaw, however, did stop in for the meeting.

I assigned Nicole to work with Stephanie on CP 4. I gave her Stephanie's email. She will contact Stephanie to get started. I advised her to read these meeting notes to help her gain an understanding of the experiment, as well as by talking to Stephanie. Nicole has three more semesters at KU.

I assigned Heather to work on the Interleaving data. I emailed her the Kornell & Bjork paper and the Rohrer & Taylor paper to read to start to get familiar with the interleaving study. Then I gave her the combination to the lockbox. She began by double making sure the second cover sheets had the same info as the first cover sheets and she began storing the data in the lab.
| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Seventh Week of Fifteen, Tues. 10-13-09

Tues. 10-13-09:


======== From Julianna Borzell - Wed. 10/7/09 =============
Dr. Ryan,

Yes, I sat in on a session yesterday (Tuesday) and began to learn the procedure. I am currently taken Experimental Psychology this semester. I also just completed the training in the protection of human subjects online and I have the certificate with me.

I can stop by your office today with the certificate and also discuss future plans with CP3 and another upcoming studies related to it. Thanks for your time!


Julianna Borzell
======================================

=======My email to Samantha after she stopped in Thu. 10/8/09 =================

Samantha,

...

Mara created a set of time slots for Tues, 10/13/09, from 6pm to 7pm. The time slots are every ten minutes. So she has 6 subjects signed up and ready to run.

You are listed on the study as one of the researchers. Do you know how to get on the subject pool website and check the time slots? Also, can you be there when Mara runs those six subjects so that you can learn from her?

Still send me the email reminding me that you can start coming to meetings next week.  However, again, if you read the meeting notes you will see that I don't have a meeting time available for you at the usual Tues. 5-6pm time until three weeks down the line. That would be the 9th week of the semester.

That means that you will have to find a time well before that when I can show you what you need to know. You will have to keep in touch with me by email to try to set up that time. It is often not easy to find times to meet, but please be persistent. I would like to get you up to speed and running subjects as soon as possible.

Thanks.

--  Dr. Ryan


==========================================
This meeting is for Kirsten and Kevin regarding progress on the new Local/Global study, and for Heather Shaw, to show her how to enter interleaving data into an Excel spreadsheet.


| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Eighth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 10-20-09

Tues. 10-20-09:

Stephanie and the CP4 crew

Present: Heather Shaw (interleaving study), Nicole Flewelling (CP4 - but Stephanie couldn't make it, and Talon was not present).

Heather added the Immediate test 3 data for sections 030 and 040 to the data file. However, she added the data to what she thought was the most recent data file, whereas, actually, the most recent data file was the one to which I had added Immediate test 1, 2, and 3 data for section 070.

I will put all the data together into one file, and make sure the name of the file accurately reflects the number of subjects. Then, I will email Heather and tell her the file is now ready for her to add Immediate Test 1,2, and 3 data for section 080.

Nicole has begun to get up to speed on CP4. However, she does not know for sure where Stephanie is in the process of developing the study. She also is not sure why Talon was not here. I asked her to check with Stephanie regarding where she is in the process of developing the study. I also asked her to ask Stephanie to check on Talon for me.

I need to contact each group to see who has progressed and needs to have a meeting.


| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Ninth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 10-27-09

Tues. 10-27-09:

Mara and Samantha regarding PR data

No notes.

| previous | back to top | next |


Fall 2009 (20103)

Tenth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 11-3-09

Tues. 11-3-09:

No meeting.

Heather Shaw is working on organizing and coding the interleaving data. We now have the data from the three immediate tests from all four sections (two of mine, two of Dr. Howell's), and the data from the early retention test from all four sections.

| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Eleventh Week of Fifteen, Tues. 11-10-09

Tues. 11-10-09:

Sarah Windfelder stopped in (Friday, 11/6/09?). She will be in grad school and is willing to work on PR 2. She also wants to finish the paper that she and Nikita Driscoll started about the Fear and Disgust study (based on the data from the 1351 web participants?) to submit to the Psy Chi journal.

Nicole Flewelling was in for advising yesterday. She said she has not had any contact with Stephanie Martin to move ahead on CP4, but that she will stop in today for a lab meeting to get caught up.

Heather Shaw had sent me this email:

==============
fromHEATHER SHAW <hshaw542@live.kutztown.edu>
to"Bob Ryan [cogprofessor@gmail.com]" <cogprofessor@gmail.com>
dateThu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:31 PM
subjectabout conference
mailed-bylive.kutztown.edu

Hello Dr Ryan,
 
 
so i was told to do research about upcoming conference in the area.  This is what i found, i acutally got this email from Prof akillas.
 
Call for Psychology Student Research Papers!

Do you have some research you would like to present in poster format? Here is a perfect opportunity to gain some presentation experience! If your abstract is accepted and you do present, it will count toward the Psychology Comprehensive Examination Research criteria.  Also, it will look really good on your resume and it will strengthen your graduate school application.  Talk to your experimental psychology professor or research advisor about this opportunity.

The 6th Annual Lehigh Valley Psychological and Counseling Association (LVPCA)  Research Conference at Kutztown University is scheduled for Friday, April 2 2010 from 3 - 5 PM.

Submission deadline is: Monday, March 8 2010.

Visit this website for information and submission instructions:

http://psychprof.150m.com/Call_for_papers_2010.html

Got questions? Email the conference coordinator, Professor Raquel Akillas at raquelakillas@rcn.com (use that address...do not reply to this email).

==============




I checked the Interleaving data and sent Heather Shaw this email:

=============
romBob Ryan <cogprofessor@gmail.com>
toHEATHER SHAW <hshaw542@live.kutztown.edu>
dateTue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:41 PM
subjectThe interleaving data
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 3:41 PM (7 minutes ago)
Heather,

Have you entered any data from the interleaving study into the Excel file in the Ryan Lab Group folder? It looks like the most recent file has data for 77 subjects for Imm1, Imm2, and Imm3, but not for early retention. The data is for sections 30, 40, and 70, but not 80. It also includes some of the demographic data, but only for a few subjects. By demographic data I mean age, year, gender, mathskill, readskill, inferstats, statamt, selfrep1, selfrep2, and selfrep3. The filename of that file is "Raw_data_interleaving_Fl_09_77_SSs_10-15-09.xls".

Perhaps you have entered more data but have the most recent file in some other place, such as on a flash drive. Could you let me know where you are with this? Now that we have done the early retention test, I'd like to get all the data we have collected so far entered into the excel file. Thanks.

-- Dr. Ryan

===============


A review of which lines of research have been presented to which conferences in the past showed this:
At APS, I have presented:
1998 - DS2 partial analysis
2001 - DS1 partial analysis
2002 - DS2 another partial analysis
2003 - one of the early CP studies (shorter problem solving times if trained by ANAL)
2004 - one of the early choice task studies (100% LS over ANOM, but only 38% ANAL over MA)
2005 - the mapping - card task - study (simplified training improves modus tollens - hurts modus ponens)
2006 - the Local Global lab study - lower confidence in Global condition (along with lower performance)
2007 - Nothing - PR2 web (1351 SSs) was turned down here, but presented at EPA the next year
2008 - Local Global live - early data (four experimenters)
2009 - CP3 early - ANAL-ANAL beats ANAL-MA for prob 2 of 9,
                              but 82% chose MA over ANOM, only 58% ANAL over ANOM
2010?  (Boston) - Local-Global size of Navons? - Kirsten Williams first author?
                             CP3 all 9 probs? - Steve Craig first author?
                             Interleaving? - Me first author - Heather Shaw second?

At EPA, I have presented
2005 - Talk - ANAL-ANAL beats ANAL-irrel for probs 2&3 of  9
2006 - PR1 - Characteristics of insects that influence fear and disgust (all 44)
2007 - Nothing
2008 - PR2 web (1351 SSs) - Males more hostile than females for the low disgust, high fear insect
2009 - Local Global live - all data (six experimenters) Global advantage for sequential, not simultaneous,
                                           and moreso for correct IDs than avoiding False IDs, although no interaction.
                                           Also, no reduction of False IDs for sequential lineup
2010? (NYC) - PR2 - compare Lab on paper and Lab on web to open web (1351 SSs) results? Me first, Mara and                             Samantha secondary?

=================
==================
Met with Samantha and Mara

We found about 38 useful data from PR2 lab web that were run before Samantha and Mara began running subjects. They ran another 17 and 18, which adds up to 73 so far. I need to pull down the data file for the public web version again and give just the more recent data (not the 1351) to Mara and Samantha as an Excel.

There is about 350 SSs of raw data in OM 381 in PR1 with gender. We need to find out whether the data in the Excel and SPSS data files are that data.

Look at the analysis of the eight insects and see what they show. See whether there is a gender difference in the fear or disgust ratings and how that relates to the gender difference in hostility ratings seen in PR2 web.


| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Twelfth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 11-17-09

Tues. 11-17-09: 

Local Global: Kirsten Williams, Kevin Konkolics.

CP3 - Steve Craig, Talon Krebs, Julianna Borzell?, Greg Lanciotti?

CP 4 - Stephanie Martin, Nicole Flewelling

PR2 - Samantha Crist, Mara Wilde, Sara Windfelder- EPA in NYC in March

Interleaving - Heather Shaw - APS - Boston in May


Meeting:

Present: Heather Shaw, Samantha Crist

Heather stopped by to sign the paperwork for her Independent research. She will do a PSY 370 - Independent Research instead of a PSY 305 - Practicum, at Dr. Meehan's suggestion.

Samantha - We analyzed the PR2 web lab data, the PR2 face to face on paper data, and we combined both and analyzed them together. We are getting a replication of the main effects of gender, fear, and disgust. We did not replicate the three way interaction with gender. We did not even find the same pattern (males being more hostile than females towards the wasps) as in PR web with 1351.

The next thing we need to do is to check and see what happens with the PR web with 1351 if we use a more conservative test (Sheffe?) because of the multiple tests. Of course, we should do the same with the lab data.



| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Thirteenth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 11-24-09

Tues. 11-24-09:

Friday, 11/20/09 - Meeting with Stephanie Martin and Nicole Flewelling re: CP4

Present: Stephanie Martin, Nicole Flewelling

We looked at the problems that Stephanie had written up by hand. We started writing them up as .doc files to create actual materials. We were able to create the two pairs of training problems. There are a total of 6 problems needed for testing: TF MF SF TI MI SI. One thing we noticed was that Stephanie had used a 2/5 to 3/5 ratio on a lot of the problems. I changed the ratios on some of them when I made the training pairs. Nicole has more time available now than Stephanie. Also, she will be here for 2 more semesters. So she will take over writing up as .doc files the test problems. I updated the folder for CP4 in the Ryan Lab group folder. I also requested that Nicole be added to the group that can access the folder (with a CC to Nicole). I asked Rick to "reply-all" so that she knows when she is added.



| previous | back to top | next |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Fourteenth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 12-1-09

Tues. 12-1-09:

| previous | back to top |

Fall 2009 (20103)

Fifteenth Week of Fifteen, Tues. 12-8-09

Tues. 12-8-09: