| second mtg | third mtg |
fourth mtg | fifth mtg
|
sixth mtg | seventh mtg |
eighth mtg | ninth mtg |
tenth mtg | eleventh |
twelfth | thirteenth
|
fourteenth |fifteenth
|
Ryan Lab Group Meetings
Spring 2012 (2122)
First Week of Fifteen, Mon. 01-23-12
Wed. 1/25/12
Met with John Hough. He will run subjects in Equation Format Fall 2011
- Extended to Spring 2012. I showed him the study on sona, and in the
Ryan lab group folder, and the materials in the lab. I put him on the
study as a researcher on sona. I requested access for him to the Ryan
lab group folder. I wrote up a change of protocol form to add him to
IRB for the study.
Met with Sean Snoddy. Looked at data from first 24 SSs in CP4 (MF vs
MF+SE). Found that, in both conditions, after controlling for pre-test
total, post-test total was correlated with producing the equation. But
the correlation was stronger in the MF+SE condition than in the MF
condition (don't know yet if the diff between the cors is sig). If it
is, it could be because SE helps them infer the equation, but there is
some question as to whether the SEers may have actually MFed more than
the MFers.
Thurs. 1/26/12
Met with Erika Ashman. got her on the Equation Format study as with
John Hough. Just waiting for her NIH certificate, and then signatures
of her and John on the Change of Protocol form, and then they can both
create time slots and run subjects.
Also, I found the raw data from last semester for the latest Equation
format study.
|
back to top |
next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Second Week of Fifteen, Mon. 01-30-12
Mon 1/30/12
Met with Greg Dreibelbis and Ted Brown. Got them
on the Equation Format study as with John Hough and Erika Ashman. Also
showed Ted what's going on with the stats motivation study.
Wed 2/1/12
Met with Sean and Ryan Rathman.
Goals: See where we are with CP 4 and make plans for next steps
Sean's independent research
The new
study - DRM with familiar and unfamiliar words
Sean has submitted the CP4 results far to APS. He found that
self-explaining, at least the way it was done, did not add anything to
the feature matching. He also found several strong correlations. For
example, for MF only, total posttest performance, adjusting for total
pretest performance was significantly correlated with use of the
equation r(21) = .445, p = .033. For SE only, the same correlation was
r(21) = .569, p = .005. If those two correlations are significantly
different, he can argue that when trained to self-explain in addition
to match features, correctly solving is more associated with using the
equation than when trained to match features only.
For CP5 we need better self-explanation instructions. One possibility
may be to try to come up with instructions that lead subjects to
clarify that understanding the weighted ratio problems depends on
realizing that the specific kinds of amounts and ratios (original
prices, discount percents, sizes of groups, averages of the groups) do
not matter. Rather to understand the problems what matters is
understanding that whenever you are trying to average ratios, you have
to weight the ratios by the amounts. That is, before you can average
the ratios, you first have to multiply the ratios times their
associated amounts (that's where you are weighting them). Then, rather
than just adding the ratios and dividing by 2, you add the weighted
ratios and then divide by the sum the total of the weights. That gives
you the weighed ratio.
So maybe the prompts could go something like this:
Problem A:
"A man bought a suit that was originally priced at $200, but was marked
down 20%. He also bought a blazer that was originally priced at $300,
but was marked down 10%. What was the percentage of discount on the two
items together?"
If one item is discounted 20% and the other is discounted 10%, then can
you find the discount for the two items together by just averaging 20%
and 10%? That is, can you just add the percents together and divide by
2?
Correct - you can't. OR, No, actually you can't.
The percents are not amounts like the prices are. They are like
relative amounts - they show you how much money you are saving relative
to the original price. So, the percents are always related to the
original prices. Because the prices are different, before you can
average the percents, you have to weight them by prices. That is, you
multiply the percents times the prices to get weighted percents. Then,
instead of just adding the percents, you add the weighted percents.
Finally, after you add, you can't just divide by 2. Since you weighted
the percents, you have to divide by the sum of the weights, that is,
the sum of the two prices. That will give you the weighted percent of
discount for the two items together.
Then you do the same procedure for a group average problem.
Then for the matching, in the MF condition, you just lead them to do
the matching using the specific terms (original prices, discount
percents, sizes of groups, averages of the groups). So when they
practice the matching in their practice session, they are to say WHAT
they matched, in specific terms, but that's all. But in the MF+SE
condition you lead them to recognize that the problem elements are best
thought of in more general terms (amounts and ratios) instead of in
specific terms. So in their practice, when they match, they not only
say WHAT they matched (in the specific terms), but also WHY they match
those particular items. That is, they are to say that "even though $200
is specifically an original price, and the 2,000 people is specifically
the size of the town's population, more generally, both the $200 and
the 2,000 people are the first initial weight in the problem.
We'll have to work on fleshing this out for the rest of the
instructions, but you see where I'm going?
Sean is still searching for more papers for the independent research
Sean is also still searching for more papers on DRM with familiar and
unfamiliar words.
I still want to see the pre-post results on individual problems from
CP4.
I still need to check whether Ryan is able to access the Ryan lab group
folder, get in the lab, etc.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Third Week of Fifteen, Mon. 02-06-12
|
previous |
back to top | next
|
Spring 2012 (2122)
Fourth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 02-13-12
Wed. 2/15/12
Met with Sean Snoddy and Ryan Rathman. How to get the DRM study off the
ground? It will be tied in with Sean's Independent Research. They
summarized a review paper by Lampinen et al. (1997/1998? Revised
2011?). This paper claims that memories can be illusions or false. An illusion
is a "Remember" memory; a false memory is a "Know" memory?
They also summarized Plancher, Nicolas, & Piolino (2008) "Suggestion in the DRM: What
state of consciousness is associated false memory?" Subjects studied 12
DRM type lists of 15 words. After each list, they took a recall test.
The research was not concerned about those subjects who did recall the
lure. If subjects did not recall the lure, they were then assigned to
one of three conditions, Strong Suggestion, Moderate Suggestion, or No
suggestion. In the strong suggestion condition, the experimenter named
two words and told the subject that those words were on the list. One
of them was a word from the list, the other was the lure. In the
moderate suggestion condition, the experimenter asked the subjects if
the two words had appeared on the list. In the no suggestion condition
the researcher said nothing. Then the subjects took a recognition test
for the 12 lists. They were instructed that if they selected a word as
being from the lists, they had to make a "remember", "know", or "guess"
judgment. The remember judgment was described as meaning they were sure
the word was from the list and they could actually mentally see the
word on the list and see details such as where in the list it was
positioned. The know judgment was described as meaning they were sure
the word was from the list but they could not actually mentally see the
word on the list and see details. The guess judgment was described as
meaning that they just thought that the word probably was from the
list, but they were not sure.
The finding was that the strong suggestion produced more false
recognitions than either the moderate or no suggestion condition. Also,
the strong suggestion produced more remember judgments. Sean and Ryan
suspect that those results are an artifact of the authority of the
experimenter as represented by whether the experimenter was a professor
and how the experimenter was dressed.
For Sean and Ryan's DRM study, they will try to replicate that study
but add a test of their suspicion. They will vary both whether the
experimenter is a professor or a fellow undergrad, and whether the
experimenter is well or poorly dressed. Also, they will require
participants who give a remember judgment to actually indicate what
details they remember so that they can be checked for actual accuracy.
By doing this, they will be able to analyze the data by both
categorizing any reported remember judgment as really a remember
judgment, and also by only considering a reported remember judgement as
really a remember judgment if the accompanying details are accurate.
|
previous |
back to top | next
|
Spring 2012 (2122)
Fifth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 02-20-12
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Sixth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 02-27-12
Wed., 2/29/12
Met with Sean about the DRM study. He will have to either change his
procedure, or run subjects one at a time. In the study on which his is
based, the words that were presented as the misinformation depended on
what words that particular subject did or did not recall.
Also, I looked at his first draft of the IRB app. He will need to
shorten and simplify. I told him to put it in terms anyone would
understand, and if some item does not apply, to just write N/A rather
than a sentence.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Seventh Week of Fifteen, Mon. 03-05-12
|
previous |
back to top | next
|
Spring 2012 (2122)
Eighth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 03-12-12
|
previous |
back to top | next
|
Spring 2012 (2122)
Ninth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 03-19-12
Wed., 03/21/12
Met with Sean about the mind wandering literature. He summarized
a paper by someone and Schooler (a review in Psych Bulletin from 2006).
For his review paper for the Independent Research he will summarize
that paper plus some newer ones, but will not try to encompass all of
the huge amount of related literature. He will submit a brief
outline/list of points in about a week or so for me to look at to give
him any guidance he might need.
We also
checked the materials for the DRM study. The issue with the apparently
crowded recognition test was due to a formatting issue in trying to
open a Word 10 document in openoffice.
Another problem was how to give the "suggestions" to groups of subjects
and what you would predict. Here is what Sean and Ryan are thinking of
doing. First, they see all six lists, taking a recall list after each
list (one of the lists was related to the critical lure "Fruit". Then
they are given the recognition test. Before they start, they are told
"Fruit was on one of the lists" (or asked "Was fruit on one of the
lists?"). When they do the recognition test, they will come to "Fruit".
In either condition, I think the prediction should be (but we need to
talk about this some more), they might say "I don't remember fruit
being on the list, but the experimenter told me it was and I believe
them". Then they mark "old". However, in the low authority condition,
they might mark "just know", and so give no details. But in the high
authority condition, they might be more likely to mark "remember" and
then give details.
Thurs., 03/22/12
Emails sent to try to get more research assistants:
Amanda,
Pretty
soon Sean Snoddy will need a research assistant to help with his DRM
study. Have you done the NIH on-line training for research assistants?
Could you get in touch with Sean via email (ssnod926@live.kutztown.edu)
and see about beginning to work with him? And copy your emails to me so
I can keep track of what's going on. Let me know. Thanks.
-- Dr. Ryan
Hello all,
Each
of you has met with me on a past occasion to find out about working in
my research program. I'd like to see if any (or all) of you could help
out with a research project called Comparing Problems 4 (CP4). My
experienced research assistant (Sean Snoddy) is running that project.
Sean already has one research assistant (Ryan Rathman) working with
him. However, once the project is ready to be up and running it is going
to need several more research assistants to run all the subjects we
will need to run.
I believe Sean has some of the work done to prepare that study to
get up and running, but there is more that needs to be done. Between
Sean and Ryan they should be able to get you more familiarized with the
project. You might be able to help them with some of the preparatory
work. That will help you to learn about the study. Then, when it is
ready to run, you will already know enough to help run the subjects.
This is a project that may take several semesters to run. And even
if the data collection for CP4 is done in a semester or two, there will
be continuations of that project for which I will need experienced
researchers. That's why I want to get some of you sophomores involved in
it now, because Sean and Ryan will be graduating.
In order to actually run subjects, you have to have completed the
NIH training. So if you haven't done that yet, you need to do it.
So what I would like each of you to do is to send an email to Sean (ssnod926@live.kutztown.edu) and Ryan (rrath357@live.kutztown.edu)
to try to get together with them to help them. In the email, please let
them know two things: (1) whether or not you have completed the NIH
training, and (2) whatever other time commitments you have besides
school so that they have some idea how much time you can commit to the
CP4 study. Also, please copy those emails to me so I can keep track of
what's going on.
Thanks,
--- Dr. Ryan
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Tenth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 03-26-12
Wed. 03/28/12
Met with Sean and Ryan - Looked at an outline of the script. Will do a dry run as soon as it is fleshed out.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Eleventh Week of Fifteen, Mon. 04-02-12
Wed. 4/4/12
Met with Sean - Talked about CP5 first - He is getting the new
res. assts. together to work on lit searching, then coming up with a
good question and method, then actually running the subjects.
Next he gave me his outline for the Ind. Res. It's coming along well. He will add more for next time.
He is also working on the presentation for URC for funding for APS in
Chicago. He and Greg will present their poster on CP4, and they will
travel and stay with another student.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Twelfth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 04-09-12
Wed. 4/11/12
Looked at proposal for URC grant for travel to APS 2012. Looks good. Just needs a little more added.
Looked at the paper for the independent research. Also looks good so far. Has a good bit to go. Might end up shortening.
Also, talked to Greg Dreibelbis about being the advisor for an
independent study with him in Fall 2012 on lying about future
intentions. I agreed to do it.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Thirteenth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 04-16-12
Wed. 4/18/12
Met with Sean. Read the next sections of his paper for the independent
research - the rest of methods, executive processing, and decoupling of
attention. Still looks good. Will need a little proofreading.
Sean will also try to get the DRM study running very early next Fall (2012).
And he will have the group for CP5 work on a lit. review, starting over the summer.
|
previous |
back to top | next |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Fourteenth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 04-23-12
Wed., 4/25/12
Met with Sean. He caught me up on what he is doing with CP4 and CP5. He
has presented to the URC for funding to present CP4. Has a group
together (7 people including) to work on the lit search for CP5. They
will all use Zotero. I put the earliest comparing problems papers of
mine in the Ryan Lab group folder.
He will work more on the DRM study and be finished with it by the end of the summer.
He will turn in the paper for the independent research paper by Wed. next week.
|
previous |
back to top |
Spring 2012 (2122)
Fifteenth Week of Fifteen, Mon. 04-30-12
