Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (November 2009, 2) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

More Engaged/Engaged or Confused?

From:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:18:32 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1514 lines)

More Engaged 

November 9, 2009 

Although budget cuts have many educators this year worried about the quality
of education students receive, an annual survey being released today
suggests that institutions -- large and small, public and private -- can
achieve significant gains.

The National Survey of Student Engagement -- whose acronym NSSE is
pronounced "nessie" -- doesn't measure learning per se, but a series of
qualities of student engagement that are widely believed to correlate with
learning. Those qualities range from the rigor of assignments to
faculty-student interactions to certain "high impact" experiences (such as
capstone courses) that are praised as making students more engaged, more
likely to stay enrolled and graduate, and more likely to learn more. 

While a new research study released Friday criticized NSSE's validity, the
survey has grown <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/26/nsse>  in
popularity over the 10 years of its existence and has considerable clout
among college presidents and student affairs experts.

The NSSE questions are grouped under five benchmarks and colleges can
compare their performance over time, as well as the performance of their
peers. While many NSSE colleges release their full reports (and USA Today
last year started <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/07/nsse>  to
publish those that agreed to have them published), going public is a choice
made by individual colleges. (The NSSE data focus on four-year college
students; a separate study, the Community College Survey of Student
Engagement, will be released next week, and that study does require that all
data be made public.)

The theory behind NSSE is that by participating in the surveys of freshmen
and seniors, colleges can identify weak points in their practices and
construct policies to improve them. Most colleges participate every year or
two, with the idea of measuring changes over time to see if those
improvements are taking hold. This year, the study found that 41 percent of
institutions showed positive gains in at least one measure for first-year
students (with the largest gains seen in measures of active and
collaborative learning, and of student-faculty interaction), and 28 percent
saw gains for seniors. Very few institutions saw decreases.

Alexander C. McCormick, NSSE director and associate professor of education
at Indiana University at Bloomington, said he was particularly pleased that
the gains were not limited to any one kind of institution, and thus
challenged conventional wisdom that many types of engagement are easiest to
carry out at smaller, private colleges. This year's findings, he said,
provide "compelling evidence" that "positive change is not limited to
certain institutional types." Further, he said that the study finds that
these institutions are achieving "steady improvement" over a period of
years, not "isolated upticks."

NSSE -- founded in part out of concern over the impact of U.S. News & World
Report rankings -- has always avoided giving grades or rankings to
institutions or higher education as a whole. Rather, it annually notes
"promising" and "disappointing" results from the year's data. Beyond the
totals noted above, some of the "promising" trends identified were the
following:

*	Over half of students frequently had serious conversations with
students of a different race or ethnicity, while only about one in seven
reported that they never had such conversations. 
*	More than three-quarters of seniors said their senior
seminar/capstone course contributed substantially to developing intellectual
curiosity, learning independently, thinking critically, and making decisions
based on evidence and reasoning. 
*	Eighty-five percent of faculty members in a companion survey
believed it was important for undergraduates to complete a culminating
senior experience. Thirty-three percent of seniors have done so, and another
31 percent were planning to. 

Among the "disappointing" findings:

*	Male students were less likely than female students to participate
in a "high impact practices," such as "learning communities" in which
students take several courses together in an organized way, study abroad,
research with faculty members, or internships. Among first-year students,
the male to female participation rates are 45 percent vs. 55 percent. Among
seniors, the rates are 43 percent vs. 57 percent. 
*	About one in five students frequently came to class without
completing readings or assignments. 
*	Forty percent of first-year students never discussed ideas from
readings or classes with faculty members outside of class. 

Each year, NSSE features some special questions designed to study particular
issues. Among this year's issues was a comparison of the experiences of
transfer students (of various types) to "native" students who graduate from
the institution they enroll in as freshmen. The issue of the experience of
transfer students is an increasingly important ones as more students enroll
in community colleges or migrate from one four-year institution to another.
Further, as the NSSE annual report notes, many transfer students feel
"marginalized," and there has been long-standing concern that they may not
benefit from key experiences that contribute to student engagement.

The analysis found this to be true, both for "vertical" transfers (those who
move from a community college to a four-year institution) and "horizontal"
transfers who move from one four-year institution to another. However, the
survey found that horizontal transfers are more likely than vertical
transfers to have these experiences.

Participation Rates for Seniors in 'High Impact' Practices


Practice 

Never Transferred 

Transferred From 4-Year College 

Transferred From Community College 


Culminating senior experience (such as capstone course, senior project or
thesis) 

40% 

30% 

25% 


Internship 

62% 

49% 

43% 


Study abroad 

20% 

15% 

7% 


Research with a professor 

24% 

17% 

13% 

Noting the increased public interest in educating more students in STEM
fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), NSSE asked a
series of questions this year related to types of educational experiences
that would apply theories of engaged learning to those disciplines. The
findings indicate -- not surprisingly perhaps -- that STEM majors are more
likely than non-STEM majors to experience these forms of engagement. But the
figures among STEM major show far from uniform adoption, and the figures for
non-STEM majors are generally low, even on experiences that might apply not
only to those students' knowledge of science but to other fields as well.

Comparing Experiences of STEM and Non-STEM Majors


Experience 

STEM Majors 

Non-STEM Majors 


Worked with other students to solve mathematical or computational problems 

55% 

25% 


Worked on a project requiring hands-on physical design or technical modeling


37% 

21% 


Wrote five or more papers in which you discussed methods or findings related
to data from lab or field work, a survey project, etc. 

44% 

31% 


Wrote five or more papers in which you explained the meaning of numerical or
statistical data 

34% 

18% 


Wrote five or more papers in which you included graphs, drawings, tables,
photos, screen shots, or other visual content 

45% 

24% 


Took a computer language or programming course 

41% 

18% 


Gains in designing and conducting experiments, surveys, or field research 

55% 

32% 


Gains in interpreting results from experiments, surveys, or field research 

66% 

37% 

Another area on which NSSE focused this year was the impact of learning
technologies. The survey found positive impacts on learning both for the use
of course management (or learning management) systems and for interactive
technologies (such as course blogs, student response systems, etc.). While
many colleges have the latter technology as part of the former, NSSE
explored them as separate topics.

The use of course management software correlated, NSSE found, to stronger
student-faculty interaction and to gains by students in their personal
development. The use of interactive technologies corresponded with students'
self-reported educational gains and with students' view that they had a
supportive campus environment.

Following are some of the other results of the 2009 NSSE, organized around
the survey benchmark categories (which appear in bold).

NSSE Results 2009


Category 

Freshmen 

Seniors 


Level of Academic Challenge 

  

  


Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings


  

  


--None 

1% 

2% 


--Between 1 and 4 

21% 

27% 


--Between 5 and 10 

40% 

37% 


--Between 11 and 20 

24% 

20% 


--More than 20 

13% 

15% 


Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more 

  

  


--None 

80% 

50% 


--Between 1 and 4 

14% 

40% 


--Between 5 and 10 

4% 

7% 


--Between 11 and 20 

2% 

2% 


--More than 20 

1% 

1% 


Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages 

  

  


--None 

14% 

10% 


--Between 1 and 4 

53% 

44% 


--Between 5 and 10 

26% 

31% 


--Between 11 and 20 

6% 

11% 


--More than 20 

2% 

4% 


Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages 

  

  


--None 

3% 

6% 


--Between 1 and 4 

32% 

34% 


--Between 5 and 10 

34% 

28% 


--Between 11 and 20 

20% 

18% 


--More than 20 

11% 

14% 


Hours per 7-day week spent preparing for class 

  

  


--0 

1% 

0% 


--1-5 

15% 

16% 


--6-10 

24% 

25% 


--11-15 

22% 

20% 


--16-20 

18% 

16% 


--21-25 

10% 

10% 


--26-30 

5% 

6% 


--More than 30 

5% 

7% 


Active and Collaborative Learning 

  

  


Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions 

  

  


--Never 

3% 

2% 


--Sometimes 

36% 

26% 


--Often 

35% 

32% 


--Very often 

26% 

41% 


Made a class presentation 

  

  


--Never 

15% 

6% 


--Sometimes 

52% 

34% 


--Often 

25% 

36% 


--Very often 

9% 

24% 


Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments 

  

  


--Never 

14% 

8% 


--Sometimes 

41% 

33% 


--Often 

31% 

34% 


--Very often 

14% 

25% 


Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class 

  

  


--Never 

6% 

4% 


--Sometimes 

35% 

30% 


--Often 

36% 

38% 


--Very often 

23% 

28% 


Student-Faculty Interaction 

  

  


Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor 

  

  


--Never 

7% 

4% 


--Sometimes 

41% 

35% 


--Often 

33% 

34% 


--Very often 

19% 

27% 


Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside
of class 

  

  


--Never 

40% 

29% 


--Sometimes 

38% 

43% 


--Often 

15% 

18% 


--Very often 

7% 

10% 


Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic
performance 

  

  


--Never 

7% 

5% 


--Sometimes 

35% 

31% 


--Often 

40% 

44% 


--Very often 

17% 

21% 


Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or
program requirements 

  

  


--Never 

38% 

17% 


--Sometimes 

23% 

50% 


--Often 

33% 

13% 


--Very often 

5% 

19% 


Enriching Educational Experiences 

  

  


Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in
terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values 

  

  


--Never 

11% 

10% 


--Sometimes 

32% 

33% 


--Often 

29% 

30% 


--Very often 

27% 

28% 


Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity
than your own 

  

  


--Never 

15% 

12% 


--Sometimes 

32% 

33% 


--Often 

27% 

28% 


--Very often 

25% 

27% 


Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant
messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment 

  

  


--Never 

16% 

11% 


--Sometimes 

31% 

27% 


--Often 

28% 

27% 


--Very often 

26% 

35% 


Foreign language coursework 

  

  


--Have not decided 

19% 

9% 


--Do not plan to do 

26% 

41% 


--Plan to do 

34% 

9% 


--Done 

21% 

41% 


Study abroad 

  

  


--Have not decided 

29% 

14% 


--Do not plan to do 

26% 

62% 


--Plan to do 

42% 

9% 


--Done 

3% 

15% 


Culminating senior experience 

  

  


--Have not decided 

38% 

11% 


--Do not plan to do 

12% 

24% 


--Plan to do 

48% 

31% 


--Done 

2% 

33% 


Supportive Campus Environment 

  

  


Institutional emphasis: Providing the support you need to thrive socially 

  

  


--Very little 

16% 

24% 


--Some 

35% 

39% 


--Quite a bit 

33% 

26% 


--Very much 

16% 

11% 


Institutional emphasis: Providing the support you need to help you succeed
academically 

  

  


--Very little 

3% 

5% 


--Some 

20% 

24% 


--Quite a bit 

44% 

43% 


--Very much 

33% 

28% 


Institutional emphasis: Helping you cope with your non-academic
responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 

  

  


--Very little 

24% 

36% 


--Some 

37% 

36% 


--Quite a bit 

26% 

18% 


--Very much 

13% 

9% 

-  <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Scott Jaschik 

Related Stories

*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/09/capture> Fans and
Fears of 'Lecture Capture'
November 9, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/09/porter> Engaged or
Confused?
November 9, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/05/twitter> Tweeting in
Class
November 5, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/11/02/matthews> Retention
Matters
November 2, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/30/predict> The New
Diagnostics
October 30, 2009 

C Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed 

 

Sources:
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/11/09/nsse

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/09/nsse

 

 

Engaged or Confused? 

November 9, 2009 

With today's release of the National <http://nsse.iub.edu/>  Survey of
Student Engagement, hundreds of colleges and universities will be studying
their results, and considering whether they should change policies or
approaches to better reach students. But a
<http://srporter.public.iastate.edu/surveys/surveys.html>  new study
released Friday argues that NSSE (pronounced "nessie") is seriously flawed,
lacking validity for its conclusions and asking questions of students in
ways that are sure to doom the value of the data collected.

NSSE "fails to meet basic standards for validity and reliability," writes
Stephen R. Porter, an associate professor in Iowa State University's
educational leadership and policy studies department. Porter's study --
presented in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education -- raises questions about most research based on
surveys of students, and he stresses that he does not believe the problems
are unique to NSSE. He even goes so far as to say that in the past he has
done research based on student surveys that he now doubts has validity. 

But he uses NSSE as his focus, in part, because it is a student survey that
has captured the attention of so many higher education leaders.

"Most academic research" using student surveys "is ignored, but this has a
huge impact," he said in an interview. "If I get something wrong in a
journal article, maybe two dozen people read it, but this is something they
are using to tell colleges what to do. There are high stakes on how these
surveys are used."

Alexander C. McCormick, NSSE director and associate professor of education
at Indiana University at Bloomington, said in an interview that "some of the
issues [Porter] raises have legitimacy," but he also said that Porter is
overstating some of the problems and ignoring some evidence that backs
NSSE's methodology.

In his paper, Porter gathers evidence from other researchers that suggests
NSSE's basic approach to asking questions of students is flawed. One key
issue he raises is that students don't necessarily know what it means when
they are asked if certain practices or experiences are frequent or rare --
even though such measurements are critical to NSSE questions. 

For example, Porter cites a 1982 study in which college students were asked
the same question (over the course of a longer survey so it wouldn't be
obvious to students that they were answering the same question) in two ways.
The question was typical of NSSE questions in asking students how frequently
they made an appointment to see a faculty member, and the first round of
answer choices were similar to the kinds of answers NSSE uses: occasionally,
often and very often. But in the second iteration of the question, students
were given more specific answers, ranging from "once or twice a year" to
"more than once a week."

As the results indicate, there is considerable variation among students on
what they mean when they say "often," which in this study was almost as
likely to mean "once a week" as "3 to 6 times a year." And students with the
same meaning (when defined precisely) check different categories when given
the NSSE-like answers.

Consistency of Student Interpretation of Occasionally, Often and Very Often


Students Who Checked... 

Occasionally 

Often 

Very Often 


... and also checked "never" for same question 

4% 

0% 

0% 


... "once or twice a year" 

37% 

6% 

2% 


... "3 to 6 times a year" 

38% 

24% 

9% 


.. "1 or 2 times a month" 

18% 

45% 

33% 


... "about once a week" 

3% 

21% 

35% 


... "more than once a week" 

0% 

4% 

21% 

But it's not just that students don't measure frequency the same way, Porter
argues. They also don't know (at least with precision) many other terms used
by NSSE.

For instance, there is a question about whether students discuss grades or
assignments with instructors, to which Porter points out that some may count
teaching assistants and others may not. 

Or the question about "serious conversations with students." Of this
question, Porter asks: "How does a student distinguish between serious and
frivolous conversations? And what is a conversation? A chat in the bathroom?
An hour-long bull session in a dorm room?"

And then there is the question about whether students believe that their
college helps them learn to think critically and analytically. Porter writes
that this question is "a good example of how we let educational jargon creep
into our surveys, and then assume that students understand what we mean.
Recently, a graduate student interviewed me for a class she was taking about
teaching, and asked me how I taught critical thinking in my classes. We then
proceeded to have a discussion about what she meant by critical thinking,
because I wasn't clear on what it meant, in terms of what she was asking. If
I, as a higher education researcher, have trouble defining the phrase
'critical thinking,' how can we expect the average college student to
understand the concept, much less ensure that this understanding is similar
across college students?"

In these cases, students may be honestly answering questions, but their lack
of knowledge may result in wide variations of what the data mean, Porter
says. 

In yet other cases, there is research to suggest that students may not be
entirely honest. Porter writes of numerous studies suggesting that students
engage in a bit of grade inflation when asked about their academic
performance, and tend to answer questions in ways that make themselves look
like slightly better students than they really are.

Given these and other issues, Porter writes that NSSE cannot be presumed to
be valid -- and he questions the idea that there is any evidence that NSSE
scores in their current form are a good indicator of student learning. 

"The promise of a survey instrument that can quickly and relatively cheaply
provide an alternative to actually measuring learning has, not surprisingly,
been alluring to many colleges," he writes. "That an instrument that fails
to meet basic standards of validity and reliability has been so quickly
adopted by numerous institutions indicates the desire of many institutions
for a solution to this issue."

What to do? In some cases, Porter argues for additional validity testing to
see whether there are notable patterns -- by institutional competitiveness,
sector or major, for example -- on how students respond to questions. In
other cases, he argues for much more detailed definitions and instructions.
And he suggests that other approaches -- such as time diaries, in which
students carry a diary and record what they do over a period of time, rather
than later remembering what they did -- are far more accurate.

In an interview, Porter stressed that he too believed (from his experience,
not from research) that qualities promoted by NSSE, such as close
student-faculty interaction, are important. 

Porter went to Rice University, where he said he remembers many qualities of
the type praised by NSSE in producing engaged students. "I would want my
child to go to a college that has those characteristics," he said. "The
question is: Can the NSSE help us identify those colleges?" He said that
because of the "grand claims" made by NSSE and largely unquestioned by
academic leaders, it has become the "gold standard," when it really needs an
overhaul. Where is the evidence, he said, that students understand the
questions, and that their answers lead not only to engagement but to
learning?

The NSSE Response

McCormick, the NSSE director, said that he and his colleagues "are the last
persons to say that NSSE is perfect," and that Porter had raised some issues
"we need to deal with." But he also said that Porter was leaving out some
key context about survey research generally and the realities of student
surveys. 

As to what Porter got right, McCormick said it was important for those who
do survey-based research to regularly consider whether the wording of
various questions made them vulnerable to misinterpretation, and he said
that, for example, that while he thinks the question on critical thinking
isn't typical, it is the question where "one could make the strongest case
that it's a jargon-ish question."

But McCormick said that NSSE has done extensive validity studies on its
questions -- typically through focus group "cognitive interviews" in which
subjects are asked to think aloud about their answers to various questions,
and that this process was used to verify that questions were being answered
consistently, and to refine wording. Further, he said that earlier versions
of NSSE included lengthier instructions and definitions, and that
researchers found that students simply ignored the information, leading to
the belief that more students will participate, and participate
thoughtfully, with shorter introductions to the questions.

Further, McCormick questioned the cost and practicality of giving students
time diaries to carry out for some period of time. He noted that students
can fill out a NSSE survey in 15 to 20 minutes, making it much easier to
gather information from large numbers of students. 

"It's certainly true that if we equipped all students with time use diaries
and said 'Fill this out every half hour to tell me what you do,' we would
get much more precise estimates of how many hours a week they spend. Of if
we hired someone to follow them around, we would also get more information,"
he said, but he wondered how many students would go for this approach.

Porter was setting a false standard for NSSE (and other surveys) to live up
to, McCormick said. "A lot of what's written about in the paper are problems
that are common in social science research," he said. "Our measurement tools
are blunt, and NSSE is certainly no exception to that."

Finally, McCormick said that a lot of the value of NSSE was in "relative
comparisons" in how an individual college does from year to year, how
various parts of a college do, or how groups of colleges do. So if a college
sees relatively low scores in an area, and shifts policies, and sees an
improvement on NSSE, that means something worked, and if there is no
improvement, more work may be needed. Improvement may be valid, even if the
students' answers to questions do not yield "some precise numeric
comparison," he said.

While McCormick acknowledged the possibility that NSSE may need to be "more
clear" about the value of relative comparisons as opposed to individual
figures, he said "that's what most of the schools are doing."

It would be a problem, McCormick said, if research found that students at
different kinds of institutions or in different types of academic programs
answered questions in notably different ways, but he said he saw no evidence
of this, and that this concern was "not a severe threat to the instrument."

Porter said he wasn't impressed with NSSE's response. Porter said that NSSE
places too much emphasis on maximizing the number of respondents, as opposed
to maximizing the chances that answers are accurate. "There seems to be this
attitude that people doing surveys in the field should be held to lower
standards. I don't agree," he said.

-  <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Scott Jaschik 

Related Stories

*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/09/nsse> More Engaged
November 9, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/11/02/matthews> Retention
Matters
November 2, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/28/lewandowski> The
Kids Are All Right
October 28, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/23/professionalism> Are
Today's Grads Unprofessional?
October 23, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/22/gasman> More Than
Appearances
October 22, 2009 

C Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed 

 

Sources:
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/11/09/porter

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/09/porter

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Kern

AD21, Reading

East Central College

1964 Prairie Dell Road

Union, MO  63084-4344

Phone:  (636) 583-5195

Extension:  2426

Fax:  (636) 584-0513

Email:  [log in to unmask]

 

http://www.studentveterans.org/

 

Veterans Day 2009: http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/

 

www.vietnamwomensmemorial.org

 

Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is
it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks
the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a
position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it
because one's conscience tells one that it is right. (Martin Luther King,
Jr.) 

Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner. Put

yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and

the way he understands it. (Kierkegaard)

 

To freely bloom - that is my definition of success. -Gerry Spence, lawyer
(b. 1929)    [Benjamin would be proud, I think.]

 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager