The third part of the text attempts to interpret the results of the math anxiety questionnaire. This part is about as confusing as text can get because of the exceptions and conditions around the interpreted results which is common in these types of readings. I already have a “template” of meta-cognitive strategy that I developed over the years. In this blog I am attempting to step back and observe what metacognitive skills I used to develop my “template”. They say the third time is the charm.
On page 61, the text states that questionnaire responses were scored 1 to 3, where 1 was the least anxious. The dimensionality of the math anxiety scores were analyzed using factor analysis. I do not know what the factor analysis is but the next pararaph seems to expand on that by saying that two items were excluded form the analysis; “doing math and sums in general” and “division with big numbers”. I found this confusing because essentially isn’t that what math is? Decompressing I refer to this as my "what the #!%?" metacognitive strategy. I guess I am using the“identifying a problem” meta-cognitive skill. Anyway not agonizing over it I do a quick “re-read” just to make sure I read the word "excluded" correctly and re-read the sentence structure to make sure I read it correctly (adverbs, nouns and adjectives all read in the right order). I just push forward with the next sentence, not judging or belaboring. I guess this is an example of “fix-up”. A rose by any other name….
On page 63 the text starts to talk about “principal component analysis”, of which I had no idea what they were talking about. Here comes my meta-cognitive strategy. A quick look on google tells me it is referred to as PCA, an “orthogonal matrix”. Wow, now I know another acronym PCA. I can say PCA and sound like I know what I am talking about. Boy, do I love math. Now don’t get me wrong I'm no Einstein (far from it) I still dont know what the article is talking about. I have now entered that world of math that everyone cringes and gets headaches and runs away. I just do the next google search for “orthogonal matrix”. Thank god for wikipedia. Now it tells me it is nothing more than matrix manipulation of numbers. Now this is where I stop looking. I have found my connection. It did not take me long. Two searches on google until I hit familiar territory and envision matrix manipulation. I made a visual connection to PCA that I understand. Now I get the picture….
Matrix manipulation
| 1 2 3 | | 1 2 |
matrix a | 4 5 6 | times matrix b | 3 4 |
| 5 6 |
Do I need to understand everything about “principal component analysis”. No! My 80/20 rule works just fine. I just need to get a simple picture of matrix manipulation of numbers to remove nagging questions in my mind about what “principal component analysis” is, and move on to read fresh text. Hmm.. I guess I am using “making connections” and “picturing”.
Matrix manipulation
| 1 2 3 | | 1 2 |
matrix a | 4 5 6 | times matrix b | 3 4 |
| 5 6 |
Do I need to understand everything about “principal component analysis”. No! My 80/20 rule works just fine. I just need to get a simple picture of matrix manipulation of numbers to remove nagging questions in my mind about what “principal component analysis” is, and move on to read fresh text. Hmm.. I guess I am using “making connections” and “picturing”.
On page 67, the article mentions, unidimensional, dimensional and multidimensional anxietiety factors (ie, testing, social, cultural, language, Can-Do schools vs Non-Do schools), but does not elaborate on their impact on the study. I call this my “nice to know” meta-cognitive strategy. I don’t belabor it. I just tuck it away in the back of my mind. I guess this is my version of using a “fix-up” (read on, persevere in some other way)’
Finally the conclusions of math anxiety ( p68), this is really what the article is all about. The conclusion states a traditional approach to teaching math caused more anxiety than an alternative approach to teaching math. The alternative approach emphasizes that working in groups helps support social norms which enables pupils to express their ideas without risk of embarrassment or humiliation. No surprises here. This pretty much is the outcome I expected. Sounds like the metacognitive strategy “predicting” to me.
Interesting, I was able to decompress and re-step how I rode my first bike.
I really enjoyed reading your final post. You seem to have a really good handle on coping with text you don't understand from the get go. As I talked about in my blog, it makes me wonder what we did before google searches. I know that this technology is relatively new, but man, it's easy to get used to isn't it? The question that continues to nag me is if this easily accessible technology is just too easily accessible. With the advent of the internet age, are our students not thinking through problems on their own when they encounter a problem in their understanding of text?
ReplyDelete