The Anti-Anxiety Curriculum: Combating Math Anxiety in the Classroom

Full text

24
The Anti-Anxiety Curriculum:
Combating Math Anxiety in the Classroom
Eugene Geist
Negative attitudes toward mathematics and what has come to be know as “math anxi-
ety are serious obstacles for children in all levels of schooling today. In this paper, the
literature is reviewed and critically assessed in regards to the roots of math anxiety
and its especially detrimental effect on children in “at-risk” populations such as low
socioeconomic status and females. The effects of teachers’ and parents’ assumptions,
family support, and parents’ level of educational attainment will be addressed. The
paper also addresses the curricular issues that may lead to math anxiety such as high
stress instructional methods and “timed testing”.
A negative attitude toward mathemat-
ics is a growing barrier for many children
to mathematics (Ashcraft, 2002; Popham,
2008; Rameau & Louime, 2007). For many
children, negative attitudes toward math-
ematics begin early in life, sometimes even
before they enter kindergarten (Arnold,
Fisher, Doctoroff, & Dobbs, 2002). The
child’s educational context at home and at
school can affect this attitude (Scarpello,
2007). Children from low socioeconomic
backgrounds often have parents with less
educational background and who often have
negative attitudes toward mathematics them-
selves. Females are also often overlooked
or socialized to dislike mathematics (Geist
& King 2008; Titu, Gallian, Kane, & Mertz,
2008). While research supports that girls
have the similar aptitude for mathematics,
they are more susceptible to math anxiety
due to their aversion to high stakes testing
and social comparison (Haynes, Mullins, &
Stein, 2004; Miller & Bichsel, 2004; Miller
& Mitchell, 1994). For these groups and
many other children, a fear of mathematics
or what is commonly known a “math anxi-
ety” it creating a disparity between levels of
mathematics achievement. In some cases,
the gap in achievement is not brought about
by differing levels of potential and ability,
but the chances of developing math anxiety
or a negative attitude toward mathematics
(Ashcraft, 2002; Hopko et al., 2003).
Children begin to construct the founda-
tions for future mathematical concepts during
the first few months of life (Geist, 2003a;
Geist, 2003b). Before a child can add or
even count, they must construct ideas about
mathematics that cannot be directly taught.
Many of these basic ideas are constructed
through interaction with the surrounding en-
vironment and the adults in that environment.
Ideas that will support formal mathematics
later in life such as order and sequence, seria-
tion, comparisons, classifying, addition and
other more advanced mathematical skills
have their genesis before the age of five.
The seemingly simple understanding that
numbers have a quantity attached to them is
actually a complex relationship that children
must construct.
As children enter formal schooling, the
constructive process sometimes takes a turn
for the worse, especially for girls and minori-
ties (Ma, 2003; Scarpello, 2007; Turner et
al., 2002). Studies have shown that at this
time in children’s learning of mathematics,
textbooks take over the process of teaching
and the focus on shifts from construction of
Eugene Geist, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Early Childhood Education, School of Human and
Consumer Sciences, Ohio University.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Dr. Eugene Geist at
geist@ohio.edu.

concepts using children’s own mathemati-
cal thinking to teacher imposed methods
of getting the correct answer (Geist, 2000).
Teachers begin to focus on repetition and
speed or “timed tests” as important tools for
improving mathematical prowess and skill
which can undermine the child’s natural
thinking process and lead to a negative at-
titude toward mathematics (Popham, 2008;
Scarpello, 2007; Thilmany, 2004; Tsui &
Mazzocco, 2007).
This overreliance on timed tests and
other high stakes approaches to teaching
mathematics reinforce the negative attitude
toward mathematics that many children have
developed in the early years of life (Scarpello,
2007). For those children who had a positive
mathematical experience in the early years,
this new approach to learning mathematics
is often very different from what they are
used to (Popham, 2008). Children begin to
associate mathematics with boring work that
often does not relate to their everyday life.
Teachers will sometimes have the perception
that if children are enjoying the activities, it
is not really learning (Lewis, 2005).
However, this attitude leads to schools
not achieving the objectives that they are set
out to achieve. Instead of helping children
develop fluency at computation and become
more efficient at problem solving, these poli-
cies have produced students that rely more
on rote memorization and have increased the
level of anxiety in young children by making
mathematics a high-risk activity. This tends
to produce more adults with “math anxiety”
and discouraged children who understand the
concept but work a little slower. It also may
explain some of the disparities between girls
and boys regarding attitudes toward math-
ematics and why minorities tend to perform
poorly on mathematics achievement tests.
Recent studies show that roots of the
gap in mathematics achievement begins
well before the first NAEP assessment in 4th
grade (Lewis, 2001; Waanders, Mendez, &
Downer, 2007). Children entering Kinder-
garten have been shown to have disparities
based on socioeconomic level. For girls, the
disparity does not manifest itself until after
4th grade. The NAEP assessment in 4th grade
shows that girls actually outperform boys on
the math portion of the test. The same NAEP
assessment in 8th and 12th grade show that the
girls’ advantage disappears as formal school-
ing, testing and socialization begin girls to
create negative attitudes toward mathematics
(which is also measured by the NAEP test).
Gender Effects on Negative Attitudes
Mathematics in many classrooms is
based on a traditional “skills based” model.
Too often, this means memorization and rote
recitation rather than active concept based
learning (Cates & Rhymer, 2003). Worse,
it is often taught as if all the students are
not just similar, but identical in terms of
ability, preferred learning style, and pace of
working (Boaler, 1997). Under achievement
and non-representation of girls at the high-
est levels in mathematics may be linked to
the method of instruction rather than ability
because boys are more likely to adapt better
to the traditional skills model (Boaler, 2002).
Evidence also shows that times testing and
other high stakes assessment effects girls at-
titude toward mathematics more than boys,
leading to higher levels of mathematics
anxiety in females (Beilock, 2008). How-
ever, even though boys may seem to adapt
to this instructional model, it is important to
note that boys are overly represented at the
lowest and the highest levels in mathematics
(Bielinski & Davison, 2001).
These gender differences are exacerbated
by the homogenized approach to teaching in
which all students are assumed to learn the
same way and at the same pace. Imagine a
classroom climate that acknowledges gender
differences while considering individual
styles and behaviors. This classroom climate
would be supportive of the mathematical
learning needs of boys and girls. An essential
element in this approach is planning a cur-
Math Anxiety . . / 25

26/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 1
riculum that is developmentally appropriate,
individualized, and gender responsive.
So, what does this mean for how we teach
in our classrooms? It means that we have
to be sensitive to the different needs of boys
and girls. Their brains are different and more
importantly, their approach to learning may be
different (Geist & King, 2008; Gurian, 2005;
Pinker & Spelke, 2005). Every child learns
differently. They also respond differently to
different instructional approaches (Leedy,
LaLonde, & Runk, 2003). In general, there
is little empirical research about the causes
of mathematics anxiety and even less on
the effects and efficacy of timed testing as
an instructional approach. However, we do
know that adding time requirements to tasks
does increase anxiety, decrease accuracy and
create a negative attitude toward the subject
matter (Ashcraft, 2002; Popham, 2008; Tsui
& Mazzocco, 2007). Research also shows
that females are more susceptible to these
effects than males (Beilock, 2008; Haynes
et al., 2004; H. Miller & Bichsel, 2004; L.
D. Miller & Mitchell, 1994).
Many teachers believe that girls achieve
in mathematics due to their hard work while
boy’s achievement is attributed to talent (Jus-
sim & Eccles, 1990; Jussim & Eccles, 1992).
These differing expectations by teachers
and parents may lead to boys often receiv-
ing preferential treatment when it comes to
mathematics.
Children may internalize these attitudes
and begin to believe what their teachers and
parents believe. As a result, girls tend to
feel less confident about their answers on
tests and often express doubt about their
performance. As children progress through
school, girl’s assessment of their enjoyment
of mathematics falls much more drastically
than boy’s assessment. These attitudes may
shape the experiences that children have as
they are learning mathematics.
Poverty and Family Effects on Negative
Attitudes
Research also demonstrates that the
most consistent risk factor for low achieve-
ment in mathematics is family income level
– the lower the family income, the lower
the achievement (Jordan, Kaplan, Oláh, &
Note: Info not available refers to surveys that had no response in this category
Figure 1. Poverty groupings for 4th grade NAEP mathematics scores form 1996-2007

Math Anxiety . . / 27
Locuniak, 2006; Stipek & Ryan, 1997).
There is also a link between parental attitudes
toward mathematics, educational level and
their child’s level of math anxiety (Scarpello,
2007; Turner et al., 2002). On the NAEP
mathematics assessment, children who are
eligible for the USDA’s free or reduced cost
lunch program, regardless of ethnicity, scored
13 points below the national average and
22 points below those students that did not
qualify for the program (Figure 1, National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).
While the figures show steady increases in
scores over the 10-year period, the gap be-
tween “eligible” and “not eligible” student
remains steady. These data support the con-
tention that poverty is a significant risk factor
for early mathematics achievement.
If we can assume that these differences
are not a result of native potential, or some
sort of genetic mathematical ability, then
we must look for environmental variables
to explain the intertwining outcomes of poor
achievement and negative attitude toward
mathematics (Alsup, 2005; Hopko et al.,
2003; Popham, 2008; Scarpello, 2007). The
NAEP data also suggests that lower educa-
tional attainment of parents is a risk factor
for lower achievement (Barbarin et al., 2006;
Duncan, 2007; Duncan, Ludwig, & Magnu-
son, 2007). When parent educational level
is examined, there is a positive correlational
decline in NAEP scores on the mathematics
portion of the test (Dobbs, Doctoroff, Fisher,
& Arnold, 2006; National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics, 2007)
Similar results were found using the
Programme for International Student As-
sessment (PISA) test administered by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) study (Figure
2) (Desruisseaux, 1995; Orginisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development,
2007). The PISA is an internationally stan-
dardized assessment, jointly developed by
participating countries and administered to
15-year-olds in schools in several countries
including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the
U.K., Japan and most of Europe, to measure
academic achievement of students.
Additionally, this data shows that the fa-
ther’s education level seems to have a greater
effect in almost all groups. Yet studies have
shown that a mother’s attitude and encourage-
ment toward mathematics was a significantly
more important factor to children having a
positive attitude toward mathematics and was
liked to positive achievement in mathematics
(Scarpello, 2007). The importance of family
socialization and attitudes are evident in he
research and the test scores on both the PISA
and the NAEP.
It is hypothesized that both parents’
educational attainment may have such a large
effect on mathematical achievement because
the mathematical environment in the home
Figure 2. PISA Scores by Mother and Father’s education level

28/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 1
may be less stimulating for families with low
educational attainment (Jordan & Hanich,
2003; Jordan et al., 2006). The parents may
have less knowledge of mathematical con-
cepts, lower comfort level with mathematics
and a negative attitude toward mathematics
leading to math anxiety and an aversion to
mathematics. This, in turn, could hinder
their ability to encourage and support those
concepts with their child. Parents may also
not understand the importance of promoting
emergent mathematics with their child in the
early years, much as is done with literacy
development (Geist, 2008).
In many rural locations in the United
States, such as Appalachia, lower educational
level and poverty is a double disadvantage
for children and school districts. By con-
trast, statistics for inner city school districts
show that although there is a large number
of children in poverty, there is a higher mean
educational attainment for their population
within the school district. For example, six
inner-city school districts (Columbus, Cincin-
nati, Cleveland, Toledo, Akron, and Dayton)
have an average percentage of the population
with a college degree or more of 23.7%, while
an average of three representative school
districts in Ohio’s Appalachian region have
an average of 13.1% with a college degree or
more. (Ohio DOE Similar District Grouping,
https://webapp2.ode.state.oh.us/similar_dis-
tricts/Similar_Districts.asp).
The effect of high stakes methods such as
timed tests on these “at-risk” groups are just
some of the examples of how math anxiety
and negative attitudes toward mathematics
can effect achievement and progress in math-
ematics (Miller & Mitchell, 1994). Others
who are not in these categories are also af-
fected. Methods that emphasize the primacy
of correct answers over concept development,
competition and speed over understanding,
and rote repetition over critical thinking will
exacerbate the problems. Research has shown
that these methods inherently create anxiety
in children and adults. However, unlike gen-
eral anxiety, mathematics anxiety has unique
characteristics (Balogˇlu & Koçak, 2006) and
can be traced back to some specific previous
educational experiences (Ma, 2003).
Teacher Influences
One of the difficult problems to overcome
is that by the time people become adults the
damage is already done (Donelle, Hoffman-
Goetz, & Arocha, 2007; Gresham, 2007; Liu,
2008). Our attitudes toward mathematics are
set because of prior experiences. The early
use of high stress techniques like timed tests
instead of more developmentally appropriate
and interactive approaches lead to a high inci-
dence of math anxiety. Williams (2000), com-
pared two methods of learning multiplication
facts in order to develop speed and accuracy
with a seventh grade enrichment class, which
met for seven weeks during the school year.
As part of the curriculum, students were pro-
vided with activities to refine their basic math
skills. The class was divided into two groups
with one group receiving paper and pencil
practice with “Minute Madness” worksheets
(control group), and the other group using the
drill and practice software, “Multiplication
Puzzles” (treatment group) computers. The
results indicated that there was a significant
increase in the number of problems correctly
answered on the post-test by the treatment
group that used “Multiplication Puzzles” on
the computer, whereas mean scores for the
pencil and paper group did not indicate a
significant improvement in the development
of their multiplication skills.
Jackson & Leffingwell (1999), inves-
tigated the types of instructor behavior that
created or exacerbated mathematics anxiety
in students. It also tried to assess the grade
level at which mathematics anxiety first oc-
curred in these students. They found was that
teacher behavior was a prime determinant of
math anxiety and that it is usually evident
early on in the primary grades.
Many teachers of young people feel
uncomfortable teaching mathematics because

Math Anxiety . . / 29
they do not like mathematics themselves.
Many also feel that they are not good at
mathematics and therefore feel uncomfort-
able teaching it to their students (Burns, 1998;
Stuart, 2000). Many teachers who have math
anxiety themselves inadvertently pass it on
to their students.
Math anxiety does not come from the
mathematics itself but rather from the way
math is presented in school and may have
been presented to teachers as a children
(Stuart, 2000).
Conclusion
I can personally remember a chart posted
prominently in the classroom with all the stu-
dents names in a column down the right hand
side of the chart. As we progressed through
the year, we had daily timed mathematics
tests on addition (or was it multiplication?
I can’t remember). If we completed all 20
problems in 1 minute, we got a star next to
our name and got to move on the next level
test. If you did not finish in time (with all
the answers correct, of course), we got no
star and had to retake the test the next day
and subsequent days, until we passed it and
finally earned our star. Near the middle of
the year, everyone could see, by looking at
the chart, which students had more stars and
which students had the fewest stars. As you
can imagine, those of us with the fewest stars
began to really hate math and really stress out
whenever it came time for the test.
Overcoming math anxiety means ex-
amining how we teach mathematics in our
classrooms. This issue is of major concern
to our economy, to a child’s future employ-
ment and their success in higher education.
Mathematics is seen as an important factor in
a vital global economy. Creating a country of
“mathophobes” does not bode well for us in
the uncertain global economy of the future.
Elementary and High School students may
chose to take less mathematics or lower level
mathematics because of a negative attitude
toward mathematics. This could lead them
to choose not to pursue higher education.
For those that do pursue higher education,
the research shows that college mathematics
instructors are concerned by the high levels of
aversion to mathematics that is seen (Gresh-
am, 2007; Liu, 2008; Rameau & Louime,
2007; Ruffins, 2007; Walsh, 2008).
There are curricular alternatives that can
lessen mathematics anxiety. Current and fu-
ture teachers should seek out these methods
and embrace them whole-heartedly. If we
remember our experiences with mathematics
as I have done above, it should motivate us
to make a change. We must remember the
words of the poet George Santayana: “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it.”
References
Alsup, J. (2005). A comparison of constructivist
and traditional instruction in mathematics.
Educational Research Quarterly, 28(4),
3-17.
Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Doctoroff, G. L., &
Dobbs, J. (2002). Accelerating math devel-
opment in head start classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(4), 762.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal,
educational, and cognitive consequences.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
11(5), 181-185.
Balogˇlu, M., & Koçak, R. (2006). A multivariate
investigation of the differences in mathemat-
ics anxiety. Personality & Individual Differ-
ences, 40(7), 1325-1335.
Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., McCandies, T., Burchinal,
M., Early, D., Clifford, R., et al. (2006). Chil-
dren enrolled in public pre-K: The relation
of family life, neighborhood quality, and so-
cioeconomic resources to early competence.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2),
265-276.
Beilock, S. L. (2008). Math performance in
stressful situations. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17(5), 339-343.
Bielinski, J., & Davison, M. L. (2001). A sex dif-
ference by item difficulty interaction in mul-
tiple-choice mathematics items administered
to national probability samples. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 38(1), 51.

30/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 1
Boaler, J. (2002). Paying the price for “sugar and
spice”: Shifting the analytical lens in equity
research. Mathematical Thinking and Learn-
ing, 4(2/3), 127.
Burns, M. (1998). Math facing an american
phobia. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions
Publications.
Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examin-
ing the relationship between mathematics
anxiety and mathematics performance: An
instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 23-34.
Desruisseaux, P. (1995). OECD study shows
disparity in education. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 41(32), A50.
Dobbs, J., Doctoroff, G. L., Fisher, P. H., &
Arnold, D. H. (2006). The association be-
tween preschool children’s socio-emotional
functioning and their mathematical skills.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 27(2), 97-108.
Donelle, L., Hoffman-Goetz, L., & Arocha, J. F.
(2007). Assessing health numeracy among
community-dwelling older adults. Journal of
Health Communication, 12(7), 651-665.
Duncan, G. J. (2007). High-quality preschool
as antipoverty. American Prospect, 18(5),
A20-A21.
Duncan, G. J., Ludwig, J., & Magnuson, K. A.
(2007). Reducing poverty through preschool
interventions. Future of Children, 17(2),
143-160.
Geist, E. (2008). Children are born mathemati-
cians: Encouraging and supporting develop-
ment in young children (1e ed.). Upper Salle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Geist, E. (2003a). Children are born mathemati-
cians. Young Children,
Geist, E. (2003b). Infants and toddlers explor-
ing mathematics. Young Children, 58(1),
10-12.
Geist, E. A. (2000). Lessons from the TIMSS
videotape study. Teaching Children Math-
ematics, 7(3), 180.
Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, not
better: Gender differences in mathematics
learning and achievement. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 35(1; 1), 43-52.
Gresham, G. (2007). A study of mathematics anxi-
ety in pre-service teachers. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 35(2), 181-188.
Gurian, M. (2005). The minds of boys : Saving our
sons from falling behind in school and life /
michael gurian and kathy stevens (1st ed ed.).
San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Haynes, A. F., Mullins, A. G., & Stein, B. S. (2004).
Differential models for math anxiety in male
and female college students. Sociological
Spectrum, 24(3), 295-318.
Hopko, D. R., McNeil, D. W., Lejuez, C. W.,
Ashcraft, M. H., Eifert, G. H., & Riel, J.
(2003). The effects of anxious responding on
mental arithmetic and lexical decision task
performance. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
17(6), 647.
Jackson, C. D., & Leffingwell, R. J. (1999). The
role of instructors in creating math anxiety in
students from kindergarten through college.
Mathematics Teacher, 92(7), 583.
Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B. (2003). Char-
acteristics of children with moderate
mathematics deficiencies: A longitudinal
perspective. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited),
18(4), 213.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Oláh, L. N., & Locu-
niak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in
kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of
children at risk for mathematics difficulties.
Child Development, 77(1), 153-175.
Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Expectancies
and social issues. New York: Plenum Pub.
Corp. for the Society for the Psychological
Study of Social Issues.
Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Teacher ex-
pectations II: Construction and reflection of
student achievement American Psychological
Association.
Leedy, M. G., LaLonde, D., & Runk, K. (2003).
Gender equity in mathematics: Beliefs of
students, parents, and teachers. School Sci-
ence and Mathematics, 103(6), 285.
Lewis, A. (2001). Add it up: Using research
to improve education for low-income and
minority students
Lewis, T. (2005). Facts + fun = fluency. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 12(1), 8-11.
Liu, F. (2008). Impact of online discussion on
elementary teacher candidates’ anxiety
towards teaching mathematics. Education,
128(4), 614-629.

Math Anxiety . . / 31
Ma, X. (2003). Effects of early acceleration of
students in mathematics on attitudes toward
mathematics and mathematics anxiety. Teach-
ers College Record, 105(3), 438-464.
Miller, H., & Bichsel, J. (2004). Anxiety, work-
ing memory, gender, and math performance.
Personality & Individual Differences, 37(3),
591-606.
Miller, L. D., & Mitchell, C. E. (1994). Evaluation
achievement in mathematics: Exploring the
gender biases of timed testing. Education,
114(3), 436-438.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007).
NAEP data explorer
Orginisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. (2007). Education at a glance
- 2007 OECD.
Pinker, S., & Spelke, E. (2005). Are gender dif-
ferences in math and science innate? CQ
Researcher, 15(19), 461-461.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Timed tests for tykes?
Educational Leadership, 65(8), 86-87.
Rameau, P., & Louime, C. (2007). Mathematics
phobia: Are the mathematical sciences a
pothole in the road of life? Indian Academy
of Sciences.
Ruffins, P. (2007). A real fear. Diverse: Issues in
Higher Education, 24(2), 17-19.
Scarpello, G. (2007). Helping students get past
math anxiety. Techniques: Connecting Edu-
cation & Careers, 82(6), 34-35.
Stipek, D. J., & Ryan, R. H. (1997). Economically
disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn
but further to go. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 33(4), 711.
Stuart, V. B. (2000). Math curse or math anxiety?
Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(5), 330.
Thilmany, J. (2004). Beating math anxiety. Me-
chanical Engineering, 126(12), 18-18.
Titu, A., Gallian, J., Kane, J. & Mertz, J. (2008)
Cross-Cultural Analysis of Students with
Exceptional Talent in Mathematical Problem
Solving. Notices of the American Mathemati-
cal Society, 55(10), 1248-1260
Tsui, J. M., & Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Effects
of math anxiety and perfectionism on timed
versus untimed math testing in mathemati-
cally gifted sixth graders. Roeper Review,
29(2), 132-139.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Anderman, E. M.,
Midgley, C., Gheen, M., Yongjin Kang, et
al. (2002). The classroom environment and
students’ reports of avoidance strategies in
mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88.
Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T.
(2007). Parent characteristics, economic
stress and neighborhood context as predictors
of parent involvement in preschool children’s
education. Journal of School Psychology,
45(6), 619-636.
Walsh, K. A. (2008). The relationship among math-
ematics anxiety, beliefs about mathematics,
mathematics self-efficacy, and mathematics
performance in associate degree nursing
students. Nursing Education Perspectives,
29(4), 226-229.
Williams, L. P. (2000). The effect of drill and
practice software on multiplication skills:
“multiplication puzzles” versus “the mad
minute.”.

Copyright of Journal of Instructional Psychology is the property of Educational Innovations and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.