Makewa, Role, Genga - Teachers’ Use of Humor in Teaching and Students’ Ratings of their effectiveness(3).pdf - MA - References - s-abin-a

International Journal of Education

ISSN 1948-5476

2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E8

Teachers’ Use of Humor in Teaching and Students’

Rating of Their Effectiveness

Lazarus Ndiku Makewa (Corresponding author)

Department of Educational Administration, Curriculum and Teaching

University of Eastern Africa, Baraton

P.O. Box 2500, Eldoret, Kenya

E-mail: ndikul@gmail.com

Elizabeth Role

Director of Graduate Studies and Research

University of Eastern Africa, Baraton

P.O. Box 2500, Eldoret, Kenya

E-mail: bethrole@gmail.com

Jane Ayiemba Genga

Department of Educational Administration, Curriculum and Teaching

University of Eastern Africa, Baraton

P.O. Box 2500, Eldoret, Kenya

Email: lgenga78@yahoo.com

Received: August 9, 2011 Accepted: October 19, 2011 Published: November 7, 2011

doi:10.5296/ije.v3i2.631 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v3i2.631

www.macrothink.org/ije

International Journal of Education

ISSN 1948-5476

2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E8

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which teachers use humour in

teaching in Migori district, Kenya, and students’ ratings of their teaching effectiveness.

Purposive and random sampling procedures were used in the selection of the sample for the

study. Students and teachers in 6 secondary schools in Migori District participated in the

study. Data was collected using questionnaire. Three hundred and eleven students (159 male

and 152 female) responded to the questionnaire designed to be used by students, which

surveyed the students’ opinion of their teachers. Thirty-five teachers also responded to the

questionnaire that was designed to survey the humour style that is common among them.

In this study, the data collected was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS). Inferential and descriptive statistics were used. The level of significance used in the

study was 0.05. The results indicate that the use of humour in teaching is generally good and

that there is a significant, moderate relationship between the use of humour and students’

rating of teachers’ effectiveness. The results also indicate that the most commonly used styles

of humour among the students are the positive styles of humour (Affiliative humour and

Self-enhancing humour).

In conclusion, teachers who use humor in teaching are generally rated effective in terms of

motivation, creation of engaging lessons and anxiety reduction in students. The teachers are

also rated effective in terms of stimulation of thought and interest in students and fostering of

a positive teacher-student relationship.

Keywords: Humour, Teaching effectiveness, Affiliative humour, Self-enhancing humour

www.macrothink.org/ije

International Journal of Education

ISSN 1948-5476

2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E8

1. Introduction

Schools are making effort to ensure that their teachers are effective in every way in subject

delivery. A lot of emphasis is placed on the curriculum in secondary schools but not on the

methodology of delivery of the same. The main focus of this study was to investigate the

extent to which secondary school teachers’ use humor while teaching and the effect that the

use of humour gives to their teaching. The study aimed to identify the variables that are

positively or negatively affected by teachers’ use of humor in teaching. Moreover, the study

sought to find solutions and strategies to make teachers have a formed opinion of the use of

humour in delivery of subject matter while teaching so as to be more effective.

Teachers are constantly in search of creative and invigorating teaching strategies that can

compete with the internet, media and other forms of home entertainment for the attention of

their students (Cornett, 2001). Research shows that in addition to having students learn

curriculum, most teachers wish to have students enjoy time in their classes (Burgess, 2000).

Teachers have questions about the most effective ways to relate to students and ensure their

academic success. For these teachers, success may be found in approaches that make relevant

connections and encourage higher-order thinking (Gurtler, 2002). Interestingly, one element

of human development that has been proven to edify familial relationships and encourage

academic excellence is often overlooked by teachers. That element is humor. Dr. Robert

Provine, professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Maryland, answers

for parents and teachers can be found in the same, simple approach: plenty of feel-good,

hearty and infectious humor-induced laughter (2000).

Laughter is described by humor researchers as a response to pleasurable and/or amusing

physical, emotional and/or intellectual stimuli that affects the brain in interesting and very

complex ways. This understanding is based on data collection and clinical analyses causes

and effects of laughter, which are said by many researchers to be so complex that it is quite

difficult for them to settle on one basic definition of humor. Some even assert that humor

patterns and what people find funny are not entirely traceable at present (Latta, 1998).

Research shows that laughter is an effective way for people of all ages to release pent-up

tensions or energy, permit the expression of ideas or feelings that would otherwise be

difficult to express and facilitate coping with trying circumstances (McGhee, 1983). The link

between laughter and academic success is also well documented. Positive connections

between teachers’ use of humor and academic achievement even follow students into colleges

and beyond (Hickman & Crossland, 2004-2005).

In a departure from most previous humor-related research, Neuliep (1991) investigated the

effects of humor by soliciting teacher (rather than student) perceptions of their own humor

usage and its effects in the classroom. Neuliep’s study questioned 388 Wisconsin area high

school teachers and asked them to indicate their rationale and subsequent perceived effect for

their employment of humor. Among the most commonly stated reasons for employing humor

were: its effect as a relaxing, comforting, and tension reducing device, its humanizing effect

on teacher image, and its effect of maintaining/increasing student interest and enjoyment.

Thus, as Neuliep himself acknowledges, humor is not perceived as, “a strategy for increasing

www.macrothink.org/ije

International Journal of Education

ISSN 1948-5476

2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E8

student comprehension and learning” (p.354).

According to Greenberg (2001) the best times to deliver serious points in teaching or a

presentation to students is right after they laugh. This is because they need time to relax their

minds in the midst of the intense learning and presentations. If this moment is not provided to

them, Greenberg (2001) continues to say, they will end up looking like they are listening

while they, actually, are not. Humor helps to provide the intensity of the next serious point in

the content and is also considered to be one of the most effective tools to judge the quality of

any relationship (Moore, 2006). McGhee (2002) stresses the importance of humor using his

own words in an interesting way: “…laughter is the shortest distance between two people…”

(par 4).

However, despite the above facts, emphasis on humor is still missing in teacher training

programs, let alone the classrooms where teachers may be encouraged to be more humorous

while teaching and providing the learners with the opportunity to acquire such skills in staff

development programs (Chi, 1992). This means that humor has not been given its due

emphasis yet great forces that are always at play, compelling great attention to the process

and products of teaching and learning are the implications to student quality (Chye, 2008).

A lot of attention is being given to the curriculum content and the methodology of delivery of

the curriculum content in teaching and learning to ensure effectiveness. Just as Chickering

and Gamson (1987) seem to agree, content and pedagogy are connected, in that what is

taught is as important as how it is taught. Being an effective teacher requires skills in

planning, assessing, motivating, observing and analysing students, managing groups, among

other skills. But most importantly, the teacher should be able to create engaging lessons out

of the “content” of the curriculum (Flanagan, 2007).

Developing countries do not seem to give much attention to the school effects such as social

practices or material inputs and their contribution to students’ performance as industrialized

countries do, according to Fuller (1987). Yet these factors (social practices and material

inputs) contribute a lot to the fluctuations in achievement of students in particular subjects.

Kenya is one of the countries that gives much attention to effectiveness and efficiency in

teaching; note, with a country whose Teachers Service Commission has as its vision the

following statement: “To be an institution of excellence in the provision of efficient service

for quality teaching” (Teachers Service Commission – Kenya, 2004).

As a matter of fact, there is a tendency to put much of the attention on outcome, rather than

on the way to get to the desired or best outcome in the teaching-learning process. Abagi and

Odipo (1997) agree with Fuller (1987) by saying that much emphasis is placed on

examinations’ results which is used as an indicator of schools’ efficiency. They say that

emphasis should rather be placed on delivery of curriculum content in the best way that it can

be of benefit to the learners. Jones (2001) adds that schools are more focused on methodology,

accountability and testing, therefore, focus on creating an optimal learning environment is

often limited. Bruner (2006) stresses that teaching is and should always be the center of

transforming students’ thinking by all means.

www.macrothink.org/ije

International Journal of Education

ISSN 1948-5476

2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E8

This, consequently, means that concern should be on how the effort to transform the students’

thinking is made. Consider this example as quoted from Verma (2007):

“ All of us at some point in our lives have been in a class where the lecture being delivered by

the teacher casts a spell of boredom and dullness on all students, most of whom who find it

unbearable, knock off to sleep. The kind of teachers, who would walk in the class like zombies,

and lecture day in day out, as if they were talking to the walls. Classes conducted by such

teachers who fail to change their repetitive ways can be really frustrating and academically

detrimental for the students . ” (par 6)

Consider also Powers (2005) who concedes with the following words: “…one of the greatest

sins in teaching is to be boring...” (par 3). Peters and Waterman (1984) seem to agree with

Verma (2007) and Powers (2005) by pointing out the fact that if information is overloaded, it

seems to sit in the short-term memory, which cannot process it all and within a short while,

things end up getting so confusing to the student. Humor can also help physiologically to

connect the left-brain activities to the right-brain creative side and thereby allowing students

to better assimilate the information presented. This is to say that humor presents, in the

students, some sort of mental sharpness (Garner, 2005).

Audrieth (1998) adds that in a situation where ideas are very important and even

controversial at times, they must be presented to minds which are not very receptive to

learning- a fact that is very typical of teenagers in secondary schools – humor can help the

teachers to get the message across.

Powers (2005) contends that a good teacher is one who looks for effective and different

methods to generate interest and enthusiasm among the students that he or she teaches. The

good and effective use of humor as a learning strategy has continually been attributed to

better and increased comprehension of the subject content, increased retention of the taught

material and the creation of a more comfortable learning environment (Garner, 2005; Cooper,

2008; McMorris, Lin, & Torak, 2004). This is in addition to the fact that the use of humor

does away with anxiety and fear among the students, it stimulates curiosity and interest

towards learning, it controls rebellious and disruptive behavior in the classroom among the

students and it fosters a positive relationship between the teacher and the student (Verma,

2005). Bootz (2003) agrees that a poor relationship between a teacher and a student has a

negative effect on teaching and learning.

1.1 Research Questions

Our analysis of the data collected addressed two main questions:

Which of the following variables is related to teachers’ use of humor in teaching?

Students’ rating of teaching effectiveness in terms of:



Motivation of students



Creation of engaging lessons



Anxiety reduction in students

www.macrothink.org/ije

Makewa, Role, Genga - Teachers’ Use of Humor in Teaching and Students’ Ratings of their effectiveness(3).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: