1
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Background of the Study
Mathematics is a significant factor in the field of education. Its application is
evident in every facet of day-to-day living, like when people manage time, see the
infrastructures outside, buy in the stores, and even when they budget their monthly income.
However, Alkan (2013) made a statement that mathematics has always been regarded as a
difficult area for learners ever since the introduction of the subject in the curriculum. There
are many reasons why students perform low in this subject. Based on observations, these
could be attributed to the following: teacher factor, students’ learning environment, the
cognitive capacity of the students, lack of motivation, or even the support system from the
students’ family.
One of the most common matters and concerns related to Mathematics learning and
teaching is the problem solving performance of the students and their level of math anxiety
(Corrective Math, 2005) affecting their mathematics performance. Mathematics is
something that most students are anxious of, no matter how teachers try to make the subject
interesting. They have a negative connotation whenever asked how they feel about the
subject. Students regard Mathematics as one of the hardest subjects in their curriculum,
and that they are anxious and at a loss whenever it is their Mathematics time.
2
Students’ attitudes towards mathematics have always been a great matter in the
Philippines. These two problems in learning and teaching mathematics need to be
addressed immediately and optimistically; hence, this study attempts to resolve or offer a
new approach to help students learn mathematics.
Teachers have done their part by trying out new strategies and teaching approaches
to make students be more attentive and engaged. They are constantly finding ways to make
their students love Mathematics and continuously in search of innovative and stimulating
teaching approaches that can contend with the different forms of home entertainment like
media and internet for the attention of their students (Cornett, 2001). Research shows that
most teachers desire to have learners appreciate time in their classes in addition to having
students learn curriculum (Burgess, 2000). With respect to that, there are ample teaching
techniques and approaches that teachers could use. This research, however, tries the
incorporation of humor in teaching mathematics, considered as one of the most difficult
subjects to understand.
It is very much important to integrate humor in any classes, but most especially in
Mathematics. Humor crosses borders of nations, races, gender and cultures. Humor relieves
tension and anxiety, improves self-image, and motivates learning (Gazit 2000).
Various researches showed that the use of humor effectively as a learning approach
has persistently been recognized to increase retention of the taught material, understanding
of the subject content, and the establishment of a more comfortable learning environment
3
(Garner, 2005; Cooper, 2008; McMorris, Lin, &Torak, 2004). This supports the fact that
the use of humor controls unmanageable and disturbing behavior among the students in the
classroom, relieves anxiety and distress among the students, arouses curiosity and
attentiveness towards learning, and brings up a positive rapport between the teacher and
the student (Verma, 2005). Bootz (2003) agrees that a negative outcome on learning and
teaching is due to a poor connection between a teacher and the students.
The use of humor as a social sensation on teaching cannot be underrated. Human
beings are the only species, humorous creatures that laugh. Research has discovered that
humor plays an important role in creating a harmonious relationship between students and
teachers. Humor supports students to be alert and focused in class particularly when the
course is very “scientific”, “philosophical” or loaded with unfamiliar terms (Ashipaoloye,
2003).
Humor is much valued in society, being very present in many professional fields.
Martin (2007) states, “Evidence from several studies indicates that many teachers tend to
use humor quite frequently in classroom setting.” Most recently, results from a study
conducted in Portugal and Spain, with more than 1000 teachers, showed that about 80% of
Mathematics teachers, of all levels of teaching, said they regularly use humor to teach
mathematics (Flores, Menezes, Ribeiro&Viseu, 2017; Menezes, Viseu, Ribeiro& Flores,
2017).
4
But what leads teachers to use humor to teach? What research points out the
educational value of humor to teaching? Martin (2007) defended Instructional Humor
because, when appropriate, it may be an effective tool to create a positive classroom
environment and to facilitate teacher communication. Research has provided “evidence
that the growth of students' satisfaction of learning, their good views of how much they
learn, and how positively they feel about the subject and the teacher is because of the
effective use of humor by teachers in the classroom” (p. 2) .Some authors, in addition to
the affective function of the humor, also point out its cognitive function, that is, humor
becomes the target of the mathematical activity of students, through the performance of
mathematical tasks of humorous context (Guitart& Flores, 2003; Guitart, 2012).
However, the positive effects of humor on learning are not uncontested. It has been
reported that for some individuals, humor present in the material to be remembered may
increase tension, and thus result in already tense individuals performing worse. On the
other hand, Terry and Woods (2005) have obtained contrary results showing that humor
might only have an indirect effect on learning by relieving anxiety faced by learners. The
relationship between tension and humor is therefore quite complex (Sambrani et al., 2014).
In circumstances where concepts are very significant and even controversial at
some periods, humor can support the teachers to get the message through. Such concepts
must be presented to minds which are not very open to learning- a fact that is very
distinctive of teenagers in every secondary school (Audrieth, 1998).
5
If information is fully loaded, it seems to stand in the short-term retention, which
cannot course it all; and within a short while, things end up getting so unclear to the
students. Humor then can support students physiologically to link the left-brain activities
to the right-brain (creative side), and thus letting students to well adapt the information
presented. This is to say that humor grants learners some type of mental alertness (Garner,
2005). Supporting this, Powers (2005) insists that a better teacher is one who looks for
effective and different kinds of techniques to build attentiveness and eagerness among
students that he or she teaches.
The goal of this research was to determine the extent to which teaching with humor
could be appropriate in creating a more learner-centric, learning-conducive atmosphere,
ultimately making the teacher most effective in the eyes of the learners. The present paper
also aimed to present the functions of humor in general, the effects of teaching with humor
on students’ attitude and performance in mathematics, and the possibility to incorporate it
in the teaching of mathematics in particular.
Literature Review
Use of humor in teaching
In the research conducted by Power (2005), he defined humor generally as an
occurrence that causes laughter. It is not just restricted to jokes or any entertaining stories
6
but can comprise of cartoons, puns, short stories, props, anecdotes, and riddles. It can be
whatever that generates anoptimistic emotion in students and makes them laugh and smile.
The research of Banas, Dunbar, Rodriguez, and Liu (2011) stated that there are
plenty, different kinds of humor known and discovered in research. Among those registered
in an inclusive table in the article are humorous comments, humor associated to class
material, unplanned humor (spontaneous, unintentional), funny stories (hopefully related
to the content), jokes, self-disparaging humor, riddles, funny props, puns, and visual
graphics. Humor associated to course material, humorous comments, and funny stories are
nearly always suitable. Other classes of humor are suitable depending on the context. Yet
some types of humor are not ever suitable, such offensive humor that is ethnically or
sexually based, and humor that influences, disparages, mimicries, or teases others.
According to the study of Freud (1960), humor facilitates relations which are not
threatening in contexts of sex or aggression. Moreover, it helps to release tensions and
prevent stress. The use of humor is perceived as an indicator of a positive mood, decrease
of anxiety and depression, as well as improvement of cognitive capabilities (Herzog &
Strevey, 2008).
importance of humor in mathematics learning
According toWanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk and Smith (2006), humor can be defined
as something that the teacher and/or students find witty or entertaining. They also claim
7
that humour could emanate from both the teacher and the students, or even added source,
and can be accepted or appreciated by both parties. Duleimi and Aziz (2016, p. 105) argue
that “humor is beneficial in the classroom because it increases social bonding between
teachers and students. According to Farrant (1999, p. 210), “humor displays itself in
enjoyableness, joyfulness, pleasantness, a compassion and understanding mode toward
others, and composes attitude toward measures of both good and bad.” He adds that “a
good-humored instructor does not make fun that upsets any student, but is capable to laugh
at himself or herself.” This implies that humor is a powerful tool through which effective
learning can be maximized.
A study conducted by Makewa, Role and Genga (2011) explained that instructors
who use humor in teaching are regarded effective by the learners in terms of anxiety
reduction, enthusiasm, and conception of appealing lessons. The instructors are also
regarded effective in terms of encouragement of thought and attentiveness in students, and
nurturing of a positive teacher-student rapport. The use of humor further generates a sense
of attachment between the teacher and the learners; thus, learners are probable to like the
teacher and the subject matter. Abdi Ali, Ashur, Ghazi and Muslim (2016) persist that if
learners like their teachers, they will start loving the subjects taught by them and be more
inclined attending in the class. They also quote Vijay et al (2014, p. 260-61) who have it
that “a strict teacher can be effective but a humorous teacher can be more effective.”
8
role of teachers in teaching with humor
The study of Abad (2017) found out that a teachers’ sense of humor makes the class
exciting and kindlier. In addition, students feel more relaxed; they have no tension, and
they can express easily. Students love and remember those teachers who are fun and have
more sense of humor. Sense of humor is not somewhat disconnected from lesson; rather,
in the course of the class, teachers should practice sense of humor to remark or expound
some memories until students acquire and catch the lesson well. Strict teachers are not
approachable causing students to have no interest in the class and learning; that is why
students prefer welcoming and friendly teachers.
The research of Pintrich and Schunk (2002) suggests that the teacher as artist is
capable to apply research considerately and analytically with an eye to the distinctive and
various desires and capabilities of each student. Lastly, the teacher, as artist, time and again
must employ humor, provide individual contact and chances for acknowledgement and
enablement of students by means of building collaboration.
Acoording to the research of Bill Buskist and his group of productive apprentices
from Auburn University — who have studied and recognized the characteristics of
outstanding (i.e., master) teachers for the past 20 years — have specified that having and
showing a good sense of humor is one of their characteristics. Humor can also lead to the
establishment of student-teacher camaraderie, which is an additional characteristic of
master teachers. They also found that students are not only learning a great deal from
9
teachers’ good sense of humor, but they also enjoy the manner of learning from them
(Buskist, Sikorski, Buckley & Saville, 2002).
students’ attitude and achievement in mathematics
Akey’s study revealed that numerous parts of school context (e.g., student-tostudent interaction, teacher support, and the academic and behavior expectations of the
teacher) were considerably associated to student attitudes and behaviors. Akey (2006)
concluded that students see their teachers as someone supportive that promotes their
feelings of control and assurance in their capability to succeed. The way students recognize
their teacher’s characteristics will have good effect on their outlooks towards mathematics.
Maatand Zakaria and Vaughan (2002) recognized an important connection between
attitude and learning environment towards mathematics. Students have more positive
attitudes towards mathematics if they have a higher perception of the learning atmosphere
and a more optimistic perception of their teachers. Rawnsley and Fisher (2000) also found
that if students perceived their teachers to be highly supportive, it creates among them more
positive attitudes toward mathematics.
effects of humor in teaching
A research of Garner, an associate dean at Sam Houston State University,
specifically a study he executed looking at the effects of humor in asynchronous distance
education, discussed the facts and dangers of using jokes to teach. Conferring to the
10
outcomes of the research of Garner, humor can be a dominant instrument when used in the
classroom. The general opinion of the lessons was significantly higher in the experimental
group. Students specified in the “humor” group that the information was transferred more
effectively and gave the teacher higher assessments. Further, the students in the
experimental group were significantly more capable to remember and recall the
information from the lectures (Garner, 2011).
The research of Aboudan (2009) proves that humor empowers teachers to generate
an affective positive atmosphere, create a positive effect and a source of amusement for
students and teachers alike, notwithstanding culture or educational setting. The research
also points out that using humor stimulates communication between students and teachers,
and the classroom atmosphere becomes positive and more open. Laughter supports
students to forget their worries in the communicative language classroom.
Research has recognized that the use of humor – that it can help teachers in a couple
of significant ways. For instance, the review listed five research reporting positive
associations between the use of humor and higher student assessments, yet misuse of
humor and mockery has been related to lower assessments. Also, nine studies documented
a positive relationship between a teacher’s integrity and the use of humor. The contrary has
also been proved that using too much humor like negative and destructive humor, and
humor disparaging to learners, can damage integrity (Banas, Dunbar, Rodriguez, & Liu
(2011).
11
In the research of Appleby (2011), there are pros and cons concerning the use of
humor in the classroom. When it is positive, students also react positively to humor in the
classroom related to the subject matter being taught, and delivered in an effective manner.
As Garner (2008, p. 180) perceptively – and humorously – perceived, “When appropriately
used, humor can be an effective instrument to make a class more entertaining, lessen
anxiety and enhanced the learning situation. The ‘ha, ha’ of humor in the classroom may
certainly contribute to the ‘aha’ of learning from the student.”
Most importantly for teachers, – humor decreases burnout, improves self-image,
and attributes added value to the teaching process. Studies show that using humor is one
of the criteria by which pupils identify the figure of good teachers (Kuperman, 2006).
To sum up, the study emphasizes the positive features of humor as removing
barriers, increasing attention, improving thinking and creativity processes, serving as a
consolidating means in a group, in addition to enhancing the self-image of both learners
and teachers. Humor brings about a more pleasant atmosphere in class, reduces anxieties,
and can promote motivation and interest in the teaching of mathematics – one of the goals
of teaching this subject.
Conceptual Framework
Many says that “laughter is the best medicine”, so the effects of humor have long
been studied in medicine. Garner, an associate dean at Sam Houston State University,
12
details a study about the effects of humor in learning. He performed a research observing
the effects of humor in asynchronous distance learning and discussed the pros and cons of
using comedy to teach. According to the results of the research of Garner, humor can be
an influential tool when used in the classroom. The general opinion of the lessons was
significantly higher in the experimental group. Learners specified in the “humor” group
that the information was transferred more effectively, and students gave the instructors
higher ratings. Further, the learners in the experimental group were significantly more able
to remember and recall the information from the lectures (Garner, 2011).
Humor can encourage an atmosphere of openness, develop the retention of
presented materials, improve students’ divergent intellectual, and bring in respect for the
teacher; that is why it is considered as a powerful force. But it is important to keep in mind
that when teaching, like most things in life, it needs to be used in controlled manner.
Excessive use of humor can effect loss of respect and unsuitable jokes or jokes at the
students’ expense can make an unreceptive classroom environment. (Garner, 2011) has
therefore proved that laughter is not just the best medicine; it is also a valuable teaching
instrument as well.
Garner (2011) mentioned several studies indicating the positive effects of the use
of humor in the classroom. According to a study, humor is an influential teaching tool that
can produce a positive “emotional and social environment” where students can lesser their
defenses and concentrate more on what is being presented. Garner also stated that humor
13
can “initiate and withstand student interest” as well as develop students’ divergent intellect
and memory of the topic presented.
With regard to Mathematical Ability, a research conducted by Delaney, Durik, and
Matarazzo (2010) presented that individual interest in math affects the effects of humor in
the learning program. For those with low individual interest in math, they must have
humor-raised task interest; and for those with high individual interest in math must have
slightly-lowered task interest. In both studies, effects were tested on the interceding
variables, saying that even if the interceding variables showed discrepancy, humor may
still affect task interest over affective responses straightaway following the instruction,
rather than in succeeding interface with task.
Students’
Mathematics
Performance
The Use of Humor
in Teaching
Mathematics
Students’
Mathematics
Attitude
Mathematical
Ability
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
14
The functioning of humor seeks explanation through the incongruity theory. Banas
(2011) states that with incongruity theory, cognition is emphasized. As reinforced by
Martin (2007), humor is known to produce a positive classroom atmosphere and to assist
teacher communication. Instructional humor may be an effective tool if used appropriately.
The author emphasized that study has provided “indication that the judicious use of humor
by instructors in the classroom surges students' amusement of learning, their insights of
how much they learn, and how definitely they feel about the course and the instructor”.
(Guitart & Flores, 2003; Guitart, 2012) According to these authors, in addition to the
affective purpose of the humor, they also pointed out its perceptive purpose, that is, humor
suits the objective of the mathematical activity of students through the presentation of
mathematical tasks of entertaining context. (Vijay et al, 2014, pp. 260-61).
There is a public proverb that if students love their teachers, they will start loving
the subjects taught by them and be more attending in the class. A firm teacher can be
effective; but an entertaining teacher can be more effective. Hence, students' outlooks
towards their teachers and subjects taught by them are determined only by the teachers'
efficacy in delivering the contents and their attitudes towards their students. That is why
teachers who apply a light-hearted approach are often regarded higher than other teachers
as they not only centered on the performing level, but also on consistency.
15
Significance of the Study
The findings of the study will greatly help and benefit the following:
Teachers. Teachers will be rated if effective with the use of humor in teaching and
learning mathematics. Applying teaching with humor in the class could help them build
rapport among students and foster motivation.
Students. The use of humor in teaching mathematics could enhance student
learning and motivation in class, as well as it could relax their worries in coping with
conceptual and computational demands of mathematics learning.
Future Researchers. The findings of the study can also serve as data for other
researchers who will conduct similar studies.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study concentrated on determining the effects of teaching with humor on
students’ mathematics attitude and performance. The target participants came from the
Grade 9 students of Madapdap Resettlement High School, S.Y 2018-2019.
Two sections of heterogeneous classes of grade 9 students were the participants in
this research. One was the control group taught using the traditional approach, and the
16
other was the experimental group taught by employing humor. Only the teaching approach
was different between the groups, since both groups were handled by the facultyresearcher. Thus both groups had similar contents and time frame of one hour per lesson
with one teacher only, who was also the researcher.
The study was conducted from November 2018 to February 2019 which covered
the fourth grading period. As per scope of the Mathematics Performance, the following
topics reflected in the course outline of Grade 9 Mathematics under K-12 Curriculum were
used in the study, namely: Unit Circle Trigonometry, Radians and Degrees, The Six
Trigonometric Functions, Angle of Elevation and Depression, Oblique Triangles, Law of
Sine and Cosine, and their applications. In determining the effects of humor in the attitude
of the students, the study was limited only to adopting the Mathematics Attitude Inventory
(MAI) of Milagros Ibe (2018), and a survey questionnaire containing questions about
students’ perception in humor.
Definition of Terms
For better understanding of the study, some terms have been defined conceptually
and operationally.
Achievement. This refers to the information achieved or skill established in the
school subjects, usually designated by test scores or by grades assigned by teachers. In this
17
study, percentage of marks obtained by the students in their achievement test was taken as
their educational achievement.
Achievement Test. It refers to a test of developed skill or knowledge. For purposes
of this study, achievement test is defined as the test developed and validated by the
researcher, which is composed of 50 multiple choice items that served as pretest and
posttest of the students.
Attitude. It is an established process of thinking or emotion about someone or
something, classically one that is reflected in person’s conduct. In this study the effect of
teaching with humor on students’ attitude was measured through Mathematics Attitude
Inventory (MAI) by Ibe.
Control group. It is the group of grade 9 High School student-respondents
subjected to traditional way of teaching mathematics.
Experimental Group. It is the group of grade 9 High School student- respondents
subjected to the use of humor in teaching.
Fishbowl Technique. It is a simple random sampling technique used by the
researcher in picking the control and experimental groups. The researcher wrote down the
section of each group on identical slips of paper and placed them in a small container,
which she jumbled thoroughly. Without looking at the slips of paper, she picked one slip
18
of paper and the section written on it was assigned as the experimental group; and the other
section on the other slip of paper was the control group.
Humor. It is defined by Buckman as "whatever thing that people say or do that is
seemingly amusing and tends to make others laugh; as well, it is the mental procedures that
go into both creating and distinguishing such an entertaining motivation and the affective
response involved in the satisfaction of it" (Buckman, 2010, p. 9). In this study, it was
used to refer to the funny way of a teacher’s presentation of a lesson.
Humorous Material. It refers to the humor connected to class material, with
humorous comments, humorous stories (hopefully related to the content), jokes, selfdisparaging humor, mysteries, unexpected humor (spur-of-the-moment, unintended), puns,
funny struts, and visual diagrams. These materials were used as instructional materials in
teaching the experimental group.
Mathematical Ability. It refers to the capability to accomplish mathematical tasks
and to efficiently solve given mathematical problems. In this research, the respondents’
average grade in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grading was used in classifying their mathematical
capacity as above average, average, and below average.
Mathematical Task. It refers to a problem or set of problems that concentrates on
student’s attention on a specific mathematical knowledge and/or provides a chance to
19
improve or use a certain mathematical routine of mind. In this study, it was the activity
that has to be accomplished by the learners by applying mathematical skills.
Performance. It refers to the action or process of carrying out or accomplishing an
action, task, or function. This was measured through the activities done in the class during
the experimental process.
Teaching with humor. This is an important strategy to get students’ attention and
a suitable way of keeping the classroom less formal. It is a strategy used by the teachers to
put students at ease. In this study, it was used as a method to measure the effects on
students’ performance and attitude.
Traditional Method of Teaching. It is a process of teaching in which a teacher
leads students to learn through memorization and recitation practices, thus not increasing
their critical intellectual problem solving and decision making skills.
20
CHAPTER II
METHOD
This chapter presents the method, procedure, sources of data, instruments, and
description of the respondents used in gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data.
Research Design
This study utilized the quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design. This method
was used in comparing a group given a particular instruction with another group similar in
characteristics but did not receive the specific instruction. It was the most appropriate
method that helped the researcher determine if the intervention would affect any major
differences in participants' results as compared to those with comparable characteristics but
did not have the same teaching. The control group was given a pretest and was exposed to
diverse instructional approaches before it was given a posttest. According to Calmorin
(2004), this design is one of the most effective methods of minimizing threats to
experimental validity.
The structural design of research is shown as follows:
E:
P1
C:
P3
Where
E – Experimental Group
T
P2
P4
21
C – Control Group
P1, P3 – Pretest of the control and experimental group
P2, P4 – Posttest of the control and experimental group
T – Experimental treatment of Teaching with humor
Absence of T – Control group teaching with the use of traditional method.
Both groups were taught the same lessons. However, students in the control group
were taught using the traditional approach, while those in the experimental group were
taught using humor as instructional approach.
Research Problem and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of teaching with humor on
students’ performance and attitude in Mathematics. Specifically, the study aimed to
answers the following questions:
1.
Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of
the control group and experimental group in terms of
a. Performance?
b. Attitude?
2.
Is there a significant difference between the posttest mean scores of the control
group and experimental groups in terms of
22
a. Performance?
b. Attitude?
3.
Is the effect of teaching with humor on students’ performances and attitudes
moderated by their Mathematical Ability?
4.
How do the students perceive the use of humor in teaching mathematics?
Participants of the Study
The respondents of the study were two heterogeneous sections of Grade 9 Students
of Madapdap Resettlement High School in Dapdap, Mabalacat City, Pampanga. One was
the control group taught using the traditional approach; and the other was the experimental
group taught by employing teaching with humor. There were thirteen sections of grade 9
students in Madapdap Resettlement High School, where the first two were homogenous;
while the rest were heterogeneous in terms of their learning ability. Only the heterogeneous
classes were considered as participants of the study under the assumption that if the study
is proven effective using participants with average to below average abilities, then it will
be more successful and effective for students with above average abilities (Basco, 2009).
From the thirteen sections, eleven were heterogeneous sections. Only five sections
were currently handled by the faculty researcher. From these five sections, the control
group and the experimental group were randomly selected using the fishbowl technique.
23
The names of the five sections were written in a slip of paper and then placed in a bowl.
The teacher then selected two slips of paper, in which the first slip of paper was assigned
as the control group and the second was assigned as the experimental group. Only the
teaching approach was different between the groups. Teacher factor was also controlled
since both groups were handled by the faculty-researcher, allowing for same teacher
exposure for both groups. Thus, both groups had similar contents and time frame of one
hour per lesson.
Table 1 shows the population of the two intact sections. In this study, the number
of enrolled students for the present grading period was used as the number of participants
per section.
Table 1
Population of the Participants
Group
Control
Experimental
Population
40
40
To guarantee that no other primary causes would hinder with the results of the study
aside from the variables presented in the conceptual paradigm, both groups were handled
by the same teacher, and their classroom setting was within the same area ( 2nd floor, new
building), with their class schedule interval similar as well.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the participants according to their gender; while
Table 3 shows the comparison of the two groups in terms of teaching strategy used,
schedule of their mathematics class, and room assignment.
24
Table 2
Distribution of the participants according to gender
Male
Group
Male
Female
Control
21
19
Female
Experimental
22
18
Total
Total
40
46
Table 3
Comparison of the groups according to the teaching method used, schedule, and room
assignment
Group
Teaching Method
Schedule
Room
Used
Control Group
Traditional way of 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Rm. Second Floor
teaching
New Building
Experimental
Group
Use of humor in
teaching
12:00 pm – 1:00
pm
Rm. Second Floor
New Building
Group-alike method was used so that each group would have an equal spreading of
learners according to their mathematical ability: above average, average, and below
average. The source of their arrangement was their grade in 2nd grading period in
Mathematics. The scale used in the arrangement of the students’ ability level was adopted
from Basco (2008).
Table 4 shows the source of arrangement in terms of students’ mathematical ability.
Table 4
Basis of Classification in terms of students’ Mathematical Ability (Basco, 2008)
Grade
Classification
86 and above
Above Average (AA)
80 – 85
Average (A)
79 and below
Below Average (BA)
25
Each section comprised of 5 groups where each had an equal distribution of learners
conferring to their mathematical ability.
Table 5 shows the distribution of the participants of both groups in terms of their
mathematical ability; while Table 6 shows the distribution of the participants during their
group activity. Further, Table 7 shows the comparison of pretest mean performance scores
of the experimental and control groups on the achievement test.
Table 5
Distribution of the participants in terms of their Mathematical Ability level
Mathematical Ability level
Number of Students
Control Group
Experimental Group
Above Average
1
0
Average
6
15
Below Average
33
25
Total
40
46
Table 6
Distribution of the participants during their Group Activity
Mathematical Ability level
Number of Students
Control Group
Experimental Group
Above Average
6
11
Average
22
20
Below Average
12
9
Total
40
46
Table 7
Comparison of Pretest Mean Scores of the Experimental and Control Group in terms of
Mathematics Performance
Type of
Group
Me
SD
Mean
Comput Critical Interpretation
Test
an
Differen
ed tValue
ce
value
Multiple
Control
25.8 3.65
1.5
1.68
2.002
Not
Choice Experimental 27.3 4.21
Significant
26
It can be seen from the table that the computed t-values of 1.68 was less than the
critical value of 2.002 at 0.05 level of significance. This means that in terms of previous
knowledge, there was no significant difference in the mathematics performance of the
students in both groups. This shows that both were good at the start of the study.
Table 8 shows the comparison of the pretest mean scores of the control and
experimental groups in the Mathematics Attitude Inventory.
Table 8
Comparison of the Pretest Mean Attitude Scores of the Control and Experimental
Groups
Group
Mea SD
Mean
Compute
Critical
Interpretation
n
Difference
d t-value Value at
0.05
Control
2.58 0.94
0.82
1.75
2.002
Not Significant
Experimental 3.40 0.77
The computed t-value of 1.75 was less than the critical value of 2.002 at 0.05 level
of significance, which indicated that this result was not significant. This stresses that at the
start of the study, both groups were as good in terms of their attitude towards mathematics.
Research Instruments
The researcher utilized two sets of examination questions, pre-test and post-test, to
measure students’ performance. The two sets of test were composed of questions involving
Trigonometry. Then Mathematics Attitude Inventory (MAI) was used to determine the
participants’ attitudes toward mathematics before and after the two media of instruction.
27
Mathematics Performance Test. This is a test that measures the students’
accomplishment resulting from instruction and learning. For purposes of this study,
achievement test is defined as the test developed and validated by the researcher. It is
composed of 50 multiple choice items serving as pretest and posttest.
The development and validation of the Achievement test underwent the following
stages.
Stage 1. Organizing the First Draft
A TOS for the first draft was constructed to guarantee that all content areas were
represented in the test. The scope, structure, and instructional objectives in the Grade 9
High School Math Department Teachers’ Guide were the determining factors in the
preparation of the table of specifications.

Content Validation
A first draft of 50 multiple choice items was made and submitted to the Department
Head and a Master teacher of Madapdap Resettlement High School for a thorough
examination. It was then presented to the researchers’ adviser for evaluation and questions.
28

First try out
The purpose of the first try out was to check the clarity of the questions asked and
the instructions given, and to determine if the items in the test met the prescriptions in the
TOS for adjustment purposes. The 50-multiple choice test item was pilot tested to the other
sections of Grade 9 consisting of 50 students. These students were considered for the tryout
of the test since they were also grade 9 students taking up the same topic.
Stage 2. Item Analysis
After the first try out, the test was analyzed by using the upper and lower index
method which was advanced by John Stocklein (1957) as the appropriate test to measure
the math achievement of students under study.
Stage 3. Second try out
After investigating the results of the first draft, the final form of the 50 multiple
choice item test was administered to another group of grade 9 students of the same school.
Then another item analysis was done to find out if the revised items greatly improved in
terms of difficulty and discrimination.
29
Stage 4. Preparing the Final Draft
The final draft consisted of 50- multiple choice test item intended to serve as pretest
and posttest in the study.

Lesson Plans
Before the start of experiment, lesson plans were prepared covering the lessons
given during the experimental period using teaching with humor. The researcher prepared
12 detailed lesson plans covering the topics of the fourth quarter mentioned earlier. Each
lesson plan included humor related to class materials as part of the strategy used by the
teacher to integrate teaching with humor. These were submitted to a group of Junior High
School Mathematics Teachers of the school locale. After evaluating, suggestions and
recommendations from the Mathematics professionals were solicited and observed and
complied with for revisions.
Data Gathering Procedure
The study had three phases: 1) pre-experimental phase; 2) experimental phase; and
3) post-experimental.
30
Phase 1. Pre – Experimental Phase
A letter of request was prepared by the researcher to seek for the approval of the
school head to gather data from the two groups of participants.
The study was conducted during the fourth quarter of the School Year 2018- 2019.
The participants were from two heterogeneous sections, one with 40 students and the other
with 46 students of grade 9 classes.
After the participants were determined, the researcher prepared the initial draft of
the sets of questions for the pre-test and post-test. The test totaled to 50 items with
questions on Trigonometry following the Table of Specification. The test was pilot tested
to 40 Senior High School students, the results of which underwent item analysis.
Phase 2. Experimental Phase
The first set of questionnaire, the pre- test, was administered to the groups of
participants. After that, intervention was given to the whole classes of participants. The
researcher made sure that the same environmental set-up was given to the two groups of
participants. The experimental group was scheduled to be taught at 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM,
and the control group at 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM. The experimental group was taught using
teaching with humor. On the other hand, the control group was given the traditional method
31
of teaching using lecture-discussion without humor. The experimental phase lasted for at
least 4 weeks or 20 sessions.
Teaching the Control Group
The teacher started with a motivation in the form of a short activity to set the minds
of the students. Then, the presentation and lecture demonstration of concepts followed. The
teacher presented the lessons in a sequential order and in an understanding manner to give
provisions to the low ability students. After the discussion, the students worked on the
exercises and drills individually and another activity by group. Majority of the tasks were
teacher -directed and short term in nature. This means that most of the class activities were
accomplished in a single period of time using the traditional method of teaching.
Teaching the Experimental Group
The teacher started with a motivation in the form of a short activity with humorous
contents to set the minds of the students. Then, the presentation and demonstration of
concepts followed. The teacher then presented tasks with humorous mathematical contents
and clarified some doubts about the activity. The students were then organized in small
groups and worked autonomously. The teacher followed and gave small support on the
works of the students. After solving the task given by the teacher, the students prepared for
the collective discussion. The discussion and activities were accomplished using teaching
with humor.
32
Phase 3. Post Experimental Phase
At the end of the intervention, the post- test was administered to the two groups of
participants. Pre-test and post-test was used to determine the students’ performances.

Class Observation Form
The class observation form used by the researcher was adopted from Basco (2009)
which was utilized to observe the teacher-researcher’s conduct of the study on both groups.
To ensure that there was no bias to any groups during the conduct of the study, and
that the teacher-researcher performed the same procedure for every lessons except in the
activity part, the Head teacher and Math Coordinator of Madapdap Resettlement High
School observed the teaching of both groups for every execution of the different activities.

Questionnaire
The researcher constructed questionnaires to determine students’ attitude towards
the use of humor in teaching Mathematics 9. The teacher=researcher adopted the
Mathematics Attitude Inventory (MAI) developed by Dr. Milagros Ibe to determine if
significant difference in attitude existed between participants in the experimental group
and those in control group before and after their exposure to teaching with humor and
33
teaching traditionally,respectively. The Mathematics Attitude Inventory was based on the
participants’ responses on the survey questionnaire.

Interview
The respondents were chosen randomly for the interview. The purpose of the
interview was to produce responses and comments about the integration of teaching with
humor through mathematical tasks that were humor-related. The teacher-researcher served
as the facilitator of the interview, guided by the following questions:
Question 1: What is your initial reaction when you are doing the activities with humorous
contents?
Question 2. How did you deal with the new integrated activity? Have you enjoyed doing
the activity?
Question 3. How is doing Mathematical tasks with humorous content different from other
activities?
Question 4. How did the tasks affect how you solve the problems?
Question 5. Would you be willing to integrate doing activities with humorous content in
your class for next school year?
After the three phases, Daily Lesson Plans, Classroom Observation Sheets, and
Evaluation Questionnaire Form were collected. Finally, upon the completion of the needed
data, analysis procedure followed.
34
Data Analysis Procedure
The following statistical tools were used to analyze the data gathered.

Mean and Standard Deviation. These were used to describe the scores of the
students in the mathematics performance and attitude scale.

T-test for Dependent Samples. This was used to determine if there was a
significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental
group and control group in terms of performance and attitude.

T-test for Independent Samples. This was used to find out if there was a
significant difference between the posttest mean scores of the experimental group
and control group in terms of performance and attitude.

Two-way Analysis of Variance. This was used to determine if there was a
significant interface between teaching with humor and mathematical ability on the
performance and attitude of the students.
35
CHAPTER III
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents the main findings, analysis and interpretations on the data
gathered in this study.
Problems cited in Chapter 1 are hereby restated with their corresponding responses
as findings of the study.
Problem # 1. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean
scores of the experimental group in terms of
a. Performance?
b. Attitude?
Table 9 describes the comparison of the performance of the experimental group in
the pretest and the posttest.
Table 9
Comparison of the Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores on the Achievement Test of
Experimental Group
Type of
Test
Mea
SD
Mean
Comput Critical Interpretation
Test
n
Multiple
Pretest
27.3
4.21
Choice
Posttest
29.2
3.50
Differenc
ed t-
e
value
1.9
2.69
Value
2.002
Significant
36
The computed t-value of 2.69 was greater than the critical value of 2.002 at 0.05
level of significance. This result reveals that the pretest scores differed significantly from
the posttest scores on the multiple choice test.
Evidently, it is a sign that the performance of the respondents became better after
the experiment. Therefore, this guarantees that learning took place after exposing the
students in teaching with humor in mathematics.
Conferring to the outcomes of the research of Garner, humor can be a dominant
instrument when used in the classroom. The general opinion of the lessons was
significantly higher in the experimental group. Students specified in the “humor” group
that the information was transferred more effectively and gave the teacher higher
assessments. Further, the students in the experimental group were significantly more
capable to remember and recall the information from the lectures (Garner, 2011).
Table 10 shows the summary of the comparison of the pre-post mean MAI scores
of the control and experimental groups.
Table 10
Comparison of the Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores on Mathematics Attitude Inventory
of the Experimental Group
Group
Type of Mean SD
Mean
Comput Critical Interpretation
Test
Differenc
ed tValue
e
value
Experi
Pretest
3.40 0.77
mental
Posttest
3.80 0.35
0.20
2.35
2.002
Significant
37
It can be seen from the table that the attitude scores of the experimental group
increased with a mean difference of 0.20. The computed t-value of 2.35 was greater than
the critical value of 2.002 which means that there was a significant difference between the
attitude of the respondents before and after the treatment. This further confirmed that there
was a positive change in the attitude of the respondents toward mathematics when taught
using teaching with humor.
As supported by the study conducted by Makewa, Role and Genga (2011),
instructors who used humour in teaching are regarded effective by the learners in terms of
anxiety reduction, enthusiasm and conception of appealing lessons. The instructors were
also regarded effective in terms of encouragement of thought and attentiveness in students
and nurturing of a positive teacher-student rapport. The use of humor further generated a
sense of attachment between the teacher and the learners; thus learners are probable to like
the teacher and the subject matter. Abdi Ali, Ashur, Ghazi and Muslim (2016) persist that
if learners like their teachers, they will start loving the subjects taught by them and be more
attending in class.
Problem #2. Is there a significant difference between the posttest mean scores of the
control group and experimental group in terms of
a. Performance?
b. Attitude?
38
Table 11 reveals the comparison of the posttest mean scores of the control and experimental
groups.
Table 11
Comparison of Posttest Mean Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups on
Mathematics Performance
Type of
Group
Mea SD
Mean
Comput Critical Interpretation
Test
n
Differenc
ed tValue
e
value
Multiple
Control
27.8 3.79
1.4
0.94
2.002
Not
Choice Experimental 29.2 3.50
Significant
The computed t-value of 0.94 was less than 2.002 at 0.05 level of significance.
There was no significant difference between the posttest means of the experimental and the
control group. But having a significant difference of 1.4 still meant that those in the
experimental group had higher attainment in the posttest. Probably there are other factors
as to why there was still no significant difference after the use of teaching with humor in
the experimental group.
According to the research of Hewson (2005), among the many questions and
worries related to Mathematics learning and teaching, the most common are the math
anxiety level of students and their problem solving performance. These two problems affect
students’ performance in Mathematics. No matter how teachers try to make the subject
appealing, still, Mathematics is the thing that most students are afraid of. The observations
in this study show that there are other factors that bear on the poor performance of students
in mathematics.
39
Table 12 illustrates the comparison of the Posttest Mean MAI scores of the Control
and Experimental Groups after the Treatment.
Table 12
Comparison of the Posttest Mean Scores on Mathematics
Control and Experimental Groups
Group
Mean SD
Mean
Comput
Difference
ed tvalue
Control
3.00
0.33
0.80
2.33
Experimental
3.80 0.35
Attitude Inventory of the
Critical
Value
2.002
Interpretation
Significant
The computed t-value was greater than the critical value of 2.002 at 0.05 level of
significance. These findings may be attributed to the various experiences encountered in
the conduct of the study. Students enjoyed doing the activities with humorous contents. It
made them happy and relaxed. This new experience made Mathematics a likeable subject
and this aroused the students’ interest to solve more mathematical problems.
These reasons were supported by a study which states humor facilitates relations
which are not aggressive in contexts of sex or aggression. Moreover, it helps to relieves
tensions and avoid stress. The use of humor is perceived as an indicator of a positive mood,
decrease of anxiety and depression, as well as improvement of cognitive capabilities
(Herzog &Strevey, 2008).
Problem #3. Is the effect of teaching with humor on students’ performances and
attitudes moderated by their Mathematical Ability?
40
Table 13 shows the mean achievement scores of the multiple choice items of the
control group and experimental groups when they are grouped according to mathematical
ability.
Table 13
Mean Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups According to Mathematical
Ability
Level of Mathematical
Type of Method used in Teaching
Ability
Humor in Teaching
Traditional Method
Above Average
36.50
32.00
Average
28.00
31.21
Below Average
21.29
23.43
Table 14 reveals the summary of the two-way analysis of variance showing the interaction
effect of the use of humor in teaching and mathematical ability on students’ attitude in
mathematics/
Table 14
Summary of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Showing the Interaction of the Use of
Humor in Teaching and Mathematical Ability on Students’ Attitude in Mathematics
Source of
Sum of
Df
Mean
F-Ratio P-value
Interpretation
Variation
Squares
Square
Use of teaching
7.65
31
3.83
58.55
0.00
Significant
with humor
Mathematical
6.85
30
2.69
1.80
0.20
Not Significant
Ability
Interaction
2.41
1
1.14
0.04
0.06
Not Significant
Error
7.0718
4
7.27
Total
7.1923
5
8.24
The F ratios for main effect was significant. This implies that the use of teaching
with humor affected students’ attitude in mathematics. However, the computed F ratio for
interaction effect was not significant. Thus, there was no interaction effect of the use of
41
humor in teaching and mathematical ability on students’ attitude in mathematics. This
implies that the effect of the use of teaching with humor was not moderated by
mathematical ability.
As supported by the research conducted by Delaney, Durik , and Matarazzo (2010),
individual interest in math affected the effects of humor in the learning program, implying
that for those with low individual interest in math, they must have humor-raised task
interest; and for those with high individual interest in math, they must have slightly
lowered-task interest. In their study, effects were tested on the interceding variables across
participants. Even if the interceding variables showed discrepancy, humor may still affect
task interest over affective responses straight away following the instruction, rather than in
succeeding interface with task.
Figure 2 illustrates the interaction between the use of humor in teaching and
mathematical ability. It can be seen from the figure that the lines do not intersect. This
implies that there is an absence of interaction effect of mathematical ability and use of
humor in teaching on students’ achievement in mathematics. This information is
graphically shown as follows:
42
5
4
3
2
1
0
AA
A
Teaching with humor
BA
Traditional Method of Teaching
Figure 2.Interaction Effect of Teaching with Humor and the Mathematical Ability of
Students Attitude in Mathematics
Table 15 reveals the summary of the two-way analysis of variance showing the
interaction effect of the use of humor in teaching and mathematical ability on students’
mathematics performance.
Table 15
Summary of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Showing the Interaction of the Use of
Humor in Teaching and Mathematical Ability on Students’ Mathematics Performance
Source of
Sum of
Df
Mean
F-Ratio P-value
Interpretation
Variation
Squares
Square
Use of teaching
489.8
2
29.38
1.08
0.16
Not Significant
with humor
Mathematical
575.8
3
28.09
1.12
0.10
Not Significant
Ability
Interaction
-86
2
1.29
-0.04
0.06
Not Significant
Error
87.0718
4
47.27
Total
87.1923
5
48.24
The F ratios for main effects were not significant. This implies that the use of
teaching with humor and mathematical ability did not affect students’ achievement in
43
mathematics. The computed F ratio for interaction effect was not significant also. Thus,
there was no interaction effect of the use of humor in teaching and mathematical ability on
students’ mathematics performance. This implies that the effect of the use of teaching with
humor was not moderated by mathematical ability.
A study conducted by Matarazzo, Durik, and Delaney (2010) showed that the effect
of humor in the learning program depended on individual interest in math. Humor- raised
task interest for those with low individual interest in math could be beneficial; but slightlylowered task interest for those with high individual interest in math might be considered as
well. Mediating variables of this effect were tested across studies. Although the mediating
variables showed inconsistency, humor may affect task interest through affective responses
immediately following the instruction, rather than in subsequent interaction with task.
50
40
30
20
10
0
AA
A
Teaching with humor
BA
Traditional Method of Teaching
Figure 3.Interaction Effect of Teaching with Humor and Mathematical Ability on
Students’ Mathematics Performance
44
Problem #4. How do the students perceive the use of teaching with humor in teaching
mathematics?
Based on the data gathered from the interview among the students in Grade 9
specially those who were taught with the use of humor in teaching mathematics, most of
the students preferred to study mathematics with the use of humor in teaching, because
they said they could understand the problem better; and for them it is more challenging and
exciting than the normal lecture only as a method of teaching.
Others said that the use of humor in teaching mathematics has made them feel at
ease and happy. They found it enjoyable, and it boosted their interest in doing the activities.
Others said that it also lessened their nervousness. Because they were not good in math,
knowing that the activities were making them laugh helped them enjoy and forget their
uneasiness.
Generally, students’ perceived the use of humor in teaching mathematics as
something that caught their interests and willingness to learn about math. The findings
based on student reports showed that humor does enhanced their concentration and learning
motivation.
In the research conducted by Power (2005), he defined humor generally as an
occurrence that causes laughter. It is not just restricted to jokes or any entertaining stories
45
but can comprise of cartoons, puns, short stories, props, anecdotes and riddles. It can be
whatever that generates an optimistic emotion in students and makes them laugh and smile.
46
Chapter IV
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
Summary
This research attempted to examine the effects of the use of humor in teaching
mathematics on the performance and attitude of High School Students of Madapdap
Resettlement High School. This study utilized the quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest
design in linking a group that gets a certain instruction with another group that is
comparable in characteristics but does not receive the definite instruction.
The design was used to validate the need to incorporate humor as a teaching
strategy in mathematics. It also asked the opinions of students on the effect of humor in
when learning mathematics.
Findings
The results of the study are as follows:
1. There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest achievement
mean scores of the experimental group when exposed to the use of humor in
teaching mathematics.
47
2. There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean attitude
scores of the experimental group.
3. There was no significant difference between the posttest achievement mean scores
of the control and experimental groups.
4. There was a significant difference between the posttest mean attitude scores of the
experimental group.
5. There was no interaction effect of mathematical ability and use of humor in
teaching mathematics on the achievement of students in mathematics.
6. The use of humor in teaching mathematics built students’ confidence, made them
enjoy the class and relieved their anxiety since they were more relaxed and excited
doing the activities with humorous contents.
7. The students reported that humor enhanced their concentration and learning
motivation.
Conclusions
In light of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn.
48
1. The use of humor in teaching mathematics has a significant effect on the
achievement of students in mathematics. Therefore, instructors who use humor in
teaching mathematics are regarded effective in terms of achieving students’ good
mathematics performance.
2. The use of humor in teaching mathematics has a significant effect on the attitude of
students in mathematics. Instructors who use humor in teaching are mostly regarded
effective in terms of motivation and anxiety reduction among students.
3. The effect of using humor in teaching mathematics is not moderated by
mathematical ability. Therefore, mathematical ability is not a factor of the effects
of students’ attitude and mathematics performance.
4. Generally, students like to be taught in a fun and more exciting way. Therefore,
teachers are rated effective in fostering positive teacher-student relationship when
they use humor in delivering lessons in mathematics.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendation are set forth.
49
1. Use teaching with humor in mathematics as an alternative approach to improvise
instructions that will help students improve their attitude towards mathematics. An
increase in students’ good perception in mathematics may somehow boost their
interest in learning the subject.
2. Support and fund research to continue to identify programs and professional
development/seminars that successfully improve instruction in the class.
3. Conduct further research on the use of teaching with humor for other grade levels
in learning mathematics.
4.
Humor- related class materials could be studied and improved upon in support to
the use of humor in teaching mathematics.
50
References
Appleby, D.C. (2011).Using humor in the college classroom: The pros and the cons.
Society for the Teaching of Psychology’s Office of Teaching.
Banas, J.A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., and Liu, S. (2011). A review of humor in
education settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60(1),
115-144.
Burgess, R. (2000). Laughing Lessons: 149 2/3 Ways to Make Teaching and Learning
Fun. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing Co.
Cornett, C. (2001). Learning through laughter… again.Bloomingon, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED466288.
Eberhart J. G. (2000). Humor and Music in the Mathematics Classroom. Department
of Chemistry University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Colorado Springs, CO
80933-7150, U. S. A.
Flores, P., Menezes,L., Ribeiro,A., Viseu, F. (2012). " Empleo del humor de
profesoresespañoles y portugueses en la enseñanza de lasMatemáticas",Atas
del CongressoIbero Americano de EducaciónMatemática, in press, 2017.
Freud, S. (1991). Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. London: Penguin Books.
Garner, R. (2005). “Humour analogy and metaphor: HAM it up in teaching.” Radical
Pedagogy.
ICAAP.
[Online]
Available:
http://www.radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue62/garner.html (February 25,
2010).
Garner, R.L. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha! College
Teaching, 54(1), 177-180). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Herzog, T. R. and Stervey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, sense of humor &
psychology well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 747-776.
Ibe, M. (2000). Mathematics Attitude Scale Inventory. University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City.
Kant, I. (1952). The Critique of Judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kuperman, A. (2006). The use of humor in the teaching of
mathematics.MisparHazak – Magazine for math teaching at elementary
school. Haifa University, 11, pp. 14-20. [Hebrew]
51
Martin, R. (2007) The Psychology of Humor – An Integrative Approach. London:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Menezes, L. (2017). Uses of Humor to teach Mathematics. A Didactic Proposal. A
Conference Paper Published in Polytechnic Institute Viseu.
Ornek, F. (2017). Evaluation Novelty in Modeling-Based and Interactive Engagement
Instruction.Article in Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education.
Powers, T. (2005). Engaging students with humor. Observer, 18(12) 13-24.
Santos, M. L. K. P., Diaz, R. V., &Belecina, R. R. (2015). Mathematical modeling:
effects on problem solving performance and math anxiety of students.
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 65, 103-115.
Segrist, D.J., &Hupp, S.D.A. (2015). This class is a joke! Humor as a pedagogical tool
in the teaching of psychology. Society for the Teaching of Psychology’s Office of
Teaching
Resources.
Retrieved
from http://www.teachpsych.org/Resources/Documents/otrp/resources/segrist15.p
df
Shmakov, P., Hannula, M.S. (2010). Humour as means to make mathematics enjoyable.
Proceedings of CERME 6, January 28th-February 1st 2009, Lyon France © INRP
2010.
Taylor, S.R (2017). Successful teacher practices for reducing Mathematics Anxiety in
Secondary students.A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Education Department Carson-Newman University.
Tella, A. (1998). An Investigation into Poor Performance and Attitude of Secondary
School Students towards Mathematics in Oyo State, Nigeria. Unpublished
B.Ed. Project University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Tella, A. (2008). Teacher Variables as Predictors of Academic Achievement of
Primary School Pupils Mathematics.International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education Vol.1, Issue 1, October 2008.
Verma, G. (2007). Humor, a good teaching aid. The Hindu. Education
PlusVisakhapatnam.
52