Using Humorous Cartoons

Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
in Sixth Grade Science Class
Audrey C. Rule
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, State University of New York at
Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, arule@oswego.edu
Jeremie Auge
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, State University of New York at
Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, jauge@apw.cnyric.org
ABSTRACT
Humor in the classroom has been shown to have many
positive effects on attention, attitude, and engagement in
higher order thinking skills. This study examined the
effect on motivation and science performance of using
humorous cartoons to teach mineral and rock concepts to
sixth grade students as compared to more traditional
methods.
Four classes of students were randomly assigned to
two groups, A (N = 30) and B (N = 33) that alternated
between conditions for two units: minerals and rocks.
Performance was determined using open-ended
identical pretest/posttest instruments. Both groups
received quality instruction on concepts addressed by
the assessment, accessed the text, examined specimens,
worked in cooperative groups, and attended class for
equal amounts of time. Experimental procedures
included viewing cartoons, interpreting the science facts,
identifying the humor mechanism, improving cartoons,
completing given cartoons, and creating original
cartoons. Control procedures included lecture,
discussion, written exercises and creation of a study
outline.
Students in the experimental condition exhibited
higher motivation and significantly higher gain scores
than students in the control condition (23.5% gain
compared to 12.3%). Cohen's effect size was large, 0.953.
Students' higher performance is attributed to their
intense engagement with the content through the
scaffolded cartoon activities.
INTRODUCTION
Reasons for Using Humor in Teaching - Humor in the
classroom brings many desirable effects. It increases
students' attention and motivates them to participate in
lessons (Ulloth, 2002). Attention is one of the most
important factors in learning, as students must first pay
attention to something in order to remember it (Higbee,
1996). Wittrock (1986) found that attention to a learning
task was more important to student retention of
information than the amount of time spent on the task.
Unfortunately, Snell (2000) observed that attention spans
of today's students are shorter than previous
generations, owing in part to long-term exposure to
rapidly changing electronic media images. Recent
evidence from a study by Christakis, Zimmerman,
DiGiuseppe, and McCarty (2004) supports this assertion.
They found that an increase in the hours of television
viewed per day for young children was associated with a
later rise in attentional problems.
Our society uses entertainment to boost interest:
through movie previews, video games, and television
commercials, with performers at fairs or sales, with
fortunes or jokes in bubblegum and cookies, and with
toys packaged in fast food meals. Because of these
changes in entertainment expectations and attention
548
spans of today's students, education methods may also
need to change to include new ways to engage students.
McLaughlin (2001) and Cookson (2003) contend that
humor is the easiest form of engagement available to
teachers because students must pay attention to
understand the jokes.
Some teachers believe using humor in a classroom is
unprofessional. Early authors of literature addressing
humor in schools viewed it as undignified and unnecessary (Fisher, 1997). However, recent investigators have
shown that humor can inspire and motivate students to
achievements that were otherwise thought unattainable
(Guthrie, 1999).
Not only can humor maintain student attention, but
also it can increase motivation by breaking tension and
decreasing anxiety (Guthrie, 1999). This enhances
positive attitudes toward the subject. James (2001)
observed that administrators viewed classrooms without
humor as having a high degree of order, but students
found such classes boring. Students saw classes that
incorporated humor as attention grabbing and highly
supportive. Interestingly, the same study found that
colleagues viewed teachers who used humor as having
positive, caring classrooms.
Gurtler (2002) found that teachers with a perceived
sense of humor tended to encourage social learning and
have more cooperative classrooms. A study by Ulloth
(2002) showed that humor enabled the instructor to
break down the barrier between the teacher and the
student, allowing learning to be more comfortable. Berk
(2002) contended that the two most important reasons to
use humor are to build the teacher-student connection
and to engage students in learning. Other studies
(Mitchell and McNally 2004; Flowers, 2001; Aria, 2002;
Doring, 2002; James, 2001) highlighted the effectiveness
of humor in increasing creativity in the classroom, noting
that students who listened to humorous tapes or comedic
movies scored better on creativity tests.
Different Types of Humor - There are three main
theories of humor (James, 2001). One theory is the
superiority theory, which states that humor stems from a
perception of superiority over another. This occurs when
a member of one group ridicules another because he/she
doesn't fit within the group norms. Because students
need to feel that the classroom environment is safe and
the teacher is a caring person, an instructor must be
careful with this humor to make sure no people are
belittled. However, when humor is applied to
non-human groups (minerals or rocks of the current
study, for example) this type of humor may be
appropriate. Figure 1A, a cartoon drawn by the second
author, illustrates this type of humor.
A second theory is the relief theory, which asserts
that humor is used as a tension reliever or as a defense
mechanism. Jokes made about negative aspects of our
lives, such as death or uncomfortable situations, support
this theory. McLaughlin (2001) tells how job lay-offs
were made funny as an employer hired a comedian to
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Figure 1. Examples of cartoons presented to students during instruction.
help employees see the lighter side of the situation.
Hawkey (1998) also used this type of humor to make the
classroom environment more productive and relaxed.
There is clearly room for use of this theory in the
classroom setting, especially when applied to pressures
students feel during tests. Berk (2000), in a six-year study
of undergraduate and graduate classes, found that
humor inserted into tests reduced anxiety and improved
performance among students. Figures 1B and 1C
illustrate this type of humor.
Flannery (1993) found that some science teachers
communicate their excessively serious attitudes toward
science to their classes, generating unnecessary tension
and intimidating students. Humor can lighten and
brighten a serious subject, allowing students to take the
risks necessary to tackle a daunting subject (Ulloth,
2002). In a study involving students in a technology class,
Flowers (2001) observed that humor allowed him to close
the teacher-student gap and make work between himself
and the students more cooperative. Williams (1995) gave
extra credit to students who wrote limericks that were
selected and read during a college chemistry class.
Students said that the poetry lightened the class and gave
a necessary break to refocus their attention.
Humor can also be used in classroom management
or in dealing with potentially dangerous situations. It is
difficult for a student to remain destructive or aggressive
when that same student is laughing. Using humor as a
deescalating practice aids in the classroom management
and keeps the classroom safe (Richardson and Shupe,
2003).
The third theory of humor is the incongruity theory.
This type of humor involves surprise, twists, word plays
or absurd situations. Figures 1C and 1D illustrate this
idea. The reinterpretation of a situation or event allows
students to use higher level thinking skills (Aria, 2002).
Often these thinking skills involve parody or analogy.
There is much evidence for the effectiveness of using
analogy in teaching (Brown, 1994; Clement, 1993; Duit,
1991; Glynn, 1989; Harrison and Treagust, 1993; Lin,
Shiau, and Lawrenz, 1996; Rule and Furletti, 2004; Rule
and Rust, 2001, Silkebakken and Camp, 1993; Sutton,
1993; Thiele and Treagust, 1991, 1994; Zook, 1991, among
others). An analogy allows students to view the target
concept in a more familiar way, thereby making many
different connections between the new concept and
previous knowledge. Similarly, a humorous parody
involves seeing an unfamiliar concept in a recognized
context, facilitating insights and highlighting
similarities.
The mental processes involved in recognizing
humor are very similar to those used in creativity (Derks,
1987; O'Quinn and Derks, 1997) and problem solving
(Goldstein, Harmon, McGee, and Karasik, 1975; Johnson,
1990). Suls (1972, 1983) identified two main parts to
mental processing of humor. The first stage is the
Rule and Auge - Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
549
with cartoons are: combining objects and ideas in new
ways, producing unusual ideas, and solving problems or
Minerals
puzzles. These activities exercise critical and creative
Experimental
Control
Unit
thinking skills that support learning.
Condition
It is hypothesized that students taught science
Rocks
Control
Experimental
Unit
concepts through viewing, critiquing, improving,
completing, and creating humorous cartoons will retain
Number of Students
30
33
the information better than students taught using more
Female
20
16
traditional methods as demonstrated by performance
Male
10
17
gains on a pretest-posttest assessment. It is also
hypothesized that a class environment of recognizing
Table 1. Demographics of the sample population and and creating humor will result in higher motivation for
experiemental set-up.
students under the experimental condition.
Class
A
B
recognition of the incongruity in the humorous situation,
which resembles identifying the problem (part of
problem solving). The second stage is comprehension of
the punchline, which is similar to solving the problem.
Because both humor and problem solving involve the
same thought processes, they reinforce each other (Berk,
2002). In this way, the use of humor has a positive impact
on learning.
Standards and Focus of the Study - This investigation
explores the use of humorous cartoons in the teaching of
rock and mineral concepts in a sixth grade general
science classroom. The National Science Education
Science Content Standards (National Research Council,
1996, p. 149) state in Physical Science Content Standard
B, "As a result of their activities in grades 5-8, all students
should develop an understanding of properties and
changes of properties in matter." Determining the
physical properties of minerals supports this standard.
Content Standard D addressing Earth (p. 158), "As a
result of their activities in grades 5-8, all students should
develop an understanding of the structure of the Earth
system." This includes the rock cycle, concepts of
weathering, erosion, deposition, soils, effects of
organisms,
burial
of
sediments,
compaction,
recrystallization, metamorphism, volcanism, and plate
tectonis.
The study of minerals, rocks, and the rock cycle is
supported by the Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(American Association for the advancement of Science,
1993). Under the heading of "The Physical Setting,"
students in grades 6 through 8 should study the Earth,
processes that shape the Earth, and the structure of
matter. These standards address very similar ideas as
described for the National Science Teaching Standards
above.
Additionally, the state in which the study took place,
New York, has science content standards (The University
of the State of New York and the State Education
Department, 2001) for intermediate grades (5-8). One of
the "Physical Setting Skills" that intermediate level
students should master is to "use a diagram of the rock
cycle to determine geological processes that led to the
formation of a specific rock type" (p. 11). Also,
performance indicator 2.1e (p. 22) states that students
should know that "Rocks are composed of minerals.
Only a few rock-forming minerals make up most of the
rocks of Earth. Minerals are identified on the basis of
physical properties such as streak, hardness, and
reaction to acid."
The creative aspects of learning through humor
address a science domain that is often neglected, the
Creativity Domain defined by Yager (2000) in " A vision
for what science education should be like for the first 25
years of the new millennium." Some of the activities
suggested for this domain that are supported by teaching
550
METHOD
Subjects and Setting - The study took place at a rural
middle school in central New York State. Four classes of
14, 16, 16, and 17 students (N=63) enrolled in sixth grade
science classes taught by the second author participated.
Classes were randomly assigned to groups and
conditions. A class of 14 students and a class of 16
students formed Group A; another class of 16 students
and a class of 17 students formed Group B. Consent of
parents, school officials, and human subjects committee
of the overseeing university was obtained for all
participants.
Procedure - The investigation had a pretest/posttest
counterbalanced design. This study examined the effect
of presenting content material related to minerals and
rocks through humorous cartoons and cartoon-writing
activities as compared to traditional methods of lecture,
text, and worksheets. Classes alternated between the
control and experimental condition for the two units of
study: "Minerals" and "Rocks," as shown in Table 1.
Instrumentation - Identical pretest/posttest assessments composed of two sections (one part focusing on
minerals, the other on rocks) that measured student performance on several different concepts related to minerals and rocks was administered before the start of the
study and at its conclusion. Each of the two sections had
42 possible points.
The main concepts covered by the minerals section
were the criteria for a mineral (naturally occurring,
inorganic, solid, definite composition, crystal structure)
and the physical properties of minerals (hardness
including Mohs Scale, color, streak, luster, density,
crystal form, cleavage or fracture, habit, and special
properties such as fluorescence, radioactivity, and
magnetism). The two test questions for this unit were: 1)
List five important criteria for deciding if a substance is a
mineral or not. Give two examples for each - one of a
mineral that fulfills the criterion, and one of a substance
that does not. 2) What are the nine tests or observation
methods that geologists use in identifying a mineral?
Give two different mineral examples of each.
The concepts addressed by the rocks section of the
test included the classification of rocks by texture,
mineral composition, origin and uses of the three types
of rocks (igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic), and the
rock cycle. Students also needed to identify, define, or
apply the following terms or concepts to the appropriate
rocks: extrusive, intrusive, high or low silica content,
glassy, fine, coarse or porphyritic texture (igneous
rocks); clastic, chemical, organic, along with erosion,
deposition, compaction, and cementation (sedimentary
rocks); and foliated or non-foliated (metamorphic rocks).
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Figure 2. Cartoons presented during instruction with student humor improvements.
The seven test questions for the rock unit ware: 1)
Name the three major classification categories of rocks.
Then, using an example rock from each of the three
categories, describe the three methods that geologists use
to determine which type of rock it is. 2) What is the
primary human use of all or any of the three rock types?
3) What are the three ways that geologists classify an
igneous rock? Give an example of each using technical
terms as much as possible. 4) Describe the process of
formation of a clastic sedimentary rock and provide two
different examples. 5) Identify the other two types of
sedimentary rock, tell how each forms, and provide two
examples for each. 6) Describe how metamorphic rocks
are formed and the major way they are classified.
Provide two examples for each type of classification,
telling the starting and ending material. 7) Draw and
label the rock cycle.
The students were surveyed for their thoughts about
the two units of instruction at the close of the study with
ten questions shown with results in Table 3. They were
also asked the following two questions. Which method of
learning about Earth's materials did you like or enjoy
most and why? Which method helped you learn the most
and why?
Control of Variables - Students operating under both
conditions had access to the text (Vogel, 2002), worked in
small cooperative groups, and had the same experiences
with mineral and rock specimens. Each group
participated in seven thirty-nine minute lessons for each
of the two units. The concepts addressed on the
pretest/posttest were emphasized in both conditions
and available in the text. The second author taught all
lessons of both conditions with confidence and
enthusiasm. He had been teaching these units previously
using the traditional methods described under the
control condition with success. However, he was curious
to see the effects on student performance and motivation
of using cartoons to teach about minerals and rocks.
Experimental Group Procedures - The following
procedures were implemented for the experimental
condition.
1. The instructor showed portions of the electronic slide
show, discussing and highlighting the science
content. Each cartoon slide was preceded by a slide
that presented information about a mineral or rock
concept. Often, this explanatory slide showed
photographs of specimens with accompanying
definitions or criteria. The following cartoon then
directly applied this content in a humorous way.
2. Students were encouraged to work cooperatively in
small groups during all lessons.
3. Students received a paper handout that showed three
cartoons on a page with space next to each for
writing. The authors created the cartoons used in this
study. Students: 1) defined the science concept
Rule and Auge - Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
551
Figure 3. Cartoons presented during instruction with student science content improvements.
4.
5.
6.
7.
addressed by the cartoon and 2) described the reason
why the cartoon was humorous.
The instructor discussed the limits of appropriate
humor for the classroom: no put-downs of other
students or racial/ethnic/religious groups, no
profanity, no vulgarity, no sexual content. The
instructor suggested that any student wondering
about appropriateness of humor should discuss it
with the instructor. Puns, word plays, parodies on
current events or common human experiences were
suggested as good situations for humor.
Students then worked in groups and chose two
cartoons to edit. Adding or changing parts to make it
funnier improved one cartoon. The other cartoon
was changed to improve the teaching of the science
concepts. Figures 2A and 2B show cartoons made by
the first author. 2C and 2D are student variations on
these cartoons that improved the humor. Figures 3A
and 3B show additional cartoons made by the first
author. Figures 3C and 3D are student cartoons that
increase the amount of science information
presented.
Students were given partially completed cartoons and
added details to them to teach a science concept in a
humorous way. Figures 4A and 4B show two of the
partly completed cartoons offered to students.
Figures 4C and 4D show examples of student work.
Students created their own original cartoons to teach
science concepts related to the unit. They completed
552
cartoons as homework assignments. Figures 5A-D
present four examples of original student cartoons.
8. Students had the text available as a reference for
additional information.
9. Hand specimens of the rocks or minerals were
discussed and passed around.
Control Group Procedures - The following procedures
were implemented in the control condition.
1. The instructor asked students to tell what they knew
about the science topic and discussed student ideas.
2. The instructor lectured about the science information,
stopping to discuss difficult concepts.
3. Students, working in cooperative groups, completed
guided reading and study worksheets (Prentice Hall,
2000a and 2000b) that coordinated with the text
(Vogel, 2002). Activities included completing multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank questions for
definitions of terms, true and false, as well as short
answer questions.
4. The instructor reviewed the correct answers for the
exercises and discussed the concepts.
5. Students completed a worksheet assignment as
homework made by the publishers of the text that
corresponded with the unit.
6. The instructor reviewed the correct answers for the
exercises and discussed the concepts.
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Figure 4. Unfinished cartoons and completed examples.
7. Students completed enrichment assignments that
coordinated with the text.
8. Students were asked to produce their own study
guides to use in reviewing for the quiz on the topic
being addressed (minerals or rocks). They were
allowed to work with a partner in creating the study
guide.
9. Students read the text as they developed the study
sheet.
10. Hand specimens were discussed and passed around.
RESULTS
The mean pretest, posttest, and gain scores are shown in
Table 2 for students studying the two units, "Minerals"
and "Rocks" under different conditions. The attitude
survey and tabulated student responses are shown in
Table 3. Table 4 lists the frequency of different responses
for additional questions about the condition students
enjoyed more and the one in which students thought
they learned best along with reasons why they perceived
it was better for learning.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Pretest Results - Pretest scores in Table 2 show that all
students in both groups had very little background
knowledge in minerals and rocks, the two units of
instruction. The highest any one student scored on the
pretest was a score of 5 out of 42 on the rock pretest and a
score of 1 out of 42 on the minerals pretest. The mean
pretest score of the experimental groups on both units
combined was 0.4 (out of 42) while the mean pretest score
of the control groups on both units combined was 0.3.
Therefore, both groups were essentially the same in
initial knowledge.
Posttest and Gain Score Results - Groups under both
conditions gained knowledge through the lessons.
However, groups in the experimental condition made
significantly larger gains. An analysis of variance
(ANOVA) conducted on gain scores of students for both
units (minerals and rocks combined) revealed a
significant difference in gain scores between the two
conditions (F = 28.58, df = 1/124, p < 0.001). The mean
gain score for students learning either mineral concepts
or rock concepts under the experimental condition was
9.9 points (23.5 %), as compared to only 5.2 points (12.3%)
under the control conditions.
Student performance in each of the two units
revealed a comparable pattern. In the experimental
condition of both units, students had similar mean gain
scores: 9.8 points (23.3%) for minerals and 10.0 points
(23.7%) for rocks. Students studying in the control group
Rule and Auge - Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
553
Figure 5. Students’ original cartoons.
conditions had much smaller mean gain scores: 6.3
points (14.9%) for minerals and 3.9 points (9.4%) for
rocks. Students in the control condition did better on the
minerals unit than on the rocks unit. This is perhaps
because students studying minerals in the control
condition completed the written exercises quickly and
had extra time to devote to review of the material with
the teacher. This did not occur during the rocks unit. The
repetition of concepts may account for better student
performance on minerals in the control condition.
Effect Size - The analysis of variance described above,
though providing information of the statistical
significance of student performance differences under
the control and experimental conditions, does not reflect
the magnitude of the effect. The American Psychological
Association, in their publication manual (2001), which
defines guidelines for publication adhered to by many
education journals, suggests that an effect size be
reported for quantitative studies in the social sciences
(this would include geoscience education studies). A
common measure is Cohen's effect size (Cohen, 1988),
the standardized mean difference between the
experimental and control groups. The formula for this
calculation is the mean of the experimental group minus
the mean of the control group divided by the pooled
standard deviation. The pooled standard deviation is the
square root of the average of the squared standard
554
deviations. The calculated value of the effect size for gain
scores in this study was 0.953.
The effect size for this study is large and may be
interpreted in two ways. First, it can be thought of as the
average percentile standing of students during the
experimental condition relative to the average
performance of students under the control condition. An
effect size of 0.953 indicates that the mean of the student
performance using cartoons is at the 83rd percentile of
the untreated group - indicating that students learning
under the experimental condition performed far above
the typical performance of students under the control
condition.
The effect size can also be interpreted as the percent
of nonoverlap of the scores obtained for the experimental
condition with those of the control condition. An effect
size of 0.953 indicates a nonoverlap of about 54% in the
two distributions. This shows that there was a large
difference between student performances under the two
conditions. The effect size calculation, therefore, shows
that the treatment of viewing, analyzing, improving, and
creating cartoons had a significant and large effect on
student performance.
Teacher's Observations - Students reacted differently
to the two conditions. Most students enjoyed learning
science in the new method of using cartoons as
evidenced by their enthusiasm in class. Students asked
daily if they would be watching the cartoons, and if they
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Group
N
Condition
A
30
Experimental
B
33
Control
B
33
Experimental
A
30
Control
A&B
63
Experimental
A&B
63
Control
Topic
Minerals
Rocks
Both
Pretest
Points out
%
of 42
0.0
0.0
(0.0)
(0.0)
0.1
0.1
(0.2)
(0.6)
0.8
2.0
(1.5)
(3.5)
0.6
1.3
(1.1)
(2.6)
0.4
1.1
(1.1)
(2.7)
0.3
0.7
(0.8)
(1.9)
Posttest
Points out
%
of 42
9.8
23.3
(7.0)
(16.7)
6.3
15.1
(3.5)
(8.4)
10.8
25.8
(6.0)
(14.4)
4.5
10.7
(3.0)
(7.2)
10.3
24.6
(6.5)
(15.4)
5.5
13.0
(3.4)
(8.1)
Gain
Points out
of 42
9.8
(7.0)
6.3
(3.6)
10.0
(5.4)
3.9
(2.7)
9.9
(6.1)
5.2
(3.4)
%
23.3
(16.7)
14.9
(0.8)
23.7
(12.8)
9.4
(6.4)
23.5
(14.6)
12.3
(8.0)
Table 2. Mean pretest, posttest, and gain scores for student performance on the mineral and rock assessment.
Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.
would have the chance to draw their own cartoons. They
quickly took their seats and frequently were ready to
begin class before the late bell rang. Many students
voiced that they really liked the cartoon slide shows and
would like to learn more topics in this manner
throughout the year.
Students in the control condition were disappointed
that they were not shown the cartoon slide shows. They
frequently commented that it was "unfair" that the other
class was able to learn through cartoons. Many students
in the control condition exhibited little excitement about
science class, a strong contrast to their behavior in the
experimental condition. The teacher had to request that
students take their seats to begin the day's lesson.
Students collectively groaned "oh" when the day's
activities were described, followed almost immediately
by, "Why can't we see the cartoons?"
However, some students thought they learned better
through more traditional means. One student was
adamant that she "hated" the cartoons and was not
learning the material through this condition. She wanted
to read the textbook while the other students were
watching the slides, but this was not allowed.
Interestingly, this same student scored 6 points higher on
her post-test when she was in the experimental group
compared to her performance under the control
condition. Clearly, her perception of learning during the
two conditions was faulty. This is most likely a
consequence of her unfamiliarity with this method of
teaching and learning. She may have felt more
comfortable with the traditional method and unsure of
her learning under a new condition that seemed too
much like play.
Student Responses to the Survey Questions - Table 3
shows that a majority of students preferred the cartoon
method of learning to the traditional method of note
taking and written exercises. The reasons students gave
for this choice were enjoyment of humor, enhanced
discussions, novelty of the method, opportunity to draw
cartoons, and ease of understanding concepts. Students
who thought they learned best with cartoons noted their
attention-grabbing
nature,
the
facilitation
of
comprehension of the cartoons, more examples and
better descriptions of concepts, the need to pay attention
to understand the jokes, and the ease of recalling the
cartoon examples. Students who thought they learned
better under the control conditions stated that it was
easier for them to use a method closely tied to the text
with which they were familiar and which distracted
them less.
Limitations of the Study - Students did not perform as
well on the assessment as the investigators had hoped.
The test required sixth grade students to remember and
produce too many details for their first experiences with
minerals and rocks. Therefore, their scores were low.
However, the test remains a good measure of the science
information retained by students.
In How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and
Science in the Classroom (Donovan and Bransford, 2005),
the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Science
and Education discussed the importance of students
knowing both "Big Ideas" of science and facts:
"knowledge of facts and knowledge of important
organizing ideas are mutually supportive... Studies of
experts and novices ... demonstrate that experts know
considerably more relevant detail than novices in tasks
within their domain and have better memory for these
details... But the reason they remember more is that what
novices see as separate pieces of information, experts see
as organized sets of ideas" (p. 7). In our assessment, we
asked students to both address organizing ideas such as
physical properties of minerals or components of the
rock cycle, and to give factual examples such as specific
minerals and their properties. Because there were only
seven 39-minute lessons on each topic, because students
started with no prior knowledge in these specific
minerals/rocks content areas, and because the test asked
students to produce examples from memory rather than
choose from possible responses (as in multiple choice or
matching) the amount of learning of details they
exhibited on this assessment was appropriate.
The instructor also administered the same unit tests
(a minerals test and a rocks test) to students as he had
used in previous years. Scores on this multiple-choice,
modified true-false, short answer, and essay unit test
supplied by the textbook publisher (Prentice Hall, 2002c)
followed the same pattern of scores as occurred on this
study's pretest/posttest. Students scored higher on the
two tests when in the experimental condition. Class A's
mean on the minerals unit test was 84.8% with a standard
deviation of 12.3% (experimental condition), while Class
B's mean was 77.1% with a standard deviation of 14.9%
(control condition). Similarly, Class B's mean on the
rocks unit test was 83.9% with a standard deviation of
12.1% (experimental), and Class A's mean was 76.8%
with a standard deviation of 15.5% (control).
Rule and Auge - Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
555
Statements to which students respond
Group and Condition for Minerals Unit
1. I liked learning about minerals.
2. I now know a lot about minerals.
3. My teacher’s method of teaching about
minerals worked well.
4. I enjoyed learning about minerals more
than other science topics so far this year.
5. It was easier for me to learn about
minerals than other science topics.
Group and Condition for Rock Unit
6. I liked learning about rocks.
7. I now know a lot about rocks.
8. My teacher’s method of teaching about
rocks worked well.
9. I enjoyed learning about rocks more
than other science topics this year.
10. It was easier for me to learn about rocks
than other science topics this year.
Agreed
Neutral
Disagreed
Group A Experimental Condition
19
8
3
18
13
2
Agreed
Neutral
Disagreed
Group B Control Condition
15
12
6
15
13
5
28
1
1
16
9
8
24
3
3
8
13
13
22
7
1
10
11
12
Group A Control Condition
8
15
7
12
16
1
Groub B Experimental Condition
27
5
1
26
5
3
9
14
4
24
3
5
5
12
13
22
8
3
5
19
5
26
4
3
Table 3. Survey results of students in both groups.
A limitation for the experimental condition was the
availability of technology in the school building. There
were several days that the LCD projector used to present
the cartoon slide show was not available. At those times
black and white, rather than color, copies of the slides
were shown using an overhead projector. A stack of
overheads proved to be difficult for the teacher to
manage and hindered the smooth progression of the
lesson as compared to the electronic slide show. This
wasted some of the teaching time for the experimental
condition.
Another limitation for the experimental condition
involved the humorous circumstances depicted in the
cartoons. It was difficult to find contemporary issues to
make light of for all of the different science concepts
taught in the two units of study. For this reason some of
the humor used in the cartoons was "dated," meaning the
parody referred to past styles or events with which
students were unfamiliar. The "age" of the humor made
some of the cartoons more difficult for the students to
understand. The teacher explained the humor, but funny
situations closer to sixth grade students' backgrounds
may better facilitate their understanding.
Conclusion - Teaching science to middle school
students is a challenging task. Educators must seek new
and exciting ways to reach these young teenagers. Using
humor appeals to students while boosting their learning.
As evidenced by this study, students that learned using
cartoons achieved higher test scores as well as provided
examples of why they enjoyed learning in this manner.
The cartoons were an effective pedagogical
technique because they created a learning environment
in which students: 1) experienced a high degree of
motivation to recognize and produce humor; 2) viewed
and analyzed visual images that enhanced memory (for a
discussion of the importance of visuals, see Rule, 2003);
3) made numerous connections between the new
material and prior knowledge through parody and
analogy (similar to results of study using analogies by
Rule and Furletti, 2004); 4) identified concepts of which
they were unsure and sought clarification from the
instructor or text as they attempted to create or improve
556
cartoons (for a discussion of the importance of
self-assessment, see Vye et. al, 1998 or Donovan and
Bransford, 2005, p 10-11); and 5) engaged in
self-motivated practice as they reviewed cartoons for
improvement and created their own cartoons. An
important point here is that viewing cartoons is not
enough: students need to analyze, critique, improve, and
create their own cartoons. It is this intense involvement
with and practice of the concepts in a self-motivated way
that helps students understand and remember them.
The success of the cartoon activities can be related to
social learning theory and constructivism. Vygotsky's
social learning theory (Kozulin, 2003) stipulates that
mediating agents help the learner make sense of the
environment, facilitating learning. Vygotsky's concept of
a student's "Zone of Proximal Development" asserts that
each student has psychological functions that are
emerging but not fully developed. Others (the teacher
and peers), through mediation such as encouragement,
modeling, or explanation, assist the student in acquiring
emerging skills or concepts into the student's actual
development. As students worked in small groups on the
cartoon activities, they encouraged each other and
discussed ideas, which enhanced their learning. The
teacher, through the tools of the slide shows, the
organization of the activities, and by interaction with
students, was also a mediating agent. The activities were
scaffolded so that the students first recognized science
content and humor in the cartoons; secondly, added to
these components; then completed partially-finished
cartoons; and finally, created original cartoons. This
sequence moved the student forward step by step to
higher levels of thinking, pushing the boundaries of the
zone of proximal development.
According to constructivist learning theory, in order
to learn, students must engage with information and
process it deeply enough to fit the new concepts into
their views of how the world works. As students
interpreted, edited, completed, and created cartoons,
they interacted intensely with the content, organizing,
recognizing, and internalizing the concepts. They
self-assessed their learning as they tried to put ideas
together to improve or create cartoons and consulted
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Situation and Preception
Reasons students enjoyed the cartoons
Learning with the cartoons was more fun and they
were funny.
We were able to discuss the concepts more.
It was something different, not the same old thing.
I really like to draw, and I could during this unit.
Cartoons made it easier to understand.
Reasons students enjoyed the traditional condition
It is easier.
The book has more details.
More experience learning from the book.
Reasons students thought they learned better with
cartoons
It was more fun/funny and that helped me pay
attention.
I was able to understand the cartoons better.
I learn better when I can see examples.
The descriptions were better in the cartoons.
I had to pay more attention to understand.
It is easier to remember the cartoon examples.
Reasons student thought they learned better with the
traditional method.
It is easier to follow along with the book.
There are more details in the book.
I have more experience with the traditional way.
We fool around less when we use the book.
N
17
10
8
7
7
6
5
1
15
8
7
2
1
1
5
5
3
2
Table 4 Student responses to final questions. Some
students offered multiple reasons. N equals the
number of students responding with that idea.
peers, the teacher, or their textbook for verification of
their ideas. They made numerous connections to prior
knowledge as they searched for appropriate parodies or
situations for their original cartoons. These activities
reinforced the learning, allowing them to outperform
students in the control condition who were not as
engaged with the material.
Additional research will determine whether the use
of this model of interpreting, editing, completing, and
originating humorous cartoons can be extrapolated into
other units of study, as well as other subjects. Humor is a
technique that has been overlooked in the field of
education, and studies like this and others mentioned
earlier in the literature review provide evidence that it is
a method that needs to be taken more seriously.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the following students for their
cartoon drawings that appear in this article: Zach Dolan,
Angela Dusharm, John Fischer, Zana Gervaise, Tricia
Murphy, Cassy Page, Brooke Pidkaminy, and Joette
Payne.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993, Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington,
DC, Author, 217 p.
American Psychological Association, 2001, Publication
manual of the American Psychological Association
(5th edition), Washington, DC, American
Psychological Association.
Aria, C., 2002, The use of humor in vocabulary
instruction, Unpublished masters thesis, Kean
University, Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 463 537, 50 p.
Berk, R., 2000, Does humor in course tests reduce anxiety
and improve performance? College Teaching, v. 48,
p. 151-158.
Berk, R. A., 2002, Humor as an instructional defibrillator:
Evidence-based techniques in teaching and
assessment, Sterling, VA, Stylus, 268 p.
Brown, D. E., 1994, Facilitating conceptual change using
analogies and explanatory models, International
Journal of Science Education, v. 16, p. 201-214.
Clement, J., 1993, Using bridging analogies and
anchoring intuitions to deal with students'
preconceptions in physics, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, v. 30, p. 1241-1257.
Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 567 p.
Cookson, P., Jr., 2003, The elements of trust, Teach
PreK-8, v. 34, p. 12.
Christakis, D. A., Zimmerman, F. J., DiGiuseppe, D. L.,
and McCarty, C. A., 2004, Early television exposure
and subsequent attentional problems in children,
Pediatrics, v. 113, p. 708-713.
Derks, P. L., 1987, Humor production: an examination of
three models of creativity, Journal of Creative
Behavior, v. 21, p. 326-326.
Donovan, M. S., and Bransford, J. D., eds., 2005, How
students learn: History, mathematics, and science in
the classroom, Washington, DC, National
Academies Press, 616 p.
Doring, A., 2002, The use of cartoons as a teaching and
learning strategy with adult learners. New Zealand
Journal of Adult Learning, v. 30, p. 56-62.
Duit, R., 1991, On the role of analogies and metaphors in
learning science, Science Education, v. 75, p. 649-672.
Fisher, M., 1997, The effect of humor on learning in a
planetarium, Science Education, v. 81 p. 703-713.
Flannery, M., 1993, Making science a laughing matter,
Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 22, p. 239-241.
Flowers, J., 2001, The value of humor in technology
education, The Technology Teacher, v. 60, p. 10-13.
Glynn, S. M., 1989, Explaining science concepts: A
teaching with analogies model, In: Glynn, S. M.,
Yeany, R. H., and Britton, B. K., editors, The
Psychology of learning science Hillsdale, NY,
Erlbaum, p 219-240.
Goldstein, J. H., Harmon, J. McGhee, P. E., and Karasik,
R., 1975, Test of an information processing model of
humor: Physiological response changes during
problem and riddle solving, Journal of General
Psychology, v. 92, p. 59-68.
Gurtler, L., 2002, Humor in educational contexts, Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 470 407, 18
p.
Guthrie, P., 1999, Knowledge through humor: an original
approach for teaching developmental readers,
Presented at the annual meeting of the National
Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
International Conference on Teaching and
Rule and Auge - Using Humorous Cartoons to Teach Mineral and Rock Concepts
557
Leadership Excellence, Austin, TX, Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 434 328, 48 p.
Harrison, A. G., and Treagust, D. F., 1993, Teaching with
analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, v. 30, p. 1291-1307.
Hawkey, R., 1998, Have you heard the one
about…science?. School Science Review, v. 80 p.
29-36.
Higbee, K. L., 1996, Your memory: How it works and
how to improve it, New York, Marlowe and
Company, 265 p.
James, D., 2001, Split a gut and learn: Theory and
research, Unpublished manuscript, Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 458 671, 10 p.
Johnson, A. M., 1990, A study of humor and the right
hemisphere, Perceptual and Motor Skills, v. 70, p.
995-1002.
Kozulin, A., 2003, Psychological tools and mediated
learning, In: Kozulin, A., Gindid, B., Ageyev, V.S.,
and Miller, S. M. (eds.), Vygotsky's educational
theory in cultural context, p. 15-38, Cambridge, UK,
Cambridge University Press.
Lin, H., Shiau, B., and Lawrenz, F., 1996, The
effectiveness of teaching science with pictorial
analogies, Research in Science Education, v. 26, p.
495-511.
McDermott, P., and Rothenberg, J., 1999, Teaching in
high poverty, urban schools-learning from
practitioners and students, Presented at annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada, ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 431 058, 19 p.
McLaughlin, K., 2001, The lighter side of learning,
Training, v. 38, p. 48, 50, 52.
Mitchell, M., and McNally, K., 2004, Using humor in the
classroom, Techniques, v. 79, p. 22-25.
National Research Council, 1996, National science
education standards: Observe, interact, change,
learn, Washington, DC, National Academy Press,
262 p.
O'Quin, K. and Derks, P. L., 1997, Humor and creativity:
A review of the empirical literature, In: Runco, M.,
editor, Creativity research handbook, Cresskill, NJ,
Hampton Press, p. 223-252.
Prentice Hall, 2002a, Scientific Explorer. Inside earth:
Guided reading and study workbook, Needham,
MA, Prentice Hall.
Prentice Hall, 2002b, Teaching resources with color
transparencies for inside earth, Needham, MA,
Prentice Hall.
Prentice Hall, 2002c, Prentice Hall Resource Pro: Test
Generator, Needham, MA, Prentice Hall.
Richardson, B. and Shupe, M., 2003, The importance of
teacher self-awareness in working with students
with emotional and behavioral disorders, Teaching
Exceptional Children, v. 36, p. 8-13.
Rule, A. C., 2003, The rhyming peg mnemonic device
applied to learning the Mohs scale of hardness,
Journal of Geoscience Education, v.51, p. 465-73.
Rule, A. C. and Furletti, C., 2004, Using form and
function analogy object boxes to teach human body
systems, School Science and Mathematics, v. 104, p.
155-169.
558
Rule, A. C., and Rust, C., 2001, A bat is like a..., Science
and Children, v. 39, p. 26-31.
Silkebakken, G. and Camp, D., 1993, A five-step strategy
for teaching analogous reasoning to middle school
students, Middle School Journal, v. 24, p. 47-50.
Snell, J. C., 2000, Teaching gen X and Y: An essay part 2:
Teaching strategies, College Student Journal, v. 34,
p. 482-484.
Suls, J. M., 1972, A two-stage model for the appreciation
of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing
analysis, In: Goldstein, J. H., Jeffrey, H., and
McGhee, P. E., editors, The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspective and empirical issues, New
York, Academic Press, p. 81-100.
Suls, J. M., 1983, Cognitive processes in humor
appreciation, In: McGhee, P. E., and Goldstein, J. H.,
editors, Handbook of humor research: Volume I,
basic issues, New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 39-58.
Sutton, C., 1993, Figuring out a scientific understanding,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 30, p.
1215-1227.
The University of the State of New York, The State
Education Department, 2001, Intermediate level
science core curriculum: Grades 5-8. [online].
Available: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/
pub/intersci.pdf
Thiele, R, and Treagust, D. F., 1991, Using analogies to
aid understanding in secondary chemistry
education, ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. Ed 349 164, 14 p.
Thiele, R, and Treagust, D. F., 1994, An interpretive
examination of high school chemistry teacher's
analogical explanations, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, v. 31, p 227-242.
Ulloth, J., 2002, The benefits of humor in nursing
education, Journal of Nursing Education, v. 41 p.
476-481.
Vogel, C., 2002, Science explorer: inside earth (1st ed.),
Needham, MA, Prentice Hall.
Vye, N.J., D.L. Schwartz, J.D. Bransford, B.J. Barron, L.
Zech, and Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt, 1998, SMART environments that
support monitoring, reflection, and revision, in
Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., and Graesser, A., editors,
Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice,
Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Williams, F., 1995, There once was a teacher from tech…:
the use of chemical limericks in the classroom,
Journal of Chemical Education, v. 72, p. 1123-1124.
Wittrock, M. C., 1986, Students' thought processes, In:
Wittrock, M. C., Editor, Handbook of research on
teaching, New York: McMillan, p. 297-314.
Yager, R. E., 2000, A vision for what science education
should be like for the first 25 years of the new
millennium, School Science and Mathematics, v. 100,
p.327-341.
Zook, K. B., 1991, Effects of analogical processes on
learning and misrepresentation, Educational
Psychology Review, v.3, p. 41-72.
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 548-558
Practical, creative, and innovative ideas for teaching geoscience
Name (print or type)
Mailing Address
Phone
Fax
Individual Subscription &
Membership Rates
(US Funds)
Regular USA
$35 ___
Outside USA
$47 ___
Student* USA
$20 ___
Student* outside USA
$32 ___
Retired NAGT member $30 ___
Library Subscriptions
Checks (US funds only) are payable to National Association of Geoscience Regular USA
$75 ___
Teachers.
Outside USA
$87 ___
Mail to: NAGT, 31 Crestview Dr., Napa, CA 94558 USA
____New ____Renewal
City
State
Country
E-mail
College/University Professor at
Pre-College Teacher at
Other at
Postal Code
Please charge my credit card for my membership fees
Visa
Credit Card #
Exp. Date
MC
Signature
The membership year runs from January through December, and members receive 5 issues of JGE per year. Subscriptions received after June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are available for
$15 each ($18 foreign).
*To qualify for student rate, indicate status below, and obtain verification from an NAGT member.
Undergraduate
Graduate
Signature of NAGT member
School
National Association of Geoscience Teachers