(Kocer et al., 2012).  Individuals show their joy, satisfaction, and appreciation, by reactional behaviors such as smiling or laughing.These emotional reactions are called laughter (Recepoglu and Ozdemir, 2012). As laughing is among the main objectives of humor, humor is intended to criticize, ironize, and correct the flaws and hideousness in the lives of individuals and society (Durmus, 2005).

Humor reveals the humorous and entertaining aspects of incidents, facts and values in real life. (Yalcinkaya, 2015)  Humor is the art of expressing the negative, incompatible, and contradictory aspects of national and moral values in a ridiculous style (Esigul, 2002). Humor is a natural line of defense being effectively used in order to struggle with the problems of daily life, and to overcome the difficulties encountered (Sanders, 2001).  Humor is a medicine used to solve the issues, remove the problems, and treat the injuries in social life. In other words, as well as satirizing and trying to correct the mistakes, the problems may be mitigated, social conflicts may be prevented, and tensions in social life may be softened by using humor (Eroglu, 2008).

It is possible to address humor in three levels. The humor in the first level is the type of humor that can be understood by everyone without considering the socio-cultural status.  Involuntary smiling at someone who slips and falls is this type of humor. The humor in the second level is a method of humor used to free oneself from an oppressive condition. This type of humor is used mostly regarding religious, political, or sexual issues. And the humor that requires a high level of understanding, and that has abstract topics which cannot be easily understood is the humor of the third level.

It is possible to categorize the humor arising in social interaction and communication into three parts.   The first one is realized by telling to others the recalled jokes and humorous stories. The second one consists of oral ones that are generated by the individual, or that arises by itself in the social interaction process, and the third one are the ones that arise unintentionally.Humor has been conceptualized under four styles as being: the confirmative humor style, the productive humor style, the transmissive humor style and the non-humorous style (Cemaloglu et al., 2012).

The place and importance of humor in the education of individual

The most important purpose of education is to prepare individuals for life. In this process, humor has a separate place. It is not right to deem humor –which is frequently used in our daily lives- only as a means of amusement and entertainment for people. In the education of an individual, humor has a separate place.

Humor develops the sensitivity, empathizing ability, and social facts’ multi- dimensional perception of individuals. Humor enlivens life, entertains people, positively contributes to social relations and improves the imagination of individuals. The use of oral and written humor elements in social life such as wit, jest, jokes, comics, or plays on words is effective in helping positive behaviors to arise, in removing the obstacles of communication and in establishing easier and more effective communication among individuals (Ozkara, 2012).

Humor strengthens the spirit of sharing, synergy, sincerity, friendship and fellowship of students, and it contributes towards them learning cultural values and how to socialize (Ergun, 2004). Humor motivates the students for the course (Akun, 1997), and it may undertake the role of a channel for different cultures to understand each other.  Humor teaches children the spirit of sharing, fellowship, friendship, tolerance, sincerity and empathy. It shows the entertaining aspect of an incident, and provides a humane personality to the individual because individuals, who realize the aspects of incidents that make anyone smile, try to solve the future problems with a more amicable method.  

The research done on the subject of humor shows that using humor in education is extremely important. Thus, it is required to use humor in the education of children –who are the grown-ups of the future-, to concentrate on the types of humor in textbooks, and to use the elements of humor in books prepared for children (Eroglu, 208). 

While it is possible to use humorous elements for both the social and personal development of the individual, throughout history humor has not got the attention that it deserves either in the aspects of our social life or in educational institutions, and this indifference to humorous elements is still continuing today.  This condition may be explained by the deeming of humor as a disgrace and unnecessary, and by not taking it seriously (Tanribuyurdu, 2007).

Sub problem statement

1. At which level are the teachers using humor in Turkish courses?

2. What are the opinions of teachers regarding the effect of “humor” on the educational environment and on the attitudes of students towards the course?  

3. Does humor allow the realization of a learner focused process?

4. What is the attitude of teachers regarding the use of humor by the students on Turkish courses?

5. As per the opinions of the teachers, are the humorous elements used in the Turkish textbooks sufficient, and are they interesting for the students?

6. As per the opinions of teachers, what is the contribution of humor in enrichment of the vocabulary and develop-ment of the linguistic and communication skills of the students?

7. As per the opinions of teachers, is the use of humorous elements in the courses effective in the academic success and social and psychological development of the students? 

This research was designed using the scan model. Karasar (2000) defines the scan model as portraying an old or still existing situation as it is.           

The population and sample of the study

The population of this study was the Turkish teachers group (Türkçe ÖÄŸretmenleri)  established  for  information  and  document sharing on the Facebook social networking website. The sample consisted of 128 Turkish teachers who were randomly selected from this group by the convenience sampling method and the ones that could be reached.

This study was performed in the first term of 2015 TO 2016 academic year. The teachers on whom the attitude scale was applied were serving in  the provinces of Adana (2 persons), Adiyaman (1 person), Afyon (1 person), Agri (18 persons), Aksaray (2 persons), Ankara (5 persons), Ardahan (2 persons), Aydin (2 persons), Bingol (2 persons), Bitlis (1 person), Bolu (1 person), Bursa (4 persons), Canakkale (1 person), Corum (1 person), Denizli (2 persons), Diyarbakir (1 person), Edirne (2 persons), Elazig (1 person), Erzurum (1 person), Eskisehir (1 person), Gaziantep (2 persons), Hatay (1 person), Igdir (3 persons), Istanbul (13 persons), Izmir (3 persons), Kahramanmaras (1 person), Kars (2 persons), Kastamonu (2 persons), Kirikkale (1 person), Kocaeli (3 persons), Konya (6 persons), Malatya (1 person), Manisa (1 person), Mardin (3 persons), Mersin (6 persons), Mugla (2 persons), Mus (1 person), Rize (1 person), Sakarya (2 persons), Samsun (1 person), Sivas (2 persons), Sanliurfa (6 persons), Tekirdag (2 persons), Tokat (1 person), Trabzon (1 person), Van (6 persons),  Yozgat (2 persons) and Zonguldak (2 persons).

According to Table 1, the attitude scale was carried out with 128 Turkish teachers in total 56 (43.8%) of them being women and 72 (56.3%) being men. According to Table 2, 65.6% (84) of the Turkish teachers responding to the attitude scale had served between 1 to 5 years, 20.3% (26) of them had served between 6 to 10 years, and 14.1% (18) of them had served for 11 years and more.

Data collection tool

The survey developed as a data collection tool in the research, which consisted of two sections. The first section is of 4 articles regarding the personal information of the Turkish teachers. The second section is the four point likert attitude scale prepared in the form of 16 articles in order to measure the opinions and attitudes of the Turkish teachers regarding the use of humor in the courses.

In the research, the four point likert scale –which was developed by Rensis Likert in 1932, and which was named after him- was preferred as the attitude scale (Koklu, 2009). While preparing the attitude scale, the opinions of four Turkish teachers and a doctoral student -working in the field of Turkish education- were asked.  Moreover, “Development of Humor Attitudes Scale: Validity and Reliability Study” developed by Cemaloglu et al. (2012) was used.  

In the first section of the attitude scale prepared by the researcher,  the genders of the subjects were scored as “female =1” and “male =2”. The second article is relevant to the educational levels of the subjects, and it was scored as “undergraduate=1”, “postgraduate, and doctorate=2”. The seniorities of the subjects in the profession were scored as 1 to 5 years (1), 6 to 10 years (2), and 11 years or over (3). The 4th article relevant to personal information is relevant to the place of duty of the subjects. The level ranges of expressions in the attitude scale were graded from 1 to 4. The expressions being closer to 1 specify the most negative ones, and the ones closer to 4 specify the most positive ones.  The limits relevant to the levels in the subject are given in Table 3.

Analysis of data

A part of the attitude scale applied in the research was given as a printed copy, and a part of it by using the Google survey tool. The printed copy of the survey was handed over to, and collected from the subjects, and the Google survey was applied to the subjects by using electronic mail.  

The research data was analyzed in the statistical package for social sciences “SPSS 13.0” packaged software. The number of subjects, arithmetic mean of responses for the articles, and their percentages were determined in the research. The genders of the teachers and their seniority in the profession were assessed as independent variables. As the number of samples in the attitude scale was larger than 30, the “single sample kolmogorov-smirnov test” was used in order to measure the conformity of the data to the normal distribution.

The skewness and kurtosis values of this test changed between -1 and +1, and the values of the attitude scale applied on the sample group showed a normal distribution. Thus, parametric tests were applied in the research.Percentage, frequency, arithmetic mean and standard deviation, were applied in the analysis of the data obtained from the sample group. In order to determine the differences of the sample group’s responses -for the attitude scale- as per their genders, “independent sample t test” was applied. As the sample group responding the attitude scale was generally homogeneous in respect of educational level (113 undergraduate, 15 postgraduate), no operation was carried out regarding that. And in order to determine the differences in the sample group’s responses –for the articles of survey- as per their seniority in their profession, the “one way ANOVA” test was applied.

The factor number of the scale was 4, and its variance was 61.929%. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s tests were 0,888, df=120 p=,000, and it was statistically significant. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.880. According to these results, the reliability of the scale was very high.

FINDINGS

The teachers’ opinions regarding humor usage in Turkish lessons, and the situation of these opinions according to gender and seniority variables were calculated.

Teachers’ opinions regarding humor usage in Turkish lessons 

According to Tables 4 and  5, the arithmetic mean of the responses given for  articles 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13, of the attitude scale varies between  The agreement degree of these numeric values is in the form of “I definitely agree”. These results indicate that the teachers are positive regarding the use of humor in courses, and regarding its contribution to the linguistic skills and socialization of students.

According to the results of the research, humor enriches the linguistic skills (article 10) and vocabulary (article 11) of the students.  The results obtained by Yalcinkaya (2015) through his research also support the study findings.  According to majority of the subjects, humor is an effective communication and socialization (articles 12 and 13) tool. This opinion is also supported by scientific research made regarding humor. Because humor strengthens the fellowship relations among individuals, it removes the rigidity in social life (Sahin, 2014).

The arithmetic mean of responses given for articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16, of the attitude scale vary   between The agreement degree of these numeric values is in the form of “I agree”. These results indicate that the teachers are positive regarding the contribution of humor to the learning environment, and to the vocabulary and communication of the students. This   supports the results obtained from the research study entitled “Is Humor an Appreciated Teaching Tool? Perceptions of Professors' teaching Styles and use of Humor” (Torok et al., 2004).

For the 1^st article of the attitude scale which is “deeming the use of humor for having a nice time and for educational purposes as positive”, 53.1% of the subjects responded as “I agree” and 29.7% of them responded with “I definitely agree”. The positive opinions of teachers regarding the use of humor in education are also confirmed by the results of some research made in this field. Hence, in a research done regarding the “functional use of the Karagoz shadow play in Turkish education”, it was concluded that humor is a significant educational tool regarding the communication of language and national culture (Bulut, 2014).

According to the results of this research, the majority of the teachers  think  that humor  positively affects  the educational environment (article 2), that it is an effective learning tool (article 3), that it may be effective in student focused teaching (article 4), and that it will assist the students to be interested in the courses. This supports the results obtained from our research study with the subject of “Effect of use of humor in Turkish courses on the attitudes of students” (Savas, 2014).

According to Tables 6 and 7, the majority of the teachers think that humor may be effective for the students to overcome their fears and shyness (article 14), for developing the comprehension, interpretation and solution generation skills of the students (article 15) and for improving their academic success (article 16).And the results of the research with the heading “Examination of the motivation levels of teachers as per the humor styles of school managers” also support the positive opinions of the teachers regarding humor.

According to the results of the relevant research, the use of humorous elements at schools increased the motivation and success of the subjects (Recepoglu et al., 2011). For the “I use humor in my courses” article of the attitude scale, 49.2% of the teachers had scored at the level  range  of  “1.75  to  2.49”.  

The arithmetic mean of responses for this article is and the agreement degree is “I sometimes agree". According to the results in the tables, the responses given for article 7 are generally negative. The arithmetic mean of the responses for article 8 of the attitude scale (I find the humorous elements used in Turkish textbooks sufficient) is  This result corresponds to “I don’t agree” (69.5%) article in respect to agreement degree. According to this, the majority of the teachers deem the humorous elements in Turkish textbooks insufficient.

Throughout history, humanity has deemed humor as an unnecessary, unserious behavior, and even as a behavior that should be condemned.  For instance, Aristotle and Plato deemed humor as a kind of mockery removing the dignity of man and harming his character. Basseut accused the comedies of Moliere, and claimed that laughing was the devil’s work. George Vasey, the author of the book entitled “A Philosophy of Laughing and Smiling”, tried to prove that laughing was something harmful from a moral, aesthetic and medical point of view.  Thus, it is possible to explain the insufficiency of humorous elements in Turkish textbooks by the negative approaches of individuals and society towards the concepts relevant to humor (Saglam, 2010)

Teacher opinions related to humor usage in Turkish lessons according to the gender variable

Data obtained from teacher opinions related with humor usage in Turkish lessons according to the gender variable were interpreted (Tables 7 and 8).

In Table 7, the “p” values in the equality of the variables test (Levene's Test for Equality of Variances) change between 0.830 and 0.079. According to this result, as the “p” values in the table are larger than 0.05, the variables of  the   group  show  a  homogenous  distribution.  These values are statistically significant. Thus, it is required to consider the results of the “independent sample t test”. The p value in the test (p> 0,05) varies between 0.276 and 0.922. According to this, there is no significant difference between the gender (male and female) variables. In other words, according to the gender factor, the teachers do not think differently regarding the effect of humor on the classroom environment.

In Table 8, the “p” values in the equality of the variables test (Levene's Test for Equality of Variances) change between 0.065 and 0.938. The "p” values in the table are larger than 0.05. Thus, the distribution of the group’s variables is homogenous. These values are statistically significant. Thus, it is required to consider the results of the “independent sample t test”. The p value in the test (p> 0.05) changes between 0.069 and 0.797. According to this, there is no significant difference in between the gender (female and male) variables. When the arithmetic mean of responses for the attitude scale is considered, it can be understood that the teachers provided positive opinions regarding the effect of humor on Turkish courses as per the gender factor.

Teachers’ opinions related to humor usage in Turkish lessons according to the seniority variable

The data obtained from the teachers’ opinions related to humor usage in Turkish lessons according to the seniority variable was interpreted (Tables 9 and 10).

In Table 9, the “p” values (0.261 and 0.866>0.05) in the homogeneity of the variables test (Test of Homogeneity of Variances) are greater than 0.05. According to that, the distribution of the group’s variables is homogenous.  These values are statistically significant. Thus, it is required to consider the results of the “one way ANOVA test”. The p value in the test (p> 0.05) changes between 0.113 and 0.956. According to this, there is no significant difference between the attitudes of the teachers towards humor and their seniority in profession. However, the p (0.047<0,05) value of article 7 of the attitude scale is lower than 0.05.

According to the data in article 7, there is a significant difference among the Turkish teachers in respect to “seniority in profession” variable. The arrangement of events through humorous elements by the Turkish teachers in their courses (1- to 5 years: 2,1786; 6 to 10 years: 1,9231; 11 years and over: 2,4444) is at the level of “I sometimes agree”. The teachers with a service at the range of 6 to 10 years organize fewer events with humorous elements in Turkish courses.

In Table 10, the “p” values in the homogeneity of the variables test (Test of Homogeneity in Variances) change between 0.423 and 0.984. As the “p” values in the table are greater than 0.05, the variables of the group show a homogenous distribution. These values are statistically significant.  Thus, it is required to consider the results of the “one way ANOVA test”. The p values in the test (p> 0.05) change between 0.172 and 0.912. According to this, there is no significant difference regarding the attitudes of the teachers towards humor as per their seniority in profession.

 

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.