10 pages
Mr.Q
Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha! Author(s): R. L. Garner Source: College Teaching, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Winter, 2006), pp. 177-180 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559255 . Accessed: 18/11/2014 09:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Teaching.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:59:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HUMOR IN PEDAGOGY
HOW HA-HA CAN LEAD TO AHA!
R. L. Garner
Abstract. Several studies have examined the peda gogical implications and cautions concerning the use of humor in teaching. Humor has been associated with a host of positive physiological and psychological effects. Researchers have identified that educators who use humor in their instruction are more positively rated
by their peers and their students; others have suggested that humor may enhance learning. Although much of this evidence has been anecdotal, the present study assesses the impact of curriculum-specific humor on retention and recall, as well as student evaluations of the course and the instructor. The appropriate use of humor in a classroom setting is discussed and cautions
against tendentious humor are addressed.
A
number of articles have alluded to the benefits of humor in teaching
(Berk 1998; Glenn 2002; Hill 1988; Pollio and Humphreys 1996). The pedagogical use of humor has been shown to have both
psychological and physiological effects on learners. Psychologically, the effects of humor and laughter have been shown to reduce anxiety, decrease stress, enhance
self-esteem, and increase self-motivation
R. L. Garner is the associate dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University in
Huntsville, Texas.
Copyright ? 2006 Heldref Publications
(Berk 1998). Glenn (2002) suggests that humor can help an individual engage the
learning process by creating a positive emotional and social environment in which defenses are lowered and students are better able to focus and attend to the information being presented. Addition
ally, humor can serve as a bridge between educators and students by demonstrating a
shared understanding and a common psy chological bond.
Physiologically, humor and laughter can aid learning through improved respiration and circulation, lower pulse and blood
pressure, exercise of the chest muscles,
greater oxyg?nation of blood, and the release of endorphins into the bloodstream
(Berk 1998). In his book, Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient, Nor man Cousins (1991) strongly touts the
healing effects of laughter and suggests that humor can reduce anxiety, help relieve
stress, and increase mental sharpness?all desirable things in pedagogical settings.
Civikly (1986) concludes that there is a growing body of research relating the use of humor and its positive effect on
teaching and learning. Students indicate that humor can increase their interest in
learning, and research has demonstrated
that students who have teachers with a
strong orientation to humor tend to learn more. According to Dodge and Rossett
(1982), humor as a pedagogical tool can initiate and sustain student interest and
provide a means to engage in divergent thinking. Ziv (1983, 1988) found that a humorous atmosphere in the classroom
positively impacted student scores on
divergent thinking exercises, and Korobkin (1989) indicated that college students report that learning is enhanced
by the inclusion of instructionally-appro priate humor. Hill (1988) suggests that students will often have better recall of a
message if it is presented with humor. Several studies (see Berk 1996; Brown
and Tomlin 1996; Bryant, Comisky, and Zillman 1997; Bryant et al. 1980; Pollio and Humphreys 1996) and my own
observation as chair of a University Excellence in Teaching committee find that students appreciate and enjoy the use
Vol. 54/No. 1 177
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:59:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of humor in the classroom. A review of the teaching portfolios of highly-rated college faculty and faculty Web pages on the Internet frequently finds the use of humor listed as an important component of their teaching philosophy. College stu dents asked to describe the positive attrib utes of good teachers frequently mention "sense of humor" (Brown and Tomlin
1996; Kelly and Kelly 1982). Pollio and Humphreys (1996) found
that the connection established between the instructor and the student was key to effective teaching. Lowman (1994)
reported that effective college teachers were most often described as "enthusias
tic," and a strong sense of humor plays a
major role in developing a positive learn
ing environment. Kher, Molstad, and
Donahue (1999) suggest that teaching effectiveness is enhanced by the use of
appropriate humor that fosters mutual
respect, and humor increases student
receptivity to material by reducing anxi
ety in dealing with difficult material and
has a positive effect on test performance
(Bryant et al. 1980). The positive envi ronment of a humor-enriched lecture has
even been shown to increase attendance
in class (Devadoss and Foltz 1996; Romer 1993; White 1992).
Humor should be used cautiously, however, as it can be a potent medium for
communication or a social impediment in
pedagogical settings (Garner 2003). The
use of humor can be complicated because
it may be highly personal, subjective, and
contextual and we cannot always predict
the way it will be received. Things that one person might find humorous, ironic,
or funny may be viewed by others as
trite. Everyone has a unique perception as to what is humorous, so prudence
should be the guiding principle. We iden
tify what we call a "sense of humor" and
like other senses, such as the sense of
taste or smell, people have many differ
ent preferences (Garner 2003). Further, the effective use of humor is not akin to
mere joke telling. Rhem (1998) found that some instructors with only average
student evaluations used twice as much
humor as those faculty members who
were more highly rated. For humor to be
most effective in an academic setting, it
must be specific, targeted, and appropri
ate to the subject matter.
Given this background, the present study will explore the link between humor and learning. Much of the reported litera ture in this area suffers from a number of
problems such as: (1) a limited number of
participants; (2) a weak methodology; (3) primarily limited to elementary-aged chil
dren; or (4) is anecdotal in nature. This
study will address some of these concerns
by more carefully examining the relation
ship of humor as a pedagogical tool and its
impact on learning and retention of infor
mation in a university setting. Measures of
information recall, as well as satisfaction
with the course, the instructor, and the
delivery mechanism, will be assessed.
Specifically, it is predicted that those in the humor group, as compared to the control
group, will report higher general satisfac
tion ratings with the course and will retain more information over time.
Method
Participants
Participants were 117 undergraduate students at a four-year university who vol
unteered to review three one-hour lectures
presented in a distance-education format.
Materials/Instrumentation
A series of three 40-minute lectures on
the topic of research methods and statis
tics were recorded via Sony digital video
equipment. The topic of statistics was
chosen as students have often identified
this as one of the "dreaded" courses in
college. Researchers considered that if
humor was an effective tool, it could find a strong alliance here. At the conclusion
of each session, participants were asked
to complete a brief survey to provide their
assessment of the asynchronous video
course delivery. (Asynchronous courses
are designed so that students can cover
the material at varying times and speeds,
rather than synchronous delivery, which
occurs at the same time for all class mem
bers.) Questions were presented in a 7
point Likert-type format and addressed
topics relevant to the evaluation of the
material (such as, what was your overall
opinion of this lesson? How well do you believe it communicated the important information? What was your impression
of the instructor? Compared to in-class
instruction, how did you like the asyn chronous video delivery?). This proce
dure was consistent with the purported purpose of the study. At the conclusion of the three lectures, all participants were
asked to again rate their assessment of the
asynchronous course delivery, and there
was an additional exercise that required students to recall content that had been delivered over the three viewings.
Design and Procedure
To preserve the main objective of the
study, all participants were told only that
they would be reviewing three hour-long sample lectures presented in an asynchro nous distance education format. The par
ticipants were told that the university was
considering implementing a new educa
tional format for certain courses on cam
pus, and they would be assisting in this
process. Students were asked to review
the material and were told that they would be asked to evaluate the delivery mode and the information presented at
the conclusion of each session.
The participants were randomly
assigned to one of two groups. Both
groups saw the same digitally video
recorded information on the topic of research methods and statistics presented
by the same instructor. The humor group,
however, saw a version of the lecture in
which a humorous story, example, or
metaphor had been inserted at the begin
ning of the lecture and at points approxi
mately fifteen and thirty-five minutes into
the lecture, depending on the content.
(This was accomplished thanks to the
media service technicians who produced a
seamless video by "cutting" the humor
segments into the control lecture videos.)
As mentioned above, humor can be very
subjective, so great care was exercised in
the selection of the humorous material.
The humor material was assessed by a
group of academic judges to insure that
the inset could be considered reasonably humorous, was appropriate in content, and
was related to the material being covered.
For example, in a segment on the report
ing of research findings, the metaphorical
joke about a planned escape by one of two
prisoners in a desert jail was used. The
story finds one prisoner trying to escape
after unsuccessfully persuading the other
to go with him, only learning?after
breaking out?that escape was futile as
there was sand in every direction for hun
178 COLLEGE TEACHING
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:59:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dreds of miles. After capture and return to the cell, the prisoner relates his story of the failed attempted escape. The other prison er shares that he knew about the desert as he had also tried to escape a few years earlier. Incredulous, the first prisoner
exclaimed, "You knew! Why didn't you tell me?" whereupon the other remarks,
"Silly man, you should know that no one
reports negative results." Although a bit
"corny," the message makes the point and
was well received by the student audience.
The inserts varied from less than a minute to approximately two minutes. As
a result, the humor group's video presen
tation was slightly longer than the stan dard lecture group. Participants were
allowed to sign up to view all three ses
sions over the period of fourteen days. This allowed inclusion of the greatest number of participants and provided the
greatest latitude to participant's sched
ules. The final viewing included the eval uation and recall assessment exercise.
After the conclusion of the experiment and after all participants had completed the process of viewing and assessing the
materials, subjects were debriefed via e
mail as to the additional purpose of the
study and the preliminary results obtained.
Results
Of the 117 subjects who originally agreed to be involved in the study, ninety four participated to conclusion. This resulted in a sample of fifty-three females and forty-one males who were randomly
assigned to condition. Only participants who completed all three sessions were included in the analysis. As a result, there
were forty-two participants in the humor
condition (from the originally assigned fifty-eight) and fifty-two participants in the control (from the originally assigned fifty-nine). There were no significant dif
ferences based on race or gender between
groups. Analysis of variance revealed sig nificant difference between the two
groups with the humor condition having higher ratings for overall opinion of the
lesson, F (1, 92) = 21.02, p < .001; how well the lesson communicated the infor
mation, F (1, 92) = 54.86, p < .001; and
rating of the instructor, F (1, 92) = 43.33, p < .001. Most important to this research
effort, subjects in the humor group signif
icantly recalled and retained more infor mation regarding the topic F (1, 92) =
73.81, p < .001. There was not a statis
tically significant difference in the rating of the video delivery mode as both groups rated it positively F (I, 92) = 3.72, p < .06. Descriptive statistics for all condi tions can be found in table 1. The first four items found in the table address the
7-point Likert questions and the final item is the retention score based on a
maximum value of 100.
Discussion
As indicated above, the topic of research methods and statistics was cho
sen because students have identified this as one of the dreaded courses in college and a class in which humor could be a
strong pedagogical tool. The results sup port the notion that humor can have a
positive impact on content retention
among a sample of college students.
Although the use of the asynchronous video delivery might seem somewhat
contrived, this approach was utilized for two reasons. First, more universities are
moving to distance education and asyn
chronous modes of instructional delivery. As a result, the format was appropriate,
especially given the explanation to the
participants that this was an evaluation of
this delivery design. Second, and more
important, this approach allowed us to control for a myriad of subtle and not so subtle differences that could have been introduced by the lecturer?despite the best effort to do otherwise?if the presen tations were live. This procedure insured
a more consistent presentation and
enhanced methodological rigor across
experimental conditions.
Although a content assessment after
each session was possible, pilot testing determined that this might jeopardize the actual focus of the study and, because of
the relatively small timeframe between
viewing the first and third videos, multi
ple assessments of content could intro
duce unwanted bias (such as testing effects). Further, the end-of-video sur
veys presented at the conclusion of seg
ments one and two were intentionally
kept brief for this same reason.
The present study suggests that humor can have a positive effect on student
enjoyment and content retention. The use
of appropriate humor can facilitate a more
relaxed atmosphere and provide a cogni
tive break that allows the student to assim ilate the information (Korobkin 1989).
The use of suitable, content-specific humorous examples may provide a stu
dent with a new perspective on the mater
ial that may lead to a novel cognitive insight (Ziv 1988).
Unfortunately, some educators believe
their role or their topic is too serious to
engage humor or view humor as merely a
disruption. However, the use of appropri ate humor in this study has been shown to enhance the learning environment and
has a significantly positive impact on retention of educational materials in a
real-world academic setting. Follow-up interviews with a random selection of
participants reinforced the notion that the content-focused humor was helpful in
comprehension of the material, made for
a more enjoyable educational experience,
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics
Group N
LESSON Humor 42 Control 52
COMUCATE Humor 42 Control 52
INSTRUCT Humor 42 Control 52
DELJVIETH Humor 42 Control 52
RECALL Humor 42 Control 52
Group statistics
M SD SEM
5.7976 0.65388 0.10090 4.8846 1.14881 0.15931 6.1667 0.85302 0.13162 4.7115 1.01627 0.14093 6.2381 0.65554 0.10115 5.0000 1.06642 0.14789 6.1905 0.70670 0.10905 5.8846 0.80814 0.11207
88.4286 4.57001 0.70517 77.2692 7.34344 1.01835
Vol. 54/No. 1 179
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:59:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and created the impression that the instructor took the extra effort to get the
message across. When properly used,
humor can be an effective tool to make a
class more enjoyable, reduce anxiety, and
improve the learning setting. The "ha-ha"
of humor in the classroom may indeed contribute to the "aha!" of learning from the student.
Key words: humor, pedagogy, research
REFERENCES Berk, R. 1996. Student ratings often strategies
for using humor in college teaching. Jour
nal on Excellence in College Teaching 1
(3): 71-92. -. 1998. Professors are from Mars, stu
dents are from Snickers. Madison, WI:
Mendota.
Brown, W, and J. Tomlin. 1996. Best and
worst university teachers: The opinion of
undergraduate students. College Student
Journal 30(1): 431-34.
Bryant, J., P. Comisky, and D. Zillman. 1997.
Teachers' humor in the college classroom.
Communication Education 28 (2): 110-18.
Bryant, J., P. Comisky, J. Crane, and D. Zill
man. 1980. Relationship between college teachers' use of humor in the classroom and
students' evaluations of their teachers. Jour
nal of Educational Psychology 72 (4): 511-19.
Civikly, J. 1986. Humor and the enjoyment of
college teaching. In Communicating in col
lege classrooms. New directions for teach
ing and learning, vol. 26, ed. J. M. Civikly, 61-70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cousins, N. 1991. Anatomy of an illness as
perceived by the patient. New York: Ban tam.
Devadoss, S., and J. Foltz. 1996. Evaluation of
factors influencing class attendance and
performance. American Journal of Agricul tural Economics, no. 78:499-507.
Dodge, B., and A. Rossett. 1982. Heuristic for
humor in instruction. NSPI Journal, no.
5:11-14.
Garner, R. 2003. Which came first, the chick en or the egg? A foul metaphor for teaching. Radical Pedagogy 5 (2). http://radicalpeda
gogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner. html (accessed May 2003).
Glenn, R. 2002. Brain research: Practical
applications for the classroom. Teaching for Excellence 21 (6): 1-2.
Hill, D. 1988. Humor in the classroom: A
handbook for teachers. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Kelly, N., and B. Kelly. 1982. Backgrounds, education and teaching styles of teaching award winning professors. ERIC, ED
230080.
Kher, N., S. Molstad, and R. Donahue. 1999.
Using humor in the college classroom to
enhance teaching effectiveness in "dread
courses." College Student Journal 33 (3): 400-06.
Korobkin, D. 1989. Humor in the classroom:
Considerations and strategies. College
Teaching 36 (4): 154-58.
Lowman, J. 1994. Professors as performers and motivators. College Teaching 42 (4): 137-41.
Pollio, H, and W. Humphreys. 1996. What
award-wining lecturers say about their
teaching: It's all about connection. College
Teaching 44 (3): 101-6.
Rhem, J. 1998. Humor in the classroom.
National Teaching and Learning Forum 1
(6): 10-12.
Romer, D. 1993. Do students go to class?
Should they? Journal of Economic Perspec tives 1 (3): 167-74.
White, F. 1992. Enhancing class attendance.
National Association of Colleges and
Teachers in Agriculture Journal, no.
36:113-15.
Ziv, A. 1983. The influence of humorous
atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contem
porary Educational Psychology, no.
8:68-75. -. 1988. Teaching and learning with
humor: Experiment and replications. Jour
nal of Experimental Education 6 (1): 37-44.
180 COLLEGE TEACHING
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:59:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
- Article Contents
- p. 177
- p. 178
- p. 179
- p. 180
- Issue Table of Contents
- College Teaching, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Winter, 2006), pp. 171-208
- Front Matter
- Understanding Student Cheating and What Educators Can Do about It [pp. 171-176]
- Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha! [pp. 177-180]
- Quick Fix: Productively Waiting for Latecomers [pp. 181-181]
- Online Education
- Preparing Our Teachers for Distance Education [pp. 183-184]
- The Learning Styles, Expectations, and Needs of Online Students [pp. 185-189]
- Strategies for Enhancing Student Interactivity in an Online Environment [pp. 190-193]
- The Investigation of Study Strategies That Maximize Learning for Underprepared Students [pp. 194-197]
- An Analysis of Instructor-Created Crossword Puzzles for Student Review [pp. 198-201]
- Creating a Space to Learn: A Classroom of Fun, Interaction, and Trust [pp. 202-206]
- Commentary: Teaching Students to Dream [pp. 208-208]
- Back Matter