Teaching and humor

8/10/2019 Teaching and humor

1/20

Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses ofHumor by Teachers

Melissa Bekelja Wanzer, Ann Bainbridge Frymier,Ann M. Wojtaszczyk & Tony Smith

The use of humor in teaching has been linked to learning in several studies, although the

research has been equivocal. The various types of humor used by teachers have also been

investigated but not in terms of what students view as appropriate and inappropriate

uses of humor. Participants in this study were asked to generate examples of appropriate

and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Responses were unitized and content

analyzed, resulting in the identification of four appropriate humor categories and four

inappropriate humor categories. Each category is defined, and the implications of using

different types of humor in the classroom are discussed.

Keywords: Humor; Teacher behavior; Communication competence; Teacher humor;Appropriate teacher behavior

Instructional communication researchers seek to understand how communication

functions in learning environments. Many of their efforts focus on how to become a

more effective teacher. In the last 25 years, these researchers have identified a number

of teacher communication behaviors that enhance teaching effectiveness, including

immediacy (Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994; Richmond, Gorham,

& McCroskey, 1987), communication skills (Frymier & Houser, 2000), compliance-

gaining (Plax & Kearney, 1992), and clarity (Chesebro, 2002; Chesebro & McCroskey,

1998; Powell & Harville, 1990). Hurt, Scott, and McCroskeys (1978) assertion that to

be an effective teacher one must be a competent communicator is an underlying

assumption in much of the research on teacher communication behavior. Therefore,

Melissa Bekelja Wanzer (EdD, West Virginia University, 1995) is an Associate Professor in the Department of

Communication Studies at Canisius College, Buffalo, NY. Ann Bainbridge Frymier (EdD, West Virginia

University, 1992) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Miami University, Oxford,

OH. Ann M. Wojtaszczyk is an undergraduate student majoring in biochemistry at Canisius College. Tony Smith(MA, Miami University, 2003) is an instructor in the Department of Speech at St. Petersburg College, Seminole,

FL. Ann Bainbridge Frymier can be contacted at [email protected]

Communication Education

Vol. 55, No. 2, April 2006, pp. 178/196


2/20

one approach to understanding effective teaching is through the lens of commu-

nication competence.

Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) define communication competence as the extent to

which objectives functionally related to communication are fulfilled through

cooperative interaction appropriate to the interpersonal context (p. 100). Theyconceptualize communication competence as being a function of both effectiveness

and appropriateness. Being appropriate generally means meeting the expectations

and norms for a particular situation (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984); therefore, what is

appropriate in one situation may be inappropriate in another. Effectiveness is equated

with achieving goals or satisfying needs (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). One has little

difficulty thinking of situations where a person is effective at accomplishing their

communication goals but does so inappropriately. One example of inappropriateness

is found when someone wins an argument by insulting and belittling ones

interaction partner. Conversely, one can behave appropriately, but not accomplishtheir goals. When a person achieves their goals effectively and appropriately, they are

considered competent. Consistent with Spitzberg and Cupachs approach to

communication competence, Daly and Vangelisti (2003) describe skillful teachers

as those who facilitate comprehension and recall among learners and facilitate

positive regard for the teacher and the subject.

Spitzberg and Cupachs (1984) approach to communication competence may

provide a useful theoretical framework for examining instructional communication.

The facilitation of cognitive learning easily equates with effectiveness since most

teachers have the explicit goal of facilitating learning. Appropriateness equates with

affective learning since appropriateness often leads to approval, which in turn garnerspositive feelings. Additionally, an aspect of appropriateness is meeting social norms.

When we violate norms, we are likely to be perceived as behaving inappropriately

(Levine et al. 2000). Such a framework would assume that competent teachers are

effective (achieve learning goals) and appropriate (meet social norms and facilitate

positive affect).

Humor is a communication behavior we recognize from personal experience that

can be used competently or incompetently. The use of humor in teaching has been

frequently investigated (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003; Bryant, Comisky, Crane, &

Zillmann, 1980; Bryant, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1979; Bryant & Zillmann, 1988;Conkell, Imwold, & Ratliffe, 1999; Davies & Apter, 1980; Downs, Javidi, & Nussbaum,

1988; Frymier & Wanzer, 1999; Frymier & Weser, 2001; Gorham & Christophel, 1990;

Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977; Sadowski & Gulgoz, 1994; Wanzer, 2002; Wanzer & Frymier,

1999a, 1999b; White, 2001). This research represents several different perspectives

and approaches along with the study of different types of humor, making it difficult

to draw conclusions. Some of this research has linked instructors use of humor to

student learning outcomes (Davies & Apter, 1980; Hauck & Thomas, 1972; Kaplan &

Pascoe, 1977; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999a; Ziv, 1988), which provides some evidence of

humor as a potentially effective communication strategy in the classroom. The

appropriateness of humor has not been directly investigated in any of the studies.However, use of humor in the classroom has been linked to improved perceptions of

Appropriate and Inappropriate Humor 179


3/20

the teacher (Scott, 1976), enhanced quality of the student /teacher relationship

(Welker, 1977), higher teaching evaluations (Bryant et al., 1980), and affective

learning (Wanzer & Frymier, 1999a), which provides some evidence that humor can

be used appropriately in the classroom.

An issue complicating the study of humor is the vast array of humor types. Humorcan be represented as jokes, puns, riddles, sarcasm, physical antics, nonverbal

behaviors, cartoons, and one-liners. Additionally, the topic of the humor can target

virtually anything, resulting in a number of possible humor types that a teacher could

use in the classroom. Several studies have identified the types of humor most

frequently used by instructors (Bryant et al., 1979; Downs et al., 1988; Gorham &

Christophel, 1990); however, these studies have been descriptive and not evaluative.

Drawing on Levine et al.s (2000) norm violation perspective, we would expect humor

that violates norms to be perceived as inappropriate by students. Consistent with

Levine et al., McPherson, Kearney, and Plax (2003) found that appropriatelyexpressed anger was positively associated with students affect. Therefore, it seems

likely that some forms of humor will violate classroom norms and be perceived as

inappropriate, while other forms of humor will be perceived as appropriate. Previous

research has primarily focused either on describing the range of humor types or on

examining specific types of humor, and not on the appropriateness of humor in

teaching.

Bryant et al. (1979) developed one of the first typologies of humor used by college

teachers. Students were asked to first audiotape and then analyze their instructors

messages to decipher the typical types of humor teachers used throughout their

lectures. Based on these data, college teachers used humorous messages 3.34 timesduring a 50-minute class period. Using an inductive method, Bryant et al. identified

six types of teacher humor: jokes, riddles, puns, funny stories, funny comments, and

other/miscellaneous. They further clarified the type of humor used by coding

instances as sexual or nonsexual, hostile or nonhostile, and related or unrelated to

course material. Bryant et al. (1979) concluded that nearly half of the humor used by

teachers conveyed hostile or sexual messages.

In an effort to understand humor as a form of immediacy behavior, Gorham and

Christophel (1990) examined the types of humor used by teachers. In their study,

students were asked to keep a log of the actual humor behaviors their instructorsexhibited over five consecutive class meetings. Specifically, students were instructed to

record things this teacher did or said today which shows he/she has a sense of

humor (Gorham & Christophel, 1990, p. 51). In order to develop their classification

system of teacher humor, Gorham and Christophel used grounded theory constant

comparison procedures. Once the data were transcribed and unitized, humorous

instances were categorized and cross-coded. This process resulted in the identification

of 13 categories of humorous behavior.

To understand the relationship between humor and immediacy, Gorham and

Christophel examined the correlations between immediacy and the number of

humorous incidents reported by students. More specifically, they examined the Useshumor in class item on the verbal immediacy scale in relation to frequency of humor

180 M. B. Wanzeret al.


4/20

types. Not surprisingly, they found that the total number of humorous incidents was

positively associated with the uses humor item, although the number of self-

deprecating and brief tendentious (biased) comments directed at individual students

was negatively associated (r/ /.23 andr/ /.17, respectively) with the uses humor

item. Either students failed to perceive such humor types as funny or they regardedthe comments as inappropriate for classroom use. Additionally, the use of self-

deprecating humor and tendentious comments was negatively associated with

student reports of their own learning.

Gorham and Christophels (1990) results provide some indirect evidence that some

forms of humor are perceived as inappropriate for the classroom. Neuliep (1991) was

the first to explicitly examine the appropriateness of humor in the classroom. Using

Gorham and Christophels (1990) humor categories, teachers were asked to indicate

the appropriateness of each type. High school teachers rated most of the humor types

as at least slightly appropriate for the classroom but rated two types as marginallyinappropriate: The teacher tells a personal anecdote or story not related to the

subject/topic, and The teacher tells a general anecdote or story not related to the

subject/topic. These same teachers reported that the use of tendentious humor was

somewhat appropriate. However, it should be noted that in translating Gorham and

Christophels categories of humor into a measure, the word tendentious was dropped,

making those categories more positive in nature. Even though Neulieps (1991)

research confirmed the Gorham and Christophel (1990) humor typology and

provided some preliminary information on the types of humorous messages high

school instructors view as appropriate for classroom use, only teacher and not

student perceptions were investigated. Consistent with Spitzberg and Cupachs (1984)approach to competence, perceptions of effectiveness and appropriateness are

contextual and, therefore, must involve the perceptions of all interactants.

In a recent investigation, Torok, McMorris, and Lin (2004) examined college

students and teachers perceptions of Bryant et al.s (1979) types of classroom humor.

Three instructors and 124 college students reported their perceptions of Bryants

types of classroom humor. The researchers began their investigation assuming that

seven types of humor (funny stories, funny comments, jokes, professional humor,

pun, cartoon, and riddles) would be considered generally positive in the college

classroom, and they found support for this assumption. They also speculated thatfour types of instructor humor (i.e., sarcasm, sexual humor, ethnic humor, and

aggressive/hostile humor) would be perceived negatively by students. Although Torok

et al. did not frame their study within a communication competence perspective,

their procedures clearly indicate a focus on the perceived appropriateness of the

different humor types. Sexual humor, ethnic humor, and aggressive humor were

found to be used less frequently and, not surprisingly, were not recommended for the

classroom. Sarcasm, initially identified by the researchers as negative humor, was the

fifth most frequently used type of instructor humor. Also, sarcasm was perceived as

relatively appropriate and even recommended for use in the classroom. Given the

small sample size employed and the inexhaustive list of humor behaviors specified,the findings of the Torok et al. study are somewhat limited.



5/20

Gorham and Christophel used the construct of immediacy to evaluate the different

types of humor, where Neuliep examined the appropriateness of humor in the

classroom from the teachers perspective. Torok et al. found students had a fairly

positive perception of sarcasm, which had been initially defined as negative. Taken

together, these studies indicate that not all humor is appropriate for the classroom,leading us to conclude that a more thorough examination of appropriateness is

needed to understand competent communication in the classroom. In this study, we

examine the students views of both the appropriate and inappropriate use of humor

in the classroom. Such research extends previous investigations, and, by identifying

examples of both appropriate and inappropriate instructor humor, we can begin to

understand competent use of humor in the classroom. With a better understanding

of the types of humor students perceive as appropriate and inappropriate, the

foundation will be laid for future research examining the effects of both types of

humor in the classroom. For the present investigation, the following researchquestions were addressed:

RQ1: What types of teacher humor do students consider appropriate for theclassroom?

RQ2: What types of teacher humor do students consider inappropriate for theclassroom?

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were 284 undergraduate students enrolled in one of two

introductory communication courses at a mid-sized Midwestern university. The

sample consisted of 96 men and 188 women, with an average age of 19 years. The

majority of the sample was European American (75.47%), followed by 2.64% African

Americans, with the remainder of the sample consisting of Asian Americans, Native

Americans, Latin Americans, and other.

Procedure

Participants were provided with two open-ended questions asking them to describe

examples of teachers use of humor in the classroom that they had actually observed.

The first question read,

Teachers sometimes use humor in the classroom while teaching. By humor wemean anything that the teacher and/or students find funny or amusing. Please listseveral examples ofappropriate and suitablehumor that you have observed teachersusing while in the classroom. By appropriate, we mean that the humor was notoffensive and/or was fitting for the class.

The second question was identical to the first, except that students were asked to list

several inappropriate and unsuitable examples of humor they had observedteachers using, and inappropriate was defined as humor [that] was offensive and/or



6/20

was not fitting for the class. Participants were given as much time as they desired to

list as many examples as they could. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for

their time and effort.

The first phase of analyzing the data involved unitizing the students responses. The

first coder (coder one) was responsible for unitizing the data and reading through allresponses to make sure each student-generated example of teacher humor included a

singular phrase, sentence, or paragraph which described a conceptually distinct

humor behavior or unit. Student responses that included multiple humorous

behaviors were separated into units. Thus, students who indicated that the teacher

pokes fun at other students and swears in class offered multiple examples of

teacher humor and, thus, were separated into two distinct and different units. The

unitizing procedure resulted in 774 distinct examples of appropriate humor and 541

examples of inappropriate humor used by teachers, totaling 1,315 units. Some

examples were not categorized because they were too vague, did not make sense, orwere irrelevant. Therefore, 28 inappropriate units (5%) and another 62 units (8%) of

appropriate humor were determined to be unusable. Examples of discarded humor

units included playing music and simply being silly, neither of which was specific

enough to be categorized in a meaningful way.

In the second coding phase, a second coder (coder two) utilized analytic induction

techniques (see Baxter & Wilmot, 1984; Dolin & Booth-Butterfield, 1993; Vangelisti,

Daly, & Rudnick, 1991) to develop categories for student-generated examples of

appropriate and inappropriate teacher humor. This procedure involved placing the

humor units on index cards and then sorting the cards into conceptually similarcategories. Appropriate humor units were placed into one of four categories: related

humor, humor unrelated to course material, self-disparaging humor, and

unintentional humor. Next, inappropriate humor units were placed into

one of four categories: disparaging humor: targeting students, disparaging humor:

targeting others, offensive humor, and self-disparaging humor. After examining

the wide range of responses included within many of the appropriate and

inappropriate categories, the same coder began the process of identifying sub-

categories for many of the four appropriate and inappropriate categories. A range of

subcategories (5 /11) was identified for most of the four appropriate and four

inappropriate categories. The appropriate humor category labeled related humor

had 11 subcategories, humor unrelated to the course material had nine

subcategories and self-disparaging humor had five subcategories. For the

inappropriate categories labeled offensive humor and disparaging humor:

targeting others, there were eight subcategories for each. For the category labeled

disparaging humor: targeting students, there were ten different subcategories.

Once the second coder placed all appropriate and inappropriate humor units into

their respective categories and subcategories, 25% of the units were randomly selected

from the four appropriate and inappropriate humor categories to be cross coded by

coder one. Coding reliability was assessed using kappa as a measure of agreement,with kappa values greater than .75 indicating excellent agreement beyond chance.



7/20

Results of kappa for the inappropriate humor categories (N/133) were .96, and for

the appropriate humor categories (N/178) .87.

Results

The first research question asked what types of teacher humor students considered

appropriate for the classroom. Students generated 712 examples of appropriate

teacher humor that were placed into four different categories labeled: related

humor, humor unrelated to course material, self-disparaging humor, and

unintentional humor. The related humor category included humor strategies

or behaviors linked to course material. The second category, unrelated humor,

consisted of humor strategies, behaviors or acts not associated with the course

material. The self-disparaging category included examples of humor directed at

oneself. The final category, labeled unintentional humor, consisted of examples of

teacher humor that were clearly spontaneous and unplanned (e.g., teacher tripped),

but that students found humorous.

Almost half (47%) of the student-generated examples of appropriate humor

involved teacher humor linked to the course material. This related humor category

included 11 subcategories: nonspecified related humor, media/external aids,

jokes, examples, stories, critical/cynical humor, college life stereotypes,

teasing students, teacher performance, role play, and creative language. The

four most frequently employed types of related humor were media/external

objects (19%), jokes (14%), examples (14%), and stories (13%). These four

subcategories comprised 60% of the related humor category.The second category, unrelated humor, comprised 44% of the student-generated

examples of appropriate teacher humor. For the unrelated humor category, there

were nine subcategories of unrelated humor instructors employed in the classroom:

stories, jokes, critical/cynical humor, teasing students, college life stereo-

types, teacher performance, creative language use, current events/political, and

media/external objects. Eight out of the nine subcategories of unrelated humor

overlapped with those identified in the related humor category. Hence, when

professors employ humor strategies appropriately, they are often using humor that is

either related or unrelated to the subject matter and is frequently similar in type. Thefive most frequently identified types of unrelated humor students recognized were

stories (20%), jokes (17%), critical/cynical humor (14%), teasing students

(14%), and college life stereotypes (14%). These five subcategories accounted for

79% of the overall sample of unrelated humor.

The third category, labeled self-disparaging humor, made up 9% of the

appropriate humor examples. Self-disparaging humor subcategories consisted of

the following: personal characteristics, unspecified self-disparaging comments,

embarrassing stories, poking fun of mistakes made, and making fun of abilities.

Interestingly, 80% of the self-disparaging examples fell into the personal character-

istics (33%), nonspecified comments (27%), and embarrassing stories (20%)subcategories.



8/20

The fourth and final category, labeled unintentional humor, was the least

frequently used with only three units representing approximately 0.5% of the

appropriate humor examples. This category concerned appropriate humor in which

an instructor was a stand up comedian, unintentionally, along with unintentional

puns or slip of the tongue situations. Table 1 provides descriptions of eachappropriate humor category and their respective subcategories. Table 2 includes the

number of responses obtained for each category and subcategory.

The second research question asked what types of teacher humor students found to

be inappropriate for the classroom. Students generated 513 examples of inappropri-

ate humor behavior that were placed into four categories: disparaging humor:

targeting students, disparaging humor: targeting others, offensive humor, and

self-disparaging humor. The disparaging humor: targeting students category

focused on either students as a group or individual students. Instructors disparaged

students both as a group and individually based on qualities or characteristics such asintelligence, gender, and appearance. Examples placed in the disparaging humor:

targeting others category included responses that disparaged other nonstudent

groups of people based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Examples

included in the offensive humor category were viewed as distasteful or unpleasant

and included, among other types, humor that was sexual, morbid, vulgar, or

inappropriate. Finally, examples in the self-disparaging category of inappropriate

humor were humor attempts targeted at the instructor.

Just under half (42%) of the inappropriate humor examples fell into the disparaging

humor: targeting students category. This category of inappropriate humor behaviors

was clearly the most frequently recognized. Eighty-three percent of these responsesinvolved targeting a specific student based on a variety of reasons. When the professor

disparaged a specific student, responses fell into one of the following subcategories:

unspecified reason, intelligence, students personal life/opinions, appearance,

sex, or religion. The three most frequently cited reasons for targeting a specific

student were intelligence (26%), unspecified teasing, (24%) and students

personal life/opinions (17%). Similarly, when the professor disparaged students as a

group (17% of the responses), responses were placed in the following subcategories:

unspecified, intelligence, gender, organizational affiliation, or appearance.

Just as when the teacher disparaged a single student, the subcategory that had the largestfrequency was intelligence, where 60% of the group disparaging examples fell.

The second category, disparaging humor: targeting others, comprised 27% of the

examples of inappropriate humor. Humor in this category was also clearly

disparaging in nature but was targeted at nonstudent populations. For example,

instructors either used general stereotypes (5% of the category) or targeted specific

groups of individuals based on the following characteristics or affiliations: gender,

race/ethnicity, university related, religion, sexual orientation, appearance,

or political affiliation. More often than not, when professors used humor attempts

targeted at groups, they focused on gender (34%), race/ethnicity (31%), or university

affiliations (11%). These three subcategories represented 76% of all of thedisparaging humor: targeting others category.



9/20

Table 1 Categories and Subcategories of Appropriate Teacher Humor

I. Related Humor. This category included any humor used by the professor that related to thematerial or enhanced learning in the classroom.Humor Related to Material Without a Specified Tactic*/Students indicated that the teacher

employed humor related to course material but did not describe a specific tactic. For example, Oneof my teachers uses humor related to class topics.Using Media or External Objects to Enhance Learning */Humor attempts that were related to thecourse material and used props or different types of media to enhance learning. For example, Heregularly dressed up in costume for theme of class, Playing with a slinky to demonstrate a physicsexperiment, Used a related cartoon, or Showed movies of research that were funny because theywere outdated.

Jokes*/Teacher used jokes that related to the course material. For example, Whats someone wholikes to go out a lot? Answer: Fungi.Examples*/Teacher used humorous examples to illustrate course concepts. For example, Mathteachers have used names in word problems that were humorous.Stories*/Teacher used humorous stories to illustrate course concepts or reinforce learning. For

example, Using a funny story about their kids, past college experiences, other family members andrelating it to class discussion.Critical/Cynical*/Teacher was critical or cynical about course material in an effort to be humorous.For example, A teacher using sarcasm to get a point across, or teacher making fun of the book.College Life Stereotypes*/Teacher used humor attempts related to the course material and targetingstereotypical college behaviors. For example, Teacher uses stereotypical behavior, e.g., partying, notstudying, as examples, Ask us what types of beer we prefer when they need examples to show thedemand of things, or Using slang that students use when they are discussing topics.Directed Towards Student/Teasing */Teacher employed humor attempts related to the material and,at the same time directed towards students. For example, Using a student in a demonstration thatwas humorous and harmless.Teacher Performance*/Teacher used humor attempts related to class material that involved sometype of animated performance. For example, A marketing professor runs around the classroom

and gets really excited about topics, My teacher made a rap about math, or Doing the voice ofColumbus while talking about voyages to America.Role Playing/Activities*/Teacher used humor attempts related to course material that involvedstudent role play or activities. For example, Staged events in class that were funny but made apoint, or We did a skit about what we were learning.Creative Language Usage*/Teacher used humor attempts related to the course material thatinvolved creative language or word play. For example, Teachers come up with funny mnemonicdevices to help us remember important material, or Talks of bacteria as little beasties or littleguys.

II. Humor Unrelated to Class Material. This category included any humor used by the professorthat did not relate to learning or classroom enhancement.Stories*/Teacher humor attempts that involved stories that were not related to the class material.

For example, Sometimes teachers will go off on tangents and just tell stories for the heck of it.Jokes*/Teacher humor attempts that involved jokes that were not related to the course material.For example, He said that they are celebrating 15 years of not killing one another, also known as ananniversary.Critical/Cynical*/Teacher humor attempts that involved critical or cynical humor that was notrelated to the course material. For example, Poking fun at ignorant behaviors, negative ways ofthinking, or other professors, or General sarcasm.Directed Towards Student/Teasing*/Teacher humor attempts that were not related to the coursematerial and involved teasing or making fun of a student. For example, My teacher teased a girl inmy class about a guy she has seen her with.College Life Stereotypes*/Teacher used humor attempts that were not related to the course materialand targeted stereotypical college behaviors. For example, They have made funny comments on the

typical college student (procrastinators, clothing, weekend habits, etc.)



10/20

The offensive humor category comprised 30% of the examples of inappropriate

humor attempts. There were a number of different types or subcategories of offensive

humor, namely, humor identified as sexual comments and jokes, vulgar verbal and

nonverbal expressions, associated with drinking, nonspecific inappropriate jokes

or comments, personal in nature, related to drugs or illegal activities, morbid,

or sarcastic. The top three most frequently identified types of offensive humor were

sexual comments and jokes (35%), vulgar verbal and nonverbal expressions

(27%), and humor associated with drinking (13%). Seventy-five percent of the

responses in this category were sexual or vulgar, or dealt with drinking alcohol.The final category of inappropriate humor, self-disparaging humor, represented

only 1% of the examples obtained. Examples consisted of instances when the

professor belittled or otherwise made fun of themself. Table 3 provides descriptions

of each inappropriate humor category and subcategories. Table 4 includes the

number of responses obtained for each category and subcategory.

Discussion

A primary goal of this research was to begin to understand the competent use ofhumor as a teaching strategy, by first examining and differentiating appropriate and

Table 1 (Continued)

Teacher Performance*/Teacher used humor attempts that were not related to class material andinvolved some type of animated performance. For example, Making faces at the class, or Jumpedup on desk and started acting like a monkey.Creative Language Usage */Teachers used humor attempts that were not related to the coursematerial and involved creative language or word play. For example, Teachers using puns, or Playson words which are humorous.Current Events/Political*/Teachers used humor attempts that were not related to the coursematerial and involved current events or politics. For example, He brings in current issues in theworld and finds humor out of them.Using Media or External Objects*/Humor attempts that were not related to the course material andinvolved the use of props or different types of media to enhance learning. For example, Showingpictures of funny things, or He likes to play random assortments of music before class.

III. Self-Disparaging Humor.This type of humor involves jokes, stories or comments in which aninstructor criticizes, pokes fun of or belittles himself/herself.Make Fun of Himself/Herself (nonspecific) */Humor attempts targeting the teacher in a generalway. For example, A teacher making fun of himself.Make Fun of Personal Characteristics*/Humor attempts targeting personal characteristics of theteacher. For example, When a teacher joked about his eyesight and clumsiness.Tell Embarrassing Stories*/Teacher shares embarrassing stories in an attempt to be funny. Forexample, Teacher telling life stories that may have been embarrassing for them, or put them in aawkward situation.Make Fun of Mistakes Made in Class */In an attempt to be funny the teacher makes fun of a mistakehe/she made. For example, Poking fun at themselves for a mistake they have made in class.Make Fun of Abilities*/In an attempt to be funny the teacher might make fun of his/her abilities.For example, Teachers often refer to themselves as stupid.

IV. Unintentional or Unplanned Humor. The teacher did not intend to be funny, but the studentsfound his/her behavior to be humorous. Examples: Unintentional puns and slips of the tongue.



11/20

inappropriate humor in the classroom. On a very basic level, our thesis was

confirmed in that students had no trouble identifying both appropriate andinappropriate examples of humor used by teachers. The humor categories identified

in this study also overlapped considerably with previous research (Bryant, Comisky,

& Zillmann, 1979; Gorham & Christophel, 1990), providing evidence of validity for

these humor types. For example, Gorham and Christophels category of brief

tendentious (self-deprecating) comments directed at self (p. 52) is similar to the

self-disparaging humor categories generated in the present study. Also, Gorham

and Christophel identified categories of related and unrelated humor similar to the

present study. Bryant et al. also noted humor as related or unrelated to course content

and identified humor that was disparaging to teachers, students, or others, as wasfound in the present study. This overlap provides internal validity for these humor

Table 2 Appropriate Humor Frequencies

Category No. of responses Percentage of category

Related Humor

Humor Related to Material (tactic not specific) 24 7Using Media or External Objects to Enhance Learning 65 19Jokes 48 14Examples 46 14Stories 43 13Critical/Cynical 24 7College Life Stereotypes 21 6Directed Towards Student/Teasing 19 6Teacher Performance 17 5Role Playing/Activities 15 4Creative Language Usage 14 4Total 336 47Humor Unrelated to Class MaterialStories 63 20Jokes 53 17Critical/Cynical 44 14Directed Towards Student/Teasing 44 14College Life Stereotypes 44 14Teacher Performance 32 10Creative Language Use 15 5Current Events/Political 11 3Using Media/External Objects 10 3Total 316 44Self-Disparaging HumorMake Fun of Himself/Herself (nonspecific) 18 27

Make Fun of Personal Characteristics 22 33Tell Embarrassing Stories 13 20Make Fun of Mistakes Made In Class 8 12Make Fun of Abilities 5 8Total 66 9Unintentional or Unplanned Humor 3 0.5Unintentional HumorGrand total 712



12/20

Table 3 Categories and Subcategories of Inappropriate Teacher Humor

I. Offensive Humor. Humor in this category included any types of humor that were clearlyidentified as offensive in nature and not necessarily targeted at a specific person or persons.Sexual Jokes/Comments*/Teacher tells sexual jokes or makes sexual comments in an attempt to be

humorous. For example, I had a health class in which the teacher would make graphic jokes aboutsex.Vulgar Verbal and Nonverbal Expressions*/Teacher uses vulgar verbal or nonverbal expressions. Forexample, Swearing, Flipping the bird to students in class, or Carrying or wearing somethingthat is derogatory.Drinking*/In an attempt to be funny, the teacher will make references to drinking or alcohol. Forexample, When a teacher talks about getting drunk, or I find it offensive when professors alwaysuse examples pertaining to alcohol.Inappropriate Jokes*/Teacher tells inappropriate jokes in class. For example, Teachers crack jokesthat do not relate to the lesson, or My English teacher told a few inappropriate jokes.Personal Life*/In an attempt to be funny, the teacher tells stories about his/her personal life. Forexample, Teacher always told stories about herself, son, and dog in the middle of lectures. It was

basically a waste of time.Drugs/Illegal Activities*/Teacher humor attempts that involved discussion of drugs or illegalactivities. For example, Talking about inappropriate things such as pornography and drugs.Morbid Humor*/Teacher humor attempts that involve discussions about death or another relatedmorbid topic. For example, In a law class, professor tells cases of when people died or got hurt in ahumorous manner.Sarcasm */Teacher humor attempts that involve sarcasm. For example, When we asked him howto do a problem he would say something such as with a pencil.

II. Disparaging Humor Student Target.Humor in this category is clearly disparaging in nature andtargets students as a group or individual students.Students (as a group)Nonspecific Response*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted students in a nonspecific way. For

example, Jokes that spoke about all students in general and made fun of them.Based on Intelligence*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted students intelligence. For example,Teacher referred to a group of students as the living brain dead.Based on Gender*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted students based on gender. For example,One teacher actually advised girls to take home education instead of physical education.Based on Appearance*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted students appearance. For example, Aprofessor making reference to the number of students that wear clothes from Abercrombie & Fitch.One Student (singled out)Nonspecific Response*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted a single student in a nonspecific way.For example, Anytime when a teacher puts another student down in front of others just to get alaugh from the class.Based on Intelligence*/Teacher humor attempts that target a specific students intelligence. Forexample, Calling someone stupid in a humorous way, or Making fun of a students answer, even

though the student was serious about it.Based on Students Personal Life/Opinions/Interests*/Teacher humor attempts that target a specificstudents personal life, opinions or interests. For example, A comment made to demean someonewho has expressed their opinion, or Making fun of a students personal life.Based on Appearance*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting a specific studentsappearance. For example, A particular teacher would personally attack people by making fun oftheir clothes or the way they looked.Based on Gender*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting a specific student based ongender. For example, Teacher made a very sexual comment in class towards a female and thenlaughed.Based on Religion*/Teacher humor attempts that targeted a specific student based on religion. Forexample, The student was of Indian decent and a practicing Hindu. The teacher mocked her by

saying, Go worship your cow.



13/20

types, allowing us to more confidently describe how teachers use humor in theclassroom. However, the typology presented here is much more detailed and more

clearly illustrates the distinctions between appropriate and inappropriate humor

types than previous typologies. This research offers a more complete and detailed

picture of both positive and negative classroom humor behaviors and can be used to

guide instructors who want to use humor appropriately and effectively.

Eight major categories, four appropriate and four inappropriate, of teacher humor

were identified with corresponding subcategories. The major categories identified the

general direction of the humor (e.g., related, unrelated, offensive, and disparaging),

while the subcategories described the specific form the humor took within thatcategory (e.g., jokes, stories, and role-playing). Almost all of the appropriate humor

examples fell into the broad categories of related and unrelated humor, with self-

disparaging and unplanned humor representing less than 10% of the sample of

appropriate responses. The most frequently recognized type of related humor was

media/external objects comprising 19% of the sample of related humor. Instructors

varied greatly in the types of external aids/media they brought into the class. A

number of instructors reportedly brought in related cartoons, movie excerpts, or

newspaper articles, while others went so far as to dress in costumes to fit the subject

matter discussed in the class. Another subcategory of related humor was instructorperformances that included examples such as math rap songs, or doing voices of

Table 3 (Continued)

III. Disparaging Humor: Other Target. Humor attempts in this category are clearly disparagingin nature, and are targeted at individuals or groups other than students.Using stereotypes in general*/Teacher humor attempts that involved use of stereotypes in a generalway. For example, Excessive use of stereotypes in jokes.Targeting Gender Groups*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting males or females. Forexample, Our teacher sometimes stereotypes certain sexes and makes jokes about them.Targeting Ethnic or Racial Groups*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting particularracial or ethnic groups. For example, I have a teacher that regularly makes fun of different ethnic/cultural groups, or A teacher would make generalizations about a race, and make fun of that racein class.Target is University Related*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting university staff. Forexample, Making fun of other teachers, or Making fun of certain organizations at the school.Targeting Religious Groups*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting certain religionsgroups. For example, Several professors have made references to religion, especially Christianity, inbelittling terms.Targeting persons of a given sexual orientation */Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting

people based on sexual orientation. For example, Making fun of sexual orientation, or Jokesreferring to gays.Targeting persons of a given appearance*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting peoplebased on their appearance. For example, Telling blonde jokes.Political motivation*/Teacher humor attempts that involved targeting people based on theirpolitical affiliations. For example, Humor which is politically motivated, therefore projecting theirviews upon you.

IV. Self-Disparaging Humor. This type of humor involves a professor criticizing, poking fun of orbelittling himself/herself. Example: Professor says, I am such an idiot! to the class or performs asimilar self-disparaging.



14/20


15/20

the use of such humor often attacks students self concept, we might describe it as a

form of verbal aggression (Infante, Riddle, Horvath, & Tumlin, 1992). These verbally

aggressive attempts at humor can include character attacks, competence attacks,

criticisms of physical appearance, and teasing. Interestingly, while verbally aggressive

teachers might explain away their behavior by saying they are only being funny(Infante et al., 1992), students may not similarly agree.

The second most frequently identified type of inappropriate teacher humor was

labeled offensive humor and included a variety of subcategories. Students were

most likely to identify humor that was sexual, vulgar, and related to drinking alcohol

as offensive. Students also indicated, to a lesser extent, that humor about ones

personal life, drugs, and death was offensive. Some of the instances of humor

included in this category could also be identified as forms of verbal aggression. For

example, one instructor reportedly gave his students the finger, a nonverbal

emblem recognized by Infante and colleagues (1992) as a type of verbally aggressivebehavior. Examples included in this category comprised one-third of the sample of

inappropriate teacher humor.

The third most frequently recognized type of inappropriate humor was labeled

disparaging others and included humor attempts targeting nonstudent groups of

people. Others were targeted based on gender, race, university affiliations, religion,

sexual orientation, appearance, or political affiliations. Again, these types of humor

might be considered inappropriate because they are perceived as verbally aggressive.

To competently use humor as a teaching strategy, the humor must help achieve the

teaching goal (effectiveness) and do so without offending students (appropriateness).

Humor related to course content has been consistently found in research (Bryantet al., 1979; Gorham & Christophel, 1990) and most likely helps students learn the

content by gaining their attention and making the content memorable. However,

teachers have other goals as well, such as creating a positive teacher /student

relationship, generating a positive classroom climate, or reducing student anxiety.

Humor that is unrelated to the content or self-disparaging may be particularly

effective at achieving these types of goals.

With regard to appropriateness, most of the humor examples identified as

inappropriate were disparaging to students, others, or self (teacher), forming three of

the four inappropriate humor categories. Therefore, insulting individual students, orothers with whom they identify, is frequently viewed as inappropriate. This result is

consistent with Spitzberg and Cupachs (1984) conceptualization of appropriateness.

To review, appropriateness is related to social rules, norms, and expectations. Social

norms in most contexts direct us to be complimentary or to at least withhold

disparaging remarks about the person with whom we are speaking. To disparage a

person, or their associates, mostly likely violates social norms and expectations.

Disparaging remarks can also be described as verbally aggressive, a highly destructive

form of communication that often involves attacking the self-concept or self-worth of

others and inflicting psychological pain (Infante & Wigley, 1986; Infante et al., 1992).

A verbal attack from an authority figure (instructor) in a public context (classroom)violates classroom norms and expectations, making such behavior inappropriate by



16/20

most standards. Individuals who are verbally aggressive often lack the necessary skills

to communicate more competently (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Spitzberg and Cupach

(1984) consider communication skills to be one of three necessary components for

competence (motivation and knowledge being the other two). Therefore, to use

humor competently, the humor needs to help the instructor accomplish a goal, andthe humor should not be used to attack students or those with whom they are

affiliated.

This study offers some valuable information for instructors who want to enhance

their humor competence. Based on this study, instructors should avoid using humor

targeting a particular student or group of students and joking about a students

intelligence, personal life/interests, appearance, gender, or religion. Additionally,

instructors should refrain from using humor targeting students in-groups or using

sexual or vulgar types of humor. Instructors who use humor while teaching should

closely examine their humor in relation to the categories identified in this research toassess their level of appropriateness. Instructors should keep in mind that 47% of the

appropriate examples were related to course content. Students viewed this type of

humor as appropriate because it helped them to relate to the material and recall

information. Such humor also served to make the class interesting and improve the

classroom climate. Previous research (Davies & Apter, 1980; Ziv, 1979) has

recognized the attention-gaining effect of humor that helps students retention.

Students appear to appreciate humor used in this manner.

Future ResearchOne of the more intriguing findings in this study is the overlap between appropriate

and inappropriate categories of humor. For example, humor targeted at students was

identified as both appropriate and inappropriate. When identified as appropriate,

students described the humor as teasing (subcategory 8 under related humor and

subcategories 4 and 5 under unrelated), but when identified as inappropriate,

students described the humor more negatively, as is reflected in the first three

inappropriate categories. For 44% of the appropriate humor examples, students

indicated the humor was not related to course content and included jokes, stories,

and sarcasm, along with other forms of humor. Although these examples weredescribed differently than the examples in the inappropriate categories, there is

clearly overlap, particularly with regard to sarcasm, personal stories, and jokes. These

data do not allow us to analyze the true similarities and differences between these

examples. Did students consider these humor forms as appropriate because of the

content of the humorous behavior, the instructors skill at delivering the humor, or

the nature of the existing student /teacher relationship? Moreover, to what extent is

each humor type effective at achieving classroom goals? Are students more likely to

interpret humor as appropriate if it helps them achieve their goals (e.g., to learn or to

feel comfortable)? Finally, because previous research on humor orientation illustrates

a positive association between humor orientation and communication competence(Wanzer et al., 1995), might we expect humor orientation to influence teachers



17/20

reliance on more appropriate or inappropriate humor behaviors? These questions are

clearly beyond the scope of the current research but provide the basis for future

research on humor in the classroom.

Study Limitations

While this study extends previous research and provides us with a more in-depth

understanding of the use of humor in the classroom, it is not without limitations. A

weakness of these data is the reliance on students recall of instructors uses of humor.

How accurately students were able to recall teacher behavior is unknown. The nature

of this methodology may have resulted in students recalling the most extreme and

memorable examples and failing to recall the more mundane instances. However, the

overlap in categories between the present typology and Gorham and Christophels

indicates this was not a significant problem. Another limitation of this study was thatsome students did not specify the type of humor employed. With follow-up

interviews or prompts, we might have obtained greater specificity. The nonspecific

response subcategories in the disparaging humor category are more likely a function

of the student responses than the teacher humor behaviors.

The present study extends our knowledge of teachers use of humor in the

classroom and identifies specific humor behaviors that students perceive as

appropriate and inappropriate. Spitzberg and Cupachs (1984) theory of commu-

nication competence successfully served as a framework for understanding humor.

This theoretical approach has the potential to help instructional scholars to

understand a variety instructional communication variables and instructionalcommunication competence more generally.

References

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543 /559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Aylor, B., & Opplinger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of

instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style.Communication Education,52,

122/

134.Baxter, L., & Wilmot, W. (1984). Secret tests: Social strategies for acquiring information about the

state of the relationship. Human Communication Research, 11 , 171 /201.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1991). Individual differences in the communication

of humorous messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 32 /40.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers humor in the college classroom.

Communication Education, 28, 110 /118.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P. W., Crane, J. S., & Zillmann, D. (1980). Relationship between college

teachers use of humor in the classroom and students evaluations of their teachers. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72, 511 /519.

Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1988). Using humor to promote learning in the classroom. Journal of

Children in Contemporary Society, 20, 49 /78.

Chesebro, J. L. (2002). Teaching clearly. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication

for teachers (pp. 93 /103). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.



18/20


19/20

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected

immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication

yearbook 10(pp. 574 /590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sadowski, C. J., & Gulgoz, S. (1994). An evaluation of the use of content-relevant cartoons as a

teaching device. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21 , 368 /370.

Scott, T. M. (1976). Humor in teaching. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 7, 18.Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Torok, S. E., McMorris, R. F., & Lin, W. C. (2004). Is humor an appreciated teaching tool?

Perceptions of professors teaching styles and use of humor. College Teaching, 52, 14 /20.

Vangelisti, A., Daly, J., & Rudnick, J. (1991). Making people feel guilty in conversations. Human

Communication Research, 18, 3 /39.

Wanzer, M. B. (2002). Use of humor in the classroom: The good, the bad, and the not-so-funny

things that teachers say and do. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication

for teachers(pp. 116 /125). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wanzer, M., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). The funny people: A source-

orientation to the communication of humor. Communication Quarterly, 43 , 142 /154.Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999a). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor

humor and students reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48 /61.

Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (April, 1999b). Being funny in the classroom: Appropriate and

inappropriate humor behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communica-

tion Association, Charleston, WV.

Welker, W. A. (1977). Humor in education: A foundation for wholesome living. College Student

Journal, 11 , 252 /254.

White, G. W. (2001). Teachers report of how they used humor with students perceived use of such

humor. Education, 122, 337 /347.

Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of

Experimental Education, 57, 5/15.

Ziv, A. (1979). Lhumor en education: Approche psychologique. Paris: Editions Social Francaises.

Received June 10, 2005

Accepted October 27, 2005



20/20

Documents

Teaching and humor