3,12;e‘131"1,1‘, 3W1
1,11,18,13 ;.,£.‘:‘1
’53:?“

. ‘ 5' ' “ 1,1 I:
1.1“, 1 . - 111,2
,-. ‘ ' 1,1,
“,1.L1I,~""I':“1,‘ ‘1‘,’ "“1"‘ "3"“ .' 5.1.131 {‘15 "11
1.1.‘1.L2“ :1 5,111. ‘ - -- . 1 5.1.11,~1:1!’§I,‘2
.' ‘1‘",j, fizII ,1,1“1;‘1‘ ‘15,:‘1, ‘: ' ' - ' " , ' ' ' .""" ;
1;- k _ 335131: ‘m 1’
\1 1 gm I
I

I: ‘1: '11 " '
1 ‘ "
“3%,,“ 3,551}?le
I 1

{1'21

I f"
,2‘1,

V'E‘W

H I'I‘L‘Vfi
“ ‘1};

L115};

':‘I1
I:'1‘:1'|"1!I'::" 1‘1,
1 ‘ ' 11:33”
1‘11I'311‘1,,.‘..

"II ”11
,I,, ,11,,I
1

 

 

 

 

 

1‘!
‘II L‘”
:1 ,IHJHII 121?“, “:11

‘HLV‘ 11513,:
,d ‘1‘ 1~C'{"1,1,‘E':,‘:"\,,1'21‘L"3
' 1,121“! ,,,‘1‘4,,‘1 l,:‘\?1:i"\ 1,,‘1‘ 5"?" ',%H ":1 ‘1‘1
. 1’",,
13:53“ ‘

1‘11'
, 1 ,1, 1 . ,. ' , 1,,
1- ' .=. . t '1,
: :1“? ,1st 1.1- 59,3; ' "“1
1.I'1‘1_111“,:,,.1 1.119112, ""‘~, !.11
.1 ,1l1;,1;,.,: I 1 r 1 ,1:1 1 1“},‘5 $ ‘1 figs "‘I‘L",
"‘1

1 I ‘1 ‘e-e ‘LI I...‘I,,“‘:'::‘1
‘ "‘1' 11I1lz—IE‘E'1‘:":"“""L‘“‘§'§ )1: ‘
, ,‘z, : “31"51‘""" 1",“ 1,1,1 1 ,1,I,1' I, ‘4; , ”1,1, , ,\_:,1‘11,‘IV
"' ‘:"‘1“‘I":‘1‘§'::‘QER'SL‘kCflmfi‘ "l"""\‘1,.:,:"u,,1 ‘52:? “1""
., ,
191::1131‘11, ,
,,1,1",11,1,1,1,I:~,1"1 312'LILI'§1“"“13 ,
“"":";'"'1‘,I “"“""I ;’,,‘,,;11§§‘"‘:‘$‘3153,
gfi‘l'11 I“, ”V
’1‘m I I 1.11",
“1119,”, ,1 ‘1. 9,1,3, ‘2‘“ 1“?“‘a‘0‘ "4%".
. -.. . . 11;;
1,1.':1:\,111,I‘,1 , 11‘ 1‘ ”SI :“'1‘1‘r‘"""‘;" ”1,?"qu H' ,1 ,"
'5‘,,:'1121h,;u @‘1'1‘15‘111‘1‘1zé.‘:‘1’1‘,,,;”a, M, 1,3,“, ‘ "
1,1 1‘ 11,, 11.11.1211: I11 111,111,111: '
1,,1 ”1,, 1.11“” 1 i"
1‘11 I‘I‘1‘1‘1114‘1 W“. '1“
1111.1. 1,11%11‘5“ 1‘1"‘11‘"§'1§'3EI3 31 '
M1 .1' {1 , L
,:‘l "1 , '11 1% . 1, ,1 ‘1 ‘1
. ..:1::‘1:2111,.‘1I1:.. ," V1311 , 111. ,"1
',1.:111‘1',1‘11.“‘.,I_,1

r.

1‘1“,'::‘I‘::1‘,1';, ' ,
W‘ ‘11:?" ""'"""I "‘1111‘1“ ‘3‘; A .
. I,I11‘,‘1,III111§:IH
':""\"':'{"1 {‘31: 'fi‘s‘ ""“:"""“1,1,,11‘;":‘:‘I“"‘I"
‘5" :I‘I",,:1;"LI,\, ”Ha“ 1,1,,“L1 I""1,'l"\‘1,.,,1., '1: ""11‘41‘5‘51 .
"" ‘10! '11! 1‘11
, 1:1, , 1"}51 ‘ , ‘1‘1‘2‘11‘, 'L'“ 5'1 ‘415‘11'31‘1 5" “31'3" :‘ifi‘i.
1,.“ &,.,l14'~:1:1.,'k11, ,
"T‘J'L‘i ‘3 ' . ‘19: “‘2‘: :,;§§‘,:: 1,), "I; 11:,‘14‘f‘154‘4 ‘
' “,I,1'I‘, 2,1 {1‘1"“l‘l. 11,,“ ‘,1“1
' 1'1," ‘11! .- ‘1‘1‘1‘3‘3‘ 1"‘L""11‘§'1 ” I,§;,;:;:“11%_1,1}1,1,1,1,1‘"
' 1.‘I§'1‘,5‘,‘1‘h$“““1‘,11 'H'L':I‘:',11".""' ‘1‘1‘Ifi’1
'|"1'""";""“"A“""":'::“""‘1' H21“ 'l“1
3"" " 1‘1‘.‘13,‘I.‘."1‘ "'1' “,‘I‘ 1315131.,
.1?" ,,1,‘,1;;,;,;,1,1,,; 1,11,11,1
V 4 ,
,1»,u,‘, ,,‘(,1,1';1,1}1,,1
'5 I,‘

,1:.,‘I
., .1 ‘
,I,1,'11‘Y ,1 .‘1'.€~‘I‘1""1'1",1‘:'
I l l 1
1,; (5,14 ,,,
, 1,1;J‘l‘1‘511" I1“I""'1‘:"“
;,1,11,11,,;:,,:; 3:“; ‘11,:1 .I 971:; 4135:; 3,1"? ,‘ 1' I.” .1;
,,, 11 1"" I1 , I '15 “"3" l; '1,“ ,I;I in“!
'-‘ 11}'§1‘:'I'21111LHI,;.. ,1, "’f "5 11‘, 1:111",,II,1:!.“,‘1“.‘,1‘§1:I"
.,,, :1 I5." 1,1,11,14,11,? 1.. 11,51‘ ,II‘LI‘ $1.11.
. ‘ 1,, .1 ,,;;' 1.1,1,:.11"'I‘.t “'1‘11‘1 “‘I1,‘;§.
Y“1,19,15,19,"; 1,,‘15,V,;,1‘,,w, MN, ,,,';,':, a, $354,, 3%? 1,1,1‘ 1:1,
,1‘1.1,,I.1.‘;‘11 1, {11" 5,3121, 11 , 1W1," ,3: ‘4"
If P ‘1, ‘
1.33:? 3‘6“" ‘11: "€L‘1‘"‘1"‘"“"I‘I 81"! 1‘1 1“
1‘ 1

'3'(
1511111.. 111111515111
‘ ,5‘11 H11" :1‘59 W
1111‘ 1:; 511511.111“ "‘15. 1.1.1:.
351'“ '

«1,41, ,1 Q. ,I,111.I,,:1:}111
INII‘r'nl"""I '.' ant, ”fig": 1“,,“ ‘1‘“" $1,,“ ”4,2,
"1-1 “1.2;" 1‘1 11;; ,1, .1
. “‘5‘ W

,1; .‘I‘I 31,1.

|

533‘
432.2;-

:14.

..
.4,
“35"

up a: _-
”5353524
: 11::

J,l .1 [1
,"".'1‘ 1. .E'I"':“'e"‘1""':11‘3‘!
. .1 “11?; 1;,11‘1111'111 ,‘111, , . ..
. «I .. “11:11:. .11112111, ,4. 121115111111:
‘1 ‘,,,11",|, 1,151‘,‘,'L‘,‘:"1' ‘1”,‘13‘1‘Qfi, ‘1‘1‘1‘1‘1‘1-
“U ., 32315:“: ‘I,\:4‘1,1,‘f‘,‘:,:5‘1‘1‘,“
11111.1 1 .I.I§;zg,,;,;,;*,1',§; I1.“ 1' 1., I11 1.111,
'III,‘ . 412‘ 1 -I
d","::,;,'1,[n:1.1,'!,1
: .1 ,1, 5i?" I:"‘II ‘NI‘: ‘1“"" "1:“?
..1 1-1111 ; 1,1111
111:1..' 11113111111111: 31"‘1' .‘
.1;?1};‘,,"' ,‘1',I.‘,,;,1,;}I,,I,,1,;5-‘;1,1,,:1, 111
1 I 111111111111 1
”m4, ‘6‘: 1‘ I‘l‘i‘p‘r 4‘ "
“11,111 I,1,.,1 I I,
,fiv.,1,12:1 £311,511

1
11 I 6
,1‘1,

146:}

- 2,‘ #3:, .3;—
w‘f “I
1:." ' ' r 3:
3‘? fit -.r1 4
- _ _.~. .2 ’ 133?..3} .. 4:3”, I!
:‘f r g“ 1.11 .12.»?
4;" 15“." "AJ:
$.53. £1.34. I,
1:1: m;

,r

11:1
‘1 I

‘ 'E‘Wfifi‘},
1. I

‘1
I,
1111,?“

«3.3:; -
{:w

‘ I
1:1}! 1’
,U'

1;,
I“:

‘1 '1- 1‘

‘1.
..‘4

.4
—g
-..‘. :; -
_ '11:: -
_ at: ,q;..:_
W
J... E-

.‘
.4.."‘"§
ml}.

9.99.;-

-.... .

"1'
1}“‘4‘15'
II I,
1:1

. I
,l
,1, F
,, ,1

.. A.
wx‘igj
“1...:

. 1,1
{"31 :"‘,1'""" 1 5 ”0,: ""',.‘:',
P1,,“ "11:11 I,1,;,;l: 3‘4," if, ,,,,::,1|,‘:1't;,
. ',"L 2.1:: '1};'I':""5,. .,,; :l1l:':'1',' I‘»,,y«1,,,;:,, "'15:?! ,;,_,,,;,
‘ “a,” {,1 5:1'H'1isfi'fl" ‘95" 4: £10,111,
1,: 1-. ,1

I“ "1.5531111
1,1,1 “;'16[ 11.,5 #1,11,,,l,",,
11“ I“ 111111111151 51:“
1 01,1‘:
12'. ‘1 I
I

‘ d.
maxeflf}
.35“

19%”;

l
1*: I‘ , ,
“ ‘11 LE}: .

E?“

W-

“ 4:...-

|
1
H 1

433235.
‘ 1 AM
-

,; ;
‘ :j,‘ . . ‘3'}, . :34",-
I ' ' ' ‘ ‘

,1 H
"‘51

i“?

“Jo—.44..-
. . a... 4. 4.

‘55:“...
E.

97—

2

”(315,!

‘ “117'
11,.
51‘5“

,1
5'1
,1

4.
or".

'11,‘

Lfé‘.»

.m;
4..

55-24%
ail
_ .,
x61.
1. ‘5.

v5.5”

'3“.
, ‘1

1‘2:

_': :———~:
‘ ‘tac‘L-‘jf"
A- 5-3:“?

‘4.

"f1: 7
427': v.
4.55....
'15

.52.

1
‘31“?
I" fiyo‘i'gfl' "‘
223111,; ‘3?" 1,1:
‘g. ",‘I

w
m1
.27-...
:. 2a

fit:

- _.¢_._._ «:—
m

-- -fl,.,,____:3£;j;m- ._

',V

......_4

max-2a

. ‘-1
(-4:-

I' .1:

A ’ ‘3
L~
"‘ —:
-‘w
. {£3

'3'“

”4.--.-.

 

7—"? _. ,.

£3 .3-

W‘.‘: .4. -
Efifi.r:f:l_‘2~ :- . ..

7 lllllllllllmllllllWill

LIBR/é i/ ‘

Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSTRUCTOR HUMOR TO
CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND STUDENT
SUCCESS IN THE COURSE

presented by

Eileen Berlin

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Arts<kgmeh1Communication

7 ' I.

Major professor

DaeSe tember 5 1978

0—7639

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

anal 17* 4

l’ _ ”mi/1.27 a;

- Qm‘ :- mg}
5 3 K118 ‘.. [P103’ 1,;
.MM

\MW MAY 2 8 2002
r 17° “9%

ME?

., i - ,",'~\?

M 1030

 

 

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSTRUCTOR HUMOR TO
CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND STUDENT
SUCCESS IN THE COURSE

BY

Eileen Berlin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1978

J/

r..

67/03

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSTRUCTOR HUMOR TO CLASSROOM
CLIMATE AND STUDENT SUCCESS IN THE COURSE

BY

Eileen Berlin

This study investigated the relationship of inten-
tional and appropriate use of humor by an instructor to
classroom climate and student success in the course. Two
questionnaires were administered to 95 undergraduates en-
rolled in the Introductory Communication course at Michigan
State University. The first asked what grade the student
perceived as successful in the course. The second asked
for student perceptions of instructor use of humor and
classroom climate. Results computed by the Pearson product—
moment correlation indicate significant positive correla-
tions between intentional and appropriate humor with
classroom climate and no significant correlation between
intentional and appropriate humor with student success or

between classroom climate and student success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several peOple who deserve special recog—
nition for helping me complete this thesis. My parents,
Ken and Maggie, Cass Book, Trina Simmons, Nancy Buerkel-
Rothfuss, Bob Bundens, and Mark Milkovich all helped me
keep my perspective when I was seriously considering giving
up all this to (a) join the roller derby, (b) stuff the
pimento in olives as a lifetime career, or (c) get a job on
the coast shucking oysters. Their help and humor were
greatly appreciated. Also, special thanks to Rocky for

being so real--in a synthetic sort of way.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . .
Humor and the Effective College
Teacher . . . . . .
Theoretical Overview of Humor.
Focus on appreciator of
humor alone . . . .
Focus on creator or appre—
ciator of humor separately
Focus on creator and appre-
ciator of humor together.
Instructor's Use of Humor and
Classroom Climate . . .
Instructor's Use of Humor and
Student Success in the Course
Research Questions . . .
II METHODOLOGY . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . .
Instrument Construction . .
Critical Incident Technique
Student Success Survey .
Pretest . . . . .
Humor and Climate
Questionnaire . . .
Subjects . . . .
Analysis of Data .
III RESULTS . . . . .

Descriptive Statistics
Research Question One.
Research Question Two. .
Research Question Three .
Research Question Four .
Research Question Five .
Summary . . . .

iii

Page

(DU)

ll

13

15
17

20

20
22
22
23
24

25
26
27

28

28
31
32
32
32
33
33

Chapter Page

IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . 35
Summary of Findings. . . . . 35
Discussion . . . 37

Research Question One: Relationship
of Intentional Humor to Classroom
Climate. . . . . . . . . 37

Research Question Two: Relationship
of Appropriate Humor to Classroom
Climate. . . . . . .

Research Question Three: Relation-
ship of Intentional Humor to
Student Success in the Course . . . 41

Research Question Four: Relation-
ship of Appropriate Humor to
Student Success in the Course . . . 43

Research Question Five: Relation—
ship of Classroom Climate to

Student Success in the Course . . . 44
Limitations of Study . . . . 46
Implications . . . . 49
Modifications for future
research . . . . . . 49
Expansion of this Research . . 50
Pragmatic implications . . . 52
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix A: Humor and Climate
Questionnaire . . . . . 54

B: Critical Incident Technique
and Responses . . . . . 58

C: Humor and Climate
Questionnaire Pretests . . . 73

D: Descriptive Statistics
for Pretest . . . . . 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . 88

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges
for Variables . . . . .

Correlation of Intentional and
Appropriate Humor with Classroom
Climate and Student Success and
Classroom Climate with Student
Success. . . . . . .

Correlation of General and Overall
Humor with Classroom Climate .

Descriptive Statistics for Form A
of Pretest . . . . . .

Descriptive Statistics for Form B
of Pretest . . . . . .

Page

30

33

39

87

87

 

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Model of Study . . . . .

Histogram of Calculated Difference
Scores for Student Success Measure

Results of Findings . . . .

vi

Page

36

42

50

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Humor has long been highly valued in our culture.
"In a society that spends vast sums to make itSelf laugh,
where to be labeled 'humorless' is a dire indictment, and
where one study (Allport, 1961) found 94% of the subjects
rating their sense of humor as equal to or above average,
it is clear that humor is something viewed as very impor-
tant (David and Farina, 1970, p. 175). In another study,
subjects tended to rate themselves higher in appreciation
of humor than they were rated by their peers (Levine and
Rakusin, 1959). These results suggest that sense of humor
is a desirable trait that plays an important part in our
lives and interactions.

Research has only recently looked at humor as an
interaction between the person who generates the humor and
the receiver of that humor. This perspective focuses on
the social interaction aspects of humor as a facilitative
device. According to Martineau (1972, p. 103), humor acts

as a "lubricant" to initiate social interaction and keep

the interactive machinery operating freely and smoothly.

l

 

2

Based on observations of several college classes, it
appeared that instructors perceived as humorous had high
class interaction. Students frequently asked questions,
made comments, and initiated and contributed to class dis-
cussions. This interaction should have a positive influence
on the student's motivation and personal commitment to the
class, resulting in a cohesive group (Fisher, 1974, p. 31;
Shaw, 1976, p. 197). A cohesive group engenders feelings of
the group as worthwhile and rewarding to the individual
members of that group (Fisher, 1974, p. 31). If the student
perceives the class as a cohesive group, the student should
find it worthwhile and rewarding to not only contribute to
class interaction but to succeed academically in the class
as well. A student motivated to succeed academically would
be conscious of cues that would aid success. One such cue,
humor appropriate to course content, could cue students to
the course material that would later be used to assess the
student's final grade in the course.

The purpose of this study was to investigate an

/instructor's use of humor as a facilitative device in the

{ college classroom and its relationship to classroom climate

l

\and student success in the course. This chapter describes

the contradictory findings of research on effective teaching
and the use of humor, the attempts to place a study of humor
in theoretical terms, and presents five questions that this

study was designed to answer.

3

 

Humor and the Effective College Teacher

Several studies have found humor to be an unimpor-
tant characteristic of effective teaching. Smith (1944)
looked at the traits associated with the best university
teacher. He asked one hundred students to write a state-
ment concerning "My Ideal University Teacher." This re-
sulted in 447 trait descriptions that were classified and
ranked according to the frequency with which they were
mentioned. Ranked second was sense of humor. This was
described as "has appealing humor, proper balance, uses
attention devices, has jokes and stories with definite
points" (p. 217). The first ten traits, ranked according
to frequency, were then given to four groups of students.
The students were asked to arrange these traits according
to their importance in relation to each other. The results
of these rankings were then compared with the rankings of
two similar college studies with eight of the ten highest
ranking traits in Smith's study. "Sense of humor" was
ranked low in all three studies. One might conclude that
humor is unimportant to teaching. However, Smith's (1944)
definition of sense of humor sounds more like that of a
stand-up comic than an instructor. The students are the
passive receivers of the humor and any interaction between
them is incidental. Also, one must rely on Smith's judgment
that the "similar studies" are actually apprOpriate for

comparison because he does not provide definitions of

traits from the two studies.

Crawford and Bradshaw (1968) attempted to isolate
characteristics of "effective" university teachers as judged
by faculty, administrators and students. Three hundred
undergraduate and graduate students were asked to describe
the characteristics they considered most essential to the
most "effective" university teacher they knew. An analysis
of these descriptions produced thirteen descriptive state-
ments regarding classroom teaching behavior. These state-
ments were randomly arranged for paired comparison analysis.
Subjects were instructed to choose from each pair the char-
acteristic they considered more essential to effective
university teaching. There was consensus among students,
faculty and administrators that sense of humor ranked
eleventh out of thirteen. However, sense of humor is never
defined so we have no idea if humor refers to the instruc-
tor's ability to tell jokes or to provide an environment
where varying types of humor are appreciated. These are
different skills and will influence the ranking of "sense
of humor" differently.

Mueller, Roach and Malone (1971) looked at what
students at the University of Windsor considered the most
and least important characteristics of the "ideal" professor.
They administered Gadzella's 25-item questionnaire (p. 162),
"Students' Views of an 'Ideal' Professor" to 642 introduc—

tory psychology students. The students were asked to choose

5
the five most and five least important items out of the 25
statements and rank them in order of importance. Overall,
humor was ranked 18th out of 25. Humor was defined as "has
a sense of humor, avoids irrelevant and/or distasteful
jokes." However, this definition seems to be a qualifier
of a good sense of humor. Saying that someone has a sense
of humor does not define what humor is. By excluding ir-
relevant and/or distasteful jokes from humor, Mueller, Roach
and Malone imply that humor is the ability to simply tell
appropriate jokes. In fact, what Mueller, Roach and Malone
meant by humor can only be inferred because no specific
definition was offered in their study.

These studies suggest that some kind of humor may be
slightly relevant to perceptions of effective teaching, but
all suggest that many other traits are more important.
Other studies have found sense of humor to be an important
characteristic of a good teacher. McComas (1965), using a
very limited sample of 33 respondents, found sense of humor
to be mentioned by one-third of the students who were sur-
veyed as an important characteristic of an effective teacher.
In an effort to obtain a definition of effective teaching
as actually described by observers, Hildebrand and Wilson
(1970, in Hildebrand, 1973) asked 338 students at the Uni-
versity of California-Davis to identify the best and worst
teachers they had had the previous year. The students also

were required to answer many questions about the teaching of

6

those they identified. Also, 119 faculty members identi-
fied the best and worst teachers among their colleagues and
described each one's performance. In addition, 162 faculty
members described their academic activities in detail. A
validation survey was then done. Fifty-one classes were
chosen to include instructors who had been identified as
best teachers, instructors identified as worst teachers and
classes where instructors were not named best or worst.

Over 1,000 students in these classes answered detailed ques—
tions regarding the teaching of these instructors. The re-
searchers found that independent groups of students agreed
very closely in their identification of best and worst
teachers. Students and faculty also agreed very closely in
their identifications. Hildebrand and Wilson then devised
85 one-line characterizations of conditions of teaching per-
formance. According to the investigators, each of these
characterizations significantly discriminated the best from
the worst teachers as perceived by students. They did the
same with 55 characterizations to discriminate best from
worst teachers as perceived by colleagues. Included in the
five components found to be characteristic of an effective
teacher was the effective use of wit and humor, which was
found by survey to be descriptive of 75% or more of the best
teachers and of only 25% or less of the worst teachers.
While possessing characteristics of humor was not sufficient

to make a teacher effective, it was a component found to set

7
the best teacher apart from the worst.

Although the research examining the relationship be-
tween sense of humor and effective teaching has produced
contradictory results, there is evidence that the ability
of instructors to laugh with their class and at themselves
is more likely to result in a warm relationship with their
students (Gilliland and Mauritsen, 1971, p. 755). Addition-
al evidence was found by Coffman (1954) in a study to deter-
mine effective teaching from student ratings of instructors.
Using the Oklahoma A. & M. Rating Scale, Coffman asked
approximately 2,000 students at Oklahoma A. & M. College to
rate fifty—five teachers. The Rating Scale was made up of
eighteen specific traits and a general estimate of the ef-
fectiveness of the instructor. Students were asked to check
a scale which had five descriptive phrases for each rating.
Included in the scale was the trait sense of humor. The

accompanying descriptive phrases were:

has keen sense of humor;

frequently shows real humor;

humor occasionally, but not often exhibited;
manifests little or no humor;

humor obviously not spontaneous (p. 279).

Factor analysis found one factor, empathy, to be highly cor-
related with sense of humor.

While the studies that have found humor to make a
positive contribution to effective teaching are encouraging,
they also do not define humor in terms of a theoretical per-

spective. Although there is no consensus on an all-

8

encompassing theory or definition of humor, several views

have been considered.

Theoretical Overview of Humor

 

Humor has been studied from several different per-
spectives, including: (1) the appreciator of humor alone,
(2) the creator or appreciator of humor separately, and (3)
the creator and appreciator of humor together.

Focus on appreciator of humor alone. Laughter is

 

usually an indication that a person perceives something as
humorous (Keith-Spiegel, 1972, p. 16). Bergler (1956, in
Fine, 1975, p. 793) defined humor as the ability to laugh
apprOpriately. Fine (1975, p. 793), in a study of perceived
sense of humor, broke it down into characteristics of qual-
ity of laughter, amount of laughter, quality of joking and
amount of joking. Godkewitsch (1976) described humor as

"a process initiated by some stimulus and ending with a re-
sponse such as laughter, as well as the ability to tell
jokes well" (p. 117).

This focus views humor as an observable response by
the appreciator. It is limited in that it does not include
the creator of the humor or interaction between the people
in the situation. The following perspective does acknowl-
edge the existence of both a creator and appreciator of
humor.

Focus on creator or appreciator of humor separately.

While many studies of humor have focused on the passive

9
appreciation of receivers (Treadwell, 1967), some researchers
have looked at both the creation and appreciation aspects of
humor. Levine and Rakusin (1959) studied sense of humor as
a personality trait, with subjects rating themselves and
others on their ability to create and appreciate humor.
Treadwell (1970) also looked at creation and appreciation of
humor by self—report. In a study designed to determine the
degree to which humor appreciation, humor creation, intelli—
gence and introversion-extraversion can be distinguished as
traits, KOppel and Sechrist (1970, p. 79) described someone
with a good sense of humor as "a person who appreciates and
understands, or 'gets' most of the jokes told. He may not
laugh the loudest but he always appreciates the joke." They
describe the joke maker as "NOT the person who can tell old
stories well but who can make up funny jokes or comments on
the spur of the moment" (capitalization in original).

Babad (1974) attempted to determine the validity of
self-report, ratings by others and humor tests by sociometric
measurement. Subjects-were divided into five humor groups
(nonhumorous, passive appreciators, producers, reproducers,
and producers-reproducers) on the basis of peer ratings and
were then given tests of passive and active humor. Babad
found the sociometric technique and the humor tests to in-
validate each other. Self-report fell between the two but
was more closely related to the sociometric method than to

the humor tests. The previously cited studies (Levine and

lO
Rakusin, 1959; KOppel and Sechrist, 1970; Treadwell, 1970)
lend support to these findings. All of these studies found
ratings by self and others to be more strongly related to
each other than the relationship of either with humor test
scores.

Of particular interest is the fact that all of the
humor tests cited used jokes or cartoons to measure humor.
This implies that humor is a result of one's ability to
generate jokes or cartoons or one's ability to appreciate
them. However, studies have found a large discrepancy be-
tween number of jokes told and frequency of laughter.
Middleton and Moland (1959) attempted to find out how fre—
quently jokes get told. After studying 220 college stu-
dents, they found that students reported that they heard
between four to six jokes a week. A study cited by Pollio
and Edgerly (1976) found that college students laugh at
formally funny material about 20% of the time, with the
major category being jokes. However, students estimated by
self-report that they laughed between 15 and 20 times a day.
If subjects are laughing that often but only hear jokes
four to six times a week, something other than jokes must
account for the additional laughter. The extent to which
people laugh at nonverbal behavior, spontaneous witticisms,
puns and social interaction components are not considered
by the reported studies. The sociological perspective does,

however, account for the interaction between the creator and

 

11
appreciator of humor.

Focus on creator and appreciator of humor together.

 

Sociological theories look at humor as the interaction be-
tween the creator and appreciator, with humor being what is
perceived by the involved parties as humorous. It is this
interaction and definition by perception that is of interest
to this study.

One of the earliest works that looked at humor from
the sociological perspective was Obrdlik's article on
"gallows humor" (1942). He observed the use of humor while
in Czechoslovakia for nine months after the invasion of the
Nazis. "Gallows humor," for Obrdlik's purposes, referred
to humor used in connection with a precarious or dangerous
situation. He looked specifically at the Czechs' use of
humor as a way to deal with the Nazis. It was intentional
humor that used irony, invectives and sarcasm as a means for
social control against oppressors. One function it served
was to strengthen the morale of the oppressed. Because
"gallows humor" served a specific purpose that required an
oppressor and an Oppressed, it is not readily generalizable
to non-dangerous situations. However, the importance of
Obrdlik's observations lies in his treatment of humor as a
very important factor in social control. He was among the
first to view humor in this manner.

Another situation in which humor may serve a function

of social control is in the area of race relations in the

12

United States. Many sociology researchers have looked at
intergroup humor (Davis, Gardner and Gardner, 1941, p. 459;
Drake and Cayton, 1945, p. 723). Burma (1946) viewed humor
as a means of social control and conflict used by a minor—
ity to attain or retain status and morale. However, other
researchers (Myers, 1935; Dollard, 1937; Myrdal, 1944)
qualified their belief in the conflict—control theory of
humor by recognizing that humor is not always malicious.
In a later study, Barron (1950) focused on stereotypes found
in intergroup jokes. The theme of social cohesion is also
prevalent in research on Black intergroup humor (Boskin,
1966; Arnez and Anthony, 1968). In a study of humor in the
ghetto, Hannerz (1969) found that the joking relationships
helped keep a balance between informality and social
distance.

Humon has also been viewed by sociologists as a
means of implicit and explicit social control and as a way
to approach interpersonal conflict safely (Stephenson, 1951).
Miller's study (1967) on the social significance of humor
emphasized the communicative function of humor, while
Martineau (1972, p. 114) described humor as a vehicle for
interaction. Coser (1962), in a study of patients in a
hospital ward, found that they used humor as a way to estab—
lish a cohesive group identity. Finally, in a study of
joking behavior between interviewers in a competitive situ-

ation, Blau (1955, p. 92) found that joking was "instrumental

13
in creating social cohesion by uniting a group in the
pleasant experience of laughing together."

Early research from the sociological perspective
dealt primarily with oppressor-oppressed and intergroup
racial humor. The more recent sociological studies have
focused on humor as a facilitator of group interaction,
functioning as a means to promote cohesion and to control
interaction. The existing research does not, however, in—
clude the classroom as a social system. While it appears
that the present findings are easily generalizable to the
classroom context, the question of whether an instructor's
use of humor is related to interaction in the classroom has

not been directly investigated.

Instructor's Use of Humor and Classroom Climate

The interpersonal relationship between the instruc-
tor and students typically characterizes the classroom
climate. Climate has been defined as the feeling or emo—
tional tones of a group (Withall, 1949, p. 348; Schmuck and
Schmuck, 1975, p. 23) and the extent of a teacher's warmth
and liking for the students (Solomon, Bezdek and Rosenberg,
1963, p. 124). Friedrich, Galvin and Book (1976, p. 62)
define classroom climate as "those affective states experi—
enced by both teacher and students that may either enhance
or detract from the function or goal of the classroom-—the
achievement of specific tasks," while Flanders (1967, p. 103)

views classroom climate as "generalized attitudes toward the

l4

teacher and the class that the pupils share in common in
spite of individual differences. The development of these
attitudes is an outgrowth of classroom social interaction."

The effective teacher elicits social interaction by
arousing positive emotional reactions from students (Mowrer,
1960, p. 174). Providing for questioning periods and en—
couraging independent thinking also promote a positive class
climate (Mueller, Roach and Malone, 1971, p. 164). The re-
sponsibility for creating the class climate rests with the
teacher (Withall, 1949, p. 347) and this climate is a direct
result of the personality of the instructor (Guthrie, 1954;
Ryans, 1960; Bausell and Magoon, 1972; Costin and Grush,
1973; Romine, 1974). As a result, if an instructor attempts
humor and this attempt is perceived as unnatural, the re—
action of students to this incongruity is not likely to be
positive. Therefore, the manner in which an instructor
deals with humor should reflect his or her personality in
order to be most effective in creating a positive climate
(Gilliland and Mauritsen, 1971, p. 754). While humor has
been found to reduce negative affective states (Smith,
Ascough, Ettinger and Nelson, 1971, p. 243), inappropriate
use of humor by the instructor might increase anxiety and
result in a less positive classroom climate.

The existing literature on humor and on classroom
climate does not look at a direct relationship between the

two. The available research does, however, imply that use

15

of humor by the instructor is associated with classroom
climate. The nature of that association has not yet been

studied in the context of the college classroom.

Instructor's Use of Humor and Student Success in the Course

 

There is very little research investigating a rela-
tionship between an instructor's use of humor and student
success in the course. While there has been some mention
that humor brightens up an otherwise dull subject and acts
as a stimulus to learning (Solomon, Bezdek and Rosenberg,
1963, p. 122), McKeachie et a1. (1966, p. 243) posit that
students are primarily motivated to get grades, regardless
of teaching styles. Following their line of reasoning, use
or non-use of humor would be irrelevant to how well a stu—
dent does in a class. However, humor has been found to
affect task performance by reducing anxiety (Smith, Ascough,
Ettinger and Nelson, 1971, p. 243). The conflicting re-
sults of these studies, as well as the small amount of
research done in this area, indicate the need for further
investigation of the relationship of humor to student
success.

Hauck and Thomas (1972) looked at the relationship of
humor to intelligence, creativity, and learning in elemen-
tary school children, as shown through a learning task.

The found that humor facilitated retention that resulted
from incidental learning but not from intentional learning.

Smith et a1. (1971) exposed students to humor by including

 

16
humorous test items on some exams. The results supported
the hypothesis that humor reduces anxiety, suggesting in-
creased test performance. However, neither of these studies
looked at the appropriateness of the content of the humor
used and its effect on learning.

A study by Kaplan and Pascoe (1977) took appropriate—
ness of humor in the classroom into account. Intact uni-
versity classes viewed one of three versions of a lecture.
The lecture included either humorous examples related to
the concepts in the lecture, humorous examples unrelated to
the content, or a combination of the two. After giving two
comprehension and retention tests, results indicated that
content-related humor did not help immediate comprehension
but did significantly improve retention (p. 61). While this
study is important because it looked at appropriateness of
humor, it has flaws because it checked comprehension and
retention by only using one test. It did not look at the
effect an instructor's use of humor over an entire term may
have on all components that comprise the final course grade,
including, but not only, the results of one test. The
Kaplan and Pascoe study found humor to be beneficial for
recalling humorous examples (p. 64). The student's ability
to recall examples and integrate this information into the
course material accurately would be apparent in papers, pro-

jects and tests received from the student. The relationship

of an instructor's use of content-appropriate humor over an

17
entire term to student success in the course has not yet

been assessed.

Research Questions

 

In reviewing the literature on humor and teaching
effectiveness, the following issues have been discussed:
(1) theoretical perspectives of humor, (2) classroom climate,
and (3) student success in the course.

For the purposes of this study, humor was defined as
(1) an event that is intentional on the part of the instruc—
tor, (2) that elicits laughter or smiling by the instructor
and/or student, and (3) is perceived by the student as
humorous. All three criteria must be met simultaneously
for an event to be considered humorous. This definition was
chosen because it is most compatible with the sociological
perspective which sets humor in the social context of inter—
action between people.

This perspective is particularly appropriate for
studying the relationship of humor to classroom climate.
In this study, classroom climate was defined as the student's
perception of (l) the instructor's encouragement to students
to express opinions, (2) the instructor's receptiveness to
new ideas and others' viewpoints, (3) the student's oppor—
tunity to ask questions, and (4) the instructor's stimulation
of class discussion.

Although research on the use of humor and student

success in the course is minimal, this study views student

18
success as an important indicator of effective teaching.
For the purposes of this study, student success was defined
as the corresponding relationship between the grade the stu-
dent perceived as successful and the extent to which the
final grade differed from that perception. This definition
was chosen in an attempt to define success by the student's
perception rather than impose an arbitrary cut-off point
designating success or failure.

As shown in the preceding review of literature, the
present research on humor does not look at its relationship
to climate and student success in the context of the college
classroom and thus does not allow for the prediction of hy-
potheses. Therefore, this study poses the following ques-
tions:

1. How is intentional humor used by the

instructor associated with classroom
climate?

2. How is the instructor's use of humor
appropriate to course content associ—
ated with classroom climate?

3. How is intentional humor used by the
instructor associated with student
success in the course?

4. How is the instructor's use of humor
appropriate to course content associ-
ated with student success in the

course?

5. How is classroom climate associated
with student success in the course?

19
Chapter II describes the procedures used to investi-
gate these questions, Chapter III reports the results of
this investigation, and Chapter IV discusses these results,
limitations of this study and implications for future

research and practice.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses conceptual and operational
definitions of the variables, procedures of instrument

construction and the plan of analysis.

Definitions

 

For the purposes of this study, humor was defined as
(1) an event that is intentional on the part of the instruc-
tor, (2) that elicits laughter or smiling by the instructor
and/or student, and (3) is perceived by the student as hum-
orous. All three criteria must be met simultaneously for an
event to be considered humorous. These three criteria were
measured by asking four questions. Question 1 (hereafter
referred to as General Humor) was asked to focus students on
all behaviors of their instructor that they perceived as
humorous. Question 2 (hereafter referred to as Intentional
Humor) then distinguished between the student's perception
of their instructor's use of intentional and unintentional
humor, thus meeting the above criteria. Humor appropriate
to the course was defined as humor that is directly re—
lated to the content of the course. This was measured by

20

21
the response to Question 3 (hereafter referred to as Appro-
priate Humor). Question 4 (hereafter referred to as Overall
Humor) was asked as an index of student perception of over-
all humorousness of their instructor. The four questions are
as follows. Question 1 is presented in its entirety. The
other three questions follow the same format (see Questions
2-4 in Appendix A).

1. Assume that the amount the average or typical
instructor says or does something each class
period that makes you laugh or smile is 10.
Assume that 0 represents the instructor saying
or doing nothing each class period that makes
you laugh or smile.

How often does your instructor say or do some-
thing each class period that makes you laugh
or smile?

2. How often does your instructor say or do some-
thing each class period with the intention of
making you laugh or smile?

3. How often does your instructor intend to make
you laugh or smile by saying or doing some-
thing directly related to the content of the

course?

4. How humorous is your instructor?

Classroom climate was defined as the student's per—
ception of (l) the instructor's encouragement to students
to express opinions, (2) the instructor's receptiveness to
new ideas and others' viewpoints, (3) the student's Oppor-
tunity to ask questions, and (4) the instructor's stimula-
tion of class discussion. These four components were
measured as the sum of the responses to the following ques-

tions. Again, the first question is presented in its

 

 

 

22
entirety. The other three questions follow the same format
(see Questions 6-8 in Appendix A).
5. Assume that the amount the average or typical

instructor encourages students to express

their opinions is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no encouragement or

discouragement for expressing opinions.

How much does your instructor encourage

students to express their opinions?

6. How receptive to new ideas and others'
viewpoints is your instructor?

7. How much does your instructor provide
students the opportunity to ask questions?

8. How much does your instructor stimulate
class discussion?

Student success was defined as the relationship be-
tween the grade the student perceived as successful and the
extent to which the final grade differed from that percep-
tion. This was measured by the response to the following
question:

What grade would you consider as saying you

were successful in this course? "Successful"

is defined as meaning that you feel like you

did well in the course. (Circle those grades
that apply)

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0
The lowest grade circled was then subtracted from the stu—
dent's final grade in the class to result in an index of

student success.

Instrument Construction

 

Critical Incident Technique. The Critical Incident

 

Technique (Smith, 1976, pp. 751—752) found in Appendix B was

23
administered Winter quarter to assess students' perceptions
of humorous behavior by instructors. Seventy-one students
responded. The responses were divided into two categories:
forty-five of the respondents referred to behavior related
to personality quirks or unusual physical appearance of the
instructor, while twenty-six of the respondents described
behavior that included both intentional and unintentional
behaviors (see Appendix B).

Based on this information, the definition of humor
in this study was designed to focus on those behaviors of
the instructor that were conscious, planned attempts at
humor. This definition was used to maximize the intention-
ality aspect of an instructor's use of humor and minimize
the tendency of students to define an instructor as humor-
ous based on unintentional characteristics.

Student Success Survey. In March, 1978, the re-

 

searcher attended ten introductory communication classes

and, using a cover story, asked for volunteers who would
receive extra credit in the course for participation. The
cover story described the study as an investigation in class-
room communication. A total of 353 students completed the
Survey which asked what grade the student expected to get

in the course and what grade the student perceived as suc-
cessful in the class. These responses were then categorized

by student name and class section.

 

24

Several days later, the researcher sent each of the
ten instructors a letter asking them to remind the students
who participated that they had to complete the second part
of the study in order to receive the extra credit. At the
end of the quarter, the final grade in the course for the
students who had completed both parts of the study was re-
corded by the researcher.

Pretest. To determine whether to use a Likert or
Direct Magnitude Estimation scale on the Humor and Climate
Questionnaire,aipretest was constructed utilizing both
scales. In Form A, the Likert scale was placed first with
Direct Magnitude Estimation items second while Form B was
presented in reverse order (see Appendix C).

The instruments were pretested on 29 students enrolled
during Spring quarter in either of the two Introductory Com-
munication course sections taught by the researcher. Thir-
teen of the subjects completed Form A and 16 completed Form
B. The results were analyzed by the Hewlett—Packard Basic
Statistical Package. The means and standard deviations for
each question and form are found in Appendix D.

Although these results indicate a preference for the
Likert scale, they may be misleading. It appears that answers
to the Direct Magnitude Estimation questions were mentally
converted into Likert scales by some subjects. This conver-
sion was probably due to student familiarity with Likert-type

scales. In Form A, the Likert scale was presented first.

25
As a result, students completing this form were cued to that
scale. It is possible that, because of that cueing, those
students bounded their responses conservatively. Form B
shows large standard deviations for the responses to the
Direct Magnitude Estimation scale. Because that scale was
presented first in Form B, students had no immediate cues
from the Likert scale. Due to a sample size of only 29, any
responses that varied greatly from the typical responses
would substantially increase the standard deviation.

While Likert scales allow for individual differences
along the established continuum, research has found the
Direct Magnitude Estimation scaling technique to provide
greater precision when measuring attitudes (Torgerson, 1958;
Shinn, 1974; Woelfel, 1974). Based on the strength of this
research, the Direct Magnitude Estimation scale was used in
the final instrument, the Humor and Climate Questionnaire
(see Appendix A).

Humor and Climate Questionnaire. The Humor and

 

Climate Questionnaire consisted of eight questions. Due to
the lack of previous research in the area of humor and the
classroom, the four humor—related questions were chosen by
the researcher as best fitting the definition of humor used
in this study. The four climate questions were taken direct—
ly from the Student Instructional Rating System form used at
Michigan State University. The four statements were: (1)

the instructor encouraged students to express Opinions, (2)

26

the instructor appeared receptive to new ideas and others'
VieWpoints, (3) the student had an opportunity to ask ques-
tions, and (4) the instructor generally stimulated class
discussion. When correlated with the factor "student-instruc-
tor interaction," correlations were .85, .79, .74, and .75,
respectively (Hill and Olson, 1969). Based on this evidence,
the four statements were considered apprOpriate to this study.

The Humor and Climate Questionnaire was administered
during May, 1978 (See Appendix A). Only those students who
had completed the Student Success Survey (p. 4 of this
chapter) were eligible to participate. Administration took
place over a period of four afternoons, during which time
students completed the Questionnaire under the supervision

of the researcher.

Subjects

Participants were undergraduates enrolled in the Intro-
ductory Communication course at Michigan State University at
the time of their participation in this study. The Critical
Incident Technique data was collected Winter term, 1978.
Seventy-one students responded. The pretest, Student Success
Survey and Humor and Climate Questionnaire were administered
Spring term, 1978. Pretest subjects were enrolled in either
of the two sections taught by the researcher. Subjects who
completed the Student Success Survey and Humor and Climate
Questionnaire were enrolled in one of ten sections. Each of

these ten sections was taught by a different instructor.

27
Twenty—nine students participated in the pretest. Three
hundred fifty-three responded to the Student Success Survey

and ninety-five of these students completed the Humor and

Climate Questionnaire.

Analysis of Data

Research questions were investigated by the Pearson
product-moment correlation using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and
Bent, 1975). Coefficients were calculated for Intentional
and Appropriate Humor with Classroom Climate and Student
Success and Classroom Climate with Student Success. The

results of these calculations are found in Chapter III.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter describes the results of the data
analysis discussed in the preceding chapter. First, de-
scriptive statistics for each variable will be presented.
Then, correlations of the variables will be presented in
an attempt to answer the research questions posed in
Chapter I. The conventional level for statistical signif—

icance was selected as p < .05.

Descriptive Statistics

 

Descriptive statistics were computed for each vari—
able. Means, standard deviations and ranges are found in
Table 1.

Student success, as defined in Chapter II, is the
difference between the student's actual final grade in the
class and the student's perception of a successful grade
in the course, based on a 0.0 to 4.0 grading scale. The
mean difference for student success was .16 with a standard

deviation of .62 and a range of —1.5 to +1.5.

28

29

Instructor use of humor and classroom climate were
measured by the Direct Magnitude Estimation technique as
discussed in Chapter II. For all questions, the average
or typical instructor was arbitrarily assigned the value
of 10 by the researcher. This value was chosen because of
its computational facility.

Two extreme outliers were found in the data. In one
case, the value of 1,000 was assigned to the General Humor
question. A value of 1,000 was also assigned, by a differ-
ent subject, to the question, "How much does your instruc-
tor provide students the opportunity to ask questions?"

To correct these outliers, the mean and standard deviation
of the distribution were calculated without these extreme
values. The outlying values were then specified to be one
standard deviation beyond the highest value.

Using these recomputed values the mean, standard de-
viation and range for each measure of humor and classroom
climate are discussed below (see Table 1).

The mean for General Humor was 18.00 with a standard
deviation of 17.11 and a range of 0 to 105. The mean for
Intentional Humor was 19.36 with a standard deviation of
19.06 and a range of 0 to 100. The mean for Appropriate
Humor was 16.77 with a standard deviation of 16.56 and a
range of 0 to 100 while the mean for Overall Humor was
23.98 with a standard deviation of 43.37 and a range of 0

to 400.

30

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Vari—
ables (N=95)

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Range
Student Success .16 .62 -l.5-+l.5
General Humor 18.00 17.11 0-105
Intentional Humor 19.36 19.06 0-100
Appropriate Humor 16.77 16.56 0-100
Overall Humor 23.98 43.37 0-400
Classroom Climate 110.33 76.62 27-400
Students encour-
aged to express
opinions 27.83 22.13 5-100
Instructor's re-
ceptiveness to
new ideas and
others' view—
points 23.40 20.66 0-100
Opportunity to
ask questions 31.67 24.53 9-100
Instructor stim-
ulation of
class discussion 27.42 25.76 0—122

 

31

Classroom climate was defined as the student's per—
ception of (1) the instructor's encouragement to students
to express opinions, (2) the instructor's receptiveness to
new ideas and others' viewpoints, (3) the student's Oppor—
tunity to ask questions, and (4) the instructor's stimula-
tion of class discussion. The overall Classroom Climate
variable was the sum of the responses to these four compon-
ents. The mean for overall Classroom Climate was 110.33
with a standard deviation of 76.62 and a range of 27 to
400. The mean for instructor's encouragement to students
to express opinions was 27.83 with a standard deviation of
22.13 and a range of 5 to 100. For instructor's receptive-
ness to new ideas and others' viewpoints, the mean was
23.40 with a standard deviation of 20.66 and a range of 0
to 100. The mean for student's opportunity to ask questions
was 31.67 with a standard deviation of 24.53 and a range of
9 to 100 and the mean for instructor's stimulation of class
discussion was 27.42 with a standard deviation of 25.76 and
a range of 0 to 122. Each of the components of the overall
Climate were at least twice the average or typical instruc-
tor, with student's opportunity to ask questions three times

the average.

Research Question One:

 

How is intentional humor used by the
instructor associated with classroom
climate?

32

The Pearson product-moment correlation was computed
to assess the relationship between Intentional Humor and
Classroom Climate. The results (see Table 2) indicate a
significant positive correlation between the variables

(r=.52).

Research Question Two:

 

How is the instructor's use of humor
appropriate to course content associated
with classroom climate?

The correlation of Appropriate Humor and Classroom
Climate was computed by use of the Pearson product-moment
correlation. The results found in Table 2 indicate a sig-

nificant positive correlation between the variables (r=.53).

Research Question Three:

 

How is intentional humor used by the
instructor associated with student
success in the course?

To find the correlation between Intentional Humor
and Student Success in the course, the Pearson product—
moment correlation was calculated. The results (see Table

2) indicate no relationship between the variables (r=-.004).

Research Qpestion Four:

 

How is the instructor's use of humor
appropriate to course content associated
with student success in the course?

The Pearson product-moment correlation was computed

for the variables Appropriate Humor and Student Success.

33

Table 2. Correlation of Intentional and Appropriate
Humor with Classroom Climate and Student
Success and Classroom Climate with Student
Success (N=95)

 

Classroom Climate Student Success

 

Intentional Humor .52* —.004
Appropriate Humor .53* .05
Classroom Climate —— -.08

 

*
SPSS computed the significance level at p < .00002.

The results found in Table 2 indicate that the variables are

not significantly related (r=.05).

Research Question Five:

 

How is classroom climate associated
with student success in the course?

The Pearson product—moment correlation was computed
for the variables Classroom Climate and Student Success.
The results (see Table 2) indicate no significant relation-

ship between the variables (r=-.08).

Summary

The results of the data analysis indicate a signifi-
cant positive correlation between Intentional Humor and
Classroom Climate (Research Question One) and between Appro—
priate Humor and Classroom Climate (Research Question Two).
No significant correlation is indicated for Intentional

Humor and Student Success (Research Question Three),

34
Appropriate Humor and Student Success (Research Question
Four) and Classroom Climate and Student Success (Research

Question Five). Chapter IV discusses the implications of

these findings.

 

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

 

This study investigated the relationship of an in-
structor's use of humor in the college classroom to class-
room climate and student success in the course. Figure 1
provides a visual representation of the theoretical model
investigated.

Three hundred fifty-three undergraduate students en-
rolled in the Introductory Communication course at Michigan
State University completed the Student Success Survey during
March, 1978. Students received extra credit for completion
of this Survey and the Humor and Climate Questionnaire,
which was administered in June, 1978. Ninety-five students
completed both the Survey and Questionnaire. At the end of
the quarter, final grades were obtained for these students.
The measure of Student Success, a difference score, was
calculated for each student by subtracting the grade the
student had previously designated as "successful" from the
final grade received in the course. This score was corre—
lated with (l) instructor's intentional use of humor, and

(2) instructor's use of humor appropriate to course content.
35

36

 

 

intentional 1 :7 classroom
humor “ climate

appropriate y student
humor ‘ ' success

Figure 1. Model of Study

Neither correlation was significant (—.004 and .05,
respectively). Student Success was also correlated with
Classroom Climate. The results indicate no significant
correlation between the variables (—.08). I

Instructor's use of humor (Intentional Humor) was
operationalized as the student's response to the following

question:

How often does your instructor say or do
something each class period with the inten-
tion of making you laugh or smile?

Instructor's use of humor appropriate to course content
(Appropriate Humor) was measured as the student's response

to the following question:

How often does your instructor intend to
make you laugh or smile by saying or doing
something directly related to the content
of the course?

An index of classroom climate was created by summing the

students' responses to the following four questions:

37

How much does your instructor encourage
students to express their opinions?

How receptive to new ideas and others'
viewpoints is your instructor?

How much does your instructor provide
students the opportunity to ask
questions?
How much does your instructor stimulate
class discussion?

Intentional Humor and Appropriate Humor were correlated

with Classroom Climate. In both cases, a significant posi-

tive correlation was found (.52 and .53, respectively).

Discussion

 

Research Question One:
Relationship of Intentional Humor
'to Classroom Climate

Research question one examined the relationship be-
tween Intentional Humor and Classroom Climate. As indicated
by previously cited research (Coffman, 1954; Gilliland and
Mauritsen, 1971; Martineau, 1972), humor would be expected
to be associated with climate. The Pearson product-moment
correlation between Intentional Humor and Classroom Climate
indicates a significant positive correlation (.52). Inten-
tionality implies a conscious attempt. The high correlation
suggests that if instructors are taught to consciously and
purposely be humorous, they can have a positive impact on

their classroom climate.

38

Questions about General and Overall humor were also
asked in the Humor and Climate Questionnaire. General Humor
was defined as the response to the question, "How often does
your instructor say or do something each class period that
makes you laugh or smile?" Overall Humor was defined as the
response to the question, "How humorous is your instructor?"
Both of these questions include all behaviors and attributes
of the instructor. To determine if General or Overall Humor
were more strongly associated with Classroom Climate than
Intentional Humor, a Pearson product—moment correlation was
computed for both of these measures of humor with Climate.
The results, presented in Table 3, indicate a significant
positive correlation of .57 between General Humor and Climate
and a weaker correlation of .37 between Overall Humor and
Climate. While the difference in correlations for General
and Intentional Humor with Climate is small, the results sug—
gest that Intentional Humor may not be the best measure of
the relationship of Humor to Classroom Climate. It may be
that an instructor evokes more laughs or smiles than s/he
purposely intends. However, results from the Critical Inci-
dent Technique discussed in Chapter II (see Appendix B) sug-
gested that many students defined humor by unusual physical
appearance or personality quirks not under the control of the
instructor. As a result of this information, the definition
of humor in this study focused on those behaviors of the in-
structor that were planned, conscious attempts at humor.

For the purposes of this study, humor was defined as (1) an

39

Table 3. Correlation of General and Overall Humor with
Classroom Climate (N=95)

 

Classroom Climate

 

General humor r = .57 p < .00002

Overall humor r = .37 p < .0002

 

event that is intentional on the part of the instructor,
(2) that elicits laughter or smiling by the instructor and/
or student, and (3) is perceived by the student as humorous.
Given this definition, Intentional Humor could be a subset
of General Humor for particular instructors. Therefore,
use of General Humor could be much larger than use of Inten-
tional Humor, resulting in a higher correlation of General
Humor with Climate. Another possible explanation might be
that an instructor who intends, or tries, to be humorous is
perceived as being more concerned with being funny than with
facilitating a good class climate. However, the results do
indicate that Humor, regardless of intent, is associated with
Climate.

Research Question Two:

Relationship of Appropriate Humor
to Classroom Climate

Research question two asked if Appr0priate Humor was
associated with Classroom Climate. The Pearson product-
moment correlation indicates a significant positive correla-
tion between the variables (.53). This result is not

surprising, given that the correlation between Intentional

 

40
Humor and Climate was also significant (.52). Although
there is no research available that looks directly at
ApprOpriate Humor and Climate, previous studies do suggest
that humor could be expected to ease tension (Smith,
Ascough, Ettinger and Nelson, 1971) and allow students to
feel comfortable asking questions, discussing, trying out
new ideas and expressing opinions (Coffman, 1954; Blau,
1955; Coser, 1962; Miller, 1967; Gilliland and Mauritsen,
1971; Martineau, 1972). Also, the nature of the course the
instructor was teaching must be considered. The Introduc-
tory Communication course at Michigan State University re-
quires active participation from the students. Prior to
teaching the course, Graduate Teaching Assistants are
trained in group dynamics and simulation techniques. In
addition, there is certain material that must be taught by
all instructors during the term. This material includes a
great deal of terminolgy. As terminology has the potential
to be quite boring, an instructor using appropriate humor
could be expected to be perceived as encouraging class inter—
action. It seems very possible that adding appropriate humor
to what otherwise could be dry, rote material facilitates
class interaction, resulting in a positive class climate
(Solomon, Bezdek and Rosenberg, 1963). The results of this

study are consistent with this earlier research.

41
Research Question Three:
Relationship of Intentional Humor
to Student Success in the Course

Research question three asked if Intentional Humor
was associated with Student Success in the course. The
Pearson product-moment correlation indicates no relation-
ship between the variables (-.004) which supports previous
research (Hauck and Thomas, 1972). It is important to note
that the Student Success score was the difference between
the grade the student perceived as successful and the actual
final grade (see Figure 3). The final grade was a composite
of grades on several different assignments, including an
interview, a speech, several papers, a midterm exam and a
final exam. Therefore, although an instructor may intend
to be humorous, that humor may be of little consequence to
the student when conducting an interview, preparing or giving
a speech or writing a paper. Also, how well a student does
in a course is probably a function of several forces that
may be mutually exclusive of the instructor (McKeachie et al.,
1966). Motivating forces--such as class status, future
goals, major and GPA--were not considered in this study.
While a humorous instructor may make the time spent in class
more pleasant (Solomon, Bezdek and Rosenberg, 1963), the
unmotivated student is unlikely to be influenced beyond the
class time, and the motivated student would do well regard-

less of the instructor.

Frequency

HI—‘Hl—‘F‘l—‘Hl—‘HF‘NNNNNNNNNNwW
OHNWQmmflmOOF-‘wamChflmOOH

OHNWQU‘IOWQCDKO

 

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-l.5

-l.0 -.5 0 +.5 +1.0 +1.5

Student success (actual grade - perceived
successful grade)

Figure 2.

Histogram of Calculated Difference
Scores for Student Success Measure
(N=95).

43
Research Question Four:
Relationship of Appropriate Humor
to Student Success in the Course
Research question four asked if Appropriate Humor
was associated with Student Success in the course. The
Pearson product-moment correlation indicates no significant
correlation (.05). The limited research related to Appro-
priate Humor and Student Success (Kaplan and Pascoe, 1977)
found humor did not help immediate comprehension but did
significantly improve retention. If a student retains more
information, he or she should do well on objective assess-
ments of that information. However, in the study undertaken
by this researcher, Student Success was measured as the dif-
ference between what the student perceived as a successful
grade in the class and the actual final grade, rather than
by a single grade on one test. It is important to note that
the final course grade was comprised of several different
types of assignment criteria. It was also the researcher's
intent to define success in terms of the student's percep—
tion rather than impose an arbitrarily designated cut-off
point. However, given the results of the data, further analy-
ses were conducted. Referring back to the Kaplan and Pascoe
study (1977), assignments based on retention should have a
high correlation with humor while those assignments based on
other criteria should correlate less strongly. Also, a
more objective measure, such as the student's final grade,

might be a better indicator of success than a difference

44
score based on perception. However, when a Pearson product-
moment correlation was computed for Appropriate Humor and
Final Grade, the results indicated no significant correla-
tion between the variables (.02).

Based on the results found, there does not appear to
be a relationship between Appropriate Humor and Student
Success in the course. However, these results may be mis—
leading. Student success was measured with a bounded, dis-
crete scale with very few points and was correlated with a
Direct Magnitude Estimation, an unbounded, continuous scale.
The low correlation between both Intentional and Appropriate
Humor with Student Success may be more a function of the
inconsistency of scales than a function of the relationship
between the variables.

Research Question Five:

Relationship of Classroom Climate to
Student Success in the Course

Research question five asked if Classroom Climate
was associated with Student Success in the course. Research
implies that the more positive the classroom climate, the
more students will want to achieve their goals in the class
(Friedrich, Galvin and Book, 1976, p. 62). If a student's
goals are the same as the conventional criteria for success,
the student should want to do well and, therefore, would
work hard to get a high grade. However, the Pearson product-

moment correlation indicates no relationship between Classroom

45

Climate and Student Success (-.08). This low correlation

may be due to individual differences as measured on the
Climate dimension. It may be that even if a student feels
free to interact in class, reasons for doing well or poorly
in a course are due to factors not controllable by the
instructor (McKeachie et al., 1966). Also, students are

not usually familiar with classes where they are encouraged
to participate. It may be that active participation implies
an easy course to students. As a result, student may not
spend much time studying or completing assignments. Rather,
they may perceive that they can get a good grade in the class
simply by participating. In fact, class participation makes
up only a small portion of the final grade. The results of
this study indicate that Classroom Climate is not related

to how well a student will do in a course. However, it would
be interesting to have students predict the difficulty of a
course based on class climate to check perceptions of posi-
tive class climate and student expectations of a course.

If students do associate a positive climate with an easy
course, not only would their expectations for the course be
affected but so would the amount of work they perceive as
necessary to meet those expectations. It may be that a posi-
tive class climate lowers perceived difficulty of a course,
thereby lowering the amount of time spent studying or com-

pleting assignments for the course.

46

Limitations of Study

 

To fully interpret the results of this study, two
limitations require consideration: (1) the sample attri-
tion, and (2) problems encountered in using Direct Magnitude
Estimation. A discussion of these limitations follows.

Of the three hundred fifty-three students who com—
pleted the Student Success Survey in March, 1978, only ninety-
five completed the Humor and Climate Questionnaire adminis-
tered in April, 1978. Sample size ranged from 4 to 18 in
individual classes, making it impossible to examine the influ—
ence of Humor on Climate and Success in individual classes.
However, the intent of this study was to investigate per-
ceived, not absolute, levels of humor. Therefore, it was
expected that relationships between the variables should hold
constant across sections so that, regardless of section,
students who did not perceive humor also did not perceive a
positive class climate. Based on this assumption, the data
was collapsed, resulting in the sample size of 95. This
small sample size might result in less accurate and precise
correlations than a larger sample, as well as a larger
standard error (Ary, Jacobs and Razavich, 1972, p. 167;
Kerlinger, 1973; pp. 127—128).

There are several possible explanations for the high
attrition of subjects. First, the Student Success Survey
was administered by the researcher during class and required

only several minutes for the student to complete. However,

 

47
students were required to schedule approximately one—half
hour of time outside of class to complete the Humor and
Climate Questionnaire. Also, during the week the Question—
naire was being administered, several other studies were
being conducted. These studies offered more extra credit
to students for not much more of the student's time. It is
also possible that students who completed the Survey were
satisfied with their grades and did not feel compelled to
earn additional credit at the end of the quarter. This ex—
planation implies that the final sample included more anx-
ious, failing or overly grade conscious students than the
general population. Finally, instructors were asked by the
researcher to announce dates and times to their class when
the Questionnaire would be administered. If the researcher
had personally presented this information in each class,
participation might have increased.

The use of the Direct Magnitude Estimation scale in
the Humor and Climate Questionnaire might have biased the
results of the data in several ways. First, comments from
students who responded to the pretest and previous research
(Woelfel, 1974) suggest that students are unfamiliar with
this particular scaling technique and find it difficult to
respond when the scale is unbounded. To give students prac-
tice with this type of scale, four example questions were
included in the Questionnaire. Although students discussed

their answers to these questions with the researcher prior

48

to completing the Questionnaire, lack of familiarity and
frequent practice with unbounded scales may have resulted
in most students setting their own boundaries conservative-
ly. At the same time, some students responded with a
number far exceeding the typical responses. These divergent
responses would explain the high standard deviations found
in Table l in Chapter III. In addition, by the researcher
arbitrarily designating 10 as the average or typical instruc-
tor, little room was left for students to rate the below—
average instructor. The student could interpret this as a
0—10 range for the below-average instructor and an unbounded
range of 10+ for the above-average instructor. An arbitrar—
ily assigned value of 50 might have resulted in a more even
distribution of responses.

Another limitation of the scale concerns the wording
of the Humor items. The questions in the Humor and Climate
Questionnaire refer to Intentional and Appropriate Humor

each class period. This implies that an instructor's humor

 

is consistent over time. However, an instructor may not be
humorous each class period but still may be perceived, in
general, as a humorous instructor. Also, although the ques-

tions specifically state each class period there is not

 

enough information to ascertain if a respondent's answers
reflect his or her perception of humor over the entire term,
the most recent class prior to completing the Questionnaire,

or each class period. This problem could be remedied by

49
administering the Questionnaire several times during the

term to obtain the reliability of the responses over time.

Implications

 

This study is a beginning effort to relate an instruc-
tor's use of humor to classroom climate and student success
in acourse. The results (see Figure 3) indicate that:

(l) Intentional and appropriate humor by

the instructor are significantly re—
lated to classroom climate:

(2) Intentional and appropriate humor by

the instructor are not significantly
related to student success in the

course, and;

(3) Classroom climate is not significantly
related to student success in the course.

The strong association found between Humor and Climate mer-
its examination of causality between the variables. The
lack of relationship found between Humor and Climate with
Success is probably the result of the measure used rather
than an accurate indication of the relationship between the
variables. Modifications and expansion of this research,
as well as pragmatic implications, are discussed below.

Modifications for future research. According to the

 

results of this study, instructor Humor and Classroom Climate
are not related to Student Success in a course. As mentioned
previously, this lack of relationship is probably due to the
difference score used to measure student success. A differ-
ent Operationalization of success would result in a more

accurate measurement of the variable. Success could be

 

 

 

intentional I r=. 52 ,- classroom
humor climate
00
O
l.
appropriate stu t
humor success
Figure 3. Results of Findings

operationalized as the grade on the cumulative final exam.
Success could also be experimentally manipulated, as in the
Kaplan and Pascoe study (1977). In addition, success could
be measured longitudinally by surveying students three to
five years after they have taken the course to assess prac-
tical ramifications of both the instructor and course con-
tent. Whatever operational definition of student success is
used should be measured with a scale consistent with those
scales used to measure the other variables in the study.
Modification of this study with a more precise definition
of student success, as suggested above, should provide the
link between instructor humor and climate with success.

Expansion of this Research. This study is far from

 

conclusive. While the strength of the correlations between
Intentional and ApprOpriate Humor with Climate suggests
that the next step is to measure causality of the variables,
several instructor and student characteristics should be
included in future research.

Research has shown that cognitive styles greatly
influence how people process and respond to information

(Miller and Steinberg, 1975, pp. 148-149). This research

51

suggests that interaction in a classroom will be signifi-
cantly altered by the amount of dogmatism in an instructor's
cognitive style. In addition, the extent to which an in-
structor is liked and/or perceived to be competent influ-
ences classroom climate (Friedrich, Galvin and Book, 1976,
pm» 66-67) as well as how well a student performs in a class
(Schmuck and Schmuck, 1975, p. 106).

Several student characteristics were also excluded
in this study. Previous research shows that if student
anxiety is present, an instructor's use of irrelevant or
incomprehensible humor may actually increase anxiety
(Solomon, Bezdek and Rosenberg, 1963, p. 122; Gilliland
and Mauritsen, 1971, p. 754). High student anxiety should
then influence the level of interaction the student engages
in, thereby affecting class climate. Sex of the student
and instructor should also be included in future research.
Perceptions of the same-sexed students and instructors will
be different than opposite-sexed students and the instructor
(Schmuck and Schmuck, 1975, p. 105). This difference in
perception may affect the extent to which the student feels
comfortable participating in class. Finally, the student's
major and grade point average may indicate interest in the
subject area and this interest may imply student motivation

to do well in the class (McKeachie, 1978, p. 221).

 

 

 

 

 

52

Further research should address the presently un-
answered question of causality and include variables such
as the instructor's attitude toward teaching, a measure of
instructor dogmatism, and their use of humor. These vari-
ables should be investigated in conjunction with student
perceptions of their instructors on these three traits as
well as the student's perceived competence and likeability
of the instructor. In addition, the student's motivation

to succeed in the course should be assessed.

Pragmatic implications. If the results of future re-

 

search show causality, the pragmatic implications will be
of particular importance. Positive results would suggest
that instructors can be taught to use humor as a tool for
facilitating interaction in the classroom, resulting in a
positive climate. However, because the instructor is re—
sponsible for creating the climate (Withall, 1949; Gorman,
1974), it is important that they be taught to use humor
that reflects their personality (Guthrie, 1954; Ryans, 1960;
Bausell and Magoon, 1972; Costin and Grush, 1973; Romine,
1974). Humor is not necessarily the ability to tell jokes.
Humor includes the ability to recognize situations with the
potential for humor and respond accordingly (Gilliland and
Mauritsen, 1971, p. 754). While it may not be possible to
teach specific humor strategies to all instructors, they can
be taught to be conscious of cues and to utilize those cues

to the class's advantage. This utilization includes

 

 

 

 

53

playing off humor generated by a student, introducing
humorous stimuli into the class, puns, witticisms, non-
verbal behavior, banter and the ability to appreciate as
well as generate humor. By teaching a variety of altern-
ative behaviors to instructors, their repertoire of avail-
able responses will be increased. This strategy suggests
that, with training, instructors can be taught to use humor
that is congruent with their personality. If the previous—
ly suggested research bears out, instructors taught to use
humor should have a significant positive influence on their
classroom climate and student success in their course.

Previous research from the sociological perspective
has not investigated humor in the context of the college
classroom. This study attempted to do so. The issues
raised require additional research in order to contribute
more definitive information about the relationship and
influence of an instructor's humor on classroom climate

and student success in the course.

APPENDIX A

Humor and Climate Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

54

Name Section #

 

 

Dear Student:

I am conducting a study of classroom communication
in COM 100 classes for my Master's thesis in the Department
of Communication. I appreciate your help by answering this
questionnaire as accurately as possible.

Before beginning the questionnaire, please wait for
instructions. If you have any questions at any time, just
ask.

Thank you very much for your time and c00peration.

Eileen Berlin

55

Name Section #

 

 

Sample Items

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1. Assume that the amount of fun the average
MSU student has on a weekend is 10.
Assume tht 0 represents no fun at all.
How much fun do you have on a weekend? 1.

2. Assume that the amount the average MSU
student studies is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no studying
at all.
How much do you study? 2.

3. Assume that the amount the average MSU
student enjoys partying is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no enjoyment
of partying.
How much do you enjoy partying? 3.

4. Assume that the amount the average person
likes below—freezing weather with gusting
winds and drifting snow banks is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no liking of be-
low-freezing weather with gusting winds
and drifting snow banks.
How much do you like below-freezing
weather with gusting winds and drifting
snow banks? 4.

56

Name Section #

 

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1. Assume that the amount the average or typ-
ical instructor says or does something each
class period that makes you laugh or smile
is 10.
Assume that 0 represents the instructor
saying or doing nothing each class period
that makes you laugh or smile.
How often does your instructor say or do
something each class period that makes you
laugh or smile? 1.

2. Assume that the amount the average or typ-
ical instructor says or does something each
class period with the intention of making
you laugh or smile is 10.

Assume that 0 represents the instructor

saying or doing nothing with the intention

of making you laugh or smile each class

period.

How often does your instructor say or do
something each class period with the inten-

tion of making you laugh or smile? 2.

3. Assume that the amount the average or typ-
ical instructor intends to make you laugh
or smile each class period by saying or
doing something directly related to the
content of the course is 10.

Assume that 0 represents the instructor

saying or doing nothing with the intention

of making you laugh or smile each class

period that is directly related to the con-

tent of the course.

How often does your instructor intend to

make you laugh or smile by saying or doing
something directly related to the content

of the course? 3.

4. Assume that the amount the average or typ-
ical instructor is humorous is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no humor.
How humorous is your instructor? 4.

 

Name

57

Section #

 

Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor encourages students
to express their opinions is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no encourage—
ment or discouragement for expressing
opinions.

How much does your instructor encourage
students to express their opinions?

Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor is receptive to new
ideas and others' VieWpoints is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no receptive-
ness to new ideas and others' viewpoints.
How receptive to new ideas and others'
VieWpoints is your instructor?

Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor provides students
the Opportunity to ask questions is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no Opportunity
to ask questions.

How much does your instructor provide
students the Opportunity to ask
questions?

Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor stimulates class
discussion is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no stimulation
of class discussion.

How much does your instructor stimulate
class discussion?

 

APPENDIX B

Critical Incident Technique and Responses

58

Think about all of your college classes, past and present.
Focus your attention on those instructors you've found

particularly humorous. What behavior(s) made them funny?

 

59

Responses

How they carried themselves--how they manipulated their
physical characteristics (mannerisms, facial eXpressions).
Spontaneous reactions--came up with things out of the blue
(minimal reaction time). ’Smooth--knew what they were doing
and how it was taking effect. Open--their Openness let us
feel comfortable--giving our emotions a chance to come out
(let us be ourselves). Able to get us away from duldrum
\situation--gave us something to accent the class.

The prof would relate the course material to humorous situ-
ations and experiences of his own. Also, when an instruc-
tor comes down off the hill; drops the "Dr." label you can
associate with and relax, thereby laughing more easily.
When the prof uses jokes more on your level, I'm more in—
clined to consider him someone I can laugh with not at.

Although one of my hardest classes ever-—since it is a TV
lecture and ultimately very impersonal and rather dull,
occasionally there is a fleeting moment of humor. It is
usually funny because the prof is so serious his change of
expression isn't expected. He does things like: (1) Recent-
ly to advertise a dance marathon he began to loosen his tie
on TV, roll up his cuffs, unbutton his shirt and remove
it--he had on a t-shirt with the appropriate advertising.
His behavior was funny becasue it's not expected--I mean
how many times does a prof undress in front of the class.
Another class seemed funny to me when we were talking about
serious economic matters and a joke would be made--it bal-
anced his lecture.

The instructors I found particularly humorous were humorous
because of their personality. When most profs get their
degrees they concentrate on that and not on their class
which left an impersonal attitude in the room and less
learning. The rather humorous profs were funny and thus
well liked because while teaching they first considered the
students and ways to help them learn. They were on a more
personal level with the students which makes learning easier
and enjoyable. They relate class problems with humorous
life problems that make the class laugh.

I can only think of one teacher who I felt was humorous.
The reason this teacher was humorous was because she was so
young, maybe 25, that she acted just like us kids. Usually
when adults act like kids you think they're corny and
shouldn't be acting like that. But when this woman behaved
like us, it was so natural you had to laugh.

60

I've found two behaviors to make instructors seem humorous.

l. Telling an experience of their's that is funny
in some way agg_that same type of experience
has happened to me before.

2. Actions or behaviors that come across as being
bullheaded, sexist, or redneck. I particularly
enjoy them when the instructor is attempting to
relate rationally to a situation while totally
avoiding it (if that makes sense).

The way they made the boring subjects relate to common day
experiences or related them to their personal experiences
often made them interesting and fun. Facial expressions

and gestures with their hands also made them funny. I once
had a psychology teacher who related many of the phobias and
hysterias that we studied to his patients. Some were very

' funny. Also when a prof_tells a joke that he's heard. I've
also had professors who just seem funny naturally. They
joke around and get personal with the students. I think the
main basics that I find humorous is the way in which certain
professors just make gestures and say absurd funny things
that relate or even don't to the class subjects.

From what I can recall of the 2 semesters I have been in
college I think professors sometimes try to be 20 years
younger than they are. A particular psychology teacher

who seems to be about 55 years old is constantly cracking
dumb jokes and not getting alot of lectures in. I do enjoy
a class that is not strictly class but the academic portion
should come first. I do like humor—Bfit sometimes professors
try to overdo it. Other than joking about relevant topics
such as sex, economy and the like I can think of no other
odd behavior that professors display.

I had a prof whose behavior was alot of joking around when
speaking on topics that were of everyday life. It was as
though he was embarrassed to speak on the topics. An example
for instance is sex. Also since he was and is presently a
psychologist he told us about some of the types of patients

he had had. He was serious when speaking as though he was
speaking to a member of the family of the patient about

their problem.

It's been funny if an instructor says the wrong instructions.
It's funny when instructions are misprinted in sex education
class. In music, it was funny to clap to myself or play re-
corder to myself because I feel dumb. English instructions
on grading a paper was funny because the teacher graded so
unfair that we made a joke of 5 wrong a 3.5 and 20 wrong a
3.0.

61

One of the behaviors that made them funny was that he could
tell jokes or say statements that I could relate to. I also
found his personal style likable so I would find the humor-
ous things he said to be funny. If they were easy going
‘and not completely "hard nose" to the book, they would be
more relaxed and able to say things that were humorous.

With some profs they were just so strange that I laughed at
them. Strange in a way as being weird. Some were humorous
in the way they moved about the room. If they had personal
things they liked or didn't like, they could express them in
a humorous fashion. If they were trying to get a point
across and get really excited they appeared funny.

The behavior that made them funny to me is when they started
talking about a funny event that happened to them. Also, if
they started talking about their childhood, wife or job and

sometimes when they try to act young for their age, express-
ing feelings such as "I'm going to party this weekend."

I think the most important behavior was they put themselves
on the same level as the class. They were "down to earth."
This made the class feel easy around them and when they did
something humorous it seemed to be funnier. It would be
like your friends doing something funny. It seems to be
funny because you relate to them.

Since I've only had two terms of college classes, it's kind
of hard to say. But most peOple are funny because they
admit something about themselves that is universally funny
or some incident that relates to class and is funny. Alot
of instructors are funny because they admit to feeling the
same as the students do about something that we wouldn't
apply to them. It is mostly funny when they act out of
character of what is expected.

Good humor, mixed with a good teaching technique, makes your
good instructors. I mean when you can actually listen to a
prof and you like what you hear. I don't mean to say that
every line they say should put you on the floor laughing,
but it should be clear. There is also a different kind of
funny instructor. These are the kind that you laugh at
instead of with. There are too many of these kind left.
It's all in the person's style and if they can teach me
something and make it interesting then that is great.

I believe the attitude one of my instructors had was especi-
ally humorous because of his silly, carefree outlook he had
on life. Also, he was excellent at combining hilarious

sexual jokes throughout his lectures. For example, one day

62

he was discussing sex (this was a Psych course by the way)
and the involvement with the egg and casually pulled out an
egg and started eating it. Lectures were none-the-less
always exciting and full of surprises. '

My two most humorous profs were older men. The laughter
they caused was due to their experiences. Being older men,
they had many experiences.

I had an instructor last term whose humor often made the day
go quickly and smoothly. He repeatedly spoke in cliches
such as " knows all," etc. (I can't think of anymore
examples). He also referred to us as superior students and
talked of things that "all MSU students know, of course."
Another way to elude to humor was to hint at sex in some of
our material. Besides this one instructor, I have not had
many other instructors that I could count on for an enter-
taining Class hour - IT SURE IS DULLIII!

The best instructor I have found to be humorous was my ad-
vertising instructor. The reason for this is that he tied
the jokes in with certain commercials and products. He is
also always joking with people in the class and everyone
laughs together. The only reason I believe this is good is
because in advertising humor plays an important role.

In the classes I had in which the instructor was particular-
ly humorous, he must have been an excellent lecturer because
to stand in front of the class and be able to hold their
«attention is pretty hard for most because most of the time
lectures are boring. A side joke now and then would hold
the class's attention. When he can laugh at someone (a
student) that cracks a joke or says something dumb, and come
right back with a retort, it's good to see.

The thing that good instructors have is a quick sense of
humor. That is they are able to say something humorous at
the spur of the moment. If they saw someone was really
strong they described him as built "like a brick shit-house."
My one prof was always doing something like that. He would
do something unexpected which would make the class laugh.
He had a certain "air" of nervousness about him and his
humor seemed to break the tension or the dullness. My COM
100 teacher is a good teacher and very funny. She just
always has something funny to say and it makes the class
that much more interesting.

63

The behavior which made the prof funny was usually a
comment that was unexpected. The professor is supposed

to be the intellectual person who is serious and follows

the book. I guess this is a stereotype of what I learned
in high school. In~one class, the prof was funny because
he had no restraints. He said whatever came to his mind““”

‘ which was quick and witty. He would break up the mOHOEOHHW
ous seriousness of the class by making jokes about the work
or the university, etc. In another class, when talking
about sexual characteristics and things like that, the
lecture hall was usually tense. No one knew if they should
laugh or be mature and be serious. The prof would ease the
tenseness by saying something funny.‘ In another class, I
have a senile old prof. I would never expect to hear some
of the things he says from an old guy like him. I'd never
expect him to make jokes about sex and drugs but he does.

In another class the prof is always quick and witty and fun.
She just has a good humor about her. This is very unexpected.
Usually I laugh when they say something I never thought
they'd say.

I have only had one instructor that was slightly funny. He

had a fairly dry sense of humor which is similar to mine.

He made his jokes more just in his voice tones and when they
really weren't intended. His humor is basically the type I

find most funny in people.

Throughout my college experience, I've had many different
types of profs. Most of whom were not in the least bit
humorous. Actually, I may not be the best of judges because
'profs that make other peOple laugh don't necessarily make me
laugh. .The profs that seem tolbe the funniest are the ones
that are very subtle with their humoristic approach.i Profs
who think they're comedians are the jokes. A prof who can
takeIEMEerious matter and spontaneously relate humor is the
prof that is actually funny. Some profs are funny because
they are so weird. Intellectuals seem to have little idio-
syncracies (physical, ex. twitches or mental). This type

of person is humorous because he is different. The funniest
prof is one that can relate to college students'situations
and can point out how ironic, stupid or simple they really
are.

 

 

They were very natural and down to earth. They spoke on

things outside of just the straight material which I was
interested in. They would be sarcastic of some things show-
ing that many times the book isn't always correct. They seem—
ed very comfortable and relaxed and taught in a very personable
manner. They would teach the same material but make it in-
teresting which made it much easier to learn.

64

The ability of the instructor to use real life experiences
that are comical and general. The instructors will tell
stories I can relate to. A professor that can stand back
and look at reality and laugh at it. He/she is able to

take life with a grain of salt. He/she exposes their con-
ceptions of things and thus makes them (the teacher) more
human and likable. When a person is likable you are usually
more receptive to their ideas. Most of these classes were
of a social nature and not something like math or chemistry.

When one of my profs stood in front of the class and danced
to some music we were listening to he acted funny. When he
lectured he would sometimes also crack jokes about himself

or about the topic we were discussing. Also when he de-
scribed things he would sometimes add little comments of no
significance that would disrupt the students'chain of thought
and most of the time they were humorous. Finally he would,
when you had an appointment with him, try to make you feel

so at ease that it was peculiar.

When he lectured he would make funny gestures that coincided
with what he talked about. I am speaking of my History prof
who mentions people's names like Benjamin Franklin but in—
stead he refers to him as Benjie Baby and to President Carter
as the peanut man.

I had a prof who would talk about science and then get caught
in a particular subject he couldnflt get out of so he would
crack jokes to avoid his mistakes.

A humorous event which involved a professor was not neces-
sarily done to be humorous by him but he shaved off his

beard about the second to last day of the term and the class's
reaction to it was quite funny. I also think it's quite
humorous when instructors related their personal life to the
class, as what their kids do or what they did when they were
in school.

My past communications instructor seemed very humorous. In
the process of teaching he made comments in which he aroused
the class. During class time and while giving the lesson
.for the day,”he would cover up his mistakes by making a re?“
mark that was humorous. He would do that every day whegher
he made another mistake or not. He always found something
to say that made the class laugh.r He'd come through the
door and start right in his humorous act and from the way
the class reSponded, we must have loved it.

 

65

7Their relationships with the students most of all. Not
just one or two students but an appeal to all that might
want to participate in discussion before or after class.
'Teachers that attempted to convey this manner gave an easi-
ness, a feeling throughout which aided humor from both
sides. What seemed to be important was that the freedom
,for anyone, if they like, to respond humorously throughout
a class as long as limitations of disruption were viewed.

One prof made the class humorous by acting out or going
into the characters of our projects. Another gave life-
like problems that happen to everyone and they were so
stupid it was funny. One gave us a backlog of how the
university was, way back then and compared it to now.

My history prof makes funny remarks about living conditions
of the time and brings out some candid remarks. When he
makes a mistake about something, he often comments about it,
sometimes bringing laughs from the class. Overall, the
thing that made him humorous was that because of the serious
nature expected of him, his humor was a surprise.

One of my profs would jump up and down to eXpress points.
His behavior was especially bizarre because he was in his
80's. Another prof was from Germany. He would consciously
say "How do you . . ." and then use a funny sentence to ex—
plain what he wanted to say. But I knew he could have ex-
plained it in our words but chose to use a funny sentence
instead. Another prof I had was from India. He was very
small and could talk very fast. When something was funny
he would open his mouth wide and laugh hysterically. Every—
one in class would laugh with him because his laugh was so
funny.

The most humorous instructor I have had was one who had a
very active behavior. He was always dancing around the

room and kept the attention of the class at all times. He
also had some kind of joke to tell at every class period
that would correspond to the lecture. His behavior was

very Open with the class and he would nev_er hesitate to
.make cutting comments to people within the class. He also
uSed facial expressions to make a point or in reply to some-
one's actions or remarks. Another behavior he used was while
tellingaajoke he was able to change the content of his voice
and could do impressions of other people. He was also very
interesting which helped to make him humorous.

66

Previously I have found my teachers to be funny (sarcas—
tically) when I find they have peculiar habits or idio-
syncracies. For example, some of my teachers might have
had a funny voice or did funny things with their hands
when they were lecturing that they were unaware of. Being
genuinely funny to me means when teachers say funny things
or make funny gestures. For example, when a teacher swears
apprOpriately I find it humorous because most teachers
don't open up and speak their mind. The way the teacher
says these expressions determine whether they're humorous
or in poor taste. Integrating jokes I always find enter-
taining as well, or when a teacher makes a mistake and
pokes fun at himself.

Most of these instructors were very knowledgeable in their
subject so much so that they could make humorous even a
true statement. It's not that this true statement was funny
but the way they phrased it. It was as if in the midst of
laughter you learned something} These statements were
usually ironic, hypocritical or just something we nevef”
knew before. What also made them funny was their outward
gestures. Some constantly walked, some never moved an inch.
Their behaviors were always to an extreme. Most of these
instructors were very friendly and informal in their atti-
tudes toward teaching. They conducted the class as if it
was in their own living room or in the park. They had an
air as if they were still a student and were also learning
from this experience.

I feel there are two types of "funny" instructors. One is
just a humorbus person and the other is not trying to be
funny but is. The latter being laughing at them rather than
with them. A humorous instructor is one who knows his stuff
well enough to present it in a humorous manner. I really
enjoy these types of instructors because it makes me want

to learn more. The humor is constructive and aids in the
instruction. '

I remember many instructors who tried to be funny by telling
jokes and completely flopped. It is more the way something
is said or told than what is said that will make me laugh.
Spontaneous jokes or actions are quite often the funniest--
or at least ones that appear to be spontaneous. If it looks
planned my reaction is one of anger and resentment rather
than humor. A prof's facial expression and body movements
also make them funny. A certain walk or stance often will
strike me as funny and if a prof does alot of these, my
overall opinion of him will be good.

67

Humorous profs I've had told clever stories to serve as
examples for the points they were trying to get across in
class. There were no visable behaviors which made them
funny, just that they had the ability to keep their classes
amused while teaching them at the same time.

Their easy-going attitudes in which they don‘tytakeyevery—
thing too seriously and can laugh things off. I love it
when a teacher laughs with the class, sometimes when instruc-
tors make funny faces or expressions as they are teaching.
When instructors teach in an informal atmosphere where they
are free to move about and act things out to their students
and do it in a humorous fashion. When they tell jokes at

the beginning of class to set things off it is pretty

funny.

Their ability to act and hold the class's attention. Many
profs use jokes or other distractions to relax the class.
A professor is like an actor in many ways; he's on stage,
he's transacting with the rest of the audience so he must
listen and look for feedback in order to interest and keep
class attention. Jokes and humor also encourage feedback.
A prof is a unique person and must communicate on a wide
level. Therefore, he must encourage class attention and
class participation.

One of my prof's outgoing behavior makes him humorous. On
the first day of class he sat in the audience as a student.
In the middle of the class period he jumped up and started
writing on the board. It was amazing.

Their use of words to tell us of their past experiences.
One guy just looked funny and had a funny tone of voice so
I found many things he said funny.

One of my instructors reminded me of a raisin. I know this
is strange but when you're bored during class you begin to
use your imagination. He was plump, dark skinned and bald.
He looked like a plump little raisin. Another prof had a
very sarcastic face that he made after saying something
funny. One of his eyebrows moved up and down and he had a
smirk on his face. Another prof was sort of old and had
long gray hair with a beard and slumped his shoulders when
he walked. He also shuffled his feet. I found it rather
humorous.

 

68

One instructor I found particularly humorous because all
through the lecture he cracked jokes and made funny com-
nents. He was a riot but then he became a bit perverted
and all he talked about was sex. I was very turned off
and I didn't even go to class. Another prof I had had such
a fantastic personality that everyone loved him. When he
wanted you to remember something in particular he would
jump up and down and clap his hands to make sure you knew
what he wanted. He also cracked jokes throughout the
lecture. In a class I have this term, the class laughs
at the prof because she is so boring. She has an abso-
lutely monotone voice. It seems like her whole life is
science.

Whenever a prof makes fun of the way the school system is
run, especially if you know it is true. When they're try-
ing to convey an idea and use a past experience of theirs
and you, as the student, have had the same experience.
When a mistake is made in the lesson plan and they attempt
to cover up or correct the mistake. When a prof makes a
mistake and a student catches it and informs him about it.
The prof tries to make up excuses for the mistake instead
of admitting he's wrong.

(Telling stupid jokes that no one laughs at. Talking too
fast and getting totally confused. One wore tennis shoes,
purple socks, green pants and a blue and red rugby shirt

3 out of 5 days a week. He was about 50 years old too!

The reason why my Humanities professor is humorous is due
to his superior analogies to the boring tactics of Human-
ities. When he talks about what makes a person so naive
before learning the social graces, he uses personal ex-
amples about his son. The way he used his facial expres-
sions and the tone of his voice in telling the story
contributed greatly to making the story more humorous.

There are two different kinds of humor that can be found

in instructors. One is genuine humor such as a comedian-
type teacher who livens up his lectures with jokes and
puns. Also he uses real-life experiences which contain
some comic element. They can tell funny stories because

of the rapport they build with their classes. Another type
of humor is the kind that many students see in teachers and
it's really making fun of the prof. Maybe by using hand or
face expressions or imitating his voice, accent, walk, etc.
the teacher may appear funny. I have one teacher who rolls
his eyes and shakes his hands when he related humorous
incidents and this makes the class crack up. By getting

 

69

to know his students a prof can let more of himself out
and become just a normal average person who can laugh at
himself and with the class.

Most were funny due to particular traits they possessed.
Some seemed really uneducated in their fields so they made
fools of themselves in front of their classes by constantly
making mistakes. One lady teacher was huge (physically)

and she reminded me of a whale which I thought to be amusing
because I kid myself about my physical size. Another spoke
poor English which proved to be funny at many times because
no one understood her and she did not understand us. Only
one teacher was really gifted at telling jokes. He kept the
class amused and interested and therefore he has been my
favorite teacher so far.

Being funny has two different sides. One is laughing with
the prof and the other is laughing at_them. An instructor
can do some strange things like pick his nose during class,
which are gross but are funny too. Sometimes the instruc-
tor wears really funny clothes, like big rubber boots in
class, which is funny also. This is laughing at the in-
structor; the one with a weird behavior. LaughIng with the
prof is totally different. It makes a subject alot clearer
when an outside example is brought in. It makes it more
interesting when the example is funny, it's easier to
relate to the problem. Profs that use this behavior are
more open and seem to relate better to their students.

Ohe instructor was very loud and wild. You could hear him
down the hall laughing and telling jokes. He would get

the class involved by making us all feel at ease. Another
instructor was very dumb. He was very sickly looking and
always making mistakes. The class was constantly correcting
him. It was funny because we felt that we were smarter than
he was.

One of my profs is funny because she'has a funny accent.
It's Spanish and she pronounces her words in sentences and
in speaking funny. She misspells alot of words wrong. She
likes to ask silly questions that makes us laugh. Since
she has this speaking problem, it makes everybody overflow
with laughter.

fl.

One instructor that I remember being particularly funny was

a fencing instructor that I had. He was 70 years old and

had some of the driest humor I have ever heard. He would
make fun of you in front of the class but it was even funny
to you. He had some stories to tell for everything we talked

 

but! 5‘ .

70

about and then a joke to go along with it. Two separate
instructors I had I found funny because of their complete
clumsiness. One used to take 3-5 minutes of lecture time

to put his mike on. He'd swear and just fumble all over.
The other prof, I guess the things just happened to him.

But they were always funny. One time he was showing a print
and rolled it up and it said "Smoke DOpe" on it. He was
quite surprised.

One particular professor which I laughed at comes to mind.
This man was old, with white hair and evefything and had a
very senile outlook on the world. His mannerisms, coupled
with his appearance were enough to bowl you over, let alone
add the corny jokes. The professors you can laugh with are
very real, level headed, likable people. They have a quick
wit about them as well as a kind of charisma which makes
you like them. They are easy people to relate to because
they relate to you. They are usually outgoing and seem to
take a generous outlook towards their students. I think
these characteristics all combine to make him or her a
likable person. Before you can find someone funny, you
have to like them as a person. It's pretty hard to find
someone humorous you don't find nice.

I have a professor who is a casual type professor. The
reason for his humor was that he was very open with the
class and said what he felt. He told several jokes and re-
lated stories to his tOpic. The main source of humor,
though, was that he was constantly trying to be interesting
so the students could relate. Another prof was a math prof.
It wasn't the things she said but what she did. She would
write down problems on the board that didn't even relate to
what we were studying. She said it was to show us what we
were going to have to know.

I had a professor who wore the same suit coat every day
through the whole term. What made it so funny was he
greased his hair back and would get so much enjoyment out
of talking about rocks. He also talked in a squeeky voice.
I had another professor who would wear the strangest clothes,
like checked pants with a striped shirt. He also in the
middle of his lectures would just stop what he was teaching
and start talking about sex and how lucky we were to be of
this generation. He used to go up to the board to write
something and his arm would get stuck in mid-air. I have
another professor who looks just like Wally Cox and he's
very quiet. He'll start to lecture very quietly and he'll
build up his excitment to the point where he's sceaming

and yelling and his face is pitch red. Then he'll stOp and
the whole process will start over again.

71

I had an anthrOpology class last term and the prof in there
was quite humorous. He was a very pleasant person and fair-
ly quiet. He was serious when he had to be but threw in
very subtle but good lines when he saw the need. He did

not come right out and tell jokes but instead incorporated
them into the factual information given in the lecture. It
really added to the learning process. Another instructor

I had was humorous only in the sense that he was so stupid
he was funny. This gentlemen was fairly old (60) and his
sense of humor was warped. He was quite off the wall.

Some of the things I found funny about profs were their
mannerisms and their speech. By mannerisms, I mean the way
they use their arms and hands in their lectures. The way
they walk around and who they direct their lectures to and
where they look at the person they're directing to. Some
of the things about speech I find funny are the words and
phrases they use. ‘

I have had four instructors that have been humorous. The
first two have similar characteristics. It may be mean to
say but what made them humorous was that they were dorky.
The way they conducted their lectures was so unorganized
and they just reminded me of total failures. The third one
was funny because he put his personality into his lectures.
He made jokes about the material we were going over and
that made the class alot more interesting. The fourth was
a combination of the first three. Although he was nOt un-
organized he did have dorky characteristics which were
funny and he also put alot of his personality into his
class. It seemed by the end of the term everybody knew
him as a warm personal friend.

One of my profs seems to be an easy person to find humor-
ous. He'll come to lecture and get situated. He'll then
put the mike on his neck. When he does this, it seems like
it just weighs him down, his posture slouching even more.
He won't say "hello" or any kind of greeting. He'll just
start whipping equations off on the overhead projector.
Each time he finishes a problem, he'll step back and nod his
head like, "Yes, I did the problem all by myself. Now you
may applaud." He'll continue on in this manner throughout
the lecture. At the end he'll say "thank you," pack up and
leave with a little smirk on his face. He is so boring but
yet when I happen to go to his lecture all I can do is just
laugh. One of my other profs I really enjoy as a teacher
and person. But she has funny ways. The first time I had
class, it was a joke. She is an older woman. She has grey
hair and just wears it down to her neck with two bobby pins
on each side of her part. Each class she wears a pair of
slacks and turtleneck with a vest of some sort. She always

72

wears a vest. Plus her hiking boots. I'd say that it was
mostly her appearance, I guess, because she has a good mind
and always knows the material.

One of my profs is funny because he tries to be. He wanted
to be a comedian's writer. So he just says alot of jokes
and does funny things in class.

One of my profs was senile. He used to make horrible puns
that you couldn't help laughing at. You weren't laughing
at the puns but at his feeble attempt to make a joke. He
was also funny when he assigned paper tOpics. He was such
a bigot that he let you know whether to choose the pro or
con side of issues like gay lib. or gun control. He would
make a really snide remark about the subject and you knew
you would get a bad grade if you had the wrong opinion. We
used to laugh at him behind his back for this--also when he
repeated himself or got kids' names mixed up.

The funniest prof I have had was an extremely intelligent
person but he could not express himself or do two things at
the same time, like talk and write. He was always dazed and
confused. He reminded me of a stereotype absentminded pro-
fessor. If someone asked a question of him, his usual re-
sponse was, "That's a very good question."

I have one very humorous psych teacher. He is that way be-
cause of shock techniques he uses on the class. He swears
and relates stories not many instructors would. This shock
is really funny. My communications teacher is also very
funny at times. He relates stories and examples that are
very human--that we have also gone through so we laugh with
him. The difference between these two is one of shocking
and one very warm as he relates to the class. It's hard to
define humor. Some people just have a natural flair for it.
When peOple don't and they try to be funny, they only tend
to make an ass out of themselves.

In one of my classes, the prof is extremely funny. He makes
jokes about the papers we write and on how messed up the
university is. He keeps the class interested because he
will yell and scream. But his yelling and screaming is not
directed towards anyone.

 

APPENDIX C

Humor and Climate Questionnaire Pretests

73

Form A

Student Number Section Number

 

Dear Student:

I am conducting a study of classroom communication in
COM 100 classes for my Master's thesis in the Department of
Communication. I appreciate your help by answering this
questionnaire as accurately as possible.

Before beginning the questionnaire, please wait for
instructions. If you have any questions at any time, just
ask.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Eileen Berlin

74

Student Number Section Number

 

 

Sample Items

 

Please circle the answer which most closely describes how

you feel about each item. Please choose among these five

responses:
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neutral
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. Passing all my courses at MSU requires very little

work on my part.

SA A N D SD

I'm known for my ability to add life to any party.

SA A N D SD

I love below-freezing weather with gusting winds and
drifting snow banks.

SA A N D SD

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

75

Student Number Section Number

 

 

Please circle the answer which most closely describes how

you feel about each item. Please choose among these five

responses:
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neutral
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. I laugh or smile at something my instructor says or does

each class period.
SA A N D SD

My instructor says or does something with the intention
of making the class laugh or smile each class period.

SA A N D SD
When my instructor says or does something with the in-
tention of making the class laugh or smile, it is rela-
ted to course content.

SA A N D SD
I think my instructor is humorous.

SA A N D SD

My instructor encourages students to express their
opinions.

SA A N D SD

My instructor is receptive to new ideas and others'
viewpoints.

SA A N D SD

76

7. My instructor provides students the opportunity to ask
questions.

SA A N D SD
8. My instructor stimulates class discussion.

SA A N D SD

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

77

Student Number Section Number

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1. What is the average number of times you
laugh or smile at something your instruc—
tor says or does in each class period? 1.

2. Of the number of times you laugh or smile
at something your instructor says or does,
how often do you think your instructor is

intending to make you laugh or smile? 2.
3. Of these intended times, how many are

directly related to the content of the

course? 3.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

78

Student Number Section Number

 

 

Sample Items

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1.

Assume that the amount the average
MSU student has fun on a weekend is

10.

Assume that 0 represents no fun at

all.

How much fun do you have on a weekend? 1.

Assume that the amount the average

MSU student studies is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no study-

ing at all.

How much do you study? 2.

Assume that the amount the average

MSU student goes to rock concerts is

10.

Assume that 0 represents going to no

rock concerts.

How often do you go to rock concerts? 3.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

79

Student Number Section Number

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1. Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor is humorous is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no humor.
How humorous is your instructor? 1.

2. Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor encourages students
to express their opinions is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no encourage-
ment or discouragement for expressing
your opinions.
How much does your instructor encourage
students to express their opinions? 2.

3. Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor is receptive to new
ideas and others' viewpoints is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no receptive—
ness to new ideas and others' viewpoints.
How receptive to new ideas and others'
viewpoints is your instructor? 3.

4. Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor provides students the
opportunity to ask questions is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no opportunity
to ask questions.
How much does your instructor provide
students the opportunity to ask
questions? 4.

5. Assume that the amount the average or
typical instructor stimulates class dis-
cussion is 10.
Assume that 0 represents no stimulation
of class discussion.
How much does your instructor stimulate
class discussion? 5.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

80

Form B

Student Number Section Number

Dear Student:

I am conducting a study of classroom communication
in COM 100 classes for my Master's thesis in the Department
of Communication. I appreciate your help by answering this
questionaire as accurately as possible.

Before beginning the questionnaire, please wait for
instructions. If you have any questions at any time, just
ask.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Eileen Berlin

 

 

 

81

Student Number Section Number

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1. What is the average number of times
you laugh or smile at something your
instructor says or does in each class
period? 1.

2. Of the number of times you laugh or
smile at something your instructor
says or does, how often do you think
your instructor is intending to make
you laugh or smile? 2.

 

3. Of these intended times, how many are
directly related to the content of
the course? 3.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

 

82

Student Number Section Number

 

Sample Items

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

Assume that the amount the average
MSU student has fun on a weekend is

10.

Assume that 0 represents no fun at

all.

How much fun do you have on a week-

end? 1.

Assume that the amount the average

MSU student studies is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no study—

ing at all.

How much do you study? 2.

Assume that the amount the average

MSU student goes to rock concerts

is 10.

Assume that 0 represents going to

no rock concerts.

How often do you go to rock

concerts? 3.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

83

Student Number Section Number

 

Please write your answer in the numbered space to the right

of each question.

1.

Assume that the amount the average or

typical instructor is humorous is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no humor.

How humorous is your instructor? 1.

Assume that the amount the average or

typical instructor encourages students

to express their opinions is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no encourage-

ment or discouragement for expressing

your Opinions.

How much does your instructor encourage

students to express their opinions 2.

Assume that the amount the average or

typical instructor is receptive to new

ideas and others' viewpoints is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no receptive—

ness to new ideas and others' view—

points.

How receptive to new ideas and others'

viewpoints is your instructor? 3.

Assume that the amount the average or

typical instructor provides students

the Opportunity to ask questions is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no opportunity

to ask questions.

How much does your instructor provide

students the opportunity to ask

questions? 4.

Assume that the amount the average or

typical instructor stimulates class

discussion is 10.

Assume that 0 represents no stimulation

of class discussion.

How much does your instructor stimulate

class discussion? 5.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TUNIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

 

 

84

Student Number Section Number

 

 

Sample Items

 

Please circle the answer which most closely describes how

you feel about each item. Please choose among these five

responses:
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neutral
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree

1. Passing all my courses at MSU requires very little work
on my part.

SA A N D SD
2. I'm known for my ability to add life to any party.
SA A N D SD

3. I love below-freezing weather with gusting winds and
drifting snow banks.

SA A N D SD

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

__ __—_—_,-_.__

85

Student Number Section Number

 

 

Please circle the answer which most closely describes how

you feel about each item. Please choose among these five

responses:
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neutral
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree

1. I laugh or smile at something my instructor says or does
each class period.

SA A N D SD

2. My instructor says or does something with the intention
of making the class laugh or smile each class period.

SA A N D SD
3. When my instructor says or does something with the in-

tention of making the class laugh or smile, it is related
to course content.

SA A N D SD
4. I think my instructor is humorous.
SA A N D SD

5. My instructor encourages students to express their
opinions.

SA A N D SD

6. My instructor is receptive to new ideas and others'
viewpoints.

SA A N D SD

 

7.

8.

 

86

My instructor provides students the opportunity to ask
questions.

SA A N D SD
My instructor stimulates class discussion.

SA A N D SD

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

Descriptive Statistics for Pretest

 

 

 

87

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Form A of Pretest

 

 

Likert D.M.E.

Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
General Humor 1.33 .49 8.67 3.85
Intentional Humor 1.25 .41 6.73 3.47
Appropriate Humor 2.07 1.16 5.20 2.70
Overall Humor 1.60 .63 15.67 6.73
Students encouraged

to express opinions 1.40 .51 15.67 8.12
Instructor's receptive—

ness to new ideas and

others' VieWpoints 1.47 .83 14.80 6.04
Opportunity to ask

questions 1.33 .49 18.87 7.74
Instructor stimulation

of class discussion 1.60 .83 51.87 124.39

 

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Form B of Pretest

 

 

 

Likert D.M.E.

Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
General Humor 1.50 .63 12.50 12.84
Intentional Humor 1.56 .81 11.43 9.69
Appropriate Humor 2.25 .68 8.79 8.13
Overall Humor 1.69 .48 19.38 21.99
Students encouraged

to express opinions 1.44 .51 22.94 22.53
Instructor's receptive-

ness to new ideas and

others' viewpoints 1.63 .50 21.63 22.96
Opportunity to ask

questions 1.31 .48 24.75 23.57

Instructor stimulation
of class discussion 1.75 .68 21.19 22.23

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allport, G.W. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961.

 

Arnez, N.L. and Anthony, C.B. "Contemporary Negro Humor as
Social Satire." Phylon, 1968, 29, 339-346.

Ary, Donald, Jacobs, Lucy Cheser, and Razavich, Asghar.
Introduction to Research in Education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.

 

Babad, E.Y. "A Multi-Method Approach to the Assessment of
Humor: A Critical Look at Humor Tests." Journal of
Personality, 1974, 42, 618-631.

 

 

Barron, M.L. "A Content Analysis of Intergroup Humor."
American Sociological Review, 1950, 15, 88-94.

 

Bausell, R.B. and Magoon, J. "Instructional Methods and
College Student Ratings of Courses and Instructors."
Journal of Experimental Education, 1972, 40, 29-33.

 

Bergler, E. Laughter and the Sense of Humor. New York:
Intercontinental Medical Corp., 1956.

 

Blau, P. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press, 1955.

 

Boskin, J. "Good-by Mr. Bones." The New York Times
Magazine, May 1, 1966, 31-92.

 

Burma, J.H. "Humor as a Technique in Race Conflict."
American Sociological Review, 1946, 11, 710-715.

 

Coffman, W.E. "Determining Students' Concepts of Effective
Teaching from Their Ratings of Instructors."
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, 45, 277-285.

 

Coser, R.L. Life in the Ward. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University Press, 1962.

 

88

89

Costin, Frank and Grush, Joseph E. "Personality Correlates
of Teacher-Student Behavior in the College Classroom.
Journal of Educational PsycholOng 1973, 65(1),
35-44.

Crawford, P.L. and Bradshaw, H.L. "Perceptions of Char-
acteristics of Effective UniverSity Teachers: A
Scaling Analysis." Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1968, 28, 1079-1085.

 

Davis, J.M. and Farina, A. "Humor Appreciation as Social
Communication." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1970, 15, 175-178.

 

Davis, A., Gardner, B.B. and Gardner, M.P. Deep South.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1941.

Dollard, J. Caste and Class in a Southern Town. New Haven,
Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1937.

 

Drake, S.C. and Cayton, H. Black Metropolis. New York:
Harcourt, 1945.

 

Fine, G.A. "Components of Perceived Sense of Humor Ratings
of Self and Others." Psychological Reports, 1975,
36(3), 793-794.

Fisher, B. Aubrey. Small Group Decision Making: Commun—
ication and the Group Process. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1974.

 

v/Flanders, N.A. "Teacher Influence in the Classroom." In
Amidon & Hough (eds.) Interaction Analysis, Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967, p. 103.

Friedrich, Gustav W., Galvin, Kathleen M. and Book,
Cassandra L. Growing Together . . . Classroom
Communication. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1976.

 

Véilliland, H. and Mauritsen, H. "Humor in the Classroom."
Reading Teacher, 1971, 24, 753-756.

 

V/Godkewitsch, Michael. "Physiological and Verbal Indices of
Arousal in Rated Humour." In Chapman and Foot (eds.)
Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applica-
tions, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.

Gorman, Alfred H. Teachers and Learners: The Interactive
Process of Education. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc., 1974.

 

90

Guthrie, E.R. The Evaluation of Teaching: A Progress
Report. Seattle: University of Washington Press,
1954.

 

Hannerz, U. Soulside. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1969.

Hauck, W.E. and Thomas, J.W. "Relationship of Humor to
Intelligence, Creativity, and Intentional and
Incidental Learning." Journal of Experimental
Education, 1972, 40, 52-55.

 

 

\/Hi1debrand, Milton. "The Character and Skills of the
Effective Professor." Journal of Higher Education,
1973, 44, 41-50.

 

Hildebrand, M. and Wilson, R.C. "Effective University
Teaching and Its Evaluation." Berkeley: University
of California, Center for Research and Development
in Higher Education, 1970.

Hill, Walker and Olson, Leroy (eds). Student Instructional
Rating System (SIRS) Technical Bulletin. Office of
Learning and Evaluation Services, Michigan State
University, 1969.

 

 

/ MBaplan, Robert M. and Pascoe, Gregory C. "Humorous

(' Lectures and Humorous Examples: Some Effects Upon
Comprehension and Retention." Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1977, 69(1), 61-65.

 

 

Keith-Spiegel, Patricia. "Early Conceptions of Humor:
Varieties and Issues." In Goldstein and McGhee (eds.)
The Psychology of Humor, New York: Academic Press,
1972, 4-34.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

 

ngoppel, M.A. and Sechrist, L. "A Multitrait-Mulltimethod
Matrix Analysis of Sense of Humor." Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 1970, 30, 77-85.

 

 

Levine, J. and Rakusin, J. "The Sense of Humor of College
Students and Psychiatric Patients." Journal of
General Psyghology, 1959, 60, 183-190.

 

 

V/ Martineau, W.H. "A Model of the Social Functions of
4’ Humor." In Goldstein and McGhee (eds.). The Psy-
zC/a/M9 chology of Humor, New York: Academic Press, 1972,

, 101-125.
(’2 fl/

 

91

McComas, J.D. "Profiles of Teachers." Improving College
and University Teaching, 1965, 13, 135-136.

McKeachie, Wilbert J. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the
Beginning College Teacher. Seventh Edition,
Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath & Company,
1978.

McKeachie, W.J., Lin, Y., Milholland, J., and Isaacson, R.
"Student Affiliation Motives, Teacher Warmth, and
Academic Achievement." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 457-461.

 

Middleton, R. and Moland, J. "Humor in Negro and White
Subcultures: A Study of Jokes Among University

 

Students." American Sociological Review, 1959, 24,
61-69.
Miller, F.C. "Humor in a Chippewa Tribal Council."

Ethnology, 1967, 6, 263-271.

 

Miller, Gerald R. and Steinberg, Mark. Between People: A
New Analysis of Interpersonal Communication. Chicago,
Illinois: Science Research Associates, 1975.

Mowrer, O.H. Learning Theory and Behavior. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1960.

V/Mueller, R.H., Roach, P.J., and Malone, J.A. "College
Students' Views of the Characteristics of an 'Ideal'

 

Professor." Psychology in the Schools, 1971, 8,
161-167.
x/Myers, Henry Alonzo. "The Analysis of Laughter." The

 

Sewanee Review, XXXIII, October-December, 1935, 5.

 

Myrdal, G. An American Dilemna. New York: Harper, 1944.

 

Nie, Norman H., Hull, C. Hadlai, Jenkins, Jean G.,
Steinbrenner, Karin, and Bent, Dale H. Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1975.

Obrdlik, A.J. "Gallows Humor--A Sociological Phenomenon."
American Journal of Sociology, 1942, 47, 709-716.

J/Pollio, H.R. and Edgerly, J.W. "Comedians and Comic Style."
In Chapman and Foot (eds.) Humor and Laughter:
Theory, Research and Applications, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 219,

92

Romine, Stephen. "Student and Faculty Perceptions of
an Effective University Instructional Climate."
Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 68(4),
139-143.

 

Ryans, D.G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960.

 

Schmuck, R.A. and Schmuck, P.A. Group Processes in the
Classroom. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown
Company Publishers, 1975, 2nd Edition.

 

 

Shaw, Marvin E. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small

 

Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

 

Shinn, Allen M. Jr. "Relations Between Scales." In H.M.
Blalock, Jr. (ed.) Measurement in the Social
Sciences, Chicago: Aldine, 1974.

 

Smith, A.A. "What is Good College Teaching?" Journal
of Higher Education, 1944, 15, 216-218.

 

Smith, Patricia C. "Behaviors, Results, and Organiza-
tional Effectiveness: The Problem of Criteria."
In Marvin D. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook of Industrial

 

and Organizational Psychology, 1976, 751-752.

 

V/Smith, R.B., Ascough, J.C., Ettinger, R.F., and Nelson,
D.A. "Humor, Anxiety, and Task Performance."

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1971, 19(2), 243-246.

 

Solomon, D., Bezdek, W.E. and Rosenberg, L. Teaching
Styles and Learning. Chicago: Center for the
Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1963.

 

 

Stephenson, R.M. "Conflict and Control Functions of
Humor." American Journal of Sociology, 1951, 56,
569-574.

Torgerson, Warren S. Theory and Methods of Scaling.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.

 

Treadwell, Y. "Bibliography of Empirical Studies of Wit

 

and Humor." Psychological Reports, 1967, 20,
1079-1083. '
JTreadwell, Y. "Humor and Creativity." Psychological

 

Reports, 1970, 26, 55-58.

il

 

 

93

Withall, J. "The Development of a Technique for the
Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in
Classrooms." Journal of Experimental Education,
1949, 17, 347-361.

 

Woelfel, Joseph. "Metric Measurement of Cultural Process-
es." Paper presented at Speech Communication Assoc-
iation, Chicago, Illinois, December, 1974.

IICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|HIWWIIHIIWllW""WINNIWIWNWWI
31293103364428