Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University] On: 18 December 2014, At: 16:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK College Teaching Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20 IS HUMOR AN APPRECIATED TEACHING TOOL? PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSORS' TEACHING STYLES AND USE OF HUMOR Sarah E. Torok a, Robert F. McMorris a & Wen-Chi Lin a a University of Georgia Department of Child and Family Development Suny-Albany Published online: 07 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Sarah E. Torok, Robert F. McMorris & Wen-Chi Lin (2004) IS HUMOR AN APPRECIATED TEACHING TOOL? PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSORS' TEACHING STYLES AND USE OF HUMOR, College Teaching, 52:1, 14-20, DOI: 10.3200/ CTCH.52.1.14-20 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ctch.52.1.14-20 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

IS HUMOR AN APPRECIATED TEACHING TOOL? PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSORS TEACHING STYLES AND USE OF HUMOR Sarah E. Torok, Robert F. McMorris, and Wen-Chi Lin Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 Abstract. In this study, we investigated the use of humor in college classrooms. We examined how students perceived professors uses of various types of humor during class and the types of humor that students and faculty recommend for use in class. We also correlated the way professors incorporated humor into their class lectures with their perceived competence and effectiveness, and we investigated whether students felt their learning experience improved when their teachers used humor. We also discussed topics such as scarcasm, professor gender, student and faculty support of humor, and humor in classrooms, tests, and the rest of life. Humor appropriately used has the potential to humanize, illustrate, defuse, encourage, reduce anxiety, and keep people thinking. T he responsibility of teaching can be daunting. The thought of holding the attention of twenty, fifty, or sometimes one hundred or more students might make even the most confident lecturer leery, perhaps even weary. Teachers not only must competently convey knowledge, understanding, and appreciation Sarah E. Torok is a doctoral student in the School of Education at Suny-Albany, where Robert F. McMorris is a professor of educational psychology and methodology. Wen-Chi Lin is a doctoral student in the Department of Child and Family Development at the University of Georgia. about a specific subject but also must do so in a way that is engaging and interesting if they wish to be effective. The role of humor in providing such engaging interactions has been the focus of much research in recent decades. Students should no longer have to fear a stern, sterile environment in the lecture hall. If teachers want students to learn, then they should consider making learning more palatable, even enjoyable. Bryant, Comisky, and Zillman (1979) conducted a study that focused primarily on the role of humor in forming perceptions. They discussed the general attitude that educational institutions had regarding the incorporation of humor into lectures and tests. They found that humor historically was perceived as having no place in the classroom or on test material. The dynamic between pupil and instructor was to be a serious one. Bryant, Comisky, and Zillman (1979) also concluded that past research had uncovered inconsistent findings regarding the effect of humor on learning. In their own study, they found that teachers used humor as a tool in their instruction, relating most of their jocularity to the primary educational message. Current attitudes about humor and its effectiveness have evolved from traditional perceptions that indicted humor as being virtually useless and a major source of distraction that reduced classroom morale and efficiency. By today s pedagogical standards, humor has a substantial place in classroom lectures and testing. Incorporation of humor is encouraged across all academic levels. In post-secondary education, humor is viewed as an important teaching tool in areas such as statistics (Berk and Nanda 1998; Friedman, Halpern, and Salb 1999; Ziv 1988), law (Gordon 1992), and other courses that are judged by students as tedious and difficult (Kher, Molstad, and Donahue 1999). Humor has been said to facilitate the retention of novel information (Cornett 1986; Vance 1987; Ziv 1988), increase learn- 14 COLLEGE TEACHING

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 ing speed (Gorham and Christophel 1990), improve problem solving (Klavir and Gorodetsky 2001), relieve stress (White 2001), reduce test anxiety (Berk 1999; McMorris, Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo 1997; Newton and Dowd 1990), and increase perceptions of teacher credibility (Frymier and Thompson 1992). Humor also can be incorporated easily into tests (Berk 1998, 1999; McMorris, Kim, and Li 2001). Some researchers have noted that perceptions of the amount of humor used in the classroom positively related to perceptions of how much students feel they learn and how positively they feel about course content and the professors (e.g., Gorham and Christophel 1990). When profiling most- and least-favored faculty, both faculty and students most favored either very humorous or somewhat humorous faculty and least favored serious faculty (Seaton, Vogel, and Pell 1980). Similarly, Wanzer and Frymier (1999) found a positive relationship between humor orientations of the professors and student reports of learning; the results were sufficiently supportive for the researchers to recommend that teacher education programs incorporate a humor component. Perhaps professors humor orientation assisted students in their own coping. In Perlini, Nenonen, and Lind s study (1999), students use of humor as a coping strategy was positively related to examination scores. Ziv (1988) investigated the influence of humor on learning outcomes in higher education settings, hypothesizing that the use of content-relevant humor would facilitate learning. These learning outcomes would be evident in tests given subsequent to the humor treatment; students receiving content-related humor would perform better on the tests. Teachers who participated in both the initial and replication studies underwent special training on how to use humor to improve their instructional strategies. Ziv s results were similar across both studies: students who received the humor treatments had higher mean test scores than the control group. We sought to investigate whether students and professors perceptions of humor use in classrooms were related. We hypothesized that students and professors would tend to support the use of humor and that the amount of humor would correlate positively with students perceptions of their professors. In addition, we hoped to find positive and constructive humor in the classroom. Based on the use of such types of humor (positive and constructive), we anticipated that judgments about professors competence and effectiveness would be positively related to judgments of professors teaching style. We also predicted that students and their professors would recognize and classify types of humor used in instruction in much the same way. That is, how students perceived the professors humor would be similar to the professors perceptions of their own use of humor. Method Participants The current study spanned three undergraduate disciplines. Professors were contacted based on the requisite that they were teaching two sections of a given course during the semester. Participants consisted of three instructors from different academic disciplines (biology, educational psychology, and theater) and 124 of their students in the six sections, two sections in each course. Student participation, although voluntary, was virtually 100 percent, and only one survey had to be discarded because of the respondent s failure to follow directions. Instrumentation We constructed surveys to assess the students and professors perceptions of professors use of humor in instruction and testing. A majority of the types of humor selected for the survey were based on humor classifications denoted in Bryant et al. (1979). The surveys consisted of Likert scales, rating scales, modified checklists, and open-ended questions. Questions dealt with use of humor in general academic settings, whether students personally would incorporate humor into classroom instruction and tests, and judgments of the professor s competence and effectiveness. Procedure The surveys were given at the beginning of class by a researcher. Students were told that they were being given a survey about teaching styles. They were asked to think about the previous meeting of the class to answer some of the questions. After students were given the surveys, they were debriefed in accordance with the university s IRB/human subjects guidelines. Furthermore, a summary of the research findings was sent to interested participants. Results To what extent do these professors use humor in class? Students perceived that professors often used humor. For example, when students were asked whether the professor uses humor, 60 percent indicated always. When asked whether the professor was entertaining and witty, 70 percent strongly agreed. What types of humor did the professors use? As detailed in the first two columns of table 1, when students indicated the types of humor the professor used in the previous class, three quarters of the respondents checked funny stories and funny comments. When the question was generalized to the types of humor the professor ordinarily uses, the percentages for those two types were somewhat larger. Jokes, professional humor, and sarcasm also were reasonably popular. Indeed, these types of humor were sufficiently popular so that the median number of types of humor used by professors either in the previous class or in class more generally was three. Professors responses tended to be similar to students responses. All of the professors used funny comments and two used funny stories. Cartoons, professional humor, and sarcasm each were chosen by one professor. Do students and professors support/ recommend the use of humor? When asked if they felt positively toward a professor who uses humor constructively, 73 percent of students strongly agreed; furthermore, 59 percent strongly agreed that humor promotes a sense of community. When asked if they learn a concept better when the professor uses humor, 40 percent said often and 40 percent said always. In response to the negatively phrased item Humor in class tends to frustrate or confuse me, 68 percent strongly disagreed. Types of humor that students recommend for use in class also are indicated in table 1. Results somewhat parallel the responses for the previous research Vol. 52/ No. 1 15

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 TABLE 1. Types of Humor Used and Recommended Professor Professor Recommend Recommend used in ordinarily use in in classroom Humor type previous class uses previous class tests Funny stories a 76 86 84 25 Funny comments a 74 79 77 25 Joke a 46 41 60 24 Professional humor a 36 50 57 25 Pun a 10 8 22 14 Cartoon a 3 5 15 19 Riddle a 0 3 19 14 Sarcasm b 35 38 35 3 Sexual b 10 14 13 3 Ethnic b 4 3 6 2 Aggressive/hostile b 2 6 5 5 None 5 0 2 44 N 124 64 c 124 59 d Note. The values represent the percentages of students who selected a particular type of humor. a These types of humor are judged as typically positive within the context of this study. b These types of humor are judged as typically negative within the context of this study. c n = 64 for form B. d n = 59 for form A. question about reported use of humor. Students were most likely to recommend funny stories and funny comments, as well as jokes and professional humor. Professors recommendations were reasonably consistent with what the students recommended. All professors supported funny comments and funny stories, and cartoons and puns each received one endorsement. Students were not as supportive of using humor on classroom tests. Funny stories, funny comments, jokes, and professional humor were the most highly recommended, but with only a quarter of students recommending each type. Although only 2 percent of the students advised against the use of humor in class, 44 percent were against humor in tests. What types of humor are used in these classrooms? Does the humor tend to be positive and constructive? Types of humor used in the classrooms are summarized in the first two columns of table 1. On the questionnaire, the types were listed alphabetically. In this table, however, the seven types we consider positive are listed at the top, followed by the four types we estimated likely would be negative. Within those two sections, we ordered types by use in the previous class as perceived by the students. These rankings were similar to those obtained for the more general question of what types of humor the professor ordinarily uses. The four most popular types of humor we considered positive were funny stories, funny comments, jokes, and professional humor. The fifth most popular type, sarcasm, was, in our judgment, apt to be negative. When we summed the number of positive types of humor that each student said was used that day, the median was 2.0 and the mean 2.4. Similarly, the median number of negatives was 0, and the mean was.5. (Admittedly, the number of positive types listed on the questionnaire [seven] exceeded the number of negative types listed [four].) A category indicating other also was available; the only respondent picking this option noted, The class is just funny. Finally, when we asked students to rate the statement If the professor uses humor, it is positive and constructive, the responses were positive; indeed, 79 percent selected always. Do judgments about professors competence and effectiveness relate to judgments of teaching style and use of humor? Three questions addressed professors competence in the subject matter, professors effectiveness as instructors, and students learning from the professors. Two of the three intercorrelations in this set were in the.50s and one was in the.30s, as noted in table 2. Four questions addressed issues of teaching style/use of humor: enjoys style of delivery, entertaining and witty, communicates as a caring human being, and uses humor. All nine of the correlations noted in these two paragraphs (three within the competence/effectiveness dimension and six within the teaching style/use of humor dimension) were statistically significant at the.01 level. When the correlations between the two sets of variables were examined, nine of the twelve relationships behaved as expected. Correlations of the competence/ effectiveness questions with the first three teaching style/use of humor questions were statistically significant. However, correlations with the professors use of humor were all insignificant. The research question also was addressed using factor analysis. A principal component analysis, followed by a Varimax with a Kaiser normalization, accounted for 41 percent of the variance with the first component and 67 percent with two components. The rotated component matrix is included as table 3. The first factor is heavily weighted toward the competence/effectiveness, or professional, dimension, with sizable weights from two of the teaching style items. The second factor is weighted by three of the teaching style/use of humor items, perhaps representing a more personal dimension. What are limitations/cautions for using humor in class? Open-ended questions were given on forms A and B of the surveys. On form A, students were asked to consider potential limitations of using humor. The breakdown of responses to this open-ended question can be found in the first column of table 4; for example, 32 percent of the students said that humor has the potential to be offensive. What outcomes do you see from using humor in class? On form B, students were asked to consider the potential outcomes of using humor. As illustrated by column 3 of table 4, 50 percent of the students surveyed considered humor as a means of facilitating attentiveness in the classroom. Other frequently mentioned outcomes include the use of humor to lower tension, boost classroom morale, and facilitate an 16 COLLEGE TEACHING

TABLE 2. Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Ranked Competence and Effectiveness Related to Teaching Style and Use of Humor Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD 1. The professor seems competent in this subject matter..589**.335**.568**.504**.253**.104 5.63.69 2. This professor, compared with other professors, tends to be an effective instructor..532**.643**.559**.426**.160 5.22.88 3. I feel I learn what the professor communicates in class..351**.225*.318**.098 4.36.73 4. I enjoy this professor s style of delivery..726**.472**.232** 5.44.77 5. The professor is entertaining and witty..493**.400** 5.59.77 6. I feel the professor communicates as a caring human being..401** 4.70.57 7. The professor uses humor. 4.46.75 Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 Note. Questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Questions 3, 6, and 7 are on a rating scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Ns range from 122 to 125. *p <.05. **p <.01. TABLE 3. Rotated Component Matrix for Professional and Personal Dimensions Component Item Professional Personal 1. The professor seems competent in this subject matter..856 2. This professor, compared with other professors, tends to be an effective instructor..822 3. I feel I learn what the professor communicates in class..621 4. I enjoy this professor s style of delivery..751 5. The professor is entertaining and witty..591.608 6. I feel the professor communicates as a caring human being..615 7. The professor uses humor..903 Note. Principal Component Analysis followed by Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in three iterations. Weights > 0.5 included in the table. understanding of concepts presented in lectures. Although the question was deliberately neutral, the outcomes supplied by the students were positive. Would you, as a professor, use humor? On form A, students responded to whether they would use humor in class and, if so, what types of humor they would use as a professor. The second column of table 4 illustrates the breakdown of student preferences: 97 percent of the students said they would use humor. The two most frequently mentioned types specified are listed as follows: 41 percent said they would use stories and/or personal experiences, and 28 percent said they would use content-related and/or professional humor. We judged the two most frequently mentioned types of humor as likely to be positive, although sarcasm came in third. Similarly, form B prompted the students to think about whether they would use humor in instruction and why. The fourth column of table 4 illustrates the breakdown of student responses. Again, an overwhelming 96 percent of students said that they would use humor as part of their instructional discourse. The justifications were positive. Discussion To conclude, the professors often used humor, students supported the use of humor, and both faculty and students favored the more positive types of humor, although sarcasm was the fifth most frequently used and recommended type of humor. Students perceptions of professors competence/effectiveness was related to teaching style. Additional analyses and student comments complement these conclusions. In this study, sarcasm was considered a negative form of humor. However, in the open-ended responses given by students, sarcasm was specified by a fifth of the students as an appropriate form of humor. As we have discussed, when asked what types of humor they would use if they were professors, students listed sarcasm as one of their top three choices. This finding conflicts with the conception that sarcasm is a harmful form of humor. Shade classified it in the following way: Sarcasm is brutal. Even the word itself has an appalling root meaning from the Greek sarkasmos, to tear flesh! Self-esteem is invariably wounded by the use of this knifing form of wit. However, students should be taught how to recognize and analyze sarcasm, and it should be suggested to them they should avoid its use. Sarcasm humiliates, mocks, and makes fun of its victims and immediately puts them on the defensive, often leading to poor attitudes and deep resentments. (1996, 87) Is sarcasm necessarily cruel scarcasm, or may the impact be positive if judiciously applied by a professor who has built a constructive rapport with the Vol. 52/ No. 1 17

TABLE 4. Percentages of Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions Form A Form B What limitations or If you were a If you were a college cautions do you see professor, would you What outcomes do teacher, would you for the use of humor use humor in class? you see from using use humor in class? Response in class? If so, what types? humor in the class? Why or why not? Potentially offensive 32 Potential ethnic/sexual bias 23 Humor too distracting 19 No limitations 15 Yes 97 Stories/personal experiences 41 Content-related/professional 28 Sarcasm 19 Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 Students more attentive 50 Lowers tension/boosts morale 36 Facilitates understanding 33 Makes teacher more likeable 18 Yes 96 Facilitates learning 43 Keeps students attentive 36 Lowers students anxiety 20 N 53 58 60 60 students (F. A. Morris, pers. comm.)? Perhaps some of the students in our study have seen sarcasm used effectively and even constructively. Future researchers may consider the extent to which professors use sarcasm and in what context, how positive the rapport is between professor and students (and among the students), who is the target of the sarcasm, how brutal or offensive is the attack, and what are the effects. In general, however, we admit to being at least leery of a professor using any type of hostile humor (see Martin 2001; Saroglou and Scariot 2002). When asked to name potential limitations to using humor, one of the most common responses given by the students was the potential to be offensive, especially regarding issues that were ethnically or sexually precarious. These findings support the assertion that humor, when sexually depreciatory, can have negative effects in the classroom (see Layng 1991). Negative humor may not only impact the students directly but also may affect their perceptions of the faculty member. To illustrate, Layng (1991) contended that sexual degradation can find an easy and subtle guise in humor through jokes, sarcasm, and professional jocularity, and such humor in a classroom setting can undermine the effectiveness of female professors especially, because it limits the integrity of their presence as well as their instruction. Gender differences among professors in humor usage, delivery, and appreciation have become evident in previous research. For example, Bryant, Comisky, Crane, and Zillman (1980) illustrated how students perceptions of humor differed according to the gender of the professor. The researchers found that the way male professors used humor was positively related to students attitudes toward their effectiveness, presentation, and personal appeal, but the use of humor by female professors was less frequently noticed and therefore unappreciated. In a previous study, Bryant, Comisky, and Zillman (1979) found that female professors were more likely to be judged as using humor that was related to the educational message than were their male counterparts. They also found that female professors were more likely to use humor in a balanced manner, using themselves, their students, and other characters as comedic subjects during their instruction. More recent research also suggests that female professors are more limited than their male counterparts in their uses of humor (Layng 1991). The number of professors in our study was too few to support investigation of gender differences among professors; although both genders were represented, there was no replication for the female side. We recommend that researchers who are able to investigate gender differences for the professor do so. When asked about the potential outcomes of using humor in the classroom, students mentioned that humor has the power to make teachers more likeable, facilitate understanding of course material, lower tension, boost student morale, and increase student attentiveness. All outcomes supplied by many students were positive and were reported more frequently than were limitations. Strongest student support may have come from their responses to whether they would use humor were they professors, with 96 percent agreement on one form of the questionnaire and 97 percent on the other. Student support of humor parallels the overall sentiment of most of the professors we asked to participate, a sentiment so strong, frequent, and one-sided that we might classify it as a serendipitous finding. 18 COLLEGE TEACHING

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 Our study s initial design was experimental in nature, like that of Ziv s study (1988). Most faculty members that we approached shied away from the idea of removing or even reducing the humor from their daily instruction. They viewed a control group with a reduced dose of humor, rather than a humorous experimental group, to be the problem. The professors, it seemed, realized the importance of incorporating humor into their instructional strategy and were concerned about depriving students of its benefits. Of course, students may not judge as humorous every professor who claims to possess an effective sense of humor. Nevertheless, students almost unanimously indicated that they would use humor as a professor, so their own professors likely were not too atrocious when using humor. Although the results of this study are encouraging, the scope of the study admittedly was somewhat limited. Future researchers could estimate the effects of professors age, gender, and cultural background, and they could test a broader spectrum of classes in both subject area and level of study. The relationship between class size and the effectiveness of humor as a teaching tool also would be interesting to further delineate. According to Berk (2002), laughter is likely to be greater with larger classes in crowded classrooms than with smaller classes in larger rooms. Laughter is contagious, infectious, communal. If you have a larger class than you might hope for when it comes time to correct papers a class large enough to please a fiscally obsessed college administrator you and the students hopefully can at least enjoy the laughter. This generalization also is supported by Provine (2000). Professors also may enjoy Provine s integration of humor literature and his guidelines for increasing humor in one s own life. Suggestions include: 1. Increase interpersonal contact through eye-to-eye and face-to-face contact. 2. Create a casual (and safe) atmosphere. 3. Adopt a laugh-ready attitude. 4. Provide humorous materials. 5. Remove social inhibitions. (2000, 210 14) Numerous guidelines and illustrations for increasing humor in life are offered by McGhee, who maintains that a good sense of humor helps prevent hardening of the attitudes (1999, xv). Among his references is a 1998 chapter by Nevo reporting on a study of high school teachers. After a fourteen-session program, the teachers rated themselves as having learned the techniques required to produce humor. Other teachers also rated them after the sessions as having better skills at creating humor and making others laugh (xv). If high school teachers are educable, perhaps professors are as well. Professors who think so also may enjoy a big black Berk book even if his books on humor (1998; 2002) are not that big nor black. (Look elsewhere for dark humor.) Saroglou and Scariot suggest that it is likely that a teacher s humour, as well as the interaction between the teacher s humour and the students humour... may have a certain impact on school performance and efficiency of education and learning (2002, 53). This issue deserves further study. We also recommend that the professor consider the use of humor in classroom testing and assessment. Berk (2002) supports the use of humor in testing and provides humorous illustrations. In their review of multiple choice item-writing guidelines, Haladyna, Downing, and Rodriguez (2002) referred to the review of humor in testing by McMorris, Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo (1997) and judged that humor is probably a good thing for classroom assessment but only if the overall good exceeds any bad that might come from the use of humor. Humor might be used in the classroom if it reflects the characteristics of the teacher and is compatible with the learning environment of the class (Haladyna et al. 2002, 320). We consider the overall good-to-bad ratio to be decidedly favorable if humor is constructive, understandable by all, and relevant to the content and/or the situation. The limited number of researchers who have asked students about their preferences have found students strongly preferring the use of humor in tests (Berk 1999; McMorris, Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo 1997), with a somewhat more guarded reception given by international students (McMorris, Kim, and Li 2001). Students and faculty at all levels of education face a plethora of pressures, including, but hardly limited to, highstakes testing. Humor appropriately used has the potential to humanize, illustrate, defuse, encourage, reduce anxiety, and keep people thinking, even given such pressures. The research literature and results of this study are supportive of using humor in education. Enjoyment for all is fostered when the instructor creates a relaxed, playful, engaged, and safe atmosphere. Enjoy the students, the content, and the process. Instead of hiding behind tortoise shell glasses, or worse, a tortoise shell, illustrate that humans with a sense of humor have invaded the ivory tower. Four decades ago, Morris (1960) noted that young children have such zest for learning, such curiosity, and that teachers and other adults often dampen those fires of curiosity. Perhaps humor is one way we can be pyromaniacs and fuel those fires of curiosity in our students. Those of us fortunate enough to teach in higher education are blessed. McGhee (1999) quotes Thomas Edison: I never did a day s work in my life it was all fun (6). We have a chance to develop effective teacher characteristics and a learning environment for the class that is compatible with humor, and our own days then become brighter in the process. Key words: humor, teaching style REFERENCES Berk, R. A. 2002. Humor as an instructional defibrillator. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.. 1999. Does humor in course tests reduce anxiety and improve performance? College Teaching 48 (4): 151 58.. 1998. Professors are from Mars, students are from snickers: How to write and deliver humor in the classroom and in professional presentations. Madison, WI: Mendota Press. Berk, R. A., and J. P. Nanda. 1998. Effects of jocular instructional methods on attitudes of anxiety and achievement in statistics courses. Humor 11 (4): 383 409. Bryant, J., P. W. Comisky, J. S. Crane, and D. Zillman. 1980. Relationship between college teachers use of humor in the classroom and students evaluations of their teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology 72 (4): 511 19. Bryant, J., P. W. Comisky, and D. Zillman. 1979. Teachers humor in the college class- Vol. 52/ No. 1 19

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 16:51 18 December 2014 room. Communication Education 28: 110 18. Cornett, C. E. 1986. Why get serious about humor? In Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Friedman, H. H., N. Halpern, and D. Salb. 1999. Teaching statistics using humorous anecdotes. Mathematics Teacher 92 (4): 305 08. Frymier, A. B., and C. A. Thompson. 1992. Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education 41:388 99. Gordon, J. D. 1992. Humor in legal education. Brigham Young University Law Review 1992 (2): 313 24. Gorham J., and D. M. Christophel. 1990. The relationship of teachers use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education 39:46 62. Haladyna, T. M., S. M. Downing, and M. C. Rodriguez. 2002. A review of multiplechoice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education 15 (3): 309 34. Kher, N., S. Molstad, and R. Donahue. 1999. Using humor in the college classroom to enhance teaching effectiveness in dread courses. College Student Journal 33 (3): 400 06. Klavir, R., and M. Gorodetsky. 2001. The processing of analogous problems in the verbal and visual-humorous (cartoons) modalities by gifted/average children. Gifted Children Quarterly 45 (3): 205 15. Layng, A. 1991. Sexism and classroom humor. College Teaching 39 (2): 43. Martin, R. A. 2001. Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin 127: 504 19. McGhee, P. 1999. Health, healing, and the amuse system. Debuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. McMorris, R. F., R. A. Boothroyd, and D. J. Pietrangelo. 1997. Humor in educational testing: A review and discussion. Applied Measurement in Education 10 (3): 269 97. McMorris, R. F., Y. Kim, and X. Li. 2001. International students experiences with and reactions to humor in university classroom instruction and testing. Paper presented at the conference of the Northeastern Educational Research Association. Morris, F. A. 1960. Soliloquy of a pyromaniac, or who puts out the fire of curiosity burning in every growing child? New York State Education 47:14 15. Newton, G. R., and E. T. Dowd. 1990. Effect of client sense of humor and paradoxical interventions on test anxiety. Journal of Counseling & Development 68:668 72. Perlini, A. H., R. G. Nenonen, and D. L. Lind. 1999. Effects of humor on test anxiety and performance. Psychological Reports 84:1203 13. Provine, R. R. 2000. Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Viking Penguin. Saroglou, V., and C. Scariot. 2002. Humor styles questionnaire: Personality and educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Psychology 16:43 54. Seaton, B., R. H. Vogel, and S. W. J. Pell. 1980. Student preferences for instructors in higher education. Journal of Experimental Education 48:223 30. Shade, R. A. 1996. License to laugh: Humor in the classroom. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Vance, C. M. 1987. A comparative study on the use of humor in the design of instruction. Instructional Science 16:79 100. Wanzer, M. B., and A. B. Frymier. 1999. The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students reports of learning. Communication Education 48:48 62. White, G. W. 2001. Teacher s report of how they used humor with students perceived use of such humor. Education 122:337 47. Ziv, A. 1988. Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education 57:5 15. 20 COLLEGE TEACHING