Ziyaeemehr, Kumar, Abdullah - Use and Non-use of Humor in Academic ESL Classrooms.pdf - MA - References - s-abin-a

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011

Use and Non-use of Humor in Academic ESL Classrooms

Ali Ziyaeemehr (Corresponding author)

Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Tel: 60-178-803-514 E-mail: ziyaeeali@yahoo.com

Vijay Kumar

Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand

E-mail: vijay.mallan@otago.ac.nz

Mohd S. Faiz Abdullah

Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Tel: 60-196-583-261 E-mail: mfaiz@fbmk.upm.edu.my

Received: August 8, 2010 Accepted: September 2, 2010 doi:10.5539/elt.v4n3p111

Abstract

A substantial body of research emphasizes the importance of humor in teaching/learning processes; however,

research on the reasons for non-use of humor in academic contexts has enjoyed scant attention. Addressing this gap,

this study examines the reasons for instructors’ humor avoidance taking into account student perceived benefits of

using humor in academic ESL classrooms. Data were collected through an open-response questionnaire. Participants

in a university in Malaysia were asked to provide their views on: (a) the reasons some instructors avoid using humor,

and (b) the benefits of using humor in L2 classes. Responses were grouped into relating categories and content

analyzed. “Humor is not in their personality,” “they lack competence to create humor in L2,” and “they are more

syllabus-oriented” were the most frequently cited reasons for the non-use of instructor humor. Perceived benefits of

instructor humor were placed into three major categories: psychological, social and instructional. Implications of

these findings are explored within the content of second language education.

Keywords: Instructor humor, language play, humor avoidance, benefits of humor, L2 resources

1. Introduction

This study aims to examine the reasons for instructors’ avoiding the use of humor and the benefits of using humor in

academic ESL classrooms. Humor is a (socio)linguistic and sociocultural phenomenon which has a wide range of

instructional values. Despite the skepticism among some practitioners in academia that humor may undermine the

instructors’ attempts to develop instructional understanding, there is now a substantial body of research indicating

the facilitative role of humor in general education as well as second language teaching/learning processes. The use

of humor in the classroom has been suggested to increase instructional effectiveness (Wanzer, 2002; Deiter, 2000;

Kher et al., 1999), increase message persuasiveness (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer, 2010), create an enjoyable and

more relaxed classroom environment (Kher et al., 1999; Neuliep, 1991), increase student motivation (McCroskey, et

al., 2006; Gorham & Christophel, 1992), student learning (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; Gorham & Christophel,

1990), and can be used as a means of clarifying course material (Downs, Javidi, & Nussbaum, 1988).

In second language education, research indicates that competent use of humor by teachers makes contributions to

both teaching and learning processes. Even though humor can be used as an aid in teaching almost any academic

discipline, it can be particularly useful in teaching a second language since it is communicated through language and

can be incorporated in instruction of all four main language skills. Particularly, verbal humor such as wordplays,

funny stories, puns, and content related jokes play an important role in L2 learners’ development of (socio)

linguistic and sociocultural competence. It has been suggested that humor can serve as a formidable tool that can be

used for sensitizing students to phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic differences within a single

language or between a student’s L1 and the target language (Deneire, 1995). In the same vein, Medgyes (2002)

explains that funny games, stories, jokes, puzzles, pictures, sketches, and dialogues can be fruitfully used for all

levels of L2 learners. He also suggests activities for this purpose like recording different types of laughs and

providing students with a list of adjectives (bitter, nervous, polite, hearty, hysterical) to match with each laugh (2002,

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

111

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011

p. 5). Such activities suggest to the learners that humor is not always an indicator of a feeling of mirth, rather it can

be a useful tool for instruction. Using, discussing, and analyzing humorous interaction in a variety of ways and

through different types of activities can also contribute a great deal to L2 learners’ linguistic and sociolinguistic

development (Bell, 2009: 245).

There has been a growing body of research on the role of verbal types of humor solely Language Play (LP) in recent

years (early 2000s) (see Belz & Reinhardt 2004; Davies 2003; Bell, 2002, 2005; Tarone, 2000; Cook 1997, 2000).

LP includes playing both with language form like sounds, rhyme, rhythm, song, alliteration, pun, spoonerisms, and

grammatical parallelism as well as the units of meaning to create imaginary worlds (see Cook, 2000). The use of LP

in L2 education has been suggested to have the potential to create opportunities for the appropriation of L2 resources

and also contexts in which access to L2 resources may be facilitated (Tarone, 2000). LP can also indicate a marker

of proficiency and may result in deeper processing of lexical items; thus, especially helpful in the acquisition of

vocabulary and semantic fields in particular, by allowing lexical items to be processed more deeply, making them

more memorable (Bell, 2005).

What seems to be apparent is that using humor in the classroom can positively influence the instruction of a second

language. Thus, avoiding humor may deprive the learners’ from gaining access to L2 linguistic and cultural

resources and the nuances specific to humorous exchanges, those can hardly be found in non-humorous contents. It

is worth mentioning that gaining humor competence, as a component of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972),

is necessary for language learners in order participate effectively in L2 communication. Thus, humor avoidance can

limit language learners’ access to some aspects of L2 linguistic and cultural knowledge which is necessary to

understand and communicate humor. Moreover, instructors’ humor avoidance may risk leading classes perceived as

boring and less conducive to learning.

2. Theoretical background

Humor has long attracted research attention from multiple disciplines particularly from psychology and sociology

dating back to Plato’s time; however, its linguistic aspects have received scant attention from SLA researchers until

the early 1980’s. The extensive body of humor research has resulted in over 100 identified humor theories (Foot

&McCreaddie, 2006), which provide explanations for why and how we find something funny. Typically,

social-psychological theories have been discussed under three major perspectives: (1) arousal relief or relief theory

(Berlyne, 1969), (2) incongruity theory (Berlyne, 1960), and (3) disparagement or superiority theory (Wolff et al.,

1934).The first theory, relief or repression-based, accounts for psychological aspects of humor and provides

explanations for why something is found funny at mental level, that is, the emotions and feelings caused by

humorous events. In second language classrooms, relief theory, for example, explains how the frustration and

anxiety produced due to unfamiliarity of the learners with L2 rules can be released through the use of instructor

humor.

A second theory of humor, incongruity (Berlyne, 1960), stipulates that humorous reactions result from exposure to

stimuli that are unexpected, shocking, or surprising (Berger, 1976; Berlyne, 1960). This theory provides

explanations on the occurrence of humor at intellectual level and emphasizes the stimulus for humor rather than the

participants. In light of incongruity theory, in the following joke, for example, humor is found in incongruity of the

pupil’s understanding with the teacher’s intention:

Teacher: Billy, if you had two dollars in one pocket and five dollars in another, what would you have?

Billy: Someone else's pants, ma'am. (Cited in Deneire, 1995: 292)

The incongruity theory has also a second direction, incongruity-resolution theory, which is the reaction when

discovering that two incongruous terms are actually related (Suls, 1983). Based on the premises of this theory, a

hearer of the joke might not understand the humor in a joke if he or she cannot make the connection between the two

elements. An example would be someone not finding humor in the name “Tiny” until they find out that he is a six

feet tall basketball player. Understanding the premises of incongruity-resolution theory may help language

instructors attune their humor to their students’ level of the proficiency and competence in a second language.

A third theory that sheds lights on instructor humor is disparagement or superiority theory. This theory studies

humor at social and behavioral level and is based on the premise that people laugh at others’ shortcomings, failings,

or inadequacies (Wolff et al.,1934). According to superiority theory, we may laugh at incongruities only when they

are not thereatening to us, when we are not in a dark alley, for example (Lyttle, 2007). However, it can be argued

that in classroom context, unlike out-of-class interactions, laughing at the failure of otehrs, may not be the main

source of humor. This is one of the key points that makes classroom humor different from out-of-class, real world

humor. This assumption might ground on the fact that there are certain institutionalized norms and ethical issues

112

ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011

expected from classroom interactants (instructors and students) which “sanction” (Deneire’s term, 1995:293)

laughing at the failure of others. Hence, instructors are not normally expected to redicule students for their inabilities

or failure, rather they are to provide the room for students to err and learn. Perhaps, humor and its explicit display,

laghter, creared in the case of inadiquecies in the classrrom can again be attributed to the incongruity and

unexpectedness theory rather than the notion of superiority.

Besides the three social-psychological theories of humor discussed above, linguists have also made attempts to find

out what is it that makes something funny at language level. The first linguistics-based theory of humor is Raskin’s

(1979, 1985) semantic-script theory of humor (SSTH), which was subsequently revised and revisited as the General

Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) by Attardo and Raskin (1991) and Raskin and Attardo (1994). GTVH employs

semantic scripts (also called frames or schemas) to model the recipient’s use of linguistic and real-world knowledge

to interpret joke [or humorous] texts. Similar to incongruity-resolution theory, GTVH explains why students find

instructor humor as funny at lexical level. Based on this theory, students find instructors’ use of verbal humor such

as wordplays, puns, and irony as funny because they are compatible with two scripts opposed to each other such as

actual vs. non-actual , normal vs. abnormal , possible vs. impossible. In example (1) below, the lecturer’s ( L ) use of

the abbreviation “PHD” in line 1, evokes a normal script, which is a person holding a doctor of philosophy degree

and is normally associated with being knowledgeable. L stands for lecturer and Ss for students .

(1)

1 L: Do you know what PHD stands for?

2 Ss: No response

3 L: It stands for Permanent Head Damage [laughs]

4 Laughter

However, finding out about a second interpretation of “PHD” that it stands for permanent head damage (line 3)

evokes the abnormal script, depicting a person with mental disability, which is normally opposed to being

knowledgeable. Thus, based on GTVH the text is found to have two different scripts (PHD /PERMINANT HEAD

DAMAGE), which are opposed on the basis of normal/abnormal, and is thereby evaluated as humorous.

Recently, the latest category of humor theories that explains the humorous message/learning link has been advanced

by Wanzer et al. (2009) in their integrative Instructional Humor Processing Theory (IHPT), which draws from

incongruity resolution theory and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion. IHPT predicts that

instructors’ use of humorous messages should result in increasing students’ motivation to process course content to

the extent that the humorous message gained their attention, created positive affect, made content relevant, and

increased the clarity of the content (Booth-Butterfield, 2010: 224).

In sum, what seems to be apparent is that past studies have provided strong theoretical and practical evidence for the

important role of humor in second language education; however, what seems to be lacking is providing insights into

classroom humor in order to gain better understanding of why humor is avoided in academic contexts. Thus, it is

important to identify the factors that account for non-use of humor by instructors and the possible benefits of verbal

humor in L2 classrooms, an area that has enjoyed scant research attention. Addressing this gap, the following

research questions will lead this study.

RQ1: Why do some instructors avoid using humor in ESL classrooms?

RQ2: What are the benefits of using humor in ESL classrooms?

It should be noted that the current study is a part of a larger project in progress which looks into the uses and

functions of instructor humor in academic language learning environment.

3. Method

3.1 Participants

Participants for the present study were 195 undergraduate and graduate ESL students who had been enrolled in

courses such as sociolinguistics, genre studies, teaching principles, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), and

research methodology in a university in Malaysia. Participants were of different language and cultural backgrounds

comprising local Malays, Chinese and Indians, and the international students included Iranian, Indonesian, African,

and Arab ethnicities. For both local and international students, English was considered as a second language and

was the medium of instruction in the classrooms. The lecturers were all Malaysian and English was the second

language. All the lecturers completed their postgraduate studies in English speaking countries.

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

113

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011

3.2 Procedure

Prior to conducting the study, ethical consent was sought from the faculty dean as well as the participants. Data

sources for this study were two-fold: an open-response questionnaire distributed in the classrooms and the main

researcher’s fieldnotes during classroom observations, which were carried out for the whole project. Preceding the

research questions addressed in this study (RQ1 and RQ2), was the following simplified definition of “humor” to

clarify what was meant by the term in this study:

“Humor in this study refers to anything which is said to create a feeling of fun and amusement in the classroom.

Examples of verbal humor are: funny stories, funny comments, jokes, wordplays, sarcasm, etc.”

The questionnaires were distributed among the students and collected by the main researcher and his assistant. The

return rate was 100%.

The analysis began by coding and classifying students’ answers into conceptually similar categories by the main

author (coder one). Student responses that included multiple answers were separated into units. For instance,

students who indicated that “humor is not their (instructors’) nature” and “they have different cultural background”

offered multiple reasons for humor avoidance and, thus, were separated into two distinct and different units.

Participants provided 263 distinct responses for RQ1 (reasons for instructors’ humor avoidance) and 424 responses

for RQ2 (benefits of using humor in ESL classes) totaling 687 response units. As a reliability check, 25% of the

responses were read by a trained postgraduate student (coder two) and placed into one of the developed categories.

Interrater reliability, as determined by Cohen’s kappa was .83 indicating excellent agreement beyond chance.

4. Findings and discussion

In this section, we provide an overview of the distribution of the response categories provided for each research

question, followed by a discussion of the developed categories. Table 1 presents the cited reasons in rank order.

Table 2 provides the frequency distributions of the main categories and their relative subcategories indicating the

cited benefits of instructor humor.

4.1 Reasons for humor avoidance

The first research question asked why some instructors avoid using humor in ESL classrooms. Students generated 263

responses for this question, which were placed into nine categories in rank order of their frequency (see Table 1). The

three most cited reasons were: “humor is not in their personality” (35%), “they lack competence in L2 to create

humor” (16%), and “they are more content oriented” (10%). These three categories comprised more than 60% of the

given reasons for paucity of instructor humor in ESL classes.

Insert Table 1 here

These results indicate that non-use of humor in the ESL classes in this study is primarily related to the personality of

the instructors as some instructors are perceived to be naturally “humorless”. Irrespective of whether humor is an

in-built faculty or not, we think that humor can be used effectively almost by every instructor. (The following

sections will provide some tips or strategies on the use of humor in L2 classes). Although being endowed with a

good sense of humor might help us maximize the effects of employed humor, instilling humor in the classrooms

does not necessarily force us as instructors to be comedians. Research indicates that humor can be used effectively

even by less humorous people. For instance, Kelly (2005) reports the story of a teacher who had serious problems

with connecting to students and involving then in the lesson. “The teacher was asked to participate in the study

because the use of humor seemed to contrast with his usual style of teaching,” Kelly says. After four weeks of

implementing “laugh stops” strategy in the class, when students were asked if they thought the teacher should

continue to implement laugh stops in the classroom, every student said yes although half of them explained it as “not

funny”.

Moreover, in second language classes, particularly in advanced levels, use of verbal humor is not a matter of getting

students involved and humored only, rather it provides opportunities for L2 learners to gain access to a wide range

of rich linguistic and cultural resources of target language hidden in humorous exchanges. If they are not exposed to

L2 humor in the classroom, then the question arises how and where they should gain “humor competence” while

they might have limited exposure to L2 out of classroom. Humor competence refers to the ability of the interactants

to understand and use humor in a second language. Humor competence as part of L2 learners’ “communicative

competence” (Hymes, 1972) finds agreement among humor researchers (e.g., Bell, 2009, Belz and Reinhardt, 2004,

Tarone 2000, Deneire, 1995). Thus, having realized the importance of humor in learners’ language development,

instructors might reflect on different possibilities to incorporate verbal humor in their classes such as inclusion of

sitcoms, talk shows, comic movies, etc. via audio or video delivery. Such materials take the burden of being

personally humorous off the teacher’s shoulders and students will learn so many specialized terminologies necessary

114

ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011

for humorous exchanges from these materials. It should be noted that the use of such materials should fit into the

course syllabus and structured teaching plan in order to curtail the risk of “entertainment” rather than “learning”

activities.

The second most frequently cited reason for non-use of humor in L2 classes (see Table 1) seems reasonably

consistent with the notion of humor competence discussed in the above paragraph. For example, “Instructors do not

tell jokes because they don’t know how to crack jokes in English” , wrote one student. This shows that students are

aware of the need for specific type of knowledge for implementing humor in the classroom and this gap in L2

pedagogy cannot be filled unless our practitioners and educators become aware of and legitimize the use of verbal

humor as a necessary component to gain knowledge of the nuances of second language and culture in L2

classrooms.

Among other frequently cited reasons (Table 1) avoiding humor “to gain respect and maintain professionalism”

draws our attention. The idea of opposing humor to respect and viewing humor as a threat to professionalism offers

at least two important interpretations: First, it might reflect the general perception and depiction of the term

“humor” among people, which is primarily associated with “playfulness” and lack of seriousness, whereas as

mentioned earlier, humor is a multifaceted phenomenon with a wide range of “serious” functions. In a broader sense,

it is a goal-oriented strategy employed in speech. Humor by businesspersons and politicians in important meetings is

a prime example of humor that is used to achieve serious goals. Consistent with this assumption, is Gorham and

Christopher’s (1990) assertion that “when teachers use humor in the classroom, they are likely to do so for some

reason: to reduce tension, to facilitate self-disclosure, to relieve embarrassment, to save face, to disarm others, to

alleviate boredom, to gain favor through self-enhancement, to entertain, to convey goodwill, or to accomplish

similar goals” (Gorham & Christopher, 1990: 58). Thus, cultivating proper attitudes about humor in L2 instructors’

minds might help to encourage them show less self-importance and attempt using humor in their teaching.

Second, the issue of humor avoidance to maintain professionalism highlights the importance of “appropriate” use of

humor. Humor is a double-edged sword. The judicious use of humor can help teachers gain respect and classroom

rapport (Haigh, 1999). However, inappropriate and insensitive humor can clearly be destructive to instructor-student

relationships and thereby a threat to professionalism and instructor credibility. Wagner and Goldsmith (1981) give

an example of humor used by a professor which shows how inappropriate humor leads to an aggressive humor from

a student:

Professor: “Why don’t you answer me?”

Student: “I did, professor - I shook my head.”

Professor: “You don’t expect me to hear the rattle way up here, do you?”

Not much later in the semester as the professor conducts class...

Professor: “If I saw a man beating a donkey and stopped him from doing so, what virtue would I be showing?”

Student (from rear of classroom): “Brotherly love!”

Correspondingly, Deneire (1995) warns about the use of inappropriate humor such as interethnic jokes in foreign

language classroom as they may lead to the formation of stereotypes and seriously undermine teachers' attempts to

develop intercultural understanding. To recap, the data from this study as well as the past research indicate that there

is no contradiction between appropriate humor and academic professionalism. It should also be noted that the notion

of “professionalism” represents a complex construct whose relationship with humor warrants distinct research

attention.

4.2 Benefits of instructor humor

Having asked about the reasons for non-use of humor in RQ1, we were interested to find out what students thought

of the benefits of using humor in ESL classes, addressed by RQ2. Students provided 424 responses which were

placed into three broad categories labeled: “psychological,” “social,” and “instructional” benefits of instructor

humor. This categorization was done on the basis of the perceived benefits of using humor in three interactional

levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and content or message levels respectively. Each of the main categories had 2-3

subcategories. Table 2 provides frequency distributions of the main and subcategories.

4.2.1 Psychological benefits

The use of humor can vent anger and frustration that might otherwise be destructive (Baron, 1978). Psychological

benefits account for intrapersonal benefits such as students’ increased motivation and preparedness to take active

part in instruction processes as a result of exposure to humor. This category included the most frequently cited

benefits of instructor humor, which comprised more than half (58.7%) of student generated responses. Examples of

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

115

Ziyaeemehr, Kumar, Abdullah - Use and Non-use of Humor in Academic ESL Classrooms.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: