Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Humour and teaching in higher education

J.P. Powell & L.W. Andresen

To cite this article: J.P. Powell & L.W. Andresen (1985) Humour and teaching in higher education,
Studies in Higher Education, 10:1, 79-90, DOI: 10.1080/03075078512331378726

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075078512331378726

Published online: 05 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 996

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20

Download by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris UPSI] Date: 03 March 2017, At: 06:05
Studies in Higher Education VoL 10 No. 1 1985 79

J. P. Poveell & L. W. Andresea, Tertiary Education Research Centre,

University of New South Wales

Humour and Teaching in

Higher Education

ABSTRACT

It is often claimed that humour is a desirable characteristic of teaching and learning.

Justifications for the use of humour include the promotion of understanding, holding the
attention of students, managing disruptive behaviour, creating a positive attitude to the
subject matter, and reducing anxiety. Empirical studies of the connections between humour
and learning are reviewed. These indicate that humour, provided it is not used to excess, can
increase attention and interest and help to illustrate and reinforce what is being taught. It is
suggested that the presentation of humorous material involves skills which can be learnt
through practice and that staff development programmes should provide opportunities for
academics to acquire such skills.

There is something rather amusing about the idea of engaging in a serious discussion
about humour: it reminds us of the professor who dreamt that he was giving a lecture
and woke up to find that he was. By its very nature humour may seem antithetical to the
seriousness and even solemnity which usually characterise teaching and research (Val-
lance, 1980). It is often claimed, however, that humour is a desirable characteristic of
teachers and teaching (Baughman, 1979; Highet, 1951). Surveys of learners' opinions
about the qualities which they hope to find in their teachers often identify one of these to
be a sense of humour (Myers, 1968; Witty, 1950). This is reflected in instruments used to
gather information on teacher effectiveness which sometimes include items explicitly
concerned with the use of humour (Linfield, 1977) and almost always incorporate items
relating to teacher warmth and friendliness which may imply an element of humour
(Baird, 1973). Further, the literature on human communication and public speaking
techniques gives a good deal of stress to the role of humour in these areas (Taylor, 1964).
This is a topic which is clearly of interest to teachers and learners yet it has been
strangely neglected in both the research literature of higher education and in works
which deal with techniques of teaching. We shall begin by identifying the reasons which
are commonly given for attaching importance to humour in teaching, then examine some
of the empirical evidence which bears upon the relationship between humour and
learning, and conclude with a discussion of the implications of this for professional
development activities.
80 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 10 No. 1 1985

Value of Humour
Promoting Comprehension and Retention
One claimed justification for the use of humour in teaching, and this may be the only
really acceptable one to a hard-nosed empiricist, is that it directly promotes learning by
assisting comprehension and aiding retention of what is being learnt. The use of
humorous illustrative examples is believed by many teachers to serve this function and
be thus directly linked with learning. You may recall this point more readily later if we
mention the professor at Edinburgh University in the 1880s who, when asked why he
had failed a student in anatomy, replied: "He said that the cow has no anal opening and
I cannot pass him".

Creating a Positive Classroom Environment

A more widely held view, however, is that humour serves a less direct function by
contributing to the creation of an atmosphere in which learning is more likely to occur. If
students adopt a positive attitude towards a learning task and to their teacher then they
are more likely to approach the task with enthusiasm and perhaps wish to come to share
the interests, attitudes and knowledge of the teacher. This view sees humour, and
enjoyment generally, as being features of a classroom environment which is more apt for
the production of learning than one from which they are absent. A belief which may be
related to this is that laughter exerts an equalising influence: a hearty laugh wipes out, if
only momentarily, differences in status and viewpoint (Horn, 1972; Baughman, 1979).
This appears to have been the point behind Highet's (1951) claim for humour as a
necessary attribute of the good teacher. In this regard, the contribution of laughter to
both the mental health of the individual and the emotional climate of social groups has
been pointed out by psychologists (e.g. Bateson, 1969).

Encouraging Student Involvement

Another claim is that because of the shared nature of laughter and the fact that the
source of humour in class can be either the student, the teacher or the subject matter,
humour can effect a more active involvement of students in the work of the classroom,
drawing in some of those who otherwise might remain on the margin of activities. This is
presumably the point behind a delighted parent's claim that his previously apathetic
child has now become quite enthusiastic for Shakespeare since being taught by a teacher
who appreciates and show's to the class the great store of humour in those plays.

Holding Students" Attention

A further commonly held justification is that humour is known to be an effective method
for gaining and holding the attention of an audience, and for reviving that attention if it
be observed to flag. Related to this is the use of humour to win over an unsympathetic, or
even hostile, audience, of the kind not infrequently encountered by those who teach
service courses or other required elements in a programme for which students have little
initial enthusiasm or interest.

Fostering Cognitive Development

There is also the belief that the use of humour--especially that involving wit, puns and
other forms of wordplay--aids cognitive development by encouraging the growth of
 Humour and Teaching in Higher Education 81

highly complex linguistic skills and the ability to use these in a creative manner (Walker
& Goodson, 1977). This is of general importance but may have special relevance to the
learning of languages (Trachtenberg, 1979; VizmuUer, 1980; Calvet, 1980).
A related, though distinct, claim which also bears on language studies is that jokes
themselves may actually constitute a primary form of literature which is conveyed from
child to child rather than (like most other literature) from adults to children. It thus can
be argued to represent part of our cultural heritage (Doyle, 1976) and is unusual in that
even so-called 'underprivileged' groups can show remarkable knowledge of it and facility
in its use. Joking may, by such means as this, even be able to legitimately enter the
school or university curriculum.
The cognitive demand humour makes on children has been the subject of an
investigation by Zigler, Levine & Gould (1967). This showed that we laugh at cartoons
which make appropriate demands on our cognitive powers, but not at those which are
either too easy or too difficult for us. It seems likely, as these authors suggest, that the
sheer pleasure of employing our cognitive processes in response to humorous stimuli
constitutes much of the experience of gratification humour brings us; that is, we enjoy the
sense of mastery or achievement in 'seeing the joke'. In this way humour and its
appreciation may be argued to comprise one possible element in intrinsic motivation, a
factor generally regarded as being of substantial value in learning.

Managing Undesirable Behaviour

The use of humour as a management technique offers another possible indirect connec-
tion with learning: students engaged in disruptive or inappropriate behaviour are not
likely to learn what the teacher intends. Teachers often use humour as a means of
managing undesirable student behaviour such as arriving late to class, talking, reading
newspapers, and so on. This has to be done in a way which reduces tension yet at the
same time indicates disapproval and redefines a challenge to the teacher's authority
without either lessening that authority or embarassing the class (Linfield, 1977; Redl,
1966; Wegmann, 1976).
An empirically-based theory developed by Tamashiro (1979) seeks to link stages of
personality development with the forms of humour appreciated at each stage, along the
lines of the stage theories of Kohlberg, Piaget and Selman. Tamashiro postulates that if
we can recognise these stages and know what type of humour is enjoyed most at each,
this will be valuable in classroom management and should provide guidelines for
selecting appropriate disciplinary measures. It is also thought likely that expression of
humour in class will stimulate students' general cognitive and social development.
Though this is mainly relevant to primary and secondary schooling, the three later stages
of development (self-protective, conformist and conscientious) are nevertheless likely to
be represented among undergraduate populations and correspond to Piaget's concrete
and formal operational stages.

Building Self-Confidence
Another technique which can make claim to an indirect connection with learning is the
use of private or in-jokes. These can sometimes be based on a shared experience but
more often they rely for their appreciation upon some familiarity with the language and
concepts of a discipline. Their use can thus encourage identification with the subject-
matter and give students a feeling of greater confidence in their own understanding.
There are many examples of such jokes in Weber (1982).
82 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 10 No. 1 1985

Enhancing Quality of Students" Lives

A less widely held view is based on the premise that life was not meant to be boring. As
h u m o u r enhances the quality of life, teachers have a responsibility to use h u m o u r so as
to make the lives o f students more agreeable and enjoyable. Unlike the other claims, this
one is, o f course, the assertion o f a particular value position; namely that humour is an
intrinsically worthwhile end in itself. Accordingly, there exist ethical reasons for pursuing
and encouraging it, hence the notion of responsibility or obligation on the part of the
teacher. Those who adopt this position would obviously not be dismayed if it proved
impossible to demonstrate any connection between h u m o u r and learning.

Enhancing Quality of Teachers' Lives

Finally, there is the belief that, independently of any other considerations, h u m o u r is to
be valued for the benefits which it confers upon the teacher. Teaching is an exacting and
often unrewarding activity which may be made more sustainable if the teacher is able to
derive satisfaction from arousing a positive response from students through the use of
humour. The overlap between teaching and acting lends some plausibility to this view
(Harris, 1977). H u m o u r might even have some therapeutic value as is claimed by
Wagner & Goldsmith (1981): "It might cure such ailments as: feelings of isolation and
estrangement from students; exaggerated sense of one's own importance; and even career
burnout" (p. 17).
A further aspect o f this point concerns the work environment itself and the relation-
ship between the teacher and colleagues. Most people find that it helps to work with
colleagues who see the humorous side of life and to be in an atmosphere of cheer rather
than of sombreness (Scott, 1976). Few teachers work alone: most are part of a team or
organisation within which humour can make a contribution to morale and to good
relationships. Walker (1983) has pointed out the importance of h u m o u r in management,
leadership and even the conduct of meetings, the latter comprising a notorious source of
boredom and frustration to many.

The Boundaries of Humour

Before examining the evidence for some of these claims it is important to draw attention
to what is sometimes called the 'darker side of humour'. It seems very likely that all uses
o f h u m o u r can be double-edged in their effects: what will amuse some people may
offend or alienate others. In-jokes, for example, are incomprehensible to outsiders and
their use may have consequences quite opposite to those which are intended. Teachers
need to be very much aware of the risks involved in the use of humour in order to keep
possible negative effects to a minimum and avoid alienating students. This point has
been well-put by Stebbins (1980): "Using h u m o u r is like driving on a poorly maintained
road; one does so at one's own risk. A practical joke may be carried o f f w i t h the hope of
generating amiability, but be defined by the subject as an aggressive, irritating act" (p.
94).
Teachers need to be mindful of the possible unintended consequences of humour.
Careless choice of illustrative or anecdotal material might convey the impression that the
teacher holds, say, sexist or racist views or is perpetuating an undesirable image of a
particular group. H u m o u r can be a powerful means, whether intended or not, of
conveying values and attitudes which could have an enduring influence on the learner.
An unwise use of h u m o u r which results in a student taking offence might set up an
emotional block seriously inhibiting that person's subsequent learning (More, 1974).
 Humour and Teaching in Higher Education 83

The darker side of humour, however, involves its deliberate use to humiliate, belittle,
or put-down others. As Purpel (1981) has pointed out: "Humour can also be used
perversely and, indeed, because it is so compellingly attractive, humour is one of the
most insidious forms of hostility and destructiveness" (pp. 231-232). Teachers, because of
status and power differences between themselves and students, and the element of stress
which is present in many teaching activities, are particularly vulnerable to the risk of
resorting to forms of humour, such as sarcasm, which can have a very negative impact on
students and on their approach to learning (Sudol, 1981; Vieira & Kelly, 1981) Instead
of uniting people, this humour tends to divide them and becomes a weapon--"something
to beat people over the head with, or defend our point of view" (Fadiman, 1972: p.
90)--rather than a delight, a pleasure, an intrinsic good. It is probably not without
significance that the humourist, like the artist, has traditionally been persona non grata
under rigidly controlled political regimes (Morreall, 1981) where the freedom to look at
things in different ways is counted too dangerous to tolerate.

H u m o u r and L e a r n i n g

The scientific literature on this subject is sparse and, as in many areas of deep human
significance, inconclusive. Humour appears to have been a taboo topic as far as
experimental psychologists have been concerned and this is reflected in the textbook
literature (Browning, 1977; Gibson, 1976). The research literature dealing with humour
in general is reviewed and reported in Goldstein & McGhee (1972), McGhee (1979),
McGhee & Goldstein (1983) and in the Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Humour (1979). Gruner (1976) has reviewed the literature relating to
humour in mass communication and concludes that there is little evidence of any
connection between humour and learning, and that even some of this may be negative.
He points out, however, that experimental studies are usually conducted in settings
which are very different from real life situations, especially where humour is involved. In
other words, there may be a closer relationship than it has so far proved possible to
demonstrate.

Comprehension and Retention

A substantial study by Ziv (1979a) examined the contribution made by humour to the
creation of a positive atmosphere in the classroom and concluded that:
. . the fact that children appreciate this trait [sense of humour] in a teacher, and
that we were able to predict--and find--certain types of atmosphere in differ-
ent classrooms based upon each teacher's sense of humour, is important and
confirms beyond doubt that it plays a significant role. (p. 22)
Several studies looked at the value of humour in securing audience attention. Gruner
(1970) and Markievicz (1974) showed that humour can increase attention and interest in
a topic but not that comprehension and acceptance of a message is enhanced. Hauck &
Thomas (1972) reported that for elementary schoolchildren humour facilitated the recall
of incidental, though not of intentional learning. Clabby (1979) found that students in a
'low creative' group did, however, remember significantly more humorous than non-
humorous captions in an intentional learning task, though even here this result did not
occur for other experimental groups. Weinberg (1976) mixed humorous and serious
examples in the same lecture and found no differences for the comprehension and
retention of adjacent material. This is consistent with the findings of Bryant et al. (1981)
which showed similar effects for the use of humorous illustrations in textbooks.
84 Studies in Higher Education VoL 10 No. 1 1985

Weinberg, however, did find some evidence that the use of humorous material tended
to help the brightest and least anxious students but acted negatively for the less able and
more anxious. Kaplan and Pascoe (1977), in a well-designed experiment in a university
setting, also looked at possible direct links between humour and learning. They found
that although comprehension was not affected by the use of humour there was better
recall of humorous examples. Overall test performance, however, did not improve
significantly for those classes given the 'humorous treatment' compared with those who
were treated seriously.
One of the best designed studies of the relation between humour and learning was
carried out by Davies & Apter (1980) who showed a series of tape-slides to 285 primary
school children. They obtained a clearcut finding that the material containing humorous
elements resulted in t h e greatest retention of information. Clark (1983) conducted a
rather similar study with undergraduates but was unable to show any effect on
knowledge acquisition. The humorous material did, however, yield a high rating for
'liveliness' and may thus indirectly contribute to learning by reducing boredom. Gruner
(1967) showed that a speaker who uses apt humour in an informative discourse is more
likely to be perceived as high in attributes of 'character' than if he did not, a finding
which might tend to support the face validity of using measures of humour in student
evaluations of teaching.

Importance of Correct Amount of Humour

Ziv (1979b) has reported a number of investigations concerned with the linkage between
humour and the concepts being taught. His results indicate that if the introduction of a
concept is followed by a humorous example and then an explanation of the concept, test
performance is improved. He suggests that humour serves to illustrate, reinforce and
make more comprehensible the material being taught. It also helps to create an
emotionally pleasant atmosphere which will encourage retention of the content. He
stresses the importance of carefully designing the humorous illustrations so that they
clearly relate to the concept, and of administering the correct 'dose' of humour. If an
excessive amount of humorous material is introduced then an appropriate atmosphere
for learning will not be maintained and the students will tend to focus on the wit of the
teacher rather than upon the content of what they are supposed to be learning. The latter
point is supported by the work of Taylor (1974) and Gruner (1976) who found that an
excess of humour can serve to undermine the credibility of a speaker and lead him or her
being perceived as a frustrated comedian. A number of books on public speaking (e.g.
Bassindale, 1976; Walker, 1982) also warn of the risk of appearing clownish rather than
appropriately amusing.

Reducing Anxiety
Ziv (1976) reported that adolescents who listened to a humorous recording performed
better on a test of creativity (divergent thinking) than did a control group. He suggests
that this may be related to a more relaxed classroom atmosphere, more unconventional
forms of expression resuking from shared laughter, and a reduction in anxiety. It is
relevant here to mention a small study~by Mogavero (1979) which showed that students
believed that humour helped to maintain their attention and interest, relieve monotony,
and reduce anxiety. In another study by Smith et al. (1971) it was shown that exposure to
humorous test-items in an examination may significantly reduce anxiety in very anxious
subjects and thereby affect task performance, although it did prove to have an undesir-
able distracting effect on moderately anxious subjects. There are a few reports in the
 Humour and Teaching in Higher Education 85

literature of teachers in both science and the humanities using humorous examples in
tests and examinations (e.g. Adams, 1972; University of Sydney, 1971), a practice whose
soundness would appear to be generally confirmed by these findings. The blending of
humour and examining, however, dearly requires great care in order to avoid conveying
ambiguous or distracting messages to students.

Use of Humour in Lectures

Bryant et aL (1980) looked at possible sex differences in the use of humour by college
teachers and student responses to this. They found that sexual humour was more
appealing to an audience of opposite sex to that of the lecturer but that lecturers who use
self-disparaging humour are likely to be more appealing to members of their own sex.
They suggest that female lecturers should avoid the use of sexual humour and males
should avoid self-disparagement. Surely a good example of the theory of reinforcement.
To conclude this section we summarise a survey by Bryant et al. (1979) of the extent
to which humour was used by teachers in a university. They arranged for students to
surreptitiously tape-record 70 lectures which were then content-analysed. This showed
that 20% used no humour at all, 50% used one to three humorous episodes in their
lecture, and 5% introduced humorous elements on more than 10 occasions. No age
differences emerged. Most of the humour appeared to be spontaneous, but this finding
must be treated with some caution as the researchers had no access to the lecturers' notes.
Nearly half of the humour was used to convey hostile or sexual messages. The bulk of it
was closely related to the content of the lecture and thus presumably was believed to be
making some contribution to getting an educational point across.

Implications for Staff Development

For teachers the lessons to be drawn from these results are limited but reasonably clear.
Humour, in both its pictorial and verbal forms is useful as a device for gaining and
maintaining attention and interest. It may also reduce tension and assist creative
thinking. Humour should be used in moderation in order to avoid undermining the
credibility of the teacher. It should focus attention upon the content of what is being
taught: irrelevant anecdotes should be avoided. One of the most effective uses would
appear to be that of humorous illustrative anecdotes--or visual material--which are
designed around the educational point being made; these are more readily recalled and
thus help the student to access what has been learnt.
It is helpful to view the manifestations of humour in educational settings as being
related to the repertoire of coping strategies adopted by teachers and learners. This
viewpoint is adopted by Woods (1983) in a discussion of the social psychological aspects
of humour in schools. University teachers, although working within a rather different set
of constraints, also need to cope with a wide variety of problematic situations many of
which can be handled through an appropriate use of humour. A noteworthy instance of
such situations arises in the teaching of human sexuality where it is known that tension
and embarassment can profoundly influence the classroom atmosphere and render
teaching, particularly using discussion methods, very difficult. Staff in disciplines such as
medicine, social work and sociology where such courses may be offered sometimes seek
advice on techniques and strategies for defusing this tension and facilitating open
discussion. Adams (1974) has reported the successful use of humour in this context.
Cartoons, specifically containing sexual humour, were used as triggers in order to
promote discussion, explore personal attitudes and express feeling that might otherwise
have remained suppressed.
86 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 10 No. 1 1985

It is very likely that humour can thus be a useful device for the more general
communication of aspects of personality and for facilitating self-expression. For
example, appropriate responses to humour by students can help to broaden and
humanise the relationship between teachers and students and thus contribute indirectly
to learning (Stebbins, 1980). The use of humour can also increase the satisfaction which
teachers derive from the activity of teaching (Wagner & Goldsmith, 1981). Occasionally
some guidelines for approaching the use of humour in teaching have appeared, though
such instances are sparse. One extensive and detailed analysis of ways in which cartoons
might be used in the language classroom has been produced by Mollica (1976) who
cautions that their use must be both 'wise' and 'sparing'.
We accept that humour has a valuable place in most human communication, that it is
likely to facilitate learning in a variety of ways, and that at the very least there is no
harm in teachers employing it in moderation. We now turn, therefore, to ways in which
teachers might improve their ability to incorporate humour into their teaching.

Humour as a Skill of Teaching

When we have been involved in professional development workshops on lecturing and
tutoring the issue of humour has often been raised by participants, sometimes in a
manner which indicates that they would like to make more use of it but feel constrained
by the conviction that it requires a native trait in which they are deficient. This belief
rests upon a misunderstanding. It is essential to distinguish what is involved in the
creation of wit and humour from the presentation or communication of humour. Scott
(1976) has described two types of humorous personality: those who 'create' humour and
those who 'appreciate' it, and refers to evidence that the two traits are not very closely
related. The former certainly appears to involve some kind of native ability whereas the
latter calls upon a set of skills which can be learnt. Professional comedians may need the
assistance of creative script writers to produce their jokes but their own expertise lies in
their ability to put the material across to an audience. This demands skills which can be
learnt and developed through observation and practice and is in principle no different
from many other elements in a teacher's repertoire of skills. In Scott's terms, both teacher
and students are thus generally to be thought of as belonging in the category of
"appreciators' of humour. This is not, however, the case with the production of witty
remarks. These necessarily involve spontaneity and probably a degree of originality.
Witticisms cannot be conjured up on demand or manufactured by the application of
rules. If this is correct, then there is no skill involved which can be taught and therefore
nothing which can be learnt. The wit is the manufacturer of humour rather than its
retailer. Here, however, we are concerned only with the retail side of the business, with
the selling of humour rather than its creation.

Techniques for Skill Development

The most basic elements in this component of the skill of teaching seem to be these. It
will follow from the earlier point, of humorous material not generally being the original
work of the teacher, that the first and indispensable step will be to collect such material
from other sources. First, therefore, a filing system should be established, suitably
indexed and cross-referenced, which can accommodate material which looks as if it
might possibly be of use. A constant lookout should be maintained for items which
appear relevant so that the file is continually expanded. Items to be used in teaching will
need to be carefully selected and tailored to the details of the subject-matter before
teaching takes place. In addition, it is helpful to consult the wide range of guides and
 Humour and Teaching in Higher Education 87

resource materials which are available in libraries: some of these also contain useful
advice on the techniques involved in preparation and presentation (e.g. Bassindale, 1976;
Jessel, 1973; Walker, 1982). O f special value to teachers are anthologies of material
relevant to particular disciplines (e.g. Anon, 1968; Asimov, 1971; Read, 1947; Weber,
1982).
This resource material should not be limited to verbal jokes or anecdotes. A
collection of subject-related cartoons can be kept for inclusion in printed lecture-notes or
course handbooks, on slides or overhead transparencies, or for use on a laboratory or
seminar room notice board (Peterson, 1980). It has been demonstrated that some
cartoons of suitable type (e.g. visual 'puns') can be used with the intention of serving a
direct teaching function such as facilitating the learning of definitions and symbols and
promoting insights into difficult concepts. This approach might also provide an instance
of the deliberate cultivation and use of 'in-jokes' which come to be shared within a
particular class or subject.
For many, a source of resistance to these proposals will very probably lie in our
established view of ourselves as 'not very funny people'; the employment of humour in
class, however much we aspired to it, would thus seem so incongruous both with our own
sense o f identity and with the style of teaching we have built up over the years, as to
seem unlikely ever to be achieved. How does a reserved or solemn teacher modify a
longstanding, even habitual, style? One should not be unduly pessimistic about the
prospect for change. It appears to be not unusual for the gradual but deliberate adoption
of a new or unfamiliar (yet positively desired) role to lead a person to gradually develop
or assume the qualities of that role. Hence the tense and sombre person who wishes to be
more relaxed, expressive and jovial when teaching or dealing with students may be
advised to consciously adopt aspects of that new role for a time. It will at first seem
strange and ill-fitting, but when the elements of play thus enter the classroom, the
benefits that can flow to teacher as well as students can provide strong reinforcement for
the new style to become a permanent part of that teacher's repertoire (Morreall, 1981;
Harris, 1977).
It is well-known that students appreciate an element of humour in their teachers and
that humour is an aid to effective communication. Advertisers are well aware of the latter
point. Teachers in universities and colleges should therefore make an effort to overcome
any initial reluctance they may have to incorporate some humour into their teaching and
come to view it as an important constituent of their repertoire of professional skills.
Those with staff development responsibilities also need to encourage lecturers to be
more adventurous and provide them with opportunities for skill acquisition. Example
can be a powerful aid here and in our own work we have organised sessions at which
lecturers who are known for their command of humour have demonstrated ways in
which they use it and discussed its value from the viewpoint of the learner. Workshops
on lecturing methods can also be designed to focus upon the techniques for presenting
humorous materials so that teachers can receive constructive comments on such matters
as timing, gestures, voice, and the aptness of the material. Microteaching using videotape
reeordings (Perlberg et aL, 1972) and interpersonal process recall (Kagan, 1975) are both
techniques of proven usefulness in improving presentation and communication skills
generally, and serve admirably for developing this specific set of skills.
It would, of course, be highly desirable for any teacher intending to develop the use
of h u m o u r to first become familiar with some of the many varieties of humour and their
relative acceptance to, or popularity with, the expected audience. Brumbaugh's early
investigations (1940) showed that elementary school teachers did not enjoy the same
radio or motion picture humour as their pupils. However, Tamashiro's views mentioned
earlier suggest that as the ages of teachers and students approach one another we should
88 Studies in Higher Education Vol. 10 No. 1 1985

expect this divergence in tastes to be less of an obstacle. Nonetheless Victoroff (1969)

found that five selected h u m o u r types (sexual, barrack-room, absurd, sick and travesties)
did appeal quite differently to the range o f occupational populations he tested. As a case
in point, teachers responded poorly to sexual h u m o u r but better to coarse humour,
whereas students showed the opposite response; absurd h u m o u r was the only clear
winner across both those groups. Another factor to keep in mind will be that for a great
deal o f h u m o u r there is a high obsolescence rate; rather more, it has been claimed, than
for most other literary forms (Fadiman, 1972). Together, these considerations suggest a
n u m b e r o f ways in which we might then diagnose the failure o f some o f our naive
attempts at humour, since we could unwittingly be asking students to laugh at something
that would have appealed to a previous generation but is no longer thought funny, or o f
a type which students typically find unappealing regardless of its vintage, or at a level
which presents inappropriate cognitive challenge for their stage of development.
Provided we can solve the problem of finding suitable material to use and then tailor
it to particular groups of students and their learning needs, there remains the issue of
techniques for how best to put it across, particularly if it is verbal humour. Here again we
can be informed by theatrical wisdom. We know that the activity of teaching requires a
sense of timing and an alertness to the response of the learners. These are both skills of
central importance in the communication of humour, and they are skills which can be
developed through practice. The same applies to the use of the voice and bodily
movements, very important to both teachers and professional humourists alike. There is
no reason why skills such as these should not find a place in professional development
p r o g r a m m e s for academics (Murray and Lawrence, 1980). Their wider deployment
would not only be appreciated b y students but would also add to the happiness o f
teachers, an outcome greatly to be desired in these difficult times.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Inez Benitez for translation work and to Jim Walker for m a n y helpful
suggestions from the standpoint of a professional.

Correspondence: J. P. Powell, T E R C , University of New South Wales, PO Box 1,

Kensington, N S W 2033, Australia.

NOTE
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia, Brisbane, May 1983.

REFERENCES
ADAMS,R.C. (1972) Is Physics a laughing matter?. Physics Teacher, t0, pp. 265-266.
ADAMS,W.J. (1974) The use of sexual humonr in teaching human sexuality at the university level, The Family
Coordinator, 23, pp. 365-368.
ANON(1968) Physicists Continue to Laugh (Moscow, MtR Publishers).
ASIMOV,I. (1971) Treasury of Humour (London, Woburn Press).
BAIRD, L.L. (1973) Teaching styles: an exploratory study of dimensions and effects, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 64, pp. 15-21.
BASSINDALE,B. (1976) How Speakers Make People Laugh (New York, Parker).
BATESON, G. (1969) The position of humour in human communication, in: LEVINE,J. (Ed.) Motivation in
Humour (New York, Atherton).
BAUGHMAN,M.D. (1979) Teaching with humour: a performing art, Contemporary Education, 51, pp. 26-30.
BROWNING,R. (1977) Why not humour? APA Monitor, 1, p. 32.
 Humour and Teaching in Higher Education 89

BRUMBAUGH, F. (1940) The place of humour in the curriculum, Journal of Experimental Education, 8, pp.
403~409.
BRYANT, J., BROWN, D. &z ELLIOTT, S.M. (1981) Effects of humorous illustrations in college textbooks, Human
Communications Research, 8, pp. 43-57.
BRYANT, J., COMISKY, P.W., CRANE, J.S. & ZILLMAN, D. (1980) Relationship between college teachers' use of
humour in the classroom and students evaluations of their teachers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
pp. 511-519.
BRYANT, J., COMISKY, P.W. & ZILLMAN~D. (1979) Teachers' humour in the college classroom, Communication
Education, 28, pp. 110-118.
CALVET,L.-J. (1980) Rire en francais, parler francais .... Francais Dans Le Monde, 151, pp. 27-30.
CLABBY, J.F. (1979) Humour as a preferred activity of the creative and humour as a facilitator of learning,
P~'chology: a quarterlyjournal of human behaviour, 16, pp. 5-12.
CLARK, J. (1983) The effect of humorous content in a slide-tape programme in information acquisition,
attitudes to content and programme ratings, Unpublished 3/1. Ed. thesis, Macquarie University.
COLWELL, C.G. (1981) Humour as a motivational and remedial technique, Journal of Reading, 24, pp. 484-486.
DAVIES, A.P. & APTER, M.J. (1980) Humour and its effect on learning in children, in: McGHEE, P. &
CHAPMAN, A.J. (Eds) Children's Humour (New York, Wiley).
DOYLE, C.C. (1976) Joking and the study of literature: some speculative parallels, The English Quarterly, 9(1-2),
pp. 87-90.
FADIMAN, C. (1972) Humour as weapon, Journal of Creative Behaviour, 6, pp. 87-92.
GIBSON, R. (1976) Humour: a neglected area of educational studies?, Educationfor Teaching, t01, pp. 4-15.
GOLDSTEIN, J.H. & MCGHEE, P.E. (1972) An annotated bibliography of published papers in humour in the
research literature and an analysis of trends: 1970-197l, in: GOLDSTEIN, J.H~ & MCGHEE, P.E. (Eds) The
Psychology of Humour (New York, Academic Press).
GRUNER, C.R. (1967) Effect of humour on speaker ethos and audience information gain, Journal of
Communication, 17, pp. 228-233.
GRUNER, C.R. (1970) The effect of humour on dull and interesting informative speeches, Central States Speech
Journal, 21, pp. 160-166.
GRUNER, C.R. (1976) Wit and humour in mass communication, in: CHAPMAN, A.J. & FOOT, H.C. (Eds)
Humour and Laughter: theory, research and applications (London, Wiley).
HARRIS, R.J. (1977) The teacher as actor, Teaching of Psychology, 4, pp. 185-187.
HAUCK, W.E. & THOMAS, J.W. (1972) The relationship of humour to intelligence, creativity, and intentional
and incidental learning, Journal of Experimental Education, 40, pp. 52-55.
HIGHET, G. (1951) The Art of Teaching (London, Methuen).
HORN, G. (1972) Laughter... a saving grace, Today's Education, 61(9), pp. 37-38.
JESSEL, G. (1973) The Toastmaster General's Favourite Jokes (Secaucus, N.J., Castle Books).
KAPLAN, R.M. & PASCOE, G.C. (1977) Humorous lectures and humorous examples: some effects upon
comprehension and retention, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp. 61-65.
KAGAN, N. (1975) Interpersonal Process Recall--a method for influencing human interaction (East Lansing,
Michigan; Michigan State University, Department of Counseling, Personal Services and Educational
Psychology).
LINFIELD, E.G. (1977) The function of humour in the classroom, in: CHAPMAN, A.J. & FOOT, H.C. (Eds) It's a
Funny Thing, Humour (Oxford, Pergamon).
MARKIEVICZ, D. (1974) Effects of humour on persuasion, Sociometry, 37, pp. 407-422.
MCGHEE, P.E. (1979) Humour: its origin and development (San Francisco, Freeman).
MCGHEE, P.E. & GOLDSTEIN, J.H. (1983) Handbook of Humour Research, Vol. 2 (New York, Springer-Verlag).
MOGAVERO, D.T. (1979) It's confirmed: J-students like humour in the classroom, Journalism Educator, 34, pp.
43-44.
MOLLICA, A. 0976) Cartoons in the language classroom, Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, pp. 424-444.
MORE, W.S. (1974) Emotions and Adult Learning (Famborough, Saxon House).
MORREALL,J. (1981) Humour and aesthetic education, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 15, pp. 55-70.
MURRAY, H.G. & LAWRENCE, C. (1980) Speech and drama training for teachers as a means of improving
university teaching, Research in Higher Education, 13, pp. 73-90.
MYERS, L. (1968) Improving the Quality of Education by Identifying Effective Television Teachers. Syracuse
University, Resources in Education, ED 025 493.
PERLBERG, A., PERI, J.N, WEINREB, M., NITZAN, E. & SHtMRON, J. (1972) Microteaching and videotape
recordings: a new approach to improving teaching, Journal of Medical Education, 47, pp. 43-50.
PETERSON, J. (1980) Humour in the Physics classroom, The Physics Teacher, t8, pp. 646-650.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMOUR (1979) Unpublished but available
from Mindess and Tureck, Los Angeles.
90 Studies in H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Vol. 10 No. 1 1985

PURPEL, D.E. (1981) Humour in the great scheme of things--a response to Elizabeth Vallance, Curriculum
lnquiry, 11, pp. 231-237.
READ, J. (1947) Humour and Humanism in Chemistry (London, Bell).
REDL, F. (1966) When We Deal with Children (New York, Free Press).
SCOTT, T.M. (1976) Humour in teaching, Journal of Physical Education, 47, p. 18.
SMITH, R.E., ASCOUGH, J.C., ETTINGER, R.F. & NELSON, D.A. (1971) Humour, anxiety and task performance,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, pp. 243-246.
STEBBINS, R.A. (1980) The role of humour in teaching: strategies and self-expression, in: WOODS, P. (Ed.)
Teacher Strategies (London, Croom Helm).
SUDOL, D. (1981) Dangers of classroom humour, English Journal, 70(6), pp. 26-28.
TAMASHIRO, R.T. (1979) Childrens' humour: a developmental view, The Elementary School Journal, 80, pp.
69-75.
TAYLOR, P.M. (1964) The effectiveness of humour in informative speeches, Central States Speech Journal, 15,
pp. 295-296.
TAYLOR, P.M. (1974) An experimental study of humour and ethos, Southern Speech Communication Journal,
39, pp. 359-366.
TRACHTENBERG, S. (1979) Joke-telling as a tool in ESL, TESOL Quarterly, 13, pp. 89-99.
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY~(1971) Annual Examinations: Department of Italian.
VALLANCE,E. (1980) A deadpan look at humour in curriculum discourse (or, the serious versus the solemn in
education), Curriculum Inquiry, 10, pp. 179-189.
VICTOROFF, D. (1969) New approaches to the psychology of burnout, Impact of Science on Society, 19, pp.
291-298.
VIEIRA, M.J. & KELLY, W.J. (1981) Laughing at stereotypes is no joke, English Journal, 70(6), pp. 18-21.
VIZMULLER, J. (1980) Psychological reasons for using humour in a pedagogical setting, Canadian Modern
Language Review, 36, pp. 266-271.
WAGNER, F.R. & GOLDSMITH, H.M. (1981) The value of humour in teaching OB, Exchange, 6(3), pp. 12-17.
WALKER, J.T. (1982) Leave Them Laughing (Sydney, Methuen Australia).
WALKER, J.T. (1983) Humour in management. Unpublished paper (Sydney, Nepean College of Advanced
Education, School of Business Studies).
WALKER, R. & GOODSON, I. (1977) Humour in the classroom, in: WOODS, P. & HAMMERSLEY, M. (Eds) School
Experience (London, Croom Helm).
WEBER, R.L. (1982) More Random Walks in Science (Bristol, Institute of Physics).
WEGMANN,R.G. (1976) Classroom discipline: a negotiable item, Today's Education, 65, pp. 92-93.
WEINBERG, M. (1976) Comedy in the classroom, summarised by D. Zillman, in: CHAPMAN, A.J. & FOOT, H.C.
(Eds) It's a Funny Thing, Humour (Oxford, Pergamon).
WITTY, P. (1950) Some characteristics of the effective teacher, Educational Administration and Supervision, 36,
pp. 193-208.
WOODS, P. (1983) Coping at school through humour, British Journal of tke Sociology of Education, 4, pp.
111-124.
ZIGLER, E., LEVINE, J. & GOULD, L. (1967) Cognitive challenge as a factor in childrens' humour appreciation,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, pp. 332-336.
ZIv, A. (1976) Facilitating effects of humour on creativity, Journal of Educational Psyckology, 68, pp. 318-322.
Zw, A. (1979a) The teacher's sense of humour and the atmosphere in the classroom, School Psychology
International, 1(2), pp. 21-23.
ZIV, A. (1979b) L'Humour en Education (Paris, Les Editions ESF).