You Don't Have to Be a Stand-Up Comedian: Examining Levity in the Classroom

Abstract

Background

Levity, typically reserved for workplace settings, refers to a light and pleasant environment that increases engagement and productivity. This study introduces the use of levity in the classroom, juxtaposed with teacher humor, to produce positive outcomes.

Objective

The primary objective was to examine levity's impacts on classroom dynamics compared to humor.

Method

Undergraduates (N = 287) completed an online survey reporting perceived levity, teacher humor, student–teacher rapport, and academic satisfaction.

Results

Findings indicate that classrooms characterized by levity foster stronger rapport between students and teachers and better student academic satisfaction than the counterpart of humor. Exploratory findings suggest that levity mediates the relationship between humor and academic satisfaction.

Conclusion

Levity positively impacts classroom dynamics, in addition to humor. Moreover, humor may contribute to positive outcomes. These results align with findings in workplace settings, where levity promotes productivity and positive interactions.

Teaching Implications

Educators may consider incorporating levity as a strategic tool to foster classroom engagement, academic satisfaction, and teacher–student rapport instead of merely being humorous.

Keywords

levity classroom climate student satisfaction teacher–student rapport SoTL

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bakar

(2020). Appropriate and relevant humor in the university classroom: Insights from teachers and students. European Journal of Humour Research, 7(4), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.bakar

Banas

J. A.

Dunbar

Rodriguez

Liu

S. J.

(2011). A review of humor in educational settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.496867

Bolkan

Griffin

D. J.

Goodboy

A. K.

(2018). Humor in the classroom: The effects of integrated humor on student learning. Communication Education, 67(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1413199

Carless

S. A.

(2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028444.77080.c5

Deiter

(2000). The use of humor as a teaching tool in the college classroom. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture, 44(2), 20–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43765313

Diener

E. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Ford

T. E.

Ford

B. L.

Boxer

C. F.

Armstrong

(2012). Effect of humor on state anxiety and math performance. Humor, 25(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2012-0004

Fortson

S. B.

Brown

W. E.

(1998). Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of graduate students. College Student Journal, 32(4), 572–576.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Joiner

(2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172–175. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4006386h

10.

Frymier

A. B.

Wanzer

M. B.

Wojtaszczyk

A. M.

(2008). Assessing students’ perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education, 57(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701687183

11.

Garner

R. L.

(2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can turn into aha!. College Teaching, 4(1), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.1.177-180

12.

Gorham

Christophel

D. M.

(1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378786

13.

Gostick

Christopher

(2008). The levity effect: Why it pays to lighten up. John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Hackathorn

Ashdown

B. K.

(2015). The t(ea) test: Scripted stories increase statistical method selection skills. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(2), 20–29.

15.

Hackathorn

Cornell

Garczynski

A. M.

Solomon

E. D.

Blankmeyer

Tennial

R. E.

(2012). Examining exam reviews: A comparison of exam scores and attitudes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 78–87. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/2159

16.

Hackathorn

Garczynski

A. M.

Blankmeyer

Tennial

R. D.

Solomon

E. D.

(2011). All kidding aside: Humor increases learning at knowledge and comprehension levels. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 116–123.

17.

Korobkin

(1988). Humor in the classroom: Considerations and strategies. College Teaching, 36(4), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1988.10532139

18.

Lent

R. W.

Singley

Sheu

H. B.

Schmidt

J. A.

Schmidt

L. C.

(2007). Relation of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/0.1177/1069072706294518

19.

Nienaber

Abrams

Segrist

(2019). The funny thing is, instructor humor style affects likelihood of student engagement. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5.24296

20.

Richmond

A. S.

Berglund

M. B.

Epelbaum

V. B.

Klein

E. M.

(2015). A + (b1) professor–student rapport + (b2) humor + (b3) student engagement = (Ŷ) student ratings of instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315569924

21.

Schmitz

J. R.

(2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor, 15(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2002.007

22.

Sim

Kim

Suh

(2022). Sample size requirements for simple and complex mediation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 82(1), 76–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211003261

23.

Singh

Kumar

(2024). Student stress and mental health crisis: Higher education institutional perspective. Student Stress in Higher Education, 218–229. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0708-3/ch013

24.

St. Amand

Smith

Goulet

(2024). Is teacher humor an asset in classroom management? Examining its association with students’ well-being, sense of school belonging, and engagement. Current Psychology, 43(3), 2499–2514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04481-9

25.

Thomas

E. H.

Galambos

(2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019589.79439.6e

26.

Verma

(2020). Instructional levity in the architecture studio. International Journal of Education in Architecture and Design, 1(1), 41–54. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1030682

27.

Walker

Harvey

R. D.

(2018). Keeping it light: Introducing a model of levity at work. Organizational Dynamics, 47(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.09.004

28.

Wanzer

M. B.

Frymier

A. B.

Irwin

(2009). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903367238

29.

Wilson

J. H.

Ryan

R. G.

Pugh

J. L.

(2010). Professor–student rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.510976