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.
BakarF. (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
2.
BanasJ. A.DunbarN.RodriguezD.LiuS. 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
3.
BolkanS.GriffinD. J.GoodboyA. 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
4.
CarlessS. 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
5.
DeiterR. (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
6.
DienerE. D.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
7.
FordT. E.FordB. L.BoxerC. F.ArmstrongJ. (2012). Effect of humor on state anxiety and math performance. Humor, 25(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2012-0004
8.
FortsonS. B.BrownW. E. (1998). Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of graduate students. College Student Journal, 32(4), 572–576.
FrymierA. B.WanzerM. B.WojtaszczykA. M. (2008). Assessing students’ perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education, 57(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701687183
GorhamJ.ChristophelD. 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.
GostickA.ChristopherS. (2008). The levity effect: Why it pays to lighten up. John Wiley & Sons.
14.
HackathornJ.AshdownB. K. (2015). The t(ea) test: Scripted stories increase statistical method selection skills. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(2), 20–29.
15.
HackathornJ.CornellK.GarczynskiA. M.SolomonE. D.BlankmeyerK.TennialR. 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.
HackathornJ.GarczynskiA. M.BlankmeyerK.TennialR. D.SolomonE. 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.
LentR. W.SingleyD.SheuH. B.SchmidtJ. A.SchmidtL. 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.
NienaberK.AbramsG.SegristD. (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.
RichmondA. S.BerglundM. B.EpelbaumV. B.KleinE. 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.
SchmitzJ. 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.
SimM.KimS.SuhY. (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.
SinghA.KumarP. (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. AmandJ.SmithJ.GouletM. (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.
ThomasE. H.GalambosN. (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
WanzerM. B.FrymierA. B.IrwinJ. (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.
WilsonJ. H.RyanR. G.PughJ. L. (2010). Professor–student rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.510976
