Research shows that humor can play an important role in students’ language learning and literacy development. However, studies on how teachers intentionally enact humor as a pedagogical tool are still limited. This classroom discourse study examines the interactional construction and pedagogical functions of humor in one U.S. multilingual high school science classroom. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of languaging and affect, we took a discourse analytic approach to analyze classroom interactions and interview data to examine how the teacher used humor as humanizing pedagogy. We illustrate that the teacher held a humanizing teaching approach to working with immigrant students and viewed “slapstick humor” as part of his humanizing pedagogy. He co-constructed humor with his multilingual students in classroom interaction, and his pedagogical humor worked towards simultaneously humanizing learning, teaching scientific content, and building authentic caring relationships with students through care and empathy. We conclude the article with a discussion of the implications of this study for the research and practice of using humor in language and literacy classrooms with immigrant multilingual students.
BellN.PomerantzA. (2016). Humor in the classroom: A guide for language teachers and educational researchers. Routledge.
5.
BloomeD.BeachR. (2019). Languaging relations for transforming the teaching of literacy and the language arts. In BloomeD.BeachR. (Eds.), Languaging relations for transforming the literacy and language arts classroom (1st ed., pp. 1–19). Routledge.
6.
BucholtzM.CasillasD. I.LeeJ. S. (2018). You feel me? Language and youth affective agency in a racializing world. In BucholtzM.CasillasD. I.LeeJ.-S (Eds.), Feeling it: language, race, and affect in latinx youth learning (pp. 1–25). Routledge.
7.
CookG. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford University Press.
8.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (3rd ed.). Sage.
9.
del Carmen SalazarM. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
10.
DutroE. (2019). Visceral literacies, political intensities: Affect as critical potential in literacy research and practice. In LeanderK. MEhretC. (Eds.), Affect in literacy teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 73–91). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256766-7
11.
EhretC.LeanderK. M. (2019). Introduction. In LeanderK. M.EhretC. (Eds.), Affect in literacy teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 1–19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256766-7
12.
EricksonF. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Polity Press.
13.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
GeorgakopoulouA. (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Benjamins.
18.
GumperzJ. J. (1999). On interactional sociolinguistic method. In SarangiS.RobertsC. (Eds.), Talk, work, and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation, and management settings (pp. 453–471). Mouton de Gruyter.
HuertaT. M.BrittainC. M. (2010). Effective practices that matter for Latino children. In MurilloE. G.MuñozJ. S.Machado-CasasM. (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 382–399). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
21.
LucasT.VillegasA. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–72). Routledge.
22.
MassumiB. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
23.
MatsumotoY.LeeJ. J.KimE. (2022). “Laughing moments”: The complex negotiation of laughing acts among students and teachers in an English as a second language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 13(1), 32–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1808494
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
26.
MilnerH. R. (2020). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.
27.
MollL. C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
28.
NewcomerS. N. (2018). Investigating the power of authentically caring student-teacher relationships for latinx students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1310104
QinK. (2018). “Doing funny” and performing masculinity: An immigrant adolescent boy’s identity negotiation and language learning in one US ESL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 52(4), 427–454.
32.
QinK. (2019). Performing curriculum and constructing identities: Small stories as a framework for studying identity and interaction in classroom discourses. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1623638
33.
RamptonB. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
34.
ReddingtonE.WaringH. Z. (2015). Understanding the sequential resources for doing humor in the language classroom. HUMOR, 28(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0144
35.
RymesB.WorthamS. (2011). Concepts and methods for using narration in teacher education. In RexL. A.JuzwikM. M. (Eds.), Narrative discourse analysis for teacher educators (pp. 37–54). Hampton Press.
36.
TaroneE. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation and second language acquisition. In SwierzbinB. (Ed.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 31–54). Cascadilla Press.
37.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press.
38.
WaringH. Z. (2013). Doing being playful in the second language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams047
39.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Sage.
40.
ZembylasM. (2007). Emotional ecology: The intersection of emotional knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.002
41.
ZembylasM.McGlynnC. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies: Emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.523779
