A MANAGERIAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT REPORT ON

EFFECT OF HUMOUR IN A FORMAL ACADEMIC SETUP

Submitted to:
Dr. Deepa S
Dept. of Humanities and Liberal Arts

Submitted by:
Group 2
Abhishek Jain (PGP/19/243)
Jagriti Raj (PGP/19/260)
Kapil Dev (PGP/19/263)
Abhay Patade (PGP/19/274)
Prajna Bhat (PGP/19/275)
Madhu S (PGP/19/280)

Table of Content
Subheading

Page No.

Acknowledgement

Executive Summary

Purpose and Scope

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis and Finding

Conclusions

10

Recommendations

11

Limitations

12

References

13

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Deepa S for giving us this opportunity to work on this topic for
our MC project. Her encouragement and guidance has been a huge source of inspiration for
us as we went through our project. We have tried to implement her suggestions on the
improvement of our verbal and nonverbal cues in our presentation and hope to do justice to
her faith in us.
We are also immensely thankful to Prof. Aparajith, Prof Adhikari, Prof Gangopadhyay, Prof
Dayanithy, Prof Priya Nair, Prof Ram Prasad, Prof Sumit Mitra, Prof. Arjun and other
instructors who contributed and helped us with our surveys. A special thanks is also reserved
for the student community from IIM Kozhikode and other educational institutes who
participated in the online survey. We would also like to thank the institute, Indian Institute of
Management, Kozhikode, for the opportunity of working on this project.

Executive Summary
The responsibility of teaching can be daunting. The thought of holding the attention of
twenty, fifty, or sometimes one hundred or more students might make even the most
confident lecturer leery, perhaps even weary. Teachers not only must competently convey
knowledge, understanding, and appreciation about a specific subject but also must do so in a
way that is engaging and interesting if they wish to be effective. The role of humour in
providing such engaging interactions has been the focus of much research in recent decades.
Students should no longer have to fear a stern, sterile environment in the lecture hall. If
teachers want students to learn, then they should consider making learning more palatable,
even enjoyable.
We sought to investigate whether students' and professors' perceptions of humour use in
classrooms were related. We hypothesized that students and professors would tend to support
the use of humour and that the amount of humour would correlate positively with students'
perceptions of their professors.

Purpose and Scope

The objective of the project is to understand the importance of humour in a formal academic
setup. It is very important that the content that the speaker gives out effectively percolates
into the audience. Thus, humour effectively used will make the content more palatable for the
audiences.
Here, we studied the views of the speakers and the audience on the usage of humour. The
results were used to compare and connect the same with each other. This analysis was used to
come up with recommendations to both students and instructors so increase the learning
efficiency in the classes.
We came up with some recommendations so that the instructors can communicate more
effectively and increase further involvement of the audience in the subject content at hand.

Introduction to Humour
Humour can be categorized into various types based on the content and context. Out of the
numerous types of humour, we found the following to be relevant in a formal or a classroom
setup. Let us have a look at each of the types in detail.
Dark/Satirical Humour: Humour that is viewed as dark, morbid, cruel, offensive to some,
and or graphic in nature and is yet found funny. Dark humour details into unpleasant
endeavours and emerges with a funny story. For example, dark humour is used for satirical
content in a formal setup like a classroom. It is used mostly to criticize peoples vices and
addresses the situation with a pessimistic outlook. Television comedies like The Simpsons
and South Park use this style of humour to deliver a message.
Anecdotal Humour: This type of humour is used in a formal setup to tell instances which
are presented as based in a real life scenario. In classrooms, this is seen as an effective way to
relate an instance to the specific topic at hand.
Ironic Humour: Ironic humour is humour involving discordance with norms, in which the
intended meaning is nearly opposite to the literal meaning. The ironic form of simile, used
in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes can emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of
language which states the opposite of the truth, denies the contrary of the truth, or drastically
and obviously understates a factual connection. For example, in a class, if the students
havent performed well in a test and the faculty appreciates the students on the stellar
performance.
Self-Deprecating Humour: Humour in which performers target themselves and their
misfortunes for comic effort is self-deprecating in nature. It is also seen as a major component
of the comedy of American comedians such as Woody Allen, Zach Galifianakis, Mike
Birbiglia. Stand-up comedians are mostly practitioners of self-deprecating humour. In a
formal setup, this kind of humour is used to lighten up the mood, but there is a downside to
the usage of self-deprecating humour as the speaker can lose his/her audience if done
excessively.
Light Humour: This is the broadest type of humour in use. Light Humour is characterized
by delicacy and wit.

Literature Review
As recently as the 1990s, structured use of humour in classrooms was elusive at best, and flat
out dissuaded by administrators at worst (Lovorn, 2008). And, while the use of humour to
facilitate learning is not a new concept, it is seeing an emergence today as more teachers and
educators look for methods to better communicate and help students learn. Humour can be
represented as jokes, puns, riddles, sarcasm, physical antics, nonverbal behaviours, cartoons,
and one-liners (Wanzer et al., 2006). Additionally, when employed as a conversation starter,
tension-breaker or therapeutic intervention, laughter is a highly effective way to stimulate
communication (Lovorn, 2008). Other factors that influence the effectiveness of humour in
the classroom include humour appropriate for the audience, targeted to the topic, and placed
in the context of the learning experience (Garner, 2005). However, even those who champion
using humour in the classroom admit that there are dangers to the student-educator roles if
the humour is allowed to get out of hand or is misconstrued by students. There is a fine line
between the competent use of humour in the classroom and inappropriate humour in the
classroom. For those who desire a more relaxed atmosphere in their classrooms, the use of
humour as a pedagogical tool has been shown to reduce classroom anxiety, create a more
positive atmosphere, as well as facilitate the learning process (Berk, 1996, 1998; Garner,
2003; Pollio & Humphreys, 1996). Research also supports the idea that humour facilitates
retention of novel information, increases learning speed, improves problem solving, relieves
stress, reduces text anxiety, and increases perceptions of teacher credibility (Torok, et. al.,
2004). Additionally, Joseph Lowman (1994) found that effective college teachers were often
described by their students as enthusiastic and those who use humour in their instruction
were rated more highly. And Tom Tatum, a high school English teacher, claims that using
[humour] enhances lesson plans, compels students to pay closer attention, and gives many
students a chance to display creative thinking skills (Tatum, 1999). In 2006, Melissa Wanzer
placed appropriate teacher humour into four different categories labelled: related humour,
humour unrelated to course material, self-disparaging humour, and unintentional
humour (Wanzer, et al., 2006, 184). Another way to view these four categories is by
labelling them as high-risk humour, low-risk humour, offensive humour, and selfeffacing humour (Berk, 2003). Ronald Berk, who advocates using humour as a systematic
teaching or assessment tools, suggests using what he describes as a humour trifecta, in which
all three elements are required for maximum winnings. The trifecta consists of 1) expected
serious set-up with commonly understood situation or content; 2) expected build-up of
tension; and 3) unexpected twist the punch line (Berk, 2002). There has to be an element of
surprise, which is often difficult to incorporate in these days of political correctness, when
speakers are so fearful of making a mistake that they run every witticism through internal
censors, causing spontaneity to disappear (Nilson, 1994). Regardless of the material taught or
the method of presentation, Berk stresses confidence in ones material and the ability to
deliver. Some examples of competent humour include satire, puns, hyperbole, absurdity, and
irony; taken too far, they can be a weapon, but used well, can connect students world to the
classroom material, and give them a vehicle for understanding their paradoxical lives (Davis,
1999). For instructors so inclined, pedagogical use of humour in the classroom, as with any
type of educational approach, can enhance learning and retention, but it must have a high
degree of resonance for the listener. Students must be able to recognize the meaning that is
being conveyed and its relevance to the issue at hand (Garner, 2005). Alleen Nilson,
Professor of English at Arizona State University, and instrumental in founding the
International Society for Humour Studies, suggests, when using humorous incidents or jokes,
that the instructor keep four characteristics in mind: 1) the subject, 2) the tone, 3) the intent,
and 4) the situation, including the teller and the audience (Nilson, 1994). This is not to say
6

that all educators who employ humour in the classroom will necessarily be viewed as good or
even adequate instructors. In fact, several detractors of this pedagogy argue that there is a fine
line between joking and disrupting a proper classroom tone essential if any learning is to take
place (Sudol, 1981). As David Sudol, a high school teacher, says, if used unnecessarily or
allowed to get out of hand, the classroom becomes a playroom, a circus, or at worst a
zoo (26). Also, students are more likely to view teacher humour as inappropriate when it is
perceived as offensive and when it demeans students, either as a group or individually
(Frymier, et. al., 2008). Inappropriate humour behaviour is placed into four different
categories: disparaging humour: targeting students, disparaging humour: targeting others,
offensive humour, and self-disparaging humour (Wanzer, et al., 2006, 185). Wanzer also
specifies that the group labelled others clearly refers to nonstudent populations, such as
with general stereotypes (Wanzer, et. al., 2006). Tatum cautions against allowing humorous
word play and creativity to get out of hand, which can sometimes lead to socially
unacceptable, racially or ethnically charged overtones (Tatum, 1999). Another caution is that
allowing students to become too sarcastic, or too absurd, detracts from the course-related
material and meaning of the class (Sudol, 1981). And, rules about appropriate humour are
increasingly more difficult to enforce considering that virtually all forms of contemporary
entertainment incorporate vitriolic and sadistic attempts at humour (Lovorn, 2008). Michael
Lovorn, an Assistant Professor at California State University, argues that there are
inopportune situations when humour is inappropriate. Those situations include humour that is
hurtful or demeaning, cynical, sarcastic or sardonic in nature, type of humour that reinforces
stereotypes, biases or sexual or cultural misconceptions, and humour directed at someone
who does not wish to participate (Lovorn, 2008). A measure for determining when humour
needs to stay out of the learning environment is when it is deemed offensive, based on an
individual, subjective interpretation. To minimize the chance of offending a student or
students, an instructor needs to either share or understand the values and principles of his/her
students (Berk, 2002). Wanzer, et. al., conducted a study which listed types of disparaging
humour students found inappropriate. Groups of students disparaged based on their
intelligence, gender or appearance. Individual students singled out by an instructed and
disparaged on the basis of their intelligence, personal opinions, appearance, gender, or
religion (Wanzer, et. al., 2006). When students deem a comment or joke as insensitive or
offensive, they react in a variety of ways which hinder the learning process and relaxed
atmosphere. Reactions can include tightening up, withdrawal, resentment, anger, tension,
anxiety, and turning off or tuning out (Berk, 2002). Because the use of inappropriate or
disparaging humour often attacks students self-concept, we might describe it as a form of
verbal aggression (Wanzer, et. al., 2006). Yet, incidents where humour offends someone need
to be discussed because thats where learning will occur and where tensions will be released
(Nilson, 1994). A final note on the use of humour in the classroom: Humour can be used as a
systematic teaching or assessment tool in your classroom and course Web site. It can shock
students to attention and bring deadly, boring course content to life. Since some students have
the attention span of goat cheese, we need to find creative online and offline techniques to
hook them, engage their emotions, and focus their minds and eyeballs on learning (Berk,
2002).

Methodology
Two surveys were floated to two different sample sets to gauge the usage of humour and the
effect of tone. The two sample sets were as follows:
a) User perspective: The first survey was designed so as to understand the motive of the
user (in this case, the professors and the lecturers) in using humour as well in
addressing the audience by using different tones. For this survey, the sample size was
32 professors/instructors from IIMK and other colleges.
b) Audience perspective: This was the second survey which gauged the audiences
opinion on humour and tone. The survey mainly focused at the involvement levels of
the audience post the usage of humour and the change in involvement due to the
tonality of the instructor/speaker. The impact on content retention due to humour or
tonal modality in the lecture/class was also assessed. For this survey, the sample size
was 84 students in the age group 18 to 28 from IIM Kozhikode as well as other
colleges.

Data Analysis and Findings

1) The major finding of the survey was the importance of humour in the formal setup. 20
out the 32 instructors said that they used humour occasionally so as to stay interactive
and help students to focus more on the topic by providing them momentary relief in
the form of humour.
2) It was also noted down by the instructors that they preferably used light humour,
which in turn increased the class involvement and effectiveness at which subject
matter percolated into students.
3) From the audience perspective, we could see that sarcasm/satire and light hearted
humour caught their attention which led to effective learning amongst themselves.
4) The audience rated humour almost at par with content. This gives us a major insight
in the sense that livelier the speaker is, livelier the audience will be. Hence, an
enjoyable atmosphere will lead to a better learning.
Hence, the importance of humour during lectures was apparent from the findings of the
survey.

Conclusions
Students and faculty at all levels of education face a plethora of pressures, including, but
hardly limited to, high stakes testing. Humour appropriately used has the potential to
humanize, illustrate, defuse, encourage, reduce anxiety, and keep people thinking, even given
such pressures. The research literature and results of this study are supportive of using
humour in education. Enjoyment for all is fostered when the instructor creates a relaxed,
playful, engaged, and safe atmosphere. Four decades ago, Morris (1960) noted that young
children have such zest for learning, such curiosity, and that teachers and other adults often
dampen those fires of curiosity. Perhaps humour is one way we can be pyromaniacs and fuel
those fires of curiosity in our students.

10

Recommendations
Following are the recommendations from the project on the humour in formal setups:

Effect of Humour on learning: From the survey conducted it was concluded that
more humour should be used in the class only if the overall good from humour never
exceeds the overall bad.
Humour should be contextual: Humour when inappropriately used may lead to
serious repercussions. So, the speaker should always remember the kind of setup and
the context in which he/she is delivering a lecture/speech and accordingly use
humour.
Use of Humour in evaluation: The professor should consider the use of humour in
classroom testing and assessment. Berk (2002) sup ports the use of humour in testing
and provides humorous illustrations.
Professors also may enjoy Provine's integration of humour literature and his
guidelines for increasing humour in one's own life.
Suggestions include:
1. Increase interpersonal contact through eye-to-eye and face-to-face contact.
2. Create a casual (and safe) atmosphere.
3. Adopt a laugh-ready attitude.
4. Provide humorous materials.
5. Remove social inhibitions.

11

Limitations
Following are the limitations of the project:

Cultural interpretation: Humour is a matter of subjective interpretation. A simple

statement may be taken light heartedly in a low context culture, but the same sentence
may be seen in an offensive manner in a high context culture. Thus, appropriate
humour should be used according to the audience.
Importance to other factors while delivering the lecture: We havent seen the
impact of the persona of the speaker, the location at which the lecture has been
delivered, the context in which the lecture was given.
Audience/Class size: The relationship between class size and the effectiveness of
humour as a teaching tool also would be interesting to further delineate. According to
Berk (2002), laughter is likely to be greater with larger classes in crowded classrooms
than with smaller classes in larger rooms. Laughter is contagious, infectious, and
communal.

Thus, the overall survey was done by basing it on the fact that it addressed the student and the
instructors. But, given the other alternatives at hand, we can come up with a more refined
approach at humour in various formal contexts and environments.

12

References
1. Bacay, S. C. (2006). Humour in the Classroom A Dose of Laughter Won t Hurt.
Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning Link. 28 April 2008
2. Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an Instructional Defibrillator: Evidence-based
Techniques in Teaching and Assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC. 2002.
3. Berk, R. A. (2003). Professors are from Mars, Students are from Snickers: How to
Write and Deliver Humor in the Classroom and in Professional Presentations.
Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2003.
4. Davis, J. (1999). Speaking My Mind: On Humor. The English Journal, Vol. 88, No.
4, 14-5.
5. Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wojtaszczyk, A.M. (2008). Assessing Students
Perceptions of Inappropriate and Appropriate Teacher Humor. Communication
Education, Vol. 57, No. 2, 266-288.
6. Garner, R. (2005). Humor, Analogy, and Metaphor: H.A.M. it up in Teaching.
Radical Pedagogy, Vol. 6, No. 2.
7. Johnston, J. (2001) James Johnston uses imagination and humor. University of
Pittsburgh TeachingTimes, Vol. VI, No. 2, 2001.
8. Lovorn, M. G. (2008). Humor in the Home and in the Classroom: The Benefits of
Laughing While We Learn. Journal of Education and Human Development, Vol. 2,
No. 1, 1-12.
9. McMahon, M. (1999). Are We Having Fun Yet? Humor in the English Class. The
English Journal, Vol. 88, No. 4, 70-72.
10. Nilson, A. P. (1994). In Defense of Humor. College English, Vol. 56, No. 8, 928933.
11. Provine, R. R. 2000. Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Viking Penguin.
12. Sudol, D. (1981). Dangers of Classroom Humor. The English Journal, Vol. 70, No.
6, 26-28.
13. Tatum, T. (1999). Cruel and Unusual PUNishment (LOW Humor is Better Than NO
Humor). The English Journal, Vol. 88, No. 4, 62-64.
14. Torok, S. E., McMorris, R. F., & Lin, W. C. (2004). Is humor an appreciated teaching
tool? Perceptions of professors teaching styles and use of humor. College Teaching,
Vol. 52, No.1, 14-20.
15. Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A. M., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate
and Inappropriate Uses of Humor by Teachers. Communication Education, Vol. 55,
No. 2, 178-196.

13