college – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
Seriously: What Motivates Teachers to Be Funny?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

To start 2021 in the right spirit, let’s think about humor in the classroom.

It seems that, obviously, humor might be a good classroom strategy. When the lesson slows down, a joke or two might brighten the mood.

Once we begin studying this question the way researchers study things, well, it gets much more complicated. (I once heard the claim that “laughter improves learning 44%!” Unsurprisingly, so vague a statement doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. For starters, the cited research says 28%, not 44%…)

We might study, for instance:

What kind of humor do teachers use?

Are there differences between K-12 teachers’ and college professors’ use of humor?

Are there gender differences in use of humor? (Believe it or not, there’s a controversy here.)

What motivates teachers to attempt humor?

I’ve recently found research trying to answer this question:

What motivation traits prompt college professors to try content-relevant humor? (“Content relevant” means they’re not just telling jokes; they’re being funny about the topic they’re discussing.)

What did the researchers find?

Kinds of Motivation

Psychologists often divide behavior up into plausible categories for analysis.

For instance, if you know Carol Dweck’s work on mindset, you know that some people feel motivated to learn more, while others feel motivated to demonstrate what they already know.

In this case, college professors might want to improve at professing, or they might want to demonstrate that they’re already top-notch professors.

Also, motivations can be either positive or negative.

In this case, a professor might want to demonstrate that they’re good (positive), or not reveal that they’re bad (negative).

Researchers have other motivational categories as well.

In this study, they wonder if professors use humor to improve relationships with students.

And, they wonder if a prof’s desire to avoid work influences their use of humor.

To start answering these questions, the researchers had more than 250 professors fill out surveys that give insight into their motivation. (Important: these data, in other words, come from self report. Not everyone is persuaded by such data.)

They also asked students to rate — on a scale of 1 to 5 — their agreement with this statement: “Instructor enhances presentations with the use of humor.”

The Envelope, Please

So, what did they learn?

For instance: when did students endorse the statement that their professor “enhances presentations with the use of humor?”

Answer: when those professors themselves said s/he wanted to “build amicable and valued relationships with students.” That is: profs with relational goals use humor to build those relationships.

How about the reverse? When did students consistently reject that statement?

Answer: When their professors said they wanted to avoid looking bad. (If you’re keeping score, that’s a “negative performance” goal.)

In brief: professors who want to connect with students make content-related jokes. Those who fear looking incompetent remain humorless.

Three Interesting Points

First: the researchers here are scrupulous to distinguish between college professors and K-12 teachers. They don’t claim that these findings apply to earlier grades.

Second: This research team — contradicting others — finds that women use humor more often than men. (The controversy continues!)

Third: One word in particular jumps out at me: “enhances.” Students didn’t say that the professors “tried” to be funny, but that they “enhanced presentations with humor.”

That is: the students suggest that — for teachers who want to build relationships — humor really does make lectures better. The researchers don’t address that question directly, but — at least to me — that conclusion flows directly from this research.

Oh, what the heck. Let’s have another.

Fourth: In humor as in all things, personality matters. If you’re not a funny teacher, don’t feel that you have to start telling jokes to build relationships. You — almost certainly — have your own ways to do so. Use your own authentic strategies to connect with your students.

I can’t cite research, but I’m almost certain: your own honest self-presentation will be MUCH more effective at building relationships that forced humor.

Fresh News on your Laptop Ban
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We all want to know if technology benefits learning.

divided attention

And yet, that question is far too large to answer sensibly. We need to focus.

Do laptops help learning. (There, that’s narrower.)

Do laptops help students take notes?

Do laptops help college students take notes during a lecture?

Now we’ve arrived at a question precise enough research.

Divided Attention?

In a recently-published study, Glass and Kang asked just such a precise question:

In college lecture halls, do technology distractions — especially laptops and cellphones — harm short-term learning? Do they harm long-term retention?

Because Glass teaches college lecture classes, he had the perfect opportunity to investigate this question.

The study design is straightforward. During half of the classes, his students were allowed to use technology. In the other half, they weren’t.

(The study design is a bit more complicated than that. Unless you’re really into research methodology, that’s the essential part.)

Did the absence of technology improve learning?

Divided Attention!

No. And, yes.

In the short term, the technology ban made no difference. Students did equally well on in-class quizzes whether or not they were distracted by their cellphones.

In the long term, however, the ban made a big difference. On the final exam, students scored higher on information they learned during distraction-free classes than on information they learned during classes where laptops were allowed.

How much better? About 7 points better. A jump from an 80 to an 87 is a lot of extra learning.

And here’s an essential point: students scored worse in classes where technology was allowed whether or not they themselves used technology.

As other researchers have found, technology distracts both the users and those around them. Divided attention interferes with retention, no matter whose cell phone does the dividing.

Practical Implications

This study shows, persuasively, that technology interferes with learning when it distracts college students from lectures.

However, it does NOT show that technology is bad for learning, or even that laptops and cellphones are bad during lectures.

In fact, the professor required students use their laptops and cellphones to answer retrieval-practice questions during class.

On “no technology days,” Glass had a proctor stand at the back of the lecture hall to ensure that no one used technology inappropriately. But: all Glass’s students used technology to help them learn. And they all used that technology during the lecture.

That is: technology wasn’t the problem. Misuse of technology was the problem.

To help our students learn, in other words, we needn’t ban technology. Instead, we should ensure that they use it correctly.

We might even share Glass’s research with them, and explain why we’re being so strict. They might not notice a problem in the short term. But in the long run, they’ll learn better with undivided attention.

Advice for College Students
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_125116512_Credit

This brief (and admirably clear) article offers guidance to college students on the study strategies that have research support — and, helpfully, those that don’t.

The authors offer a few sources to verify their claims, explain why some counter-intuitive strategies work better that more traditional ones, and even toss in a few un-researched but entirely plausible suggestions.

(One minor disagreement: the authors cite the Mueller & Oppenheimer study to discourage laptop note-taking. Regular readers of the blog know I think that study doesn’t support its own conclusions.)