Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Humor by Teachers

Wanzer, Melissa Bekelja; Frymier, Ann Bainbridge; Wojtaszczyk, Ann M.; Smith, Tony

doi:10.1080/03634520600566132

Cited by 144 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, self-deprecating comments have been found to associate negatively with students' affect (e.g., Gorham & Christophel, 1990). Additionally, humor that is unrelated to classroom content or that is considered inappropriate (e.g., disparaging or offensive; Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, & Smith, 2006) has been shown to be unrelated to student learning (Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010). Thus, though most research points to the notion that humor is generally beneficial in the classroom (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer, 2010), some humor is not.…”

Section: Exploratory Theoretical Tests Of the Instructor Humor-studenmentioning

confidence: 98%

Exploratory Theoretical Tests of the Instructor Humor–Student Learning Link

Bolkan¹,

Goodboy²

2014

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Exploratory Theoretical Tests Of the Instructor Humor-studenmentioning

confidence: 98%

Exploratory Theoretical Tests of the Instructor Humor–Student Learning Link

Bolkan¹,

Goodboy²

2014

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In previous work, Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, and Smith (2006) asked students to report examples of appropriate and inappropriate teacher humor and this effort resulted in four appropriate humor types (and 26 subtypes) and four inappropriate humor types (and 25 subtypes). Exploratory factor analysis yielded five factors, including otherdisparaging humor, related humor, unrelated humor, offensive humor, and selfdisparaging humor.…”

Section: Teacher Humormentioning

confidence: 98%

Measurement in Instructional Communication Research: A Decade in Review

Mazer¹,

Graham²

2015

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periodic assessment and scrutiny of the discipline's measurement practices, instruments, and research findings are necessary to provide clarity and direction by revealing what we know, how we know it, and where the knowledge gaps exist. Reflective reviews have produced ample appraisals of the theory, research, and methods employed in the conduct of instructional communication scholarship. The scope of the present effort is twofold and includes both description and critical assessment and evaluation of 21 instruments published post 2004 in journal outlets that traditionally feature instructional communication research. The reliability, validity, and usefulness of each measure are examined, measurement practices are critiqued, and problems are identified. The manuscript concludes by offering several recommendations for measurement in instructional communication research.

show abstract

“…Scholars have argued the importance of implementing a communication competence framework to understand instructors' behaviors in the classroom (Wanzer et al, 2006) as students' perceptions of instructors' communication competence can impact learning (Wrench & Punyanunt, 2004). With this in mind the following sections will examine the swearing literature and links to swearing in the classroom.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Do these perceptions transfer to a teacher (authority figure) who swears in a classroom full of students (formal setting)? This question forms the primary objective of this study exploring students' perceptions of instructor swearing appropriateness based on three contextual factors: swear word used (Winters & Duck, 2001); perceived motivation (function) behind swear word use (Fine & Johnson, 1984;Winters & Duck, 2001); and perceived target of swear word (see Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, & Smith, 2006, for examples of instructor humor targets).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When an Instructor Swears in Class: Functions and Targets of Instructor Swearing from College Students’ Retrospective Accounts

Generous

Frei

Houser

2014

Communication Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Via a communication competence lens, students' accounts of instructor swearing were inductively analyzed to understand students' perceptions of the swear word's function and target. Coding revealed seven functions of teacher swearing: emphasize=elaborate, accommodate students, be humorous, show frustration, gain attention, instructor personality=disposition, and accidental. Six targets of teacher swearing were also found: swearing directed toward course content, noncourse content, the self (instructor), students, course assignments, and job tools. Swearing directed at course content, swearing used to emphasize=elaborate, to gain attention, and to be humorous were perceived as more appropriate than other categories. Classroom implications and instructor recommendations are offered.

show abstract

Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Humor by Teachers

Cited by 144 publications

References 26 publications

Exploratory Theoretical Tests of the Instructor Humor–Student Learning Link

Exploratory Theoretical Tests of the Instructor Humor–Student Learning Link

Measurement in Instructional Communication Research: A Decade in Review

When an Instructor Swears in Class: Functions and Targets of Instructor Swearing from College Students’ Retrospective Accounts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About