Content uploaded by Tanvi Sambrani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tanvi Sambrani on Sep 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Effect of Humour on Learning in an Educational Setting
[1]
Tanvi Sambrani
[2]
Sneha Mani
[3]
Prof. Maureen Almeida
[4]
Ewgeni Jakubovski, MA
[1] St. Xavier’s College, Autonomous, Mumbai., E-mail: tsambrani@gmail.com
[2] University of York, E-mail: snehamani@gmail.com
[3] St. Xavier’s College, Autonomous, Mumbai, E-mail: maureenalmeida@gmail.com
[4] Yale University, E-mail: ewgeni.jakubovski@yale.edu
International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR) Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2014
52
I. INTRODUCTION
According to Chiasson (2002), humour is as human and as
authentic as the need to communicate [1]. The many positive
effects of humour - which is essentially a form of social play -
on individuals are widely known. These advantageous
functions can be broadly categorised into psychological,
physiological and social benefits. For instance, the use of
humour is known to reduce pain as humorous material
induces laughter, which in turn results in the release of
endorphins [2]. It is also known to improve blood circulation
and respiration [3]. As cited in Berk (2001), the psychological
benefits of humour include anxiety reduction, tension
reduction and stress reduction, as laughter causes a decrease
in stress hormones like serum cortisol, DOPAC (a metabolite
of dopamine) and epinephrine (Berk et al. 1988; Berk, Tan,
Fry et al. 1989; Berk, Tan, Napier. and Eby 1989; Fry 1971,
1984, 1992)[4].
Due to its numerous benefits, research on humour has been
varied. The effect of humour on learning and memory has
been of specific interest to psychologists.
Humorous content was found to have better results than non-
humorous content in a learning paradigm. Schmidt (1994)
found that humorous sentences were recalled better than non-
humorous sentences in lists containing both sentence types.
In a later study, the same group found a similar effect of
humour in cartoons (as cited in Schmidt, 2001) [5].
Subjects had a greater memory of humorous cartoons when
compared to weird and literal cartoons [6].
There are several ways in which the positive effect of humour
on memory can be understood. Humour can act as a strong
retrieval cue, because (a) humorous information is
remembered better, thus becoming an efficient cue and
because (b) it activates deeper processing which leads to a
stronger association between the humorous content and the
material that has to be remembered [7]. When used in a
classroom setting, humour can have additional beneficial
effects on learning, such as creation of a favourable
atmosphere in the classroom, which is related to better
retention of content [8], creation of a more pleasant social
climate, hence altering and negating the various barriers
present in the traditional classroom setting[9], and increased
interest in subject matter for the students, as well as the
teachers.[10]
However, the positive effects of humour on learning are not
uncontested. It has been reported that for some individuals,
humour present in the material to be remembered may
increase tension and thus result in already tense individuals
performing worse [11]. On the other hand, Terry and Woods
have obtained contrary resultsshowing that humour might
only have an indirect effect on learning by relieving anxiety
faced by learners [12]. The relationship between tension and
humour is therefore quite complex.
Abstract: Humour is seen to have largely positive effects on learning, but these effects are not left uncontested. Furthermore, the
fact that humour is culture specific can limit the generalizability of studies. The current paper, thus, attempts to determine if
humour can have an important role in the cultural context of India.
The current study investigated the effect of humour on learning in a real-world educational setting. 56 participants from the 8th
grade of the same high school were enlisted for the study, and divided into two groups in a classroom setting- one group receiving
humorous material and the other group receiving non-humorous material.
All content was displayed via slideshows spanning 5 subtopics of the school subject of ‘English’. All content was equated in
terms of visual imagery and amount of information displayed. An intervening task of solving math problems was introduced
between viewing the content and answering the post-test.
Results were obtained using a pre-post design. Data was analysed via 2 sample independent t-tests and bivariate correlations.
Results showed that the material presented in a humorous manner is remembered better than other equivalent visual non-
humorous material. Secondly, exposure to humorous material is also correlated with better engagement with the material, and
positive affect. These results draw attention to the need for further, culture-specific research investigations in the field of humour,
as it can prove to be a very effective learning tool.
Keywords: Humour, Learning, Education
International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR) Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2014
53
Furthermore, the fact that humour can be very culture-
specific limits the generalizability of its effects. Morain
(1991) specifies culture as the biggest challenge in
understanding humour (as cited in Bell, 2009) [13].
Jiang et al illustrates differential attitudes between American
and Chinese students towards the use of humour. Within the
study, the Chinese participants rated their humour
appreciation almost the same as the American participants
did, but the implicit association tests showed that they
devalued the use of humour- often by associating it with
unpleasant words. [14].
This, in turn, might affect the use of humour in a learning
situation differently when used with different populations.
Thus, studies pertaining to participants from a Western
culture might not hold true for participants in Eastern
cultures. Nevertheless, studies reporting positive effects of
humour are not limited to the western culture. Takashi and
Inoue found a clear better recall of doodles with humorous
content with Japanese undergraduate students [15]. These
results are comparable to an earlier study on American
students (of Schmidt [16]), which used a humorous cartoon
learning paradigm. The similarity between the two studies
and their findings point towards humour being a similar
phenomenon across different cultures. Given the scarcity of
research on humour in eastern cultures, more studies are
clearly needed.
The inconclusiveness regarding this domain as seen in
previous research, coupled with the need for a culture-
specific understanding of the effects of humour resulted in the
current paper.
Our study is designed to explore the impact of humour on
learning when it is presented in a classroom setting. High
school students were presented with school material in a
humorous or non-humorous manner. Students were
randomly assigned to 2 groups. In the experimental group the
learning material was presented in a humorous way, whereas
in the control group the same learning material was presented
in a casual way. The design used was a pre-test post-test one.
We expect (1) that educational content, when presented in a
humorous manner will result in better learning and memory
than when it is presented in a non-humorous manner; (2)
higher engagement with the learning material in the
experimental group.
II. METHODOLOGY
Participants
Fifty-six participants were students studying in the 8th grade
of Surajba Vidya Mandir High School. The school was
chosen randomly among schools suitable by convenience of
location and class strength. All students were assessed in their
regular school classes. All participants were enlisted in the
study in return for 2 educational and humorous sessions that
would be conducted later. There were 41 male participants
and 15 female participants.The students were chosen from
the 8th grade, as their school syllabus content at this stage
matched the kind of content the testing situation needed.
Materials and Procedure
The students were assessed in their regular school classes.
One classroom was assigned to be the experimental group
while the other was the control group. Students were told that
they would have 2 hours’ worth of activities. Each classroom
had 3 investigators. At first, a pre-test was handed out to all
students together with verbal instructions. The students were
given 10 minutes to complete a 25 items questionnaire, which
tested English grammar - consisting of 13 multiple-choice
questions, 4 fill-in-the-blank, and 8 open-ended questions.
Students were ensured that test performance would not affect
their school grades in any manner.
The pre-test was followed by a teaching intervention in the
form of a PowerPoint presentation on English grammar. They
were instructed not to disrupt the presentation, and were
requested to pay attention to the slideshow. The written
content on each slide was read out by the experimenter in a
clear and audible voice. All slides were exposed for time
enough for the experimenter to read out the contents on the
slide and pause for 5 seconds. The content on the slides
differed across the 2 groups. The experimental group was
shown a presentation with the learning material presented
and explained in a humorous way, such as using wordplay
and the creation of alternate realities and narratives. The
control group was presented with the identical learning
material presented in a regular, non-humorous way. The
slides were identical in additional variables like the size of
font, colours used, number of characters present etc.
After the presentation, the participants were given the
numerical task sheet, and were asked to answer them. The
numerical task sheet consisted of 15 multiple choice
questions involving algebra and simple calculus. The
questions matched the kind of math questions the students
solved in school. 10 minutes after the distribution, they were
stopped, and the sheets were collected. The participants were
then administered the post-test sheet, which was a parallel
version of the pre-test. Instructions were identical to the pre-
test.
Finally, all subjects were individually interviewed by the
experimenter. Funniness ratings, affect, interest in the task,
and their overall reaction to the tasks were assessed in a semi-
structured way. The interviewer converted the responses of
the subjects into a rating scale. Funniness ratings ranged from
‘Not at all funny’=0 to ‘Very funny’=4 in a 5-point rating
scale. Engagement was seen as being classified into one of 3
groups- ‘highly engaged with positive affective’=2,
‘undecided/no visible affect’=1, ‘disinterested and bored
with negative affect’=0. Subjects were then debriefed
regarding the purpose and intent of the experiment. They
were also asked for their consent to use the data collected for
research purposes.
Statistical analysis
Data preparation was conducted with Microsoft Excel
(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA), and on statistical
analyses were carried out in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA).
At first the effectiveness of the humorous intervention in
conveying humour (manipulation check) was tested
International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR) Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2014
54
by comparing humour rating between the 2 experimental
groups via 2-sample independent t-test. To test the between
group differences in learning, we first created difference
score by subtracting the pre- from the post-test ratings, and
then tested those in a 2-sample independent t-test. A further t-
test was conducted to assess the effects of the humorous
intervention on task engagement.
Finally, to test for dependencies among the variables
involved, we computed bivariate correlations among
learning success, task engagement, humour perception and
baseline performance.
III. RESULTS
The pre-test was completed with a success rate of 38.3%
correct answers, with a rate of 37.6% in the EG and a rate of
39.0% in the CG. The post-test was completed with a success
rate of 55.8% correct answers, with a rate of 60.1% in the EG
and a rate of 51.2% in the CG. The two groups also differed in
their perception of humour, with mean funniness ratings
judged to be 2.69 in the EG as against a 0.88 in the CG. This
difference was significant at an alpha level of 0.001, thus
demonstrating the effectiveness of our intervention to
produce humour.
As far as learning was concerned, subjects exposed to the
humorous content had a mean score increase of 5.66 points
from pre-test to post-test, while subjects exposed to the
equivalent visual non-humorous content had a mean score
increase of only 3.04. Thus, better learning is seen to have
taken place in the experimental group, and this difference of
scores between both the groups was significant (t=3.02,
p<0.01). Additionally, subjects in the experimental group
also reported more engagement with the task, and less
boredom as compared to the control group (EG=1.8, CG=1.5,
t=2.05, p<.05). The perception of humour correlated
positively with task engagement (r=0.3, p<.05).
IV. DISCUSSION
The current study investigated the effect of humour on
learning in a real-world educational setting. One group of 8th
graders received humorous content while the other group
received non-humorous content. Results were obtained using
a pre-post test. The major findings of this research can be
summarized as follows. Firstly, material presented in a
humorous manner is remembered better than other equivalent
visual non-humorous material. Secondly, exposure to
humorous material is also correlated with a higher perception
of humour, and with a higher degree of engagement with the
material, and positive affect. These findings could not be
better explained by previous knowledge as measured by
baseline performance.
The humorous intervention in the experimental group was
clearly successful, which was shown in the significantly
higher humour ratings in this group as compared to the
control group. Better learning was seen to have taken place in
the experimental group who were exposed to the humorous
content. This difference can be attributed mainly to the effect
of humour as both groups were equated on visual imagery and
content. These results are similar to Schmidt et al’s 1994
study, which reported that humorous sentences were better
remembered than non-humorous sentences.
Besides the positive effect on learning, our humorous
intervention was also associated with engagement with the
task. Participants in the experimental group described the
content to be more interesting and less boring, and also
reported an overall positive affect as compared to the control
group. This is in accord with previous work by Casper, who
found that humour’s major role was the creation of a pleasant
classroom atmosphere, which lead to better retention of
content [17]. Additionally, the relation between humour,
memory and affect is also explained by Ziv, who points out
that since emotions are processed within the same system as
memories and there is a discernible link between the two,
humour that is integrated into content that needs to be
remembered leads to better memory due to the positive
emotions it creates [18]. Engagement was also found to be
significantly correlated with humour, which suggests a
relationship between the 2 factors. Since our intervention was
designed to induce humour, it is likely that engagement with
the task resulted as a consequence of humour. However, a
correlative result cannot be interpreted as any type of
causation. Further study is needed to elucidate the
relationship between these two variables.
Other aspects of humour also merit consideration with regard
to learning. For example, the kind of humorous technique that
is used also plays a role in learning. Humorous narratives that
involve unusual material (such as that seen in this
experiment) lead to more spontaneous elaboration than usual
material [19]. According to Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968),
humour is also seen to play a role by increasing rehearsal of
the to-be-remembered material (as cited in Schmidt, 1994)
[20], but this fact is highly debated in the academic
community. Although the current experiment did not tackle
this aspect by measuring it, it does deserve future
investigation.
The experiment, however, had several limitations. Firstly, the
study utilized a small and homogeneous sample of subjects
consisting of 56 students of the same age, from a single
school, and derived from the same socioeconomic status.
This wouldlead the researchers to be cautious about
generalizing the results to all of India. Nevertheless, despite
the low N a significant relationship between group effects of
humour was found. Secondly, the learning content was
limited to the subject of English. Findings for other different
subjects such as Mathematics and the natural sciences might
therefore differ. Finally, the experiment only dealt with an
immediate recall test. There is the need to test for such effects
using a delayed recall test as well.
However, the experimental scenario can be evaluated
favourably on many different parameters. Since the learning
material of both groups was identical, apart from the
humorous elements, the results can solely be attributed to the
independent variable. The tasks used in the experiment
closely reflect the educational learning system of the country.
The closeness of our design and intervention to a real world
scenario speaks for the practicability and effectiveness of
humorous interventions similar to ours in a class setting.
International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR) Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2014
55
V. CONCLUSION
Our study clearly illustrates the positive effects humour has in
an educational learning paradigm. The effect of humour on
learning having being validated in a cultural setting such as
India points towards the generalizability of findings
involving humour and memory. Claims of the universality of
such a phenomenon cannot be made without undertaking
more extensive research studies, involving a greater and more
representative sample as well as including more varied topics
of learning. Such studies have important implications for the
manner in which education is imparted in classroom settings,
and advocate for humorous techniques to be used in
educational settings.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude towards Laugh Out Loud
Ventures, without which the current study could not have
been completed. The authors are immensely grateful to
Vaibhav Devanathan, Malvika Adukia and Antara Telang for
their constant support at every stage of this study- right from
conception, to execution and submission.The authors also
thank their colleagues Sera Arora, Vinit Mevada, Avee
Purohit for assistance whilst conducting the study, and Ayush
Baheti for hishelp with the treatment and analysis of data.The
authors would also like to thank Prof. Linda Dhakul for her
immeasurable help. The authors also thank Surajba Vidya
Mandir and their staff for assisting us with their time and
resources.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] Paul-Emile Chiasson. (2002). “Using Humour in The
Second Language Classroom”. The Internet TESL
Journal. Vol.8, No.3
[2] Ronald A. Berk, R. A. (2001). “The active ingredients in
humour:Psychophysiological benefits and risks for
older adults.” Educational Gerontology, 27(3-4), 323-
339.
[3] Robbie R. Fitzpatrick. (2010). “The Impact of Integrated
Humor on Memory Retention and Recall Aspects of
Adult Learning” (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University).
[4] Ronald A. Berk (2000),“Does Humor in Course Tests
Reduce Anxiety and Improve Performance?”, College
T e a c h i n g , 4 8 : 4 , 1 5 1 - 1 5 8 , D O I :
10.1080/87567550009595834.
[5] Stephen R. Schmidt and Alan R. Williams (2001),
“Memory for humorous cartoons”, Memory and
Cognition, 29(2), 305-311.
[6] Stephen R. Schmidt and Alan R. Williams (2001),
“Memory for humorous cartoons”, Memory and
Cognition, 29(2), 305-311.
[7] Stav Atir (2010). “Memory for information paired with
humorous, relevant jokes.” New Haven, CT: Yale.
University Senior thesis.(AQ: Unpublished thesis, Yale
University, New Haven, CT.).
[8] Ruth Casper. (1999). “Laughter and humour in the
classroom: Effects on test performance.”
[9] Donald T. Mogavero. (1979). “It's Confirmed: J-
Students Like Humor in the Classroom.” Journalism
Educator, 34(1).
[10] Nancy D. Bell. (2009). “Learning about and through
humour in the second language classroom.” Language
Teaching Research, 13(3), 241-258.
[11] Jacob Levine & Robert Abelson, R. (1959). “Humor as a
disturbing stimulus.” The Journal of general psychology,
60(2), 191-200.
[12] Roger L. Terry & Margaret E. Woods, (1975), “Effects of
Humour on the Test Performance of Elementary School
Children”, Psychology in the Schools, Vol.12, Issue. 2,
pp.182-185.
[13] Nancy D. Bell. (2009). “Learning about and through
humour in the second language classroom.” Language
Teaching Research, 13(3), 241-258.
[14] Feng Jiang & Xiao Dong Yue, (2011), “Different
attitudes towards humour between Chinese and
American students: Evidence from the Implicit
Association Test”, Psychological Reports, 109,1, 99-107
[15] Masanobu Takashi & Tomoyoshi Inoue, (2009), “The
effects of humour on memory for non-sensical pictures”,
Acta Psychologica, 132, 80-84
[16] Stephen R. Schmidt & Alan R. Williams (2001),
“Memory for humorous cartoons”, Memory and
Cognition, 29(2), 305-311.
[17] Ruth Casper. (1999). “Laughter and humour in the
classroom: Effects on test performance.”
[18] Avner .Ziv. (1988). “Teaching and learning with
humour: Experiment and replication.” The Journal of
Experimental Education, 57(1), 4-15.
[19] John R. Anderson., & Lynne R. Reder. (1979). “An
elaborative processing explanation of depth of
processing.” L.; S. Cermak and FIM Craik, Eds., Levels
of Processing in Human Memory (Erlbam, 1979), 385-
404.
[20] Stephen R. Schmidt. (1994). “Effects of humour on
se nte nce mem ory. ” Jo urn al o f Exp erime nta l
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4),
953.
