The Role of Instructor Humor and Students’ Educational Orientations inStudent Learning, Extra Effort, Participation, and Out-of-Class Communication

AbstractThis study used instructional humor processing theory to examine how instructors’ humor enhanced students’ learning outcomes (i.e., cognitive learning, extra effort) and communication practices both inside (i.e., participation) and outside (i.e., out-of-class communication) the college classroom. These relationships were examined while controlling for students’ educational orientations (i.e., learning orientation, grade orientation), which are known to influence students’ learning and motivation in their coursework. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that learning orientation was a positive predictor of students’ cognitive learning, extra effort, participation, and out-of-class communication, whereas grade orientation was a negative predictor of participation and out-of-class communication. Results also indicated that after controlling for variance explained by students’ learning and grade orientations, instructor humor remained a positive predictor of students’ cognitive learning, extra effort, participation, and out-of-class communication.Keywords:: Cognitive LearningGrade OrientationInstructional Humor Processing TheoryInstructor Humor OrientationLearning OrientationOut Of Class CommunicationParticipation NotesTo ensure the dimensionality of these measures in our survey, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using a model with each of the variables predicted by their indicators. Resultssuggested that the model fit the data reasonably: χ2 = 5848.60, d.f. = 2534, p < 0.01, SRMR = 0.08, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07.Although GPA can be considered an academic performance outcome of students’ LO/GO, we opted to omit GPA from the regression analyses as we were only interested in variables related to the specific class reported on during data collection. GPA is an imperfect, cumulative measure of success across many classes. However, to provide more complete detail, students’ self-reported GPA was related negatively with GO (r = −0.19, p < 0.01) but was not significantly related to LO (r = 0.10, p = 0.12).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlan K. GoodboyAlan K. Goodboy (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2007) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University.Melanie Booth-ButterfieldMelanie Booth-Butterfield (Ph.D., University of Missouri, 1985) is the McConnell Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University.San BolkanSan Bolkan (Ph.D., University of Texas, Austin, 2007) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach.Darrin J. GriffinDarrin J. Griffin (Ph.D., State University of New York, Buffalo, 2014) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama.