Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30110389›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

To be funny or not to be funny: Gender differences in student perceptions of instructor humor in college science courses.

Katelyn M Cooper, Taija Hendrix, Michelle D Stephens, Jacqueline M Cala, Kali Mahrer, Anna Krieg, Ashley C M Agloro, Giovani V Badini, M Elizabeth Barnes, Bradley Eledge and 10 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. COVID-19 in Memes: The Adaptive Response of Societies to the Pandemic?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Katelyn M CooperSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8427-7741
Taija HendrixSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Michelle D StephensSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Jacqueline M CalaSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Kali MahrerSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Anna KriegSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Ashley C M AgloroSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Giovani V BadiniSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
M Elizabeth BarnesSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Bradley EledgeSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Roxann JonesSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Edmond C LemonSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Nicholas C MassimoSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Annette MartinSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Thomas RubertoSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Kailey SimonsonSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Emily A WebbSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8540-6760
Joseph WeaverSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Class, BIO 494/598 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Yi ZhengMary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Sara E BrownellSchool of Life Sciences, Biology Education Research Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over 50 years instructor humor has been recognized as a way to positively impact student cognitive and affective learning. However, no study has explored humor exclusively in the context of college science courses, which have the reputation of being difficult and boring. The majority of studies that explore humor have assumed that students perceive instructor humor to be funny, yet students likely perceive some instructor humor as unfunny or offensive. Further, evidence suggests that women perceive certain subjects to be more offensive than men, yet we do not know what impact this may have on the experience of women in the classroom. To address these gaps in the literature, we surveyed students across 25 different college science courses about their perceptions of instructor humor in college science classes, which yielded 1637 student responses. Open-coding methods were used to analyze student responses to a question about why students appreciate humor. Multinomial regression was used to identify whether there are gender differences in the extent to which funny, unfunny, and offensive humor influenced student attention to course content, instructor relatability, and student sense of belonging. Logistic regression was used to examine gender differences in what subjects students find funny and offensive when joked about by college science instructors. Nearly 99% of students reported that they appreciate instructor humor and reported that it positively changes the classroom atmosphere, improves student experiences during class, and enhances the student-instructor relationship. We found that funny humor tends to increase student attention to course content, instructor relatability, and student sense of belonging. Conversely, offensive humor tends to decrease instructor relatability and student sense of belonging. Lastly, we identified subjects that males were more likely to find funny and females were more likely to find offensive if a college science instructor were to joke about them.

Indexed as

PerceptionSex CharacteristicsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleTeachingWit and Humor as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30110389
PMCPMC6093647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.