System 61 (2016) 98e109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Do Asian EFL teachers use humor in the classroom? A case

study of Vietnamese EFL university teachers
Eleni Petraki a, *, Huy Hoang Pham Nguyen b
a
Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and Mathematics, University of Canberra, ACT, 2601, Bruce, Australia
b
Department of English, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examined university teachers' perceptions of the role of humor in English as a
Received 17 November 2014 Foreign Language (EFL) teaching, teachers' practices of humor use, and teachers' prefer-
Received in revised form 19 July 2016 ences regarding humor types in the context of Vietnam. An ethnographic approach was
Accepted 3 August 2016
employed in this study, combining observations, eldnotes and interviews. The ndings
Available online 17 August 2016
revealed that teachers acknowledged several benecial functions of humor in EFL teaching.
All teachers used humor in their teaching, or claimed that they did so. The three most
Keywords:
preferred types of humor are humorous comments, jokes, and funny stories, employed to
Humor
Language play
lighten the atmosphere and increase the teachers' immediacy. Teachers perceptions about
Language teaching their practices and preferred types of humor provide insights into their readiness to adopt
Teachers' beliefs humor in the classroom. This research raises awareness of how humor can be integrated in
Language anxiety language teaching and provides recommendations for effective classroom use.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Recent research in language learning has underlined the importance of student-centred learning and the benets of
supportive and psychologically safe classroom environment (Benson, 2012). Within this context, there has been growing
attention to researching language play, which has been recognized as a useful resource for offering opportunities for crea-
tivity, unstructured communication, enjoyment in the language process and increasing student condence and motivation
(Bell, 2011, 2012; Carter & McCarthy, 2004; Cook, 2000).
While there has been some research focusing on the benets of language play, limited research exists on the benets and
teachers' perceptions about the role of humor (Forman, 2011; Pomerantz & Bell, 2011), which is considered one aspect of
language play (Carter & McCarthy, 2004). Humor in teaching has been linked with both cognitive and affective benets,
promoting student independence and condence (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988). The limited research on
humor in second language learning focused on students perceptions of humor and analysis of the functions of humor in the
language classroom.
Despite the emergent research on humor and language play, language play and joking are still regarded as disruptive and
thus humor users still have to endure doubtful looks from those who contend that humor has nothing to do with learning
(Pomerantz & Bell, 2011). Research on the use of humor in the classroom is needed to extend current research on teachers'
perceptions about humor and its applicability in language teaching, especially in the Asian classroom. To address the gap, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eleni.petraki@canberra.edu.au (E. Petraki), huyhoang1607@gmail.com (H.H. Pham Nguyen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.002
0346-251X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 99

present study was one of the few studies examining empirically the use of humor in an Asian EFL classroom, teachers' beliefs
about humor and their preferences of humor types in the context of Vietnam. The context shares many challenges with other
Asian contexts, such as time constraints in applying CLT in the classroom, crowded classrooms, focus on rote-learning,
product oriented teaching and strictly authoritarian classrooms (Gorsuch, 2007; Nunan, 2003). By examining the use of
humor in Vietnam, we hope to unravel its applications and potential in language learning in many similar contexts.

2. Background to research on humor

2.1. Denitions of humor and language play

Humor has been recognized as an aspect of language play, hence it is important to start with a denition of language play.
Cook (2000) dened language play as playing with words and meanings, playing in language and creating ctional words, and
playing with pragmatics, which entails enjoyment with language. This last aspect of the denition, play with pragmatics
recognizes humor (as embedded in riddles, puns, playful episodes), and the enjoyment emerging from this play, as an
important aspect of language play. Extending this denition, Bell (2012) distinguished between play with language and play in
language. Playing in language involves learners role playing or creating ctional worlds, while playing with language refers to
situations when learners use puns or create word structure play. She specically added that while humor is included in the
denition of language play, it is not a prerequisite element of language play.
Moving to the concept of humor, there is a consensus that humor has been difcult to dene. Bell dened humor as a
specic communicative mode in which something is uttered with the intent to amuse (2011, p. 238). Wagner and Urios-
Aparisi (2011) contend that humor in the classroom is an act performed through linguistic or nonlinguistic means by any
of the participants (i.e., student(s) or teacher) (p. 400).
Instead of trying to dene humor, some researchers made attempts at classifying humor (Bryant, Comisky, Crane & Zillmann,
1980; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991). The categorization of humor types is based on a number of criteria: types
(the forms humor takes, e.g. jokes or comments), subjects (who/which humor is directed at, e.g. the teacher himself/herself, the
students, or the topic, the lesson), relevance (to the lesson or the presentation involved in the studies), and the levels of
preparation (whether the humor is prepared or spontaneous). In general, this study used Bryant et als taxonomy, (1980) as a
starting point for identifying humor, comprising the following types: jokes, riddles, puns, funny stories, visual humor, physical
humor and other items. In addition, it also allowed the possibility for humor types to emerge from the observations.

2.2. Studies on language play

The number of studies conducted on the effectiveness of language play concluded that language play reinforces L2
learners language development, enables their reection on L2 form-meaning relationships, reinforces their semantic
development, and ability to use a variety of styles and registers (Bell, 2012; Cook, 2000; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007; Tarone,
2000). Lucas's research (2005) found many Language Related Episodes (LRE) in her experiment, that is episodes where
students topicalized linguistic items, and concluded that language play increased students' understanding of L2 semantic
relationships. Bell's study (2012) focused on comparing learner recall of items in two different LREs: serious and playful
language episodes, some focusing on meaning and others on form. The ndings suggested that, students who participated in
LREs with a playful tone, had a greater recall of L2 forms and meanings as opposed to students involved in non playful LREs,
thus conrming the role of language play in enhancing language acquisition.
While these studies focused on the effectiveness of language play, Sterling and Loewen (2015) turned their attention to the
linguistic focus and purpose of teacher initiated language play episodes. In the context of Spanish as L2 classrooms, the study
revealed that language focused playful episodes targeted the following areas organized by priority: vocabulary, grammar and
nally pronunciation. They added that while there is research on learners LREs, studies on teacher initiated play and their
purpose of integrating it in the classroom is limited and should be the focus of future research, which presented a strong
motive for the present research.

2.3. Research on humor in second language teaching and learning

Interestingly, there is an astonishing paucity of research focusing on humor in the language class, despite Medgyes's (2002,
p.111) assertion that the English lesson is an ideal arena to trigger laughter Far more so than any other lesson and
Dornyei's (2001) treatment of humor as a motivational teaching strategy. An EFL teacher employing humor must consider not
only its relevance or appropriateness, but also whether it suits their students' level of English prociency so that they can
enjoy it. This double requirement of EFL humor promises worthwhile investigation.
The benets of humor in the classroom have been reported in the literature. Schmidt (1994) and Schmidt and Williams
(2001) tested the effectiveness of humor on language learners' memory, by presenting subjects with humorous and non
humorous examples of sentences and comic strips. Both studies established that the students recalled a higher proportion of
words and sentences from the humorous rather than non humorous examples.
Similar results were reported about the effectiveness of working with puns and riddles in other second language class-
room research (Blyth & Ohyama, 2011; Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2007). In Tocalli-Beller's and Swain's research (2007), students'
100 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109

interviews revealed their positive attitude to discussing puns and riddles. They noted that engaging with wordplay forced
students to operate within two linguistic worlds at once, the normal and the abnormal, trading them off against each other to
understand the language and appreciate the humor involved in its playful use (p. 164). Blyth and Ohyama (2011) reported
students' improved vocabulary knowledge, enhanced vocabulary condence and increased appreciation of humor among
students.
Formans (2011) study was one of the few conducted in an Asian classroom and he observed one EFL class of 31 students in
Thailand taught by an Anglo-Australian teacher. His use of humorous language play was reported to have created a warm,
responsive atmosphere in this lesson, with considerable smiling and laughter in evidence (p. 560). Forman (2011) admitted
that language play and humor are not common features in an Asian classroom by pointing out Ajarn Murray's classroom was
unusual.
Bell (2011) and Pomerantz and Bell (2011) discussed humor as a safe house for learning that allows students to create
their own identities and effectively engage with classroom material. Drawing on the context of an American university
language classroom teaching Spanish as a foreign language, Pomerantz and Bell (2011) analysed humorous instances and
utilized a mixed methods approach comprising observations, audio recordings, eldnotes and interviews with participants.
They argued that classroom situations can be rife with potentially face threatening situations and humor has all the char-
acteristics of a safe house because it allows students to create and negotiate diverse identities and break the monotony of
scripted activities (Pomerantz & Bell, 2011, p. 158).
Studies investigating teachers' perceptions about humor or the use of humor in the classroom are scarce and have been
conducted on general educational settings rather than EFL settings. Research suggests that teachers' beliefs have an impact on
their classroom instructions and students' learning experience (Pajares, 1992). Zivs (1979) study of teacher and student
perceptions of teachers using humor and those that do not found that a teacher's sense of humor was positively and signif-
icantly related to positive teachers' characteristics and attitudes, as well as a positive classroom atmosphere as perceived by
their students. Bryant et al.s (1980) and Tamborini and Zillmanns (1981) studies employing undergraduate students inves-
tigated the effects of humor use on students' evaluations of the teachers. The results showed signicant positive correlations
between teachers' uses of humor and students' evaluations of their teachers. Neuliep's study (1991) on high school teachers'
reasons for incorporating humor revealed that humor was used as a way of putting students at ease, an attention-getter, a way
of showing that the teacher is human, a way to keep the class less formal, and a way to make learning more fun (p. 354). These
studies have mainly used humor inventory questionnaires or frequency scales completed by students or teachers.

2.4. Research gap and research questions

The conclusions drawn from the literature presented above suggest that humor has positive effects on second language
learners' interaction, their enjoyment in learning, lowering language anxiety and improving the classroom atmosphere (Cook,
2000; Pomerantz & Bell, 2011; Wagner & Urios-Aparisi, 2011). The limited research on humor established that the use of
humor in language learning improves learners' recall of lexical items (Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2007), heightens condence in
language learning and offers students opportunities for creating their own identities and shaping their talk in interesting
ways (Pomerantz & Bell, 2011), hence it is a useful tool to be integrated in the classroom. However, more research on humor in
second language learning is necessary (Bell, 2009; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007; 2011) especially in the Asian context and more
specically the Vietnamese context, where research is scarce. Previous research on teachers' perceptions of the use of humor
in the classroom has mostly investigated either teachers' reasons for using humor using ranking questionnaire items
(Neuliep, 1991) or students' evaluations of teachers effectiveness based on their use of humor mainly in university settings
(Bryant, Crane, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1980; Tamborini & Zillmann, 1981). The Vietnamese foreign language classroom pre-
sents a unique context for research investigation, as it involves the interaction of native speaker students and non native
speaker teachers and a typical philosophy that learning is serious and formal (Gorsuch, 2007; Nunan, 2003).
This study addresses the gap by examining the types of humor preferred by teachers and teachers' practices of humor use
in the Vietnamese language classroom, which has not been the subject of previous studies. Understanding teachers per-
ceptions about humor and their use of humor can promote awareness about the importance and types of humor that can be
used in the second language classroom.
This study addressed the following research questions:

 To what extent do Vietnamese university EFL teachers use humor in language teaching?
 What are Vietnamese university EFL teachers' perceptions of the role(s) of humor in language teaching?
 What are Vietnamese EFL teachers' preferences for the types of humor they use and the reasons behind these preferences?
 What are the Vietnamese EFL teachers' suggestions for effective use of humor in the language classroom?

3. Research design

3.1. Research site and participants

The study was conducted in a large city of Vietnam, involving thirty EFL teachers working in three different universities, to
increase the generalizability of the ndings. The universities were chosen based on their acceptance to the researcher's
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 101

invitation to participate in the research. The university context was chosen as it was expected it would be an appropriate
context to integrate humor, given that students' English prociency would be at pre-intermediate to intermediate level and
teachers could employ English humor more readily. All teacher participants had a BA degree in English teaching from a
Vietnamese university, and most of them had an MA in TESOL degree from either a Vietnamese or a foreign (mainly
Australian, American, or British) university. The reasons for choosing these teachers is rst because university teachers in
Vietnam need to have a BA and an MA and sometimes a PhD to be able to work in a university and second because of the
expectation they would be familiar with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodology and novel teaching and
learning methods. The teachers were both male and female, with ages ranging from early twenties to early fties, and years of
teaching experience ranging from two to twenty-ve. The observed lessons consisted of lessons taught to students majoring
in English as well as lessons in English for Specic Purposes (ESP) or Academic Purposes (EAP) including a range of disciplines.
The project received ethics approval to conduct the data collection.

3.2. Research method and instruments

This study employed an ethnographic qualitative approach to elicit teachers' perceptions of the role of humor in the
language classroom (Creswell, 2008; Mills & Morton, 2013). This approach was used as most research on teachers' percep-
tions was done through using ranking questionnaire items (Neuliep, 1991). The combination of interviews and observations
enabled a more comprehensive exploration of the phenomenon of humor in the classroom and encouraged participants
eemic- explanations on their use of humor. This was not classical ethnography per se but it is considered a type of
ethnography as ethnography has taken on many new modern nuances in education (Mills & Morton, 2013). Observations and
eldnotes were used to answer the rst research question and interviews aimed to address the remaining three research
questions.
Observation is a commonly used method to collect data in social sciences (Lichtman, 2010), especially in ethnographic
studies. The use of observation as a method was appropriate as the study aimed to investigate the use of humor occurring in
class during the process of teaching and learning, and helped to capture the natural or unintentional use of humor by
teachers which they may not always remember, and the instant reactions from students which teachers may not always
notice. Field notes and video recordings of observation sessions were employed and served as the basis for reection during
interviews which followed observations (Silverman, 2006).
One of the potential limitations of the observations is the observer effect, i.e. when participants are aware that they are
being observed, participants in a certain context may act differently from what they normally do (Allwright & Bailey, 1991;
Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). To address this problem, this study used a practice observation before
the actual observation took place, during which the researcher-observer allowed the students and teachers to ask questions.
This allowed them to feel comfortable and act more naturally during the observations. The teachers were not told that the
focus of this study was the use of humor in the classroom to avoid preparation and to allow them to act naturally. This
improved the validity of the observations in assessing the extent of the teachers use of humor in the classroom. Detailed
eldnotes were kept in an observation sheet (Appendix 1).
A semi-structured type of interview was employed in this study (Bryman, 2008; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009), as this would
elicit in depth responses from teachers and enable the researcher to address the research questions. The advantages of
employing this type of interview are rst, that the interviewer does not have to follow suit a number of set questions in a rigid
order and second, the interviewer may ask additional questions to help the interviewee to understand fully and answer the
questions adequately (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The interview questions focused on exploring teachers perceptions of the
roles of humor in the classroom, their preferences of types of humor and their recommendations about appropriate inte-
gration of humor in the classroom.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

In total, 30 classes were observed, run by 30 different teachers who later participated in a semi-structured interview. The
average number of students in the classes was 20. The sessions were 90 minutes long in average. Data collection was con-
ducted within this time, excluding the greeting at the beginning and the homework giving (if any) at the end of a session.
Therefore, the mean time of data collection for each session was about 80 minutes, resulting in 270 minutes of observation in
total.
It was agreed that 27 out of 30 teacher participants would have their lessons video-recorded; the remaining 3 asked that
the researcher use eldnotes only. One of the researchers who was a Vietnamese EFL teacher himself conducted the in-
terviews and observations. With each teacher, there were two separate observation sessions: a pilot session and an ofcial
session one week later. Only the ofcial session was video-recorded. Video recording e which can capture individuals, their
voices, movements and mannerisms (Basit, 2010, p.134) e was deemed necessary to capture all instances and aspects of
humor and reactions to it in class. The camera was set up on the side of the classroom mainly focusing on the teacher and the
front of the classroom. The researcher adopted the role of the observer focusing on the types of humor employed, the times
humor was initiated and the students' responses. The researcher sometimes chose a seat among students to minimize the
effect of the observer and the effect of the camera. While it was not possible to see the students' faces at all times, the re-
searchers' detailed eldnotes and examination of the audio recordings provided a good account of the students' reactions.
102 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109

Based on the denitions of humor discussed in Section 2, humor in this research was dened as: teacher-initiated attempts
to stimulate laughter or amusement. These attempts at humor may come from the materials, the lesson content, or classroom
interactions (e.g. students' actions, or students' responses to teachers questions), and will typically result in laughter or
smiling. Other examples of humor, such as student initiated humor, were left to be explored in future research.
As laughter is not the only indicator of humor (Hay, 2001; Wagner & Urios-Aparisi, 2011), the element of amusement
was included in our denition. This element might take the form of laughter, smile, eye contact, bodily gestures and/or
movement, or even the students' heightened attention to or interest in the teacher. These indicators were used to identify
effectiveness of humor in the observations.
The interviews with teachers were conducted after the observations, from immediately after the lesson to one week later.
The short time gap between observations and interviews assisted the teachers' memory and reection on their classes. Based
on the observation eldnotes, the interviewer replayed sections of the recordings to teachers to assist their recall and
reection (McDonough & McDonough, 1997), and to use the incidents as a springboard for discussion of their humor use and
students' reactions to it. Interviews were conducted in English and/or Vietnamese dependent on the teachers preferences.
Two sets of interview questions were prepared for two groups of teachers: teachers who were found to use humor in the
classroom, and those that did not. The interviews were piloted with ve other teachers so as to validate the suitability of
questions and allow the interviewer to do a practice run before the actual interview (Creswell, 2008).
The observational eldnotes were typed and incorporated into the Nvivo program. They were analysed focusing on in-
cidents of humor used by teachers, types of humor used and the students reactions to humor. These incidents were identied,
categorized into different humor types and then counted. They were then compared and veried with the video recordings
and subjected to statistical analysis. All the interviews were transcribed, translated fully in English and also subjected to
analysis, with the assistance of NVivo program.
The observational eldnotes were collated with the interview responses, so that a complete picture is developed from
both datasets (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p.136). The thematic analysis was used to analyse the data which included
identifying text segments (Creswell, 2008) and labelling them with codes (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). During this process,
both pregured codes and emergent codes (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) were employed to reect the varied nature of
themes related to humor. The codes were carefully checked and compared to eliminate redundant and overlapping codes and
all codes were collapsed into themes. NVivo was used to identify the interrelations between themes arising from the in-
terviews and observations. Frequencies and relative frequencies of themes, such as the teachers' use of humor in the
classroom or their preferences for different types of humor, were calculated and are presented in the ndings section based
on their frequency of occurrence (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

4. Findings

4.1. The extent of humor use in the Vietnamese classroom

In response to research question 1, the in-depth analysis of video recordings and eldnotes revealed that the majority of
the teachers in this study made efforts to use humor during their EFL lessons.
As seen in Table 1, there were 7 teachers who used none or virtually no humor during the observed lessons: 2 male
teachers and 5 female teachers. The remaining twenty three out of thirty teachers employed humor during the observed
lesson: 8 males and 15 females. Both groups of teachers taught a variety of students. Both groups of teachers had varied
teaching experience ranging from two to thirty years. T26 had the highest number of attempts at humor (eighteen times),
while the lowest number (one time) belonged to T29 (Table 1). The mean number of attempts at humor from teachers using
humor was 7.13 per class session. This frequency of humor was higher than the mean number of jokes per lecture found by
Bryant et al. (1980), which was 3.34, and the optimal dose of humor suggested by Ziv (1988, p. 13), which was three to four
instances per hour.
Not all humor used was in English. While the majority of humor used was in English, there was about 20% of humor
examples in Vietnamese. When teachers used humor in Vietnamese, it was mainly for the purpose of establishing rapport
with students, while the use of humor in English covered all purposes, especially giving explanations on language idioms and
use. The examples discussed in the interview ndings section were all in English.
Humor seemed to be used throughout the class time, but most frequently at the beginning as an icebreaker to set a
relaxing mood for the lesson, and at the end of the lesson to rejuvenate students after a long period of focused study. The most
commonly used type of humor in the observed lessons was humorous comments. The comments could be on anything
related to the lesson, the class, and/or the classroom: lesson content, students, teachers, students' actions, students' re-
sponses, classroom equipment, and such like. Other common types of humor included funny stories, funny examples, jokes,
and funny pictures.
Based on detailed observational notes, and the researchers' multiple interactions with the teacher, it was observed the
lesson's topic or the course itself seemed to inuence the employment of humor. Dry courses (T17's term) like Business
Translation, Phonetics and Phonology, or Literature generally seemed to reserve very little space for humor, while others like
Speaking or British and American Culture allowed more light hearted activities. However, more research is required to verify
these observational ndings, but we deemed it important to report the observations to add to the detailed qualitative picture
of humor use.
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 103

Table 1
Vietnamese teachers use of humor in EFL classes.

Teachers Gender Humor instances Class/topic

T1 M 13 ELT Methodology
T2 F 9 Business Speaking
T3 F 4 Reading
T4 F 11 Business Translation
T5 F 10 Discourse Analysis
T6 F 0 Writing
T7 F 6 History of English Literature
T8 M 14 Business Interpretation
T9 F 16 British Culture
T10 F 7 British & American Literature
T11 F 5 Intercultural Communication
T12 F 0 Reading
T13 F 7 Writing
T14 M 5 General English
T15 M 8 Intercultural Communication
T16 M 17 Listening
T17 F 4 Phonetics & Phonology
T18 M 6 Writing
T19 F 3 Speaking/Listening
T20 M 4 Technology in Lang. Teaching
T21 M 6 Listening
T22 F 0 Business Reading
T23 F 0 General English
T24 M 1 Reading
T25 F 3 General English
T26 F 18 Listening
T27 M 1 Business Listening
T28 F 7 General English
T29 F 1 Business Reading
T30 F 3 Sociolinguistics

4.2. Teachers perceptions of the roles of humor in the L2 classroom

The results of the second research question are presented in this section. Although there were differences in the interview
questions between teachers who used humor and teachers who did not, both groups of teachers shared a similar view about
the benecial role of humor in the classroom. For this reason, we present rst the few differences between the two groups and
subsequently, the results are combined in this section for all teachers. The responses of the teachers who were observed using
humor provided additional reasons and more elaborate responses and types of humor.
A notable common feature among teachers who did not use humor during observed lessons was that, when asked if they
used humor in their teaching, all of them claimed that they did, at least sometimes, and that they usually received positive
reactions towards their humor from students. Most teachers believed that the main obstacle for the absence of humor during
the observed lesson lay in the nature of the unit they taught, such as Business English Reading, students presentations and
sometimes their serious personality.
Despite the absence of humor in the observed lesson, these teachers recognized the important role of humor: they
believed that students wanted their teachers to use humor while teaching. Explaining this belief, T24 said,
because if a teacher doesn't use humor, the class will be very boring and they [students] don't want to study.
For the teachers who employed humor in the classroom their responses were also positive. Detailed discussions with the
teachers revealed that humor was used at two different points in the lesson; at the beginning or during the lesson. At the
beginning of the lesson, the purpose was considered to be to draw students attention and lead into the lesson in an exciting
way (supported by 17% of teachers). As T3 mentions,
At the very beginning of the class, students looked tired and sleepy, and I wanted to create a comfortable and cheerful
environment. (T3)
During the lesson, the purposes of teachers' humor were to regain students attention (supported by 48% of teachers), to
explain a point (57%), to encourage students to answer more condently or participate more actively (44%), or to make the
atmosphere more relaxing (52%).
Sometimes when you talk about business content all the time, it's so boring. Then I use a joke, and they pay attention.
(T2)
The remaining interview questions were identical for all teachers and thus presented together. Talking about the overall
purposes of their humor, teachers mentioned these two: to make students relaxed and to help them learn more efciently. All
104 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109

Vietnamese teachers recognized the suggestions made in the literature about the benets of humor (Pomerantz & Bell, 2011).
Many teachers believed that these two purposes were interrelated, i.e. when students were relaxed, they could learn better:
It made the lesson less tense [...] it's a bit exaggerated, but somehow again, it caused the students to laugh and made
them remember this point. (T1)
I can motivate my students. I give them a feeling of ease when they study with me. [...] I want my students to remember
my lessons in a very comfortable, relaxing way. (T9)
All the teachers also identied several positive effects of integrating humor in the classroom. These included: improving
the teacher-student relationship (supported by 43% of teachers), helping students improve their concentration and learn
better (78% of participants), increasing students motivation to learn (supported by 22%), encouraging more interaction and
participation (22% of participants), and making the class comfortable (90%). Some teachers (20%) went even further to say that
using humorous material assisted in motivating the teachers themselves. T27 comments:
Students, especially Asian students, tend to be shy. So, if you have humor, maybe they'll feel more relaxed and they'll
get involved more in the lesson. They'll forget their shyness. (T27)

4.3. EFL teachers preferences of humor types

With regards to the types of humor teachers used and preferred using, that is the third research question, 70% of teachers
said they preferred spontaneous humor, 17% liked both, and 13% preferred prepared humor. Unprepared humor included
humorous comments, exaggerated facial expressions, and funny sounds or gestures. The teachers who preferred spontaneous
humor believed that it was more natural to pick up the fun on the spot, it was difcult to prepare a joke (T3), or they were
condent of their ability to use humor. As T2 explains:
You can prepare for everything but the mood of the class. You may look at the class and realize that you can't use the
prepared ones. (T2)
On the other hand, teachers who preferred prepared humor thought that it would be safer to have something up their
sleeves (T18) and it gave them more control over what happened in class, or it was simply their character that called for
preparation. As T5 states, Because I can't know for sure if there are chances for me to use spontaneous humor, I must prepare
some. It's better to be prepared. (T5)
The most preferred type of humor amongst both categories of teachers was humorous comments, which was chosen by
65% of teachers. Humorous comments were closely followed by jokes e chosen by 57%. At the third place was funny stories e
chosen by 52% of participants. These might be a story taken from some sources, or one about the teacher themselves:
Something happened to me. Even something happened to my friends or my family members, but I said it happened to
me, for the purpose of making it safe. (T1)
According to the teachers, a funny story was typically longer than a joke, and did not require a punch line at the end e
which probably made it easier for students to follow and to enjoy than a joke. Other types of humor mentioned in teachers'
responses included physical humor (43%), visual humor (35%), pun/riddle (17%), and funny examples, non-threatening threat
and the general related humor (4% each), categories distinguished by Bryant et al. (1980). Humorous comments and funny
jokes also featured frequently in the observations, thus conrming they were amongst teachers' preferred responses.
An example illustrating the use of a funny story in the classroom was made by T5 who used the extended meaning of the
word crab to teach the word serve. The class was working on some vocabulary to prepare for a reading lesson. The teacher
was arriving at teaching to serve to students.
T: OK, everybody. Do you know the word to serve?
Some Ss: Yes.
T: What does it mean? Give me an example. What can we serve?
S1: A meal.
S2: A ball.
T: That's good. So you know we can serve a ball in sports, and we can serve a meal to somebody in a
Ss: Restaurant
T: Yes, in a restaurant. Oh, that reminds me of this incident I saw when I was in the US. One day, I was sitting in a
restaurant; then a man came in and asked the waiter, Do you serve crabs here?; and the waiter said, We serve
everyone, sir. Please take a seat.
[Some seconds of silence]
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 105

S3: Ah, the waiter He said the man was a crab!

Ss: Oh really? Sir, is that true?
T: [nodded his head and smiled]
Ss: [laughed together] How can a man be a crab? What a waiter!
T: Yes, you can see we can say we serve something TO somebody, or we say we serve SOMEBODY. By the way, a crabby
can refer to a bad-tempered person.
S3: Oh so we have some crabbies in here
Some Ss: No, we don't.
The above interaction created a humorous and safe environment, where both students and teacher could share the story and
learn about the word crab and serve (Pomerantz & Bell, 2011). The teacher's story initially was followed by silence, but
continued with other students' contribution to the denition and learning of the word serve. It not only offered opportunities
for engagement and sharing in the joke but also engendered further joking from the students. The teachers summarized the
meaning of both words included in the story, which then prompted further jokes about the students present. The injection of the
funny story in this instance, caught the students' attention, fostered student engagement, similar to the jocular co-constructed
exchanges found in Pomerantz and Bell (2011), encouraged intercultural awareness and provided a break for the students.
Another example of a successful humorous comment was given in a class in which the teacher used many instances of
humor. The teacher had presented the form and meaning of the Past Continuous tense when used with the Past Simple tense,
and was writing examples on the board, when she saw two students passing notes to each other. She wrote,
While I was explaining the tense, A and B (the names of the two students) were secretly passing notes.
Ss: [looked at the example, then looked at A and B]
A and B: [looked at the example] What [then chuckled] I'm sorry, miss [laughed] I won't do that again.
Ss: [all laughed together]
T: [with a mock threatening facial expression] You remember to keep your words!
SS: laughing
T1 had an easygoing style of teaching, although he was quite demanding while checking students comprehension of the
previous lesson and when students answered his questions in class. The insertion of humorous comments into Business
English tasks, which tend to be formal and serious, seemed to help students view the tasks as more light-hearted and
manageable (Wagner & Urios-Aparisi, 2011).

4.4. Teachers recommendations for effective integration of humor in the classroom

To address the last research question, teachers were asked about their suggestions for successful integration of humor in the
language classroom. There were great variations among teachers' opinions about types/content they considered not appro-
priate to use in class. First and foremost, there was an overwhelming agreement that humor, especially jokes or funny stories,
should be related to the lesson, otherwise, they might be seen as a waste of precious learning time which resembles Steeles
(1998) and Sudols (1981) warnings of the possible distraction caused by content-irrelevant humor in a classroom setting.
Secondly, it was reported that humor content and language should be appropriate to students levels, personalities or ages
(22%). Among the inappropriate humor content, politics was the most common (35%), followed by sex, religion, and obscene/
taboo topics (30% each). As T2 explains:
You have to pay attention to your audience. .. You cannot just impose the joke; they won't respond. (T2)
Thirdly, there was consensus that teachers build good relationships and mutual trust with students, so that their humor
would be more likely to be welcome and failure, if any, would cause less damage. This aligns with comments made by Gorham
and Christophel (1990), Hanh (2007), Harmer (2007) and Wagner and Urios-Aparisi (2011).
Fourthly, it was highlighted by 40% of the teachers that humor should not be used as a form of criticism, no matter whether
against an individual student, a group of students, departments, schools, or society in general.

5. Discussion

This research explored the humorous side of L2 teachers in a Vietnamese classroom, which has been described as typically
authoritative and one that lacks interaction. This is the rst research, to the researchers' knowledge, that discusses in detail
teachers' beliefs about humor combined with their practices, teachers' preferences of types of humor and, teachers purposes
for using humor in the Vietnamese EFL classroom.
106 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109

With regards to the rst research question, the research revealed that humor played a signicant role in the in the
Vietnamese university EFL classroom. More than 76% (23 out of 30) teachers made explicit attempts to use humor while the
remaining seven teachers claimed that they did use humor in their teaching, at least occasionally, depending on the context.
This might be linked to the high regard teachers placed on the role of humor in the classroom.
It was observed that there was a high frequency of humor in the language classrooms compared to previous studies
(Bryant et al., 1980; Ziv, 1988), who studied the use of teacher-initiated humor in college classes and university lectures.
Considering that the English classes examined in this research were small classes, consisting of 20 students, it is likely there
were more interactions between teachers and students in the present study, thus creating more chances for humor to appear;
however, further research is needed to verify this nding in other language teaching contexts. Another possible reason for the
increased use of humor may be teachers' perceptions of its benecial role, as favorable perceptions about pedagogical tools
have been found to inuence teachers practices (Borg, 2006).
Finally, the university setting may be an appealing context in which to use humor compared to high school or private
classes, as students are more independent and there is exibility in the way classes are conducted. Ngoc and Iwashita's
research (2012) on teachers' and students' attitudes to CLT in the Vietnamese university context has identied favorable
attitudes to aspects of CLT such as learner centeredness and learner autonomy, which may explain the teachers' integration of
humor in this study.
With regards to the second research question, there was an overwhelming consensus about the benecial functions of
humor. The positive roles of humor mentioned by teachers in this study fall into similar categories to what is reported in the
general literature (see Berk, 1996; Bruner, 2002; Garner, 2006 for example): benetting the learning environment (affective
roles) and improving students learning (cognitive roles).
The most frequently mentioned affective benet of humor was that it helped to create a relaxing atmosphere in the
classroom, thus making students more likely to be open, more motivated, more interactive with teachers and fellow students,
and to learn better. Other benets in the affective category included shortening the distance between teachers and students,
making students more interested in teachers and classes, and helping teachers themselves to feel involved in the class and the
lessons. These teachers supported the suggestions about the benets of humor reported in the literature by Bryant et al. (1980),
Gorham and Christophel (1990), Pomerantz and Bell (2007; 2011) and Powell and Andresen (1985). In the second category,
namely the cognitive roles of humor, the teachers' responses also tallied with the roles played by humor identied in the
popular literature about humor: it can possibly help students understand the lesson more easily (Berk, 1996; Lucas, 2005), and
remember points longer (Garner, 2006; Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977). Additionally, it revealed teachers' awareness that integrating
humor in the L2 classroom can enhance students' sociolinguistic and intercultural competence. This corroborates suggestions
in the literature that humor can expand students' intercultural awareness, their understanding of metaphorical use of lan-
guage, pragmatic understanding which form a central part of communicative competence (Davies, 2003; Deneire, 1995).
With regards to the third research question, the types of humor that teachers in this study used were diverse. This is a
distinctive contribution of the present study, which has been highlighted as a recommendation in past research (Sterling &
Loewen, 2015). The majority of teachers favored unprepared humor, such as humorous comments, jokes and funny stories
while unprepared humor, as included in PowerPoint presentations and lesson material, was the teachers second preference.
Humorous comments featured as the most preferred type of humor amongst all teachers and was used to lighten the at-
mosphere and increase teachers' immediacy by showing their human side (Gorham & Christophel, 1990), or to soften
teachers' criticism. Sterling and Loewen's study (2015) on language play also identied prolic use of humorous comments.
More importantly, such comments could also be seen as face-saving devices in such a face-threatening context as the foreign
language classroom. Being spontaneous, humorous comments occurred throughout the lessons rather than during certain
portions of them. The fact that this possibly risky type of humor featured high in teachers' preferences in this study suggests
that, either they were quite condent with their management of humor or, the relationships between them and their students
were good enough not to be afraid of possible damage caused by inappropriate comments.
Unlike the ndings from such authors as Bryant, Comisky, and Zillmann (1979), Korobkin (1988) and Neuliep (1991), jokes
were not the most preferred or most frequently used humor types among these teachers. Considering the fact that these
teachers were teaching students with varied competencies in English, understanding of the cultures of English-speaking
countries, and awareness of current issues, using jokes might expose the teachers to the risk of having to explain them e
an action that would make humor go stale (Morrison, 2008).
Some teachers advised they opted for a funny story instead, to avoid the awkward incidents of stale jokes, making funny
story the third most popular humor type. These were mainly used at the beginning moments of a lesson as an icebreaker
(funny stories) and when a relevant theme occurred during a lesson (jokes). In addition, both types of humor were used when
teachers detected a decrease in students activeness and decided that they needed a morale boost.
In response to the last research question, teachers highlighted a good rapport with the students as a prerequisite for
integrating humor in the classroom. Another important consideration was the adjustment of humor to different contexts,
personalities, and ages and avoidance of personal offense.

6. Conclusion and implications

The study revealed that the majority of Vietnamese EFL teachers made attempts at incorporating humor in the language
classroom. While not all teachers were observed using humor, they all recognised its invaluable role in facilitating students'
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 107

learning of new items and improving students' intercultural competence. Teachers preferences of humor types included
spontaneous humor, humorous comments, jokes and funny stories. Vietnamese teachers made useful suggestions about
appropriate use of humor in the language classroom. The general consensus was that humor had to be adjusted to different
ages, personalities and contexts and that teachers needed to create a safe, comfortable classroom atmosphere for humor to be
effective.
The teachers suggestions about appropriate integration of humor can be used to assist future language teachers in their
efforts to enliven their classrooms. Teacher training or workshops can be organized to offer opportunities for teachers who are
not condent and who wish to gain useful strategies in integrating humor in the classroom successfully (Morrison, 2008;
Tamblyn, 2003). This research extended the aim as outlined by Wagner and Urios-Aparisi (2011), to raise awareness of the
importance of humor in the world language classroom because by making the classroom enjoyable we will have students
who are motivated and interested to become conscious polyglot citizens of the global village (p. 427).
It is important to acknowledge some limitations in this study. The study is limited by the small population sample of 30
teachers and the data collection methods of videorecordings, observations and interviews. Additionally, the study was
conducted in a tertiary EFL setting and thus the results may be applicable to this context. Future research could employ a
larger number of participants from suburban and rural areas and more observations to further validate the ndings of this
research. Forthcoming research could study the use and applicability of humor in other settings, including high schools
primary schools, urban and rural areas, a direction proposed in other humor research (Wagner & Urios-Aparisi, 2011).
Another important avenue for research could be examination of the development of teachers' use of humor over time, and in
different educational contexts, as well as teachers' and students initiations of humor.

Acknowledgements

We want to express our gratitude to the teachers who participated in this study and who provided insightful reections on
their teaching practices. We are also grateful to the reviewers of the journal and the Editor for their constructive and generous
comments which helped improve the quality of the paper.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Observation sheet

Date:
Class:
Teacher:
Lesson:
Coursebook:
Teacher's use of humor:

Joke Riddle Pun Funny story Humorous comment Visual humor Physical humor Others

Materials
Lesson content
Classroom interactions
Others

Comments

Students' reactions:

Time Positive Neutral Negative

108 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109

Comments: -

References

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Basit, T. N. (2010). Conducting research in educational contexts. London: Continuum.
Bell, N. D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 241e258.
Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying ndings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134e159.
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62(1), 236e265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.
2011.00630.x.
Benson, P. (2012). Learner centred teaching. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp.
30e38). Cambridge: CUP.
Berk, R. A. (1996). Student ratings of 10 strategies for using humor in college teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 71e92.
Blyth, A., & Ohyama, T. (2011). Using humor in EFL classes. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 conference proceedings (pp. 735e745). Tokyo: JALT.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum.
Bruner, R. (2002). Transforming thought: The role of humor in teaching. University of Virginia, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.
Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers' humor in the college classroom. Communication Education, 28, 110e118.
Bryant, J., Crane, J. S., Comisky, P. W., & Zillmann, D. (1980). Relationship between college teachers' use of humor in the classroom and students' evaluations
of their teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 511e519.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2004). Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 62e88.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, K. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across
cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361e1385.
Deneire, M. (1995). Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor, 8(3), 285e298.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 541e565.
Garner, R. L. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha! College Teaching, 54(1), 177e180.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40e53.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication
Education, 39, 46e62.
Gorsuch, G. J. (2007). Developing the course for college level English as a foreign language learners and faculty members in Vietnam. Retrieved n 12.2.
2013 from Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 195e226 http://asian-e-journal.com/quarterly-journal/2007/03/28/developing-the-course-for-college-level-english-
as-a-foreign-language-learners-and-faculty-members-in-vietnam/#thethe-tabs-1-4.
Hanh, N. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21(4),
284e303.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Longman.
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 55e82.
Kaplan, R. M., & Pascoe, G. C. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(1), 61e65.
Korobkin, D. (1988). Humor in the classroom: Considerations and strategies. College Teaching, 36(4), 154e158.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews e Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL Learners. Language Awareness, 14(4)), 221e238.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Medgyes, P. (2002). Laughing matters: Humor in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, D., & Morton, M. (2013). Ethnography in education. London: Sage.
Morrison, M. K. (2008). Using humor to maximize learning: The links between positive emotions and education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld Education.
Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers' humor in the classroom and the development of an inductively derived
taxonomy of classroom humor. Communication Education, 40, 343e355.
Ngoc, K., & Iwashita, N. (2012). A comparison of learners' and teachers' attitudes towards communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam.
University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25e49.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacic region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4),
589e613.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. D. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 556e578.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm044.
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor as safe house in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 148e161. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01274.x.
Powell, J. P., & Andresen, L. W. (1985). Humor and teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 10(1), 79e90.
Schmidt, S. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 953e967.
Schmidt, S., & Williams, A. (2001). Memory for humorous cartoons. Memory and Cognition, 29, 305e311.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steele, K. E. (1998). The positive and negative effects of the use of humor in the classroom setting. MA thesis. Salem-Teikyo University.
Sterling, S., & Loewen, S. (2015). The occurrence of teacher-initiated playful LREs in a Spanish L2 classroom. System, 53, 73e83.
Sudol, D. (1981). Dangers of classroom humor. English Journal, 70(6), 26e28.
Tamblyn, D. (2003). Laugh and learn e95 ways to use humor for more effective teaching and training. New York: Amacom.
Tamborini, R., & Zillmann, D. (1981). College students' perception of lecturers using humor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 427e432.
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation and second language acquisition. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris,
M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language
Research Forum (pp. 31e54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2007). Riddles and puns in the ESL classroom: Adults talk to learn. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: Empirical studies (pp. 143e167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 E. Petraki, H.H. Pham Nguyen / System 61 (2016) 98e109 109

Vanderstoep, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Wagner, M., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2011). The use of humor in the foreign language classroom: Funny and effective? Humor, 24(4), 399e434.
Ziv, A. (1979). The teacher's sense of humor and the atmosphere in the classroom. School Psychology International, 1, 21e23.
Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education, 6(1), 37e44.