How can we communicate laboratory safety instructions in a more exciting and memorable way? Here are a few ideas!
Discover this SCOM6006 “Science and Humour” Project (2023) By Tammy Armour
The aim for this SCOM6006 project was to develop a better vehicle to demonstrate one specific aspect of our health and safety program – inappropriate mobile phone use. Mobile phones are used by everyone. We hold them up against our ears and mouths and touch them constantly with our hands and fingers. They are a major health and safety risk in a microbiology lab and as a result educating students about these risks is important.
Here is what I did…
I chose an audio-visual format for my SCOM6006 project after considering cognitive load theory and student expectations of learning and varied the styles of the three videos created, keeping in mind student demographics including age and gender. It was shown that undergraduate aged women and men responded well to affiliative or light-hearted humour, including silly or funny behaviours aimed at uplifting others or improving connections. While the humour styles varied slightly between videos, non-offensive, affiliative humour was largely utilised to maximise target audience appreciation hopefully resulting in an increased compliance with the safety messages within.
Background and Context
One limitation of student learning is cognitive overload, which is underpinned by the limitations of working memory (Yaghoub et al., 1995). Cognition relates to the process of comprehending information, processing and then remembering it (Sweller, 2015). Working memory, which has a limited capacity, is the part of cognition involved with processing information and integrating it into long-term memory, which has unlimited capacity (Zlotnik and Vansintjan, 2019). Successful learning is dependent on successful cognitive processing. If we overload the limited capacity of the working memory, we limit learning. Yaghoub et al. (1995) suggested that working memory has no less than two partially separate sub-processors: auditory and visual. They further stated that effective cognitive capability could be strengthened if both processors are used simultaneously. Thus, the short video format chosen for this project would reduce cognitive overload and maximise teaching effectiveness. Each video is four minutes or less to minimise required attention span and all include both audio and visual cues. They are a light-hearted attempt at demonstrating the key point (no mobile phones in the lab) instead of overloading the student with facts and expecting compliance.
Engagement and learning will be maximised if the teaching expectations of students are being met. A study by Goldman et al. (2016) examined the effective teaching preferences of 209 undergraduate students which found that after the expected qualities of clarity, competence and relevance, students wanted to experience enjoyable teaching behaviours such as humour. Cooper et al. (2018) supported this, finding that “Nearly all students (98.8%) appreciate when instructors use humor in college science classrooms” (p.1) and it was seen to improve the relationship between instructor and pupil. Consequently, the humorous nature of my videos should increase student satisfaction. Cheng & Wang (2015) explained that while “exposure to humor significantly increases…task persistence” (p.767), the positive effects are linked to the emotional reaction of the student. The joke needs to amuse without offending.
Enters Tammy Armour…
In deciding which style of humour to use in my project it was important to understand the demographics of my audience. The intended viewers are undergraduate students who, in Australia in 2022, were 62% female. (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2022). The ABS (2022) additionally reported that Australians most commonly attend university between the ages of 18-24. In a study exploring gender differences in humour appreciation in college science students, Cooper et al. (2018) concluded that pupils are less affronted and more likely to be amused by humour about science, TV or study and offence is most likely when social identity is ridiculed. Whilst Meyer (2000) defined humour in terms of its creation (relief, incongruity and superiority), it’s perhaps more appropriate from an instructional sense to explore humour theory from an affective angle. Martin et al. (2003) defined four main forms of humour when considering the effect elicited: self-enhancing, affiliative, aggressive and self-defeating. Affiliative humour can include funny or silly behaviour and light-hearted non-offensive jokes aimed at uplifting others and improving connections whereas those who use self-enhancing humour tend to use a funny view of life to cheer themselves up. Tsai et al. (2023) suggested that whilst women prefer affiliative humour, men prefer aggressive humour which is aimed at enhancing the self at the cost of others. This study also found that “adolescent to college-aged participants tend to use affiliative humour (and) adult participants tend to prefer both affiliative and self-enhancing humor” (p.2186). Accordingly, all three videos created have varying themes but largely utilise an affiliative humour style, which will maximise appreciation and minimise offence within my target audience.
Creating three short videos for SCOM6006
When looking at the humour style in each individual video a possible problem was identified in video 2 (I said NO!) which may be interpreted as more aggressive and thus less appealing to females. The aggression is not being used to mock others but rather in a self-defeating way which may reduce the negative effect. Video 1 (Phone lives matter!) is a fun take on contamination from a phones perspective. Its silliness may not make everyone laugh but should generally amuse. Video 3 (Put it down or else…) is an ironic look at stereotypical cause and effect scenarios of inappropriate phone use. Pictures of phones being used in labs are dotted throughout with the possible consequences, increasing in absurdity throughout the video. The music incongruously talks about doing whatever you want regardless of the consequences. It may appeal more to the older end of my target audience as there are self-enhancing aspects to the commentary on society.
In conclusion, the videos I have produced for this project aim to improve student mobile phone safety in microbiology laboratories by using largely affiliative, non-offensive humour in a short video format. The utilisation of both audio and visual processors in working memory should increase learning efficiency by reducing cognitive overload, resulting in an improvement to currently used methods of instruction.
Special treat (and thanks to everyone involved!): Here is video 2 “I said no!”
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022, May). Education and Work, Australia. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-australia/latest-release. // Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022, December 9). Education in Australia – from abc to A’s, B’s and C’s. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/education-australia-abc-bs-and-cs. // Cheng, & Wang, L. (2015). Examining the Energizing Effects of Humor: The Influence of Humor on Persistence Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9396-z // Cooper, Hendrix, T., Stephens, M. D., Cala, J. M., Mahrer, K., Krieg, A., Agloro, A. C. M., Badini, G. V., Barnes, M. E., Eledge, B., Jones, R., Lemon, E. C., Massimo, N. C., Martin, A., Ruberto, T., Simonson, K., Webb, E. A., Weaver, J., Zheng, Y., & Brownell, S. E. (2018). To be funny or not to be funny: Gender differences in student perceptions of instructor humor in college science courses. PloS One, 13(8), e0201258–e0201258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201258 // Goldman, Cranmer, G. A., Sollitto, M., Labelle, S., & Lancaster, A. L. (2016). What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics. Communication Education, 66(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135 // Martin, Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2 // Meyer. (2000). Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x // Sweller. (2015). Cognitive Load Theory. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 115–117). // Yaghoub Mousavi, Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319 // Zlotnik, & Vansintjan, A. (2019). Memory: An Extended Definition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2523–2523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02523