Is Humour a Feature of Instructional Quality?

Is Humour a Feature of Instructional Quality? | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Is Humour a Feature of Instructional Quality? Hassan Banaruee, Sonja Bieg This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Teacher humour is found an effective tool associated with different dimensions of instructional quality. However, its significance as a teaching characteristic has not been systematically investigated, in particular from a qualitative approach. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study to investigate how teacher humour ranks relative to other teaching characteristics from teacher and student perspectives. The participants were 40 high school English teachers ( M age : 39.47, M experience :10.68, female 63%) in Germany and 989 ninth-grade students at high schools ( M age : 14.23, SD = 0.5, female 53%). Teachers completed a paper-and-pencil qualitative questionnaire, while the students’ data was collected online. Both groups answered two identical open-ended questions and one unique open question per group. Our results show that teacher humour is considered a salient characteristic of instructional quality from teacher and student perspectives, and is associated with various dimensions of instruction. However, the role of humour in instruction is seen differently by teachers and students, especially compared to features of prioritised instructional quality. In addition, the most and least important characteristics of instructional quality were identified in comparison to teacher humour. We conclude that teacher humour functions as both a distinct feature of instructional quality and a potential contributor to various features and dimensions of instructional quality as a multidimensional construct. Educational Psychology Educational Philosophy and Theory Teacher humour Instructional quality Cognitive activation Classroom management Student support Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Humour as a construct is multifaceted and multidimensional (Martin et al. 2003 ; Ruch 2008 , Wanzer et al. 2006 ) and teacher and student perceptions of humour are associated with emotional, instructional, social, and motivational factors in the classroom (Bieg and Dresel 2016 and 2018; Frymier et al. 2008 ; Torok et al. 2004 ; Wanzer et al. 2010). In general, humour is regarded as a positive psychological (e.g., Pollio and Humphreys 1996) and physiological (see Berk 1998 ) factor in learning contexts. In a highly broad sense, humour is claimed effective in all learning contexts (Booth-Butterfield and Wanzer 2016; Wanzer and Frymier 1999). Furthermore, humour in the classroom creates divergent thinking and is associated with students’ perception of a positive classroom climate (Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Ziv 1988 ). Beyond its role in evoking amusement, humour functions as a strategic communicative tool used across social contexts to cultivate rapport, reduce tension, and enhance group cohesion (Bell and Daly 1984; Graham et al. 1992 ; Winnick 1976). In educational settings specifically, instructors’ use of humour has been positively associated with student evaluations (Bryant et al. 1980 ), reduced classroom anxiety (Long 1983 ), and increased student participation and motivation (Korobkin 1988 ; Gorham and Christophel 1992). This body of research highlights humour’s multifaceted contribution to instructional quality by facilitating learning, fostering immediacy, and clarifying course material (Downs et al. 1988 ). Despite these findings, the acceptability of humour as a feature of instructional quality remains underexplored in secondary education. Our exploratory study seeks to address this gap by examining whether teacher humour is perceived not just as a pedagogical tool but as a feature of instructional quality. Importantly, we analyse this phenomenon from both teacher and student perspectives. Teacher humour is mapped as an intentional behavioural strategy employed by instructors (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield 1991 ), while students are the recipients and interpret it as part of the broader classroom experience. This dual viewpoint allows us to investigate teacher humour’s nuanced role among other instructional features, and its multifunctionality within dimensions of instructional quality. The perennial search for the quality of teaching or the desirable quality of teaching is popular, but also troublesome, as the current literature enjoys a variety of factors and dimensions that appear to be relevant to characteristics of a quality teacher (Tuomainen 2023 : 29), considering that teacher’s role is shifting “from an authority to a facilitator”. Nonetheless, there are numerous unprecedented challenges in this research when it comes to the implementation of a particular characteristic in specific groups, such as teacher humour in the current study. Current literature discusses various concepts with varying definitions that overlap to some extent in their characteristics and descriptions, such as instructional quality (Bellens et al. 2019; Berlin and Cohen 2018; Klette 2022 ; Taut and Rakoczy 2016), teaching quality (Tuomainen 2023 ), teacher expertise (Kreber 2002 ), effective teaching (Keeley et al. 2006), good teacher (Hativa 2000 ; Ramsden and Entwistle 1981; Tuomainen 2023 ), good teaching (Brown and Edmunds 2018; Ramsden 2003 ), teaching excellence (Gale 2007 ; O’Leary 2017 ; Shephard et al. 2010 ), effective teacher (Stronge 2018 ), high-quality teaching (Ellis 2018 ) and teacher characteristics (the list goes on and on). In this respect, we refer to instructional quality as a meta-conceptual matrix of factors that are all interrelated to support students in an educational context, such as a classroom. This definition encompasses the previously discussed quality of teachers, teaching, and instruction (see e.g., Filene 2005 ; Hativa 2000 ; Henrad and Roseveare 2012; Moore et al. 2007; Nilson 2016 ; Wood 2017 ). Quality of teaching is assessed on the basis of a variety of factors such as emotional, motivational, social, cognitive, and linguistic factors. How teachers (as providers) and learners (as recipients) perceive this quality plays an important role in an individual’s willingness to engage in an activity (e.g., Praetorius et al. 2018 ), due to the fact that teachers and students shape and reflect the actual teaching and learning process. Humour as a feature of instructional quality and its position under specific dimensions of instruction has remained largely unexplored in the context of high school. In a study of US college students (Keeley et al. 2006), humour was ranked among the 10 most important attributes for effective and optimal teaching, even surpassing attributes such as professional competence and subject-matter expertise. This suggests that students perceive humour not merely as an incidental classroom dynamic, but as a meaningful factor in evaluating instructional excellence. Supporting this perspective, Wanzer and Frymier (1999) demonstrated that teacher humour positively correlates with teacher evaluations, highlighting its role in shaping students’ impressions of instructor effectiveness. Moreover, a substantial body of research has demonstrated a positive relationship between teachers’ use of humour and student learning outcomes (e.g., Chapman and Crompton, 1978 ; Gorham and Christophel 1990; Ziv 1988 ). The widely accepted theoretical explanation for this link rests on humour’s capacity to gain and sustain students’ attention, which is associated with memory retention and cognitive processing (Kelley and Gorham 1988). Their findings underscore that instructors who are perceived as humourous are more likely to be viewed favourably, not just interpersonally, but pedagogically. This reinforces the idea that humour serves both relational and instructional functions, influencing not only classroom atmosphere and immediacy, but also evaluative judgments of teaching quality. Nonetheless, the current study aims to explore the teacher humour as a feature of instructional quality from the lens of teachers and students and will shed light on the characteristics of instructional quality that teachers and students in high school classrooms generally consider most important. 2. Theoretical background 2.1 Teacher Humour Humour is a complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional construct studied across various disciplines, including psychology, education, literature, and linguistics (e.g., Martin et al. 2003 ; Ruch 2008 ). Although humour is a firmly established or ingrained aspect of human experience, it is almost unfeasible to define it in a single and concise manner. Humour is a multifaceted construct, which encompasses various dimensions and interpretations. Rather than offering a singular, definitive definition, Ruch ( 2008 ) emphasises on the complexity and diversity of perspectives that humour encompasses or are attached to it. It involves cognitive skills such as wit and joke comprehension, emotional responsiveness, social and communicative abilities, and enduring dispositions, often referred to as sense of humour . Indeed, this is the sense of humour which is generally perceived namely as humour in teacher humour research. This sense has been viewed as a virtue and desirable personality characteristic, which refers to all forms of laughter (Martin 2003 ). In the past two decades, research has developed models tailored to specific contexts to make humour more accessible to empirical research. For instance, Instructional Humour Processing Theory (IHPT, Wanzer et al. 2010), defines humour in educational settings. According to IHPT, only appropriate forms of humour (namely affiliative forms: course-related, course-unrelated, self-disparaging teachr humor) used in the instruction may lead to student learning, whereas inappropriate types like aggressive humour do not support student learning processes. Similar to the incongruity theory (Koestler 1964 ), central to IHPT is the notion of incongruity-resolution (La Fave et al. 1996). It states that at first the students need to detect the incongruity in the humourous message and then may resolve it as humourous, which can be perceived negatively or positively (Frymier et al. 2006; Wanzer et al. 2010). Humour encompasses different forms (Martin et al. 2003 ), and each type is associated with different functions and consequences in the classroom (Bieg and Dresel 2016; Frymier et al. 2008 ; Wanzer et al. 2010). Humour is an inevitable part of educational environments and teacher humour is observed in various forms in higher education, although it was ignored or disregarded as an effective factor in educational environments four decades ago (see Bryant et al. 1979 ). How humourous a teacher is perceived may originate from the implementation of different types of humour in their teaching (Wanzer et al. 2010). Teacher humour is often assumed to serve positive functions in the classroom. For example, it may provide opportunities to positively influence emotional (Bieg et al. 2019), motivational and cognitive aspects of teaching (Banas et al. 2010; Iqbal 2025). Teacher humour has a dynamic and interactive character that can potentially positively influence the learning experience (Bieg et al. 2022 ). According to Bieg et al. ( 2022 ), teacher humour is more situation-specific than teacher enthusiasm and creates positive situations which can be maintained within a lecture and extended between lectures. It is a salient teaching characteristic of a good teacher (Daumiller et al. 2020), and teachers are recommended to have it as a positive trait. Humourous teaching improves the classroom context (Kosiczky and Mullen 2013), facilitates the accomplishment of difficult tasks (Özdemir 2017 ) and can potentially affect various forms of student interactions (Hoad et al. 2013), while its aggressive form is associated with negative domains of class climate and negative emotions (Tsukawaki et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, humour’s conceptualisation has evolved through centuries from being a mood to a connotation of funniness and amusement (Ruch 1998 ). Considering all forms of laughter as humour suggests that humour can be both hostile and benevolent (Ruch 1996 ). Thus, not every instance of laughter should be interpreted as humour (Ruch et al. 2019 ). According to Martin ( 2003 ), humour is a state, but sense of humour is a trait, or an enduring personality trait (Ruch 1998 ). In the absence of univocal definition of sense of humour, six different conceptualisations of sense of humour are argued (Martin 2003 ; Martin et al. 2003 ); a habitual behaviour pattern, a cognitive ability, a temperamental trait, an aesthetic response, an attitude, and a coping strategy. Closely related concepts such as laughter, playfulness, and cheerfulness may overlap with humour, yet remain conceptually distinct and heterogeneous. Martin ( 2007 ) offers a broad perspective, defining humour as the tendency to experience or express something amusing, and emphasises on both its intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. Traditionally, research has also showed interest in humour and proposed theories which theoretically support the understanding of humour and its psychological and social aspects. Three major theories are the superiority theory (Hobbes 1651), the incongruity theory (Kant 1987 ; Koestler 1964 ), and the relief theory (Freud 1905 ). The superiority theory views humour as the result of feelings of dominance over others (e.g., Hobbes 1651/2008). This theory suggests that laughter serves as a social signal, reinforcing hierarchies by expressing triumph or derision toward the shortcomings of others. This is the contrast between the perceived superiority and inferiority which leads to the occurrence of humour. The incongruity theory links humour to the perception of unexpected or incongruent information (Kant 1987 ; Koestler 1964 ). According to Kant ( 1987 : 203), “In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must be something absurd”. In Kant’s words, absurdity connotes incongruity which aligns closely with the current discussions of incongruity theory of humour, which suggests that laughter arises when there’s a surprising or illogical twist that disrupts our mental patterns. The relief theory explains humour as a release of psychological tension (Freud 1905 ). According to Freud, laughter serves as a mechanism for discharging repressed emotions or cognitive energy, especially in situations where social or moral constraints typically inhibit direct expression. Each of these theories offers a seminal but partial explanation, which can be employed in the interpretation and definition of humour or its functions. Given this conceptual nuance, the present study focuses on the extent to which teacher humour, as a prosocial sense of humour (Ruch 2008 ), is perceived as a feature of instructional quality in schools. Taken together, teacher humour is best conceptualised as an interplay of cognitive, motivational, social, emotional, and dispositional factors, rather than a singular phenomenon (Martin 2003 ; Ruch 2008 ). Nonetheless, besides this complexity, research on teacher humour adopts a broad and integrative definition of humour, such as “the intentional use of verbal and nonverbal messages which elicit laughter, chuckling, and other spontaneous behaviour taken to mean pleasure, delight or surprise in the targeted receiver” (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield 1991 : 206). In addition, previous research highlights the effectiveness of teacher humour in a broad spectrum. It argues that students perceive learning more joyful and teaching more encouraging when accompanied by teacher humour (Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Torok et al. 2004 ; Wanzer and Frymier 1999; Wanzer et al. 2010), even though humour is subjectively valued by students of different ages (Archambault and Chouinard 2016). Teacher humour improves learning (Downs et al. 1988 ), reinforces memorisation of information (Cornett 1986 ; Garner 2006 ; Kaplan and Pascoe 1977), enhances positive emotions and students’ language ability (Liao et al. 2023 ), and leads to test success in college students (Bryant et al. 1980 ; Ziv 1988 ). At the college and university context, humour is considered a positive attribute of college teachers (e.g., Bryant et al. 1980 ), and such classes attract more students (Devadoss and Foltz 1996 ). University students perceive their classroom as stimulating, socialising, and positive with enhanced learning when humour accompanies instruction (Bakar and Kumar 2022). In a qualitative study, high school teachers in Turkey (a qualitative sample of 11 teachers) used more than 17 types of humour in their teaching to improve interpersonal relationships, create a positive climate, offend, socialise, and to enhance pedagogical elements in the classroom (Sahin 2021 ). These findings suggest that teacher humour is a critical competence that needs to be investigated in pedagogical contexts. There is a glaring gap in the current literature to investigate the importance of teacher humour as a possible tool for instructional quality from a qualitative approach, which our study fills. 2.2 Instructional quality The concept of instructional quality is typically defined through teacher characteristics and functions that are employed to foster student learning and promote effective student outcomes (Klieme et al. 2009). In this sense, instructional quality serves as a framework with several dimensions which are the representatives for quality teaching (Praetorius et al. 2018 ). It is a broad and multifaceted construct that typically refers to teachers’ characteristics and behaviours aimed at developing a successful learning environment for students (Fauth et al. 2014 ; Hattie 2009 ; Seidel and Shavelson 2007). While it is defined variously in different studies, a consistent finding is its multidimensionality and that it encompasses a considerable number of characteristics and dimensions (Klieme et al. 2001 and 2009; Pianta et al. 2008 ). Characteristics such as teaching communication are based on the foundations of good and effective communication in the teaching and active consideration of students, even at college level, through clarity, interaction and emotional support (Tuomainen 2019 ). Hativa ( 2000 ), for instance, claims that clarity, organisation, interest, engagement and classroom climate are the most important dimensions of effective teaching and are most concretely demonstrated in teaching situations. Although much of the literature on instructional quality investigates effective factors that improve the quality of teaching, the role of humour has not yet been systematically integrated into such models. A widely recognised model by Klieme et al. (2009) identifies three dimensions of instructional quality: cognitive activation, supportive climate, and classroom management. Cognitive activation encompasses higher order activities such as problem-solving, learner engagement in critical thinking, and concept application (which is the mathematical concept in Klieme et al. 2009). Classroom management encompasses a broader range of factors such as techniques and strategies employed by teachers to create a conducive and orderly learning environment that facilitates learning; a salient factor in this context is time management. A supportive climate includes positive interactions that promote and provoke an encouraging learning environment for students. This includes aspects such as the organisation of physical space, the establishment of routines, the management of student behaviour, and the promotion of positive interactions between students as well as between students and teachers (Klieme et al., 2009). Instructional quality as a multidimensional construct differs across cultures in terms of the number and type of dimensions it encompasses (Liu et al. 2023). For example, Liu et al. (2023) identified the three dimensions of classroom climate, cognitive activation and teacher support using data from TALIS 2013. Further, they used PISA 2012 data and added student-centred instruction and classroom management to the instructional dimensions. Their findings suggested both divergence in teacher and student perceptions and the variability of dimensions across countries. This underlines the importance of recognising instructional quality with flexible contextual factors, such as culture, subject matter, and educational policies. The concept of instructional quality is typically defined through teacher behaviours that are believed to foster effective student learning, rather than through student outcomes directly. In this sense, it serves as a behavioural framework whose dimensions, such as cognitive activation, classroom management, and student support, signify high-quality teaching (Praetorius et al., 2018 ). While student outcomes remain the ultimate goal, instructional quality frameworks operationalise teacher effectiveness based on behaviours shown to support those outcomes. In another model, Light et al. (2009) classify four dimensions of learning and meaning as intellectual, practical, social and personal, quite different from the more instruction-focused three generic dimensions by Praetorius et al. ( 2018 ). To maintain consistency and theoretical rigour, our study adopts the Praetorius model, which is widely accepted in educational research and particularly relevant for classroom contexts. Our aim is to examine where teacher humour fits within this established behavioural framework from an expert view on teaching and student perspective. In this regard, in this study, we avoid changing any concept related to the dimensions and characteristics of instructional quality, while our research aimed to use the one highly reliable classification to investigate the place of teacher humour within this framework. 2.3 Research questions Current literature on the place of teacher humour among instructional quality features is inconclusive. Furthermore, previous research has rarely conducted a comparative and qualitative study to examine whether teachers and students view teacher humour as a characteristic of instructional quality. Our study addresses this gap by examining how teacher humour is situated within instructional quality constructs, drawing from two perspectives of teachers as experts and students as recipients of this expertise. We, therefore, formulated the following questions to evaluate the perceived significance of teacher humour in relation to other features of instructional quality. Q1. Is teacher humour considered a characteristic of instructional quality from teacher and student perspective? Q2. Do teachers and students consider similar characteristics to be less optimal than teacher humour for instructional quality? Q3. Do teachers and students consider similar characteristics to be more optimal than teacher humour for instructional quality? We relied on the three basic generic dimensions (Praetorius et al. 2018 ) and categorised and classified the characteristics of instructional quality for each basic dimension (to see the classifications with definitions and sample responses, refer to Appendix 1 ). 3. Method This study employed a qualitative research approach to collect data through open-ended questions using a written exploratory questionnaire. Responses from both teachers and students were used for inductive content analysis to uncover key teaching quality features and understand the perceived role of teacher humour within them. The overwhelming majority of research on students’ perception of instructional quality uses questionnaire ratings (Kunter et al. 2008 ) potentially due to their low-cost effectiveness and easy implementation (Mainhard et al. 2011 ). Although such design has been tested to have high construct validity (Wagner et al. 2013 ), these studies are bound to a specific limit in dimensions and characteristics. Hence, a more qualitative approach through administering open-ended questions can generally investigate salient features of quality teaching in high schools, and in particular can identify the place of teacher humour among features of instructional quality. Qualitative research methods are essential for gaining a deeper and clearer understanding of humour’s role and functions in educational contexts (Iqbal 2025). They allow researchers to explore the complexity of teacher humour, capturing its situational and relational dimensions in ways that quantitative approaches often overlook. By uncovering the contextual meanings and interpersonal dynamics of humour, qualitative approaches provide rich insights into how teacher humour functions in varying contexts, in particular in education (Iqbal 2025). We used frequencies and percentages to represent the prevalence of the categorised features, which is recommended in content-analysis research (Mayring 2014; Schreier 2012 ). Nonetheless, the provided tables serve purely descriptive purposes and do not reflect a shift toward quantitative methodology. This approach enhances the transparency and comparability (Mayring 2014) and shows effectively how often categories are prevail under a certain theme (Schreier 2012 ), which fits our method and design. 3.1 Participants To analyse features of the instructional quality in the classroom, three perspectives of teachers, students, and observers are considered sound methodologically (Helmke and Lenske 2013). In this study, we benefited from two perspectives of teachers and students. 40 teachers (age range: 27–62 years, M age : 39.47, SD = 8.79, M experience :10.68, female 62.5%), and 989 students (age range: 12–16 years, M age : 14.23, SD = 0.5, female 52.7%) participated in this study from three states of Germany: Baden-Württemberg, Thuringia, and Saarland. Teachers were certified English instructors (officially recruited) trained for the German secondary system. 87% of the students were born in Germany and 13% of them were originally from 46 other countries, but raised in Germany. Students were in the 9th grade of high school (Gymnasium: the first-track high school level in Germany). From a theoretical perspective, both teacher and student report measures have face validity (Clausen 2002 ; De Jong and Westerhof 2001 ) since teachers are trained to teach efficiently and the students are exposed to a variety of classroom contexts led by different teachers. Given that all students were minors, written informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians, and their consent forms were received prior to participation. This study was conducted in accordance with institutional and international ethical standards. In addition, e thical approval for this study was obtained from the University of XX Research Ethics Committee. 3.2 Data collection This study administered three written open questions to elicit qualitative responses regarding the significance of humour in instructions as a teaching quality, and its rank or salience among other features of instructional quality. Two questions were identical across both participant groups: a) What features of a teacher are more important than teacher humour in your idea? b) What features of a teacher are less important than teacher humour in your idea? In addition, each group received one distinct question. Teachers were asked: Do you think teacher humour is an effective instructional quality in the classroom? What aspects and features of the class are positively affected by teacher humour in your idea? Students were asked: What features of teaching in classroom are most important for you? The items were developed by two experts in educational psychology with research and teaching experience in teacher humour. Although no pilot study was conducted, the expert review process served as a form of pre-validation appropriate for open-ended and content-analysis design as a qualitative approach. 3.3 Data collection and analysis procedure The teachers filled out a paper-and-pencil qualitative questionnaire, while the data from the students was collected through online questionnaires. The analysis procedure was performed in five phases. Initially, the qualitative data were categorised based on raw information without any changes in the word order and lexical form. In this phase, participants’ statements within a sentence were broken into several segments or fragments based on the instructional quality and features that they referred to. A single participant’s statement included between one to five features of instructional quality. As an example, the statement ‘the teacher should be humourous and explain the materials well’ would be divided into two segments of ‘be humourous’ and ‘explain well’. In the second phase, the participants expressions were shortened and interpreted based on their meanings and connotations. For instance, statements such as ‘he should be able to explain the materials well’ and ‘he should be humourous’ were shortened to ‘explain well’ and ‘be humourous’. In the third phase, the shortened phrases (in the form of fragments) were categorised semantically under the closest class of instructional quality features. For instance, ‘explain well’ was classified as clarity of instruction , and ‘be humourous’ as sense of humour . The instructional quality features were categorised under three dimensions of classroom management, cognitive activation, and student support according to the three basic generic dimensions in Praetorius et al. ( 2018 ). In the next phase, we performed a reflexive validation benefitting from expert review and peer consultation. A second researcher reviewed selected portions of the data and provided feedback on coding decisions. Although inter-rater reliability was not formally assessed, peer consultation was used to enhance the rigour of the analytical process. Finally, the validated features and categories were given each a code and were descriptively measured. Hence, the analyses were designed to diagram were teacher humour and other features positioned in the hierarchical and/or systematic diagram of dimensions, sub-categories, and teaching features for instructional quality. Moreover, to provide and interpret participants’ responses related to features in each dimension of instructional quality, we developed a comprehensive table (see Appendix 1 ). This table draws on key constructs found in the literature, and our definitions driven from the related literature. In other words, this table clarifies and represents the terminology used in our analyses and provides sampled responses from empirical qualitative data. 3.4 Findings This study explores the role of humour within the broad construct of instructional quality, using a qualitative approach. Unlike previous research which investigates the role of teacher humour in association with different features in the classroom, such as social, motivational, emotional, and instructional quality dimensions, our research discusses whether humour is ranked among features of instructional quality from both teaching experts and student perspectives. 3.4.1 Teacher perspective We asked the teachers as experts for teaching whether they considered teacher humour to be a characteristic of instructional quality: “ Do you think teacher humour is an effective instructional quality in the classroom? What aspects and features of the class are positively affected by teacher humour in your idea? ”. The analyses showed that an overwhelming majority of teachers (at 87.5 percent) considered teacher humour a characteristic of instructional quality. Subsequently the teachers were requested to justify their views. They responded to the question, “Why do you think it would be important to teach teachers how to use humour effectively in the classroom?” Teachers provided written responses, which were categorised and classified under the appropriate teaching characteristics and classroom dimensions, as shown in Table 1 . Table 1 Positive effect of teacher humour on instructional quality from expert perspective Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Student support Provoking enjoyable environment 1 1,4 Positive personality 1 1,4 Climate 5 7,0 In/authentic teaching 7 9,9 Specific humour 7 9,9 Motivational 8 11,3 Positive emotions 12 16,9 Interpersonal competence 17 23,9 Cognitive activation Intellectual competence 1 1,4 Teaching content 1 1,4 Student development 2 2,8 Facilitation 8 11,3 Non-generic Nothing 1 1,4 Total 71 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. As illustrated in Table 1 , teachers believed that teacher humour improves 12 characteristics of instructional quality. Six of these characteristics were shared by more than 25% of the population. According to teachers’ justification, the use of humour in the classroom may promote interpersonal competence and positive emotions. It facilitates learning and enhances motivation. Furthermore, teachers believe that only certain types of teacher humour are potentially effective. Teacher humour that is not considered an individual behaviour and can be learned to solve problems is an educational reinforcer. Interestingly, teachers indicated that humour is not an authentic didactic tool and its non-authentic application is not accepted, while its authentic implementation is an effective tool. Nevertheless, the use of humour in the classroom enriches the teaching content and brings joy to the learning context. A tiny proportion of teachers found humour effective for students’ intellectual competence, and interestingly humour was not a positive reinforcer of classroom management. As indicated, teacher humour is mainly associated with characteristics of instructional quality that fit the dimension of student support and fairly to cognitive activation. Less than 30% of the teaching characteristics were placed in the dimension of cognitive activation. This indicates that teaching experts view teacher humour a multidimensional construct with features which fall into different dimensions of instructional quality. Table 2 Features of instructional quality more important than teacher humour from teacher perspective Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Student support Specific humour 1 0,6 Provoking enjoyable environment 3 1,9 Interestingness of instruction 3 1,9 Motivation 4 2,5 Climate 7 4,3 Positive personality 10 6,2 Responsive communication 11 6,8 Positive emotions 14 8,7 Professional competence 15 9,3 Interpersonal competence 21 13,0 Classroom management Technology 1 0,6 Content knowledge 2 1,2 Assessment and feedback 4 2,5 Classroom management 11 6,8 Instructional strategy 13 8,1 Curriculum 18 11,2 Cognitive activation Intellectual competence 2 1,2 Student development 2 1,2 Assignments 2 1,2 In/authentic teaching 4 2,5 Teaching content 6 3,7 Clarity of instruction 7 4,3 Total 161 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. Teachers indicated the more appealing teaching factors compared to teacher humour in their opinions. The results (Table 2 ) showed that 22 instructional factors were considered more salient compared to teacher humour. As also observable from Table 1 , many of these factors are associated with teacher humour as a multidimensional construct. Some of them have been described in previous studies (e.g., see the results of Bieg and Dresel 2018) as positively associated with course-related teacher humour, such as clarity and interestingness of instruction, positive teacher-student relationship, achievement emotions, and motivation. Interpersonal and professional competences with curriculum were the most important teaching factors. When we add positive personality and positive emotions to this list, we resolve the issue that positive elements in the classroom are what German teachers see at the top of their teaching desires. Although factors such as technology and media, teacher dominance over subject material and topic, assignment of tasks, assessment and feedback, and teacher intellectual competence were ranked as more important than teacher humour, the percentage of their popularity is much lower than that of responsive communication and interpersonal competence. This indicates that teachers believe more attention should be paid to the socio-emotional aspects than to the cognitive and didactic dimensions. Interestingly, some teachers distinguished between teacher humour and the specific types of teacher humour. Presumably, this specific type of humour can be associated with course-related teacher humour which was found an effect instructional and emotional tool in the literature (Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019). This is consistent with the multifaceted and multidimensional perspective on teacher humour proposed in previous research (Bieg and Dresel 2018). Teachers felt that authentic, non-offensive and harmless use of humour is preferred in the classroom. Over 50% of more important characteristics compared to humour belong to the dimension of student support (see Table 2 ). Table 3 Table 3 also indicated that classroom management and student support are two dimensions that contain consequential characteristics for instructional quality from expert perspective. This (along with Tables 1 and 2 ) suggests that teacher humour is a multidimensional characteristic that is interpreted diversely. According to teachers’ justifications, not only teacher humour supersedes many characteristics related to classroom management and student support, but it can also positively affect them. Features of instructional quality less important than teacher humour from teacher perspective Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Classroom management Curriculum 12 13,6 Instructional strategy 19 21,6 Classroom management 19 21,6 Student support Authentic teaching 1 1,1 Negative emotions 1 1,1 Specific humor 1 1,1 Motivation 1 1,1 Responsive communication 1 1,1 Positive emotions 2 2,3 Positive personality 2 2,3 Interpersonal competence 2 2,3 Professional competence 4 4,5 Assessment and feedback 4 4,5 Technology 8 9,1 Cognitive activation Clarity of instruction 1 1,1 Teaching content 1 1,1 Student development 3 3,4 Assignments 4 4,5 Non-generic Everything 2 2,3 Total 88 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. Table 3 showed that teachers acknowledge teacher humour more superseding than 18 factors commonly referred to as the foundational constituents of a successful classroom. 2% of teachers considered humour to be the most salient factor in the classroom. Surprisingly, classroom management, curriculum, and instructional quality, which were regarded the most salient factors in the previous sections were degraded as less important than teacher humour. A closer examination of the percentages revealed that while only 8% of teachers considered teacher humour less important than instructional strategies, a notably higher 21.6% of teachers prioritised teacher humour over instructional strategies. This signifies the salience of teacher humour over how teachers instruct and implement teaching methods to convey the subject matter. Similarly, 6.8% of teachers prioritised classroom management on teacher humour, while more than 21% of them judged humour more valued than classroom management. Hence, teachers believe that teacher humour is an inevitable part of teaching and its implementation is more required compared to many factors such as student assessment and assignments (both at 4.5%). Moreover, this information highlights challenges such as teacher professional competence, student development and technology (at 4.5, 3.4 and 9.1% respectively). The question arises as to whether the nature of teaching has shifted from a didactic and knowledge-delivering environment to a more socio-emotional construct, or there are unexplored reasons to be investigated by future research. As far as this study investigates, the opinions are challenging and can be compared to the student perspectives in the following sections. When students’ perceptions are highly aligned with those of teachers, teacher humour can be accounted as a multidimensional construct to be implemented in the classroom and that there is a high demand to train teachers in its effective form of implementation. 3.4.2 Student perspective In a question, students justified the teaching factors they acknowledged salient to improve their learning context. Our findings, in Table 4 , showed that more than 21 factors were prioritised and desired, which can be implemented to fulfill students’ aspirations in the classroom. The most important factor in the classroom was teacher’s interpersonal competence (15%). The most prominent feature in this factor was the positive relationship with their teacher, which is a socio-emotional sub-dimension of student support. 13% of students believed in clarity of instruction (a cognitive dimension) and a teacher with a sense of humour (multifaceted). It is interesting to note that in the previous analyses (see Tables 1 and 2 ), teachers did not emphasise the importance of the cognitive dimension in the classroom. Furthermore, contrary to teacher perspective, students preferred a teacher with a high level of intellectual competence. This was the most striking contrast between the important instructional features from the teacher and student perspectives. The data related to more important factors than teacher humour from the students can distinguish this differentiation more clearly. Table 4 Important features of instructional quality from students’ perspectives Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Student support Cultural competence 5 0,2 Motivational 19 0,9 Interestingness of instruction 48 2,3 Responsive communication 114 5,4 Positive personality 180 8,5 Provoking enjoyable environment 253 11,9 Sense of humour 274 12,9 Interpersonal competence 325 15,3 Cognitive activation Assignments 14 0,7 Teaching content 27 1,3 Student development 48 2,3 Intellectual competence 183 8,6 Clarity of instruction 276 13,0 Classroom management Technology 6 0,3 Assessment and feedback 34 1,6 Classroom management 67 3,2 Instructional strategy 96 4,5 Content knowledge 134 6,3 Non-generic Appearance 1 0,0 Nothing 2 0,1 Uncategorisable feature 15 0,7 Total 2121 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. The results of Table 4 indicated that student support was the most important dimension containing the instructional features desired by students. More attention was given to cognitive activation compared to classroom management. This showed that aspects of classroom management were neglected by students and they preferred to build relationships and knowledge rather than completing an assignment punctually or having discipline in the classroom. Table 5 Features of instructional quality more important than teacher humour from student perspective Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Cognitive activation Assignments 32 2,3 Teaching content 73 5,2 Intellectual competence 74 5,3 Student development 230 16,5 Clarity of instruction 258 18,5 Student support Cultural competence 1 0,1 Motivational 9 0,6 Sense of humour 21 1,5 Interestingness of instruction 40 2,9 Responsive communication 49 3,5 Positive personality 70 5,0 Provoking enjoyable environment 96 6,9 Interpersonal competence 105 7,5 Classroom management Technology 2 0,1 Assessment and feedback 25 1,8 Content knowledge 63 4,5 Classroom management 68 4,9 Instructional strategy 106 7,6 Non-generic Everything 3 0,2 Uncategorisable feature 22 1,6 Nothing 43 3,1 Total 1390 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. As observable from Table 5 , more than 18 teaching factors were considered more important than humour. While the least mentioned factor was teacher’s cultural competence, the most popular factor was clarity of instruction at 18%. Most importantly, students cited student development and instructional strategy as pivotal factors compared to teacher humour (at 16.7 and 7.8%, respectively). This highlighted students’ emphasis on cognitive activation and didactic aspects of teaching. Consequently, it reflected their preferences to receive the clearest instructions through most convenient teaching strategies that finally support their development. For instance, they stated that ‘it is more important to go home having learned something than laughed in class.’ Students’ favourite teaching features compared to teacher humour fell mainly in the dimensions of cognitive activation and student support (see Table 5 ). Their frequent care about being developed through the reception of clear instruction and understandable teaching was observed more than any teaching feature. It is so important to raise attentions towards having a sense of humour also in the delivered response distinguished from teacher humour. However, the reason behind stating sense of humour being more important than teacher humour is not the aim of our current study and hence unjustifiable. Table 6 Features of instructional quality less important than teacher humour from student perspective Dimension Feature Frequency Percentage Non-generic Everything 20 2,5 Uncategorisable feature 77 9,8 Nothing 100 12,7 Appearance 111 14,1 Cognitive activation Intellectual competence 2 0,3 Clarity of instruction 12 1,5 Student development 31 3,9 Teaching content 55 7,0 Assignments 85 10,8 Classroom management Technology 7 0,9 Content knowledge 19 2,4 Assessment and feedback 21 2,7 Irrelevant information 34 4,3 Instructional strategy 36 4,6 Classroom management 62 7,9 Student support Interestingness of instruction 2 0,3 Responsive communication 4 0,5 Sense of humour 21 2,7 Positive personality 25 3,2 Interpersonal competence 30 3,8 Provoking enjoyable environment 32 4,1 Total 1390 100,0 Note. Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top. The information in Table 6 indicated the supremacy of teacher humour compared to a number of important instructional factors. The least important factors, at 15%, were the physical appearance, gender and style of their teacher. Notably, 111 students consistently reported that these characteristics held little importance to them, preferring instead to enjoy their teacher’s sense of humour while teaching them. These factors belong to the non-generic dimensions of instructional quality and are not listed in the generic dimensions argued by Praetorius et al. ( 2018 ). Interestingly, cognitive aspects of teaching such as the teacher’s intellectual competence, the clarity of instruction, and the teacher’s content knowledge were judged less important than humour. This is consistent with respondents’ answers in Table 5 , where they identified the cognitive dimension as the most salient aspect of teaching. Moreover, nearly 13% of students viewed teacher humour as one of the least important instructional quality factors and stated that nothing is less important than teacher humour. The reason behind ignoring teacher humour can be the target of further research. Nonetheless, there is an assumption that teachers may not implement the right form of humour into their teaching or the question has primed this form of answer, due to the fact that not every form of humour is appropriate in the classroom (Wanzer et al. 2006 ). In this respect, the results of previous research indicated that, aggressive, and irrelevant teacher humour were not favoured by students (e.g., Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019). Students found characteristics related to student support less important than cognitive activation, while cognitive activation was less important than classroom management. This suggests that teacher humour is highly more important than features that fall under student support. This can stem from the multidimensionality of teacher humour. Given that teacher humour is associated with socio-emotional, motivational supports in the classroom, it is sensible to consider it more important that one specific feature which is mainly emotional or motivational. Overall, data from Tables 5 , and 6 signify the fact that teacher humour feasibly fits in basic generic dimensions of instructional quality. More specifically, the findings from teachers’ dataset manifest that teacher humour falls to a large extent under the dimension of student support, and to some extent under the dimension of cognitive activation. Therefore, humour as a feature of instructional quality is an indispensable part of classroom. 4. Discussions This study is the very first research that specifically addresses the place of teacher humour among other instructional quality characteristics and the feasible place of teacher humour in different dimensions of instructional quality, using a qualitative approach. It highlights the effectiveness of teacher humour in classroom from teacher perspective. Previous research suggests that appropriate form of teacher humour is a positive factor in the classroom in relation with emotional, motivational and cognitive aspects of teaching (Bieg et al. 2019; Bieg and Dresel 2018) besides being potentially able to positively influence the learning experience (Bieg et al. 2022 ). Our findings suggest that teacher humour is considered more than an effective tool associated with the quality of teaching in classroom. Nevertheless, our findings confirm studies which found teacher humour a characteristic of a good teacher (e.g., Bryant et al. 1980 ; Daumiller et al. 2020) and an effective tool to improve the classroom context (e.g., Booth-Butterfield and Wanzer, 2016; Kosiczky and Mullen 2013). Majority of teachers considered teacher humour a characteristic of instructional quality. Teacher humour is an appreciable feature and contributes to multiple dimensions of classroom instruction (Table 1 ). Teachers believe that interpersonal competence, curriculum, professional competence, positive emotions, instructional strategy, responsive communication, and classroom management are the most salient characteristics of instructional quality compared to teacher humour. These findings are in line with studies which argue the association of teacher humour with interpersonal competence (Sahin 2021 ), positive climate (Bakar and Kumar 2022), positive emotions and psychological states (e.g., Berk 1998 ; Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019; Pollio and Humphreys 1996), facilitation in learning (Cornett 1986 ; Garner 2006 ; Özdemir 2017 ; Ziv 1988 ), student engagement (Hoad et al. 2013), and enjoyable environment in the classroom (Bryant et al. 1980 ; Devadoss and Foltz 1996 ; Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Torok et al. 2004 ; Wanzer and Frymier 1999; Wanzer et al. 2010; Ziv 1988 ). Students, on the other hand, believe that clarity of instruction, student development, instructional strategy, interpersonal competence, provoking enjoyable environment, intellectual competence, and teaching content are more important than teacher humour. It is important to note that this is not teacher humour which is less important than these factors, yet these characteristics are important features of instructional quality from the perspective of students. Furthermore, our results indicate that teachers and students prioritise certain features over humour with opposing perspectives. For instance, clarity of instruction, student development, instructional strategies were rated high by the students, while the teachers voted higher for interpersonal competence, curriculum, and professional competence. Even though this research is the very first one investigating the place of teacher humour among other instructional quality features and dimensions, our findings are supported by studies which emphasise the association of teacher humour with student learning (e.g., Bieg and Dresel 2018; Wanzer et al. 2010), and emotions (e.g., Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019). Nevertheless, students’ acknowledgment of teacher humour as a salient feature of instructional quality in comparison with a range of social-emotional, cognitive, motivational and didactic factors in the classroom shows the sophistication and complexity of teacher humour in the classroom. However, direct comparison of the findings of teacher and student questionnaires often reveal rather low level of agreement between the two perspectives (Kunter and Baumert 2006). Our data reveals that teachers found socio-emotional (i.e., interpersonal competence and positive personality) and pedagogical factors (i.e., curriculum and professional competence) more important than teacher humour, while students found cognitive (i.e., clarity of instruction and intellectual competence) and developmental dimensions (i.e., student development) more important than teacher humour. Hence, teacher humour as a multidimensional construct is partitioned between the basic dimensions of instruction but in unequal ways. It is to a large extent a feature of student support, and to a lesser extent a feature of cognitive activation. This effectiveness of humour on cognitive aspects in the classroom were also found in prior research regarding enhancement of students’ content retention (Garner 2006 ), facilitation and assimilation of cognitive information (Korobkin 1989), and providing students with new perspectives to novel cognitive insights (Ziv 1988 ). The multifunctionality and multidimensionality of teacher humour in the classroom is illustrated in Fig. 1 , based on teaching experts’ perspectives. According to students and teachers, student support is the most frequently mentioned dimension of instructional quality, containing a larger number of features compared to the dimensions of cognitive activation and classroom management. Teacher humour, as illustrated in Fig. 1 , is mainly a feature of student support based on the information from teacher perspective. 33% of the teachers justified that teacher humour improves features of instructional quality which fall under the student support dimension. In addition, only half of the teachers found teacher humour less important than features of student support. This information places teacher humour more a feature of student support compared to two dimensions of cognitive activation and classroom management. While it is likely to assume that teachers and students have different perceptions of the importance of various instructional quality features, our findings show that in some cases they have similar perceptions of important instructional quality features. Take student support as an example. While teacher humour is categorised within the student support dimension of instructional quality, its pedagogical value extends beyond its features. As Praetorius et al. ( 2018 ) emphasise, student support, alongside cognitive activation and classroom management, forms a foundational component of effective instruction, directly influencing student motivation and performance. The CLASS framework (Pianta et al., 2008 ) further shows that emotionally supportive environments, which humour can help establish, are positively linked to academic achievement. Moreover, Hattie’s ( 2009 ) meta-analyses place supportive teacher-student relationships among the most influential factors in fostering deep learning. In this context, humour may act not as a superficial tool but as a powerful player for creating positive emotional climates, promoting trust, and enhancing student engagement, which are essential for meaningful learning. Nevertheless, teacher humour is a multidimensional construct, as argued in previous studies (e.g., Wanzer et al. 2006 ), which should not be misinterpreted in this study. In previous research, teacher humour is considered as a construct with elements related to the social-emotional, cognitive, instructional, and motivational dimensions of classroom, whereas in this study we focused on the generic dimensions, which are categorised differently to some extent. Furthermore, every generic dimension may include several sub-dimensions. For instance, students support, as also illustrated in Fig. 1 , encompasses social, motivational, emotional, and instrumental dimensions. In other words, teacher humour as a generic feature of teaching can be interpreted in different dimensions depending on its application and implementation. Hence, it is not humour per se but its implementation that determine how it aligns with instructional quality dimensions. This aligns with IHPT assumption (Wanzer et al., 2010), which argues only particular types of humour are effective. While the existing literature investigates teacher humour in terms of student learning (Bieg and Dresel 2018; Garner 2006 ), emotional and motivational outcomes (Bieg et al. 2017, 2019), and classroom climate (Bakar and Kumar 2022; Tsukawaki et al. 2020 ), our findings indicate that humour is a feature or an indicator of instructional quality. Our findings are consistent with previous studies where humour was found an essential component of education and teacher humour as a quality of teaching (e.g., Keeley et al. 2006). These findings suggest that, contrary to previous arguments (see O'Leary 2017; Feldman 2007 ), students’ ratings and views can be fair and reliable to evaluate and assess the quality of teaching. Teachers should focus more on the individuals and tailor their teaching to the different types of learners in terms of both their interests and learning styles, dynamically adapting and adjusting their teaching (Banaruee et al. 2022; Tuomainen 2023 ). 5. Limitations and future directions Despite our study addresses important limitations in previous research and fills an important gap in the literature, it faced several constraints which further research may resolve. We conducted the study in the context of German secondary schools and our information was heavily restricted to a large population of students in English classes with English teachers. Subject matter and teaching materials can highly affect the teachers’ attitude and approaches toward every instructional feature (Garay Abad and Hattie 2025). Hence, a population of teachers from varying subjects and geographical areas may add new insights to the study. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of social desirability bias, as teachers may have inferred that teacher humour was investigated in this study and responded in a manner that aligned with presumed expectations (Krumpal 2013 ). This bias may have shaped how teachers stated the effects and role of teacher humour in the classroom, limiting the authenticity of some responses. Moreover, a more universal and cross-cultural view of teacher humour and its association with features of instructional quality is much needed. Qualitative data could be supported with classroom observations and interviews using open-ended questions may help avoid potential priming effects. However, these methods fell outside the scope of this research due to time restrictions and the need to maintain coherence in data reporting. Greater attention needs to be devoted to research in humour and psychology in general and to less researched characteristics such as teacher humour in particular. Besides that, we did not address different forms of teacher humour and focused on humour at its general level. Future qualitative studies can take this into account and add deeper insights to the literature. How teacher humour is practically implemented in the classroom can be studied from the observer’s perspective and longitudinal studies, which can be the goal of further research. 6. Conclusion Teacher humour is a salient feature of instructional quality and can be an effective pedagogical tool for teachers to implement in their classes. Teacher humour is mainly a quality factor related to the student support dimension, and partially in the dimension of cognitive activation. It can support students in a variety of ways, including social-emotional, pedagogical, cognitive and motivational aspects of classroom. We conclude that teacher humour can be a valuable feature of quality teaching from both teacher and student perspective. Based on our findings, teacher humour can be predominantly positioned within the dimension of student support due to the fact that the majority of the participants believe in its role in creating a supportive climate. Nevertheless, such impact extends beyond one dimension and also fits within other dimensions of instructional quality as a multidimensional construct. In this respect, teacher humour can potentially contribute to a better classroom and more effective teaching practices. This reconceptualisation opens new insights and directions in teacher humour research. Declarations Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Funding: This study was funded by (masked for anonymity). Data availability: Data related to participants’ answers and the analysis are available at 10.6084/m9.figshare.27101155 Code of Ethics The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board for studies involving humans. References Aditomo A, Christina Köhler (2020) Do student ratings provide reliable and valid information about teaching quality at the school level? Evaluating measures of science teaching in PISA 2015. Educational Assess Evaluation Account 32(3):275–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-0932 Archambault J, Roch Chouinard (2016) &. Vers Une Gestion Educative De La Classe [Towards Educational Classroom Management]. 4th ed. Chenelière Auliah A Mohammad Ahsan Muhammad Shahid, & Saira Noreen. 2021. Exploring Positive School Attributes: Evidence from School Leader and Teacher Perspectives. SAGE Open, 11: 4, 1–13 Bakar F,Vijay Kumar (2022) How students perceive the teacher’s use of humor and how it enhances learning in the classroom. Eur J Humor Res 10(4):187–199. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2022.10.4.656 Banaruee H, Omid Khatin-Zadeh (2022) EFL learners’ learning styles and their reading performance. Discover Psychol 2(45). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-022-00059-x Banas JA, Norah Dunbar Dariela Rodriguez, Shr-Jie L (2010) A Review of Humor in Educational Settings: Four Decades of Research. Communication Education 60 (1): 115–44. 10.1080/03634523.2010.496867 Bell RA,John A. Daly (1984) The Affinity-Seeking Function of Communication. Communication Monogr 51:91–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390188 Van Bellens K, Damme Wim Van den Noortgate Heike Wendt & Trude Nilsen (2019) Instructional quality: Catalyst or pitfall in educational systems’ aim for high achievement and equity? An answer based on multilevel SEM analyses of TIMSS 2015 data in Flanders (Belgium), Germany & Norway. Large-Scale Assessments Educ 7(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0069-2 Berk RA (1998) Professors are From Mars, Students are From Snickers. Mendota, Madison, WI Berlin R, Julie Cohen (2018) &. Understanding instructional quality through a relational lens. ZDM 50 (3): 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0940-6 Bieg S, Markus Dresel (2016) Fragebogen zur Erfassung des Humors von Lehrkräften aus Schülersicht (HUMLAS): Konstruktion und Validierung [Construction and Validation of the German Questionnaire to Assess Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Humor]. Diagnostica 62(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000132 Bieg S, Markus Dresel (2017) Humor as a magic bullet? Associations of different teacher humor types with student emotions. Learn Individual Differences 56:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.008 Bieg S, Markus Dresel (2018) Relevance of perceived teacher humor types for instruction and student learning. Soc Psychol Educ 21(4):805–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9428-z Bieg S, Markus Dresel (2019) Teacher humor: Longitudinal effects on students’ emotions. Eur J Psychol Educ 34(3):517–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0402-0 Bieg S, Markus Dresel Thomas Goetz, Ulrike E, Nett (2022) Teachers’ enthusiasm and humor and its lagged relationships with students’ enjoyment and boredom - A latent trait-state-approach. Learn Instruction 81:101579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101579 Booth-Butterfield S, Melanie Booth‐Butterfield (1991) Individual Differences in the Communication of Humorous Messages. South Communication J 56:3:205–218. 10.1080/10417949109372831 Booth-Butterfield M, Melissa B, Wanzer (2016) Humor enactment in learning environments. In: Witt PL (ed) Communication and Learning. De Gruyter Mouton, pp 211–240 Brown G, Sarah Edmunds (2018) &. Effective teaching? In Roger Ellis and Elaine Hogard (eds), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching , 247–272. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 Bryant J, Alison PC, Dolf Zillmann (1979) Teachers’ humor in the college classroom. Communication Educ 28:110–118 Bryant J, Alison P, Comisky JS, Crane, Dolf Zillmann (1980) Relationship between college teachers’ use of humor in the classroom and students’ evaluation of their teachers. J Educ Psychol 72:511–519 Carless D (2015) Excellence in University Assessment: Learning from Award-Winning Practice. Routledge Chapman AJ, Crompton P (1978) Humorous presentations of material and presentation of humorous material: a review of humour and memory literature and two experimental studies. In: Gruneberg Michael M, Morris Peter E, Sykes Robert N (eds) Practical aspects of memory. Academic, London, pp 84–92 Charalambous CY, Anna-Katharina P (2018) Studying mathematics instruction through different lenses: Setting the ground for understanding instructional quality more comprehensively. ZDM 50(3):355–366 Clausen M (2002) Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Instructional quality: A question of perspectives?]. Waxmann, Münster, Germany Cornett CE (1986) Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN de Jong R Brunwin, Westerhof KJ (2001) The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learn Environ Res 4(1):51–85 Devadoss S, Foltz JC (1996) Evaluation of factors influencing class attendance and performance. Am J Agric Econ 78:499–507 Daumiller M, Sonja Bieg Oliver Dickhäuser & Markus Dresel (2020) Humor in university teaching: Role of teachers’ achievement goals and self-efficacy for their use of content-related humor. Stud High Educ 45(12):2619–2633. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623772 Downs VC, Manoochehr Mitch Javidi, Jon F, Nussbaum (1988) An Analysis of Teachers’ Verbal Communication within the College Classroom: Use of Humor, Self-disclosure, and Narratives. Communication Education 37(2): 127–41. 10.1080/03634528809378710 Ellis R (2018) Quality assurance for university teaching: Issues and approaches. In: Ellis R, Hogard E (eds) Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching. Routledge, pp 3–18. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 . Evans NJ et al (2010) Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass Fauth B, Decristan J, Rieser S, Gerhard Büttner (2014) Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learn Instruction 29:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001 Feldman KA (2007) Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In Raymond P. Perry and John C. Smart (eds), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective , 93–129. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3 Filene P (2005) The joy of teaching: A practical guide for new college instructors. University of North Carolina Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807887639_filene Freud S (1905) Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten . Leipzig: Deuticke. G.W. , VI. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. SE ,8 Freud S (1928) Humour. Int J Psychoanal 9:1–6 Frymier AB, Melanie B, Wanzer, Ann MW (2008) Assessing students’ perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Educ 57(2):266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701687183 Gale RA (2007) Braided practice: The place of scholarly inquiry in teaching excellence. In: Alan Skelton (ed) International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education. Routledge, pp 32–47. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939376 . Garay Abad L,Hattie John (2025) The impact of teaching materials on instructional design and teacher development. Front Educ 10:1577721. 10.3389/feduc.2025.1577721 Garner RL (2006) Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha! College Teaching 54 (1): 177–80. 10.3200/CTCH.54.1.177-180 Gorham J, Christophel Diane M (1990) The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Educ 39(1):46–62 Graham EE, Papa MJ, Gordon P, Brooks (1992) Functions of Humor in Conversation: Conceptualization and Measurement. Western J Communication 56(2):161–183. 10.1080/10570319209374409 Hattie J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge, London Hativa N (2000) Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7 Helmke A, Gudrun Lenske (2013) Unterrichtsdiagnostik als voraussetzung für unterrichtsentwicklung (Diagnosis of classroom instruction from different perspectives as a prerequisite for improving teaching and learning). Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung 31(2):214–233. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:13848 Henard F, Roseveare Deborah (2012) &. Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices: An IMHE guide for higher education institutions. OECD. https://learningavenue.fr/assets/pdf/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf Hoad C, Alison Lugg (2013) The potential of humor as a trigger for emotional engagement in outdoor education. J Experiential Educ 36(1):37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913481583 Hobbes T (ed) (2008) Leviathan . Edited by John Charles Addison Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally published 1651 Holt LC, Marcella LK (2005) Instructional Patterns: Strategies for Maximizing Student Learning. SAGE Iqbal N (2020) The Power of Laughter: Using Humor as an Effective Teaching Strategy [Internet]. Humor - Advances in Research and New Insights [Working Title] . IntechOpen. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1011300 Jentsch A, Johannes König (2021) Teacher competence and professional development. In Trude Nilsen, Agustin C. Gorges & Derek C. Mullis (eds), International Handbook of Comparative Large-Scale Studies in Education , Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38298-8_38-1 Kant I (1987) Critique of Judgment. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis Kaplan RM, Gregory C, Pascoe (1977) Humorous lectures and examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. J Educ Psychol 69(1):61–65 Keeley J, William Buskist (2006) The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teach Psychol 33(2):84–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3302_1 Kelley DH, Joan G (1988) Effects of Immediacy on Recall of Information. Communication Educ 37(3):198–207. 10.1080/03634528809378719 Klette K (2022) Coding manuals as a way of strengthening programmatic research in classroom studies. In Laurent Ligozat, Kirsti Klette, Sonja Labusch & Karin Boström (eds), Didactics in a changing world. European perspectives on learning, teaching and curriculum, 75–91. Springer Publishing Klieme E, Silke Knoll (2001) Gundel Schümer &. Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung [Mathematics instruction at secondary level. Task culture and instructional design]. In Eckhard Klieme and Jürgen Baumert (eds), TIMSS-Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente , 43–57. Munich, Germany: Medienhaus Biering Klieme E, Kurt Reusser (2009) Christine Pauli &. The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In Janik Tomas and Tina Seidel (eds), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom , 137–160. Waxmann Koestler A (1964) The Act of Creation. Macmillan Korobkin D (1988) Humor in the Classroom: Considerations and Strategies. Coll Teach 36(4):154–158. 10.1080/87567555.1988.10532139 Kreber C (2002) Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. Innov High Educ 27(1):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020464222360 Krumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quantity 47:2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 Kunter M, Jürgen Baumert (2006) Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learn Environ Res 9(3):231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7 Kunter M, Tsai Y-M, Klusmann U, Brunner M, Krauss S, Jürgen B (2008) Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Learn Instruction 18(5):468–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008 La Fave, Lawrence HJ, Maesen WA (1976) Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In: Chapman AJ, Foot HC (eds) Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications. Transaction, pp 63–91 Liao Y-H, Lee M-F, Yao-Ting Sung, Hsueh-Chih C (2023) The effects of humor intervention on teenagers’ sense of humor, positive emotions & learning ability: A positive psychological perspective. J Happiness Stud 24:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00654-2 Light G, Susanna Calkins (2009) Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional, 2nd edn. Sage Liu, Xin KY, De Hansen J, Martin Valcke (2023) Teacher versus student perspectives on instructional quality in mathematics education across countries. Instr Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09652-6 Long HB (1983) Adult learning, research and practice. Cambridge, New York Mainhard M, Tim MB, Theo Wubbels (2011) Coercive and supportive teacher behaviour: Within- and across-lesson associations with the classroom social climate. Learn Instruction 21(3):345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.003 Martin RA (2003) Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 313–326). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-020 Martin RA (2007) The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Elsevier Martin RA, Puhlik-Doris P, Larsen G, Jean Gray, Kelly A, Weir (2003) Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. J Res Pers 37(1):48–75 Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs A, Knipping C, Presmeg N (eds) Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13 Moore S, Angelika Risquez (2007) Teaching at college and university: Effective strategies and principles. McGraw-Hill Education Nguyen Ngan Thi Lan (2023) How to develop four competencies for teacher educators. Front Educ 8:1147143. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1147143 Nilson LB (2016) Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors, 4th edn. Wiley Nilsen TJan-Eric Gustafsson (2016) Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes: Relationships across countries, cohorts and time. Springer Nature O’Leary M (2017) Monitoring and measuring teaching excellence in higher education: From contrived competition to collective collaboration. In Amanda French and Matt O’Leary (eds), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework , 75–107. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614 Özdemir E (2017) Humor in elementary science: Development and evaluation of comic strips about sound. Int Electron J Elementary Educ 9(4):837–850 Pastore G, Reto Luder (2021) Teacher-student-relationship quality in inclusive secondary schools: Theory and measurement of emotional aspects of teaching. Front Educ 6:643617. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.643617 Peterson RE (1971) Intellectual Competence: Definition and Measurement . ETS Research Memorandum RM-71-15. Educational Testing Service Pianta RC, Karen M, La Paro, Bridget K, Hamre (2008) Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing, Baltimore, MD Pollio HR, William Humphreys (1996) What award-winning lecturers say about their teaching: It’s all about connection. Coll Teach 44(3):101–106 Praetorius A-K, Klieme E, Petra Pinger (2018) Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of Three Basic Dimensions. ZDM 50:407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4 Ramsden P (2003) Learning to teach in higher education . 2nd ed. Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203507711 Ramsden P, Noel JE (1981) Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. Br J Educ Psychol 51(3):368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x Ruch W (1996) Measurement approaches to the sense of humor: Introduction and overview. Humor 9:239–250 Ruch W (1998) Sense of humor: A new look at an old concept. In: Ruch W (ed) The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp 3–14 Ruch W (2008) Psychology of humor. In: Ruch W (ed) The primer of humor research. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. doi: 10.1515/9783110198492.17 Ruch W, Platt, Tracey P, Chen RenéT, Hsin-Chin (2019) Editorial: Humor and Laughter, Playfulness and Cheerfulness: Upsides and Downsides to a Life of Lightness. Frontiers Psychology Apr 9;10.‌ Sahin A (2021) Humor use in school settings: The perceptions of teachers. SAGE Open 11(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211022691 Schraw GPaul Lehman (2001) Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychol Rev 13(1):23–52 Schreier M (2012) Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE Seidel T, Richard JS (2007) Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Rev Educ Res 77(4):454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317 Shephard K, Harland T, Sarah J, Stein, Toni Tidswell (2010) Preparing an application for a higher education teaching-excellence award: Whose foot fits Cinderella’s shoe? J High Educ Policy Manag 33(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.537011 Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harv Educational Rev 57(1):1–23 Stronge JH (2018) Qualities of effective teachers . 3rd ed. ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_Stronge_0318.pdf Stuart WD, Lawrence B, Rosenfeld (1994) Student perceptions of teacher humor and classroom climate. Communication Res Rep 11:87–97 Taut S, Katrin Rakoczy (2016) Observing instructional quality in the context of school evaluation. Learn Instruction 46:45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.003 Torok SE, Robert F, McMorris, Wen-Chi L (2004) Is humor an appreciated teaching tool? Perceptions of professors’ teaching styles and use of humor. Coll Teach 52:14–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.1.14-20 Trifonas PP, Susan Jagger (eds) (2024) Handbook of Curriculum Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer International Publishing Tuomainen S (2019) Pedagogy or personal qualities? University students’ perceptions of teaching quality. Am J Educ Learn 4(1):117–134. https://doi.org/10.20448/804.4.1.117.134 Tuomainen S (2023) Teaching quality, good teaching and excellent teaching. Supporting students through high-quality teaching. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_3 . Tsukawaki R, Imura T, Kojima N, Katsuhiro Ito (2020) The correlation between teachers’ humor and class climate: A study targeting primary and secondary school students. Humor 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0021 Unipark (2024) https://www.unipark.com/en/ Wagner W, Göllner R, Helmke A, Oliver Lüdtke (2013) Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learn Instruction 28:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003 Wanzer MB, Ann Bainbridge Frymier (1999) The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Educ 48(1):48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379152 Wanzer MB, Frymier AB, Ann M, Wojtaszczyk, Tony Smith (2006) &. Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Humor by Teachers. Communication Education, 55 (2), 178–196. https://doi.org/1.1080/03634520600566132 Wanzer MB Ann Bainbridge Frymier & Jennifer Irwin. 2010. An explanation of the relationship between instructional humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Educ 59 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903367238 Charles W (1976) The Social Contexts of Humor. J Communication 26(3):124–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01915.x Wood P (2017) From teaching excellence to emergent pedagogies: A complex process alternative to understanding the role of teaching in higher education. In Amanda French and Matt O’Leary (eds), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework , 39–74. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614 Ziv A (1988) Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. J Experimental Educ 57(1):4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1988.10806492 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7857298","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":529380197,"identity":"dabc58ab-b510-4531-ae73-a5d3f4c12bd6","order_by":0,"name":"Hassan Banaruee","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8004-7604","institution":"University of Education Weingarten","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hassan","middleName":"","lastName":"Banaruee","suffix":""},{"id":529380198,"identity":"9a5dcf0d-c8bb-4371-87c8-6ff7f5e47f13","order_by":1,"name":"Sonja Bieg","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8333-8140","institution":"University of Education Weingarten","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sonja","middleName":"","lastName":"Bieg","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-14 10:12:56","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93613306,"identity":"8848c410-c316-428f-8941-6723582586c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:25:54","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":165241,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"maindocumentrevised.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/a86c120ec5f4da2dd06ca136.docx"},{"id":93612360,"identity":"29e15471-3dd9-46a4-9706-6819cd2209d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:17:54","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs7857298.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/e588ab9137f0334ee24d8528.json"},{"id":93613307,"identity":"4351de4d-8d9e-4782-97f6-c99a95a545e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:25:54","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":265885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs78572980enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/0a865567939a9854b7797855.xml"},{"id":93612362,"identity":"4e4c262d-43da-4821-b349-008153724d9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:17:54","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":79670,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/3288decc92b9b76f36ab683b.png"},{"id":93612365,"identity":"565636af-026b-44c3-b64e-5512d9988acf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:17:54","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":260111,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs78572980structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/60cabc412e5a92dbcb836900.xml"},{"id":93613308,"identity":"3b5db1c7-ef8f-4ed6-b95a-b7e5b6d949bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:25:54","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":274902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/640bc1976e35f8b968240a05.html"},{"id":93612364,"identity":"0788fc1e-cbf8-4cfd-9b51-7d7c6a3573eb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:17:54","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":433340,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher humour as a feature of instructional quality from teacher perspective\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/713cec0a63ef639703b660b7.jpeg"},{"id":93613837,"identity":"deb7409a-cb2a-4a6a-be53-683b029e0c80","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 16:33:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1611558,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7857298/v1/e7ce7788-cd53-4e8d-aa52-204d1227ac25.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIs Humour a Feature of Instructional Quality?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHumour as a construct is multifaceted and multidimensional (Martin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, Wanzer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) and teacher and student perceptions of humour are associated with emotional, instructional, social, and motivational factors in the classroom (Bieg and Dresel 2016 and 2018; Frymier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Torok et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wanzer et al. 2010). In general, humour is regarded as a positive psychological (e.g., Pollio and Humphreys 1996) and physiological (see Berk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) factor in learning contexts. In a highly broad sense, humour is claimed effective in all learning contexts (Booth-Butterfield and Wanzer 2016; Wanzer and Frymier 1999). Furthermore, humour in the classroom creates divergent thinking and is associated with students\u0026rsquo; perception of a positive classroom climate (Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond its role in evoking amusement, humour functions as a strategic communicative tool used across social contexts to cultivate rapport, reduce tension, and enhance group cohesion (Bell and Daly 1984; Graham et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Winnick 1976). In educational settings specifically, instructors\u0026rsquo; use of humour has been positively associated with student evaluations (Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), reduced classroom anxiety (Long \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e), and increased student participation and motivation (Korobkin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Gorham and Christophel 1992). This body of research highlights humour\u0026rsquo;s multifaceted contribution to instructional quality by facilitating learning, fostering immediacy, and clarifying course material (Downs et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these findings, the acceptability of humour as a feature of instructional quality remains underexplored in secondary education. Our exploratory study seeks to address this gap by examining whether teacher humour is perceived not just as a pedagogical tool but as a feature of instructional quality. Importantly, we analyse this phenomenon from both teacher and student perspectives. Teacher humour is mapped as an intentional behavioural strategy employed by instructors (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e), while students are the recipients and interpret it as part of the broader classroom experience. This dual viewpoint allows us to investigate teacher humour\u0026rsquo;s nuanced role among other instructional features, and its multifunctionality within dimensions of instructional quality. The perennial search for the quality of teaching or the desirable quality of teaching is popular, but also troublesome, as the current literature enjoys a variety of factors and dimensions that appear to be relevant to characteristics of a quality teacher (Tuomainen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e: 29), considering that teacher\u0026rsquo;s role is shifting \u0026ldquo;from an authority to a facilitator\u0026rdquo;. Nonetheless, there are numerous unprecedented challenges in this research when it comes to the implementation of a particular characteristic in specific groups, such as teacher humour in the current study. Current literature discusses various concepts with varying definitions that overlap to some extent in their characteristics and descriptions, such as instructional quality (Bellens et al. 2019; Berlin and Cohen 2018; Klette \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Taut and Rakoczy 2016), teaching quality (Tuomainen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), teacher expertise (Kreber \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), effective teaching (Keeley et al. 2006), good teacher (Hativa \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Ramsden and Entwistle 1981; Tuomainen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), good teaching (Brown and Edmunds 2018; Ramsden \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), teaching excellence (Gale \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Leary \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Shephard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), effective teacher (Stronge \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), high-quality teaching (Ellis \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and teacher characteristics (the list goes on and on). In this respect, we refer to instructional quality as a meta-conceptual matrix of factors that are all interrelated to support students in an educational context, such as a classroom. This definition encompasses the previously discussed quality of teachers, teaching, and instruction (see e.g., Filene \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hativa \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Henrad and Roseveare 2012; Moore et al. 2007; Nilson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Wood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality of teaching is assessed on the basis of a variety of factors such as emotional, motivational, social, cognitive, and linguistic factors. How teachers (as providers) and learners (as recipients) perceive this quality plays an important role in an individual\u0026rsquo;s willingness to engage in an activity (e.g., Praetorius et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), due to the fact that teachers and students shape and reflect the actual teaching and learning process. Humour as a feature of instructional quality and its position under specific dimensions of instruction has remained largely unexplored in the context of high school. In a study of US college students (Keeley et al. 2006), humour was ranked among the 10 most important attributes for effective and optimal teaching, even surpassing attributes such as professional competence and subject-matter expertise. This suggests that students perceive humour not merely as an incidental classroom dynamic, but as a meaningful factor in evaluating instructional excellence. Supporting this perspective, Wanzer and Frymier (1999) demonstrated that teacher humour positively correlates with teacher evaluations, highlighting its role in shaping students\u0026rsquo; impressions of instructor effectiveness. Moreover, a substantial body of research has demonstrated a positive relationship between teachers\u0026rsquo; use of humour and student learning outcomes (e.g., Chapman and Crompton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Gorham and Christophel 1990; Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). The widely accepted theoretical explanation for this link rests on humour\u0026rsquo;s capacity to gain and sustain students\u0026rsquo; attention, which is associated with memory retention and cognitive processing (Kelley and Gorham 1988). Their findings underscore that instructors who are perceived as humourous are more likely to be viewed favourably, not just interpersonally, but pedagogically. This reinforces the idea that humour serves both relational and instructional functions, influencing not only classroom atmosphere and immediacy, but also evaluative judgments of teaching quality. Nonetheless, the current study aims to explore the teacher humour as a feature of instructional quality from the lens of teachers and students and will shed light on the characteristics of instructional quality that teachers and students in high school classrooms generally consider most important.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Teacher Humour\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHumour is a complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional construct studied across various disciplines, including psychology, education, literature, and linguistics (e.g., Martin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Although humour is a firmly established or ingrained aspect of human experience, it is almost unfeasible to define it in a single and concise manner. Humour is a multifaceted construct, which encompasses various dimensions and interpretations. Rather than offering a singular, definitive definition, Ruch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) emphasises on the complexity and diversity of perspectives that humour encompasses or are attached to it. It involves cognitive skills such as wit and joke comprehension, emotional responsiveness, social and communicative abilities, and enduring dispositions, often referred to as \u003cem\u003esense of humour\u003c/em\u003e. Indeed, this is the sense of humour which is generally perceived namely as humour in teacher humour research. This sense has been viewed as a virtue and desirable personality characteristic, which refers to all forms of laughter (Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the past two decades, research has developed models tailored to specific contexts to make humour more accessible to empirical research. For instance, Instructional Humour Processing Theory (IHPT, Wanzer et al. 2010), defines humour in educational settings. According to IHPT, only appropriate forms of humour (namely affiliative forms: course-related, course-unrelated, self-disparaging teachr humor) used in the instruction may lead to student learning, whereas inappropriate types like aggressive humour do not support student learning processes. Similar to the incongruity theory (Koestler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), central to IHPT is the notion of incongruity-resolution (La Fave et al. 1996). It states that at first the students need to detect the incongruity in the humourous message and then may resolve it as humourous, which can be perceived negatively or positively (Frymier et al. 2006; Wanzer et al. 2010). Humour encompasses different forms (Martin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), and each type is associated with different functions and consequences in the classroom (Bieg and Dresel 2016; Frymier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Wanzer et al. 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHumour is an inevitable part of educational environments and teacher humour is observed in various forms in higher education, although it was ignored or disregarded as an effective factor in educational environments four decades ago (see Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). How humourous a teacher is perceived may originate from the implementation of different types of humour in their teaching (Wanzer et al. 2010). Teacher humour is often assumed to serve positive functions in the classroom. For example, it may provide opportunities to positively influence emotional (Bieg et al. 2019), motivational and cognitive aspects of teaching (Banas et al. 2010; Iqbal 2025). Teacher humour has a dynamic and interactive character that can potentially positively influence the learning experience (Bieg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). According to Bieg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), teacher humour is more situation-specific than teacher enthusiasm and creates positive situations which can be maintained within a lecture and extended between lectures. It is a salient teaching characteristic of a good teacher (Daumiller et al. 2020), and teachers are recommended to have it as a positive trait. Humourous teaching improves the classroom context (Kosiczky and Mullen 2013), facilitates the accomplishment of difficult tasks (\u0026Ouml;zdemir \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and can potentially affect various forms of student interactions (Hoad et al. 2013), while its aggressive form is associated with negative domains of class climate and negative emotions (Tsukawaki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, humour\u0026rsquo;s conceptualisation has evolved through centuries from being a mood to a connotation of funniness and amusement (Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Considering all forms of laughter as humour suggests that humour can be both hostile and benevolent (Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, not every instance of laughter should be interpreted as humour (Ruch et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). According to Martin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), humour is a state, but sense of humour is a trait, or an enduring personality trait (Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). In the absence of univocal definition of sense of humour, six different conceptualisations of sense of humour are argued (Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Martin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e); a habitual behaviour pattern, a cognitive ability, a temperamental trait, an aesthetic response, an attitude, and a coping strategy. Closely related concepts such as laughter, playfulness, and cheerfulness may overlap with humour, yet remain conceptually distinct and heterogeneous. Martin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) offers a broad perspective, defining humour as the tendency to experience or express something amusing, and emphasises on both its intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditionally, research has also showed interest in humour and proposed theories which theoretically support the understanding of humour and its psychological and social aspects. Three major theories are the superiority theory (Hobbes 1651), the incongruity theory (Kant \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Koestler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), and the relief theory (Freud \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1905\u003c/span\u003e). The superiority theory views humour as the result of feelings of dominance over others (e.g., Hobbes 1651/2008). This theory suggests that laughter serves as a social signal, reinforcing hierarchies by expressing triumph or derision toward the shortcomings of others. This is the contrast between the perceived superiority and inferiority which leads to the occurrence of humour. The incongruity theory links humour to the perception of unexpected or incongruent information (Kant \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Koestler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e). According to Kant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e: 203), \u0026ldquo;In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must be something absurd\u0026rdquo;. In Kant\u0026rsquo;s words, absurdity connotes incongruity which aligns closely with the current discussions of incongruity theory of humour, which suggests that laughter arises when there\u0026rsquo;s a surprising or illogical twist that disrupts our mental patterns. The relief theory explains humour as a release of psychological tension (Freud \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1905\u003c/span\u003e). According to Freud, laughter serves as a mechanism for discharging repressed emotions or cognitive energy, especially in situations where social or moral constraints typically inhibit direct expression. Each of these theories offers a seminal but partial explanation, which can be employed in the interpretation and definition of humour or its functions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven this conceptual nuance, the present study focuses on the extent to which teacher humour, as a prosocial sense of humour (Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), is perceived as a feature of instructional quality in schools. Taken together, teacher humour is best conceptualised as an interplay of cognitive, motivational, social, emotional, and dispositional factors, rather than a singular phenomenon (Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Ruch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, besides this complexity, research on teacher humour adopts a broad and integrative definition of humour, such as \u0026ldquo;the intentional use of verbal and nonverbal messages which elicit laughter, chuckling, and other spontaneous behaviour taken to mean pleasure, delight or surprise in the targeted receiver\u0026rdquo; (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e: 206).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, previous research highlights the effectiveness of teacher humour in a broad spectrum. It argues that students perceive learning more joyful and teaching more encouraging when accompanied by teacher humour (Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Torok et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wanzer and Frymier 1999; Wanzer et al. 2010), even though humour is subjectively valued by students of different ages (Archambault and Chouinard 2016). Teacher humour improves learning (Downs et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), reinforces memorisation of information (Cornett \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Garner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan and Pascoe 1977), enhances positive emotions and students\u0026rsquo; language ability (Liao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and leads to test success in college students (Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). At the college and university context, humour is considered a positive attribute of college teachers (e.g., Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), and such classes attract more students (Devadoss and Foltz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). University students perceive their classroom as stimulating, socialising, and positive with enhanced learning when humour accompanies instruction (Bakar and Kumar 2022). In a qualitative study, high school teachers in Turkey (a qualitative sample of 11 teachers) used more than 17 types of humour in their teaching to improve interpersonal relationships, create a positive climate, offend, socialise, and to enhance pedagogical elements in the classroom (Sahin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that teacher humour is a critical competence that needs to be investigated in pedagogical contexts. There is a glaring gap in the current literature to investigate the importance of teacher humour as a possible tool for instructional quality from a qualitative approach, which our study fills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Instructional quality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of instructional quality is typically defined through teacher characteristics and functions that are employed to foster student learning and promote effective student outcomes (Klieme et al. 2009). In this sense, instructional quality serves as a framework with several dimensions which are the representatives for quality teaching (Praetorius et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It is a broad and multifaceted construct that typically refers to teachers\u0026rsquo; characteristics and behaviours aimed at developing a successful learning environment for students (Fauth et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hattie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Seidel and Shavelson 2007). While it is defined variously in different studies, a consistent finding is its multidimensionality and that it encompasses a considerable number of characteristics and dimensions (Klieme et al. 2001 and 2009; Pianta et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics such as teaching communication are based on the foundations of good and effective communication in the teaching and active consideration of students, even at college level, through clarity, interaction and emotional support (Tuomainen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Hativa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, claims that clarity, organisation, interest, engagement and classroom climate are the most important dimensions of effective teaching and are most concretely demonstrated in teaching situations. Although much of the literature on instructional quality investigates effective factors that improve the quality of teaching, the role of humour has not yet been systematically integrated into such models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA widely recognised model by Klieme et al. (2009) identifies three dimensions of instructional quality: cognitive activation, supportive climate, and classroom management. Cognitive activation encompasses higher order activities such as problem-solving, learner engagement in critical thinking, and concept application (which is the mathematical concept in Klieme et al. 2009). Classroom management encompasses a broader range of factors such as techniques and strategies employed by teachers to create a conducive and orderly learning environment that facilitates learning; a salient factor in this context is time management. A supportive climate includes positive interactions that promote and provoke an encouraging learning environment for students. This includes aspects such as the organisation of physical space, the establishment of routines, the management of student behaviour, and the promotion of positive interactions between students as well as between students and teachers (Klieme et al., 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional quality as a multidimensional construct differs across cultures in terms of the number and type of dimensions it encompasses (Liu et al. 2023). For example, Liu et al. (2023) identified the three dimensions of classroom climate, cognitive activation and teacher support using data from TALIS 2013. Further, they used PISA 2012 data and added student-centred instruction and classroom management to the instructional dimensions. Their findings suggested both divergence in teacher and student perceptions and the variability of dimensions across countries. This underlines the importance of recognising instructional quality with flexible contextual factors, such as culture, subject matter, and educational policies. The concept of instructional quality is typically defined through teacher behaviours that are believed to foster effective student learning, rather than through student outcomes directly. In this sense, it serves as a behavioural framework whose dimensions, such as cognitive activation, classroom management, and student support, signify high-quality teaching (Praetorius et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). While student outcomes remain the ultimate goal, instructional quality frameworks operationalise teacher effectiveness based on behaviours shown to support those outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn another model, Light et al. (2009) classify four dimensions of learning and meaning as intellectual, practical, social and personal, quite different from the more instruction-focused three generic dimensions by Praetorius et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). To maintain consistency and theoretical rigour, our study adopts the Praetorius model, which is widely accepted in educational research and particularly relevant for classroom contexts. Our aim is to examine where teacher humour fits within this established behavioural framework from an expert view on teaching and student perspective. In this regard, in this study, we avoid changing any concept related to the dimensions and characteristics of instructional quality, while our research aimed to use the one highly reliable classification to investigate the place of teacher humour within this framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Research questions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrent literature on the place of teacher humour among instructional quality features is inconclusive. Furthermore, previous research has rarely conducted a comparative and qualitative study to examine whether teachers and students view teacher humour as a characteristic of instructional quality. Our study addresses this gap by examining how teacher humour is situated within instructional quality constructs, drawing from two perspectives of teachers as experts and students as recipients of this expertise. We, therefore, formulated the following questions to evaluate the perceived significance of teacher humour in relation to other features of instructional quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQ1. Is teacher humour considered a characteristic of instructional quality from teacher and student perspective?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQ2. Do teachers and students consider similar characteristics to be less optimal than teacher humour for instructional quality?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQ3. Do teachers and students consider similar characteristics to be more optimal than teacher humour for instructional quality?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe relied on the three basic generic dimensions (Praetorius et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and categorised and classified the characteristics of instructional quality for each basic dimension (to see the classifications with definitions and sample responses, refer to \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eAppendix 1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative research approach to collect data through open-ended questions using a written exploratory questionnaire. Responses from both teachers and students were used for inductive content analysis to uncover key teaching quality features and understand the perceived role of teacher humour within them. The overwhelming majority of research on students\u0026rsquo; perception of instructional quality uses questionnaire ratings (Kunter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) potentially due to their low-cost effectiveness and easy implementation (Mainhard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Although such design has been tested to have high construct validity (Wagner et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), these studies are bound to a specific limit in dimensions and characteristics. Hence, a more qualitative approach through administering open-ended questions can generally investigate salient features of quality teaching in high schools, and in particular can identify the place of teacher humour among features of instructional quality. Qualitative research methods are essential for gaining a deeper and clearer understanding of humour\u0026rsquo;s role and functions in educational contexts (Iqbal 2025). They allow researchers to explore the complexity of teacher humour, capturing its situational and relational dimensions in ways that quantitative approaches often overlook. By uncovering the contextual meanings and interpersonal dynamics of humour, qualitative approaches provide rich insights into how teacher humour functions in varying contexts, in particular in education (Iqbal 2025). We used frequencies and percentages to represent the prevalence of the categorised features, which is recommended in content-analysis research (Mayring 2014; Schreier \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, the provided tables serve purely descriptive purposes and do not reflect a shift toward quantitative methodology. This approach enhances the transparency and comparability (Mayring 2014) and shows effectively how often categories are prevail under a certain theme (Schreier \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), which fits our method and design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo analyse features of the instructional quality in the classroom, three perspectives of teachers, students, and observers are considered sound methodologically (Helmke and Lenske 2013). In this study, we benefited from two perspectives of teachers and students. 40 teachers (age range: 27\u0026ndash;62 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 39.47, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.79, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eexperience\u003c/sub\u003e:10.68, female 62.5%), and 989 students (age range: 12\u0026ndash;16 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 14.23, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5, female 52.7%) participated in this study from three states of Germany: Baden-W\u0026uuml;rttemberg, Thuringia, and Saarland. Teachers were certified English instructors (officially recruited) trained for the German secondary system. 87% of the students were born in Germany and 13% of them were originally from 46 other countries, but raised in Germany. Students were in the 9th grade of high school (Gymnasium: the first-track high school level in Germany). From a theoretical perspective, both teacher and student report measures have face validity (Clausen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; De Jong and Westerhof \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) since teachers are trained to teach efficiently and the students are exposed to a variety of classroom contexts led by different teachers. Given that all students were minors, written informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians, and their consent forms were received prior to participation. This study was conducted in accordance with institutional and international ethical standards. In addition, \u003cb\u003ee\u003c/b\u003ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of XX Research Ethics Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study administered three written open questions to elicit qualitative responses regarding the significance of humour in instructions as a teaching quality, and its rank or salience among other features of instructional quality. Two questions were identical across both participant groups: a) \u003cem\u003eWhat features of a teacher are more important than teacher humour in your idea?\u003c/em\u003e b) \u003cem\u003eWhat features of a teacher are less important than teacher humour in your idea?\u003c/em\u003e In addition, each group received one distinct question. Teachers were asked: \u003cem\u003eDo you think teacher humour is an effective instructional quality in the classroom? What aspects and features of the class are positively affected by teacher humour in your idea?\u003c/em\u003e Students were asked: \u003cem\u003eWhat features of teaching in classroom are most important for you?\u003c/em\u003e The items were developed by two experts in educational psychology with research and teaching experience in teacher humour. Although no pilot study was conducted, the expert review process served as a form of pre-validation appropriate for open-ended and content-analysis design as a qualitative approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data collection and analysis procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe teachers filled out a paper-and-pencil qualitative questionnaire, while the data from the students was collected through online questionnaires. The analysis procedure was performed in five phases. Initially, the qualitative data were categorised based on raw information without any changes in the word order and lexical form. In this phase, participants\u0026rsquo; statements within a sentence were broken into several segments or fragments based on the instructional quality and features that they referred to. A single participant\u0026rsquo;s statement included between one to five features of instructional quality. As an example, the statement \u0026lsquo;the teacher should be humourous and explain the materials well\u0026rsquo; would be divided into two segments of \u0026lsquo;be humourous\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;explain well\u0026rsquo;. In the second phase, the participants expressions were shortened and interpreted based on their meanings and connotations. For instance, statements such as \u0026lsquo;he should be able to explain the materials well\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;he should be humourous\u0026rsquo; were shortened to \u0026lsquo;explain well\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;be humourous\u0026rsquo;. In the third phase, the shortened phrases (in the form of fragments) were categorised semantically under the closest class of instructional quality features. For instance, \u0026lsquo;explain well\u0026rsquo; was classified as \u003cem\u003eclarity of instruction\u003c/em\u003e, and \u0026lsquo;be humourous\u0026rsquo; as \u003cem\u003esense of humour\u003c/em\u003e. The instructional quality features were categorised under three dimensions of classroom management, cognitive activation, and student support according to the three basic generic dimensions in Praetorius et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In the next phase, we performed a reflexive validation benefitting from expert review and peer consultation. A second researcher reviewed selected portions of the data and provided feedback on coding decisions. Although inter-rater reliability was not formally assessed, peer consultation was used to enhance the rigour of the analytical process. Finally, the validated features and categories were given each a code and were descriptively measured. Hence, the analyses were designed to diagram were teacher humour and other features positioned in the hierarchical and/or systematic diagram of dimensions, sub-categories, and teaching features for instructional quality. Moreover, to provide and interpret participants\u0026rsquo; responses related to features in each dimension of instructional quality, we developed a comprehensive table (see \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eAppendix 1\u003c/span\u003e). This table draws on key constructs found in the literature, and our definitions driven from the related literature. In other words, this table clarifies and represents the terminology used in our analyses and provides sampled responses from empirical qualitative data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study explores the role of humour within the broad construct of instructional quality, using a qualitative approach. Unlike previous research which investigates the role of teacher humour in association with different features in the classroom, such as social, motivational, emotional, and instructional quality dimensions, our research discusses whether humour is ranked among features of instructional quality from both teaching experts and student perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.1 Teacher perspective\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe asked the teachers as experts for teaching whether they considered teacher humour to be a characteristic of instructional quality: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eDo you think teacher humour is an effective instructional quality in the classroom? What aspects and features of the class are positively affected by teacher humour in your idea?\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. The analyses showed that an overwhelming majority of teachers (at 87.5 percent) considered teacher humour a characteristic of instructional quality. Subsequently the teachers were requested to justify their views. They responded to the question, \u0026ldquo;Why do you think it would be important to teach teachers how to use humour effectively in the classroom?\u0026rdquo; Teachers provided written responses, which were categorised and classified under the appropriate teaching characteristics and classroom dimensions, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive effect of teacher humour on instructional quality from expert perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"13\" rowspan=\"14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvoking enjoyable environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn/authentic teaching\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecific humour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive emotions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFacilitation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-generic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, teachers believed that teacher humour improves 12 characteristics of instructional quality. Six of these characteristics were shared by more than 25% of the population. According to teachers\u0026rsquo; justification, the use of humour in the classroom may promote interpersonal competence and positive emotions. It facilitates learning and enhances motivation. Furthermore, teachers believe that only certain types of teacher humour are potentially effective. Teacher humour that is not considered an individual behaviour and can be learned to solve problems is an educational reinforcer. Interestingly, teachers indicated that humour is not an authentic didactic tool and its non-authentic application is not accepted, while its authentic implementation is an effective tool. Nevertheless, the use of humour in the classroom enriches the teaching content and brings joy to the learning context. A tiny proportion of teachers found humour effective for students\u0026rsquo; intellectual competence, and interestingly humour was not a positive reinforcer of classroom management. As indicated, teacher humour is mainly associated with characteristics of instructional quality that fit the dimension of student support and fairly to cognitive activation. Less than 30% of the teaching characteristics were placed in the dimension of cognitive activation. This indicates that teaching experts view teacher humour a multidimensional construct with features which fall into different dimensions of instructional quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeatures of instructional quality more important than teacher humour from teacher perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"22\" rowspan=\"23\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecific humour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvoking enjoyable environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingness of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsive communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive emotions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment and feedback\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional strategy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurriculum\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssignments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn/authentic teaching\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClarity of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e161\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers indicated the more appealing teaching factors compared to teacher humour in their opinions. The results (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) showed that 22 instructional factors were considered more salient compared to teacher humour. As also observable from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, many of these factors are associated with teacher humour as a multidimensional construct. Some of them have been described in previous studies (e.g., see the results of Bieg and Dresel 2018) as positively associated with course-related teacher humour, such as clarity and interestingness of instruction, positive teacher-student relationship, achievement emotions, and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal and professional competences with curriculum were the most important teaching factors. When we add positive personality and positive emotions to this list, we resolve the issue that positive elements in the classroom are what German teachers see at the top of their teaching desires. Although factors such as technology and media, teacher dominance over subject material and topic, assignment of tasks, assessment and feedback, and teacher intellectual competence were ranked as more important than teacher humour, the percentage of their popularity is much lower than that of responsive communication and interpersonal competence. This indicates that teachers believe more attention should be paid to the socio-emotional aspects than to the cognitive and didactic dimensions. Interestingly, some teachers distinguished between teacher humour and the specific types of teacher humour. Presumably, this specific type of humour can be associated with course-related teacher humour which was found an effect instructional and emotional tool in the literature (Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019). This is consistent with the multifaceted and multidimensional perspective on teacher humour proposed in previous research (Bieg and Dresel 2018). Teachers felt that authentic, non-offensive and harmless use of humour is preferred in the classroom. Over 50% of more important characteristics compared to humour belong to the dimension of student support (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ealso indicated that classroom management and student support are two dimensions that contain consequential characteristics for instructional quality from expert perspective. This (along with Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that teacher humour is a multidimensional characteristic that is interpreted diversely. According to teachers\u0026rsquo; justifications, not only teacher humour supersedes many characteristics related to classroom management and student support, but it can also positively affect them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeatures of instructional quality less important than teacher humour from teacher perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"19\" rowspan=\"20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurriculum\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional strategy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthentic teaching\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNegative emotions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecific humor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsive communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive emotions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment and feedback\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClarity of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssignments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-generic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEverything\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e showed that teachers acknowledge teacher humour more superseding than 18 factors commonly referred to as the foundational constituents of a successful classroom. 2% of teachers considered humour to be the most salient factor in the classroom. Surprisingly, classroom management, curriculum, and instructional quality, which were regarded the most salient factors in the previous sections were degraded as less important than teacher humour. A closer examination of the percentages revealed that while only 8% of teachers considered teacher humour less important than instructional strategies, a notably higher 21.6% of teachers prioritised teacher humour over instructional strategies. This signifies the salience of teacher humour over how teachers instruct and implement teaching methods to convey the subject matter. Similarly, 6.8% of teachers prioritised classroom management on teacher humour, while more than 21% of them judged humour more valued than classroom management. Hence, teachers believe that teacher humour is an inevitable part of teaching and its implementation is more required compared to many factors such as student assessment and assignments (both at 4.5%). Moreover, this information highlights challenges such as teacher professional competence, student development and technology (at 4.5, 3.4 and 9.1% respectively). The question arises as to whether the nature of teaching has shifted from a didactic and knowledge-delivering environment to a more socio-emotional construct, or there are unexplored reasons to be investigated by future research. As far as this study investigates, the opinions are challenging and can be compared to the student perspectives in the following sections. When students\u0026rsquo; perceptions are highly aligned with those of teachers, teacher humour can be accounted as a multidimensional construct to be implemented in the classroom and that there is a high demand to train teachers in its effective form of implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2 Student perspective\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a question, students justified the teaching factors they acknowledged salient to improve their learning context. Our findings, in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, showed that more than 21 factors were prioritised and desired, which can be implemented to fulfill students\u0026rsquo; aspirations in the classroom. The most important factor in the classroom was teacher\u0026rsquo;s interpersonal competence (15%). The most prominent feature in this factor was the positive relationship with their teacher, which is a socio-emotional sub-dimension of student support. 13% of students believed in clarity of instruction (a cognitive dimension) and a teacher with a sense of humour (multifaceted). It is interesting to note that in the previous analyses (see Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), teachers did not emphasise the importance of the cognitive dimension in the classroom. Furthermore, contrary to teacher perspective, students preferred a teacher with a high level of intellectual competence. This was the most striking contrast between the important instructional features from the teacher and student perspectives. The data related to more important factors than teacher humour from the students can distinguish this differentiation more clearly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportant features of instructional quality from students\u0026rsquo; perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"19\" rowspan=\"20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingness of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsive communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e114\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvoking enjoyable environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSense of humour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e274\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e325\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssignments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e183\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClarity of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e276\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment and feedback\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional strategy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-generic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAppearance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUncategorisable feature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2121\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e indicated that student support was the most important dimension containing the instructional features desired by students. More attention was given to cognitive activation compared to classroom management. This showed that aspects of classroom management were neglected by students and they preferred to build relationships and knowledge rather than completing an assignment punctually or having discipline in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeatures of instructional quality more important than teacher humour from student perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssignments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"19\" rowspan=\"20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e230\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClarity of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSense of humour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingness of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsive communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvoking enjoyable environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment and feedback\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional strategy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-generic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEverything\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUncategorisable feature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1390\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs observable from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, more than 18 teaching factors were considered more important than humour. While the least mentioned factor was teacher\u0026rsquo;s cultural competence, the most popular factor was clarity of instruction at 18%. Most importantly, students cited student development and instructional strategy as pivotal factors compared to teacher humour (at 16.7 and 7.8%, respectively). This highlighted students\u0026rsquo; emphasis on cognitive activation and didactic aspects of teaching. Consequently, it reflected their preferences to receive the clearest instructions through most convenient teaching strategies that finally support their development. For instance, they stated that \u0026lsquo;it is more important to go home having learned something than laughed in class.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; favourite teaching features compared to teacher humour fell mainly in the dimensions of cognitive activation and student support (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Their frequent care about being developed through the reception of clear instruction and understandable teaching was observed more than any teaching feature. It is so important to raise attentions towards having a sense of humour also in the delivered response distinguished from teacher humour. However, the reason behind stating sense of humour being more important than teacher humour is not the aim of our current study and hence unjustifiable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeatures of instructional quality less important than teacher humour from student perspective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-generic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEverything\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUncategorisable feature\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"18\" rowspan=\"19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAppearance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive activation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClarity of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching content\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssignments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment and feedback\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIrrelevant information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional strategy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7,9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingness of instruction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsive communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0,5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSense of humour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive personality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvoking enjoyable environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4,1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1390\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100,0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Items are listed in descending order of frequency, with the most frequent dimension appearing at the top.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe information in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e indicated the supremacy of teacher humour compared to a number of important instructional factors. The least important factors, at 15%, were the physical appearance, gender and style of their teacher. Notably, 111 students consistently reported that these characteristics held little importance to them, preferring instead to enjoy their teacher\u0026rsquo;s sense of humour while teaching them. These factors belong to the non-generic dimensions of instructional quality and are not listed in the generic dimensions argued by Praetorius et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, cognitive aspects of teaching such as the teacher\u0026rsquo;s intellectual competence, the clarity of instruction, and the teacher\u0026rsquo;s content knowledge were judged less important than humour. This is consistent with respondents\u0026rsquo; answers in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, where they identified the cognitive dimension as the most salient aspect of teaching. Moreover, nearly 13% of students viewed teacher humour as one of the least important instructional quality factors and stated that nothing is less important than teacher humour. The reason behind ignoring teacher humour can be the target of further research. Nonetheless, there is an assumption that teachers may not implement the right form of humour into their teaching or the question has primed this form of answer, due to the fact that not every form of humour is appropriate in the classroom (Wanzer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In this respect, the results of previous research indicated that, aggressive, and irrelevant teacher humour were not favoured by students (e.g., Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents found characteristics related to student support less important than cognitive activation, while cognitive activation was less important than classroom management. This suggests that teacher humour is highly more important than features that fall under student support. This can stem from the multidimensionality of teacher humour. Given that teacher humour is associated with socio-emotional, motivational supports in the classroom, it is sensible to consider it more important that one specific feature which is mainly emotional or motivational. Overall, data from Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e signify the fact that teacher humour feasibly fits in basic generic dimensions of instructional quality. More specifically, the findings from teachers\u0026rsquo; dataset manifest that teacher humour falls to a large extent under the dimension of student support, and to some extent under the dimension of cognitive activation. Therefore, humour as a feature of instructional quality is an indispensable part of classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is the very first research that specifically addresses the place of teacher humour among other instructional quality characteristics and the feasible place of teacher humour in different dimensions of instructional quality, using a qualitative approach. It highlights the effectiveness of teacher humour in classroom from teacher perspective. Previous research suggests that appropriate form of teacher humour is a positive factor in the classroom in relation with emotional, motivational and cognitive aspects of teaching (Bieg et al. 2019; Bieg and Dresel 2018) besides being potentially able to positively influence the learning experience (Bieg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings suggest that teacher humour is considered more than an effective tool associated with the quality of teaching in classroom. Nevertheless, our findings confirm studies which found teacher humour a characteristic of a good teacher (e.g., Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Daumiller et al. 2020) and an effective tool to improve the classroom context (e.g., Booth-Butterfield and Wanzer, 2016; Kosiczky and Mullen 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMajority of teachers considered teacher humour a characteristic of instructional quality. Teacher humour is an appreciable feature and contributes to multiple dimensions of classroom instruction (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers believe that interpersonal competence, curriculum, professional competence, positive emotions, instructional strategy, responsive communication, and classroom management are the most salient characteristics of instructional quality compared to teacher humour. These findings are in line with studies which argue the association of teacher humour with interpersonal competence (Sahin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), positive climate (Bakar and Kumar 2022), positive emotions and psychological states (e.g., Berk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019; Pollio and Humphreys 1996), facilitation in learning (Cornett \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Garner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026Ouml;zdemir \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), student engagement (Hoad et al. 2013), and enjoyable environment in the classroom (Bryant et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Devadoss and Foltz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Stuart and Rosenfeld 1994; Torok et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wanzer and Frymier 1999; Wanzer et al. 2010; Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents, on the other hand, believe that clarity of instruction, student development, instructional strategy, interpersonal competence, provoking enjoyable environment, intellectual competence, and teaching content are more important than teacher humour. It is important to note that this is not teacher humour which is less important than these factors, yet these characteristics are important features of instructional quality from the perspective of students. Furthermore, our results indicate that teachers and students prioritise certain features over humour with opposing perspectives. For instance, clarity of instruction, student development, instructional strategies were rated high by the students, while the teachers voted higher for interpersonal competence, curriculum, and professional competence. Even though this research is the very first one investigating the place of teacher humour among other instructional quality features and dimensions, our findings are supported by studies which emphasise the association of teacher humour with student learning (e.g., Bieg and Dresel 2018; Wanzer et al. 2010), and emotions (e.g., Bieg et al. 2017 and 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, students\u0026rsquo; acknowledgment of teacher humour as a salient feature of instructional quality in comparison with a range of social-emotional, cognitive, motivational and didactic factors in the classroom shows the sophistication and complexity of teacher humour in the classroom. However, direct comparison of the findings of teacher and student questionnaires often reveal rather low level of agreement between the two perspectives (Kunter and Baumert 2006). Our data reveals that teachers found socio-emotional (i.e., interpersonal competence and positive personality) and pedagogical factors (i.e., curriculum and professional competence) more important than teacher humour, while students found cognitive (i.e., clarity of instruction and intellectual competence) and developmental dimensions (i.e., student development) more important than teacher humour. Hence, teacher humour as a multidimensional construct is partitioned between the basic dimensions of instruction but in unequal ways. It is to a large extent a feature of student support, and to a lesser extent a feature of cognitive activation. This effectiveness of humour on cognitive aspects in the classroom were also found in prior research regarding enhancement of students\u0026rsquo; content retention (Garner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), facilitation and assimilation of cognitive information (Korobkin 1989), and providing students with new perspectives to novel cognitive insights (Ziv \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). The multifunctionality and multidimensionality of teacher humour in the classroom is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, based on teaching experts\u0026rsquo; perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to students and teachers, student support is the most frequently mentioned dimension of instructional quality, containing a larger number of features compared to the dimensions of cognitive activation and classroom management. Teacher humour, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, is mainly a feature of student support based on the information from teacher perspective. 33% of the teachers justified that teacher humour improves features of instructional quality which fall under the student support dimension. In addition, only half of the teachers found teacher humour less important than features of student support. This information places teacher humour more a feature of student support compared to two dimensions of cognitive activation and classroom management. While it is likely to assume that teachers and students have different perceptions of the importance of various instructional quality features, our findings show that in some cases they have similar perceptions of important instructional quality features. Take student support as an example. While teacher humour is categorised within the student support dimension of instructional quality, its pedagogical value extends beyond its features. As Praetorius et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise, student support, alongside cognitive activation and classroom management, forms a foundational component of effective instruction, directly influencing student motivation and performance. The CLASS framework (Pianta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) further shows that emotionally supportive environments, which humour can help establish, are positively linked to academic achievement. Moreover, Hattie\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) meta-analyses place supportive teacher-student relationships among the most influential factors in fostering deep learning. In this context, humour may act not as a superficial tool but as a powerful player for creating positive emotional climates, promoting trust, and enhancing student engagement, which are essential for meaningful learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, teacher humour is a multidimensional construct, as argued in previous studies (e.g., Wanzer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), which should not be misinterpreted in this study. In previous research, teacher humour is considered as a construct with elements related to the social-emotional, cognitive, instructional, and motivational dimensions of classroom, whereas in this study we focused on the generic dimensions, which are categorised differently to some extent. Furthermore, every generic dimension may include several sub-dimensions. For instance, students support, as also illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, encompasses social, motivational, emotional, and instrumental dimensions. In other words, teacher humour as a generic feature of teaching can be interpreted in different dimensions depending on its application and implementation. Hence, it is not humour per se but its implementation that determine how it aligns with instructional quality dimensions. This aligns with IHPT assumption (Wanzer et al., 2010), which argues only particular types of humour are effective. While the existing literature investigates teacher humour in terms of student learning (Bieg and Dresel 2018; Garner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), emotional and motivational outcomes (Bieg et al. 2017, 2019), and classroom climate (Bakar and Kumar 2022; Tsukawaki et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), our findings indicate that humour is a feature or an indicator of instructional quality. Our findings are consistent with previous studies where humour was found an essential component of education and teacher humour as a quality of teaching (e.g., Keeley et al. 2006). These findings suggest that, contrary to previous arguments (see O'Leary 2017; Feldman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), students\u0026rsquo; ratings and views can be fair and reliable to evaluate and assess the quality of teaching. Teachers should focus more on the individuals and tailor their teaching to the different types of learners in terms of both their interests and learning styles, dynamically adapting and adjusting their teaching (Banaruee et al. 2022; Tuomainen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Limitations and future directions","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite our study addresses important limitations in previous research and fills an important gap in the literature, it faced several constraints which further research may resolve. We conducted the study in the context of German secondary schools and our information was heavily restricted to a large population of students in English classes with English teachers. Subject matter and teaching materials can highly affect the teachers\u0026rsquo; attitude and approaches toward every instructional feature (Garay Abad and Hattie 2025). Hence, a population of teachers from varying subjects and geographical areas may add new insights to the study. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of social desirability bias, as teachers may have inferred that teacher humour was investigated in this study and responded in a manner that aligned with presumed expectations (Krumpal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This bias may have shaped how teachers stated the effects and role of teacher humour in the classroom, limiting the authenticity of some responses. Moreover, a more universal and cross-cultural view of teacher humour and its association with features of instructional quality is much needed. Qualitative data could be supported with classroom observations and interviews using open-ended questions may help avoid potential priming effects. However, these methods fell outside the scope of this research due to time restrictions and the need to maintain coherence in data reporting. Greater attention needs to be devoted to research in humour and psychology in general and to less researched characteristics such as teacher humour in particular. Besides that, we did not address different forms of teacher humour and focused on humour at its general level. Future qualitative studies can take this into account and add deeper insights to the literature. How teacher humour is practically implemented in the classroom can be studied from the observer\u0026rsquo;s perspective and longitudinal studies, which can be the goal of further research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher humour is a salient feature of instructional quality and can be an effective pedagogical tool for teachers to implement in their classes. Teacher humour is mainly a quality factor related to the student support dimension, and partially in the dimension of cognitive activation. It can support students in a variety of ways, including social-emotional, pedagogical, cognitive and motivational aspects of classroom. We conclude that teacher humour can be a valuable feature of quality teaching from both teacher and student perspective. Based on our findings, teacher humour can be predominantly positioned within the dimension of student support due to the fact that the majority of the participants believe in its role in creating a supportive climate. Nevertheless, such impact extends beyond one dimension and also fits within other dimensions of instructional quality as a multidimensional construct. In this respect, teacher humour can potentially contribute to a better classroom and more effective teaching practices. This reconceptualisation opens new insights and directions in teacher humour research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by (masked for anonymity).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData related to participants\u0026rsquo; answers and the analysis are available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.6084/m9.figshare.27101155\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.6084/m9.figshare.27101155\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode of Ethics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board for studies involving humans.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAditomo A, Christina K\u0026ouml;hler (2020) Do student ratings provide reliable and valid information about teaching quality at the school level? Evaluating measures of science teaching in PISA 2015. Educational Assess Evaluation Account 32(3):275\u0026ndash;310. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-0932\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11092-020-0932\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArchambault J, Roch Chouinard (2016) \u0026amp;. \u003cem\u003eVers Une Gestion Educative De La Classe\u003c/em\u003e [Towards Educational Classroom Management]. 4th ed. Cheneli\u0026egrave;re\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuliah A Mohammad Ahsan Muhammad Shahid, \u0026amp; Saira Noreen. 2021. Exploring Positive School Attributes: Evidence from School Leader and Teacher Perspectives. SAGE Open, 11: 4, 1\u0026ndash;13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakar F,Vijay Kumar (2022) How students perceive the teacher\u0026rsquo;s use of humor and how it enhances learning in the classroom. Eur J Humor Res 10(4):187\u0026ndash;199. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2022.10.4.656\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7592/EJHR.2022.10.4.656\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanaruee H, Omid Khatin-Zadeh (2022) EFL learners\u0026rsquo; learning styles and their reading performance. Discover Psychol 2(45). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-022-00059-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44202-022-00059-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanas JA, Norah Dunbar Dariela Rodriguez, Shr-Jie L (2010) A Review of Humor in Educational Settings: Four Decades of Research. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Education 60\u003c/em\u003e(1): 115\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03634523.2010.496867\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634523.2010.496867\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell RA,John A. Daly (1984) The Affinity-Seeking Function of Communication. Communication Monogr 51:91\u0026ndash;115. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03637758409390188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Bellens K, Damme Wim Van den Noortgate Heike Wendt \u0026amp; Trude Nilsen (2019) Instructional quality: Catalyst or pitfall in educational systems\u0026rsquo; aim for high achievement and equity? An answer based on multilevel SEM analyses of TIMSS 2015 data in Flanders (Belgium), Germany \u0026amp; Norway. Large-Scale Assessments Educ 7(1):1\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0069-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40536-019-0069-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerk RA (1998) Professors are From Mars, Students are From Snickers. Mendota, Madison, WI\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerlin R, Julie Cohen (2018) \u0026amp;. Understanding instructional quality through a relational lens. \u003cem\u003eZDM 50\u003c/em\u003e(3): 367\u0026ndash;379. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0940-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11858-018-0940-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBieg S, Markus Dresel (2016) Fragebogen zur Erfassung des Humors von Lehrkr\u0026auml;ften aus Sch\u0026uuml;lersicht (HUMLAS): Konstruktion und Validierung [Construction and Validation of the German Questionnaire to Assess Students\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Teacher Humor]. Diagnostica 62(1):3\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000132\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1026/0012-1924/a000132\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBieg S, Markus Dresel (2017) Humor as a magic bullet? Associations of different teacher humor types with student emotions. Learn Individual Differences 56:24\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBieg S, Markus Dresel (2018) Relevance of perceived teacher humor types for instruction and student learning. Soc Psychol Educ 21(4):805\u0026ndash;825. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9428-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11218-018-9428-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBieg S, Markus Dresel (2019) Teacher humor: Longitudinal effects on students\u0026rsquo; emotions. Eur J Psychol Educ 34(3):517\u0026ndash;534. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0402-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10212-018-0402-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBieg S, Markus Dresel Thomas Goetz, Ulrike E, Nett (2022) Teachers\u0026rsquo; enthusiasm and humor and its lagged relationships with students\u0026rsquo; enjoyment and boredom - A latent trait-state-approach. Learn Instruction 81:101579. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101579\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101579\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBooth-Butterfield S, Melanie Booth‐Butterfield (1991) Individual Differences in the Communication of Humorous Messages. South Communication J 56:3:205\u0026ndash;218. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10417949109372831\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10417949109372831\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBooth-Butterfield M, Melissa B, Wanzer (2016) Humor enactment in learning environments. In: Witt PL (ed) Communication and Learning. De Gruyter Mouton, pp 211\u0026ndash;240\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown G, Sarah Edmunds (2018) \u0026amp;. Effective teaching? In Roger Ellis and Elaine Hogard (eds), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of quality assurance for university teaching\u003c/em\u003e, 247\u0026ndash;272. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315187518\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBryant J, Alison PC, Dolf Zillmann (1979) Teachers\u0026rsquo; humor in the college classroom. Communication Educ 28:110\u0026ndash;118\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBryant J, Alison P, Comisky JS, Crane, Dolf Zillmann (1980) Relationship between college teachers\u0026rsquo; use of humor in the classroom and students\u0026rsquo; evaluation of their teachers. J Educ Psychol 72:511\u0026ndash;519\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarless D (2015) Excellence in University Assessment: Learning from Award-Winning Practice. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChapman AJ, Crompton P (1978) Humorous presentations of material and presentation of humorous material: a review of humour and memory literature and two experimental studies. In: Gruneberg Michael M, Morris Peter E, Sykes Robert N (eds) Practical aspects of memory. Academic, London, pp 84\u0026ndash;92\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharalambous CY, Anna-Katharina P (2018) Studying mathematics instruction through different lenses: Setting the ground for understanding instructional quality more comprehensively. ZDM 50(3):355\u0026ndash;366\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClausen M (2002) \u003cem\u003eUnterrichtsqualit\u0026auml;t: Eine Frage der Perspektive?\u003c/em\u003e [Instructional quality: A question of perspectives?]. Waxmann, M\u0026uuml;nster, Germany\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCornett CE (1986) Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Jong R Brunwin, Westerhof KJ (2001) The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learn Environ Res 4(1):51\u0026ndash;85\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDevadoss S, Foltz JC (1996) Evaluation of factors influencing class attendance and performance. Am J Agric Econ 78:499\u0026ndash;507\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaumiller M, Sonja Bieg Oliver Dickh\u0026auml;user \u0026amp; Markus Dresel (2020) Humor in university teaching: Role of teachers\u0026rsquo; achievement goals and self-efficacy for their use of content-related humor. Stud High Educ 45(12):2619\u0026ndash;2633. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623772\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2019.1623772\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDowns VC, Manoochehr Mitch Javidi, Jon F, Nussbaum (1988) An Analysis of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Verbal Communication within the College Classroom: Use of Humor, Self-disclosure, and Narratives. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Education\u003c/em\u003e 37(2): 127\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03634528809378710\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634528809378710\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis R (2018) Quality assurance for university teaching: Issues and approaches. In: Ellis R, Hogard E (eds) Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching. Routledge, pp 3\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315187518\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans NJ et al (2010) Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFauth B, Decristan J, Rieser S, Gerhard B\u0026uuml;ttner (2014) Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learn Instruction 29:1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeldman KA (2007) Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In Raymond P. Perry and John C. Smart (eds), \u003cem\u003eThe scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective\u003c/em\u003e, 93\u0026ndash;129. Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/1-4020-5742-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFilene P (2005) The joy of teaching: A practical guide for new college instructors. University of North Carolina Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807887639_filene\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807887639_filene\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreud S (1905) \u003cem\u003eDer Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten\u003c/em\u003e. Leipzig: Deuticke. \u003cem\u003eG.W.\u003c/em\u003e, VI. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e,8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreud S (1928) Humour. Int J Psychoanal 9:1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrymier AB, Melanie B, Wanzer, Ann MW (2008) Assessing students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Educ 57(2):266\u0026ndash;288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701687183\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634520701687183\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGale RA (2007) Braided practice: The place of scholarly inquiry in teaching excellence. In: Alan Skelton (ed) International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education. Routledge, pp 32\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939376\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203939376\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaray Abad L,Hattie John (2025) The impact of teaching materials on instructional design and teacher development. Front Educ 10:1577721. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/feduc.2025.1577721\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2025.1577721\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarner RL (2006) Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha! \u003cem\u003eCollege Teaching 54\u003c/em\u003e (1): 177\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3200/CTCH.54.1.177-180\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3200/CTCH.54.1.177-180\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorham J, Christophel Diane M (1990) The relationship of teachers\u0026rsquo; use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Educ 39(1):46\u0026ndash;62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham EE, Papa MJ, Gordon P, Brooks (1992) Functions of Humor in Conversation: Conceptualization and Measurement. Western J Communication 56(2):161\u0026ndash;183. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/10570319209374409\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10570319209374409\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHattie J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHativa N (2000) Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelmke A, Gudrun Lenske (2013) Unterrichtsdiagnostik als voraussetzung f\u0026uuml;r unterrichtsentwicklung (Diagnosis of classroom instruction from different perspectives as a prerequisite for improving teaching and learning). Beitr\u0026auml;ge zur Lehrerbildung 31(2):214\u0026ndash;233. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25656/01:13848\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25656/01:13848\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenard F, Roseveare Deborah (2012) \u0026amp;. Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices: An IMHE guide for higher education institutions. OECD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://learningavenue.fr/assets/pdf/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://learningavenue.fr/assets/pdf/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoad C, Alison Lugg (2013) The potential of humor as a trigger for emotional engagement in outdoor education. J Experiential Educ 36(1):37\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913481583\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1053825913481583\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobbes T (ed) (2008) \u003cem\u003eLeviathan\u003c/em\u003e. Edited by John Charles Addison Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally published 1651\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolt LC, Marcella LK (2005) Instructional Patterns: Strategies for Maximizing Student Learning. SAGE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIqbal N (2020) The Power of Laughter: Using Humor as an Effective Teaching Strategy [Internet]. \u003cem\u003eHumor - Advances in Research and New Insights [Working Title]\u003c/em\u003e. IntechOpen. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1011300\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.1011300\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJentsch A, Johannes K\u0026ouml;nig (2021) Teacher competence and professional development. In Trude Nilsen, Agustin C. Gorges \u0026amp; Derek C. Mullis (eds), \u003cem\u003eInternational Handbook of Comparative Large-Scale Studies in Education\u003c/em\u003e, Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38298-8_38-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-38298-8_38-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKant I (1987) Critique of Judgment. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan RM, Gregory C, Pascoe (1977) Humorous lectures and examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. J Educ Psychol 69(1):61\u0026ndash;65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeeley J, William Buskist (2006) The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teach Psychol 33(2):84\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3302_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15328023top3302_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKelley DH, Joan G (1988) Effects of Immediacy on Recall of Information. Communication Educ 37(3):198\u0026ndash;207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03634528809378719\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634528809378719\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlette K (2022) Coding manuals as a way of strengthening programmatic research in classroom studies. In Laurent Ligozat, Kirsti Klette, Sonja Labusch \u0026amp; Karin Bostr\u0026ouml;m (eds), \u003cem\u003eDidactics in a changing world.\u003c/em\u003e European perspectives on learning, teaching and curriculum, 75\u0026ndash;91. Springer Publishing\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlieme E, Silke Knoll (2001) Gundel Sch\u0026uuml;mer \u0026amp;. Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung [Mathematics instruction at secondary level. Task culture and instructional design]. In Eckhard Klieme and J\u0026uuml;rgen Baumert (eds), \u003cem\u003eTIMSS-Impulse f\u0026uuml;r Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente\u003c/em\u003e, 43\u0026ndash;57. Munich, Germany: Medienhaus Biering\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlieme E, Kurt Reusser (2009) Christine Pauli \u0026amp;. The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In Janik Tomas and Tina Seidel (eds), \u003cem\u003eThe power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom\u003c/em\u003e, 137\u0026ndash;160. Waxmann\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoestler A (1964) The Act of Creation. Macmillan\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKorobkin D (1988) Humor in the Classroom: Considerations and Strategies. Coll Teach 36(4):154\u0026ndash;158. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/87567555.1988.10532139\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/87567555.1988.10532139\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreber C (2002) Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. Innov High Educ 27(1):5\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020464222360\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1020464222360\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrumpal I (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quantity 47:2025\u0026ndash;2047. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKunter M, J\u0026uuml;rgen Baumert (2006) Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learn Environ Res 9(3):231\u0026ndash;251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKunter M, Tsai Y-M, Klusmann U, Brunner M, Krauss S, J\u0026uuml;rgen B (2008) Students\u0026rsquo; and mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Learn Instruction 18(5):468\u0026ndash;482. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLa Fave, Lawrence HJ, Maesen WA (1976) Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In: Chapman AJ, Foot HC (eds) Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications. Transaction, pp 63\u0026ndash;91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiao Y-H, Lee M-F, Yao-Ting Sung, Hsueh-Chih C (2023) The effects of humor intervention on teenagers\u0026rsquo; sense of humor, positive emotions \u0026amp; learning ability: A positive psychological perspective. J Happiness Stud 24:1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00654-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10902-023-00654-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLight G, Susanna Calkins (2009) Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional, 2nd edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Xin KY, De Hansen J, Martin Valcke (2023) Teacher versus student perspectives on instructional quality in mathematics education across countries. Instr Sci. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09652-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11251-023-09652-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong HB (1983) Adult learning, research and practice. Cambridge, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMainhard M, Tim MB, Theo Wubbels (2011) Coercive and supportive teacher behaviour: Within- and across-lesson associations with the classroom social climate. Learn Instruction 21(3):345\u0026ndash;354. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin RA (2003) Sense of humor. In S. J. Lopez \u0026amp; C. R. Snyder (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePositive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 313\u0026ndash;326). American Psychological Association. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/10612-020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/10612-020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin RA (2007) The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Elsevier\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin RA, Puhlik-Doris P, Larsen G, Jean Gray, Kelly A, Weir (2003) Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. J Res Pers 37(1):48\u0026ndash;75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayring P (2015) Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs A, Knipping C, Presmeg N (eds) \u003cem\u003eApproaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education.\u003c/em\u003e Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoore S, Angelika Risquez (2007) Teaching at college and university: Effective strategies and principles. McGraw-Hill Education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen Ngan Thi Lan (2023) How to develop four competencies for teacher educators. Front Educ 8:1147143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/feduc.2023.1147143\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2023.1147143\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNilson LB (2016) Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors, 4th edn. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNilsen TJan-Eric Gustafsson (2016) Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes: Relationships across countries, cohorts and time. Springer Nature\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Leary M (2017) Monitoring and measuring teaching excellence in higher education: From contrived competition to collective collaboration. In Amanda French and Matt O\u0026rsquo;Leary (eds), \u003cem\u003eTeaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework\u003c/em\u003e, 75\u0026ndash;107. Emerald Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/9781787147614\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdemir E (2017) Humor in elementary science: Development and evaluation of comic strips about sound. Int Electron J Elementary Educ 9(4):837\u0026ndash;850\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePastore G, Reto Luder (2021) Teacher-student-relationship quality in inclusive secondary schools: Theory and measurement of emotional aspects of teaching. Front Educ 6:643617. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.643617\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2021.643617\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeterson RE (1971) \u003cem\u003eIntellectual Competence: Definition and Measurement\u003c/em\u003e. ETS Research Memorandum RM-71-15. Educational Testing Service\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePianta RC, Karen M, La Paro, Bridget K, Hamre (2008) Classroom assessment scoring system\u0026trade;: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing, Baltimore, MD\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePollio HR, William Humphreys (1996) What award-winning lecturers say about their teaching: It\u0026rsquo;s all about connection. Coll Teach 44(3):101\u0026ndash;106\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePraetorius A-K, Klieme E, Petra Pinger (2018) Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of Three Basic Dimensions. ZDM 50:407\u0026ndash;426. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamsden P (2003) \u003cem\u003eLearning to teach in higher education\u003c/em\u003e. 2nd ed. Routledge Falmer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203507711\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203507711\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamsden P, Noel JE (1981) Effects of academic departments on students\u0026rsquo; approaches to studying. Br J Educ Psychol 51(3):368\u0026ndash;383. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuch W (1996) Measurement approaches to the sense of humor: Introduction and overview. Humor 9:239\u0026ndash;250\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuch W (1998) Sense of humor: A new look at an old concept. In: Ruch W (ed) The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp 3\u0026ndash;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuch W (2008) Psychology of humor. In: Ruch W (ed) The primer of humor research. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1515/9783110198492.17\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/9783110198492.17\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuch W, Platt, Tracey P, Chen Ren\u0026eacute;T, Hsin-Chin (2019) Editorial: Humor and Laughter, Playfulness and Cheerfulness: Upsides and Downsides to a Life of Lightness. Frontiers Psychology Apr 9;10.\u0026zwnj;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSahin A (2021) Humor use in school settings: The perceptions of teachers. SAGE Open 11(2):1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211022691\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440211022691\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchraw GPaul Lehman (2001) Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychol Rev 13(1):23\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreier M (2012) Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeidel T, Richard JS (2007) Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Rev Educ Res 77(4):454\u0026ndash;499. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/0034654307310317\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShephard K, Harland T, Sarah J, Stein, Toni Tidswell (2010) Preparing an application for a higher education teaching-excellence award: Whose foot fits Cinderella\u0026rsquo;s shoe? J High Educ Policy Manag 33(1):47\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.537011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1360080X.2011.537011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShulman LS (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harv Educational Rev 57(1):1\u0026ndash;23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStronge JH (2018) \u003cem\u003eQualities of effective teachers\u003c/em\u003e. 3rd ed. ASCD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_Stronge_0318.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_Stronge_0318.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStuart WD, Lawrence B, Rosenfeld (1994) Student perceptions of teacher humor and classroom climate. Communication Res Rep 11:87\u0026ndash;97\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaut S, Katrin Rakoczy (2016) Observing instructional quality in the context of school evaluation. Learn Instruction 46:45\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorok SE, Robert F, McMorris, Wen-Chi L (2004) Is humor an appreciated teaching tool? Perceptions of professors\u0026rsquo; teaching styles and use of humor. Coll Teach 52:14\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.1.14-20\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3200/CTCH.52.1.14-20\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrifonas PP, Susan Jagger (eds) (2024) Handbook of Curriculum Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer International Publishing\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuomainen S (2019) Pedagogy or personal qualities? University students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of teaching quality. Am J Educ Learn 4(1):117\u0026ndash;134. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20448/804.4.1.117.134\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20448/804.4.1.117.134\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuomainen S (2023) Teaching quality, good teaching and excellent teaching. Supporting students through high-quality teaching. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsukawaki R, Imura T, Kojima N, Katsuhiro Ito (2020) The correlation between teachers\u0026rsquo; humor and class climate: A study targeting primary and secondary school students. Humor 1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/humor-2019-0021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnipark (2024) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unipark.com/en/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unipark.com/en/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWagner W, G\u0026ouml;llner R, Helmke A, Oliver L\u0026uuml;dtke (2013) Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learn Instruction 28:1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWanzer MB, Ann Bainbridge Frymier (1999) The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students\u0026rsquo; reports of learning. Communication Educ 48(1):48\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379152\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634529909379152\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWanzer MB, Frymier AB, Ann M, Wojtaszczyk, Tony Smith (2006) \u0026amp;. Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Humor by Teachers. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Education, 55\u003c/em\u003e(2), 178\u0026ndash;196. https://doi.org/1.1080/03634520600566132\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWanzer MB Ann Bainbridge Frymier \u0026amp; Jennifer Irwin. 2010. An explanation of the relationship between instructional humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Educ \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(1): 1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903367238\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634520903367238\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharles W (1976) The Social Contexts of Humor. J Communication 26(3):124\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01915.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01915.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWood P (2017) From teaching excellence to emergent pedagogies: A complex process alternative to understanding the role of teaching in higher education. In Amanda French and Matt O\u0026rsquo;Leary (eds), \u003cem\u003eTeaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework\u003c/em\u003e, 39\u0026ndash;74. Emerald Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/9781787147614\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZiv A (1988) Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. J Experimental Educ 57(1):4\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1988.10806492\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220973.1988.10806492\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"acc8dc76-e4e9-4ebb-ac23-bf5e71bb9ed4","identifier":"10.13039/501100001659","name":"Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft","awardNumber":"...","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Teacher humour, Instructional quality, Cognitive activation, Classroom management, Student support","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher humour is found an effective tool associated with different dimensions of instructional quality. However, its significance as a teaching characteristic has not been systematically investigated, in particular from a qualitative approach. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study to investigate how teacher humour ranks relative to other teaching characteristics from teacher and student perspectives. The participants were 40 high school English teachers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 39.47, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eexperience\u003c/sub\u003e:10.68, female 63%) in Germany and 989 ninth-grade students at high schools (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e: 14.23, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5, female 53%). Teachers completed a paper-and-pencil qualitative questionnaire, while the students\u0026rsquo; data was collected online. Both groups answered two identical open-ended questions and one unique open question per group. Our results show that teacher humour is considered a salient characteristic of instructional quality from teacher and student perspectives, and is associated with various dimensions of instruction. However, the role of humour in instruction is seen differently by teachers and students, especially compared to features of prioritised instructional quality. In addition, the most and least important characteristics of instructional quality were identified in comparison to teacher humour. We conclude that teacher humour functions as both a distinct feature of instructional quality and a potential contributor to various features and dimensions of instructional quality as a multidimensional construct.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Is Humour a Feature of Instructional Quality?","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-15 16:17:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7857298/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"92d9890c-f8d9-4682-beb6-3b6780428360","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":56266577,"name":"Educational Psychology"},{"id":56266578,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-15T16:17:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-15 16:17:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7857298","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7857298","identity":"rs-7857298","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}