Sandra McKenzie

Good example! I have bought Dummies books on several subjects (most recently, Huskies for Dummies, which does a pretty good job of explaining some the inexplicable things my dog does. :-D)

I agree, the humour is pretty lame, but we don't usually buy those books for their laff-a-minute quotient. In the Dummies books, the joke is on us, the consumer, as signalled by the title.

Self-deprecating humour seems to be a pretty safe technique, and, judging by the success of the Dummies books, pretty successful. So, are we coming to the conclusion that humour in instruction has to be safe? That instructors shouldn't introduce provocative humour because of the risk of being misunderstood, or offending someone? This seems to be where I started from, by noting my cautions to course developers to use humour sparingly and carefully.

Hmmm...

I do apologize if the Pastafarian example offends anybody - I don't view it as mean-spirited at all, but this is a good example of how humour can fail just by its nature as a subjective entity. Another example - we rented a film called "The Aristrocrats", which is a documentary about comedians who each retell what is billed as the most tasteless joke in the world, evidently an old vaudeville routine that professional comedians tell each other - it has people like George Carlin, Robin Williams, Phyllis Diller, and a whole bunch of other top-flight comedians, so we thought, "how bad can it be?" Well, from our perspective, the answer is, "pretty darned awful!" We hit the stop button about ten minutes into the film, because we failed to see anything funny at all in the humour.

But this raises another question: isn't humour always, or at least usually, about being provocative? (Though preferably not offensively so!) I'm thinking about rhyming games, for example, that teach children about rhythm and word patterns by provoking them to think beyond the simple, concrete language of everyday transactions. Or the scatalogical jokes so beloved of eight-year-old boys. (Not sure what they teach, exactly, except maybe the boundaries of conversation in civil company!)

I just got the attached clipping in an email today, and while it's definitely off-topic, it seems curiously relevant to this discussion.

So far nobody has talked about the element of surprise -- startling students into seeing a subject, or an issue, in a different, yet completely valid, light. Here, someone has taken what is usually seen as a major liability -- his drug conviction -- and turned it into the lynchpin of a darned-near irresistible resume! I think I'd hire the guy on the basis of his honesty alone!

While it takes real talent to pull off this kind of skewed view effectively, there are examples out there just waiting to be used. For instance, lots of us have been mildly (or wildly) amused by the campaign to have the creationist myth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster introduced into Kansas schools, as a legitimate philosophic alternative to Intelligent Design. Silly, yes, but used creatively, it also opens a door to a rational discussion of the issues surrounding this debate.

Possibly there are limited opportunities for this technique, and probably few of us have the confidence or the courage (much less the administrative support!) to introduce anything similar to an online course, but it might be fun to let our imaginations play with the idea.

(Oh, and for anyone not familiar with Pastafarians and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, here's a link that explains it all: http://www.venganza.org/
??

HI Sylvia,
Please don't apologize for using emoticons - that's just my hang-up. I actually have no problem whatsoever with other people using them. I wonder, in fact, if my own problem is just that I've never managed to learn how to insert the little graphics properly.

I agree that Sylvia's list is excellent, except for one thing: Don't memorize! I've written speeches for many people, and the one invariable difference that I've noted between a good (or even great!) speech and one that's a real dozer is that the speaker who can talk "off the cuff" is much more effective than the speaker who sounds rehearsed. The trick is to use cue cards with your main points and facts listed. Then, as you note, add the passion -- if you know your stuff, and are passionate about it, you can speak spontaneously (or at least fake spontaneity -- it reminds me of what I think it was Groucho Marx said about acting: "You have to be sincere. If you can fake that, you've got it made!")
'