Fun in the College Classroom: Examining Its Nature and Relationship with Student Engagement

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 11 February 2015, At: 13:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

College TeachingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Fun in the College Classroom: Examining Its Nature andRelationship with Student EngagementMichael J. Tewsa, Kathy Jacksona, Crystal Ramsaya & John W. Michelba The Pennsylvania State Universityb Loyola University MarylandPublished online: 22 Jan 2015.

To cite this article: Michael J. Tews, Kathy Jackson, Crystal Ramsay & John W. Michel (2015) Fun in the CollegeClassroom: Examining Its Nature and Relationship with Student Engagement, College Teaching, 63:1, 16-26, DOI:10.1080/87567555.2014.972318

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.972318

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Fun in the College Classroom: Examining Its Natureand Relationship with Student Engagement

Michael J. Tews, Kathy Jackson, and Crystal Ramsay

The Pennsylvania State University

John W. Michel

Loyola University Maryland

Despite the popular belief that fun has a positive impact in learning contexts, empirical

research on fun in the classroom has been limited. To extend research in this area, the goal of

this study was to develop and validate a new scale to assess fun in the classroom and

examine its relationship with student engagement. The multi-stage scale development effort

resulted in a two-dimensional measure, including fun activities and fun delivery. Fun

activities reflect a variety of hands-on exercises and ways to promote social involvement

among students. Fun delivery is more instructor-focused, including the use of humor,

creative examples, and storytelling. Interestingly, fun delivery, but not fun activities, was

positively related to student engagement. These findings suggest that not all fun is equal and

highlight the need for additional research to validate the impact of fun on meaningful student

outcomes.

Keywords: fun in the classroom, higher education, scale development, student engagement,

validation

A number of educators and researchers alike believe that

incorporating fun in the college classroom is a key strategy

to engage students in the learning experience. As early as

the 1950s, scholars have argued that play leads to deeper,

more effective learning (Huizinga 1955). More recently,

Robinson and Kakela (2006, 202) suggest that “by creating

a space for fun, interaction, and trust, teachers and students

can build a learning environment that promotes engage-

ment, deep learning, and meaning.” Benjelloun (2009)

asserts that humor and a joyful approach in the classroom

foster an appropriate climate to promote creativity, commu-

nication, and receptivity to new ideas. Similarly, Berk

(2002, 2003) has written on humor in the classroom as a

key strategy to make course content more accessible,

engage students, and facilitate knowledge and skill acquisi-

tion. Moreover, popular press training publications advo-

cate fun as a key ingredient to make learning successful

(e.g., Deming 2004; Silberman and Auerbach 2006; Tamb-

lyn and Weiss 2000; Thiagarajan 2003; Thiagarajan and

Tagliati 2011). The fundamental belief is that greater

knowledge and skill acquisition will result when learners

have more fun, are actively involved, and enjoy the learning

process.

Fun may be of particular importance for learning today,

as the Millennials, who represent the primary generational

cohort of today’s college students, especially value fun

(Lamm and Meeks 2009; Parker and Chusmir 1990; Smola

and Sutton 2002). Fun is thought to be important for Mil-

lennials because of their relatively carefree upbringing

(Alsop 2008). This generational cohort grew up in a period

of economic prosperity, were highly attended to by their

parents, and were highly involved in extracurricular activi-

ties throughout their upbringing. Millennials are not averse

to hard work, yet they have been characterized as desiring

a balance between work and play, freedom, and social

involvement (Carless and Wintle 2007; Cennamo and

Gardner 2008; Loughlin and Barling 2001; Smola and Sut-

ton 2002). Eble (1988, 56) argues that “whatever a teacher

can do to provide an easy transition from the student’s

real world to the artificial world of the classroom is likely

to be appreciated and to aid learning.” Thus, fun may be

important in the college classroom as it may be an integral

Correspondence should be sent to Michael J. Tews, School of Hospital-

ity Management, 121 Mateer Building, The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

COLLEGE TEACHING, 63: 16–26, 2014

Copyright� Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 8756-7555 print / 1930-8299 online

DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2014.972318

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

part of Millennials’ lives beyond the traditional learning

context.

In support of the contention that fun has value, research-

ers across a wide variety of disciplines have demonstrated

that different classroom elements, which may be considered

fun, facilitate favorable outcomes. A number of studies

have demonstrated that an instructor’s appropriate use of

humor may humanize the classroom, reduce anxiety, foster

creativity, enhance student learning, and lead to higher rat-

ings of teacher effectiveness (Browne 2013; Bryant et al.

1980; Gorham and Christophel 1990; Pomerantz and Bell

2011; Torok, McMorris, and Lin 2004). Other studies have

focused on the utility of various active teaching methods.

Sivan and colleagues (1991) found that students involved

with active teaching techniques, including games and simu-

lations, exhibited more favorable learning outcomes,

although Galarneau (2005) contends that the benefit of

games is highly dependent on careful design of the learning

experience. McCarthy and Anderson (2000) illustrated that

students who participated in role plays and collaborative

exercises performed better than those who did not. Simi-

larly, Brummel and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that

students who were involved with role plays were more

engaged and exhibited greater comprehension than those

who learned through lecture and case studies.

Notwithstanding the validity of these research findings,

additional research on fun in the classroom is needed.

Research is needed to more fully examine what encom-

passes the construct of fun in the classroom. The studies

cited above were not necessarily framed in the context of

fun per se, but rather in terms such as humor and active

learning. The term fun is common in our vernacular, yet no

clear consensus exists as to what is meant by fun in the

classroom or what conditions comprise a fun educational

experience. Along the same lines, as fun has somewhat dif-

ferent meanings for different individuals (McManus and

Furnham 2010), research would be worthwhile to assess

what generally comprises fun in the classroom. Further-

more, once fun in the classroom has been carefully concep-

tualized and operationalized, research is needed that

examines its potential impact on student outcomes. We are

currently limited to anecdotal evidence that fun is compel-

ling to many instructors and useful in making the learning

experience more impactful. Validating the impact of fun is

also warranted, as there may be educators who are ambiva-

lent toward fun, perceive it as too difficult or time-consum-

ing to implement, or believe it waters down the educational

experience (Lesser et al. 2013).

The goal of the present study is to extend research on fun

in the classroom in three respects. One, we seek to deter-

mine what elements of instructional design and delivery

represent fun and develop a corresponding scale for further

use in research and scholarly endeavors. Drawing on the

general body of fun literature (e.g., Fluegge 2008; Ford,

McLaughlin, and Newstrom 2003; McManus and Furnham

2010), we conceptualize fun instructor-initiated design and

delivery elements as activities and interactions of an enjoy-

able, entertaining, humorous, or playful nature within a

learning context. Two, we aim to validate the utility of the

newly developed fun scale by examining its relationship

with student engagement. It is our intent to work towards

legitimizing fun as we explore whether fun makes a differ-

ence in the learning process. Three, we seek to examine the

impact of the new scale on student engagement relative to

other relevant aspects of the classroom experience, namely

praise from instructors and peer socializing. Examining fun

in relation to other constructs will position fun in the

broader nomological net of conditions that enhance student

engagement in the classroom. These goals will be met

through two studies, detailed in the remainder of this paper,

which were conducted with students in a variety of courses

at a large research-intensive university in the mid-Atlantic

region of the United States. This university setting provides

instructors a large degree of autonomy in designing and

facilitating courses. Thus, we expect the requisite variabil-

ity in classroom experiences for examining the phenome-

non of fun in the classroom.

STUDY 1

Fun in the Classroom Scale Development

The purpose of Study 1 is to develop a new measure of fun

in the classroom. We focus on creating such a measure

because none currently exist in the literature and no clear

consensus has emerged among educators as to what specifi-

cally encompasses fun in the classroom. The elements

described beforehand, such as the use of humor, role plays,

games, and other active learning techniques, could certainly

be fun. However, fun is likely more expansive, including

other diverse elements. Along the same lines, we argue that

not every positive aspect of the classroom experience falls

under the fun umbrella. Research is thus necessary that

delineates the boundaries of classroom fun.

The initial scale development process involved four pri-

mary steps. The first step was to generate a list of items to

represent the construct of fun in the classroom. The second

step was to quantitatively assess whether the discrete items

were perceived as fun. This step served to determine which

items to retain and which to remove from the scale. The

third step was to use exploratory factor analysis to examine

the initial structure of the scale and further determine which

items to retain. Finally, the fourth step was to conduct a

confirmatory factor analysis to validate the structure that

emerged from the exploratory factor analysis. While we

employed a convenience sampling strategy, independent

samples of students in different courses were used in each

step of the scale development process to enhance the gener-

alizability of our results.

FUN IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

An initial set of scale items was generated inductively

based on student perceptions of fun. Initially, 61 undergrad-

uate engineering and education students were asked to

describe their experiences with fun in the classroom. This

process served as an initial starting point for the develop-

ment of the scale. The majority of these students were

freshmen and sophomores (83%). They were on average

19.6 years of age and 65% female. Specifically, these stu-

dents were asked to reflect on their classroom experiences

and identify in writing what they perceived to be fun

(enjoyable, entertaining, humorous, or playful) with respect

to instructional design and delivery. The research team then

reviewed the students’ responses to identify themes and

develop an initial pool of 20 scale items. (See table 1.) The

items were written following guidelines outlined by

Edwards and colleagues (1997). Specifically, the items

were written to ensure they were clearly worded, simple

but specific, unambiguous, and not double-barreled.

To further refine the measure, 253 undergraduate stu-

dents rated the extent to which they perceived each of the

20 items as fun in a classroom context. These students were

enrolled in a large introductory economics course. They

were 47% female, 80% Caucasian, primarily freshmen and

sophomores (86%), and on average 19.4 years of age. They

were asked to reflect on their classroom experiences in gen-

eral and then rate the extent to which they perceived each

of the items to be fun using a five-point scale ranging from

1 D not at all fun to 5 D extremely fun. The mid-point of 3

was anchored as somewhat fun. The three highest rated

items were humor, instructor bringing in food, and video

clips. The lowest rated items were discussions, working

with others during class, and team-building activities with

classmates. These three lowest rated items had ratings

below 3.00 (i.e., rated as less than somewhat fun) and were

subsequently dropped from consideration. The mean ratings

of perceived fun for all of the items are presented in table 1.

Next, data were obtained to conduct an exploratory fac-

tor analysis of the remaining 17 items to reduce these items

into a smaller set of broad dimensions. One hundred ninety

students from six undergraduate management and engineer-

ing courses rated the frequency in which the fun elements

occur in their classes. The students were instructed to reflect

on the frequency in which the fun elements occurred in

their preceding course with a 5-point scale ranging from 1

D never to 5 D all the time. The students were asked to

reflect on the preceding course in their schedule, rather than

the course in which the survey was administered, to

increase the potential for greater variance in responses. The

students were 36% female, 71% Caucasian, primarily jun-

iors (73%), and on average 21 years of age.

Specifically, a principal component analysis (PCA) was

performed to reduce the 17 items into linear composites of

the observed variables (Ford, MacCallum, and Tait 1986).

PCA is a dimension reduction technique used to reduce a

number of items to their basic components. That is, PCA

determines the principal components in a set of data. Tech-

nically, PCA determines the underlying structure by trans-

forming a large number of correlated items into a smaller

number of variables with less common variance. PCA does

not impose an assumption that a hypothetical causal model

underlies the data, and as such, it is most appropriate in

early stages of scale development (Ford et al. 1986; Kello-

way 1995). A promax rotation was employed, which is an

oblique rotation technique that allows factors to have some

degree of correlation (Ford et al. 1986). In evaluating the

results, two initial decision rules were imposed to ascertain

the number of components: (1) eigenvalues over 1.0 and

(2) components that were discrete from other factors in the

scree plot. The PCA analysis yielded three factors with

eigenvalues greater than 1.0 accounting for 59% of the vari-

ance. Examination of the scree plot suggested three factors

as well. The pattern matrix factor loadings are presented in

table 2. Only one item—video clips—did not have a factor

loading greater than .40 on any one of the three factors.

Although this item was rated highly as being fun in the pre-

vious stage of scale development, it was removed because

it did not clearly load onto one of the three factors. Another

item, instructor demonstrations of course content, had

cross-loadings greater than .40 on two factors. This item

was retained on the factor with the higher loading, the sec-

ond principal component.

The first principal component, encompassing six items,

explained 39% of the total variance and was labeled fun

activities. This component included: friendly small group

competitions, playing music, field trips, games, instructor

TABLE 1.

Perceived Fun of Instructional Design and Delivery Elements

Mean SD

Attention getters to generate student interest 3.44 .97

Creative examples 3.55 .88

Creative slides 3.38 .94

Discussions* 2.81 1.04

Field trips 3.70 1.29

Friendly small group competitions 3.15 1.2

Games 3.68 1.14

Guest speakers 3.29 1.14

Hands-on activities 3.44 1.02

Humor 4.19 .95

Instructor bringing in food 4.10 1.21

Instructor demonstrations of course content 3.38 1.01

Instructor storytelling 3.33 1.09

Interactive lectures 3.28 .95

Interactive technologies 3.01 1.11

Playing music 3.54 1.12

Real-life examples 3.88 .86

Team-building activities with your classmates* 2.62 1.08

Video clips 3.91 .97

Working with others during class* 2.80 1.02

Note. n D 253. Perceptions of fun were rated on a five-point scale rang-

ing from 1 D not at all fun to 5 D extremely fun.* Item subsequently removed from the scale.

18 TEWS ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

bringing in food, and hands-on activities. This factor

reflects a variety of hands-on learning activities and ways

to promote social involvement among learners. The internal

consistency reliability estimate for the overall scale was

.88.

The second principal component, labeled fun delivery,

explained 14% of the total variance and included seven

items. These items included: humor, creative examples,

real-life examples, attention getters to generate student

interest, instructor demonstration of course content, interac-

tive lectures, and instructor storytelling. This component is

more instructor-focused, characterizing his or her mode of

delivery. The internal consistency reliability estimate

among the items in this dimension was .85.

The third component was comprised of three items,

including interactive technologies, creative slides, and

guest speakers. This component explained 7% of the total

variance. While the first two factors are readily interpret-

able, this third factor is more ambiguous as the three items

do not necessarily represent a cohesive set. This point is

substantiated by the low internal consistency reliability of

.62, which is below the generally established threshold of

.70 (Nunnally 1978). Given the relative ambiguity of this

component and the low reliability among the set of items,

the three items from this component were not included in

the final scale.

Finally, data were obtained to conduct a confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) to validate the two-dimensional fac-

tor structure. Unlike PCA which does not assume a hypo-

thetical structure to the data a priori, CFA tests whether the

data fit a hypothesized measurement model. In the context

of the present study, we seek to determine the fit of the pre-

specified two-factor model with the respective scale items.

Data for the CFA were obtained from 148 undergraduate

students drawn from five kinesiology and recreation clas-

ses. These students rated the extent to which the 13 fun

classroom practices occur in their classes following the

same protocol as above for collecting the data for the PCA.

The students were 50% female, 80% Caucasian, and on

average 21 years of age. The sample was primarily com-

prised of juniors and seniors (80%).

A two-factor model in which the items loaded on their

respective constructs was assessed using Mplus 7 with the

sample covariance matrix as input and a maximum likeli-

hood solution (Muth�en and Muth�en 2012). Although the

model possessed a statistically significant chi-square statis-

tic [x2(61, N D 148) D 94.64, p < .01], the individual fit

indices provided adequate support for the two-factor model

(Hu and Bentler 1999). The root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) was .06 (90% confidence interval

D .04 to .08), and the standardized root mean square resid-

ual (SRMR) was .07. The RMSEA and SRMR are absolute

fit indices that estimate the discrepancy between the

hypothesized model and the population covariance matrix.

RMSEA and SRMR may be considered “badness of fit”

indices, where values closer to zero reflect better fit (Kline

2005). In the context of the current study, the RMSEA and

SRMR approximate the likelihood that the null model is a

better fit than the two-factor model, where higher values

indicate poorer fit. An RMSEA value of .06 or less is indic-

ative of acceptable model fit; whereas an SRMR value of

.08 or less considered acceptable (Hu and Bentler 1999).

Furthermore, the comparative fit index (CFI) was .92, and

the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .90. The CFI and TLI

both represent how much variance in the covariance matrix

has been accounted for in the hypothesized model, analo-

gous to R2 in multiple regression. Although values of .95

and greater are preferred, values of .90 and above are

acceptable (Hu and Bentler 1999). Table 3 presents the fac-

tor loadings of the scale items, where all items loaded

above .40 on their respective constructs.

Through this scale development effort, we have estab-

lished that fun in the classroom is best represented by two

primary dimensions—fun activities and fun delivery. While

this portion of our study focused on determining what is

fun and developing a corresponding scale, the next study

focuses on validation to determine whether the scale

“works” by relating it to meaningful outcomes.

STUDY 2

Fun and Student Engagement

To validate the impact of the newly developed scale, this

second study focuses on examining the relationship

between fun in the classroom and student engagement.

TABLE 2

Pattern Matrix Factor Loadings from Principal Component Analysis

Factor Loadings

Item Mean SD 1 2 3

Friendly small group competitions 1.38 .88 .92

Playing music 1.51 1.07 .84

Field trips 1.26 .71 .81

Games 1.50 .94 .79

Instructor bringing in food 1.42 .97 .72

Hands-on activities 1.98 1.19 .57

Humor 3.27 1.29 .84

Creative examples 3.28 1.20 .75

Real-life examples 4.17 1.05 .74

Attention getters to generate student interest 2.95 1.28 .70

Instructor demonstrations of course content 2.67 1.29 .68 ¡.48

Interactive lectures 2.78 1.26 .66

Instructor storytelling 3.55 1.22 .51

Video clips * 2.68 1.18

Interactive technologies 2.81 1.61 .72

Creative slides 2.55 1.23 .59

Guest speakers 1.98 1.23 .54

Note. n D 190. Factor loadings less than .40 are suppressed.* Item subsequently removed from the scale.

FUN IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Student engagement has emerged as a major organizing

construct for assessment, accountability, and efforts to

enhance the educational experience (Kuh 2009). Moreover,

a growing body of research has demonstrated positive rela-

tionships between student engagement and academic per-

formance and college retention (Carini, Kuh, and Klein

2006; Hughes and Pace 2003; Kuh et al. 2008). These find-

ings, coupled with Marburger’s (2006) contention that lack

of participation in the learning process is a key hindrance to

academic success, suggest that validating ways to promote

student engagement is warranted. We also examine the

impact of fun relative to two other potentially important

characteristics of the classroom experience, namely peer

socializing and praise from instructors. We focus on peer

socializing and instructor praise as they may also serve to

engage students in the educational experience. Peer social-

izing was included as it reflects a student-to-student rela-

tionship, while instructor praise was included because it

represents an instructor-to-student relationship. Examining

these relationships will be an initial step toward determin-

ing whether fun matters and how much it matters relative to

other closely related aspects of the classroom experience.

A variety of related conceptualizations of engagement

have been proposed over the years. For example, Kahn

(1990) characterized engagement as the immersion and har-

nessing of the full self in the performance of tasks. New-

mann, Wehlage, and Lamborn (1992, 12) defined

engagement as “psychological investment in and effort

directed toward learning, understanding, or mastering the

knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended

to promote.” Schlechty (1994) argued that when students

are involved in their work and take delight in their accom-

plishments, they are engaged. More recently, Kuh and

colleagues (2008) conceptualized engagement as the time

and energy individuals devote to meaningful education

endeavors, and he later described the construct as the qual-

ity of effort and involvement in productive learning activi-

ties (Kuh 2009). Although there are numerous ways to

describe engagement, these descriptions share the common

themes of immersion and active involvement in the endeav-

ors individuals pursue.

Furthermore, engagement is commonly conceptualized

as encompassing three interconnected elements—cognitive,

emotional, and physical engagement (Connell 1990; Kahn

1990; Kong, Wong, and Lam 2003; Rich, LePine, and

Crawford 2010). Cognitive engagement reflects an individ-

ual’s intensity of attention, concentration, and focus; that

is, the extent to which an individual’s mind is immersed in

a given activity. In turn, emotional engagement relates to

an affective state characterized by energy and positive emo-

tions when involved in an endeavor. Finally, physical

engagement reflects active participation and the exertion of

energy and effort directed toward accomplishment of a

task. This tripartite conceptualization of engagement can be

traced back to Triandis’s (1971) and Ajzen’s (2005) classic

work conceptualizing attitudes as a construct consisting of

cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Kong

et al. 2003).

Kahn (1990) posits that individuals will be engaged in

task activities when three conditions are met—meaningful-

ness, safety, and availability. Meaningfulness refers to a

sense that one will receive a return on investment for his or

her effort. Kahn suggests that meaningfulness is enhanced

when individuals feel worthwhile and valued and feel capa-

ble of giving and receiving something of value. Safety

refers to being able to express one’s self without fear of

negative repercussions. Kahn contends that safety is

enhanced when situations are perceived as trustworthy,

secure, and predictable. Availability refers to possessing the

resources to invest in activities. Kahn argues that availabil-

ity is enhanced when individuals possess the physical, cog-

nitive, and psychological resources to invest in their on-

the-job efforts. Extending the work of Kahn to the class-

room, Noe, Tews, and Dachner (2010) argue that these con-

ditions of engagement are particularly important to enhance

the learning process. Meaningfulness motivates individuals

to exert effort toward learning knowledge and skills. Safety

is relevant for learning because it allows individuals to step

out of their comfort zones and take risks without fear of

negative repercussions due to errors. Availability enables

individuals to devote the physical and psychological energy

to immerse themselves in the learning process in order for

change to occur.

Fun in the classroom is argued to have a positive impact

on student engagement because fun may facilitate the con-

ditions of engagement. With respect to meaningfulness,

embedding fun in a classroom environment may make

course content more interesting and accessible. For

TABLE 3

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Item Loadings

Mean SD

Fun

activities

Fun

delivery

Fun Activities

Friendly small group competitions 2.36 1.34 .63

Games 2.20 1.24 .56

Hands-on activities 3.13 1.20 .55

Field trips 1.89 1.33 .47

Playing music 2.29 1.33 .41

Instructor bringing in food 1.60 1.09 .41

Fun Delivery

Creative examples 3.77 1.00 .77

Real-life examples 4.08 0.93 .76

Humor 3.73 1.09 .74

Attention getters to generate student

interest

3.44 1.13 .73

Instructor storytelling 3.59 1.15 .61

Interactive lectures 3.48 1.14 .61

Instructor demonstrations of course

content

3.14 1.18 .44

Note. Factor loadings are standardized estimates.

20 TEWS ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

example, when an instructor utilizes creative examples,

humor, stories, and active learning methods, the course con-

tent may be more intrinsically satisfying for students.

Accordingly, students may be more mentally engaged in

the learning process and exert the necessary effort toward

learning new knowledge and skills. Fun may create a safe

environment to enhance engagement as the classroom envi-

ronment is less threatening, signaling to students that mak-

ing mistakes is an acceptable part of the learning process.

Along the same lines, fun may create a safe and engaging

learning environment because fun may enhance group

cohesion among peers where individuals feel free to open

up and express themselves. Last but not least, fun may

enhance physical and psychological availability to foster

engagement because a component of fun in the classroom

involves hands-on activities and creative modes of content

delivery, as demonstrated in Study 1 of this research. Since

fun may energize students, students may have the physical

and psychological resources to devote to the learning pro-

cess. Based on these interrelated arguments, fun in the

classroom is hypothesized to exhibit a positive relationship

with student engagement.

Hypothesis: Fun in the classroom will be positively related

to student engagement.

The final issue to be examined is the impact of fun in the

classroom relative to peer socializing and praise from

instructors. For our purposes, peer socializing refers to

whether classmates are friendly, outgoing, and interactive

with one another inside and outside of the classroom. In

turn, praise from instructors reflects the extent to which stu-

dents receive encouragement, recognition, and positive

feedback for their efforts (Brophy 1981). We focus on the

impact of fun vis-�a-vis these characteristics of the class-

room experience for two primary reasons. First, peer social-

izing and instructor praise likely also have a positive impact

on student engagement. One’s classmates are as much a

defining characteristic of the classroom experience as the

course content, course delivery, and the instructor him- or

herself. Praise from an instructor is certainly important as

well because such positive feedback has been found to have

favorable impact of student motivation, effort, satisfaction,

and performance (Hancock 2000, 2002; Lipnevich and

Smith 2009; Malouff et al. 2010). Second, we examine for-

mal fun in the classroom in comparison to peer socializing

and instructor praise because these constructs are closely

aligned to fun in the classroom. Focusing on the impact of

classroom fun relative to these closely aligned constructs

will serve to determine the relative importance of fun.

Given the limited previous research in this area, we propose

exploratory research questions. While we believe that fun in

the classroom, peer socializing, and instructor praise will all

be positively related to the outcomes, we seek to explore

which will be more influential.

Question 1: What is the relationship of fun in the classroom

on student engagement relative to peer socializing?

Question 2: What is the relationship of fun in the classroom

on student engagement relative to instructor praise?

Sample and Procedure

The sample for this study includes 722 undergraduate fresh-

men participating in a program for new students to experi-

ence college-level work and college life during the summer

prior to their first full year of instruction. The students were

drawn from 36 different courses that had enrollments under

25 students. These courses spanned a wide variety of disci-

plines across the university, such as biology, economics,

education, engineering, geography, government, health,

information technology, literature, management, media

studies, music, speech, statistics, and visual arts, among

others. Data were obtained via surveys on fun in the class-

room, peer socializing, instructor praise, and the three out-

comes. Data were collected approximately at the half-way

point of these six-week courses. The surveys were adminis-

tered during class time by a member of the research team.

During this time, the course instructor was not present in

the classroom. A total of 819 students were enrolled in the

36 courses, and 722 usable surveys were obtained, yielding

a response rate of 88%. The students were 54% female,

85% Caucasian, and on average 18 years of age.

Measures

All measures used a five-point response scale ranging from

1 D strongly disagree to 5 D strongly agree, unless other-

wise noted.

Fun in the classroom

Fun in the classroom was measured with the 13 items

described beforehand. The students rated the extent to

which each of the 13 elements occur in their courses with a

five-point scale ranging from 1 D never to 5 D all the time.

The internal consistency reliability estimates were .72 for

the 6-item fun activities subscale and .84 for the 7-item fun

delivery subscale.

Peer socializing

The 5-item peer socializing scale was based on

McDowell’s (2004) measure. Sample items included: My

classmates joke around with each other and My classmates

talk to each other before and after class. The internal con-

sistency reliability estimate for the scale was .91.

Instructor praise

Four items were used to measure instructor praise

based on the work of Yukl, Wall, and Lepsinger (1990).

FUN IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Sample items included: Our instructor acknowledges us

when we perform especially well and Our instructor

praises improvements in our performance. The internal

consistency reliability estimate for the scale was .90.

Student engagement

Student engagement was measured with 12 items

adapted from Rich and colleagues’ (2010) engagement

scale. The present study focuses on student engagement as

an overall construct and the specific facets of cognitive,

emotional, and physical engagement. Four items each were

used to measure cognitive, emotional, and physical engage-

ment. Sample items included: My mind is focused during

class (cognitive engagement); I am enthusiastic about this

course (emotional engagement); and I exert my full effort

in this course (physical engagement).The internal consis-

tency reliability estimate for the overall scale was .91. The

internal consistency reliability estimates for cognitive,

emotional, and physical engagement were .89, .90, and .85,

respectively.

Control variables

Gender and ethnicity were used as control variables in

the analyses. Female was coded 1, and male was coded 0.

Caucasians were coded 1, and individuals belonging to

other groups were coded 0.

Analytic Strategy

Random coefficient modeling (RCM) was used to test

the impact of the independent variables on student

engagement. Specifically, we utilized the open-source

platform R (R Development Core Team 2005) and

the nonlinear and linear mixed effects package for R

and S-Plus (Pinheiro and Bates 2000). This approach

provides correct parameter estimates and standard

errors for models that include predictors at the class-

room and individual level (Bliese 2000; Pinheiro and

Bates 2000).

We tested the direct effects by regressing overall

engagement (and then the three separate dimensions of

engagement) onto the individual-level or level-1 controls

(gender and ethnicity) and the classroom-level or level-2

predictors (fun activities, fun delivery, peer socializing,

and instructor praise). Following Hofmann and Gavin’s

(1998) recommendations, we used grand-mean centering

for testing the relationship between the level-two predic-

tors and student engagement. We calculated overall

pseudo-R2 estimates using the procedure provided by

Snijders and Bosker (1999), which are based on propor-

tional reduction of level-1 and level-2 errors owing to

predictors in the model.

Aggregation Statistics

We calculated various indicators of within-classroom

homogeneity to substantiate the aggregation of the four pre-

dictors of fun and thus achieve classroom-level scores. We

calculated interrater agreement and reliability (ICC[1], ICC

[2], and rwg) values for fun activities, fun delivery, peer

socializing, and instructor praise. For fun activities, the

ICC[1] was .09, the ICC[2] was .53, and the median rwgwas .82. For fun delivery, the ICC[1] was .28, the ICC[2]

was .88, and the median rwg was .78. For peer socializing,

the ICC[1] was .15, the ICC[2] was .78, and the median rwgwas .75. For instructor praise, the ICC[1] was .21, the ICC

[2] was .84, and the median rwg was .72. Furthermore, the

analyses of variance on which the ICC[1] values were

based all indicated that the classroom effect was significant

(p < .01). Overall, these analyses provide adequate justifi-

cation for aggregating the classroom variables.

Prior to testing the hypothesized relationships, we exam-

ined the extent to which engagement varied across class-

rooms. The ICC(1) estimate for overall engagement was

.16, F (686) D 3.69, p < .01, indicating that 16% of the total

variance in overall engagement resided across classrooms.

The ICC(1) estimate for cognitive engagement was .17,

F (686) D 3.54, p< .01, indicating that 17% of the total vari-

ance in cognitive engagement resided across classrooms.

The ICC(1) estimate for emotional engagement was .22,

F (686) D 3.62, p< .01, indicating that 22% of the total vari-

ance in emotional engagement resided across classrooms.

Finally, the ICC(1) estimate for physical engagement was

.04, F (686) D 3.92, p < .01, indicating that 4% of the total

variance in physical engagement resided across classrooms.

These findings indicate that there was significant class-

room-level variance in engagement to be explained by the

predictors (Bliese 2002).

Results

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations

among the study variables. Table 5 summarizes the results

of the RCM analyses for examining the degree of support

for the hypotheses and research questions. In total, the pre-

dictors explained 9% of the variance in both overall and

cognitive engagement, 10% of the variance in emotional

engagement, but only 1% of the variance in physical

engagement.

Our hypothesis, which proposed that fun in the class-

room would be positively related to student engagement,

was partially supported. Fun delivery was positively related

to overall engagement (b D .46, p < .01) as well as the spe-

cific facets of cognitive engagement (b D .51, p < .01),

emotional engagement (b D .61, p < .01), and physical

engagement (b D .24, p < .05). However, fun activities

were not demonstrated to be significantly related to overall

engagement (b D .01, p >.10), cognitive engagement

22 TEWS ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

(b D .02, p >.10), emotional engagement (b D ¡.02,

p >.10), and physical engagement (b D .02, p >.10).

Question 1 sought to answer whether fun in the class-

room or peer socializing would have a stronger relationship

with student engagement. As noted above, fun delivery was

found to have a significant impact on engagement, yet fun

activities were not. Peer socializing was demonstrated to be

positively related to emotional engagement (b D .31,

p < .10), but not found to be significantly related to overall

engagement (b D .12, p >.10), cognitive engagement

(b D .14, p >.10), and physical engagement (b D ¡.11,

p >.10). Thus, in general, fun delivery had a stronger

impact on engagement than peer socializing.

Question 2 sought to answer whether fun in the class-

room or instructor praise would have a stronger relationship

with student engagement. Instructor praise was not demon-

strated to be significantly related to overall engagement

(b D .03, p >.10), nor the facets of cognitive engagement

(b D .08, p >.10), emotional engagement (b D .07,

p >.10), and physical engagement (b D ¡.05, p >.10).

Thus, fun delivery had a stronger impact on student engage-

ment than instructor praise.

DISCUSSION

The present study has contributed to educational research

by providing a clearer picture of the nature and impact of

fun in the classroom. Traditionally, fun has been a some-

what elusive and vague construct (McManus and Furnham

2010), and the parameters of fun in the classroom have not

been clearly delineated. Scholars have previously focused

on discrete elements that may be considered fun in the

classroom, such as humor (Berk 2002, 2003; Browne 2013;

Bryant et al. 1980; Gorham and Christophel 1990; Pomer-

antz and Bell 2011; Torok et al. 2004) and active learning

(Brummel et al. 2010; McCarthy and Anderson 2000;

Sivan et al. 1991). The present study, however, has

approached fun as a more general phenomenon and sought

to delineate and validate the breadth of elements subsumed

under the fun in the classroom umbrella. Through our scale

development effort, we have provided greater conceptual

clarity regarding the meaning of fun in the classroom and

created a psychometrically sound measure. This new scale

can be used for diagnostic purposes to assess the effective-

ness of a classroom learning experience and provide

TABLE 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Overall engagement 3.70 .71 —

2. Cognitive engagement 3.54 .84 .80** —

3. Emotional engagement 3.61 .89 .77** .70** —

4. Physical engagement 3.94 .77 .60** .39** .31** —

5. Gender .54 .50 .00 ¡.08* ¡.06 .08 —

6. Ethnicity .85 .36 ¡.08* ¡.08** ¡.03 ¡.01 .05 —

7. Fun activities 2.26 .84 .23** .23** .24** .14** ¡.10** ¡.09** —

8. Fun delivery 3.59 .84 .46** .44** .45** .29** .04 ¡.05 .37** —

9. Peer socializing 3.98 .77 .21** .16** .22** .12** .06 .04 .19** .16** —

10. Instructor praise 3.66 .84 .39** .39** .42** .17** ¡.03 ¡.13** .23** .44** .14** —

Note: n D 722. Gender: male D 0 and female D 1. Ethnicity: other D 0 and CaucasianD 1. Significance levels reflect two-tailed tests.

*p < .05, **p< .01

TABLE 5

RCM Predicting Student Engagement

Overall engagement Cognitive engagement Emotional engagement Physical engagement

Predictors b se b se b se b se

Gender ¡.03 .05 ¡.14* .06 ¡.09 .06 .14* .06

Ethnicity ¡.09 .07 ¡.12 .09 ¡.09 .09 ¡.04 .08

Fun activities .01 .09 .02 .11 ¡.02 .13 .02 .08

Fun delivery .46** .12 .51** .15 .61** .19 .24* .12

Peer socializing .12 .12 .14 .14 .31y .18 ¡.11 .11

Instructor praise .03 .13 .08 .15 .07 .19 ¡.05 .12

»R2 .09 .09 .10 .01

Note. RCM D random coefficient modeling

n D 722; k D 36. Gender: male D 0 and female D 1. Ethnicity: other D 0 and Caucasian D 1. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Signifi-

cance levels reflect two-tailed tests.»R2 D Pseudo R2.

*p < .05, **p< .01

FUN IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

feedback to instructors. From a research perspective, the

new scale may be used in future scholarly endeavors to

advance models of classroom and teaching effectiveness.

The present study has demonstrated that certain aspects of

fun, but not others, have a positive impact on student

engagement. These findings support the commonly held

belief that fun has a positive impact in the classroom, yet

highlight that not all fun is equal.

The multi-stage scale development and validation proce-

dure employed in this study yielded a two-dimensional

scale of classroom fun. Our initial set of 20 items was

reduced to 13 items to represent two factors—fun activities

and fun delivery. Fun activities reflect a variety of hands-on

exercises and ways to promote social involvement among

students, including friendly small group competitions, play-

ing music, field trips, games, instructor bringing in food,

and hands-on activities. Fun delivery, in turn, is more

instructor-focused, capturing an instructor’s mode of deliv-

ery and his or her presentation skills. Fun delivery encom-

passes a variety of elements, including attention getters to

generate student interest, instructor demonstration of course

content, interactive lectures, and instructor storytelling. We

are not suggesting that the seven omitted items (e.g., use of

video clips, creative slides, and interactive technologies)

are unimportant. They likely have value. However, the

results from this study suggest that these items do not repre-

sent the overarching construct of fun in the classroom.

Our analyses yielded an interesting pattern of results

regarding the relationships between fun, peer socializing,

and instructor praise and student engagement. Consistent

with our hypothesis, fun delivery was demonstrated to have

a positive relationship with engagement. Fun delivery

exhibited the strongest effect with emotional engagement,

followed by cognitive engagement and physical engage-

ment. Accordingly, fun delivery appears to most strongly

influence affective reactions and to a lesser degree whether

students’ minds are focused and whether they expend effort

in a course. Peer socializing was also found to be positively

related to emotional engagement, as expected, but fun

activities and instructor praise were not. Based on these

findings, one can conclude that students particularly value

instructor-centered fun and peer socializing. Our findings

are consistent with workplace fun research that has demon-

strated that employees value more informal aspects of fun,

such as manager support for fun and coworker socializing

(Tews, Michel, and Bartlett 2012; Tews, Michel, and Staf-

ford 2013). It should be noted that the relationships with

student engagement were assessed with data obtained

approximately at the half-way point of six-week summer

courses. It is possible that fun activities and instructor

praise may exhibit stronger relationships with data obtained

at a later point in time in courses of longer duration. Given

the preliminary nature of our findings, one should not nec-

essarily assume that fun activities and instructor praise are

irrelevant, and we welcome other researchers to examine

their relationships with student engagement, specifically

with full-length courses during the traditional academic

year.

Extending the point above, one general opportunity for

future research is validating the factor structure and predic-

tive validity of the newly developed measure in other learn-

ing environments. At each phase of our scale development

effort, from initial item generation to establishing relation-

ships with engagement, data were obtained from students in

different courses to help enhance the generalizability of our

findings. However, it is important to consider we employed

a convenience sample of students, rather than a random

sample of students from the university population at large.

Accordingly, our findings should be interpreted in the con-

text of this limitation. Our results likely generalize to other

classroom contexts, but future research should extend the

present study to different groups of students, additional aca-

demic disciplines, and other institutions of higher

education.

Future studies could also employ different research

designs and include additional variables to more fully

examine the role of fun in the classroom. In the present

study, data were collected on fun and student engagement

at the same point in time via survey methodology. To pro-

vide a more robust assessment of cause and effect relation-

ships, research would be worthwhile where data are

obtained at multiple points in time and where elements of

fun are experimentally manipulated. Moreover, research

should examine the impact of fun on additional student out-

comes, most importantly academic performance. Along the

same lines, research is warranted that assesses student

engagement, anxiety, positive affect, and group cohesion as

mediators in the relationship between fun and academic

performance. Such work would serve to further explain

how and why fun in the classroom shapes the educational

experience and influences meaningful student outcomes.

Research is also needed to determine under what cir-

cumstances fun matters most. One opportunity is to deter-

mine whether fun has a different impact across various

academic disciples. For example, fun may be less important

in courses such as finance, engineering, or medicine, where

fun may run counter to the culture of such fields, but may

be more beneficial in other fields. It would also be worth-

while to examine whether fun matters more in larger or

smaller classes. Proactively incorporating fun in larger clas-

ses is possibly more important as students may be less

engaged compared to smaller classroom environments

where there is typically greater individual attention.

Another opportunity is to examine how fun interacts with

student characteristics. Research should examine how fun

influences student outcomes based on age. The present

study employed a relatively young sample, and future

research should examine how fun relates to student out-

comes among older and more mature students. With respect

to ability and motivation, it may be that fun is more

24 TEWS ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

important for students lower in cognitive ability and moti-

vation, as they may be less intrinsically engaged in learn-

ing. It would also be valuable to examine how international

students respond to fun. It is possible that international stu-

dents may not wholly appreciate fun given that fun is some-

what culture dependent. Furthermore, the informality

associated with fun may be met with resistance from stu-

dents from cultures where there is a greater power distance

between those in authority and subordinates. At the same

time, fun could engage international students and make

course material more accessible and interesting.

A final opportunity for future research is to examine

instructor characteristics and the adoption and implementa-

tion of fun. While fun may engage students and help them

learn, instructors may not necessarily embrace fun. It is

thus important to consider instructors’ personal characteris-

tics and belief systems regarding whether fun is beneficial

for learning. Research would be useful that focuses on the

personality characteristics of pro-fun instructors and the

sources of resistance of those who fail to adopt fun in the

classroom. Moreover, research is warranted that examines

which instructors are better able to implement fun. Some

individuals’ implementation efforts may be highly success-

ful, while others’ attempts may be perceived as forced and

contrived and thus fail to achieve the intended impact.

Research on ability and personality characteristics that

facilitate or inhibit the successful implementation of class-

room fun would be fruitful.

It was our intent in this study to develop a psychometri-

cally sound measure of fun in the classroom to aid in future

research endeavors. Construct validation is an ongoing pro-

cess, and it is thus necessary to further validate the fun in

the classroom scale developed herein in additional class-

room and learning contexts. While multiple samples were

used to validate different aspects of the new measure with

over 1300 student responses, further work is warranted to

validate the generalizability of our results and examine

additional antecedents and outcomes. We hope that schol-

ars will extend our work to more fully explore the nature

and impact of fun in the classroom to enhance our under-

standing of teaching effectiveness and provide evidence-

based prescriptions for instructional practice.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 2005. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. New York: Open Uni-

versity Press.

Alsop, R. 2008. The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Genera-

tion is Shaking Up the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benjelloun, H. 2009. “An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Humor in

University Classrooms.” Education, Business and Society: Contempo-

rary Middle Eastern Issues 2 (4): 312–22.

Berk, R. A. 2002. Humor as an Instructional Defibrillator: Evidence-

Based Techniques in Teaching and Assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Berk, R. A. 2003. Professors are from Mars, Students are from Snickers:

How to Write and Deliver Humor in the Classroom and in Professional

Presentations. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. “Within-group Agreement, Non-independence, and

Reliability: Implications for Data aggregation and Analyses.” In Multi-

level Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations,

Extensions, and New Directions, edited by K. J. Klein and S. W. J.

Kozlowski, 349–81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D. 2002. “Multilevel Random Coefficient Modeling in Organiza-

tional Research: Examples Using SAS and S-PLUS.” In Measuring and

Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances in Measurement and

Data analysis, edited by F. Drasgow and N. Schmitt, 401–45. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brophy, J. 1981. “Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis.” Review of Edu-

cational Research 51 (1): 5–32.

Browne, J. H. 2013. “Effective Use of Humor in Teaching College-Level

Business Courses: Assessing an Instructor’s Humor Quotient.” Journal

of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 18 (2): 226–32.

Brummel, B. J., C. K. Gunsalus, K. L. Anderson, & M. C. Loui. 2010.

“Development of Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Con-

duct of Research.” Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (3): 573–89.

Bryant, J., P. W. Comisky, J. S. Crane, & D. Zillmann. 1980. “Relationship

between College Teachers’ Use of Humor in the Classroom and

Students’ Evaluations of Their Teachers.” Journal of Educational Psy-

chology 72 (4): 511–9.

Carini, R. M., G. D. Kuh, & S. P. Klein. 2006. “Student Engagement and

Student Learning: Testing the Linkages.” Research in Higher Education

47 (1): 1–32.

Carless, S. A., & J. Wintle. 2007. “Applicant Attraction: The Role of

Recruiter Function, Work–Life Balance Policies and Career Salience.”

International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15 (4): 394–404.

Cennamo, L., & D. Gardner. 2008. “Generational Differences in Work

Values, Outcomes and Person-Organisation Values Fit.” Journal of

Managerial Psychology 23 (8): 891–906.

Connell, J. P. 1990. “Context, Self, and Action: A Motivational Analysis of

Self-system Processes Across the Life-span.” In The Self in Transition:

Infancy to Childhood, edited by D. Cicchetti and M. Beeghly, 61–7. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Deming, V. K. 2004. The Big Book of Leadership Games. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Eble, K. E. 1988. The Craft of Teaching: A Guide to Mastering the

Professor’s Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, J. E., M. D. Thomas, P. Rosenfeld, & S. Booth-Kewley. 1997.

How to Conduct Organizational Surveys: A Step-By-Step Guide. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fluegge, E. R. “Who Put the Fun in Functional? Fun at Work and Its

Effects on Job Performance.” Doctoral diss., University of Florida,

2008.

Ford, J. K., R. C. MacCallum, & M. Tait. 1986. “The Application of

Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Review

and Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 39 (2): 291–314.

Ford, R. C., F. S. McLaughlin, & J. W. Newstrom. 2003. “Questions

and Answers about Fun at Work.” Human Resource Planning 26 (4):

18–33.

Galarneau, L. 2005. “Authentic Learning Experiences through Play:

Games, Simulations and the Construction of Knowledge.” Paper

presented at the DiGRA 2005 International Conference, Vancouver,

Canada, June 16–20, 2005.

Gorham, J., & D. M. Christophel. 1990. “The Relationship of Teachers’

Use of Humor in the Classroom to Immediacy and Student Learning.”

Communication Education 39 (1): 46–62.

Hancock, D. R. 2000. “Impact of Verbal Praise on College Students’ Time

Spent on Homework.” The Journal of Educational Research 93 (6):

384–9.

FUN IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Hancock, D. R. 2002. “Influencing Graduate Students’ Classroom

Achievement, Homework Habits and Motivation to Learn with Verbal

Praise.” Educational Research 44 (1): 83–95.

Hofmann, D. A., & M. B. Gavin. 1998. “Centering Decisions in Hierarchi-

cal Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations.” Journal

of Management 24 (5): 623–41.

Hu, L., & P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covari-

ance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alter-

natives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6

(1): 1–55.

Hughes, R., & C. R. Pace. 2003. “Using NSSE to Study Student Retention

and Withdrawal.” Assessment Update 15 (4): 1–2.

Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-element in Culture.

Boston: Beacon Press.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and

Disengagement at Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (4):

692–724.

Kelloway, E. K. 1995. “Structural Equation Modelling in Perspective.”

Journal of Organizational Behavior 16 (3): 215–24.

Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Model-

ing (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Kong, Q. P., N. Y. Wong, & C. C. Lam. 2003. “Student Engagement in

Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct.”

Mathematics Education Research Journal 15 (1): 4–21.

Kuh, G. D. 2009. “The National Survey of Student Engagement: Concep-

tual and Empirical Foundations.” New Directions for Institutional

Research 141: 5–20.

Kuh, G. D., T. M. Cruce, R. Shoup, J. Kinzie, & R. M. Gonyea. 2008.

“Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College

Grades and Persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education 79 (5): 540–63.

Lamm, E., & M. D. Meeks. 2009. “Workplace Fun: The Moderating Effects

of Generational Differences.” Employee Relations 31 (6): 613–31.

Lesser, L. M., A. Wall, R. Carver, D. K. Pearl, N. Martin, S. Kuiper,

M. A. Posner, P. Erickson, S. M. Liao, & J. Albert. 2013. “Using Fun

in the Statistics Classroom: An Exploratory Study of College

Instructors’ Hesitations and Motivations.” Journal of Statistics Educa-

tion 21 (1): 1–33.

Lipnevich, A. A., & J. K. Smith. 2009. “Effects of Differential Feedback

on Students’ Examination Performance.” Journal of Experimental Psy-

chology: Applied 15 (4): 319–33.

Loughlin, C., & J. Barling. 2001. “Young Workers’ Work Values, Atti-

tudes, and Behaviours.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology 74 (4): 543–58.

Malouff, J. M., L. Hall, N. S. Schutte, & S. E. Rooke. 2010. “Use of Moti-

vational Teaching Techniques and Psychology Student Satisfaction.”

Psychology Learning & Teaching 9 (1): 39–44.

Marburger, D. R. 2006. “Does Mandatory Attendance Improve Student

Performance?” The Journal of Economic Education 37 (2): 148–55.

McCarthy, J. P., & L. Anderson. 2000. “Active Learning Techniques ver-

sus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and

Political Science.” Innovative Higher Education 24 (4): 279–94.

McDowell, T. “Fun at Work: Scale Development, Confirmatory Factor

Analysis, and Links to Organizational Outcomes.” Doctoral diss.,

Alliant International University 2004.

McManus, I. C., & A. Furnham. 2010. “‘Fun, Fun, Fun’: Types of Fun,

Attitudes to Fun, and Their Relation to Personality and Biographical

Factors.” Psychology 1 (3): 159–68.

Muth�en, L. K., & B. Muth�en. 2012. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles:

Muth�en & Muth�en.

Newmann, F. M., G. G. Wehlage, & S. D. Lamborn. 1992. “Taking Stu-

dents Seriously.” In Student Engagement and Achievement in American

Secondary Schools, edited by F. M. Newmann, 11–39. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Noe, R. A., M. J. Tews, & A. M. Dachner. 2010. “Learner Engagement: A

New Perspective for Enhancing Our Understanding of Learner Motiva-

tion and Workplace Learning.” The Academy of Management Annals 4

(1): 279–315.

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory: 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Parker, B., & L. Chusmir. 1990. “A Generational and Sex-Based View of

Managerial Work Values.” Psychological Reports 66 (3): 947–50.

Pinheiro, J. C., & D. M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-

PLUS. New York: Springer.

Pomerantz, A., & N. D. Bell. 2011. “Humor as Safe House in the Foreign

Language Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal 95: 148–61.

R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A Language and Environment for

Statistical Computing, Reference Index Version 2.2.0. Vienna, Austria:

R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rich, B. L., J. A. Lepine, & E. R. Crawford. 2010. “Job Engagement: Ante-

cedents and Effects on Job Performance.” Academy of Management

Journal 53 (3): 617–35.

Robinson, C. F., & P. J. Kakela. 2006. “Creating a Space to Learn: A

Classroom of Fun, Interaction, and Trust.” College Teaching 54 (1):

202–7.

Schlechty, P. 1994. Increasing Student Engagement. Columbia, MO: Mis-

souri Leadership Academy.

Silberman, M. L., & C. Auerbach. 2006. Active Training. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Sivan, A., R. W. Leung, L. Gow, & D. Kember. 1991. “Towards More

Active Forms of Teaching and Learning in Hospitality Studies.” Interna-

tional Journal of Hospitality Management 10 (4): 369–79.

Smola, K. W., & C. D. Sutton. 2002. “Generational Differences: Revisiting

Generational Work Values for the New Millennium.” Journal of Orga-

nizational Behavior 23 (4): 363–82.

Snijders, T. A. B., & R. J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduc-

tion to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Tamblyn, D., & S. Weiss. 2000. The Big Book of Humorous Training

Games. New York: McGraw Hill.

Tews, M. J., J. W. Michel, & A. Bartlett. 2012. “The Fundamental Role of

Workplace Fun in Applicant Attraction.” Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies 19 (1): 105–14.

Tews, M. J., J. W. Michel, & K. Stafford. 2013. “Does Fun Pay?

The Impact of Workplace Fun on Employee Turnover and Perform-

ance.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54 (4): 370–82.

Thiagarajan, S. 2003. Design Your Own Games and Activities: Thiagi’s

Templates for Performance Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thiagarajan, S., & T. Tagliati. 2011. Jolts!: Activities to Wake Up and

Engage Your Participants. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Torok, S. E., R. F. McMorris, & W. C. Lin. 2004. “Is Humor an

Appreciated Teaching Tool? Perceptions of Professors’ Teaching

Styles and Use of Humor.” College Teaching 52 (1): 14–20.

Triandis, H. C. 1971. Attitude and Attitude Change. New York:

Wiley.

Yukl, G., S. Wall, & R. Lepsinger. 1990. “Preliminary Report on Valida-

tion of the Managerial Practices Survey.” In Measures of Leadership,

edited by K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark, 223–38. Greensboro, NC: Center

for Creative Leadership.

26 TEWS ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

00 1

1 Fe

brua

ry 2

015