Page 12 Walker • Humor in the Foreign Language Classroom and produce negative effects, depending on the nature of the humor. Bilokcuoglu and Debreli (2018) conclude by stressing the need for more research on humor in language classroom settings. A Particular Need Because this is still a growing niche in the field of linguistics, much research remains to be done about specific classroom situations in which humor is used (Askildson, 2005; Bell & Pomerantz, 2014; Bilokcuoglu & Debreli, 2018). As it stands, a disconnect remains between theory and studies. Much of the existing research consists of either larger questionnaire-based studies like Askildson’s, which provide more quantitative findings, or simply theoretical discussions on humor’s potential in language classrooms. As these researchers make evident, case study research in actual classroom situations is necessary to invigorate the academic conversation concerning the effects of humor usage. Within this context, I present my research question as follows: How does L1 humor, specifically when used as a pedagogical tool, influence students’ affective filters in a college-level elementary foreign language classroom? Methods This research, framed as a case study of a college-level elementary French classroom, was comprised of classroom observations and student interviews for the purpose of triangulation (Harbon & Shen, 2010). The beginning French class, offered at a small liberal arts college in the midwestern United States, consisted of eight college-aged students and one professor. Due to the school’s COVID-19 protocol in the fall 2020 semester, full class attendance was occasionally disrupted by student quarantines or absences. Despite this, students were usually able to participate in class over Zoom, and I was able to collect sufficient data from the remaining in-person students. In order to formulate a rough observation scheme (Harbon & Shen, 2010), I began by conducting a preliminary observation of the French class to provide a framework for the later observations. Harbon and Shen (2010) suggest that researchers may wish to seek a balance between an observation scheme and field notes in order to include aspects that a structured protocol might not capture. Consequently, I collected both field notes (loosely guided by my preliminary observation) and video recordings of four fifty-minute class sessions throughout several weeks in the middle of the fall semester. To uphold an unobtrusive, non-judgmental yet emic observation style, I recorded these class meetings from a back corner of the classroom. I did not participate in class activities but introduced myself before the first observation and made friendly conversation with the students before and after class to make them comfortable with my presence in the classroom. This posture was indubitably aided by my own membership as a student at the school. My repeated presence in the class also reduced observer effect (Labov, 1972). Of the eight students in the class, four consented to be interviewed, and each interview lasted approximately forty minutes. The development of interview questions was guided by an emphasis on co-construction and reflexivity (Mann, 2011), as well as reflection on the collected data. The interview protocol for this study (see Appendix A) consisted of questions designed to assemble an interviewee profile and elicit their perspectives on classroom humor (Wagner, 2010). I began each interview by explaining the concept and goals of the study and the student’s role as an interviewee,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=