This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 01:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Emotional and Behavioural DifficultiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rebd20

The use of humour in classroominterventions with students with social,emotional and behavioural difficultiesFrédéric Fovet aa College Northside, Ste Adèle , Quebec, CanadaPublished online: 05 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Frédéric Fovet (2009) The use of humour in classroom interventions withstudents with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,14:4, 275-289

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632750903303104

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

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

Emotional and Behavioural DifficultiesVol. 14, No. 4, December 2009, 275–289

ISSN 1363-2752 print/ISSN 1741-2692 online© 2009 SEBDADOI: 10.1080/13632750903303104http://www.informaworld.com

REBD1363-27521741-2692Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 14, No. 4, September 2009: pp. 0–0Emotional and Behavioural DifficultiesThe use of humour in classroom interventions with students with social, emotional and behavioural difficultiesEmotional and Behavioural DifficultiesF. FovetFrédéric Fovet*

College Northside, Ste Adèle, Quebec, Canada

This study investigates the use made of humour by teachers during classroom interven-tions with adolescent students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties(SEBD). Literature mentions the use of humour as a key tool in successful classroominterventions with students with SEBD and yet there is little quantified research on thistopic. The study investigates, through a mixed methodology framework, the learning andbehaviour outcomes of this method of intervention. The basic premise and hypothesis ofthis paper is that teachers who successfully use humour in interventions do so to estab-lish a platform of reciprocity, much in line with the principles highlighted by eco-systemic theory. The mechanisms of humour are complex and their analysis deeplyrooted in subjective standards, which makes investigation difficult. The paper thereforealso reflects on the methodology best suited to the study of learning and behaviouroutcomes of students with SEBD. The discussion section weights the findings withinthe wider context of inclusive education and draws the conclusion that students withSEBD in many ways highlight the concerns and needs of the mainstream student body.The receptivity of students with SEBD to humour thus emphasizes the need for whatthese children frame as ‘genuine’ relationships with teachers – not only within thecontext of their specific needs but in all teaching situations.

Keywords: adolescents; behaviour; eco-systemic intervention; humour; mixedmethodology; SEBD

HypothesisHumour appears quite frequently in material associated with social, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties (SEBD), yet this is mostly anecdotal rather than analytical. It is mentioned by mostin the field as a ‘tool’ (Hallowell 2004) but it remains impossible to locate a precise descriptionof this mode of intervention. Its intangible nature, together with the lack of scientific findingsor theoretical framework, renders impractical a clear formulation of policies about its use or itsincorporation in teacher training as a valid pedagogical approach. Hands-on instructions toSEBD teachers and specialists carry vague yet alarming warnings as to the potential danger ofthe ‘wrong’ type of humour being used in class. A behaviour management manual (DES 2003,10), for example, lists ‘use of humour’ as one of the personal qualities required in interven-tions, but quickly warns the reader a few pages later (19) of the risks of falling into ‘sarcasm’,both terms remaining ominously undefined. This ambivalent approach to humour as a tool is afeature of SEBD literature and evidences the confusion and fear that surround its use.

This paper reports on an investigation of practices adopted by teachers in inclusiveclassrooms, and on possible successful uses of humour in SEBD interventions. It examines

*Email: admin@college-northside.qc.ca

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

276 F. Fovet

learning and behavioural outcomes from the point of view of students with SEBD andteachers, as well as school administration, as best practices should be formulated in a ‘wholeschool’ context. The investigation’s hypothesis is that the key feature in the use of humour inthe classroom is a willingness on the part of the teacher, to place himself or herself at parwith the student. It is argued that the teacher is thus in a position of reciprocity, a processmuch in unison with the eco-systemic theoretical discourse on SEBD (Miller 1996; Cullinan2002; Van Acker 2003). The group chosen for this study is composed of adolescents betweenthe ages of 15 and 19. This group is chosen because it is thought that clearer notions and con-cepts of what constitutes humour have been formed by then (Damico 1980; Hill 1988).

Review of existing literatureMedical perspectiveThere is a wide range of medical research on the effect of humour on the body and metab-olism. Humour is reported to release endorphins and to trigger complex mechanismswhich have an impact on the immune system, the respiratory and cardiovascular functions(Kamei, Kumano and Masumara 1997; Cann, Holt and Calhoun 1999; Boyle andJoss-Reid 2004). It is established that people who make regular use of humour are lesslikely to be affected by illnesses (Martin 2001). Such considerations are relevant in thecontext of the ‘Every child matters’ legislation (Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2003;DES 2004), which takes a holistic look at school behaviour and ‘wellness’.

Humour and leadershipThere is also in-depth research in the field of human resources which links employees’ per-ception of good leadership and superiors’ use of humour (Orben 1985; Ziegler, Boardmanand Thomas 1985; Davis and Kleiner 1989). Army studies in the US have looked athumour extensively and Priest (1990) has established that cadets using humour as acoping mechanism were less likely to quit than those who did not. A more recent study inthe US army also established a quantifiable link between the perceptions cadets had of‘good leadership’ and those leaders’ use of humour (Priest and Swain 2002). This is ofparticular interest since cadets are both employees and ‘learners’. An important caveatnevertheless needs to be expressed with respect to these findings, as some of the humorousqualities attributed to good leaders may be the result of mechanisms described in the‘implied personality theories’ (Engle and Lord 1997).

Humour as a tool to establish a better fit with one’s environmentExisting literature in this area is of particular interest since the theoretical model chosen in thisproject is systemic and adopts the concept of ‘goodness of fit’ (Long 1999). Morreall (1983),focusing on the work place, describes humour as a social lubricant and a tool fostering flexi-bility and adaptability. It releases tension, eases communication with others and facilitates theestablishment of wider social networks (Campbell 1997; Dziegielewski et al. 2003).

Humour and behaviour issuesA study involving over 220 participants over an 83-day period has quantified the effect ofhumorous interventions on patient behaviour in a psychiatric ward (Higueras et al. 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 277

This study is interesting from the SEBD perspective as it focuses on behaviours that aresimilar to those observed in SEBD classrooms. Eight of the 10 categories of behaviourwhich were monitored during this study are behaviours which practitioners might expectto encounter in an SEBD context. The study found that the ‘global disruption index’ (GDI)used by the researchers – the quantitative tool used to measure occurrences of disruptivebehaviour amongst patients during any specific period – decreased significantly during thetimes when humour was used, through the presence of entertainers (54).

School specific studiesThere are few studies focusing on humour with classes and none to date has addressed spe-cifically the impact of this on SEBD as a sub-group. Hobday-Kusch and McVittie (2002)discuss the use of humour as a tool yielding a degree of power in a case study discussionfocusing on early secondary education. However this study is more concerned with peerrelations than with teacher–student interaction. Damico and Purkey (1978, as cited byMartin and Baksh 1995) also focused extensively on peer relations with respect to humour,and they carried out some innovative large-scale investigations on the role of class clowns.They interviewed over 3500 eighth-graders and were able to identify 96 ‘class clowns’amongst them. They also noted that teachers had rated these same students as overly asser-tive and unruly. Damico (1978, as cited by Martin and Baksh 1995), later went back to thestudy context and established an important distinction between the roles of ‘whimsical’and ‘hostile’ clowns. He highlighted how whimsical clowns were seen to make a positivecontribution to the classroom while hostile clowns were perceived as disruptive.

MethodologyIn order to fill the gap in existing research and observe the impact of humour on studentswith SEBD, it therefore appeared essential to examine this mechanism in a context that onthe one hand involved quantifiable classroom interactions and on the other guaranteedmaximum ecological validity. The collection of data hence had to address both quantita-tive and qualitative imperatives.

The adoption of a systemic theoretical framework, however, imperatively demands thecollection and the analysis of a large amount of qualitative data from varied sources, particu-larly with respect to a phenomenon as intangible as humour (Bigum et al. 2000; Rowan et al.2002). The fact that humour is an interaction set in a real-life context (Tancock 1997;Gregory 2001; Volk and de Acosta 2001; Gee 2003) and that it involves perceptions ratherthan a tangible external phenomenon (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner 2007) inevitablylead the researcher to qualitative methods of data gathering. A mixed methodology approachis hence adopted in this paper (Anderson 1999; Tashakkori and Teddie 2002). This method-ological choice goes further than mere convenience as the model is thought highly appropri-ate to the field of social sciences (Rocco et al. 2003; Attree 2006; Greene 2007; Sorensenet al. 2007; Yang 2008) and more particularly the educational context (Munoz 2001; Lebecand Luft 2007; Sosu, McWilliam and Gray 2008). Informed consent was obtained in allcases from all participants – teachers and students – as well as from parents and/or guardians.

FieldworkSemi-directive questionnaires were used with teachers currently teaching students withSEBD or having recently done so. The sample surveyed consisted of a pool of teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

278 F. Fovet

(n =20) located in the UK and Canada. The male:female ratio of the sample was50:50, even though the participants were selected on the basis of snowball sampling(Miles and Huberman 1994). This methodological compromise is judged acceptablein the study of social sub-groups (Vervaeke et al. 2006). Concern originally arose asto the possibility that teachers might overrate their capacity to use humour throughself-reporting, in line with observations made by Kruger and Dunning (1999). Thiswas, however, rebutted by initial investigative research (Fovet 2007). All semi-direct-ive questionnaires were be completed face-to-face or by email, and due considerationwas given to the concerns raised by James and Busher (2007) on the use of emailinterviewing.

A student questionnaire was also used, and its main objective was the correlationof student and teacher perspectives. The questions contained in the student question-naire were almost identical and had merely been adapted to mirror the students’understanding of terminology. Semi-directive questionnaires, or ‘simple descriptivesurveys’ (Mertens 1998, 108), were used. Nineteen subjects were interviewed, out ofa pool of 30 students with SEBD in the process of completing sixth form in aspecialized, residential school, or having done so in the previous five years. Themale:female ratio was 14:15. The identification of student participants with SEBDwas carried out through snowball sampling. This sampling method gives rise to thespecific issues of misdiagnosis and labelling (Van der Heijden, Smits and BoudewijnGunning 2005; Webb et al. 2005, Baydala et al. 2006; Perry, Hatton and Kendall2005; Bussing et al. 2007) but this was nonetheless judged an adequate methodologi-cal compromise.

In an effort to consolidate these data, three teacher focus groups each composed of fiveparticipants were set up to further investigate teachers’ perceptions. Comments andresponses were taped and transcribed.

The mixed methodological approach used in this study demanded that the issue ofecological validity be addressed. Over a period of a year, several classroom observationsessions were therefore carried out; these were taped and transcribed. Teacher-researchershave been keen in existing literature to tape interactions in class which occur through lan-guage (Kempe 1993; Knobel 1993) and analyse ‘slice of life data’ (Lankshear and Knobel2004; p. 195). Smaller classes with fewer students were chosen; 460 minutes of classroomtranscripts were obtained.

It was not thought that the students with SEBD would lend themselves well as a groupto the focus-group method of investigation. The very fact that the children under reviewhave SEBD means that their perceptions of schools and teachers are emotionally charged(Cooper, Smith and Upton 1994; Visser 2001). Asking them to take part in a forum mightbe therapeutic (Wood and Long 1991) but difficult to limit constructively to one topic. Itseemed best to target exchanges that had already taken place unsupervised and thereforeundisturbed by any adult scrutiny. The idea of analysing online exchanges between stu-dents was hence particularly appealing (Calvert 2002; Lee 2003; Huffaker and Calvert2005). Research on interactions on Facebook within the sphere of education is giving riseto increasing interest (Hewitt and Forte 2006) and permission was therefore sought toaccess the Wall application of 12 SEBD students. The application known as the ‘Wall’,the homepage of users of this social networking software, has the appeal of recordingexchanges that are public between the members of these groups, in the form of online con-versations. It also allows the user to post comments about his or her experiences and stateof mind.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 279

Analysis and findingsAnalysisThe standard deviation in the teacher sample, in terms of age and teaching experience, isextremely irregular and the range is very large. This is a phenomenon commonly observedin the SEBD context where two polar opposites – the very young and inexperienced or thecareer ‘behaviour specialists’ – are consistently present, such as in the inner city context(Schofield 1989) and native education (Visser and Fovet 2007). No specific statistics wereused or analysed with regards to the composition of the student sample as this did notappear directly relevant to the questions at hand. The method of analysis used with regardsto the student and teacher questionnaires was qualitative, beyond the basic statisticalteacher information gathered above. The interest of this part of the data was two-fold: (i)to obtain answers from participants on specific issues having arisen in preliminaryresearch (Fovet 2007); and (ii) to explore potential further issues that might be analysedthrough observation and transcript analysis.

As far as the transcripts of the teacher focus groups are concerned, a thematic analysisapproach was chosen to process the data. The thematic analysis was carried out with textanalysis software. The first methodological step was the initial coding of a random sample(Lankshear and Knobel 2004, 271). The coder established a thematic hierarchy with fivemajor themes, as well as ancillary ones (Mathur and Oliver 2008). ‘Code labels’ includedconnotations or express words describing humour as: (i) a power struggle (derogatory putdown, loss of control, aggression, insinuations); (ii) a waste of time (triviality, interrup-tion, distraction, annoyance); (iii) as tension relief (laughter, relaxation, pause, decrease inaggression); (iv) as a learning tool (interest, decrease in monotony, engagement, results);and (iv) as a building block for relationships (connection, ease, reciprocity, informality).Intercoder agreement (Carey, Morgan and Oxtoby 1996) was found to be 73%.Transcripts were then analysed with the help of a text analysis mark-up system, Answr(MacQueen, McLellan, Kay and Milstein 1998). The aim of this procedure was to gaugethe frequency with which the five themes and 20 ancillary sub-themes appeared in teacherdiscourse. Think-aloud methods (Kucan and Beck 1997) or ‘verbal protocol analysis’(Branch 2000) were also used to a certain degree during the analysis of data collectedduring the teacher focus group.

As far as the transcripts of classroom observation are concerned, these were analysedmanually through domain analysis methods (Spradley 1980), also described in literature as‘open coding’ (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Miles and Huberman 1994; Marshall andRossman 1999). The themes used as a basis for the coding were selected from existingstudies and were as follows: (i) ‘creative and appreciative humour’ (Ziv 1984; Martin andBaksh 1995); (ii) ‘healing humour’ (Zingler 1985); (iii) ‘appeasement humour’ (Hill 1988);(iv) humour as a ‘teaching tool’ (Rogers 1984); and (v) humour as an ‘implied bond’between teacher and student against institutional hurdles and formalities (Martin 1983;Woods 1983). Such an analysis usually goes beyond the simple domain analysis (Spradley1980; Borgatti 1999) and overlaps into taxonomic analysis (Borgatti 1999, 117).

The online exchanges, scoping a period of a year appearing on the students’ Facebookpages, were analysed through ‘qualitative content analysis’ (Webber 1985; O’Connor 2001).

FindingsIt was, first of all, felt by the great majority of both teacher and student participants thatthe traditional and established distinctions in types of humour, extracted from existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

280 F. Fovet

literature, were of little relevance in their reflection on this question. In many cases theparticipants queried the meanings of these definitions and remained perplexed even whenthey were explained or the source of the distinction was revealed. It simply did not appeara congenial tool with which to adequately analyse their own experiences. Few attempted,however, to offer a distinction that they thought might be more relevant. The directivequestions in the survey which targeted irony and sarcasm gave rise to many reactions andpersonal responses; this was prima facie thought an altogether more relevant distinction.Most still rejected it in the end as not being ultimately decisive. Many teachers realizedthat they did in fact use irony and sarcasm ‘against their better judgment’ and that this didnot always bring about the negative outcome feared. Irony and sarcasm were not distin-guished in any way by student participants from other humour-based interventions, orseen as being of the source of any particular concern on their part. The semi-directivequestions established that students were worried primarily about teacher intentions andthat this could make the use of humour intolerable, as opposed to the nature of any specifictype of humour. Some participants actually stated that sarcastic interventions were in facttheir preferred interactions.

Analysis of the data collected through the semi-directive questionnaire reveals a seriesof contradictions in teacher perceptions. Most rated it as a ‘tool of crucial importance’,while it was selected as one of the three tools most used by a mere third of participants. Allteacher participants unanimously later stated that they used humour ‘frequently’ withoutidentifying any contradictions in their answers. The Kruger and Dunning (1999) concernthat individuals generally overrated their successful use of humour seems unfounded as,on a progressive five-level self-rating scale from ‘hilarious’ to ‘sombre’, the unanimity ofparticipants chose the median values of ‘witty’ or ‘smiley’. This self-perception howeverwas in direct contradiction with the fact that the majority once again declared they wereusing humour confidently. The contradiction in self-perception amongst teachers becomeseven more complex, when one considers the fact that all said their use of humour was‘instinctive/accidental’. When it came to analysing the possible outcomes on a ratingscale using 14 scenarios, the three most reported outcomes were: smile; better workingrelationship; positive learning outcome. Approximately half of participants howeveranecdotally described incidents where the use of humour had led to a worsening of thesituation or to no tangible improvement. The cause was rarely identified though the sub-jects had obviously been shaken by this and had given it much thought. The participantsreported a later improvement in their relationship with the child but were unable to explainthe immediate negative outcome. All subjects contributed an anecdote about a successfulintervention carried out with humour as a tool. It must be noted however that in a largeproportion of these anecdotes, the use of humour in fact originated with the studentsthemselves and the teachers were not the author but rather the willing participant; the mis-perception was frequent and generally led to much puzzlement when this was pointed out.A distinction was made by subjects with regards to ‘crisis intervention humour’: teachersintentionally choosing humour to diffuse tension between students, as described by Hill(1988) in terms of ‘appeasement humour’. This differs from the rest of the data as it isseen as emergency intervention between peers, and not as an intervention between studentand teacher.

The open questions of the survey led to the collection of abundant qualitative andanecdotal data and teacher participants were happy to share and to reflect on their experi-ences. It was thought by most that interventions involving humour were complex interac-tions that were often protracted. It was felt by most teachers that these interventionsinvolved many other tools and tones. Humorous interventions were actually seen and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 281

characterized as such because they began with humour and ended with humour. It wasobserved by most that different exchanges, which were not based on humour, occurredbetween the interventions that were based on humour. In a way, humour could appear andbe described in these instances as the ‘book-end’ characteristics of much wider processes.An important distinction was made by most participants between laughter and humour.Humour was generally seen as a renegotiation of power and position. It was felt by teacherparticipants as the explicit signalling of a degree of openness on their part to ‘compromise’.When using humour, teachers were perceived as engaging less formally; they thus seemedwilling to invest in the personal relationship. This very much echoes the notion of humouras an ‘implied bond’ between teacher and student against common institutional hurdles,formulated by Woods (1983) and Martin (1983). On another level, such remarks are alsoin tune with eco-systemic interpretations as to the nature of classroom dynamics and theneed for a degree of reciprocity and self-awareness on the part of all ‘actors’. The use ofhumour was felt by many teachers as a trigger to other negotiations and a symbolic ‘open-ing of doors’.

The textual analysis tool AnSwr, used to investigate the transcripts of teacher focusgroups, yielded data of a limited scope and did not establish significant statistical distinc-tions in the frequency of occurrence of the selected themes or establish any rankingamongst them. Some of the sub-themes, or ancillary ‘code labels’, showed sporadic prom-inence. This did not, however, result in a distinguishably higher frequency of occurrencefor any of the main ‘code labels’. With hindsight, a hypothesis can be put forward for thefailure of this method of data collection: the format of the focus group is such that ideasand themes are expressed in the prescribed order in which they are brought up by the inter-viewer, not specifically because they create arousal in the subjects. The word-count reportwas however much more useful and this analysis did establish that a much greater percent-age of words expressed by teachers in focus groups related to the themes of humour as a‘building block for relationship’. The prominence of this theme placed this code label over10% ahead of other code labels selected. The second most relevant code label, in terms ofword count, was that of ‘humour as power struggle’. This reaffirms the teacher ambiguitytowards humour, which clearly is perceived both as a tool for healthy relationships and aweapon for negative ones.

The tone of student participants was strikingly different. They showed much less hesi-tation on the subject and, oddly, despite their age and current difficulties in school, muchmore reflection on the topic of humour, some of it strikingly analytical.

The most tangible difference between their comments and those of teachers is thathumour was not rated as a ‘tool of crucial importance’ by them. Rapport with theteacher was instead seen overwhelmingly as the most important tool. The studentresponses were much more cautious on the subject till the questions became lessdirective in the second half of the interview. Ethnographic observation here is almostas highly relevant as the content of the answers themselves (Kincheloe and McLaren1994): students were seen to take painstakingly long to consider the questions put tothem. This was quite visibly a topic they had at heart, which had given rise to muchthought and which was being pondered quite genuinely during the process. Studentswere seen to avoid over-simplifications and steered clear of picturing humour as just‘fun’. It was a process they knew to be important and highly relevant to theirclassroom environment and a certain awe was noted vis-à-vis the mechanism itself.They also showed fewer doubts than teachers about their understanding of the pro-cess. Answers were usually monosyllabic but firm and could be justified conceptuallywhen this was requested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

282 F. Fovet

On the topic of outcomes, there is unanimous agreement amongst student participants:they saw ‘a smile’ as the most likely response to an intervention that made use of humour.More qualitative responses described such an intervention as making the student ‘morecomfortable’, ‘more relaxed’, ‘more likely to learn’, ‘more likely to participate’, and sug-gested that it ‘created a rapport with the teacher’. Yet there was also a much higher degreeof realism in student response and the majority focused in details on the possible dangersof interventions involving humour – loss of class control and waste of time being twoprominent concerns. This echoes the findings of Sudol (1981) but was characteristicallyabsent from teacher responses.

In open-ended questions, the use of humour was very rapidly associated by studentparticipants with a willingness to be informal and to ‘open up’. Interestingly, however, thestudent participants as a whole felt that it was impossible to teach the use of humour to ateacher. They saw this as an inherent quality or skill and commented abundantly on thefact that teachers trying to be humorous when they did not have those skills brought aboutcounter-productive outcomes.

There were few occurrences of interventions involving humour in the samples ofclassroom observation that were transcribed. This is not in itself surprising and, while itmight be highly desirable to observe the mechanism of humour at play for the sake of agreater degree of ecological validity (Wiersma 1999), the nature of the phenomenonmeans that such interactions are few and far between. They are hence unlikely to beobserved naturally without the expansion of a disproportionate amount of resources. It isalso conceivable that the very recording of the class disrupted normal exchanges (Bottorff1994). It might have made the teacher participants wary and reluctant to indulge in inter-actions on which they, as practitioners, had ready made assumptions (Fovet 2008a).Administrative scrutiny also comes into play (Zeni 2001) and teachers are not keen onbeing observed and judged by teacher-researchers (Clay 2001).

Three recorded exchanges were identified as uses of ‘creative and appreciativehumour’ (Ziv 1984; Sluder 1986; Martin and Baksh 1995). These were clearly identifiableincidents during which roles were well defined: humour was initiated by the teacher andthe intervention was obviously meant to lead to an ‘appreciation’ of the mechanism by thestudent. In all three instances, the intervention was smoothly incorporated into the classbut the outcomes were limited. It showed the teachers as firmly in command and echoesZiv’s (1984) and Goodson and Walker’s (1991) views on the concept of ‘formal’ class-room. In one other intervention, humour was seen to be used as an ‘implied bond’ betweenteacher and student vis-à-vis school as an ‘institution’ (Martin 1983; Woods 1983).Through subtle and fairly lengthy exchanges, a teacher and student were seen to establisha common understanding regarding institutions, formal school relationships and adminis-trative hurdles. The taxonomic analysis (Borgatti 1999) show the nature of the exchangeas going far beyond mere classroom relations and seemed to have the intention of firmlypositioning teacher and student in a mutual understanding of each other’s views on learn-ing, authority, communication and, to a degree, social control. In many ways the tone,type of humour or content of the humorous exchange here seemed irrelevant and wereseen much more as the trigger mechanism that led and allowed the wider understandingbetween parties. The humorous tone was maintained, acknowledged and mirrored repeat-edly by both parties. Humour seemed to be the platform consciously chosen by both forthis mutual investigation to take place, as a sort of symbolic parentheses in classroominteractions.

Although the methodological approach to the Facebook online exchanges is not such as tobe able to provide in depth analysis, nonetheless it offered some interesting complementary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 283

data. The students whose exchanges were monitored overwhelmingly chose humour as amode of expression in their online exchanges on Facebook. The observation was strikingand as many as 96% of entries made on the Wall applications by those 12 students – be iton their own page or on that of others – was based on a type of humour encountered inliterature. The analysis did not limit itself to text, and in line with Bauer’s methodologicalprocess (2000), the use of images and sound was monitored as well. The same observa-tions were made through this method and humour was prominent in all of the onlineexchanges made by the students with SEBD. No control group had been identified at thestart of this study but a comparison to the use of humour in this same forum by main-stream students may yield useful data and represent a viable research axis for the future.More importantly, the online exchanges that were monitored as being school-specific orschool-related systematically made use of humour even when the feelings or thoughtsexpressed varied from matter of fact or neutral entries to boredom and exasperation.

Assessing findingsValidity is a concern in any study, and in mixed methodology projects it may have to beestablished in ways that are different from those used in quantitative projects (Lankshearand Knobel 2004). Teacher-led data collection cannot be said to have a high degree ofexternal validity (Sax 1997; Creswell 2001). Yet the concern in ethno-methodology mustnonetheless, despite this general caveat, remain ecological validity. Educational researchershave thus conceptualized qualitative validity and reliability in ways that are compatiblewith post-positivist research; these will be more centred on perception of phenomena thanon phenomena themselves (Lather 1993; Kincheloe and McLarren 1994). Two differentmethods were used to gauge this in this project: participant checking and triangulation.Participant checking was organically incorporated into the project as many teacher partic-ipants queried the direction and the conclusions of the project while it was ongoing.Participant checking interestingly occurred with students, too, although this had not beenoriginally expected. Many students were clearly feeling ‘empowered’ by the researchproject and offered ongoing commentary even after the interviews. Comments showedthat far from being passive participants in the study, they formed an immediate apprecia-tion of its aims. They systematically established a degree of ‘participant checking’ sincethey identified the project as raising questions that were important to them. Furthermore,since the framework chosen is one of mixed methodology, triangulation very much under-pins all findings. The intention was to work in a web format with perceptions and perspec-tives complementing each other, in tune with the principles of ‘audit trails’ advocated bymany ethnographers (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Findings were also assessed in light of existing literature on ‘communicative validity’,in terms of quality of the research project (Lather 1991; Carspeken 1996) rather than interms of a fixed reality that must be discovered. The intention of the study is to presentinterpretations and claims that are in tune with the context chosen and are based onadequate data collection. Though the possibility of generalization to a wider context or theability to replicate the study is slim because of the absence of controlled variables, thenotion of ‘credibility of portrayals of constructed realities’ developed by Kincheloe andMcLaren (1994, 151) is adopted here and is aimed for. It is important indeed not to lose sightof the fact that, in the sphere of SEBD, mixed methodology can at best aim for findingsbased within a symbolic interactionism framework (Blumer, as cited by Martin and Baksh1995) or its sub-branch, ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967). The mixed methodologyframework, thorough and multi-layered, remains focused conceptually on two important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

284 F. Fovet

notions that of ‘meaning’ (Jansen and Peshkin 1992) and ‘identities’ (Hewitt and Hewitt1986), rather than on any reality that is objective and disconnected from human activity. Itat best gauges ‘practical consciousness’ (Giddens 1986, 537) between individuals andinstitutions that are constantly reshaped by their actions.

OutcomesIt was significant that a shift was slowly operated through participant feedback, in thecourse of the study, from rating scales based on ‘types’ of humour towards rating scalesand analytical coders based on the ‘nature’ of the intervention. The latter seemed morerelevant to teachers and students and hence more pertinent to the objectives of the study.

It was clear too that much of the debate amongst participants was centred on inher-ent contradictions: whether humour was conscious or instinctive; whether it could hencebe taught or not; whether its use was dangerous or not. It remains impossible to quantifythese phenomena in an experimental model and data collection would have to be so vastand its analysis so complex that such an analysis seems outright unfeasible. It appearsdifficult to move beyond the recording of these contradictions and the simple observa-tion that perceptions of this mechanism clash between teachers and students. Seekingthe ultimate assessment as to which perception is correct and valid may be missing thepoint at hand. Instead, this study has highlighted how the very presence of these debatesin the discourse of students and practice of teachers confirm the importance of the toolitself.

Teachers and students were in unison in seeing humour as a complex series of mecha-nisms and interventions. Both sets of participants portray it as a sometimes extremely pro-tracted process which often only reaches its goals much later in the lesson, or even beyondthat specific class. Most participants see it as a platform from which to build a rapport andother complex interactions. The view of most participants seemed to be that the use ofhumour established some degree of reciprocity. While not sufficient on its own, it couldtherefore work as a building block in the shaping of warm and productive teacher–studentrelationships. In many ways the initial hypothesis is hence in part confirmed and the use ofhumour is perceived as ‘the door’ which needs to be opened to allow systemic interven-tions of a wider scope and nature. The most important conclusion of the study is thereforethat teachers are aware of the striking importance of this mechanism in their classroominterventions and that school policies should encourage reflection and best practice state-ments in this arena.

Beyond this, the data also show that students with SEBD are highly sensitive andreceptive to this mechanism. This may be explained in three different ways theoreticallythrough reference to existing literature. First, SEBD students are highly sensitive to anddependent on one-on-one relationships within their schooling (Laslett, as cited by Visser,2001). They thrive on the reciprocity and attention which the data suggest exist within thehumorous exchange. Secondly, most students with SEBD thrive on speedy and informalexchanges with immediate feedback (Bender and Bender 1996; Cox et al. 2006). Humourmay appeal to them in that respect as a mental juggling act that is particularly suited totheir need for spontaneous and immediate response from their environment. Thirdly, chil-dren with SEBD internalize their experience of school and class as something at bestunpleasant (Zigmond and Baker 1990) and at worst as an ordeal in which they feel fairlypowerless (Wehby et al. 1998; Fovet 2008b). It is felt from the data collected in this studythat humour serves as a mechanism that allows teacher and student to recognize andacknowledge a mutual bond in the face of uncontrollable institutional pressures. It allows

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 285

them to express shared feelings towards difficult and at times overwhelming situations, aswell as an allegiance against different figures of authority and symbols of status (Woods1983; Martin & Baksh 1995).

The data collected for this study have certainly shown a high degree of lucidity on thepart of teachers as to the hurdles that too often prevent the effective teaching of studentswith SEBD. Most participants have shown an intuitive understanding of the tools thatneed to be used with such students and they see use of humour as a method of establishinga positive working relationship. Data have shown that their understanding of the mecha-nism of humour can at times be basic, which in turn leads to fears and inadequacies. Yetcurrent research findings intimate that, in the area of behaviour, frameworks must be‘school wide’ to have genuine impact and the desired effect (Ali et al. 1997). Teachersmay feel they hence have no choice but to abandon individually based interventions thathave no prospect of gaining school-wide scope. Can humour in fact ever become a toolthat is used universally and systematically, and for which training is provided? The com-mon perception amongst student participants was certainly that humour cannot be taught.Their views mirrored the idea of ‘teacher profiling’, which is now been investigated inextreme situations of school disengagement (Visser and Fovet 2007). Then again, thequalitative data also suggest that students with SEBD might be willing to accept teacherswho do not make effective use of humour as long as the teacher–student relationship wasnevertheless perceived as ‘genuine’.

The danger here might be to theorize on the mechanisms of humour and appropriatetraining without first paying due attention to what the learners themselves are stating. Inthis respect, the study highlights the need for an ethno-methodological approach wheninvestigating the needs of students with SEBD. This investigative procedure, whichshould be characteristic of the SEBD context, may have wider repercussions and be highlyapplicable to a new breed of learners – students Keefe (2008) describes as ‘Millenniumlearners’. These distinguish themselves from their predecessors by how perceptive theyare about the learning that best suits their needs. They are picky, ready to express theirpreferences, aware of alternative teaching formats available, have a heavy bias towardshybrid teaching and are usually one step ahead of teachers in their exploration of techno-logical innovations that are applicable to pedagogy. The possible outcomes of such meth-odological procedures, fully receptive to students’ views, widen the scope of this study tothe mainstream inclusive classroom as a whole. Such a process represents a rich lesson fortwenty-first-century educational research which can no longer afford to be merely teacherfocused.

ReferencesAli, D., C. Best, M. Bonathan, D. Bower, A. Cardwell, N. Craik, A. Daniels, et al. 1997.

Behaviours in schools: A framework for intervention. Birmingham: Birmingham EducationDepartment.

Anderson, N. 1999. Inclusion: Can teachers and technology meet the challenge? PhD thesis,Queensland University of Technology.

Attree, M. 2006. Evaluating healthcare education: Issues and methods. Nurse Education Today 26,no. 8: 640–6.

Bauer, M. 2000. Classical content analysis. In: Qualitative researching with text, image and sound,ed. M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 131–51. London: Sage.

Baydala, L., J. Sherman, C. Rasmussen, E. Wilkman and H. Janzen. 2006. ADHD characteristics inCanadian Aboriginal children. Journal of Attention Disorders 9, no. 4: 642–7.

Bender, R.L., and W.N. Bender. 1996. Computer-assisted instruction for students at risk for ADHD,mild disabilities or academic problems. Needhalm Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

286 F. Fovet

Bigum, C., M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, I. Rowan, and M. Doneman. 2000. Confronting disadvantagein literacy education: New technologies, classroom pedagogy and networks of practice.Canberra, ACT: Language Australia.

Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. London: Falmer Press.Borgatti, S. 1999. Elicitation techniques for cultural domain analysis. In Embraced ethnographic

methods: Audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques (Ethnog-rapher’s Toolkit, Vol. 3), eds. J. Schensul, M. LeCompte, B. Nastasi, and S. Borgatti, 115–51.Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Bottorff, J. 1994. Using videotaped recordings in qualitative research. In Critical issues inqualitative research methods, ed. J. Morse, 242–61. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Branch, J. 2000. The rouble with think-alouds: Generating data using concurrent verbal protocols. InCAIS 2000: Dimensions of a global information science, ed. A. Kublik. Proceedings of the 28thAnnual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Alberta. http://www.slis.ualberta.ca/cais2000/branch.htm.

Bussing, R., F.A. Gary, T.L. Mills, and C.W. Garvan. 2007. Cultural variations in parental healthbeliefs, knowledge, and information sources related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Journal of Family Issues 28, no. 3: 291–318.

Boyle, G.J., and J.M. Joss-Reid. 2004. Relationship of humour to health: A psychometric investiga-tion. British Journal of Health Psychology 1: 51–66.

Calvert, S.L. 2002. Identity construction on the Internet. In Children in the digital age: Influences ofelectronic media on development, eds. S.L. Calvert, A.B. Jordan and R.R. Cocking, 57–70.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Campbell, A.J. 1997. Using humor in medical practice. Missouri Medicine 94: 603–18.Cann, A., K. Holt, and L.G. Calhoun. 1999. The roles of humor and sense of humor in response to

stressors. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 12: 177–93.Carey, J.W., M. Morgan, and M.J. Oxtoby. 1996. Intercoder agreement in analysis of responses to

open-ended interview questions: Examples from tuberculosis research. Cultural AnthropologyMethods 8, no. 3: 1–5.

Carspecken, P. 1996. Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practicalguide. New York: Routledge.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury. 2003. Every child matters. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk.Clay, W.C. 2001. Coming to know my own place. In Ethical issues in practitioner research, ed.

J. Zeni. New York: Teacher College Press.Cooper, P., C. Smith, and G. Upton. 1994. Emotional & behavioural difficulties – theory to practice.

London: Routledge.Cox, D.J., M. Punja, K. Powers, R.L. Merkel, R. Burket, M. Moore, F. Thorndike and B. Kovatchev.

2006. Manual transmission enhances attention and driving performance of ADHD adolescentmales. Journal of Attention Disorders 10, no. 2: 212–6.

Creswell, J. 2001. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative andqualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cullinan, D. 2002. Students with emotional and behavioural disorders. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education, Inc.

Damico, J.S., and L.E. Augustine. 1995. Social considerations in the labelling of students as Atten-tion Deficit Hyperactivity Disordered. Seminars in Speech and Language 16, no. 4: 259–71.

Damico, S.B. 1980. What’s funny about a crisis? Contemporary Education 51, no. 3: 391–8.Damico, S.B., and W.W. Purkey. 1978. Class clowns: A study of middle school students. American

Educational Research Journal 15, no. 3: 391–8.Davis, A., and B.H. Kleiner. 1989. The value of humour in effective leadership. Leadership and

Organizational Development Jourmal 10, no. 1: 1–3.Department of Education and Skills. 2003. Behaviour management: Introductory training for school

support staff. London: DES.Department of Education and Skills. 2004. Every child matters. London: DES.Dziegielewski, S.F., G.A. Jacinto, A. Laudadio, and L. Legg-Rodriguez. 2003. Humor: An essential

communication tool in therapy. International Journal of Mental Health 32: 74–90.Engle, E.M., and R.G. Lord. 1997. Implicit theories, self-chemas and leader–member exchange.

Academy of Management Journal 40: 988–1010.Fovet, F. 2007. The use of humour in classroom interventions with EBD students. In 7th Conference

on Imagination and Education – Conference Proceedings. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 287

Fovet, F. 2008a, January. Humour as a tool for classroom intervention with students with behav-ioural difficulties – A study of teachers’ perceptions. In Conference Proceedings. 6th HawaiiInternational Conference on Education. HICE.

Fovet, F. 2008b, July. Preparing teachers for the effective inclusion of children with SEBD: Practi-cal hurdles currently not being met by teacher training. In Conference Proceedings, AustralianTeacher Educator Association, Sunshine Coast. Brisbane: ATEA.

Garfinkel, A. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Gee, J. 2003. What video games have to teach us about literacy. New York: Palgrave.Giddens, A. 1986. Action, subjectivity and the constitution of meaning. Social Research 53: 529–45.Goodson, I., and R. Walker. 1991. Humour in the classroom. In Biography, identity & schooling:

Episodes in educational research, eds. I. Goodson and R Walker. London: The Falmer Press.Greene, J.C. 2007. Mixed methods in social inquiry. Provincetown, MA: Jossey Bass.Gregory, E. 2001. Sisters and brothers as literacy teachers: Synergy between siblings playing and

working together. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 1, no. 3: 301–22.Hallowell, E.M. 2004, March. The AD/HD learner: Meeting the challenges; embracing the possibil-

ities. In Conference proceedings - 29th LDAQ Congress, March. Montreal: LDAQ.Hewitt, A., and A. Forte. 2006, November. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/

faculty relationships on the Facebook. In Conference Proceedings. Banff: CSCW 06, 4–8November.

Hewitt, J.P., and M.L. Hewitt. 1986. Introducing sociology: A symbolic interactionist perspective.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Higueras, A., H. Carreto-Dios, J.P. Munoz, E. Idini, A. Ortiz, F. Rincon, D.P. Merino, and M.M.Rodriguez del Alguila. 2006. Effects of a humor-centered activity on disruptive behaviour inpatients in a general hospital psychiatric ward. International Journal of Clinical and HealthPsychology 6: 53–64.

Hill, D.J. 1988. Humour in the classroom: A handbook for teachers (and other entertainers).Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hobday-Kush, J., and J. McVittie. 2002. Just clowning around: Classroom perspectives onchildren’s humour. Canadian Journal of Education 27, nos.2–3: 195–210.

Huffaker, D., and S.L. Calvert. 2005. Gender, identity and language use in teenage blogs. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 10, no. 2: 1.

James, N., and H. Busher. 2007. Ethical issues in online educational research: Protecting privacy,establishing authenticity in email interviewing. International Journal of Research & Method inEducation 30, no. 1: 101–13.

Jansen, G., and A. Peshkin. 1992. Subjectivity in qualitative research. In The handbook of qualita-tive research in education¸ eds. M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, and J. Preissle, 129–47. SanDiego: Academic Press Inc.

Johnson, R.B., A.J. Onwuegbuzie, and L.A. Turner. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methodsresearch. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, no. 2: 112–33.

Kamei, T., T. Kumano, and S. Masumura. 1997. Changes of immunoregulatory cells associated withphysiological stress and humor. Perceptual and Motorskills 32: 196–8.

Keefe, M. 2008, July. The super-teacher. In Conference Proceedings, Australian Teacher EducatorAssociation Annual Conference, Sunshine Coast.

Kempe, A. 1993. No single meaning: Empowering students to construct socially critical readings ofthe text. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 16, no. 4: 307–22.

Kincheloe, J., and P. McLarren. 1994. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Hand-book of qualitative research, eds. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 139–57. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Knobel, M. 1993. Simon says see what I say: Reader response and the teacher as meaning-maker.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 16, no. 4: 29–306.

Kruger, J., and D. Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizingone’s on incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 77: 1121–34.

Kucan, L., and I. Beck. 1997. Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Iinquiry,instruction and social interaction. Review of Educational Research 67, no. 3: 271–99.

Lankshear, C., and M. Knobel. 2004. A handbook for teacher research – from design to implementa-tion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Laslett, R. 1977. Educating maladjusted children. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

288 F. Fovet

Lather, P. 1991. Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York:Routledge.

Lather, P. 1993. Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quaterly 34,no. 4: 673–93.

Lebec, M., and J. Luft. 2007. A mixed methods analysis of learning in online teacher professionaldevelopment: A case report. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 7, no.1. http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss1/general/article1.cfm.

Lee, C. 2003. How does instant messaging affect interaction between the genders? Stanford, CA:The Mercury Project for Instant Messaging Studies at Stanford University.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.Long, R. 1999. Interventions for inclusion (Unit 3 for EDSE 07 Distance Learning Course).

Birmingham: School of Education, University of Birmingham.MacQueen, K.M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. 1998. Codebook development for team-

based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods 10, no. 2: 31–6.Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Martin B.W., and I.J. Baksh. 1995. School humour – pedagogical and sociological considerations.

St John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland.Martin, R.A. 2001. Humor laughter and physical health: Methodological issues and research find-

ings. Psychological Bulletin 127: 504–19.Martin, W.B.W. 1983. Helpful, understanding and cooperative teachers. St John’s, Newfoundland:

Publications Committee, Memorial University of NewFoundland.Mathur, R., and L. Oliver. 2008. Developing cultural partnerships through electronic communica-

tion: A thematic analysis. In Conference Proceedings, 6th International Conference onEducation, Honolulu. HICE.

Mertens, D. 1998. Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity withquantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, A. 1996. Pupil behaviour and teacher culture. London: Cassell.Morreall, J. 1983. Taking humor seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Munoz, M.A. 2001. Class size reduction in a large urban school district: A mixed methodology

evaluation research study. Louisville, KY: Jefferson County Public Schools.O’Connor, T. 2001. Qualitative research methods. http://faculty.ncwc.ed/TOConnor/308/308lect09.htm.Orben, B. 1985. Getting down to funny business. Nation’s Business 73, no. 11: 4–46.Perry, C. E., D. Hatton and J. Kendall. 2005. Latino parents’ accounts of attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder. Journal of Transcultural Nursing 16, no. 4: 312–21.Priest, R.F. 1990. Use of humor for coping with stressful situations at the US Military Academy.

Report 90–08, Office of Institutional Research. West Point, NY: United States Miltary Acad-emy.

Priest, R.F., and J.E. Swain. 2002. Humor and its implication for leadership effectiveness. Humor15, no. 2: 169–89.

Rocco, T.S., L.A. Bliss, S. Gallagher, and A. Perez-Prado. 2003. Taking the next step: Mixed meth-ods research in organizational systems. Information Technology, Learning and PerformanceJournal 21, no. 1: 19–21.

Rogers, V.R. 1984. Laughing with children. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development 41, no. 7: 46–50.

Rowan, L., M. Knobel, C. Bigum, and C. Lankshear. 2002. Boys, literacies and schooling: Thedangerous territories of gender based literacy reform. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sax, G. 1997. Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. 4th ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Schofield, J. 1989. Black and white in school: Trust, tension or tolerance. New York: TeacherCollege Press.

Sluder, A.W. 1986. Children and laughter: The elementary school counsellor’s role. ElementarySchool Guidance & Counselling December: 120–7.

Sorensen, W., P.B. Anderson, S. Speaker, and J.E. Menacho & Vilches. 2007. Heterosexual STI/HIV risk assessment among Bolivian truck drivers using mixed methodology. InternationalElectronic Journal of Health Education 10: 9–18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 289

Sosu, E.M., A. McWilliam, and D.S. Gray. 2008. The complexities of teachers’ commitment toenvironmental education – a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2,no. 2: 169–89.

Spradley, J. 1980. Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Sudol, D. 1981. Dangers of classroom humor. English Journal October: 26–8.Tancock, S. 1997. Catie: A case study of one first grader’s reading status. Reading, Research and

Instruction 36, no. 2: 89–110.Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddie. 2002. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Van Acker, R. 2003. The origins of non-compliant acting-out and agressive behavior in children and

youth. In Prevention/intervention for non-compliant, acting-out and aggressive behavior: Pro-moting positive student outcomes, eds. L. Bullock, R. Gable, and K. Melloy. Arlington, VA:Council for Exceptional Children.

Van der Heijden, K.B., M.G. Smits, and W. Boudewijn Gunning. 2005. Sleep-related disorders inADHD: A review. Clinical Pediatrics 44: 201–10.

Vervaeke, H., D. Korf, A. Benschop, and W. van der Brink. 2006. How to find future ectasy users:targeted and snowball sampling in an ethically sensitive context. Addictive Behaviours 32, no. 8:1705–13.

Visser, J. 2001. Eternal verities: The strongest links – the David Wills lecture. Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties 7, no. 2: 68–84.

Visser, J., and F. Fovet. 2007. L’expérience de la commission scolaire crie du Nord Québec: Uneévaluation systémique de la performance et des programmes scolaires. In Actes de Colloque -L’Élève en Difficultés Scolaires : Que Peut Apporter la Psychologie? Tunis: Institut Supérieurdes Sciences Humaines de Tunis.

Volk, D., and M. de Acosta. 2001. Many different ladders, many ways to climb … : literacy eventsin the bilingual classroom, homes and community of three Puerto Rican kindergartners. Journalof Early Childhood Literacy 1, no. 2: 193–223.

Webb, J.T., E.R. Amend, N.E. Webb, J. Goerss, P. Beljan, and F.R. Olenchak. 2005. Misdiagnosisand dual diagnosis of gifted children and adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Freat Potential Press.

Weber, R. 1985. Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Wehby, J.H., F.J. Symons, J.A. Canale, and F.J. Go. 1998. Teaching practices in classrooms for stu-

dents with emotional and behavioural disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations andobservations. Behavioural Disorders 24: 51–56.

Wiersma, W. 1999. Research methods in education: An introduction. 7th ed. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Wood, M.M., and N.J. Long. 1991. Life space intervention: Talking with children and youth incrisis. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Woods, P. 1983. Coping at school through humour. British Journal of Socioloy of Education 4,no. 2: 111–24.

Yang, S. 2008. A mixed methods study on the needs of Korean families in intensive care units.Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 25, no. 4: 79–86.

Zeni, J. 2001. Reflections on school-based research. In Ethical issues in practitioner research, ed.J. Zeni. New York: Teacher College Press.

Ziegler, V., G. Boardman, and D.M. Thomas. 1985. Humor, leadership and school climate. TheClearing House 58, no. 8: 346–8.

Zigmond, N., and J. Baker. 1990. Mainstream experiences for learning disabled students (ProjectMELD): Preliminary report. Exceptional Children 57, no. 2: 176–85.

Zingler, D.J. 1985. The functions and factors of humour in counselling. Master’s thesis, Universityof Manitoba.

Ziv, A. 1984. Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

45 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014