Humor Strategies of Tutors in Brand's Summer Camp

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The Brand’s Summer Camp tutoring program is a widely popular academic revision show that features an extensive and diverse use of humor. Renowned tutors are invited to deliver lectures, attracting significant attention from students and home viewers alike. From the preliminary observations, humor is frequently employed in the program through a variety of strategies. An interest arose in examining the strategies used to convey humor in the program, which are categorized into linguistic strategies employed to communicate humor and content-construction strategies that generate humorous effects. This research article aims to analyze the humor strategies employed by the tutors in the Brand’s Summer Camp program, focusing on both linguistic techniques and content-based strategies.

Methods: In this qualitative research, videos with over 8,000 views that feature humor within the first 15 minutes were selected. The analysis involved a detailed transcription of humorous segments and was guided by previous studies on humor in the Thai language. A humorous utterance was identified based on the presence of audience laughter following its delivery. In cases where audience reactions were unclear, subjective judgment and verification by three native Thai speakers were used to determine whether an utterance was humorous.

Results: The findings reveal that the humor strategies employed by tutoring instructors can be categorized into two main types: linguistic strategies and content-based strategies. The linguistic strategies are further divided into two subcategories: primary strategies and supplementary strategies. The primary strategies include 1) the use of voice or tone which is louder or softer than usual, vocal modulation to match emotions and situations, and deliberately unclear or unnatural articulation; 2) employing onomatopoeia; 3) using unconventional metaphors; 4) the use of hyperbole; 5) asking rhetorical questions; 6) preemptively interrupting or anticipating the audience’s responses for comic effect; 7) intentionally misusing English grammar; 8) singing deliberately to generate humor; 9) code-switching for comedic purposes; and 10) using verbal irony to create humor. The supplementary strategies consist of using humorous gestures, incorporating comical teaching materials and props, and utilizing memorable mnemonic formulas that provoke laughter. Meanwhile, the content-based strategies include shifting the topic unexpectedly, creating content that defies expectations, and delivering surprising punchlines or twists. 

Application of this study: 1) The findings contribute to the study of humor in the Thai language and offer a framework for analyzing humor in other types of discourse. 2) The knowledge obtained may serve as a guideline for educational personnel in effectively developing the use of humor in the classroom. This, in turn, can enhance student engagement, reduce stress within the learning environment, and foster a more dynamic and enthusiastic teaching and learning process, ultimately contributing to the overall improvement of educational quality. 

Conclusions: This study proposes a conceptual framework for classifying humor strategies used by tutorial teachers into three main categories: linguistic strategies, supplementary strategies, and content creation strategies. These categories are consistent with the three major theories of humor: superiority theory, incongruity theory, and relief theory. The analysis reveals that the most frequently used strategies include topic shifting and the use of verbal irony. Each tutorial teacher demonstrates a unique style of humor. While most instances of humor successfully generate amusement in the classroom, some cases fail to achieve the intended effect due to inappropriate content or students’ lack of background knowledge about the context being discussed. A limitation of this study is its reliance on data from only four participants. Therefore, future research should consider other factors, such as the teacher’s gender or cultural context, which may influence the perception and understanding of humor in the classroom.