Instructor–Student and Student–Student Rapport in the Classroom

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between instructors and their students, and between students, to determine their roles in building positive relationships and an overall positive classroom environment. Of particular interest was the examination of instructor rapport with students and rapport between students. Students (N=232) reported on their perceptions of interpersonal relationships in the classroom and on their perceived participation and learning. Results indicate that perceived rapport with instructors and classmates is related to perceptions of classroom connectedness. Instructor rapport, student rapport, and classroom connectedness enhanced student participation. Only instructor rapport consistently predicted participation, affective learning, and cognitive learning.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rced20
Download by: [West Virginia University] Date: 09 May 2016, At: 14:29
Communication Education
ISSN: 0363-4523 (Print) 1479-5795 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20
Instructor–Student and Student–Student Rapport
in the Classroom
Brandi N. Frisby & Matthew M. Martin
To cite this article: Brandi N. Frisby & Matthew M. Martin (2010) Instructor–Student and
Student–Student Rapport in the Classroom, Communication Education, 59:2, 146-164, DOI:
10.1080/03634520903564362
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520903564362
Published online: 08 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2523
View related articles
Citing articles: 48 View citing articles

InstructorStudent and Student
Student Rapport in the Classroom
Brandi N. Frisby & Matthew M. Martin
This study examined the relationships between instructors and their students, and
between students, to determine their roles in building positive relationships and an
overall positive classroom environment. Of particular interest was the examination of
instructor rapport with students and rapport between students. Students (N232)
reported on their perceptions of interpersonal relationships in the classroom and on their
perceived participation and learning. Results indicate that perceived rapport with
instructors and classmates is related to perceptions of classroom connectedness. Instructor
rapport, student rapport, and classroom connectedness enhanced student participation.
Only instructor rapport consistently predicted participation, affective learning, and
cognitive learning.
College instructors strive to encourage student learning and to build a satisfying
relationship with students (Ellis, 2004). However, Ellis argued that the primary job of
an instructor is to promote learning, and thus called for more research to identify the
instructor behaviors that contribute to that primary goal of promoting learning.
Worley, Titsworth, Worley, and Cornett-DeVito (2007) argued that interpersonal
relationships are essential in student learning. The Affective Learning Model (ALM;
Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996) has provided some insight into the impact
instructors have on the learning processes of students. Specifically, the authors argued
that positive instructor behaviors evoke affect toward the instructor and the class,
which then enhances cognitive learning.
Other scholars (Dwyer et al., 2004; Nuthall, 2004) countered that the focus should
not only be on instructors, that studentstudent interactions should be assessed for
their contribution to learning outcomes. The classroom is made up of multiple
interpersonal relationships which contribute to the construction of a unique
community. Generally, a positive classroom experience is associated with positive
academic outcomes at the college level including adjustment, learning outcomes, and
Brandi N. Frisby and Matthew M. Martin are at West Virginia University. Brandi N. Frisby can be contacted at
bfrisby@mix.wvu.edu
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) #2010 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03634520903564362
Communication Education
Vol. 59, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 146164
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

retention (Bean & Eaton, 2001; McKinney, McKinney, Franiuk, & Schweitzer, 2006;
Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan 2007; Schaps, Lewis, & Watson, 1997; White, 2002; Zhang,
2004). Yet little is understood about the construction of connectedness in the
classroom and the differential roles of both students and instructors in eliciting
positive student outcomes including affective and cognitive learning.
The purpose of this study was to examine students’ relationships with both
instructors and fellow students. Specifically, instructor and student rapport were
examined for influence on a connected classroom, student participation, and learning
outcomes. The examination of learning was guided by the ALM. Each of these
constructs will be examined more closely in the following section.
Literature Review
Rapport
The relationship between an instructor and student has been labeled an interpersonal
one (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Nussbaum & Scott, 1980)
where both instructors and students enter the classroom with relational goals
(Frymier, 2007). An instructor’s ability to convey interpersonal messages is
considered one dimension of instructional communication competence (Worley
et al., 2007), and may serve to achieve relational goals. Jorgenson (1992) argued that
rapport is one term that is truly relationship-centered in capturing what is
experienced in an interpersonal relationship. She further argued that teaching is a
rapport-intensive field. Thus, rapport may enhance perceptions of an interpersonal
relationship in the classroom. Specifically, rapport is operationalized using two
dimensions: a personal connection and enjoyable interaction (Gremler & Gwinner,
2000).
Rapport is defined as an overall feeling between two people encompassing a
mutual, trusting, and prosocial bond (Catt, Miller, & Schallenkamp, 2007; Faranda &
Clarke, 2004; Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). Students have reported that rapport is an
essential characteristic of an effective teacher (Catt et al., 2007; Faranda & Clarke,
2004; McLaughlin & Erickson, 1981; Perkins, Schenk, Stephan, Vrungos, & Wynants,
1995). Although students report that rapport is essential, relatively little is know
about rapport when compared to other relational variables in the classroom (e.g.,
immediacy). Moreover, previous rapport research focused on student perceptions of
instructors. The classroom setting is not an environment restricted to a one-on-one
interaction, and the dynamics and perceptions of multiple relationships should be
considered. Scholars (Dwyer et al., 2004; Frymier, 2007) called for further
examination of student-to-student interactions at the university level. As such, this
study examined the role of rapport between instructors and students, and between
the students in the classroom, to understand more about the impact this positive
relational process can impart on learning outcomes.
Coupland (2003) argued that building rapport can have positive effects on the
classroom environment. Specifically, it can structure and encourage social interaction
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 147
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

by reducing anxiety (Coupland, 2003; Jorgenson, 1992). Bean and Eaton (2001)
noted that schools implement programs which are intended to enhance feelings of a
connected classroom environment for students to develop feelings of attachment and
reduce dropout rates. Where these programs are not in place, an instructor may play
an important role in promoting feelings of connectedness in schools and in
enhancing the effectiveness of those programs when they are employed. Similar to
instructor rapport, rapport with fellow classmates may also foster perceptions of
a positive classroom environment.
Classroom Connectedness
Dwyer et al. (2004) defined a connected classroom environment as ‘‘student-to-
student perceptions of a supportive and cooperative communication environment’’
(p. 267). This construct focuses on the interactions which take place between peers in
the classroom. In the ideal connected classroom, strong bonds exist, allowing
students to express themselves freely. In this conceptualization, and other connected
classroom research, the responsibility for this connected feeling is placed with the
student (e.g., Dwyer et al., 2004). Instead, it is likely that both the instructors and
students create and enhance or hinder perceptions of a positive communicative
environment. More recently, scholars have considered the role of the instructor and
the student simultaneously and concluded that the classroom environment is indeed
coconstructed by the students and the instructor (Johnson, 2009; Sidelinger & Booth-
Butterfield, 2009).
Instructors play a critical role in shaping interactions and modeling supportive
behaviors in the classroom (Fassinger, 2000; Johnson, 2009; Karp & Yoels, 1975).
Instructors facilitate a sense of connection in the classroom through communicative
behaviors that exhibit warmth (Beattie & Olley, 1977; Voelkl, 1995), caring (Teven &
McCroskey, 1997), support (Rosenfeld, 1983), and inclusiveness (Campbell,
Kyriakides, Muijs, & Robinson, 2004). Worley et al. (2007) also identified creating a
cohesive classroom environment as a skill required of instructors who demonstrate
instructional communication competence. Schaps et al. (1997) argued that instructors
can build a positive classroom environment by developing relationships with their
students. Students who interact frequently with an instructor earn higher grades, are
more satisfied, and are more likely to return to school in subsequent years (Wasley,
2006). Rosenfeld, Richman, and Bowen (2000) argued that a supportive instructor was
necessary in promoting positive outcomes; however, the instructor alone was not
sufficient in eliciting these outcomes.
Student behaviors are equally important in classroom environments (Nelson &
DeBacker, 2008). Other scholars examined both peer and instructor traits in the
classroom concluding that instructor traits have little effect on classroom interaction
and that class structure is more conducive to a comfortable environment (Fassinger,
1995; Wambach & Brothen, 1997). A comfortable peer climate enhances positive
student outcomes. Specifically, Nelson and DeBacker (2008) reported that peer climate
predicted achievement, belongingness, and academic efficacy. Rosenfeld et al. (2000)
148 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

argued that students and the instructor simultaneously contribute to positive
outcomes. Rosenfeld et al. found that supportive peers, in conjunction with a
supportive instructor, led to better attendance, more hours studying, school satisfac-
tion, academic engagement, and higher efficacy.
Traditionally, building rapport has been examined as a perception of an instructor
(Frisby & Myers, 2008; McLaughlin & Erickson, 1981) and a connected classroom
climate has been examined as perceptions of studentstudent behaviors (Dwyer et al.,
2004; Johnson, 2009). Examining the rapport within multiple relationships in the
classroom and the dynamics of each relationship in contributing to the overall
classroom climate provides a more complete picture of the interactions and processes
occurring in the classroom. Intuitively, a connected classroom environment will lead
to student perceptions of being valued, known, connected, and respected (Schaps
et al., 1997). As a comfortable environment is formed through rapport with both
students and instructors, feelings of classroom connectedness are likely to increase.
H1: Perceived instructor and classmate rapport will be positively related to a
connected classroom environment.
While positive relationships within the classroom are influential in student outcomes,
particular behaviors that students choose to engage in also contribute to behavioral
and learning outcomes. For example, Frymier and Houser (1999) reported that
students who participated in classroom discussions earned higher grades, are
motivated, and experienced feelings of empowerment. Consequently, participation,
a communicative behavior, will be examined as a classroom process which is linked to
both relational quality of the instructorstudent and studentstudent relationship
(i.e., rapport, classroom connectedness) and to student outcomes (i.e., affective and
cognitive learning).
Participation
Participation is defined as ‘‘any comments or questions that the students offered or
raised in class’’ (Fassinger, 1995, p. 27). Although Fassinger (1995) minimized the
importance of the instructor, other scholars have found that instructors do have the
ability to impact participation. For example (Rocca, 2008) found that instructor
immediacy increased student participation and that instructor verbal aggression
decreased student participation. Rocca called for more research that focuses on how
instructor communication variables affect participation. Therefore, this study
employs a different perspective, one that contends that there is the potential for
both instructor and student variables to elicit participation in the classroom.
In the classroom, several researchers have noted that when instructors engage in
behaviors that are confirming, encouraging, and supportive, students are more likely
to participate (Fassinger, 2000; Goodboy & Myers, 2008). Instructor behaviors
including calling students by name, asking probing questions, smiling, and nodding
can also increase student participation (Auster & MacRone, 1994; Crombie, Pyke,
Silverthorn, Jones, & Piccinin, 2003). Each of these behaviors can be viewed as
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 149
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

attempts to build positive interpersonal relationships. Wambach and Brothen (1997)
found that the structure of the class as a whole was important, including conversations
with fellow classmates. Students have also recognized supportive classmates as
essential in enhancing the participative environment (Dallimore, Hertenstein, &
Platt, 2004). Thus, when students perceive their classmates as demonstrating similar
positive behaviors (e.g., confirming, supportive) they become comfortable which
potentially leads to increased participation.
A closer examination of prosocial instructor and student behaviors suggests the
development of an interpersonal relationship and perceived positive rapport in the
classroom. When students reported positive feelings of rapport with their instructor,
they also reported greater participation, satisfaction, motivation, and frequent
classroom participation (Frisby & Myers, 2008). Feelings of classroom connectedness
and rapport with instructors and classmates should increase participation as a result of
the creation of an environment where anxiety is reduced, students are highly
motivated, interaction is encouraged, students are willing to express ideas, and
participation is sparked (Coupland, 2003; Frisby & Myers, 2008; Jorgenson, 1992; Reis,
1972; Schaps et al., 1997).
H2: Perceived instructor rapport, perceived classmate rapport, and connectedness
in the classroom will be positively related to perceived student participation.
Student Learning
Affective learning is defined as the positive value students attach to course content
and evaluation of an instructor (McCroskey, 1994). The positive value may emerge as
a result of relational behaviors that the instructor enacts. Frymier (2007) argued that
interpersonal relationships in the instructional setting lead to increased affective
learning. Students who perceived being in a supportive environment with positive
instructor rapport also liked their class better, attaching positive value to the
instructor, content, and subject (Frisby & Myers, 2008; Rosenfeld, 1983). Addition-
ally, Messman and Jones-Corley (2001) noted that students who have the chance to
interact and be involved in the classroom value the course and subject more. Overall,
a positive interpersonal and classroom experience should positively influence affective
learning.
Cognitive learning has been defined as recall, knowledge, and the development of
skills related to the course content (Ellis, 2004). For instructors who adopt the
philosophy that their duty is to facilitate learning, it is essential that they understand
which behaviors they can enact to promote cognitive learning. Specific instructor
behaviors have been found to positively influence cognitive learning including
confirmation, immediacy, and clarity (Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007; Goodboy
& Myers, 2008). Some scholars argue that cognitive learning is mediated by other
variables (e.g., Rodriguez et al., 1996). Of particular importance to mediation in this
study is affective learning.
150 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

The ALM (Rodriguez et al., 1996) contends that affective learning is a mediating
variable between instructor behaviors (e.g., immediacy) and cognitive learning and
that these instructional behaviors and affective learning factors precede cognitive
learning. Although the ALM specifically tested immediacy, Rodriguez et al. (1996)
argued that it is plausible that other instructor behaviors would operate in a similar
manner, increasing affective learning which in turn increases cognitive learning.
Instructor behaviors such as disclosure, attractiveness, sociocommunicator style, and
homophily would create affect in the students. That is, the substitution of other
instructor behaviors in the Affective Learning Model should effectively function in
the model, but has yet to be empirically tested. Given the interest in this study on
both types of learning, and the previous success of the model, the ALM was utilized
to examine the learning outcomes.
Other scholars have examined the impact of instructor behaviors (e.g., power,
confirmation) on affective and cognitive learning reporting mixed results. Some
scholars (Ellis, 2000; Goodboy & Myers, 2008; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Richmond &
McCroskey, 1984) reported that affective learning and cognitive learning are
positively correlated. In some cases, instructor behaviors have been more positively
and more strongly related to affective learning than cognitive learning (Andersen,
1979; Witt & Wheeless, 2001). Others have shown instructor behaviors have the
potential to increase affective learning and decrease cognitive learning (Nussbaum &
Scott, 1980), while others have reported increased cognitive learning and decreased
affective learning (Messman & Jones-Corley, 2001). The mixed results emerging in
the literature warrant further research to address the inconsistencies in relationships
between instructor behaviors and the mechanisms through which cognitive learning
occurs. In Lowman’s (1984) model, rapport and intellectual excitement were
considered two dimensions of effective teaching. It is likely that rapport increases
intellectual excitement which may increase learning. This study examined both
affective and cognitive learning in an attempt to clarify the relationships between
learning and instructor and classmate relationships, specifically rapport.
H3: Perceived instructor rapport will be positively related to affective learning
and cognitive learning.
H4: Perceived rapport with classmates will be positively related to affective
learning and cognitive learning.
H5: Perceptions about classroom connectedness will be positively related to
affective learning and cognitive learning.
H6: Affective learning will be predictive of cognitive learning as stated by the
Affective Learning Model.
Scholars have questioned which variables impact student behaviors (e.g., participa-
tion) and learning. As noted earlier, Wasley (2006) argued that students who interact
more with instructors reap positive benefits. Further, McKinney et al. (2006) found
that a sense of connectedness in a college classroom was related to both self-reported
learning and objective exam performance. Thus, the final research question involved
the extent to which an instructor, students, or overall classroom climate produce the
greatest influence on perceived student participation and learning outcomes.
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 151
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

RQ1: Does perceived rapport with an instructor, perceived rapport with
classmates, or perceptions of classroom connectedness contribute more to
participation, affective learning, and cognitive learning?
Method
Participants
Participants (N233) were recruited from undergraduate communication courses at
a mid-sized Mid-Atlantic university. The participants consisted of 125 men and 108
women, ranging in age from 19 to 29 (M20.48, SD1.78). The participants were
at various phases of their academic career including 43 first year students, 57
sophomores, 79 juniors, 53 seniors, and one who did not identify their class standing.
The participants reported on 127 male instructors and 106 female instructors. Of the
participants, 203 reported on instructors they had never interacted with before the
class.
Procedures and Instrumentation
Students completed several measures while referring to the instructor they had
immediately prior to attending the communication course, a method endorsed by
Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986). This method ensured that students
reported on a variety of instructors across a variety of subject areas, increasing the
diversity of classrooms and instructors from which data were gathered.
Rapport. Following Frisby and Myers (2008) successful adaptation of Gremler and
Gwinner’s (2000) 11-item scale, this study utilized the measure of perceptions of
rapport. The scale measures enjoyable interaction (six items; e.g., ‘‘I look forward to
seeing my instructor in class’’) and personal connection (five items; e.g., ‘‘I have a
personal relationship with my instructor’’). Please see Table 1. The adapted scale was
only modified to address an instructor as the target rather than an employee.
Students responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (7). Gremler and Gwinner reported an internal reliability ranging
from .93 to .96. Internal reliability for this study was .94 (range1177, M39.70,
SD14.88).
Studentstudent rapport was measured using the same 11-item scale developed by
Gremler and Gwinner (2000). The items were modified to address their fellow
classmates (e.g., ‘‘I look forward to seeing my classmates in class,’’ ‘‘I have a personal
relationship with my classmates’’). Students responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Internal reliability for this
study was .96 (range1177, M46.78, SD15.69).
Classroom connectedness. The connected classroom was measured using the
Connected Classroom Climate Inventory (Dwyer et al., 2004). Students responded
152 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

to 18 items (e.g., ‘‘The students in my class respect one another,’’ ‘‘The students in my
class are cooperative with one another,’’ ‘‘I feel a sense of security in my class’’) about
actual student interactions on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Dwyer et al. (2004) reported a .94 reliability
coefficient for this measure. Internal reliability for this study was .93 (range20103,
M61.94, SD13.02).
Participation. Participation was measured using Goodboy and Myers’ (2008) version
of Fassinger’s (1995) participation scale. Students responded to five items (e.g., ‘‘I
contribute to class,’’ ‘‘I volunteer in class’’) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from never (1) to often (5). Goodboy and Myers (2008) obtained a reliability
coefficient of .92. Internal reliability for this study was .92 (range 525, M14.07,
SD5.54).
Student learning. Affective Learning was measured using an abbreviated version of
Andersen’s (1979) affective learning scales. Andersen originally proposed five affective
learning scales including affect toward recommended behaviors, course content, the
use of recommended behaviors, and enrolling in a similar course. For the purposes of
this study, three semantic differential four-item measures were chosen for this study
reflecting affect toward the course content, affect toward enrolling in another course
with similar content, and affect toward the course instructor. Reliability coefficients
for the affective learning measures have ranged from .91 to .98 (Andersen, 1979;
Gorham, 1988; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). For this study, alpha reliabilities for affect
toward course content was .83 (range428, M20.77, SD4.91), likelihood of
enrolling in another similar course was .93 (range 428, M18.03, SD7.38), and
affect toward the instructor was .88 (range 428, M21.12, SD5.95).
The various ways to measure cognitive learning have been widely criticized.
Scholars argued that cognitive learning should be operationalized using more than
single-item or two-item measures (Ellis, 2004; Rodriguez et al., 1996). Moreover,
scholars have argued that exam and quiz scores are inaccurate due to their assessment
of only one aspect of learning (i.e., recall), researchers have little control over the
objectivity of the exam construction and grading, and researchers often do not have
Table 1 Modified Rapport Measure
1. In thinking about my relationship with my instructor/classmates, I enjoy interacting with them
2. My instructor/classmates create(s) a feeling of ‘‘warmth’’ in our relationship
3. My instructor/classmates relates well to me
4. In thinking about this relationship, I have a harmonious relationship with my
instructor/classmates
5. My instructor/classmates has/have a good sense of humor
6. I am comfortable interacting with my instructor/classmates
7. I feel like there is a ‘‘bond’’ between my instructor/classmates and myself
8. I look forward to seeing my instructor/classmates in class
9. I strongly care about my instructor/classmates
10. My instructor/classmates has/have taken a personal interest in me
11. I have a close relationship with my instructor/classmates
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 153
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

access to other student behaviors (e.g., attendance, anxiety) which may impact exam
grades (Frymier & Houser, 1999; King & Witt, 2009). There is some evidence to
support the notion that students can accurately assess their own learning in a
course (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000). Thus, cognitive learning was measured using
a scale created for this study which attempted to address some, but certainly not all,
of these issues.
Following the method of Goodboy, Martin, and Bolkan (2009) the first author
created 10 items which reflected the recall (e.g., ‘‘I can clearly recall information from
this class’’), knowledge (e.g., ‘‘My knowledge on this class topic has increased since
the beginning of class’’), understanding (e.g., ‘‘I did not understand what I learned in
this class’’), and development of skills (e.g., ‘‘I have learned information that I can
apply’’) emphasized in the definition of cognitive learning (Ellis, 2004; King & Witt,
2009). Developing items which mirror the definition of cognitive learning enhances
the link between the conceptualization and operationalization as suggested by King
and Witt (2009). The 10 items were reviewed by the second author who agreed with
the first author that the items had face validity. Participants responded to the 10-item
measure on a Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5). This scale addressed criticisms of one or two item measures and contributed
items which fit the conceptualization of multiple aspects of cognitive learning.
See Tables 24.
Given the use of a newly created scale, the items were subjected to an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). Criteria for factor and item retention were: 1) eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 for retained factors, 2) primary factor loadings of .50 or greater, 3)
no secondary factor loading exceeding .30, 4) loading on a factor with a minimum
of two items, and 5) theoretical interpretability (Comrey & Lee, 1992). The
EFA revealed that all items loaded on the same factor accounting for 50% of
the variance. Next, the ten items were assessed for reliability, resulting in high
internal reliability (a.88, range1050, M35.78, SD7.78). Thus, all ten
items of the cognitive learning scale were retained as a unidimensional and reliable
scale.
Table 2 Cognitive Learning Measure
1. I have learned a great deal in this class
2. I have learned more in other classes than in this class
a
3. My knowledge on this class topic has increased since the beginning of class
4. I can clearly recall information from this class
5. I would be unable to use the information from this class
a
6. I have learned nothing in this class
a
7. I can see clear changes in my understanding of this topic
8. I am unable to recall what I have learned in this class
a
9. I have learned information that I can apply
10. I did not understand what I learned in this class
a
a
Reverse-coded.
154 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

Results
It was reasoned that the instructorstudent relationship may differ between students
who had been exposed to an instructor before and those who were in the initial stages
of relationship development with the instructor. To examine this possibility, a
series of t-tests comparing the two groups (i.e., those students with previous exposure
to the instructor and those students without previous exposure to the instructor)
were utilized. The t-tests revealed no significant differences between the groups on
instructorstudent rapport, studentstudent rapport, classroom connectedness,
participation, affective learning, or cognitive learning. Thus, the final sample comprised
both groups.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that perceived instructor rapport and perceived classmate
rapport would be directly related to feelings of a connected classroom environment.
Pearson correlations revealed that perceived instructor rapport was positively
correlated with a connected classroom environment (r.41, pB.001) and perceived
Table 3 Correlation Matrix of Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Instructor rapport
2. Student rapport .25**
3. Classroom connectedness .41** .68**
4. Participation .45** .31** .50**
5. Affect toward content .48** .10 .20** .28**
6. Affect toward taking similar
course
.42** .05 .13 .31** .58**
7. Affect toward instructor .57** .05 .10 .24 .65** .43**
8. Cognitive learning .46** .03 .18** .38** .64** .50** .60**
Note.*pB.05. **pB.01.
Table 4 Canonical Correlations Between Rapport and Connectedness with Students’
Affect, Cognitive Learning, and Participation
Canonical loadings
Root 1 Root 2
Set 1
Student Rapport .23 .75
Instructor Rapport .99 .10
Connectedness .51 .85
Set 2
Course Affect .70 .13
Content Affect .60 .22
Instructor Affect .82 .52
Cognitive Learning .68 .17
Participation .73 .64
Note. Wilks’ lambda.42, F(15, 593) 14, 67, pB.001.
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 155
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

classmate rapport was positively correlated with a connected classroom environment
(r.67, pB.001).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that perceived instructor rapport, perceived classmate
rapport, and a connected classroom environment will be directly related to a
student’s perceived participation. This hypothesis was supported. Participation was
positively related to perceived instructor rapport (r.31, pB.001), perceived
classmate rapport (r.48, pB.001), and the connected classroom environment
(r.49, pB.001).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that perceived instructor rapport would be directly related
to affective and cognitive learning. Perceived instructor rapport was positively related
to affect toward the content (r.48, pB.001), likelihood of taking a similar course
(r.42, pB.001), affect toward the instructor (r.57, pB.001), and cognitive
learning (r.46, pB.001).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that perceived rapport with classmates would be directly
related to affective and cognitive learning. Perceived rapport with classmates was not
significantly related to affect toward the content (r.10, p.15), likelihood of taking
a similar course (r.05, p.46), affect toward the instructor (r.05, p.47), or
cognitive learning (r.02, p.72).
Hypothesis 5 predicted that classroom connectedness would be related to affective
and cognitive learning. Classroom connectedness was positively related to affect
toward the content (r.19, pB.01), likelihood of taking a similar course (r.13,
p.05), and cognitive learning (r.18, pB.01). However, there was no significant
relationship between affect toward the instructor and classroom connectedness
(r.10, p.13).
The ALM (Rodriguez et al., 1996) employed the three types of affective learning.
The criteria used to assess the models were adapted from Hu and Bentler (1999) and
Browne and Cudeck (1993), who suggest that the nonnormed fit index (NFI) and
comparative fit index should be above .90 to indicate a reasonably good fit, and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be less than .05 to
indicate a good fit or between .05 and .08 to indicate an acceptable fit. Model One
comprised instructor rapport and cognitive learning, mediated by the affect toward
content. Model 1 did not demonstrate a good model fit, x
2
11.41, pB.01, NFI
.94, CFI.95, and RMSEA.21. Model Two comprised instructor rapport and
cognitive learning, mediated by affect toward enrolling in another similar course.
Model Two revealed poor values, x
2
23.48, pB.01, NFI.82, CFI .82, and
RMSEA.31. Model Three comprised instructor rapport, mediated by affect toward
the instructor, and cognitive learning. Model Three achieved the best fit of the three
models, x
2
6.38, pB.01, NFI.97, CFI .97, and RMSEA .15. A Sobel test
revealed that the mediating model including affect toward the instructor was not
significant (z.62, pB.27). These results offer limited support for the ALM.
The research question sought to determine which factors contributed most to
participation, affective learning, and cognitive learning. To answer this research
question, a canonical correlation was conducted. Student rapport, instructor rapport,
and classroom connectedness served as one set of variables while course affect,
156 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

content affect, instructor affect, cognitive learning, and participation were the second
set of variables. There were two significant and meaningful roots (Wilks’ lambda 
.42, F [15, 593]14, 67, pB.001): Rc1.69 and Rc2 .42. In Root One, students
higher in rapport with their instructors and moderate in perceptions of classroom
connectedness were higher in their overall affect, cognitive learning, and participa-
tion. In Root Two, students higher in rapport with their classmates and in classroom
connectedness reported greater participation. The results are presented in Table 2.
Discussion
This study examined the role of students, instructors, and the overall classroom
environment in facilitating behavioral and learning outcomes. A more complex
understanding of the relationships which exists and the environment which is
constructed allows for feasible adjustments to be made in the classroom environment
to encourage the ultimate goal of learning. This study makes three important
contributions to the communication and education disciplines including a systematic
examination of rapport in the classroom with multiple targets, a test of the ALM
(Rodriguez et al., 1996), and the introduction of a new cognitive learning instrument.
Mottet, Frymier, and Beebe (2006) argued that students enter the classroom with
relational goals. That is, students have a need for both instructors and classmates to
like them. The results of this study bolster this argument based on the role of rapport
with both the instructor and students in perceived classroom connectedness. This
may indicate that the instructor creates an environment where students feel free to
interact, providing a comfortable space that enhances studentstudent relationships
and instructorstudent relationships. These results may also raise questions about the
original conceptualization of classroom connectedness, which focuses on student
student interactions (Dwyer et al., 2004). Instead, classroom connectedness may be
a result of interpersonal relationships with both instructors and students. Johnson
(2009) argued that students may model their behaviors after the course instructor in
constructing classroom connectedness. That is, multiple relationships and individuals
are influential in creating a climate, whether positive or negative.
Frymier (2007) reported that students’ feelings of relational goals being met by
classmates were positively correlated with learning outcomes. However, in this study
the rapport that students perceived having with their fellow classmates was not
significantly related to learning outcomes. Perhaps, when students enter the
classroom at the college level they have gained the ability to distinguish between
social needs and educational needs, or relational and rhetorical goals (Mottet et al.,
2006). Thus, even if students can fulfill their relational goals with either students or
instructors, only instructors can simultaneously fulfill students’ relational and
rhetorical goals.
The primary purpose of this study was to develop a deeper understanding of how
interpersonal relationships in the classroom impacted specific behavioral outcomes
(i.e., participation) and student learning outcomes including affective learning and
cognitive learning. Perceived instructor rapport was the only variable that
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 157
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

consistently emerged as a significant predictor of each type of learning and
participation. Conversely, student rapport was not important in increasing affective
learning and cognitive learning. Instead, student rapport was influential in eliciting
classroom participation. Contrary to previous research which minimizes the role of
the instructor (Fassinger, 1995, 1996, 1997; Wambach & Brothen, 1997), this research
provides further support for the notion that the instructor does indeed play a crucial
role in the classroom (Karp & Yoels, 1975). Given the mounting evidence concerning
the impact of the instructor, rather than the individual or the environment, it then
becomes necessary to pay particular attention to instructional communication
training for instructors and graduate teaching assistants.
Dobransky and Frymier (2004) found that interpersonal relationships between
instructors and students increased out of class communication, and that out of class
communication was positively related to learning and student engagement. Similarly,
rapport may also increase the likelihood that students will perform behaviors to
further develop their learning. Although the instructor plays an important role in
helping students to achieve positive learning outcomes, it may be important to
understand more about the relationships between students which either encourage or
hinder particular behaviors which contribute to student learning, such as participa-
tion and out of class communication.
Delineating learning in this study was grounded in the ALM (Rodriguez et al.,
1996). As noted, Rodriguez et al. argued that instructor disclosure, attractiveness,
assertiveness, responsiveness, and homophily may also create positive affect with
students. This study examined rapport as important in influencing affective learning.
Building rapport can be a substitute for, or work in conjunction with, immediacy or
other instructor behaviors (e.g., disclosure, homophily) to promote affective learning.
The model suggests that affective learning then mediates the relationship between
instructor behaviors and cognitive learning. However, this was not the case in this
study, suggesting that affective learning may not be a significant precursor to
cognitive learning when examined with the instructor behavior of interpersonal
rapport. Thus, this study offered no support for the ALM (Rodriguez et al., 1996)
when substituting another prosocial instructor variable for immediacy, and when
testing the model utilizing three different types of affective learning. However, this
may be explained by the examination of perceptions rather than actual behaviors in
this study, and is a limitation to note.
This study also introduced a new cognitive learning measure in response to
criticism of the single-item or two-item measures (Ellis, 2004; Rodriguez et al., 1996)
and operationalizations that do not provide appropriate ‘‘conceptual fit’’ (King &
Witt, 2009). Examination of the scale indicated that there was strong face validity, it
was a unidimensional scale, and had strong reliability. Additional benefits of this scale
include the brevity and wording which encourages the students to consider how
much they have learned over time in a particular class (e.g., ‘‘My knowledge on this
class topic has increased since the beginning of class,’’ ‘‘I can see clear changes in my
understanding of this topic’’) to account for the levels of knowledge prior to taking
the class. Although further testing of this scale should be conducted, this measure
158 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

provides an alternative to previous measures for assessing cognitive learning in the
classroom.
Practical Implications
The results of this study place significant responsibility for the classroom environ-
ment on instructors. Several scholars have addressed ways in which instructors can
contribute to creating a positive classroom environment including the integration of
collaborative opportunities for students into the classroom, engaging in casual and
personal conversation, balancing intellectual excitement with interpersonal relation-
ships, and utilizing techniques to foster positive relationships with students and
between students (Johnson, 2009; Terry, 2006). Several specific behaviors have been
suggested which serve the dual purpose of building rapport and encouraging
participation such as calling students by name, asking probing questions, and
engaging in positive nonverbal behaviors such as smiling and nodding (Auster &
MacRone, 1994; Crombie et al., 2003). Terry (2006) argued that educators should
attend workshops which are designed to focus on the interpersonal aspect of the
classroom environment to learn specific strategies which will facilitate positive
relationships with students. Given the importance of relational behaviors and
perceptions of the relationships on student learning, instructor training in building
relationships to achieve positive outcomes is likely a worthwhile venture.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study was limited in several ways. First, the portion of the sample who had been
previously exposed to the professor was very small (n30) and may not have
revealed true group differences. It is also unclear whether these students were taking
the same instructor again by choice or were limited by other factors (e.g., class time,
instructor options, major requirement). Second, these students were all reporting on
instructors that they had in face-to-face classrooms. The rising popularity of online
courses raises questions about the instructorstudent relationships, studentstudent
relationships, and student outcomes without the face-to-face interactions of
traditional classroom experiences. Finally, the results should be interpreted with
caution as they are based on student perceptions and have not been corroborated
with actual behavioral observations, classmate perceptions, or instructor perceptions.
Current instructional models may be further strengthened by examining individual
student differences including student motives for communicating with instructors
(Martin, Myers, & Mottet, 1999) or a student’s instructor communication apprehen-
sion (Jordan & Powers, 2007). Students who are motivated to communicate with
instructors for relational reasons are likely to build, and subsequently perceive more
positive rapport with their instructors. Additionally, students who are apprehensive
about communicating with their instructor may experience discomfort and feel
negative about their instructorstudent relationships. Martin and Myers (2006)
examined out of class communication and found that students’ communication with
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 159
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

their instructors was negatively related to their communication apprehension. The
apprehension would likely decrease overall communication between the student and
the instructor, hindering the development of an interpersonal relationship and
positive rapport. Given the role of rapport in learning, it becomes important to
address individual differences which may encourage or hinder relationship building in
the classroom.
Other instructor behaviors may further explain positive interpersonal relation-
ships, classroom communities, and learning including verbal approach and avoidance
strategies used by the instructor (Mottet & Richmond, 1998). Mottet, Martin, and
Myers (2004) found that student perceptions of instructors who used verbal approach
relational strategies communicated for relational, participatory, excuse-making, and
sycophantic reasons. Relevant to the current study are the relational and participatory
student motives which influence the formation of relationships and classroom
behaviors. It is also necessary to examine the potential outcomes that instructors,
rather than students, may also glean from interpersonal relationships in the
classroom. Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock (2004) examined potential benefits
that instructors incur in the classroom. Specifically, when students were responsive
to their instructors, instructors were more satisfied and experienced improved
self-efficacy. Rapport between instructors and students may be an antecedent
to responsiveness in the classroom and garner benefits for both the student and
instructor.
Thus far, rapport seems to be a positive interpersonal construct utilized in the
instructional setting. However, it remains unknown exactly which instructor
behaviors lead to building rapport with students. Further, do instructors intentionally
enact these behaviors? It is also unclear whether rapport is truly built within the
classroom. Instead, interactions occurring at the instructor’s office, conversation
before or after class, and e-mail communication may contribute to the rapport felt by
students. It is possible that rapport is built through several interactions and channels
both within and outside of the classroom.
Taken together, these findings support the notion that an instructor serves to meet
both relational and rhetorical goals of the student. An instructor’s behavior dictates
the type of learning environment that is constructed, the type of relationships that
bloom, and the academic outcomes that students achieve. Rapport is a relatively new
variable to be considered in the educational setting. It was an influential component
for the outcomes measured here, and may be equally important to consider in other
outcomes such as student recruitment, retention, engagement, and involvement.
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Auster, C. J., & MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical
study of the effects of faculty members’ behavior on students’ participation. Teaching
Sociology,22, 289300.
160 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of
College Student Retention,3,7389.
Beattie, I., & Olley, P. (1977). Non-instructional factors relating to classroom climate: An
exploratory study. Education,98, 180184.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, R., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R., & Robinson, W. (2004). Effective teaching and values: Some
implications for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education,30, 451465.
Catt, S., Miller, D., & Schallenkamp, K. (2007). You are the key: Communicate for learning
effectiveness. Education,127, 369377.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of learning
and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education,49,
297301.
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal
immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective, and cognitive learning. Commu-
nication Research Reports,24, 241248.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language and Social Interaction,36,
16.
Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A., & Piccinin, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions of
their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. Journal of
Higher Education,74,5176.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion
effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education,53, 103115.
Dobransky, N., & Frymier, A. (2004). Developing teacherstudent relationships through out of class
communication. Communication Quarterly,52, 211223.
Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carison, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004).
Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected
classroom climate inventory. Communication Research Reports,21, 264272.
Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument
and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communica-
tion Research,26, 264291.
Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension,
motivation, and learning. Communication Education,53,120.
Faranda, W. T., & Clarke, I. (2004). Student observation of outstanding teaching: Implications for
marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education,26, 271281.
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contribu-
tions to student silence. Journal of Higher Education,66,8296.
Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors’ and students’ perceptions of why students participate in class.
Teaching Sociology,24,2533.
Fassinger, P. A. (1997). Classes are groups: Thinking sociologically about teaching. College Teaching,
45,2225.
Fassinger, P. A. (2000). How classes influence students’ participation in college classrooms. Journal
of Classroom Interaction,35,3847.
Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport, student
participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication Journal,33,
2734.
Frymier, A. B. (2007, November). Teachers’ and students’ goals in the teachinglearning process. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication
Studies,50,112.
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 161
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacherstudent relationship as an interpersonal
relationship. Communication Education,49, 207219.
Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Bolkan, S. (2009). The development and validation of the
student communication satisfaction scale. Communication Education,58, 372396.
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student
communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education,57, 153179.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning. Communication Education,37,4053.
Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy
and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education,39, 354368.
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships.
Journal of Service Research,3,82104.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6,155.
Johnson, D. I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: A validity study. Communication Research
Reports,26, 146157.
Jordan, W. J., & Powers, W. G. (2007). Development of a measure of student apprehension toward
communicating with instructors. Human Communication,10,2032.
Jorgenson, J. (1992). Social approaches: Communication, rapport, and the interview: A social
perspective. Communication Theory,2, 148156.
Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1975). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of
student participation. Sociology and Social Research,60, 421439.
King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of
cognitive learning. Communication Education,58, 110123.
Lowman, J. (1984). Mastering the technique of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2006). Students’ communication traits and their out-of-class
communication with their instructors. Communication Research Reports,23, 283289.
Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communicating with their
instructors. Communication Education,48, 155165.
McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction
in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), Assessing college student competency in
speech communication (pp. 5671). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
McKinney, J. P., McKinney, K. G., Franiuk, R., & Schweitzer, J. (2006). The college classroom as
a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching,54, 281284.
McLaughlin, M. L., & Erickson, K. V. (1981). A multidimensional scaling analysis of the ‘‘ideal
interpersonal communication instructor’’. Communication Education,30, 393398.
Messman, S.J., & Jones-Corley, J. (2001). Effects of communication environment, immediacy, and
communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning. Communication Mono-
graphs, 68, 184200.
Mottet, T., Beebe, S., Raffeld, P., & Medlock, A. (2004). The effects of student verbal and nonverbal
responsiveness on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Communication Education,53,
150163.
Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication.
In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Instructional communication:
Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 327). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Mottet, T. P., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2004). Relationships among perceived instructor
verbal approach and avoidance relational strategies and students’ motives for communicating
with their instructors. Communication Education,53, 116122.
Mottet, T., & Richmond, V. (1998). An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative
conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication
Quarterly,46,2540.
162 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

Nelson, R., & DeBacker, T. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate
and best friends. Journal of Experimental Education,76, 170189.
Nussbaum, J. F., & Scott, M. D. (1980). Student learning as a relational outcome of teacherstudent
interaction. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 553564). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books.
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why
research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review,74,
273306.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social
environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,99,
8398.
Perkins, D., Schenk, T. A., Stephan, L., Vrungos, S., & Wynants, S. (1995). Effects of rapport,
intellectual excitement, and learning on students’ perceived ratings of college instructors.
Psychological Reports,76, 627635.
Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI:
Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication
Education,35,4355.
Reis, R. (1972). Learning your students’ names. Education,93,4546.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning.
Communication Education,33, 125136.
Rocca, K. A. (2008). Participation in the college classroom: The impact of instructor immediacy and
verbal aggression. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43, 2233.
Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher
nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal
mediator. Communication Education,45, 293305.
Rosenfeld, L. B. (1983). Communication climate and coping mechanisms in the college classroom.
Communication Education,32, 167174.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school
outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work,17, 205226.
Schaps, E., Lewis, C., & Watson, M. (1997). A key condition for character development: Building
a sense of community in school. Social Studies Review,37,8590.
Sidelinger, R.J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009, April). Co-constructing student involvement: An
examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association,
Philadelphia, PA.
Terry, M. (2006). The importance of interpersonal relations in adult literacy programs. Educational
Research Quarterly,30,3043.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student
learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education,46,19.
Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of
Experimental Education,63, 127139.
Wambach, C., & Brothen, T. (1997). Instructor self-disclosure and student classroom participation
revisited. Teaching of Psychology,24, 262263.
Wasley, P. (2006). Underrepresented students benefit most from ‘engagement’. Chronicle of Higher
Education,53,3940.
White, C. (2002). A struggle in education: Technology for social efficacy. The International Social
Studies Forum,2, 195197.
Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal
immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education,50,
327342.
InstructorStudent and StudentStudent Rapport in the Classroom 163
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016

Worley, D., Titsworth, S., Worley, D., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007). Instructional communication
competence: Lessons learned from award-winning teachers. Communication Studies,58,
207222.
Zhang, Q. (2004). Self-efficacy and intercultural adaptation of Chinese students at U.S. universities.
International & Intercultural Communication Annual,27, 103120.
164 B. N. Frisby and M. M. Martin
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 14:29 09 May 2016