See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324425068

Practice to Research: Rapport as Key to Creating an Effective Learning

Environment

Article  in  Management Teaching Review · April 2018

DOI: 10.1177/2379298118766489

CITATIONS READS
6 5,726

1 author:

Lisa A. Burke-Smalley
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
100 PUBLICATIONS   4,422 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Value of College Degree View project

Hester, A., Hutchins, H., Burke-Smalley, L. Web 2.0 and learning transfer: Trainers’ use of technology to support employee transfer of learning. Performance Improvement
Quarterly. forthcoming. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa A. Burke-Smalley on 16 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Instructional Rapport 1

Practice to Research: Rapport as Key to Creating an Effective Learning Environment

Abstract

Rapport is an instructional variable that is “tricky to understand,” which is perhaps the

reason why it is understudied in the extant literature (Buskist & Saville, 2011, p. 12). Certainly,

essays, tip lists and effective teaching mantras often claim rapport as vital to the instructional

context, but that is typically the extent of most examinations, particularly in management

education. In this practice-to-research article, my experiences are integrated with the limited

published evidence surrounding rapport, and research propositions are offered to inform future

business education studies.

Key Words: rapport, learning environment, instructional variables, research propositions

 Instructional Rapport 2

Rapport is an instructional variable that has tremendous face validity for management

education, yet from a research perspective is somewhat “tricky to understand” (Buskist &

Saville, 2011, p. 12). This may be why the literature base, particularly outside of the

communication education field, has granted it scant coverage. If any branch of education

research should be investigating rapport, it is management because our field is consumed with

such constructs (e.g., emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, employee engagement) and

their notable impact on valued business outcomes. However, while essays, tip lists and teaching

maxims (Granitz, Koernig, & Harich, 2009; Lincoln, 2008; Weimer, 2010) claim rapport as vital

to instruction, that is typically where investigations end in business education. In the current

practice-to-research article, my personal experiences along with the limited published evidence

are presented, and research propositions are offered to inform future theory building and spur

further research in business education.

Personal Experience

Until my last performance review, I didn’t recognize that my teaching approach largely

centers around rapport-building. When discussing my teaching scores, my department chair said,

“They like you.” Not to oversimplify, but I think it largely comes down to this: I truly like

students and interacting with them. As rapport-related, it’s not manufactured; it is authentic. Yet,

for this article, I had to systematically reflect on what I do or the “energy I project” to enhance

rapport.

Beyond my favorable attitude towards college students, I believe there are behaviors that

bolster rapport. I have divided these behaviors into three factors and briefly define each: 1)

personalized connection, 2) supportive communication, and 3) accessible interaction. I should

concede that I have seen other instructors generate even more rapport with their students and that
 Instructional Rapport 3

in certain challenging phases of life I have fallen short. However, in such situations I try to be

upfront and inform students a reasonable amount, so they understand the context. I believe this

candor facilitates an honest exchange ultimately important for building trust. Compared to

rapport, which is largely affective in origin, trust also has a cognitive element (Johnson &

Grayson, 2005) based on others’ reliability or truth-telling.

Regarding the first component of rapport, I attempt to personalize connection with

students by providing customized mid-term feedback on each student’s course performance,

calling students by their preferred first name starting the first week of the term, and being

responsive to a student’s communications. Each of these behavioral examples taps into the

individualized attention I choose to give my students. My recent course evaluations highlight

such behaviors with student comments such as “she knows each and every one of her students

and wants to include everyone” and “is personable and organized.”

The second component of rapport I try to use is supportive communication, which

includes positive/inviting facial expressions (e.g., smiles, head nods, direct eye contact to

facilitate interaction), empathetic concern, as well as humble silliness. By compassionately

acknowledging the challenges a student is facing, I try to create an opportunity for authentic

connection; it tears down the status differentials associated with my title of “professor.” Thus, I

do not try to garner respect for my position by instilling a sense of fear; academe generates

enough of that on its own. Student evaluation comments that illustrate this component include

“definitely feel like she is someone who truly cares and I could contact her even after

graduation” and “funny and inspiring at the same time.”

Third, I try to be accessible because mindful interaction facilitates relationships (Frisby &

Martin, 2010). Being accessible via email and phone and during scheduled office hours – both
 Instructional Rapport 4

physically and mentally -- as well as before and after class breeds interaction. These academic

exchanges often turn into career discussions, general life updates, helpful referrals to other

campus resources and attempts to get to know students as people, i.e., more than just their last

test score. Student comments that illustrate this component include “always there to help her

students” and “so helpful with class work, job seeking, networking, self-assessment…” Next, I

outline relevant academic literature and then present my relevant research propositions.

Overview of Related Literature

Rapport means that there exists a level of affinity or sincere interpersonal relationship

(Jorgenson, 1992) between an instructor and his/her students. Relationally-centric, rapport is

created by instructors largely via communication behaviors that exhibit interpersonal warmth

(e.g., Voelkl, 1995) and emotional support (Titsworth, Quinlan, & Mazer, 2010). According to

Gremler and Gwinner (2000), there are two primary dimensions of rapport including personal

connection and pleasant interaction. Again, it is important to acknowledge that instructors cannot

manufacture rapport based on their title/rank, and it cannot be commanded (Granitz et al., 2009).

Rapport has been explored most extensively in the communication education literature,

along with other related variables, including immediacy and confirmation. The former refers to

instructors’ nonverbal expressions that communicate positive affect and approachability (Finn &

Schrodt, 2012), while the latter is where teachers communicate to students that they are valued

and significant (Ellis, 2004). Ultimately, these behaviors induce positive emotion toward the

instructor, reinforcing the established role affect plays in interpersonal relationships (Titsworth et

al., 2010).

Studies on rapport have linked it to various instructional outcomes. Granitz et al. (2009)

assert that rapport produces higher student motivation, trust, comfort, and satisfaction with the
 Instructional Rapport 5

course/program of study. In a study of undergraduates, Frisby and Myers (2008) found direct

significant relationships between perceived instructor rapport and perceived student motivation,

participation, and affect toward the instructor, content and course. Relatedly, frequent interaction

with the instructor has been linked with higher student grades, retention, and satisfaction

(Wasley, 2006). In Frisby and Martin (2010), students reported that rapport with instructors and

classmates is related to classroom connectedness. They found that instructor rapport and student

rapport enhanced student participation, but only instructor rapport consistently predicted student

participation, learning satisfaction (affective) and perceived cognitive learning.

Wilson and Ryan (2013) advanced a professor-student rapport scale with six items that

predicts multiple affective and cognitive instructional outcomes, including end of semester

earned grades. Their refined scale taps two primary facets of rapport, centering on engagement

and course enjoyment. These authors conclude that being a likeable and caring instructor is

necessary but not sufficient for rapport to affect learning outcomes. That is, according to Wilson

and Ryan (2013) learners must ultimately be actively engaged in the learning environment and

enjoy the instructor and course for higher order learning to transpire.

Research Propositions

First and foremost, it would be helpful in future research to empirically establish the key

components (factors) of rapport so that interventions and instructional strategies can be

appropriately targeted. While Gremler and Gwinner (2000) advanced two facets, I propose three

facets of rapport: personalized connection, supportive communication, and accessible interaction.

These components are further supported by Titsworth and colleagues’ (2010), who use emotional

response theory to show that teacher communication behaviors focusing on emotional support

are related to students’ affective classroom experiences. Students report higher levels of
 Instructional Rapport 6

engagement and lower levels of boredom, anxiety and frustration when teachers use supportive

non-verbal and verbal communication (Skinner, Furrer, Marchland, & Kindermann, 2008).

Relatedly, Finn and Schrodt (2012) find that immediacy behaviors influence learner outcomes by

increasing students’ perceived understanding. When students observe instructors employ

prosocial communication, such as accurately summarizing students’ shared information or

asking them follow-up questions, students perceive they have been understood by their teacher

(Finn & Schrodt, 2012).

Proposition 1: The primary behavioral components of rapport include: a) personalized

connection, b) supportive communication, and c) accessible interaction.

Useful also to investigate would be confirmation that instructor rapport cannot be

“manufactured” or “artificially manipulated.” Rapport arises out of genuine instructor intent,

interaction and exchange. Thus, I propose inauthentic instructor attempts at creating rapport will

be ineffectual and that students can discern disingenuous attempts to build rapport, such as acted

out “performances” and “scripts.” Recent work by Johnson and LaBelle (2017) focusing on

teacher authenticity buttresses this proposition. These authors, in an open-ended approach with

hundreds of college students, found that authentic teaching is perceived when teachers are

viewed as approachable, attentive, capable and passionate. Johnson and LaBelle found that

distinct behaviors can convey authenticity to students, including self-disclosure and behaviors

that illustrate respect for others, and they concluded that authentic teaching has a meaningful

impact on student outcomes. Thus, I propose:

Proposition 2 - Students can discern inauthentic attempts to build rapport, which will in

turn diminish rapport.

 Instructional Rapport 7

The literature has established that teachers' communication behaviors are related to

students' affective and cognitive learning (Ellis, 2004; Titsworth et al., 2010). Future work could

also attempt to link rapport to objective and other-source measures of learning. That is, in several

aforementioned studies, rapport is linked to student perceptions (e.g., Frisby & Martin, 2010);

yet, these measures largely tap affective/satisfaction elements and should not be confused with

students’ cognitive learning (Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). Examples of more

objective measures that could be studied in management education include attendance, study

time (Benson, Cohen, & Buskist, 2005), course grades (Wilson & Ryan, 2013), and retention.

There are also particular mediating variables likely at work in the rapport-learning

relationship; as such, a clearer picture is needed of the intervening mechanisms that enable

rapport to affect valued outcomes. Mediating variables in the extant communication education

literature that could -- by way of replication – be tested by management educators include

motivation (Titsworth et al., 2010), students’ perceived understanding (Finn & Schrodt, 2012),

and apprehension (Ellis, 2004). I also suggest trust as a possible mediator due to its cognitive

component (Johnson & Grayson, 2005) and its link to rapport in extant work (Catt, Miller, &

Schallenkamp, 2007; Granitz et al., 2009). In sum, Propositions 3a, 3b, and 3c state:

Proposition 3a – Rapport is associated with affective and cognitive learning outcomes.

Proposition 3b – Rapport is associated with engagement outcomes (e.g., attendance,

study time), academic performance (e.g., grades, GPA), and retention.

Proposition 3c – The rapport-learning relationship is mediated by motivation, perceived

understanding, apprehension, and trust.

Lastly, it would be useful to examine how rapport affects the instructor rigor-student

learning relationship. This proposition is important because instructors often struggle with
 Instructional Rapport 8

whether they can be reasonably challenging to evoke higher learning, yet maintain “likeability”

with their students. Education researchers encourage college instructors to set high expectations

to increase learning (e.g., Chickering & Gamson, 1987); however, for rigor to be associated with

learning, I propose instructional rapport needs to be high. Instructors with high expectations for

student work can best produce higher learning outcomes if their emotional bond with students is

solidly established. This proposition is supported by Mottet and colleagues (2007) who found

instructor immediacy behaviors can successfully accompany instructor rigor in the contemporary

culture of “college lite” (i.e., less than rigorous education). Specifically, they found that

instructors’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors neutralized any instructor infraction of students’

course-workload expectations while preserving students’ higher-order affective learning. Thus, I

propose:

Proposition 4 – Instructor rigor will be correlated with student outcomes when rapport
is high.
________________

Insert Figure 1
________________

In conclusion, Figure 1 summarizes the relationships proposed in the current article.

Certainly, more focus on rapport is merited in future management education research given the

important, yet understudied, role emotions play in learning (Wilson & Ryan, 2013). Such work

could also inform practical instructional tactics. For example, Avery and Steingard (2008)

include rapport-building as one of four primary elements to increase participation in diversity

classes, and discussion based instruction has been found by Puccinelli, Tickle-Degnen and

Rosenthal (2003) to significantly enhance rapport in the dyadic context. In the online venue,

Arbaugh (2000) discusses the importance of the rapport-dynamic (versus the power-dynamic),

and Clark and Gibb (2006) offer a virtual team building exercise specifically for building rapport
 Instructional Rapport 9

in online courses. Certainly, this area of educational research is ripe for further investigation and

empirically-substantiated intervention.
 Instructional Rapport 10

References
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of

class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA

course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213-233.

Avery, D. R., & Steingard, D. S. (2008). Achieving political trans-correctness: Integrating

sensitivity and authenticity in diversity management education. Journal of Management

Education, 32(3), 269-293.

Benson, A., Cohen, I., & Buskist, W. (2005). Rapport: Its relation to student attitudes and

behaviors toward teachers and classes. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 237-239.

Buskist, W. & Saville, B. (2001, March). Creating positive emotional contexts for enhancing

teaching and learning. APS Observer, 12-13.

Catt, S., Miller, D., & Schallenkamp, K. (2007). You are the key: Communicate for learning

effectiveness. Education, 127(3), 369-378.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.

Clark, D. N., & Gibb, J. L. (2006). Virtual team learning: An introductory study team

exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 765-787.

Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension,

motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53(1).

Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of

teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication

Education, 61, 111– 130. d

Frisby, B., & Martin, M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom.

Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164.

 Instructional Rapport 11

Frisby, B., & Myers, S. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport, student

participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication Journal,

33(1), 27-34.

Granitz, N. A., Koernig, S. K., & Harich, K. R. (2009). Now it’s personal: Antecedents and

outcomes of rapport between business faculty and their students. Journal of Marketing

Education, 31(1), 52-65.

Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service

relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 82-104.

Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service

relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500-507.

Johnson, Z. D., & LaBelle, S. (2017). An examination of teacher authenticity in the college

classroom. Communication Education, 1-17.

Jorgenson, J. (1992). Social approaches: Communication, rapport, and the interview: A social

perspective. Communication Theory, 2, 148-156.

Lincoln, D. J. (2008). Drama in the classroom: How and why marketing educators can use

nonverbal communication and enthusiasm to build student rapport. Marketing Education

Review, 18(3), 53-65.

Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist

“college lite”: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-

workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective

learning. Communication Education, 56(2), 145-167.

Puccinelli, N. M., Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Effect of dyadic context on
 Instructional Rapport 12

judgments of rapport: Dyad task and partner presence. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 27(4), 211-236.

Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A

cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 9(2), 169-191.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchland, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection

in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100, 765781.

Titsworth, S., Quinlan, M. M., & Mazer, J. P. (2010). Emotion in teaching and learning:

Development and validation of the classroom emotions scale. Communication

Education, 59(4), 431-452.

Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 63(2), 127-138.

Wasley, P. (2006). Underrepresented students benefit most from engagement. Chronical of

Higher Education, 53, 39-40.

Weimer, M. (2010). Rapport: Why having it makes a difference. The Teaching Professor, 23(6),

2.

Wilson, J. H., & Ryan, R. G. (2013). Professor–Student Rapport scale: Six items predict student

outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 130-133.

 Instructional Rapport 13

Figure 1
Proposed Model

▪ Motivation
▪ Perceived
Understanding
▪ Apprehension
Rapport ▪ Trust

▪ Learning
▪ Engagement
Instructor Rigor ▪ Academic
Performance
▪ Retention

View publication stats