Topical Article

Teaching of Psychology
2015, Vol. 42(1) 19-25
Further Validation of the Learning Alliance ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Inventory: The Roles of Working Alliance, DOI: 10.1177/0098628314562673
top.sagepub.com
Rapport, and Immediacy in Student Learning

Daniel T. Rogers1

Abstract
This study further examined the reliability and validity of the Learning Alliance Inventory (LAI), a self-report measure designed
to assess the working alliance between a student and a teacher. The LAI was found to have good internal consistency and test–
retest reliability, and it demonstrated the predicted convergence with measures of immediacy and rapport. The LAI enhanced
the prediction of student learning beyond that which was possible only using measures of immediacy and rapport. Path analysis
provided support for immediacy and rapport indirectly impacting student learning via their effects on the working alliance.
Potential uses of the LAI in both research and applied contexts are discussed.

Keywords
alliance, rapport, immediacy, student–teacher interaction

A working alliance occurs when two people engage in colla-
borative, purposive work where one individual seeks change
and another individual serves as an agent of that change
(Bordin, 1979). Scholars and practitioners of psychotherapy
have given the concept much attention. Although theoretical
applications of the concept to teaching and learning exist,
empirical studies are lacking, perhaps due to there being no
reliable and valid measure of working alliance between
students and teachers. In an effort to address this, Rogers
(2012) developed the Learning Alliance Inventory (LAI) and
provided evidence of its reliability, capacity to distinguish
between teachers, and relation to students’ grades. However,
further validation of the measure is necessary to ascertain its
utility for educational research and applications.
Working Alliance
The working alliance concept emerged from psychotherapy
research and theory due to historical interests in the patient–
therapist dynamics and contemporary interests in relational
features of this interaction. Its broad appeal across theoretical
and intervention modalities stems from two causes. First, the
working alliance concept provides a coherent, accessible
model for understanding patient–therapist interactions and
patient change (Castonguay, Constantino, & Holforth,
2006). Second, the strength of the therapist and patient’s
working alliance is consistently among the best predictors
of treatment outcome (Horvath, Del Re, Flückiger, &
Symonds, 2011; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Martin, Garske,
& Davis, 2000).
Because teaching and learning inherently involve colla-
borative relationships between a student seeking change
(i.e., new knowledge and acquired skills) and a teacher who
facilitates such change, the working alliance concept has rele-
vance. Scholars have explored these links in diverse teaching
contexts (e.g., Koch, 2004; Myers, 2008; Robertson, 2000;
Rogers, 2009; Schlosser & Gelso, 2001; Tiberius, Sinai, &
Flak, 2002). Growing interest across disciplines in empiri-
cally studying teaching and learning processes has also
primed investigations of student–teacher interactions for their
impact on learning. But studying the role of the working alli-
ance in teaching and learning requires a sound measurement
tool. Although multiple measures of the working alliance in
psychotherapy exist, their content is not easily translatable
to teaching and learning arenas. As a measure of working
alliance between student and teacher, the LAI has potential
to fill that void.
LAI
The LAI is an 18-item, self-report measure intended to assess
the strength and characteristics of the working alliance between
student and teacher from the student’s perspective (Rogers,
1
Department of Psychology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel T. Rogers, Department of Psychology, Kennesaw State University, 1000
Chastain Road MD# 2202, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA.
Email: droger29@kennesaw.edu

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016

20
2012). Of its three scales, the collaborative bond scale exam-
ines the quality of the student–teacher relationship (e.g., my
teacher genuinely cares about me). The teacher competency
scale assesses teacher behaviors relevant to effectively guid-
ing a course (e.g., my teacher is knowledgeable about the
course material). The student investment scale evaluates stu-
dent behaviors indicative of engagement with the course (e.g.,
this course is worthwhile). In development, the three scale
and total scores demonstrated good internal and test–retest
reliabilities, and measured levels of working alliance were
positively correlated with student grades and distinguished
between teachers. However, the LAI requires further valida-
tion, particularly additional evidence about the connection
of working alliance to student learning. Scholars and teachers
considering using the measure could also benefit from a better
understanding of how working alliance relates to similar con-
structs, such as the concepts of immediacy and rapport.
Immediacy and Rapport
Immediacy and rapport are prominent among dyadic constructs
investigated in student–teacher interactions. Immediacy is the
psychological availability or nearness of the teacher (Mehra-
bian, 1971). Teachers create immediacy through verbal and
nonverbal behaviors that promote students feeling heard,
included, valued, and known (McCroskey & Richmond,
1992). Given the difficulties in assessing verbal behavior,
immediacy is largely conceptualized and measured through
student ratings of instructors’ nonverbal communication beha-
viors (Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003). Immediacy is
related to students’ increased compliance (Burroughs, 2007;
Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988), decreased resistance
(Goodboy & Myers, 2009; Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, 1991),
and enhanced motivation (Allen, Witt, & Wheeles, 2006).
However, evidence of a relationship between immediacy
and student learning is mixed (e.g., Hess & Smyth, 2001;
Rodrı́guez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996).
Rapport involves positive, synchronous interactions that
reflect closeness or connectedness in a relationship. In their
overview of the literature, Murphy and Rodrı́guez-Manzanares
(2012) described rapport as a harmonious, coordinated interac-
tion based in mutual attention, respect, understanding, and open-
ness. Measures of rapport tend to focus on specific relational
contexts of interest, including psychotherapy (Anderson &
Anderson, 1962), business (Gremler & Gwinner, 2008), room-
mates (Carey, Hamilton, & Shanklin, 1986), and medical care
(Harrigan & Rosenthal, 1983). Research on student–teacher
interactions has yielded evidence that rapport is related to stu-
dents’ enjoyment of and reported willingness to invest in a
course (Benson, Cohen, & Buskist, 2005). Similar findings link
rapport to student motivation (Granitz, Koernig, & Harich, 2009)
and self-reported learning (Frisby & Martin, 2010).
Previous research on teacher immediacy has at times made
reference to its relationship with rapport, and the evidence
suggests that both concepts are related to similar academic-
supporting student behaviors. However, Wilson, Ryan, and
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016
Teaching of Psychology 42(1)
Pugh (2010) argued that rapport is distinct in that it encom-
passes the entirety of the positive relationship and is often
based on the reporter’s general impressions, whereas immedi-
acy is one of many techniques that contribute to rapport and is
typically linked to specific teacher behaviors.
Although limited, there is evidence indicating that in the
context of student–teacher interactions, immediacy, rapport,
and working alliance are related. Wilson et al. (2010) found
rapport to be positively correlated with immediacy and det-
ermined that in comparison to immediacy alone, rapport
improved the prediction of students’ self-reported attitudes,
motivation, and learning. Ryan, Wilson, and Pugh (2011) pro-
vided evidence that rapport was also positively correlated
with working alliance as assessed by a subset of items adapted
from a measure of alliance in psychotherapy. Just as Wilson
et al. described rapport as a broader concept that immediacy
contributes to, working alliance would appear to be the
broadest of the three, with immediacy and rapport being most
similar to the emotional and relational component of working
alliance typically referred to as bond.
Current Study
Given the increasing interest in the nature of dyadic variables
in the classroom, and the recent introduction of the LAI as a
measure of working alliance in educational contexts, further
investigation of the relationships between immediacy, rap-
port, and working alliance is warranted. The value of further
study in this area depends heavily on the relation of these con-
structs to student learning. As such, in this study, I sought to
further validate the LAI as a measure of the working alliance
in student–teacher interactions. I investigated its relation to
the immediacy and rapport constructs and explored the rela-
tionship between the three constructs and student learning
in an undergraduate course. Based on the reviewed literature,
I hypothesized the following:
1. The LAI will exhibit good internal and test–retest relia-
bility, comparable to existing measures of immediacy
and rapport.
2. The LAI will be positively correlated with measures of
immediacy and rapport.
3. The LAI will enhance the prediction of student learning
beyond that obtained through measures of immediacy
and rapport.
4. In addition to any direct effects on learning, immediacy,
and rapport may have indirect effects where immediacy
fosters elements of rapport and rapport fosters elements
of working alliance.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 280 undergraduate students (76%
female) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a
Rogers
large, comprehensive university. Participants’ ages ranged
from 18 to 66 years (M ¼ 21.32, SD ¼ 5.97). They described
their racial or ethnic background as White or European Amer-
ican (74%), Black or African American (11%), Hispanic or
Latino or Latina (7%), Korean (1%), Asian Indian (1%), and
Other (6%), with the majority of those describing themselves
as multiracial. Participants earned credit toward a course
research experience requirement, which included participation
and alternative options.
Materials
Working alliance. In this study, I measured the working alliance
between students and instructors using the LAI (Rogers,
2012). The LAI is an 18-item, self-report instrument in which
respondents use a 7-point scale (anchored by not at all and
very much) to indicate the frequency with which an item
occurs or the level at which it is endorsed. In addition to pro-
viding an overall measure of the degree of working alliance
present, the LAI has three scales: collaborative bond, teacher
competency, and student investment. The LAI has previously
demonstrated good internal consistency for the total score
(Cronbach’s a ¼ .95) as well as the collaborative bond (a ¼
.94), teacher competency (a ¼ .93), and student investment
(a ¼ .93) scales (Rogers, 2012).
Nonverbal immediacy. I assessed instructors’ immediacy beha-
viors using the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS; Richmond
et al., 2003). The NIS is a 26-item, self-report instrument in
which respondents use a 5-point scale (anchored by never and
very often) to indicate the frequency with which their instruc-
tor uses nonverbal behaviors to convey a sense of immediacy
(e.g., my instructor ‘‘looks directly at people while talking to
them’’). The NIS has previously demonstrated good internal
consistency (a ¼ .90; Richmond et al., 2003).
Rapport. I measured the rapport between students and instruc-
tors using the Professor–Student Rapport Scale (PSRS; Wilson
et al., 2010). The PSRS is a 34-item, self-report instrument in
which respondents use a 5-point scale (anchored by strongly
disagree and strongly agree) to indicate their level of agree-
ment to statements about their instructor’s inclination to estab-
lish and maintain rapport with them (e.g., my professor is eager
to help students). The PSRS has previously demonstrated good
internal consistency (a ¼ .89; Ryan et al., 2011).
Learning. I assessed student learning in three ways. First, parti-
cipants responded to a single item using a 5-point scale
(anchored by very little and a great deal) to indicate how much
they thought they had learned in their course so far. Second, I
gathered participants’ final, numerical grade (percentage of
available points earned) at the end of the course. Third, partici-
pants completed a 50-item, multiple-choice pretest during the
first week of the semester and a similarly structured posttest
during the final week of the semester. Based on these tests, I
calculated a normalized gain score (Hake, 1998) for each
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016
21
student, which reflects the proportion of the maximum poten-
tial improvement obtained.
Procedure
I recruited introductory psychology students through an
online research participation system. Interested students
accessed information about the study and, following consent,
completed online versions of the LAI, NIS, and PSRS in
reference to their introductory psychology instructor. Partici-
pants also provided demographic information and responded
to the single item about their learning. As part of consent, par-
ticipants agreed to the release of their numerical course grade
and pre- and posttest scores. To ensure that participants felt
free to express perceptions of their current instructors, partici-
pants’ learned during consent that their responses would not
be available to their instructors and would only be identified
via a coding system to ensure anonymity.
Given the nature of the self-report measures, participants
needed to have sufficient experience with an instructor prior
to providing their ratings. In addition, ratings provided near the
end of a course could be influenced by students’ certainty of
their grade. To address this, I collected data from participants
between the sixth and eighth weeks of their 16-week courses.
Numerical course grades and pre- and posttests were estab-
lished components of the introductory psychology course. I
retrieved these archival data after the end of the semester.
To evaluate the test–retest reliabilities of the LAI, NIS, and
PSRS, I recruited a subset (N ¼ 35) of the participants to com-
plete these measures again between the 10th and 12th weeks of
their courses. Participants who completed the original study
received an e-mail notifying them that an extension of the study
was available if they were interested. Time between comple-
tions ranged from 26 to 45 days (M ¼ 35.11, SD ¼ 4.33).
Results
Means and standard deviations for key variables in the analyses
are described in Table 1. On average, participants gave general
evidence of learning across the three methods of assessment.
Participants also indicated moderate to high levels of working
alliance, immediacy, and rapport.
I analyzed the internal consistency of the working alliance,
immediacy, and rapport measures using Cronbach’s a and the
test–retest reliability of the measures using Pearson’s correla-
tions (Table 2). The internal consistencies were all in the good
to excellent range (a  .80). Test–retest reliability coefficients
were all statistically significant.
The intercorrelations of the working alliance, immediacy,
and rapport measures are reported in Table 3. Although total
working alliance was positively correlated with both rapport
and immediacy, Steiger’s (1980) Z test for dependent correla-
tions indicated that the correlation between working alliance
and rapport was stronger (z ¼ 7.42, p < .001). The LAI scales
of collaborative bond (z ¼ 8.82, p < .001), teacher competency
(z ¼ 2.57, p ¼ .010), and student investment (z ¼ 4.10,
22 Teaching of Psychology 42(1)

Table 1. Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Learning and 2012), and the scales accounted for more variance than the
Student–Teacher Interaction Variables. composite score alone for all three measures of learning. I
Variable (possible range) M SD
selected the sequence for entering the variables based on the
order in which the self-report measures were developed as
Amount learned (1 to 5) 3.86 0.89 well as the order in the literature that the concepts of imm-
Course grade (0 to 100) 80.36 13.50 ediacy, rapport, and working alliance have been applied to
Normalized gain score (–1 to 1) 0.36 0.29 student–teacher interactions. This approach would help dis-
LAI–collaborative bond (1 to 7) 4.24 1.29
tinguish if the newer measures are capable of providing infor-
LAI–teacher competency (1 to 7) 6.32 0.74
LAI–student investment (1 to 7) 5.60 1.15 mation about student learning beyond that provided by
LAI–total (1 to 7) 5.39 0.87 existing measures of related constructs. For each of the three
PSRS (1 to 5) 3.47 0.31 measures of learning, the LAI significantly improved the
NIS (1 to 5) 3.91 0.45 prediction.
I conducted a path analysis to examine the possibility that in
Note. N ¼ 280. LAI ¼ Learning Alliance Inventory; PSRS ¼ Professor–Student
Rapport Scale; NIS ¼ Nonverbal Immediacy Scale. addition to direct effects on learning, immediacy, and rapport
may have indirect effects via alliance. The analysis consisted
of a series of regressions examining the assumed hierarchical
Table 2. Internal Consistency and Test–Retest Reliability of Student– relationships among the three measures. I based these assump-
Teacher Interaction Variables. tions on the notions that immediacy may help support the
Variable Cronbach’s aa Test–Retest rb
broader construct of rapport (Wilson et al., 2010), immediacy
and rapport may help support the broader construct of alliance,
LAI–collaborative bond .90 .71 and alliance may have direct effects on learning. The path dia-
LAI–teacher competency .81 .65 gram in Figure 1 illustrates these relationships for the three
LAI–student investment .92 .76 measures of learning. The analysis supported the assumption
LAI–total .92 .83
that alliance had direct effects on learning. For immediacy and
PSRS .80 .63
NIS .83 .88 rapport, direct effects occurred for participants’ self-reported
learning but not for course grade or normalized gain. The anal-
Note. LAI ¼ Learning Alliance Inventory; PSRS ¼ Professor–Student Rapport ysis also supported the assumption that immediacy and rapport
Scale; NIS ¼ Nonverbal Immediacy Scale. All rs are significant at p < .001.
a have indirect effects on learning, with immediacy impacting
N ¼ 280. bN ¼ 35.
rapport and rapport in turn impacting alliance.

Table 3. Intercorrelations of Student–Teacher Interaction Variables.

Discussion
1 2 3 4 5
The results lend support to all four hypotheses and further
1. LAI–CB establish the reliability and validity of the LAI as a measure of
2. LAI–TC .41** working alliance in student–teacher interactions. The findings
3. LAI–SI .47** .63** also illustrate the relationships among working alliance, rapport,
4. LAI–total .82** .77** .85** and immediacy concepts in student–teacher interactions.
5. PSRS .67** .46** .52** .70**
The LAI exhibited internal and test–retest reliability,
6. NIS .21* .32** .29** .32** .44**
consistent with those reported in its initial development, and
Note. N ¼ 280. LAI–CB ¼ Learning Alliance Inventory (LAI) Collaborative these indices were comparable to those observed in measures
Bond; LAI–TC ¼ LAI Teacher Competency; LAI–SI ¼ LAI Student Investment; of immediacy and rapport. Although statistically significant,
NIS ¼ Nonverbal Immediacy Scale; PSRS ¼ Professor–Student Rapport Scale.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
the test–retest reliability coefficients fell below .70 for the
LAI teacher competency scale and the measure of rapport.
Because the students’ interactions with the teacher were
p < .001) all demonstrated stronger correlations with rapport ongoing during this time, fluctuations in ratings may reflect
compared to immediacy. Among the scales, collaborative bond changes in the underlying constructs, issues with these mea-
showed a stronger correlation with rapport than either teacher sures’ reliability over time, or both. The correlations between
competency (z ¼ 4.28, p < .001) or student investment (z ¼ all measures suggest that the working alliance shares concep-
3.38, p < .001). tual space with immediacy and, to a greater extent, rapport.
To determine whether participants’ perceptions of the But the LAI assesses additional elements of the student–
working alliance, immediacy, and rapport were related to teacher interaction not captured as well by the measures of
their learning, I conducted a series of hierarchical regressions rapport and immediacy. Although immediacy pertains to
(Table 4). For each analysis, I entered the NIS first, followed teacher nearness and availability, and rapport pertains to a
by the PSRS, followed by the LAI scales. I chose to use the more general sense of positive closeness, working alliance
LAI scales instead of the composite score because the scales has an even broader definition of collaborative, purposive
proved to be distinct during the LAI development (Rogers, engagement.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016

Rogers 23

Table 4. Predictions of Learning Using Student–Teacher Interaction Variables.

Dependent Variables

Self-Reported Amount Learneda Course Gradeb Pre- versus Posttest Normalized Gainc

Predictors R2 DR2 p b R2 DR2 p b R2 DR2 p b

Step 1 .12 .000 .00 .874 .00 .877

NIS .34*** .01 .01
Step 2 .26 .15 .000 .02 .02 .027 .00 .00 .348
NIS .15** –.05 –.02
PSRS .43*** .15* .07
Step 3 .42 .15 .000 .05 .03 .030 .04 .04 .031
NIS .11* –.04 –.06
PSRS .33*** –.03 –.06
LAI–B –.16* .22** –.01
LAI–TC –.07 .07 .23*
LAI–SI .50*** –.01 .04

Note. NIS ¼ Nonverbal Immediacy Scale; PSRS ¼ Professor–Student Rapport Scale; LAI–B ¼ Learning Alliance Inventory (LAI) Collaborative Bond; LAI–TC ¼ LAI
Teacher Competency; LAI–SI ¼ LAI Student Investment. aF(5, 274) ¼ 39.30, p ¼ .000. bF(5, 269) ¼ 2.84, p ¼ .016. cF(5, 227) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .080.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Predicting less subjective measures of learning posed a

a
Nonverbal
b
–.06 greater challenge, and previous research provides a limited
Immediacy –.03
(NIS) .02
c
.15** framework for understanding this finding. Studies of immedi-
acy have largely relied only on participants’ self-reported
a
.20* a
learning. Studies of rapport are fewer in number but have
Working b
.20*
Grade
.44*** Alliance c
b
Normalized Gain demonstrated an ability to account for not only self-reported
.31***
(LAI) c
Amount Learned learning and grades (Wilson & Ryan, 2013; Wilson et al.,
e = .72 a
e = .98
2010) but also actual course grade (Wilson & Ryan, 2013),
.69*** a
.01
b
e = .99 although in the latter study participants evaluated rapport near
Rapport c
e = .83
(PSRS)
b
–.07 the end of the semester when certainty of their course grade
c
.22**
could have impacted their ratings. The ability to predict actual
e = .90 course grade, as well as pre- and posttest performance, will
likely vary based on the nature of the course and timing of the
Figure 1. Path analysis illustrating possible direct and indirect effects predictor variable. For example, courses may be structured in
of immediacy, rapport, and alliance on three measures of learning. ways that provide more or less leeway for student–teacher
Note. NIS ¼ Nonverbal Immediacy Scale; PSRS ¼ Professor–Student interactions to impact student learning. In addition, measure-
Rapport Scale; LAI ¼ Learning Alliance Inventory. *p < .05. **p < .01. ment of working alliance or rapport near the end of a course
***p < .001.
may be more heavily influenced by a student’s greater certainty
The LAI enhanced the prediction of student learning, of their grade. Course grades and normalized gain scores reflect
beyond what was possible using measures of immediacy and learning over the length of an entire course. If student perspec-
rapport. This was true across all three methods of assessing tives and attitudes regarding immediacy, rapport, and working
learning, although the LAI scales differentially contributed to alliance fluctuate during a course, it may hinder the ability to
these predictions. Student investment predicted self-reported use single-instance assessments of these constructs to predict
learning, bond predicted course grade, and teacher competency more macro-level measures of learning. The test–retest reliabil-
predicted normalized gain across pre- and posttests. Although ity coefficients in this study offer some evidence that even over
the LAI did not have to compete with any other predictor vari- a span of approximately 5 weeks well into a semester, individ-
ables to enhance the prediction, the hierarchical regression ual student’s assessments of these concepts change.
analysis required it to follow two measures known to relate The path analysis offers evidence about the possibility of
to student learning. Together, the three measures offered the causal relationships between working alliance, immediacy, and
most utility in predicting self-reported learning. This may have rapport that might help account for some of the limitations of
stemmed in part from students’ global impressions of the using these constructs to predict learning. Immediacy and rap-
course having shared influence on their ratings of teacher and port may only have direct effects on self-reported learning.
learning. This prediction may also have been heightened by Their effects on less subjective measures of learning may
measuring the predictor variables and this dependent variable largely be indirect. In this analysis, immediacy fosters rapport,
at the same time and by shared method variance in using two rapport fosters working alliance, and working alliance fosters
self-report measures. student learning across all methods of measurement. This lends

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016

24
further support to the conceptualization of working alliance as
the broadest concept of the three, encompassing not only rela-
tional (i.e., collaborative bond) but also teacher competency
and student investment components.
These results should be considered in light of other poten-
tial limitations to the study. As noted, levels of working
alliance, immediacy, and rapport are unlikely to be static.
Although assessments of these concepts provide useful infor-
mation about a student–teacher relationship, those measure-
ments will be susceptible to influence from the student’s
immediate experiences with the teacher. In addition, all parti-
cipants were enrolled in an introductory psychology course at
the same institution. It seems likely that the nature and roles of
the working alliance, as well as that of immediacy and rap-
port, will vary with course and institutional variables such
as class size, difficulty level, instructional methods, and learn-
ing objectives. The generalizability of this study is limited
accordingly.
The LAI has potential as a measurement tool for investigat-
ing the nature of student–teacher interactions. One possible
area for future research is examining how student or teacher
characteristics that are known to impact teaching effectiveness
or student learning might affect the development of the work-
ing alliance. Another logical step would be investigating the
implications of how the working alliance forms and evolves.
For example, in psychotherapy research, the development of
the working alliance is increasingly viewed as complex and
nonlinear, with variations in the process having implications
for patient outcomes (Kramer, de Roten, Beretta, Michel, &
Despland, 2009). Patterns in working alliance development,
as well as the nature of the alliance at critical time periods, may
prove to be better predictors of student outcomes. Additional
research will also help illustrate what applications the concept
might hold for teachers seeking to improve the quality of their
interaction with students. Until then, the scales and items of the
LAI provide some insight into the types of teacher behaviors
and student experiences that facilitate the development and
strengthening of a working alliance. In addition, the LAI pro-
vides both researchers and teachers with a tool for assessing
these processes in the classroom.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research
was supported in part by an Incentive Funding Award for Scholarship
awarded by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at
Kennesaw State University, GA.
References
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeles, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher
immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016
Teaching of Psychology 42(1)
meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education,
55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368
Anderson, R. P., & Anderson, G. V. (1962). Development of an
instrument for measuring rapport. Personnel & Guidance Jour-
nal, 41, 18–24.
Benson, T. A., Cohen, A. L., & Buskist, W. (2005). Rapport: Its
relation to student attitudes and behaviors toward teachers and
classes. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 237–239. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top3204_8
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic con-
cept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and
Practice, 16, 252–260. doi:10.1037/h0085885
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of
teacher nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance
with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475. doi:10.
1080/03634520701530896
Carey, J. C., Hamilton, D. L., & Shanklin, G. (1986). Development of
an instrument to measure rapport between college roommates.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 269–273.
Castonguay, L. G., Constantino, M. J., & Holtforth, M. G. (2006). The
working alliance: Where are we and where should we go? Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43, 271–279.
doi:10.1037/0033-3204.43.3.271
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-
student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59,
146–164.
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2009). The relationship between
perceived instructor immediacy and student challenge behavior.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 108–112.
Granitz, N. A., Koernig, S. K., & Harich, K. R. (2009). Now it’s per-
sonal: Antecedents and outcomes of rapport between business
faculty and their students. Journal of Marketing Education, 31,
52–65. doi:10.1177/0273475308326408
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2008). Rapport-building behaviors
used by retail employees. Journal of Retailing, 84, 308–324. doi:
10.1016/j.jretai.2008.07.001
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods:
A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introduc-
tory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
doi:10.1119/1.18809
Harrigan, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1983). Physicians’ head and body posi-
tions as determinants of perceived rapport. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 13, 496–509. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb02332.x
Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually
related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies,
52, 197–219.
Horvath, A., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011).
Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9–16.
doi:10.1037/a0022186
Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working
alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139–149.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects
of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college student resis-
tance to on-task demands. Communication Education, 37, 54–67.
doi:10.1080/03634528809378703
Rogers
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991). An attributional
analysis of college students’ resistance decisions. Communication
Education, 40, 325–342. doi:10.1080/03634529109378858
Koch, L. (2004). The student-teaching working alliance in reha-
bilitation counselor education. Rehabilitation Education, 18,
235–242.
Kramer, U., de Roten, Y., Beretta, V., Michel, L., & Despland, J.
(2009). Alliance patterns over the course of short-term dynamic
psychotherapy: The shape of productive relationships. Psychother-
apy Research, 19, 699–706. doi:10.1080/10503300902956742
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the
therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
68, 438–450. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influ-
ence through immediacy. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey
(Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and con-
cern (pp. 101–119). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Murphy, E., & Rodrı́guez-Manzanares, M. A. (2012). Rapport in dis-
tance education. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 13, 167–190.
Myers, S. A. (2008). Working alliances in college classrooms. Teach-
ing of Psychology, 35, 29–32. doi:10.1080/00986280701818490
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Devel-
opment of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of
self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication
Quarterly, 51, 504–517.
Robertson, D. L. (2000). Enriching the scholarship of teaching:
Determining appropriate cross-professional applications among
teaching, counseling, and psychotherapy. Innovative Higher Edu-
cation, 25, 111–125.
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 7, 2016
25
Rodrı́guez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the rela-
tionship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cogni-
tive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator.
Communication Education, 45, 293–305.
Rogers, D. T. (2009). The working alliance in teaching and learning:
Theoretical clarity and research implications. International Jour-
nal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3. Retrieved
from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/index.htm
Rogers, D. T. (2012). The Learning Alliance Inventory: Instrument
development and validation. International Journal for the Scholar-
ship of Teaching and Learning, 6. Retrieved from http://academics.
georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/index.htm
Ryan, R. G., Wilson, J. H., & Pugh, J. L. (2011). Psychometric char-
acteristics of the Professor-Student Rapport Scale. Teaching of
Psychology, 38, 135–141. doi:10.1177/0098628311411894
Schlosser, L. Z., & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring the working alliance in
advisor–advisee relationships in graduate school. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 48, 157–167. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.157
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.87.2.245
Tiberius, R. G., Sinai, J., & Flak, E. A. (2002). The role of teacher-
learner relationships in medical education. In G. R. Norman, C.
P. M. Van der Vleuten, & D. I. Newble (Eds.), International hand-
book of research in medical education (pp. 463–497). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0462-6_19
Wilson, J. H., & Ryan, R. G. (2013). Professor–Student Rapport Scale:
Six items predict student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 40,
130–133. doi:10.1177/0098628312475033
Wilson, J. H., Ryan, R. G., & Pugh, J. L. (2010). Professor-Student
Rapport Scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology,
37, 246–251. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510976