Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Developing teacher student

relationships through out of class
communication
Ann Frymier

Communication Quarterly

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Perceived inst ruct or in-class communicat ion behaviors as a predict or of st udent init iat ed ou…
Mat t hew Mart in

St udent s’ Classroom Communicat ion Effect iveness

Ann Frymier

Academic and Social Int egrat ion in t he Basic Communicat ion Course: Predict ors of St udent s' Out -of-…
Derek Bolen, Meghan Nyest e, Robert Sidelinger
 Developing Teacher-Student
Relationships Through Out of
Class Communication

Nicole D. Dobransky and Ann Bainbridge Frymier

This study investigated student perceptions of control, trust, and intimacy as dimensions
of teacher-student relationships, and the correlation between these relational variables
and reports of learning. Control, trust, and intimacy are viewed as core dimensions of
interpersonal relationships, and it is hypothesized that students who engage in out of
class communication have relationships that are more interpersonal in nature than
students who do not engage in out of class communication with teachers. This hypoth-
esis was supported. Additionally, students who perceived their teachers as exhibiting
higher levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy reported greater learning.

KEY CONCEPTS teacher-student relationship, out of class communication,

control, trust, intimacy, learning

Nicole D. Dobransky (M.A., Miami University, 2002) is a Visiting Instructor at

Miami University. Ann Bainbridge Frymier (Ed.D., West Virginia University,
1992) is an Associate Professor at Miami University.

erhaps the most basic elements found within any educational setting are teach

P ers and students. The teacher-student relationship may be viewed as just one
variable in the educational framework. This isolated variable, however, is infi-
nitely important and one that continues to intrigue scholars. The purpose of this re-
search is to examine the teacher-student relationship as defined by the elements of
control, trust, and intimacy. More specifically we propose that when students engage
in out-of-class communication with their instructor, the teacher-student relationship is
more interpersonal in nature and is positively associated with student reports of learn-
ing.
Many scholars have argued the importance of positive teacher-student relation-
ships (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Morganett, 1995; West, 1994), as well as the relation-
ship between teacher-student relationships and learrung. Because a teacher-student
relationship may be defined as an interpersonal relationship (Frymier & Houser, 2000),
it may be assumed that both parties depend on each other to maintain the relationship.
Thus, both participants in a student-teacher relationship should be considered compa-
rably important. Since we were interested in assessing learning as an outcome vari-
able, the current study examined the student perspective. Moreover, it is asserted that
such a teacher-student relationship is likely to develop when students engage in out-

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 52 No 3 Summer 2004, Pages 211-223

of-class communication (OCC) with instructors.

Teacher-Student Communication
The communication that occurs between teachers and students can often be classi-
fied as interpersonal in nature (Frymier & Houser, 2000). According to Miller and
Steinberg (1975), interpersonal communication occurs when predictions are based on a
psychological level of analysis, rather than cultural or sociological levels of analysis. In
other words, for interpersonal communication to occur, two people must communicate
with each other as individuals rather than with regard to the roles they are in (socio-
logical level) or the cultural groups they belong to (cultural level). Teachers and stu-
dents frequently communicate with each other based on their roles of student and teacher,
which would be considered communication at the sociological level. When teachers
and students interact with each other as individuals, their communication would be at
the psychological level and would be interpersonal in nature according to Miller and
Steinberg's (1975) approach. This psychological level of communication would be most
likely to occur outside of the classroom when the teacher and student were able to
communicate one-on-one with one another. Previous research has demonstrated that
when teachers engage in more interpersonal interaction with students in terms of im-
mediacy (Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers, 1995), af-
finity-seeking (Frymier, 1994), and self-disclosure (Sorensen, 1989), students reported
greater learning. One approach to describing interpersonal relationships is Millar and
Rogers' (1976) relational dimensions, Millar and Rogers (1976) describe relationships
in regards to the way control is shared, the level of intimacy, and the amount of trust.
The control dimension of relationships described by Millar and Rogers (1976) may
constitute a large portion of the communication that occurs between a student and
teacher. "The control dimension is concerned with who has the right to direct, delimit,
and define the actions of the interpersonal system in the presently experienced spatial-
temporal situation" (Millar & Rogers, 1976, pp. 91), This control is implemented through
the communication that occurs between the participants. Teachers traditionally hold
most of the power and control in the classroom and typically have greater status than
students. However, students also have power in the classroom. This may be in the form
of students resisting teachers (Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988) or in teachers
empowering students (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). When teachers provide stu-
dents with choices or allow them to have input into the content covered or other as-
pects of the class, the teacher is sharing control. This phenomenon has been studied
imder the rubric of empowerment, Frymier et al, (1996) foimd that students who were
empowered by their teachers also reported feeling more motivated to study and re-
ported performing more learning indicators. While students do have power in the class-
room, much of the research on power has focused on how teachers use and communi-
cate power (see Richmond & McCroskey, 1992 for a review). Control is not only an
important element of interpersonal relationships as described by Millar and Rogers
(1976), but it is an important dimension of teacher-student relationships. Another im-
portant, however sometimes less evident element in the interpersonal teacher-student
relationship is the dimension of trust.
Trust is said to exist in a relationship if both participants have manifested specific
behaviors that indicate reliance a n d / o r dependence on one another, faith in one an-
other, and certain levels of expectations in each other (Millar & Rogers, 1976). Trust is
often depicted via the use of various communication behaviors. Some communication

212 Dobransky and Frymier

behaviors that have been shown to relate to the level of trust in a teacher-student rela-
tionship include immediacy (Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984) and self-disclo-
sure (Wheeless, 1978). Trust has been viewed as an important element in the instruc-
tional context, often as a dimension of credibility (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Nadler
& Nadler 2001) or as an outcome of effective teacher communication (Wooten &
McCroskey, 1996).
The third interpersonal dimension identified by Millar and Rogers (1976) is inti-
macy. Intimacy has been closely linked to romantic relationships and has often been
viewed as not relevant to the teacher-student relationship. The transactional dimen-
sion of intimacy has been defined as ",,, the degree to which each person uses the other
as a source of self-confirmation and the affective evaluation of the self-confirmation"
(Millar & Rogers, 1976, pp. 93). Some have argued that intimate communication is in-
appropriate for teacher-student interactions (McCroskey, 1992), and that immediacy,
not intimacy, is the appropriate level of interaction for teacher-student interactions (Rich-
mond, 1992), However, intimacy is often defined as feelings of closeness and connec-
tion (Wood, 2002), which is consistent with Millar and Rogers' (1976) definition. Self-
confirmation and affective evaluation create the feeling of closeness and connection
described by Wood (2002). These definitions of intimacy overlap significantly with the
definition of immediacy. Immediacy is defined as perceived physical or psychological
closeness (Andersen, 1979; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). Most people would
agree that some amount of distance should exist between teachers and students. Clearly,
teacher-student relationships should not cross the line into romantic relationships, which
are characterized by passion and commitment as well as intimacy. While the terms
immediacy and intimacy have been used differently, they have both essentially been
conceptualized as closeness. In keeping with Millar and Rogers' conceptualization of
interpersonal relationships, we chose to focus on intimacy rather than immediacy. The
extensive research on teacher immediacy (and related variables) has provided evidence
that closeness between teachers and students enhances learning and motivation, and
serves as the basis for our expectation that increased intimacy will be related to posi-
tive student outcomes.
In sum, the relational dimensions of control, trust, and intimacy are defining fac-
tors of interpersonal relationships (Millar & Rogers, 1976). Depending on the relation-
ship, however, there may be different demands for control, trust, and intimacy. Varying
aspects within each dimension have been found to positively correlate with student
learning. Therefore, it is expected that the three dimensions of shared control, trust,
and intimacy will also be associated with student learning. The following hypotheses
are advanced:

Hla: Increased levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy will be positively
related to student perceptions of affective learning.
Hlb: Increased levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy will be positively
related to student perceptions of learning indicators.

Out-of-Class Communication
One important element within a teacher-student relationship is out-of-class com-
munication (OCC). Out-of-class communication has been defined as "interactions out-
side the formal classroom that may be initiated by students or faculty. It includes advis-
ing, students seeking out faculty to ask questions about class content, faculty involve-

Teacher-Student Relationship 213

 ment in student organizations, and/or student-faculty discussions about non-class re-
lated issues" (Nadler & Nadler, 2001, p. 242),
Much of the research concerning the frequency of OCC (although somewhat mini-
mal in-and-of-itself) has shown that OCC (in most institutions) is generally infrequent
(Feldman & Newcomb, 1969), Although many educators and communication scholars
agree that there should be an increase in out-of-class communication (Fusani, 1994),
this has not been the case. Thus, the students who do engage in OCC with an instructor
may view their relationship with that teacher differently than those who do not engage
in OCC, Specifically, it may be the case that students who engage in OCC view their
relationships with their instructor as more interpersonal-like than those who do not
engage in OCC. OCC may be the context in which characteristics of traditional inter-
personal relationships develop. One characteristic is level of trust in a relationship.
Although relatively infrequent (Wilson, Woods, & Gaff, 1974), OCC has been posi-
tively related to trust (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). A student who trusts an instructor may
be more likely to engage in some type of OCC than a student who trusts an instructor
less. Additionally, trustworthiness was shown to correlate with the amount and nature
of OCC (Nadler & Nadler, 2001). Specifically, Nadler and Nadler (2001) have argued
that the trustworthiness of faculty (as perceived by students) will affect willingness to
engage in OCC, as well as affect the kinds of topics discussed.
Similarly, out-of-class communication may lead to a greater level of trust within
the teacher-student relationship (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). Students who engage in OCC
are likely to have a qualitatively different relationship with their instructors than those
students who have not engaged in OCC with their instructors. While OCC between
students and teachers would not necessarily involve the psychological level of interac-
tion as described by Miller and Steinberg (1975), there would be greater opportunity
for it, and therefore, levels of intimacy, shared control, and trust are likely to be differ-
ent for those students who have not engaged in OCC with their instructors than for
those who have. Since previous research has provided support for the position that
better teacher-student relationships result in greater student learning (Frymier & Houser,
2000), we posit that when levels of OCC increase, so will student learning. Thus, the
following hypotheses are put forth:

H2: Students who engage in OCC will report higher levels of shared control,
trust, and intimacy than students who do not engage in OCC.
H3a: When students report engaging in OCC, they will report higher levels of
affective learning,
H3b: When students report engaging in OCC, they will report higher levels of
learning indicators.

If we assume that students and teachers are likely to develop a more interpersonal
relationship with one another when they engage in OCC, and that interpersonal rela-
tionships are characterized by increased levels of intimacy, trust, and shared control,
then it is likely that intimacy, trust, and shared control will be correlated with students'
satisfaction with their OCC, Additionally, we expect shared control, trust, and intimacy
to be associated with students' likelihood of engaging in additional OCC with their
instructors. We therefore put forth the following hypotheses,

H4a: For participants reporting engagement in OCC, shared control, trust, and

214 Dobransky and Frymier

 intimacy will be significantly related to satisfaction with OCC.
H4b: For participants reporting engagement in OCC, shared control, trust, and
intimacy will be significantly related to the likelihood of future interac-
tion with their instructor.

METHOD
Participants
The subjects for this study consisted of undergraduate students at a medium-sized
Midwestern university enrolled in one of the two introductory communication courses.
Participation was voluntary and served as completion of a departmental requirement
for participation in a research study. Participants in this study consisted of 284 under-
graduate students (129 males, 152 females, 3 unidentified). Utilizing the methodology
originally developed by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986), participants
were asked to report on the teacher-student relationship with the instructor of their
class immediately after the course in which they were completing the survey instruments
for credit. Participants reported on 194 male instructors and 87 female instructors (3
unidentified). Of those students who reported engaging in OCC with their instructor,
84 were male and 97 were female. Of those participants reporting no OCC, 45 were
male and 55 were female. Regarding class rank, of those participants reporting engage-
ment in OCC, the distribution is as follows: 5 freshmen, 98 sophomores, 56 juniors, and
22 seniors. Of those reporting no OCC, the distribution is as follows: 5 freshmen, 65
sophomores, 24 juniors, and 6 seniors. Three participants did not report any demo-
graphic information. Generally, participants in this study represented a cross-section of
university students with reports on teachers in 36 departments and the majority of
classes reported on were small with 30 students or less. In order to ensure that students
were familiar with their instructors' communication behaviors and had adequate time
to engage in OCC, data were collected during the 13"" and 14* weeks in the semester.

Measures
Shared Control. In this study, the concept of control refers to shared control within
the teacher-student relationship, indicating a perception that both parties have some
authority to define, delimit, and direct the actions taken. Operationally, shared control
was measured using items from the impact dimension of Frymier et al.'s (1996) Learner
Empowerment Measure. The Learner Empowerment Measure consists of 35 items that
measure learner empowerment along three dimensions (impact, meaningfulness, and
competence). The impact dimension consists of 16 items. Ten items were used from the
impact dimension of the Learner Empowerment Measure, utilizing a Likert-type scale
anchored by 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often). These items were submitted to principle com-
ponents analysis with iteration prior to factor extraction. Criteria for factor extraction
were an eigenvalue > 1.00 and variance accounted for > 5%. MSA = .87 indicating
sampling adequacy. A single factor solution was determined to provide the best fit to
the data, and accounted for 46.40% of the variance. Three items were dropped (items
#2, #6, and #8)^ from the scale. The alpha reliability in the present study for this scale
was .86, M = 20.11, and SD = 5.65.
Trust. The concept of trust was measured using Wheeless and Grotz's (1977) Indi-
vidualized Trust Scale (ITS). This measure consists of 15 sets of bipolar adjectives, us-
ing a 7-point scale assessing the trust students have in the particular instructor they
were reporting on. Typical items in this scale include: trustworthy/untrustworthy.

Teacher-Student Relationship 215

 considerate/inconsiderate, and honest/dishonest. These items were also submitted to
principle components analysis with iteration prior to factor extraction. Criteria for
factor extraction were an eigenvalue > 1.00 and variance accounted for > 5%. MSA =
.91 indicating sampling adequacy. A single factor structure was determined to be the
best fit and accounted 47.13% of the variance. Two items were dropped from the scale
(trustful of this person - distrustful of this person and not deceitful - deceitful). Alpha
reliability for this scale was .91, M = 73.11, and SD = 12.40.
Intimacy. The concept of intimacy was operationalized using five items developed
for this study that asked participants to rate their perception of intimacy with their
instructor. Specifically, participants were asked to rate the level of intimacy of the teacher-
student relationship on seven-step, bipolar adjectives using the following adjectives:
intimate/not intimate, emotionally close/emotionally distant, familiar/unfamiliar,
warm/cold, and caring/not caring. These items were also submitted to principle com-
ponents analysis with iteration prior to factor extraction. Criteria for factor extraction
were the same as above. Only one factor had an eigenvalue > 1.00 and all items loaded
on the factor, accounting for 67.61% of the variance. Alpha reliability for this scale was
.88, M = 17.50, and SD = 6.93.
Out-of-class communication. This concept was measured using a revised version of
Nadler and Nadler's (2001) Out-of-CIass Communication Scale. Participants were asked
if they had ever engaged in out-of-class communication with the instructor they were
reporting on. If not, participants were instructed to skip to the next section of the ques-
tionnaire. Students engaging in OCC were then asked to respond to questions regard-
ing the location of OCC (i.e., in the instructor's office, in the hallways, outside of the
university, etc.), frequency of OCC, and when it was most likely to occur (i.e., immedi-
ately before or after class, or at a completely different time).
The next part of the measure asked students to report the likelihood of interacting
with their instructor in the future and to recommend the instructor to others. The di-
mension of future interaction was measured with five Likert-type items using a 5-point
scale ranging from "not at all likely" (1) to "very likely" (5). Participants reported on
the following: the likelihood of recommending the instructor to a friend as an advisor;
communicating with the instructor out of class about class-related matters; communi-
cating with the instructor out of class about general academic matters; communicating
with the instructor out of class about personal matters; and taking another course from
the instructor. These items were also submitted to principle components analysis with
iteration prior to factor extraction. Criteria for factor extraction were the same as above.
Only one factor had an eigenvalue > 1.00 and all items loaded on the factor, accounting
for 78.94% of the variance. Alpha reliability of the scale was .79, M = 17 77, and SD =
7.02
Finally, the last item was a general evaluation of the students' satisfaction with the
out-of-class interaction, and used a single seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by
"very unsatisfied" (1) and "very satisfied" (7). This single item measure had a M = 3.16
and SD = 2.28.
Learning. Learning was assessed using two measures. First, an abbreviated version
of Mottet and Richmond's (1998) Revised Affective Learning Measure was used to
measure the affective dimension of learning. Six of the original eight subscales were
used in this study to measure student affective learning^ Each subscaie used four, seven-
step bipolar adjectives. Alpha reliability for the total affective learning scale was 96 M
= 120.24, and SD = 31.68.

Dobransky and Frymier

 Learning was also measured using Frymier and Houser's (1999) Revised Learning
Indicators Scale. This scale is intended to measure the cognitive dimension of learning.
The Revised Learning Indicators Scale consists of seven items that measure such things
as ability to explain course content to others, degree to which course content is contem-
plated outside of class, and overall perception of amount of learning from the class.
This measure uses a five-interval Likert-type scale anchored with (1) never and (5) very
often. The Revised Learning Indicators Scale had an alpha reliability of .82, M = 21.75,
and SD = 5.12.

RESULTS
Before conducting analyses to address each hypothesis, correlations among the
variables in this study were examined and appear in Table 1. Hypothesis la and l b put
forth that increased levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy would be positively
related to student reports of affective learning and learning indicators respectively.
These hypotheses were supported. Regression analysis indicated that shared control,
trust, and intimacy were significant predictors of affective learning, F(3, 280) = 62.44, p
< .01, with 40% of the variance in affective learning being accounted for. The three
predictor variables had significant beta weights: shared control, P = .12, t = 2.24, p < .05;
trust, p = .49, t = 9.23, p < .01; and intimacy, P = .15, t = 2.65, p < .01. Regression analysis
indicated that shared control, trust, and intimacy accounted for 13% of the variance in
learning indicators reported on by students, F(3, 280) = 14.28, p < .01. Specifically,
shared control, P = .16, t = 2.43, p < .01, intimacy, b = .17, t = 2.43, p < .05, and trust, p =
.13, t = 2.06, p < .05 had significant beta weights in the regression model.
Hypothesis 2 asserted that when students engage in OCC they would report in-
creased levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy within the teacher-student rela-
tionship. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
determine if there were differences in shared control, trust, and intimacy between stu-
dents engaging in OCC and those not engaging in OCC. Significant differences were
found between the two groups on the dependent measures, Wilks's L = .90, f = 10.71, p
< .01. The multivariate if = .10.
Follow up analysis of variance revealed that students who reported engaging in
OCC also reported increased perceptions of teacher intimacy, f (1, 282) = 31.21, p < .01,
with students engaging in OCC having a M = 19.14 and SD = 6.87, and students not
engaging in OCC having a M = 14.59 and SD = 6.05. There were also differences in
shared control, F(l, 282) = 9.33, p < .01, with students engaging in OCC having a M =
20.87 and SD = 5.62, and students not engaging in OCC having a M = 18.76, SD = 5.47.
There was no significant difference, however, in perceptions of trust between students
who engaged in OCC (M = 74.02, SD = 12.33) and those who did not engage in OCC (M
= 71.49, SD = 12.42), F(l, 282) = 2.73, p = .10.
Hypothesis 3a put forth that those students who engaged in OCC with a teacher
would also report higher levels of affective learning. Hypothesis 3a was not supported.
No differences were found in affective learning between those who engaged in OCC
(M = 121.58, SD = 33.18) and those not engaging in OCC (M = 117.85, SD = 28.81), F(l,
282) = .91, p = .34). Hypothesis 3b predicted that students who engaged in OCC with a
teacher would report higher levels of learning indicators. This hypothesis was sup-
ported. Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in learning indicators
between students reporting engagement in OCC (M = 22.51, SD = 5.17) and those re-
porting no OCC (M = 20.40, SD = 4.75), F(l, 282) = 11.46, p < .01.

Teacher-Student Relationship 217

 TABLE 1
Correlations Among All Study Variables
Shared Trust Intimacy Affective Learning Future Satisfaction
Control Learning Indicators OCC w/OCC
Shared 1.0
Control
Trust .35 1.0
Intimacy .51 .45 1.0
Affective .37 .60 .43 I.O
Learning
Learning .29 .26 .31 .58 1.0
Indicators
Future OCC .36 .34 .56 .35 .37 1.0
Satisfaction .31 .32 .49 .26 .30 .90 1.0
w/OCC
Note: All correlations significant atp < .01

Hypothesis 4a asserted that for students engaging in OCC, control, trust, and inti-
macy would significantly relate to the satisfaction with OCC. This hypothesis was par-
tially supported. Regression analysis indicated that the predictor variables of shared
control, trust, and intimacy accounted for 48% of the variance in satisfaction of OCC,
F(3,178) = 55.11, p < .01. Trust, P = .45, t = 7.28, p < .01 and intimacy, P = .28, t = 3.97, p
< .01 had significant beta weights, while shared control, P = .12, t = 1.83, p = .07 did not.
Similarly for hypothesis 4b, regression analysis indicated that the levels of shared con-
trol, trust, and intimacy account for 56% of the variance in the likelihood of future
interaction, F(3,178) = 76.82, p < .01. Specifically, shared control, p = .14, t = 2.26, p <
.05; trust, p = .35, t = 6.20, p < .01; and intimacy, P = .43, t = 6.70, p < .01 had significant
beta weights in the regression model.

DISCUSSION
A primary purpose of this research was to examine the teacher-student relation-
ship as an interpersonal relationship, and we proposed that when students engaged in
OCC with an instructor, their relationship would be different (more interpersonal like)
than students not engaging in OCC. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the relational
dimensions of control, trust, and intimacy could serve as indicators of the interper-
sonal-ness of teacher-student relationships. These hypotheses were overall supported.
Students who engaged in OCC with their instructor reported having a different
type of relationship with their instructor than did students not engaging in OCC. Stu-
dents engaging in OCC reported significantly greater perceptions of intimacy and shared
control, but not trust. If we accept Millar and Rogers (1976) description of interpersonal
relationships as being characterized by trust, intimacy, and control, then these results
lend support to the hypothesis that the student-teacher relationship is an interpersonal
relationship. While there was not a significant difference in trust between those who
did and did not engage in OCC, the overall mean for trust was quite high (M = 73.11,
SD = 12.40, possible range 7-97). Therefore, even though trust did not differ between
the OCC groups, we can argue that trust was present in the student-teacher relation-
ships. These results indicate that students generally trusted their instructors, however
when they engaged in OCC, the relational elements of intimacy and shared control
increased. When teachers and students engage in face-to-face interaction, there is the

218 Dobransky and Frymier

opportunity for their relationship to become more interpersonal. We are not suggest-
ing that all OCC results in interpersonal relationships between teachers and students.
Some OCC is very brief and formal and would be best described as communication at
the sociological level (Miller & Steinberg, 1975). At other times, OCC goes very badly
and may be quite harmful to the relationship. However, the face-to-face interaction
that is most common in OCC sets the stage for an interpersonal relationship to begin.
A possible explanation for the finding that students engaging in OCC reported
increased levels of shared control and intimacy is that OCC provides students with the
opportunity to negotiate assignments, grades, etc. When these negotiations are mutu-
ally satisfying, intimacy may develop as well as feelings of shared control. Frymier et
al. (1996) would describe such a situation as empowerment. Students who are empow-
ered feel like they can make a difference, that they are capable of performing in the
class, and that what they do has meaning (Frymier et al. 1996). Consistent with Frymier
et al.'s findings, we found a positive relationship between shared control and both
affective and learning indicators.
As previously mentioned, students who did not engage in OCC trusted their teacher
just as much as those students engaging in OCC. Interestingly, this result is contrary to
past findings (Nadler & Nadler, 2001). A possible explanation for this finding relates to
the fact that OCC is not always a positive interaction. For example, it is very common
for students who are upset about grades or assignments to engage in OCC with an
instructor to argue or try to change their grade. If a student does come to see an instruc-
tor for purposes of questioning something about his/her grade, the class, etc., this may
indicate a lack of trust in the teacher. Therefore, it may be asserted that students gener-
ally expect teachers to be trustworthy, and they automatically trust a teacher until the
teacher violates that trust.
We are not only concerned with describing teacher-student relationships as inter-
personal relationships. The more important issue is how these relational variables im-
pact student outcomes. This study was correlational in nature so we are unable to draw
causal conclusions, however we were able to examine how these relational variables
were related to student outcomes. Shared control, trust, and intimacy were positively
related to affective learning and learning indicators, both for students engaging in OCC
and those not. Shared control was a significant predictor of both affective learning and
learning indicators. This is consistent with previous research on empowerment (Frymier
et al., 1996). The idea of teachers sharing control with students may be somewhat for-
eign and unconventional to some instructors. In the traditional teacher-centered class-
room, power and control are firmly rooted in the hands of the teacher. However, in a
more student-centered classroom, teachers share control by giving students choices or
allowing student input to influence them. Lawrence (2001) found that students reported
learning more in a student-centered classroom than they did in a teacher-centered class-
room. Because there is a sense of hierarchy between teacher and student, it is the teacher
that must make the conscious effort to share control with the student.
Intimacy was also significantly correlated with student reports of learning. This
finding is consistent with previous research on immediacy that has consistently found
a positive relationship with learning (Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994;
Gorham, 1988; Richmond et al., 1987). Conceptually, intimacy and immediacy are very
similar, although immediacy has been defined much more specifically and is
operationalized as specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Intimacy is a much broader
construct that is less specifically defined. While both intimacy and immediacy refer to

Teacher-Student Relationship 219

closeness within a relationship, immediacy is the more useful of the two because of its
specificity and its link to specific behaviors. Although it is beyond the scope of this
research to report how much intimacy within the relationship is ideal, it is imperative
for teachers to recognize the importance of this relational variable when communicat-
ing with students. Additionally, the behaviors that have come to be considered "imme-
diacy behaviors" are probably the most appropriate means of establishing closeness
with students.
Trust did not differ between students engaging and not engaging in OCC. Perhaps
this is because students enter into a teacher-student relationship expecting to trust a
teacher, but do not necessarily expect to share control or have a close relationship with
their teacher. For instance, a student often trusts that a teacher possesses the expertise
to teach a class, but a student does not feel the same confidence that he/she will be
permitted to share control about assignments, due dates, etc. Moreover, students do
not have the same confidence level that it is appropriate to share details of their lives
with a teacher. Therefore, when issues of shared control and intimacy arise, expecta-
tions are exceeded. Furthermore, it may be that OCC is the forum in which the inter-
personal teacher-student relationship really develops.
Also of interest is the finding that trust accounted for the most variance in satisfac-
tion with OCC. OCC may be a time when teachers have the opportunity to either en-
hance their relationship with a student, or damage it. OCC often involves questions
about grading, procedures, missed classes or other potential "differences of opinion"
between the teacher and student. During these interactions teachers may not live up to
the student's expectations for fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness. From this, it seems
reasonable that if a teacher negatively violates student's expectations, the student would
likely be less satisfied with the interaction.
Even though some instances of OCC may not go well, overall, students reported
engaging more frequently in learning indicators when they also engaged in OCC. When
students interact with teachers outside of the classroom and discuss content, it's pos-
sible that students feel more committed to the class and therefore spend more time
thinking about and involving themselves with the class. The fact that students engag-
ing in OCC did not report greater affective learning than the no OCC group, however,
does not support this reasoning.
To clarify, there is no difference in reports between those students who did and did
not engage in OCC, with regard to affective learning. This finding is surprising be-
cause many times teachers feel they can impact affect towards the course as well as
themselves through communication outside of the classroom. The significance of this
finding is that teachers should not depend on impacting affect towards themselves or
the course only through OCC, but should continue other behaviors previously shown
to impact affective learning such as immediacy behaviors (Andersen, 1979; Gorham,
1988), and teacher confirmation (Ellis, 2000).
The results of this study support Frymier and Houser's (2000) contention that
teacher-student relationships are (on some level) interpersonal relationships. Frymier
and Houser argued that teacher-student relationships differed from other relationships
because of the inherent power differential. While the present research did not measure
the amount of power held by teachers and students, the results indicate that when
students perceive shared power, they also feel closer (greater intimacy) to their teach-
ers and feel more positively toward the class and its content (affective learning). We
assume that engaging in interaction and developing an interpersonal relationship with

220 Dobransky and Frymier

the instructor impacts students' learning, however we were not able to test that hy-
pothesis in this study. It is possible that students, who learn more, report more positive
relationships with their teachers. These results are not surprising, however many teachers
resist the notion of getting close to students and being something other than the "au-
thority behind the podium!"
Although this research study provides significant insights for teacher-student rela-
tionships, it is not without limitations. One limitation is the subject pool utilized. For
practical purposes, the sample for this study was taken from only one university, and,
therefore, may reflect the cultural identity of this particular campus consisting of al-
most exclusively traditional college age students who are predominately white. Fortu-
nately, an encompassing cross-section of majors and departmental affiliations was rep-
resented, which does enhance the generalizability of the results.
Constructive teacher-student relationships have been shown to impact affective
learning, which then facilitates cognitive learning (Eiss, 1969). This study supports past
research. Although ideal levels of shared control, trust, and intimacy cannot be deter-
mined from this study; it has been shown that these relational variables are integral to
the relationship generally. This study supports Frymier and Houser's (2000) study that
advanced the idea that the teacher-student relationship can be classified as an interper-
sonal relationship. Not only has it been shown that it is appropriate to examine the
teacher-student relationship from an interpersonal perspective, it is beneficial to do so.
Taken out of the classroom context, teachers and students are people who are emotion-
ally laden and unable to detach those emotions when it comes to the educational pro-
cess. Because it is not possible to exclude the interpersonal influence in the teacher-
student relationship, our only option is to capitalize on it in an attempt to maximize the
benefits.

NOTES
^ Items used to measure power include: 1) I have the power to make a difference in how things
are done in this class; 2) I have a choice in the methods 1 can use to perform my work; 3) My
participation is important to the success of this class; 4) I can make an impact on the way
things are run in this class; 5) I have the opportunity to contribute to the learning of others in
this class; 6) I have the opportunity to make important decisions in this class; 7) I cannot
influence what happens in this class; 8) 1 can determine how tasks can be performed; 9) I have
no freedom to choose in this class; and 10) I can influence the instructor.
^ The following affective learning subscales were used: My attitude about the content of this
course; The likelihood of my developing an "appreciation" for the content/subject matter; In
"real life" situations, my likelihood of actually recalling and using some of the information
from this class; Outside the classroom, my likelihood of actually enjoying discussing some of
what I have learned in class with others; My attitude about the instructor of this course; and
The likelihood of my taking another course with the teacher of this course, if I have a choice:
(If you are graduating, assume you would still be here).

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.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & deTurck, M. A. (1984). Relatinal messages associated
with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351-378.

Teacher-Student Relationship 221

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student moti-
vation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy,
student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251-266.
Eiss, A. B. (1969). Behavioral objectives in the affective domain. Washington, DC: National Science
Supervisors Association.
Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instru-
ment and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Commu-
nication Research, 26, 264-291.
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The Impact of College on Students (Vol. 2). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Frymier, A. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the class-
room. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87-105.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies,
50,1-12.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal rela-
tionship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to per-
ceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learning empower-
ment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199.
Fusani, D. S. (1994). "Extra-class" communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and
satisfaction in the student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Com-
munication Research, 22, 232-255.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communica-
tion to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education,
48, 41-47.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Soresen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and strat-
egy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education, 37, 54-
67.
Lawrence, K. (2001). Learning oriented and grade oriented students' reports of learning in stu-
dent-centered and instructor-centered classrooms. Unpublished master's thesis, Miami Uni-
versity, Oxford, Ohio.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN: Burgess.
Millar, F., & Rogers, L. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. Miller
(Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.,
pp. 7-29.
Morganett, L. (1995). Ten tips for improving teacher-student relationships. Social Education, 59,
27-28.
Mottet, T. P., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). Newer is not necessarily better: A reexamination of affec-
tive learning measurement. Communication Research Reports, 15, 370-378.
Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-class
communication between faculty and students. Women's Studies in Communication, 24, 241-
261.

222 Dobransky and Frymier

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 Educa-
tion, 35, 43-55.
Richmond, V. P. (1992). Nonverbal communication in the classroom. Edina, MN: Burgess.
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected imme-
diacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10
(pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and
concern. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers' self-disclosive statements, students' per-
ceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-276.
West, R. (1994). Teacher-student communication: A descriptive typology of students' interper-
sonal experiences with teachers. Communication Reports, 7,109-118.
Wilson, R. C, Woods, L., & Gaff, J. G. (1974). Social-psychological accessibility and faculty-stu-
dent interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47, 74-92.
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationship among trust, disclosure, and soli-
darity. Human Communication Research, 4,143-157.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclo-
sure. Human Cotnmunication Research, 3, 249-257.
Wood, J. T. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters (3"" ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Wooten, A. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Student trust of teacher as a function of socio-commu-
nicative style of teacher and socio-communicative orientation of student. Communication Re-
search Reports, 13, 94-100.

Teacher-Student Relationship 223