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

net/publication/356503890

Coconstructing a Meaningful Online Environment: Faculty–Student Rapport in

the English as a Foreign Language College Classroom

Article  in  Educational Measurement Issues and Practice · November 2021

DOI: 10.1111/emip.12471

CITATIONS READS

0 60

1 author:

Norah Mansour Almusharraf

Prince Sultan University
33 PUBLICATIONS   372 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Dissertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Norah Mansour Almusharraf on 16 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
Summer 2022, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 70–81

Coconstructing a Meaningful Online Environment:

Faculty–Student Rapport in the English as a Foreign Language
College Classroom

Norah Almusharraf, Prince Sultan University

Abstract: Rapport-building is perceived to enhance engagement, level of gratification, and

collaboration, resulting in better student engagement in the learning process. The current study
measures the extent to which postsecondary instructors promote a meaningful online environment
through faculty–student rapport (FSR) in undergraduate English as a foreign language (EFL)
classrooms. This study is grounded on social constructivism and self-determination theoretical
frameworks, suggesting that building meaningful environments aids students’ investment and
engagement in learning. The study utilizes a questionnaire and classroom observations to explore
the relationship between FSR and students’ level of engagement. The results revealed a significant
difference between the rapport-building and nonrapport-building groups at a personal and
academic level. The findings shed light on student attitudes about various instructional practices
and techniques that play a critical role in building a safe, proactive, dynamic, and engaging online
environment. Further research is required to reduce the issues related to physical distancing,
emotional expressions, and technological competence. Technical competency is the primary
prerequisite of any specialized activity; consequently, instructors need to assess learners’
knowledge and accessibility within the learning community. Reflective practice is recommended for
faculty members who are thus encouraged to continuously reflect on their teaching practice,
redirect and modify their performance to meet their learners’ specific needs, and design and
maintain a healthy and encouraging relationship with individual students.

Keywords: EFL classrooms, faculty–student rapport, rapport-building, student connections, student engagement

Teaching is not merely an academic interaction between stu-
dents and faculty members. It also requires faculty–student
rapport (FSR) through which practical, intellectual, emo-
tional, and ethical knowledge are conveyed to students,
thereby providing them a higher-level learning experience.
Seminal research (e.g., Caprara et al., 2006; Hajovsky et al.,
2017; Mason et al., 2017) has examined FSR’s influence on
students’ academic progress. Research has shown that FSR
plays a significant role in student learning achievements re-
lating to academic and social performance (Birch & Ladd,
1997; Roorda et al., 2011; Webb & Barrett, 2014). Moreover,
the concept of rapport in teaching appears to relate to im-
mediacy, defined as “psychological convenience” (Mehrabian,
1995) within psychological and interdisciplinary research
(i.e., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Caprara et al., 2006; Hajovsky et al.,
2017; Hajovsky et al., 2020; Mason et al., 2017). However,
a closer look at the empirical literature concerning the ef-
fect of FSR on English as foreign language (EFL) classroom
environments has revealed several gaps and shortcomings,
particularly within the EFL online learning setting. There-
fore, this research was undertaken to investigate the analy-
sis and measure FSR’s impact on EFL learners’ attitudes and
behaviors.
The current study set out to examine FSR’s influence on
the online classroom environment with an EFL college-level
institution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Specifi-
cally, this study sought to explore whether maintaining FSR
in EFL online classes contributes to higher levels of student
engagement (i.e., low, medium, high). Students’ perceptions
were examined regarding the effect of FSR on online EFL to
analyze the answer to these inquiries. The following research
questions were posed:
1. How does student learning behavior compare between
non-FSR and FSR-building in online instructional set-
tings?
2. How does instructor behavior compare between non-
FSR and FSR-building in online instructional settings?
3. How does the student level of engagement in online
instructional settings compare between non-FSR and
FSR-building instructional settings?
Faculty–Student Rapport
Hajovsky et al. (2020) stated that there are two types of FSR:
high-quality (closeness) and low-quality (conflict), with both
having their structural trajectories. Closeness is defined as
“a pattern of warmth and positive effect in the dyadic rela-
tionship between the faculty and student” (Hajovsky et al.,
2020, p. 133). On the other hand, conflict is “a dysfunctional
communication pattern marked by negative interactions and

70 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education.

a general lack of affinity between the faculty and the student”
(Hajovsky et al., 2020, p. 133).
FSR in higher education is observed to enhance engage-
ment, gratification, collaboration, and eventually, learning
outcomes (Kelly et al., 2015; Roorda et al., 2017). Lowman
(1994) referred to “interpersonal rapport” playing a criti-
cal role in effective teaching in which instructors encourage
open discussion in the classroom. The rapport-building pro-
cess is based on responsiveness and compassion (Lowman,
1994). It is cultivated through the faculty’s implementation
of positive actions and supportive relationships that help stu-
dents’ academic development and motivation. Also, it helps
to adjust students to the educational setting’s social demands
(Thakur et al., 2019). While FSR is primarily focused on in-
terpersonal aspects (e.g., active listening, trust, teamwork,
responsibility, motivation, and self-regularity), the targeted
outcome of this relationship is active engagement and an in-
crease in learning achievement (Spilt et al., 2011; Telli et al.,
2010).
Rapport-Building
Rapport-building is a recognized concept within the class-
room environment (Frisby et al., 2020; Overstreet, 2020).
EFL classrooms are one of the contexts that necessitate
rapport-building between the instructor and their students,
both individually and as a group (Shah, 2019). Without an ap-
proachable connection among the EFL participants, there is
a significant risk of interference to the learning process (Telli
et al., 2010). Furthermore, given the sudden surge in online
learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a positive FSR has
become necessary for meaningful interactions and connec-
tions despite limited communication (e.g., lack of body lan-
guage, technical issues) (Gao & Zhang, 2020). Research into
online classrooms (e.g., Adebisi & Oyeleke, 2018; Curry et al.,
2019; Glazier, 2016; Gregory & Bannister-Tyrrell, 2017; Young,
2006) has found that building-rapport helps to increase stu-
dents’ academic performance significantly. Students reported
that they appreciate instructors who make themselves ac-
cessible outside the classroom and offer various communica-
tion methods (e.g., phone, email, course LMS, office hours)
(Frisby et al., 2020).
According to Overstreet (2020), building-rapport and a
sense of community in online courses can be challenging, par-
ticularly, if those courses are also restricted by tight time con-
straints (p. 45). Nevertheless, Overstreet proposed the fol-
lowing strategies. First, the change begins from the learning
institution and instructors themselves: the instructor plays
the role of a facilitator to design a learning environment
that meets the learners’ needs with appropriate practices
and resources while being transparent in terms of grading
schemes for assessments and the availability of resources
(p. 45). Second, Overstreet (2020) stresses communication
strategies: connecting with students through short, targeted
emails or discussion posts that include tips and reminders
and emphasizing personal connections by sharing personal
stories, clarifying expectations for assignments, and alert-
ing students to deadlines. Lastly, social media applications
are recommended for further interaction so that students
can receive quick responses to questions, share thoughts,
discuss difficulties or concerns, support each other on var-
ious tasks, and build-rapport (Almusharraf & Almusharraf,
2021).
Summer 2022
Students’ Perceptions of FSR
Several existing studies (e.g., Adebisi & Oyeleke, 2018; Ful-
ford et al., 2014; Overstreet, 2020) have examined students’
perceptions of FSR, revealing it to be valued, appreciated,
and beneficial to learners’ educational processes while facil-
itating students’ motivation to invest in succeeding in a spe-
cific course. Research has revealed that students perceive
FSR in various terms, including faculty support and moti-
vational variables (Opdenakker et al., 2012; Yıldırım, 2012).
Student-perceived faculty support relates to qualities such as
responsiveness, attention, and tolerance during the learning
process (Barnes & Lock, 2013). The more students perceive
faculty support, the higher the level of learners’ engagement
(Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Hughes et al., 2012; Roorda et al.,
2011; Roorda et al., 2017).
Previous research has revealed that FSR is associated with
student learning (Curry et al., 2019). Students who believe
they had experienced rapport with their professor reported
greater appreciation for the instructor and the given ma-
terials, in addition to higher satisfaction levels in attend-
ing and engaging in the class (Hajovsky et al., 2020; Mason
et al., 2017). As previously mentioned, mutual acceptance
and understanding are essential; an instructor with a posi-
tive attitude and reputation for rapport-building can connect
with students, produce satisfactory results, design a collabo-
rative environment in the classroom, and stimulate students
to learn effectively (Webb & Barrett, 2014). Consequently, re-
search has shown that rapport-building increases students’
positive behaviors and productivity rates within the working
environment (Curry et al., 2019). Hence, several student out-
comes have been linked with rapport in the classroom.
Studies have further shown that FSR significantly links
with students’ perceptions of self-efficacy (Opdenakker et al.,
2012; Yıldırım, 2012). Research (Hajovsky et al., 2020; Hsieh
& Kang, 2010) has indicated that FSR associated with self-
efficacy is likely to be more supportive and beneficial in
examining the influence on academic performance because
self-efficacy has been revealed to be related to learning out-
comes. Also, faculty–student interpersonal rapport is a sig-
nificant interpreter of autonomous engagement. This finding
is also relevant in EFL classrooms because Lee (2015) clari-
fied how rapport in EFL writing classes helped students im-
prove their vocabulary skills and motivation level, seek fur-
ther support, and be self-reliant in their learning progress.
Starcher (2011) conducted almost 300 individual meetings
with students and found that one-to-one meetings between
students and instructors helped students become sufficiently
confident to ask questions both in and out of the classroom.
These unique connections also enabled open classroom dis-
cussions and student engagement, thereby causing interest
to increase rapidly. A robust FSR in the classroom supports
students emotionally by promoting self-assurance and self-
esteem (Oz, 2019).
Research has shown that self-efficacy leads to higher in-
trinsic motivation toward class engagement, and a more ex-
perienced FSR may be affected by the gender of the instruc-
tor (Opdenakker et al., 2012). Thakur et al. (2019) indicated
that students tend to maintain a higher level of rapport with
female educators. Similarly, Opdenakker et al. (2012) found
that female instructors are more empathetic with students,
reflecting on student engagement levels and outcomes. Con-
versely, Oz (2019) reported that the faculty’s gender does not
significantly influence student–faculty rapport.
© 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 71
 Research has also shown that FSR increases a positive digi-
tal learner presence (i.e., careful scaffolding throughout their
technical tool learning) in a simulative online environment
(Gregory & Bannister-Tyrrell, 2017). Gregory and Bannister-
Tyrrell (2017) utilized tools to explore learners’ presence in
their online learning through their projects. Their study re-
vealed that various online teaching tools (e.g., blogs, dis-
cussion boards, wikis, and 3D virtual worlds) provide stu-
dent presence and help them learn. However, Gregory and
Bannister-Tyrrell argued that these tools should follow care-
ful scaffolding throughout their learning to achieve a posi-
tive digital learner presence. These recent studies relating to
student-perceived faculty support and self-efficacy, intrinsic
motivation regarding the gender of the instructor, availability
of online teaching tools, and careful scaffolding of it through-
out a student’s academic career emphasize the significance of
building-rapport with students to develop their personal and
academic outcomes.
The Social Constructivism and Self-Determination
Theoretical Frameworks
The current research draws from the tenets of social
constructivism and self-determination theory. Within these
frameworks, students present independent learners’ features
in a social context, mainly reflected by faculty encourage-
ment of such behaviors and attitudes in online learning en-
vironments. Below are the qualities of social constructivism,
as summarized by Dickinson (1993), Jonassen and Duffy
(1992), Littlewood (1996), Mezirow (1991; 2000), and Ryan
(1991):
• Students are encouraged to be responsible, flexible, cu-
rious, and present positive attitudes toward learning.
• Students can participate in their learning development
(e.g., reflect, propose, revise, and select specific learning
responsibilities).
• Faculty take into consideration students’ ability and
readiness.
• Welcoming students’ mistakes as part of learning.
• Faculty provide students with guidance to be confident
in new roles and activities.
• Students play a role in authentic learning, and they are
given opportunities to make choices.
Within a rapport-building environment, self-determination
theory functions as an inclusive framework for understand-
ing dynamics that support or challenge intrinsic motivation
as well as self-directed extrinsic motivation and mental well-
ness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-determination theory aims to
encourage instructors to intrinsically motivate students and
connect with their personalities in social contexts (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2008, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Littlewood (1996)
noted that learners should be encouraged by their instruc-
tor to seek ways to discover knowledge and solve problems in
both synchronous and asynchronous online classrooms. When
instructors facilitate the learning environment, learners can
take the initiative and be engaged in social domains that en-
able the natural processes of self-motivation learning devel-
opment (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
While the self-determination framework looks at the in-
trinsic, positive individual inclination to move toward devel-
opment, social constructivism takes a step further to ensure
that learners’ interactions occur through social and mean-
ingful contexts rather than an individual experience. The
instructor’s role in FSR is more demanding and challeng-
72 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education.
ing because they provide constructive guidance for learn-
ers inside and outside the classroom (Barnes & Lock, 2013).
Little (2007) argued that instructors need to consider stu-
dents’ identity in social, psychological, and political dimen-
sions to understand the learner’s individuality, considering
that different teaching and learning contexts entail differ-
ent methodologies and attitudes to develop a successful re-
lationship. Students are driven by their intrinsic enthusiasm
to be accountable for their learning, take the risk, be keenly
involved in learning, and continuously evaluate their knowl-
edge (Almusharraf, 2018).
There is a critical need to fill the gap and address short-
comings within online programs by building a good rapport
relationship between the faculty and students based on mu-
tual acceptance and active interaction (Fulford et al., 2014).
FSR includes knowing students and their learning prefer-
ences and employing rapport with them to teach at a more
personal level. Curry et al. (2019) stated that students who
take advantage of positive relationships with their instructors
are more successful in their learning progress. Similarly, Ful-
ford et al. (2014) asserted that instructors who master build-
ing FSR have the advantage of boosting students’ interactions
and engagement in online learning.
FSR facilitates students’ positive attitudes, including self-
efficacy and self-confidence toward learning (Adebisi &
Oyeleke, 2018; Kelly et al., 2015; Roorda et al., 2017). This
positive relationship allows learners to self-regulate their
undesirable behaviors and maintain course activities (Kelly
et al., 2015). Other researchers (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997;
Caprara et al., 2006; Hajovsky et al., 2017; Mason et al., 2017;
Roorda et al., 2011; Webb & Barrett, 2014) have concluded
that FSR can positively influence student achievement,
characteristics, and behaviors. FSR also affects student-to-
student relationships and benefits learners’ affective and so-
cial development through interaction (Mashburn & Pianta,
2006). Glazier’s (2016) research revealed the significance
of building-rapport to improve online learning, energize the
class dynamics, and boost the students’ grades and retention
rates. Glazier found that dropout rates are higher and grades
are lower in online courses than in face-to-face classrooms.
Academic training is vital for instructors to develop a pos-
itive rapport with students and build positive relationships
among the students themselves (Lee, 2015 ). Young’s (2006)
study makes a valuable contribution. It serves as a guide
for online communication and offers elements of a success-
ful online course. Young stated that “Online learning should
not be an isolated, independent activity but rather one in
which students and instructors are partners in learning”
(p. 73). Explicitly, FSR in an online environment should be
based on faculty-specific qualities, such as being warm, in-
volved, approachable, open, and enthusiastic to offer aca-
demic and emotional support (Lowman, 1994). Essentially,
building faculty rapport involves setting up the structure and
clear boundaries as well as implementing responsive strate-
gies. These strategies include supporting social and respon-
sive skills connected through self- and social-awareness and
attaching emotions to manage and energize the classroom
environment (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Instructors also
display regular and intentional interactions and concerns for
each student and the entire classroom, reflecting care for stu-
dents’ learning and well-being over more extended periods
(McClure et al., 2010).
Furthermore, the instructor could use personalized expe-
riences and examples to share with their students to improve
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
Table 1
Instructor Behavior across the Two Classrooms (Classroom Observations)
Participants The Instructor’s Method
Class 1: N = 172 FSR: The instructor builds a close,
pleasant-sounding relationship with their
students. He tries to bond, interact, and
positively understand each student (e.g.,
finding common interests and values,
trust and respect, and connecting in
personal, social, and academic ways).
The Instructor’s Behavior
• Encouraged students to be more involved in
the learning process
• Used fun icebreakers and other interactive
activities to motivate the students
• Taught beyond the learning objective and
focused on lifelong skills (i.e., critical
thinking, adaptability)
• Asked about the learners’ social and
personal lives
• Encouraged the students to contribute
• Showed empathy toward others
• Customized his lessons to match the
learners’ interests
• Assisted students outside the classroom

Class 2: N = 104 Non-FSR: The instructor performs the

central role (lecturing), and students often
focus on something that the teacher is
saying (listening) or write down
information (notetaking). No effort to
build relationships is observed.
• Dominated the classroom discussion
• Taught to achieve the learning objectives
• Did not encourage students’ inquiries,
points of view, or contributions
• No lesson customization (teacher is
lecturing, asking questions, and students are
answering and writing notes)
• Students’ personal and social lives were not
discussed
• No/limited outside classroom contact

online classroom rapport. Emails, personalized videos, indi-
vidualized feedback, and customized lectures are examples of
FSR (Glazier, 2016). Furthermore, qualities such as knowing
the students’ names, talking to them personally, and praising
them have positively contributed to the online academic com-
munity (Fulford et al., 2014). With technological advances,
there are several modes of teaching available for instructors
to integrate through online learning, including tutorials, col-
laborative learning platforms, one-to-one meetings, and con-
sultations; these help students to efficiently build rapport
with the faculty and their peers (Fulford et al., 2014; Over-
street, 2020; Wilson et al., 2010).
Saudi EFL Learning Context
A plethora of studies (e.g., Almusharraf, 2020; Alzubi & Singh,
2019; Shah, 2019) address the absence of autonomous author-
ity and leadership skills in EFL language learning. Some in-
structors tend to dominate the class environment within the
Saudi context, giving students little or no scope for open dis-
cussion, exportation, or further investigation (Almusharraf,
2020). The hierarchical structures in faculty leadership per-
form well considering the challenges and constraints associ-
ated with the EFL learning process (Hughes, 2012). Qutob
and Madini (2020) studied 114 Saudi EFL learners to ex-
amine their attitudes toward the implications of corrective
feedback on their written assignments. The mixed-method
study results revealed that most learners described their need
for involvement in active learning, such as constructive feed-
back, as an opportunity to self-assess, negotiate and edit their
work. The study results go hand in hand with Lee’s (2015)
study outcome, which reported that rapport in university En-
glish writing consultations confers significant advantages and
implications for EFL learners. Lee’s research recommends us-
ing FSR reinforcement strategies such as greetings, exchang-
ing conversations, praising learners, allowing questions, and
encouraging learners to use self-assessment and peer assess-
ment to develop their English academic skills.
Methods
The current study utilized a between-group comparison study
with two EFL online classes. Two groups were placed un-
der observation. One group was subjected to treatment; the
instructor used FSR strategies in one classroom but not in
the other. Therefore, the comparison focused on interactions
(level of engagement) and perceptions between students in
an online EFL class who experienced FSR class and students
in a similar classroom who did not receive any FSR building
classroom.
The effect of rapport-building (see Table 1) was examined
through online classroom observation of the same instructor
and subject matter (English literature course). There were
276 female and male EFL students in total for the classroom
observations. In one classroom, FSR was applied (the influ-
encer group, N = 172, 56 males and 116 females). In the
other classroom, a nonrapport-building method (the compar-
ison group, N = 104, 23 males and 81 females) was utilized.
The data were collected during the summer term of 2020 (4
weeks in total of classroom observations; 8 classroom meet-
ings for both classes) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summer 2022 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 73

Table 2
Data Collection Matrix
Method Participants
Classroom Class 1: N = 172
observations Class 2: N = 104
Online survey Class 1: N = 92
25 males and 67 females
Class 2: N = 7223 males and 49
females
The Context, Faculty, and Students
The instructor was purposefully selected because he was will-
ing to be involved in this examination. He has a PhD in
English Literature and more than 12 years of experience and
has regularly taught English to EFL learners through En-
glish literature courses. Since the FSR was a new method
for the selected instructor, he was given specific instructions
regarding implementing the FSR building in only one of his
classrooms. The instructor was directed to use several active
practices when teaching the FSR class, including one-to-one
and group discussions, promoting student leadership, and im-
plementing interactive tools such as ice breakers, collabo-
rative assignments, and gamification tools. Before starting
the summer term, the instructor received training (i.e., oral
presentation), materials (scholarly articles from the litera-
ture, e.g., Overstreet, 2020; Young, 2006), and specific guid-
ance to aid this process. For the FSR, the characteristics
were adapted from Barnes and Lock (2013), while the non-
FSR was adapted from Almusharraf (2020). Students’ behav-
iors were determined based on the extent of qualities drawn
from social constructivism’s theoretical framework (Dickin-
son, 1993; Jonassen & Duffy, 1992; Littlewood, 1996; Mezirow,
1991, 2000) and self-determination theory (Ryan, 1991).
In the nonrapport classroom, the instructor was asked to
use (what he used to do) only presentations and to lead the
classroom discussion following his daily routines and activi-
ties (see Table 2). Both groups received equal opportunity to
access online education during these courses (i.e., materials,
responsiveness, examination). Nonetheless, only one class-
room was able to access the intervention method. For exam-
ple, both classrooms were permitted to contact the instruc-
tor via email and through blackboard multitools outside the
course. However, qualities such as being warm, involved, and
approachable to offer academic and emotional support were
only offered to those in the treatment group. Students in the
rapport classrooms were taught using the rapport-building
techniques discussed above, and they also completed a sur-
vey. At the same time, an investigation into the students in
the nonrapport classrooms was conducted using the methods
discussed in Table 2, and they also completed a survey. For the
online survey, both the experimental group (N = 92, 25 males
and 67 females) and the control group (N = 72, 23 males and
49 females) voluntarily participated in the study.
Students’ Backgrounds
All participating students were recruited from the English de-
partment at a public university in Saudi Arabia, ranging in
74 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Procedure Data
2 classrooms focused COPUS data, audio
observation (8 visits; 100 recorded data, and
min each) (June–July transcripts
2020)
The online survey was sent Statistical data
to both classrooms
separately
age from 21 to 27 years. They were EFL juniors and seniors
enrolled as English majors. These students had passed the
university English entrance exam and the preparatory year
program before they were able to undertake their desired aca-
demic majors. Some students had taken the IELTS or TOEFL
exams (The two main English language proficiency tests ac-
cepted at universities worldwide are the Test of English as
a Foreign Language [TOEFL] and the International English
Language Testing System [IELTS]). Therefore, they were ex-
empted from the English language curriculum in the previ-
ous year. Preassessment of the students’ English knowledge
was measured using their second language (L2) standardized
proficiency scores from the Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC; M = 470 out of 990, SD = 183). Self-
reported speaking skills ranging from 1 (poor) to 10 (high)
(M = 4.22, SD = 2.07), and self-reported English writing
skills ranging from 1 (poor) to 10 (high) (M = 4.23, SD =
2.00). A self-reported assessment of second language profi-
ciency revealed adequate validity in previous EFL research
(Kao & Reynolds, 2017). It was considered a suitable mea-
sure to triangulate L2 proficiency in the current study. Based
on the data presented, the participants’ English levels were
deemed to be acceptable to understand the survey’s items and
comprehend the materials delivered in English without trans-
lation. Before the data collection process, the researcher ob-
tained the participants’ permission. Further, the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) reviewed the study design and proce-
dures. The research ethics were authorized (PSU IRB-2020-
05-0040).
The Course
The two undergraduate English literature courses (three
credits each) were prerequisite courses that entailed 6 weeks
of fully online instruction; however, the last weeks were not
observed due to the final exams. The classes ran three times
a week for 2 h on each occasion, and engagement/interaction
was typically undertaken online. The goal of English litera-
ture was to prepare students to understand cultural, social,
historical, and political issues elevated by the literature. The
English literature course represents a challenging demand
for engaging students in the online environment because it in-
cludes historical backgrounds and advanced vocabulary. Both
courses had the same instructor, materials, and online learn-
ing platforms (Blackboard). This course was designed for
EFL learners, and nonnative English speakers were eligible to
be enrolled. The course was compulsory, and students earned
letter grades by the end of the term.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
Procedures
Online Survey
The survey was conducted using LimeSurvey, an online sur-
vey platform that records responses to electronic surveys, and
this was deemed feasible for students. The survey was admin-
istered after the course. Participants were given time (up to
a month after the class ended) to complete the survey to en-
sure they answered the questions correctly and willingly. The
survey was not mandatory, so a total of only 164 responses
were received. Students from Class 1 (N = 92) and Class 2
(N = 72) completed the online survey from their comput-
ers or phones. The participants were briefed about the study’s
method, aim, and focus before completing the survey. The re-
searcher distributed the surveys to the students’ email ad-
dresses and explained that the collected data were confiden-
tial. Students were notified that only the researcher would
view the survey responses and that the instructor had no con-
trol over the collected data. All personal information would be
deidentified and would not be associated with the instructor.
The students’ consent was obtained digitally. The participants
were alerted that one course had active FSR while the other
did not, and the study would not put anyone at risk academi-
cally. They were also informed that the survey’s primary focus
was to explore the extent of the relationship between FSR and
students’ engagement. Furthermore, the researcher read all
of the research items to the participants who were told to ask
(contact the researcher’s phone or email) if there is a need
for more explanation. The participating students were not re-
warded or given any extra marks for completing the survey.
The researcher developed the survey based on rapport-
building in educational classrooms from the extant literature
(e.g., Overstreet, 2020; Wilson et al., 2010) and professional
experience (8 years as an EFL postsecondary instructor in the
KSA). The questions were pilot tested by 40 EFL undergradu-
ates, and they were reviewed and validated by five instructors,
all of whom hold a MA or PhD in the field of applied linguis-
tics and education. Initial questions in the survey prompted
the respondents to provide demographic information about
themselves. The remaining items were designed on a Likert
scale (Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Undecided = 3;
Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5) to explore their perceptions
of the implemented teaching approach (FSR). For a detailed
description of the personal and academic items, see Appendix
A. The rationale for keeping the “3” category as “undecided”
was to avoid forcing some sense of agreement.
The internal consistency of the two sections of the survey
(FSR at a personal level and FSR at an academic level) was
calculated using SPSS version 26. Cronbach’s α scores for the
FSR at a personal level and FSR at an academic level were
found to be 0.874 and 0.928, respectively, suggesting that the
two scales showed a very high degree of reliability.
Classroom Observation
As a nonparticipant observer, the researcher observed stu-
dent and instructor behaviors once a week for each of the 4
weeks of the course using the Classroom Observation Proto-
col for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) developed by Smith
et al. (2013).
The researcher discussed and prearranged the research
design with the primary instructor of the two classrooms. The
online classes were live lectures delivered via Blackboard,
Summer 2022
and they were recorded, then were available to be watched
later. While the instructor used live video to display himself
or present the class materials, the students mainly joined us-
ing audio because the school regulations did not mandate a
video connection.
Each observation session lasted for 100 min, which was the
duration of each instructional period. During each observa-
tion session, observations of student and instructor behavior
were recorded at 2-min intervals. The researcher recorded
the students’ engagement level during each 2-min interval
and identified their engagement as either low, medium, or
high. Smith et al. (2013) defined the measurements of stu-
dent engagement as follows:
Having a measure of student engagement is useful for pro-
viding feedback to the instructor and judging many instruc-
tional activities’ overall effectiveness. With the coding of the
levels of engagement simplified to only discriminating be-
tween low (0%–20% of the students engaged), medium, or
high (≥80% of the students engaged), some observers, par-
ticularly those who had some experience of observing levels
of student engagement, could easily code engagement along
with the other two categories and there was reasonable con-
sistency between the observers (p. 620).
Within the observed classrooms, the measurements of stu-
dent engagement were captured based on the extent to which
students are involved in the learning process (asking ques-
tions, answering questions; see Appendix B). Specifically, the
researcher recorded the virtual sessions, concentrating on
understanding the differences and similarities in both class-
rooms, that is, the same topic for the same level of students
using different teaching approaches. The researcher also in-
vestigated the culture of these online classrooms regarding
the length of the lectures, wait time, one-to-one guidance,
classroom atmosphere, classroom management, student level
of interaction, students’ responsibilities, rewards, students’
performances in the classes, activities, individual work and
assignments, group discussion, student questions, students’
predictions of answers, students’ motivation, and level of
engagement. For example, the code “Ind: Individual think-
ing/problem solving” only would be marked when an instruc-
tor openly asks the students to think about a clicker question
or another question/problem. When the instructor is only lec-
turing/talking during courses, the students are marked to be
listening by default, regardless of whether they are passively
or actively involved. Descriptions of the COPUS student and
instructor observational codes can be seen in Appendix B.
For the classroom observations, only the researcher ob-
served online courses held at different times. However, three
more observers (English professors holding a MA degree or
above) were requested to watch the recorded video lectures
and ensure no bias from a single rater/observer (Vartuli &
Rohs, 2009). The three raters were provided with training
sessions to get familiarized with the COPUS protocol. The re-
sults reported the average rating between the researcher and
raters. Permission to record the sessions was obtained, there-
fore, the observers were permitted to view the recorded ses-
sions and then provide ratings. They could rewatch the ses-
sion if needed. Furthermore, interrater reliability between
the score for each observed online course and the exter-
nal rater was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Kappa values
ranged from 0.695 to 0.943, and kappa values of between 0.61
and 0.8 are substantial. In contrast, all values greater than 0.8
are considered to be almost perfect (Cohen, 1960).
© 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 75
Table 3
Codes for What the “Students Are Doing” in Non-FSR versus FSR-Building Classrooms
Non-FSR building
Activity Frequency
Listening 186
Individual thinking
Working in groups on a
worksheet activity
Other group activity
Answering questions 36
posed by the instructor
Students asking questions 7 3.0%
Whole class discussion
Students predicting 4 1.7%
Student presentations
Analysis and Results
The following analysis includes data from the classroom ob-
servation protocol and students’ surveys of their perceptions
of the instructor’s attempted FSR building. The analysis used
for the survey responses of FSR was conducted using SPSS
version 26.
Online Survey Analysis
A Shapiro–Wilk test was run to determine whether the de-
pendent variables (FSR at a personal level and FSR at an
academic level) were normally distributed for each type of in-
struction: rapport-building or nonrapport-building. The aca-
demic level questionnaire data were found to be approxi-
mately normally distributed among the participants in the
rapport-building group with skewness of –0.425 (SE = 0.251)
and kurtosis of 0.227 (SE = 0.498) and among participants
in the nonrapport-building group with skewness of 0.088 (SE
= 0.285) and kurtosis of –0.683 (SE = 0.563). The personal-
level questionnaire data were found to be approximately
normally distributed among the participants in the rapport-
building group with skewness of -0.374 (SE = 0.251) and
kurtosis of 0.616 (SE = 0.498). However, the personal level
questionnaire data from the participants in the nonrapport-
building group were not normally distributed, highlighted by
the skewness of –0.250 (SE = 0.285) and kurtosis of –1.051
(SE = 0.563), which indicates significant skewness and kur-
tosis (Sposito et al., 1983).
Given that not all the data were normally distributed, the
decision was made to compare the survey results for the two
instruction types using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U
test. The results of this analysis revealed a significant differ-
ence between the rapport-building group (M = 3.85) and the
nonrapport-building group (M = 3.30), U = 1784.000, p <
0.001 for FSR at a personal level. Likewise, this analysis in-
dicated a significant difference between the rapport-building
group (M = 3.97) and the nonrapport-building group (M =
3.21), U = 1441.500, p < 0.001 for FSR at an academic level.
Classroom Observation Analysis
During the observation periods, the researcher focused on ob-
serving what the students were doing and what the instructor
76 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Type of Instruction
FSR building
% Frequency %
79.8% 23 8.7%
8 3.0%
19 7.2%
43 16.3%
15.5% 82 31.1%
38 14.4%
9 3.4%
32 12.1%
10 3.8%
was doing. These results are described in the following sec-
tions.
What the Students Are Doing
Table 3 provides information about the total number of times
(the frequency) a particular activity was observed for the
non-FSR and FSR building groups. It also shows the percent-
age of times each activity was recorded for the total visits of
observations (4 times for each class). Note the stark differ-
ence between the number of instances (186) in which stu-
dents were only engaged in listening to the instructor within
the non-FSR class, as opposed to the FSR class (23). The
remaining frequencies and percentages for each activity for
both groups of students are presented in Table 3.
What the Instructor Is Doing
The researcher also utilized the COPUS to observe the in-
structor’s performance in both classrooms. As shown in Ta-
ble 4, it can be observed in the FSR group that the instruc-
tor both posed questions through the class 89 times while
both following up on queries or activities and answering ques-
tions a total of 49 times. Within the non-FSR group, it was
observed that in the four classes, the instructor was lecturing
with a frequency of 181 times, which was followed by real-time
writing with a frequency of 47 times. The remaining frequen-
cies and percentages for each activity for both groups are de-
scribed in Table 4.
Engagement
During the observation sessions, student engagement was
also recorded in each of the two instructional settings. As
shown in Table 5, students in the FSR group had a high level
of learner engagement 64.5% of the time and a medium level
of engagement 7.9% of the time. In contrast, it was found that
within the non-FSR group, there was a low level of learner
engagement 77.0% of the time and a medium level of engage-
ment 20.0% of the time.
Discussion
The present study has shown that FSR in classrooms results
in increased engagement among students in a learning envi-
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
Table 4
Codes for What the “Instructor Is Doing” in Non-FSR versus FSR-Building Classrooms
Non-FSR building
Activity Frequency
Lecturing 181
Real-time writing 47
Following up on 7 2.5%
questions or activities
Posing questions 32
Answering student 7 2.5%
questions
Moving through the
class (i.e., guiding)
One-on-one discussions
with students
Table 5
Students’ Level of Engagement in Non-FSR versus FSR-Building Classrooms
Non-FSR building
Level of Engagement Frequency
Low 181
Medium 47
High 7 3.0%
ronment; this between-group comparison study is consistent
with Thakur et al. (2019) and Starcher (2011). They believe
that building a strong FSR with students enhances the level of
motivation and communication in the classroom. The results
of this analysis reveal a significant difference between the
rapport-building group and the nonrapport-building group
(p < 0.001) for FSR at a personal and academic level. Specif-
ically, it was observed that the mean value of instructor’s
attitudes within the rapport-building group at the personal
(M = 3.85) and academic levels (M = 3.97) are significantly
greater than the nonrapport-building group’s personal level
(M = 3.30) and academic level (M = 3.21). A significant
positive relationship exists between learners’ perceptions
of the instructor’s attitudes in building FSR versus the
non-FSR-building classroom (p < 0.001).
The current results of the study align with the self-
determination theory framework, which promotes encourag-
ing, motivating, and connecting with the student personality
in social contexts to cultivate online classroom productivity
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008, 2012). The current study did not
focus on learning achievements and assessment, but current
research results go well with Lee’s (2015) study outcome. The
results state that FSR in the university EFL context has sig-
nificant advantages and implications for EFL learners. The
present results also lead to similar conclusions to Barnes and
Lock’s (2013) study, where students’ perceptions of FSR are
found to be significantly associated with qualities such as re-
sponsiveness, kindness, and acceptance when teaching the
subject matter.
Regarding the second research question, the means for
both observed classrooms were compared. The findings indi-
cate a significant difference in student engagement between
the influencer and comparison groups because the corre-
Summer 2022
Type of Instruction
FSR building
% Frequency %
66.1% 21 6.6%
17.2% 6 1.9%
49 15.4%
11.7% 89 28.0%
49 15.4%
89 28.0%
15 4.7%
Type of Instruction
FSR building
% Frequency %
77.0% 21 27.6%
20.0% 6 7.9%
49 64.5%
sponding p value is less than 0.05. The current findings are
directly in accordance with previous results that confirmed
a positive relationship between FSR and the level of engage-
ment among students (Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Roorda et al.,
2017; Thakur et al., 2019). Furthermore, the results of the
current study broadly support those of Gregory and Bannister-
Tyrrell’s (2017) study, which revealed that there is a strong re-
lationship between FSR and the learner’s digital presence in
a simulative online environment that utilizes a variety of on-
line teaching tools (i.e., blogs, discussion boards, wikis, and
3D virtual worlds).
The results of the experiment provide clear support for
FSR, particularly among EFL learners. A similar pattern
of results obtained in the empirical literature designated
their need for involvement in active learning, which in-
cluded reinforcement strategies such as greetings, exchang-
ing chats, praising learners, and encouraging learners to be
actively included in the learning process (e.g., Hajovsky et al.,
2020; Hughes, 2012; Lee, 2015). Additionally, the research
findings might be considered a further validation of the previ-
ous argument of an inclusive language learning environment
in which “teacher practices that establish rapport, center ed-
ucation around the needs and knowledge of learners, and
equalizes power dynamics between teacher and student are
the precursor to pedagogies that respect and negotiate differ-
ences among all learners” (Sybing, 2019, p. 33). Fulford et al.
(2014) claim that instructors who master FSR building ben-
efit from increased student connections and engagement in
online learning. Thus, these critical considerations provide a
good starting point for discussion and further research to pro-
mote students’ participation by improving online classroom
rapport and using personalized experiences and examples to
share with the students.
© 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 77
Conclusion
The current research strives to fill the gap in the empiri-
cal literature related to the lack of information about how
FSR could be developed with all learners (e.g., including
challenging and unmotivated students) within the EFL on-
line classroom environment. The current research adds to a
developing corpus of research indicating that FSR is initiated
through the devoted attempts to earn students’ trust and
establish a healthy relationship with them to offer a more
productive, constructive, and entertaining classroom envi-
ronment (Glazier, 2016; Thakur et al., 2019). However, reach-
ing this stage requires time and effort, and even though FSR
might not have an immediate result in an online setting, it can
help learners cope and better adapt to such an environment
(Almusharraf & Almusharraf, 2021; Overstreet, 2020). The
research results help to understand the critical approaches
to building rapport with students and employing interaction
methods to enhance the productivity of online classrooms.
Although the study yielded promising results associated
with the EFL context, the investigation suffers from several
limitations. First, the scope of the study was limited to one
public institution in one city in KSA with specific English de-
partment programs. A second limitation is that it was based
only on a survey design and classroom observations; there-
fore, students’ oral and written attitudes should be captured
in future studies. Furthermore, the survey items were de-
signed as positively worded questions; thus, future employ-
ment and adaptation of the scale should consider having
reverse-scored items to account for individuals who select the
same response for all items or any concern about social desir-
ability when completing the scale. Also, it appears possible
that students generally rated the class based on how enjoy-
able they found it. Hence, adding more measures to the sur-
vey scale to measure students’ overall rating of the course as
control would reinforce the survey construct validity.
The study also lacks generalizability when addressing cul-
tural and demographic factors (e.g., age, language experi-
ence, technical competence). The research’s generalizability
and transferability require investigation within a larger popu-
lation that encompasses students from different majors, eth-
nicities, and language levels. The current research also con-
firmed FSR student perceptions within the classroom envi-
ronment; their academic outcomes were not intended to be
evaluated for the purpose of the study. Thus, future studies
might investigate the formal assessment. It is also suggested
that future explorations consider students’ personalities and
learning strategies within an online learning environment.
Several recommendations can be made for future EFL in-
structors based on the findings of the current research. Fur-
thermore, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is highly
anticipated that more online experience will likely continue
within higher education. Moreover, there is a possibility that
the final results for student engagement have been influ-
enced by the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., students’ sickness or
home circumstances). Specifically, within the examined KSA
EFL context, many students have experienced online learn-
ing for the first time. Regardless of being used to Blackboard
(i.e., submitting their assignments and accessing their course
materials), the mainstreaming of online lectures might play
a role in their overall interactions.
Furthermore, instructors come from various backgrounds
and levels of expertise; nevertheless, those who reflect on the
teaching practice find that FSR has a significant influence on
78 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education.
students’ responsiveness and engagement (Overstreet, 2020;
Young, 2006) and report online teaching as a more rewarding
experience (Glazier, 2016). Thus, reflective practice is rec-
ommended for faculty members to continuously think of their
teaching practice, reflect and modify their performances to
meet their learners’ specific needs, and design and maintain
a healthy and encouraging relationship with individual stu-
dents. In addition, the findings presented in the current re-
search should form part of a more extensive discussion about
university classroom techniques and the implications of cre-
ating a classroom community to maximize significant learner
results in higher education. Previous research (e.g., Fulford
et al., 2014; Overstreet, 2020) has suggested several modes of
teaching. These include tutorials, collaborative learning plat-
forms, one-to-one meetings, and consultations that help stu-
dents in building rapport with faculty and other peers, which
instructors could use to integrate through online learning.
Lastly, Young (2006) suggested elements of a successful on-
line course creating independent activity in which students
and instructors form a partnership in education.
The data suggest that there is still a long way to go to
confirm FSR’s practicality and effectiveness. Nevertheless, it
can be used as a valuable guide to implement strategies, pro-
vide illustrations, and use social media tools for a quick ex-
change to develop online relationships with students within
a restricted timeframe. The study’s evidence is captivating
and states that faculties should be open to discussion and col-
laboration and make an effort to connect with their students
to provide a more meaningful teaching experience for them-
selves and a more profitable learning experience for both the
faculty and students.
Acknowledgment
The researcher thanks Prince Sultan University for funding
this research project (Educational Research Lab- ERL-CHS-
2021/9/1).
ORCID
Norah Almusharraf https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6362-4502
References
Almusharraf, N. (2018). English as a foreign language learner auton-
omy in vocabulary development: Variation in student autonomy lev-
els and teacher support. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching
& Learning, 11(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2018-
0022
Almusharraf, N. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on promoting learner
autonomy for vocabulary development: A case study. Cogent Educa-
tion, 7(1), 1823154. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1823154
Almusharraf, A., & Almusharraf, N. (2021). Socio-interactive practices
and personality within an EFL online learning environment. Edu-
cation and Information Technologies, 26, 3947–3966. https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10449-8
Adebisi, T. A., & Oyeleke, O. (2018). Promoting effective teaching and
learning in online environment: A blend of pedagogical and andra-
gogical models. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy,
12(1), 153–171.
Alzubi, A. A. F., & Singh, M. K. A. (2019). Investigating reading learn-
ing strategies through smartphones on Saudi learners’ psychological
autonomy in reading context. International Journal of Instruction,
12(2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1227
Barnes, B. D., & Lock, G. (2013). Student perceptions of effective for-
eign language faculty: A quantitative investigation from a Korean
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
 university. Australian Journal of Faculty Education, 38(2), 19–36.
http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n2.2
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The faculty-child relationship and
children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology,
35(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Fac-
ulty’s self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and stu-
dents’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal
of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2006.09.001
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
Curry, S., Gravina, N., Sleiman, A., & Richard, E. (2019). The ef-
fects of engaging in rapport-building behaviors on productivity and
discretionary effort. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-
ment, 39(3–4), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.166
7940
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro
theory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian
Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and de-
velopment within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-
determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford University Press Inc.
Dickinson, L. (1993). Talking shop: Aspects of autonomous learning.
ELTJ, 47(4), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.4.330
Frisby, B. N., Hosek, A. M., & Beck, A. C. (2020). The role of classroom
relationships as sources of academic resilience and hope. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 68(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.
2020.1779099
Fulford, H., Bailey, M., Stephen, G., & McWhirr, S. (June 25–27,
2014) Building online learner communities: An activity theory per-
spective. Stirling, UK: ProPEL International Conference. http://hdl.
handle.net/10059/2934
Glazier, R. (2016). Building rapport to improve retention and success in
online classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 437–
456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1155994
Gao, L. X., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times:
Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teach-
ing to tide over COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2396.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653
Gregory, S., & Bannister-Tyrrell, M. (2017). Digital learner presence and
online teaching tools: Higher cognitive requirements of online learn-
ers for effective learning. Research and Practice in Technology En-
hanced Learning, 12, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-
0059-3
Hajovsky, D. B., Mason, B. A., & McCune, L. A. (2017). Faculty-
student relationship quality and academic achievement in elemen-
tary school. A longitudinal examination of gender differences. Jour-
nal of School Psychology, 63, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2017.04.001
Hajovsky, D. B., Oyen, K. A., Chesnut, S. R., & Curtin, S. J. (2020).
Faculty-student relationship quality and math achievement: The me-
diating role of faculty self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 57(1),
111–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22322
Hsieh, P. P., & Kang, H. S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their
interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning,
60, 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00570.x
Hughes, J. N. (2012). Faculty-student relationships and school adjust-
ment: Progress and remaining challenges. Attachment & Human De-
velopment, 14(3), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.
672288
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. (2007). The influence of student-faculty and
parent-faculty relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement
and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 99, 39–51. http://10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39
Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., Kwok, O. M., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y.
(2012). Indirect effects of child reports of faculty-student relation-
Summer 2022
ship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2),
350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026339
Jonassen, D. H., & Duffy, T. M. (1992). Constructivism and the technol-
ogy of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom:
Faculty social and emotional competence in relation to student and
classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–
525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Kao, C. W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2017). A study on the relationship among
Taiwanese college students’ EFL writing strategy use, writing ability
and writing difficulty. English Teaching and Learning, 41(4), 31–67.
https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2017.41.4.02
Kelly, H. M., Siwatu, K. O., Tost, J. R., & Martinez, J. (2015). Culturally
familiar tasks on reading performance and self-efficacy of culturally
and linguistically diverse students. Educational Psychology in Prac-
tice, 31(3), 293–313. https://doi.10.1080/02667363.2015.1033616
Lee, C. (2015). More than just language advising: Rapport in univer-
sity English writing consultations and implications for tutor training.
Language and Education, 29(5), 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500782.2015.1038275
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental con-
siderations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Lan-
guage Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.2167/
illt040.0
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System,
24(4), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5
Lowman, J. (1994). Professors as performers and motivators. Col-
lege Teaching, 42, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1994.
9926844
Mashburn, A., & Pianta, R. (2006). Social relationships and school readi-
ness. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 151–176. https:
//doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7
Mason, B. A., Hajovsky, D. B., McCune, L. A., & Turek, J. J. (2017). Con-
flict, closeness, and academic skills: A longitudinal examination of
the faculty-student relationship. School Psychology Review, 46(2),
177–189. https://doi.10.17105/SPR-2017-0020.V46-2
Mehrabian, A. (1995). Relationships among three general approaches
to personality description. The Journal of Psychology, 129(5), 565–
581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1995.9914929
McClure, L., Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2010). Can school structures
improve faculty student relationships? The relationship between ad-
visory programs, personalization and students’ academic achieve-
ment. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(17). https://doi.org/
10.14507/epaa.v18n17.2010
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning.
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives
on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
Opdenakker, M. C., Maulana, R., & Den Brok, P. (2012). Faculty-student
interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one
school year: Developmental changes and linkage. School Effective-
ness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09243453.2011.619198
Overstreet, M. (2020). Strategies for building community among learn-
ers in online courses. College Teaching, 68(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/
10.1080/87567555.2019.1707756
Oz, A. S. (2019). Evaluating the student-faculty relationship in elemen-
tary schools: My Faculty & I-Child. Asian Journal of Education and
Training, 5(1), 8–17. https://doi.10.20448/journal.522.2019.51.8.17
Qutob, M. M., & Madini, A. A. (2020). Saudi EFL learners’ preferences
of the corrective feedback on written assignment. English Language
Teaching, 13(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n2p16
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F., & Koomen, H. (2017). Affective
faculty-student relationships and students’ engagement and achieve-
ment: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of en-
gagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.
org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011).
The influence of affective faculty-student relationships on students’
school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Re-
© 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 79
 view of Educational Research, 81, 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Please select from the following scale: (Strongly disagree
0034654311421793 = 1; Disagree = 2; Undecided = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly agree
Ryan, R. M. (1991). The nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. = 5)
In J. Strauss & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary ap- At a personal level:
proaches (pp. 208–238). Springer.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the 1. My instructor knows me by name.
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbe- 2. My instructor knows something personal about me.
ing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://psycnet.apa.org/ 3. My instructor is empathic.
doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from
4. My instructor is enthusiastic.
a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, prac- 5. My instructor is flexible.
tices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6. My instructor listens to me well.
61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 7. My instructor uses body language.
Shah, S. R. A. (2019). The emergence of faculty leadership in TESOL: 8. My instructor is honest.
An exploratory study of English language faculty as faculty leaders 9. My instructor smiles often.
in the Saudi EFL context. Online Submission, 5(1), 136–156. https: 10. My instructor is respectful.
//doi.10.31578/jebs.v5i1.196 11. My instructor is kind.
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The 12. My instructor expresses their feelings.
classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): 13. My instructor cares about my success.
A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom prac-
tices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.
14. My instructor shares personal stories.
org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154 15. My instructor wants to make a difference.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Faculty wellbeing: 16. My instructor welcomes diversity.
The importance of faculty-student relationships. Educational Psy- 17. My instructor assists students with special needs.
chology Review, 23(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011- 18. My instructor owns up to their own mistakes.
9170-y 19. My instructor apologizes when needed.
Sposito, A., Hand, M. L., & Skarpness, B. (1983). On the efficiency of 20. My instructor shows an interest in their lives outside of
using the sample kurtosis in selecting optimal lp estimators. Commu- school.
nications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 12(3), 265– 21. My instructor devotes time to the end of the class for
272. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918308812318 questions and concerns.
Starcher, K. (2011). Intentionally building rapport with students.
College Teaching, 59(4), 162–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.
22. My instructor pays attention and respects students’
2010.516782 nonverbal behavior.
Sybing, R. (2019). Making connections: Student-teacher rapport in 23. My instructor shows mutual respect and trust.
higher education classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching 24. My instructor is reasonable.
and Learning, 19(5), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5. 25. My instructor supports me in my extracurricular activ-
26578 ities.
Telli, S., Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). The importance of faculty- 26. My instructor celebrates my success in school and else-
student interpersonal relationships for Turkish students’ attitudes where.
towards science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27. My instructor incorporates possible anxiety concerns.
28(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.501750
Thakur, D., Shri, C., & Vij, A. K. (2019). Impact of faculty student rap- At an academic level:
port on classroom environment. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research, 2(3), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.34256/ajir1935 1. My instructor sends me a welcoming email.
Vartuli, S., & Rohs, J. (2009). Assurance of outcome evaluation: Cur- 2. My instructor sends me a friendly reminder email.
riculum fidelity. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(4), 3. My instructor provides a clear course structure.
502–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594677 4. My instructor shows me my strengths and weaknesses.
Webb, N., & Barrett, L. (2014). Student views of instructor-student rap- 5. My instructor takes extra time to explain the course
port in the college classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 14(2), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i2.
material.
4259 6. My instructor welcomes me to pay a visit to their office.
Yıldırım, S. (2012). Faculty support, motivation, learning strategy use 7. My instructor is always accessible.
and achievement: A multilevel mediation model. The Journal of 8. My instructor is adaptable.
Experimental Education, 80(2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 9. My instructor is patient.
00220973.2011.596855 10. My instructor values meaningful learning contribu-
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher tions.
education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65– 11. My instructor allows room for creativity.
77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_2 12. My instructor encourages positive collaboration.
13. My instructor encourages participation.
14. My instructor provides positive feedback.
Appendix A. 15. My instructor takes advantage of teachable moments.
Faculty–student rapport scale survey 16. My instructor makes the class enjoyable.
(Future adaptation of this survey should consider 17. My instructor asks individual students and encourages
adding negative items) inquiry learning.
Section A: Personal information 18. My instructor allows students to explore and ask ques-
tions in the classroom.
19. My instructor checks for my presence and asks me if I
1. Age miss school.
2. Gender (male/female) 20. My instructor leads with positive emotion.

80 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
 21. My instructor replies quickly to my emails and gives 25. My instructor allows me to make decisions about learn-
continuous feedback. ing progress and classroom activities when it is appro-
22. My instructor incorporates humour into their lessons. priate.
23. My instructor devotes time to the end of the class for 26. My instructor involves me in tasks and activities.
questions and concerns. 27. My instructor tells me where I stand academically and
24. My instructor incorporates personal stories and expe- provides support if needed.
riences within their lessons.
Appendix B.
Classroom observation protocol for undergraduate
STEM (COPUS) developed by Smith et al. (2013)
Descriptions of the COPUS student and instructor obser-
vational codes

Summer 2022 © 2021 by the National Council on Measurement in Education. 81

View publication stats