MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389097391 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v68i3.72342

Establishing Rapport in Higher Education Classrooms

2022· article· en· W4389097391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua Fitzgerald, John Hooker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmediacyPsychologyCLARITYSocial psychologyHumanitiesPedagogyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teacher-student rapport has been discussed in previous research, but the communicative behaviors that foster it have yet to be identified. The current study looked at several teacher communicative behaviors to determine which are the best predictors of rapport building. The results suggest that students feel rapport is most influenced by a socially supportive teacher. Using humor and demonstrating homophily aid in building rapport as well. These findings suggest that teachers should strive to be socially supportive, humorous, and perceived as similar to students. However, nonverbal immediacy was not found to be a significant indicator of rapport. Studies have indicated that immediacy is an important characteristic for teachers to have, but these findings do not indicate that this characteristic has a positive influence on rapport building between teachers and students. In addition, teacher clarity was found to reduce rapport. This finding is interesting because instructors are taught to be clear, but this characteristic appears to have a negative effect on rapport built between teachers and students. Keywords: rapport, social support, homophily, teacher clarity, humor, immediacy Si des recherches antérieures ont abordé le rapport enseignant-étudiant, elles n’ont pas encore identifié les comportements communicatifs qui le favorisent. La présente étude s'est penchée sur plusieurs comportements communicatifs de l'enseignant afin de déterminer lesquels sont les meilleurs prédicteurs de l'établissement d'un rapport. Les résultats indiquent que les étudiants estiment que le rapport est le plus influencé par un enseignant qui les soutient socialement. Le recours à l'humour et la démonstration de l'homophilie aident également à établir un rapport. Ces résultats suggèrent que les enseignants devraient s'efforcer d'apporter un soutien social, d’avoir de l’humour et d’être perçus comme semblables aux étudiants. Cependant, l'immédiateté non verbale ne s'est pas avérée être un indicateur significatif du rapport. Des études ont indiqué que l'immédiateté est une caractéristique importante pour les enseignants, mais ces résultats n'indiquent pas que cette caractéristique a une influence positive sur l'établissement de rapports entre les enseignants et les étudiants. De plus, on a constaté que la clarté de l'enseignant réduisait le rapport. Ce résultat est intéressant car on apprend aux enseignants à être clairs, mais cette caractéristique semble avoir un effet négatif sur les rapports établis entre les enseignants et les étudiants. Mots clés : rapport, soutien social, homophilie, clarté de l'enseignant, humour, immédiateté

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3700.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.339
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207