1

Rapport

Gary Hicks

University of Brighton

NFEAP: 2014

2

OUTLINE

Context

Trigger

Problems

Rapport studies(wider setting)

Rapport studies (education)

Rapport studies (EFL/ESOL)

Indicators of rapport

Previous research (focus group)

This research

Results/findings

3

THE CONTEXT

Teacher Trainer & Assessor

T/P

Crit. List

Rapport

‘Ability to establish & maintain rapport’

Course design (EAP) – T/P criteria

4

THE TRIGGER

Common understanding

In assessment – accountability

If ‘OK’ – no problem

If ‘not OK’ – problem

Personal Being

Personality/persona

5

PROBLEMS

What is it?

Construct?

Factor?

Notion?

Concept?

Teacher-student/s?

Student/s-student/s?

Variable?

Consistent?

6

PROBLEMSIdentifiable (agreeable)

Consistent

Context-Related

Constructed

Variable

• Time• Context• Culture• Power relationships

Measurable/gradeable?

Multidimensional

Observables/unobservables

Rapport is the ‘result’

Formative/s

7

RAPPORT STUDIES:THE WIDER SETTING

Marketing

Conflict resolution

Occupational Therapy

Police Work

Consumer Behaviours

Interviewing

8

RAPPORT STUDIESTHE WIDER SETTING

A relationship variable (Hall et al, 2009) Medicine

Positive relationship outcomes (Macintosh, 2009)

Harmonious relationships (Faranda & Clarke, 2004)

‘at the heart’ of social relationships

9

RAPPORT STUDIESEDUCATION

Harmonious interactions

Relationships with ‘mutual understandings’

Mutual respect/rapport lead to ‘effective classrooms’

Good rapport enhanced student involvement

Perceived rapport lead to classroom ‘correctedness’

‘instructor rapport’ predicted

• Participation• Affective learning• Cognitive learning

Teaching is a ‘rapport-intensive’ field (Jogenson, 1992)

10

RAPPORT STUDIESEFL/ESOL/ESL

Root?

CLT & Post CLT eclecticism

Speaking skill predominance

Interaction

Rogerian Principles

Humanistic

Student- centredness

11

INDICATORS OF RAPPORT

Tickle-Dengen & Rosenthal (1990)

‘Gestalt’

Evaluate in its totality

Algorithm behind is tacit/implicit

Non-verbal correlates

Dyadic Relationships

From ‘expert’ observers

12

INDICATORS OF RAPPORT

Spencer-Oatey (2004)

Politeness Theory

Verbal Correlates

From participants

13

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Focus group (7)

Attempt to elicit quantitative data

Data

14

ASSESSING

Characteristics

• What can be perceived?• Identifying and labelling

Standards

• How is this articulated?• Degree or Quality

Dunn et.al (2002)

15

INFERENCE

High inference – low inference (Chavez, 1984)

Subjectivity – Objectivity (Becher 1989)

16

INFERENCE

17

THIS RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Video of an authentic EAP lesson

No researchers present

Two cameras

18

19

THIS RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Five experienced EFL trainers/assessors.

Individually watched the lesson.

“Please comment on the rapport”

Recorded with the researcher present.

Note the stage of the recording when commenting

20

THIS RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Two dropped out.

Three were used for the data

Data transcribed using ‘InqScribe’©

Content Analysis

Characteristics

Standards

Themes

21

FINDINGS

Stop, talk, think.

‘I suppose’, ‘would imagine that,’

Lack of certainty

Why did participants need to ‘justify’ their interpretations

Reasoning

Theorizing whilst commenting

NOT - Practical judgements borne out of experience

22

FINDINGS

Only one event was noticed/commenting on by all three

Therefore

Only one common characteristic.

data_Content Analysis.JPG

Small part of the transcripts related to the actual lesson.

Much of the commentary was ‘thinking through’

Spontaneous/ freewheeling articulations of rapport

Not related to the lesson.

23

FINDINGS

Out of 37 codes:

All three participants

• Inclusion

Two participants;

• Students interjecting/initiating • Signs of boredom/phasing out• Pace • Cultural sensitivity

24

FINDINGS

Participant A

• Lack of rapport

Participants B & C

• Good rapport

25

THE NEXT STEP…

Repeat with much larger group of trainers

Repeat with multiple lessons

No option to pause the video (keep comments spontaneous)

Chase up later

Separate ‘immediate’ and the ‘more carefully considered’

26

REFERENCESBecher, T. & Trowler, P.R. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: SRHE & OUP

Chavez, R. Ch. (1984) The Use of High - Inference Measures To Study Classroom Climates: A Review. Review of Educational Research. 54 (2)

Dunn. L., Parry. S. & Morgan. C. (2002) Seeking Quality in Criterion referenced assessment. Paper presented at the Learning Communities and Assessment Cultures Conference organised by the EARLI Special Interest Group on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Northumbria, 28-30 August 2002. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002257.htm

Hadfield, J. (1992) Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: OUP.

Hall, J.A., Roter, D.C., & Frankel, R.M. (2009) Observer-rated rapport in interactions between medical students and standardized patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 76/3, pp. 323-327.

Jorgenson, J. (1992) Social approaches: Communication, rapport, and the interview: A social perspective. Communication Theory, 2/2, pp. 148-156.

Limbacher, P.C. (1972) Relationship of High-Inference and Low-Inference Observation Measures. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago, Illinois.