A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

expected, though the LAI shared a stronger relationship with the PSRS than with the NIS.
Further, the collaborative bond subscale significantly contributed to the students' self-reported
learning and actual course grade even after controlling for the NIS and PSRS.
Figure 1 provides a construct conceptualization of the relationships between immediacy
behaviors, rapport, perceptions of a learning alliance, and positive student outcomes. Of note,
several mediational relationships appear in the figure. For example, immediacy behaviors have
direct effects on learning but also have indirect effects through their connections to rapport
and the learning alliance (Rogers, 2015). Although Rogers provided an excellent validation of
the Learning Alliance Inventory, its use in the SoTL literature is nascent. We recommend its
incorporation in future research that examines rapport, professor-student relationships, and
the effects of positive relationships on students' and professors' outcomes (e.g., grades for
students, burnout for professors).
Future Directions
The study of professor-student relationships has come a long way since Mehrabian began
operationalizing immediacy in the 60s. Hundreds of studies exist on the relationships between
immediacy behaviors, instructors' use of humor, professor-student rapport, and perceptions of
a learning alliance. Further, each one of these constructs predict positive student outcomes.
Despite the vast attention given to the valid and reliable measurement of professor-student
relationships, several important future directions exist.
Given the increase in online classes email, learning management systems, and social media,
students now frequently interact with professors over electronic modes. One disadvantage of
the scales we described is that some of the items may not translate well in an online course
(e.g., nonverbal immediacy items measuring eye contact and physical distance). At the present
time, a computer-mediated-communication scale that assesses professor-student relationships
does not exist, despite evidence that professor behaviors can hinder or help rapport building
through online classes (Arbaugh, 2001) or through the use of electronic communication (Legg &
Wilson, 2009). Future scales would benefit from including items that address online classes and
electronic communication, for example: “Instructor responds within a reasonable amount of
time to my electronic requests,” “My instructor shows s/he cares about me in the way s/he
responds to my emails,” or “I can tell my instructor cares about students by the way s/he
designed our Learning Management System (e.g., Blackboard).”
The vast majority of research on professor-student relationships examines the relationship
formed between undergraduate students and their professors. However, these findings may
not generalize to the relationship formed and experienced by graduate students and their
advisors. For example, the same amount of warmth and caring that may promote learning for
undergraduate students who lack intrinsic motivation (Komarraju, 2013) may be seen as
coddling or lacking in rigor within the context of graduate education. Compared to
undergraduates' relationships with their professors, graduate students and their advisors may
spend more time together, both in academic and casual settings. This added time may facilitate
building learning alliances and rapport but may also pose some additional challenges that could
156