Fostering Understanding and Empathy Through an Open-Deliberative Dialogue Sequence

• In Event: New Directions in Education for Civic Life: Research With Students and Teachers

Abstract

This exploratory study examined how students’ understanding of a public issue and empathy toward others shifts (if at all) as a result of their participation in an open-deliberative dialogue sequence with diverse others. Deliberative discussion aims to “[decide] on a plan of action that will resolve a shared problem” (Parker, 2003). Research suggests that participation in deliberative dialogue with diverse others can foster greater understanding of an issue as well as greater empathy for others when: (1) participants have established a baseline of trust with others in the group (Pace, 2021), and (2) they have time to discuss their own and others’ ideas first without the pressure to reach consensus (Cohen et al., 2007).

Here, we employed an open-deliberative dialogue sequence that addressed these conditions while scaffolding students’ participation toward consensus building. Shifts in student understanding (pre/post) were measured by the number of frames used to make sense of the issue. Student empathy was measured by the degree to which they demonstrated affective sharing, self-awareness, mental flexibility, regulatory processes, and mutuality (adapted from Decety & Jackson, 2004). This study was conducted at two institutions of higher education, in the mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the U.S. A questionnaire was used to select diverse participants. Eight were selected and assigned to two discussion groups (four in each) to collaboratively propose a course of action regarding the role of Confederate monuments in their community. Groups met four times: a Meet & Greet, an Open Dialogue, a Deliberative Dialogue and a Debrief. Each session was facilitated by a PI, recorded and transcribed. Each participant then attended a 30-minute exit interview. In addition, participants read news articles and background pieces, and wrote four journal reflections (pre- and post-each dialogue session).

The most significant gains in understanding occurred as a result of the open dialogue session. These levels of understanding generally held throughout the remainder of the study. The same was true for affective sharing and mental flexibility. However, other elements of empathy were more evident post-deliberative dialogue (self-awareness, regulatory processes, mutuality). Evidence of affective sharing and mental flexibility dwindled for some students once deliberation began. More research is needed that strives to understand relationships between cognitive and affective outcomes of transactive dialogue as well as which forms of dialogue facilitate student growth. Such insights would provide a foundation from which to make informed pedagogical decisions within social studies and civic education.

References

Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K., Bastardi, A., Hsu, L., McGoey, M., & Ross, L. (2007). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(3), 415-430.

Decety, J. & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3(2), 71-100.

Pace, J. (2021). Hard questions: Learning to teach controversial issues. Rowman & Littlefield.

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. Teachers College Press.

Authors

• Jennifer Hauver, Trinity Washington University

• Xiaoying Zhao, Illinois State University