Poster #63 - Empathy Definitions and Teaching Practices in EL Education Middle Schools: A Qualitative Study

• In Event: Poster Session 06

Abstract

This qualitative study explores middle school student definitions of empathy and educator’s teaching practices to cultivate empathy at EL Education schools. Although there is a substantial literature on the development of empathy in youth (e.g., Allemand et al., 2015), less is known about the school contexts that contribute to that development. EL Education is a national nonprofit aimed at supporting the development of the whole child and preparing them to contribute to a better world. The guiding research questions explore the similarities and differences between EL Education and comparison schools: 1. How do students define empathy? 2. How do teachers cultivate empathy in the classroom?
Part of a larger quasi-experimental study, our purposive sample included 23 students (16 EL Education, 7 Comparison) and 18 teachers (12 EL Education, 6 Comparison). All student interviews were conducted December 2019 – February 2020, and teacher interviews were conducted March - May 2020. Using semi-structured interviews, students were asked: “What do you think empathy means?” Teachers were asked: “How do you teach empathy in your classroom?”
The analytic approach followed descriptive-interpretive design. We first divided data into distinctive meaning units, then built out an organizational structure in the form of a codebook. Finally, we abstracted the main findings using tables and narratives. Rigor and credibility was ensured through an audit trail, consulting with an experienced qualitative researcher and using the participant’s own words.
For RQ1, three themes emerged: empathy defined as thoughts & feelings, empathy as behavior, and empathy as combined (i.e., thoughts & feelings and behavior). (See Table 1 for descriptions and examples of themes.) Comparison students were more likely to define empathy as exclusively thoughts, feelings (19% more likely than EL Education students), while EL Education students were more likely to define empathy as both thoughts, feelings and behavior (21% more than Comparison students).
For RQ2, results showed that educators at both schools utilized coaching, restorative practices, modeling, classroom opportunities, curriculum integration, and community spaces to teach empathy. (See Table 2 for descriptions and examples of themes.) While both were relatively equally likely to use coaching and restorative justice (e.g., less than 10% difference), EL Education teachers were more likely to use modeling (16% more), classroom opportunities (16% more), and community spaces (33% more). Comparison school teachers were more likely to use curriculum integration (33% more).
At comparison schools, the reliance on thoughts & feelings to define empathy and curriculum integration to teach empathy led us to believe that curriculum integration offers opportunities to practice empathy as cognitive and emotional (and not a behavioral response). At EL Education schools, the reliance on combined definitions (i.e., both thoughts & feelings and behavior) and community spaces to teach empathy led us to believe that community spaces offer opportunities to practice empathy as a combined skill. We theorize that community spaces foster deeper relationships that offer more opportunities to practice real-life empathy. Implications include the importance of not only all six teaching practices but focusing on translating thoughts and feelings into prosocial action within community spaces.

Authors

• Theresa Pfister, University of Virginia - Charlottesville
  Presenting Author

• Sara Rimm-Kaufman, University of Virginia - Charlottesville

• Lia Sandilos, Temple University