6 Research to Practice – Pre-Empathy Skill Development Proposal

Kimberly Meints

School of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Aviation, Oklahoma State University

HESA 5653: Research to Practice

Dr. Lisa Will

April 27, 2021

Pre-Empathy Skill Development Proposal

Attending college can be exciting for students as they may, for the first time, have the ability to explore their own identity and interests (Alessi et al., 2017; Vaccaro & Newman, 2017). As students seek out and make new friends, sexual minority (LGBTQ+) students may be hesitant to reveal their status out of fear of rejection, harassment, or abuse (Alessi et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2020). These anticipated and experienced interactions may result in negative outcomes for students, including lower GPAs, isolation, depression, and suicidal ideation (Alessi et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2020; Coulter & Rankin, 2020; Mathies et al., 2019; Peter & Taylor, 2014; Seabrook et al., 2018). Even microaggressions such as homophobic slurs increase LGBTQ+ students’ perception of academic difficulty (Alessi et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019). Higher education practitioners have a professional responsibility to support students, to promote campus safety, and to identify ways to improve academic outcomes. Therefore, when we identify an area of campus culture that negatively impacts our students, we also seek out and implement an informed and meaningful solution.

Homophobic and transphobic actions by campus community members create a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students, placing them at greater risk for mental and physical health problems, suicide, and sexual assault (Alessi et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2020; Dessel et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019; Peter & Taylor, 2014; Seabrook et al., 2018; Worthen, 2014). However, Dessel et al. (2017) found that among heterosexual students, “having LGBT affirming attitudes was significantly associated with higher intentions to intervene” (p. 111) when witnessing instances of discrimination, and Coulter and Rankin (2020) found that inclusive campus environments were associated with lower instances of sexual assault for sexual- and gender-minority students. Because LGBTQ+ students are multifaceted individuals, many scholars emphasize the necessity of incorporating an intersectional approach when addressing campus climate by discussing sexism, racism, and ableism in addition to LGBTQ+ concerns and centering the voices of people who have been traditionally marginalized (Allen et al., 2020; McMahon et al., 2020). To improve the environment for LGBTQ+ students, many schools offer ally training (Dessel et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019; Tillapaugh & Catalano, 2019; Worthen, 2014), but not every student is receptive to that intervention (Alessi et al., 2017; Worthen, 2014). One way to improve reception of these programs may be to develop empathy pre-requisites, such as other-awareness and perspective-taking, in college students by “[immersing] students in experiences of being ‘the other’” (McNaughton, 2016, p. 504). This encourages empathetic engagement where students progress from identifying others’ needs “to adoption of personal responsibility for understanding and responding to others and their social issues” (McNaughton, 2016, p. 502).

Because LGBTQ+ students do experience difficulty on campus as a result of the actions of others (Allen et al., 2020; Dessel et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019; Seabrook et al., 2018; Wiersma-Mosley & DiLoreto, 2018; Worthen, 2014), higher education practitioners have the responsibility to support these students by implementing strategies to reduce harassment and increase understanding. Students enter college with a wide range of experiences and skills, so universities may need to provide additional scaffolding for students as they develop empathy for people with different backgrounds and experiences (McNaughton, 2016). Providing more frequent opportunities for students to make small personal advancements in their own interpersonal skills may better prepare students to interact with existing trainings on campus. By helping all students develop pre-empathy skills, institutions may be able to improve reception of and engagement with LGBTQ+ ally and diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings, which may make campuses more welcoming.

Poteat and Vecho (2016) recognize that altruism is a function of empathy, as the altruistic person is more aware of “the experiences and needs of others” (p. 19) and suggest that this trait can be encouraged. Students with stronger senses of altruism may be more willing to intervene against bullying, specifically when the behavior is directed toward an LGBTQ+ student (Poteat & Vecho, 2016). Other scholars have found that pre-empathy skills and empathy itself are skills are malleable and that can be taught and developed (Baker, 2017; McNaughton, 2016; Rasoal et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2016). One way to incorporate pre-empathy learning opportunities for future scaffolding is to target courses with high freshman enrollment, such as first-year seminar classes, thus making a broader impact on the campus community. This proposal will describe a plan that will allow a large number of students the opportunity over the course of a semester to thoughtfully exercise self-awareness and understanding of others by utilizing learning activities hosted by one these classes. The purpose of this intervention is to strengthen the pre-empathy skills of students enrolled in UNIV 1111 or other first-year seminar classes at Oklahoma State University (OSU).

Desired Learning Outcomes

The desired learning outcomes for this intervention focus on the first three levels of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002), although students with more developed pre-empathy skills may be able to move further up the pyramid. First, students will be asked to remember material presented in the intervention. After completing all assignments in the learning module, students will be able to explain the role of empathy in the learning process. Second, students should be able to understand the perspective of another student. After completing all assignments in the learning module, students will be able to practice other-awareness, a pre-empathy skill, by identifying a barrier or difficulty that a member of another group may encounter in a given campus scenario. Third, the student will apply what they have learned. After completing all assignments in the learning module, students will be able to practice perspective-taking by listening to another student’s narrative, recalling relevant details, and identifying a supportive behavior. This last learning outcome in particular can call on higher orders of thinking, such as analysis, evaluation, and creation, as much as a student’s ability to creatively address a problematic situation allows. However, this intervention is intentionally focused on helping students advance the lower order skills that they need first, so that they are ready to employ the more advanced skills in the future.

For example, the Office of Multicultural Affairs at OSU currently offers a variety of diversity workshops and resources for all campus members, including SafeZone (LGBTQ+ ally) training (LGBTQ Safe Zone Allyship, n.d.; Office of Multicultural Affairs, n.d.). While the SafeZone training is directed at campus leaders, OSU also requires an annual diversity and inclusion training for students, faculty, and staff (Fostering and Promoting a Culture of Diversity & Inclusion at OSU for Students, n.d.). Both of these trainings include content that introduces students to issues faced by minority students as well as ways to support them. The diversity and inclusion training explicitly states the university’s “…commitment to recognizing, understanding, and respecting the differences among students, faculty, staff, and visitors…” (Fostering and Promoting a Culture of Diversity & Inclusion at OSU for Students, n.d., introduction). However, since students are in multiple stages of emotional development, no single training is sufficient to completely improve the campus climate, which can only reflect the people on it. Therefore, this intervention is intended to be spread out over the course of several weeks so that students may reflect on what they’ve learned before being introduced to the next concept. It will prepare students to engage more meaningfully with the content in these existing trainings by developing their pre-empathy skills.

Intervention Implementation Plan

To support the development of pre-empathy skills of undergraduate students, I propose a Canvas-based series of assignments which can be imbedded as a module in existing courses. The timing of these 10 assignments can be adjusted to take between eight and 16 weeks as needed based on the course structure. By utilizing Canvas, the assignments could be pre-built and easily imported into any course and be graded based on completion, minimizing the additional burden on the instructor. Stewart and Richardson (2000) found that when students knew a reflection assignment was going to be graded, they self-censored, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the practice. Not grading for correctness also eliminates the focus on “right and wrong” and allows students more freedom to explore their own perceptions (Stewart & Richardson, 2000, p. 376).

The first and last assignments may take up to 30 minutes as they contain assessment instruments. The other eight assignments are designed to take 10 minutes each. The standard set-up for the assignments would be for the pre-assessment (Assignment 1) to always be available for students to complete. However, it would also be a pre-requisite for each of the others. Assignments 2 through 10 would each be available for one week at a time. If a student missed an assignment one week, they could still complete the following assignments. This schedule would allow students time to process what they have learned about themselves and others each week and slowly build their pre-empathy skills.

Assignment 1 introduces the concept of empathy and its necessity in helping professions (medicine, teaching, social work; McNaughton, 2016) as well as client- and team-based interactions (business, Baker, 2017; engineering, Rasoal et al., 2012; law, Williams et al., 2016). It identifies empathy as a strategy to better understand and connect with other people, but one that is developed over time. The second part is a pre-assessment to allow students to report their current posture toward empathy. It also contains demographic questions so that when the intervention is complete the effectiveness overall as well as for specific populations of students can be measured.

Assignments 2 through 4 focus on increasing self-awareness. Each assignment offers a choice between three physical activities. McNaughton (2016) indicated that offering students choices modeled for them “power reciprocity” (p. 513), or the relinquishing of power, particularly in an uneven relationship (in this case, by the instructor). This encourages buy-in from students so that they are more engaged with their chosen activity. These activities are varied to best offer flexibility for students who may require accommodations, but could include options such as a guided meditation, stretching or relaxation exercise, or slow breathing. After completing the activity, the students will submit a short reflection on their experience with a related question.

Assignments 5 through 8 present a student video narrative from a minoritized group. These could be adjusted based on the availability of willing participants but would seek to represent women, people of color, people with disabilities, and member of the LGBTQ+ community, preferably from an intersectional viewpoint. Student narratives will focus on the personal impact of microaggressions, experiences when friends intervened to stop bullying, or daily challenges that might be overlooked by a more privileged group. After watching the video narratives, which will be sub-titled and transcribed, the student will be given a reflection question to answer.

Assignment 9 highlights the role of empathy when interacting with others, with an emphasis on the learning process in higher education. A student leader will feature in the video and talk about the difference between high school, where the goal is to acquire specific content knowledge, and college, where the goal is to be able to think about problems more critically. For example, one method of broadening understanding is to consider another person’s perspective, one of the foundational aspects of empathy (McNaughton, 2016).

Assignment 10 asks students to provide a reflection on the intervention as a whole and a final assessment on their posture toward empathy. This assignment incorporates the Desired Learning Outcomes to measure how successfully the intervention strengthens the pre-empathy skills identified by McNaughton (2016) of other-awareness and perspective-taking. It also asks students about their interactions or involvement with other diversity content during the semester and their feelings about those interactions. This would give the coordinator of the intervention a better understanding of whether the intervention enhanced a student’s growth, complimented existing programs, or had no effect.

Factors for Consideration

Most of the costs of this intervention will be needed up-front. The largest cost is reimbursing the student participants involved in sharing their stories in the narrative videos. Due to the nature of this request, it may be necessary to recruit alumni or students from a different university, to better ensure their privacy. A partnership with University Counseling Services or similar department could also be helpful in providing students support during and after filming, which could incur a cost. Because I will ask students to be vulnerable and share potentially traumatic experiences, it is important to acknowledge their contribution, preferably through a monetary method.

The other expenses would be the time it takes to recruit and coach the video participants, create the videos, add subtitles and/or transcribe them, and build the Canvas module itself. It is possible that some university departments could assist at no or low cost, such as Brand Management and the Institute for Teaching & Learning Excellence. In total, $5,000-10,000 would be sufficient to create the intervention, depending on the amount charged by other departments. Future costs could be incurred if feedback from participants suggests that changes are needed to the content.

Another partner to enhance the effectiveness of this program would be the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA). This intervention needs to have professional oversight of content to ensure that it is inclusive, supportive, and useful. OMA may also be able to recruit students to feature in the narratives or to act as a focus group on early content drafts. Additionally, instructors who choose to incorporate this intervention into their courses may expect that related questions could arise in class. Therefore, OMA could provide a short training program before the start of the semester to equip instructors to address questions and discussions in a supportive way. OMA may also be able to provide other resources or guidance materials.

There are a few environmental considerations regarding the adoption of this proposal as well. The departments that offer first-year seminar courses may resist incorporating another element into classes that are already tasked with a variety of learning objectives (major exploration, campus resources, rules and policies, academic skill development, etc., Academic Catalog, 2020). That is one reason that this intervention has been designed specifically to minimize the labor of the individual instructor. However, since the objective of these classes is to help students successfully transition to college, these instructors may be more willing to support an intervention to improve the campus climate, increase inclusivity, and reduce harassment of students. To encourage adoption by departments, a few instructors could be recruited to act as a pilot, with an assessment for effectiveness incorporated. If needed, other departments could be contacted for inclusion, such as the Department of English’s Composition program, but care would need to be taken that students are not asked to complete the module in more than one class.

In a politically conservative state at a public institution, there may also be concern from administers about the optics of “progressive” or “liberal” content, especially among donors and the state legislature, which determines aspects of the university budget. However, this does not mean that it must be a barrier. First, OSU has publicly supported multiple diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts recently such as the naming of university buildings for Nancy Randolph Davis; the renaming of buildings formerly named Murray; and the formation of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force, n.d.; OSU, 2020a; OSU, 2020b). Second, the intervention itself is focused broadly on pre-empathy skills, including self-awareness. The topic of empathy is introduced as a job-related skill, and that lens, as well as the context of the activities being private and optional, will hopefully make it a less volatile subject. The goal is to allow students, including those who might be initially resistant, a safe environment to explore new feelings and ideas without fear of judgement or embarrassment. For some students, this could be their first introduction to concepts of homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, or ableism in an academic context.

Methods

A small incentive to complete the assignments would be an opportunity to earn “bonus” points in the class, with the total earned not exceeding one-quarter of a letter grade, per the instructor’s scale. If desired, the instructor could also make the first and last assignment grade-bearing so that there would be a control group of students who did not participate in the intervention to better understand its effectiveness at the end of the semester and to encourage participation.

At the end of the semester, instructors will award the bonus points earned by students. Since none of the assignments require feedback or grading for correctness, these can be awarded based on completion only. The instructor will export the data back to the coordinator so that the program can be assessed for effectiveness. The instructor will also complete a questionnaire to indicate their experiences, feedback, and willingness to participate again in the future. The instructor survey will also ask about what diversity material was included in the course, including guest speakers, to identify possible variables that may have influenced the students outside of the intervention. This will help identify if students remember diversity content presented in the class itself.

The responses from students in the pre- and post-assessments would be analyzed using quantitative methods. The assessments would measure their empathy postures before and after the intervention. In order to determine if the intervention had an effect, these scores could be compared to identify a change. Additional information, such as demographic questions and completion percentages, could provide more nuance to the results. A qualitative review of the open-ended questions from the post-assessment would allow the coordinator to identify if the desired learning outcomes were met and provide feedback on how students evaluated the effectiveness of the program. This would not only hep validate the quantitative data, but it also gives the students the opportunity to make meaning of their experience and provide additional context for the coordinator. While these methods are robust, they do not exceed the threshold for assessment because they cannot be generalized to other campuses, and they are being used to evaluate a program’s effectiveness, not test a theory. The danger to students is minimal and likely would not require extensive Institutional Review Board oversight.

Conclusion

Abusive and intolerant behavior toward LGBTQ+ students create a hostile environment on college campuses, which can coincide with racist, sexist, and ableist harassment (Alessi et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2020; Dessel et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019; Peter & Taylor, 2014; Seabrook et al., 2018; Weber et al., 2018; Worthen, 2014). Universities have begun to address these behaviors (Dessel et al., 2017; Mathies et al., 2019; Tillapaugh & Catalano, 2019; Worthen, 2014), but not all students have the basic empathy skills needed to modify their behavior (Baker, 2017; McNaughton, 2016; Rasoal et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2016). The goal of this intervention is to help students learn about the concept of empathy and to help them gain an appreciation for the perspectives of people who are different from them. Ideally, they would also be able to apply that knowledge by incorporating supportive behaviors into their daily interactions. However, since students will not all start with the same degree of empathy, then the students who are not ready to apply their knowledge will be better equipped to integrate future information from other sources. This intervention is intended to give many students the opportunity to expand their skills in a safe, private way (Stewart & Richardson, 2000), with low stakes, early in their college careers. Another side-effect would be to raise awareness of the concerns of others on campus. By better preparing themselves to identify the needs of others, students may be able to begin assuming personal responsibility for the well-being of others (McNaughton, 2016). This can lead to a more inclusive campus (Coulter & Rankin, 2020) and better outcomes for LGBTQ+ students.

References

Academic Catalog. (2020). Oklahoma State University. Retrieved April 27, 2021 from http://catalog.okstate.edu/

Alessi, E. J., Sapiro, B., Kahn, S., & Craig, S. L. (2017). The first-year university experience for sexual minority students: A grounded theory exploration. Journal of LGBT Youth, 14(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2016.1256013

Allen, L., Cowie, L., & Fenaughty, J. (2020). Safe but not safe: LGBTTIQA+ students’ experiences of a university campus. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(6), 1075-1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1706453

Baker, D. F. (2017). Teaching empathy and ethical decision making in business schools. Journal of Management Education, 41(4), 575-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917699028

Coulter, R. W. S., & Rankin, S. R. (2020). College sexual assault and campus climate for sexual- and gender-minority undergraduate students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1351-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696870

Dessel, A. B., Goodman, K. D., & Woodford, M. R. (2017). LGBT discrimination on campus and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000015

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force. (n.d.). Oklahoma State University. Retrieved April 27, 2021 from https://go.okstate.edu/about-osu/leadership/president/diversity-inclusion-task-force.html

Fostering and Promoting a Culture of Diversity & Inclusion at OSU for Students. (n.d.). Oklahoma State University. Retrieved March 1, 2021 from https://rise.articulate.com/share/sDTW12edC3QS_m5DbZfXjruZzsrbwqBM

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

LGBTQ Safe Zone Allyship. (n.d.). Oklahoma State University. Retrieved April 17, 2021 from https://diversity.okstate.edu/departments/multicultural-affairs/safezone.html

Mathies, N., Coleman, T., McKie, R. M., Woodford, M. R., Courtice, E. L., Travers, R., & Renn, K. A. (2019). Hearing “that’s so gay” and “no homo” on academic outcomes for LGBQ + college students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(3), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1571981

McMahon, S., Burnham, J., & Banyard, V. L. (2020). Bystander intervention as a prevention strategy for campus sexual violence: Perceptions of historically minoritized college students. Prevention Science, 21, 795-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01134-2

McNaughton, S. M. (2016). Developing pre-requisites for empathy: Increasing awareness of self, the body and the perspectives of others. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 501-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1160218

Office of Multicultural Affairs. (n.d.). Oklahoma State University. Retrieved April 17, 2021 from https://diversity.okstate.edu/departments/multicultural-affairs/

Oklahoma State University. (2020, June 26). OSU/A&M Board of Regents approves removal of Murray’s name from campus. https://news.okstate.edu/articles/communications/2020/board-of-regents-approves-removal-of-murray-name.html

Oklahoma State University. (2020, October 23). Two OSU buildings renamed to honor civil rights pioneer. https://news.okstate.edu/articles/communications/2020/two-osu-buildings-renamed-to-honor-civil-rights-pioneer.html

Peter, T., & Taylor, C. (2014). Buried above ground: A university-based study of risk/protective factors for suicidality among sexual minority youth in Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(2), 125-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.878563

Poteat, V. P., & Vecho, O. (2016). Who intervenes against homophobic behavior? Attributes that distinguish active bystanders. J Sch Psychol, 54, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.002

Rasoal, C., Danielsson, H., & Jungert, T. (2012). Empathy among students in engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.708720

Seabrook, R. C., McMahon, S., Duquaine, B. C., Johnson, L., & DeSilva, A. (2018). Sexual assault victimization and perceptions of university climate among bisexual women. Journal of Bisexuality, 18(4), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2018.1485070

Stewart, S., & Richardson, B. (2000). Reflection and its place in the curriculum on an undergraduate course: Should it be assessed? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611443

Tillapaugh, D., & Catalano, D. C. J. (2019). Structural challenges affecting the experiences of public university LGBT services graduate assistants. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(2), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000079

Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2017). A sense of belonging through the eyes of first-year LGBPQ students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1211533

Weber, A., Collins, S. A., Robinson-Wood, T., Zeko-Underwood, E., & Poindexter, B. (2018). Subtle and severe: Microaggressions among racially diverse sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(4), 540-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1324679

Wiersma-Mosley, J. D., & DiLoreto, J. (2018). The role of Title IX coordinators on college and university campuses. Behavioral Sciences, 8(4), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8040038

Williams, B., Sifris, A., & Lynch, M. (2016). A psychometric appraisal of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy using law students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S108036

Worthen, M. G. F. (2014). Blaming the jocks and the Greeks?: Exploring collegiate athletes’ and fraternity/sorority members’ attitudes toward LGBT individuals. Journal of College Student Development, 55(2), 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0020