Memo 11- Rough Paper Outline
Template: Memos to Research Paper Outline 2018
Introduction
Scenario that Sets the
Tone of the Research Study
Phenomenon of Interest
When
walking into Ms. D’s classroom, I immediately see bright colors and clean
tables. The boards are bright yellow and green colors, and she always has
something written on the whiteboard in colors. She likes the window shades open
and rarely ever puts them down so her room is filled with bright light-
sometimes we ask her to put the shades down, she will lower them only a bit. As
I keep looking around the room I see lots of charts and things, like: class
groups on the chalkboard, a class roles chart on the white board, a top
performers board, a class points board, a chemistry updates board, and a
restorative nook board. It is obvious that Ms. D is a science teacher because
every board is organized as a table or chart. In the back of the room there is
our school pet Felipe! Felipe is a crested eye lashed gecko, he is neat but
sort of boring. Ms. D told us he is nocturnal, meaning he doesn’t do anything
during the day and is apparently more interesting at night. We get to take him
out here and there, Ms. D pretends she isn’t scared, but she is! As I keep
looking around the room there are wooden shelves in the back filled with
Felipe’s cage, books, supplies, painted boxes with quotes, a clock, and a
calendar. In the corner of Ms. D’s room, she has a comfy beanbag chair that
actually looks like a chair with a pillow for your feet. I love to try and sit
in the beanbag chair during class, but always get asked to take an actual seat.
Luckily though, I get to sit in this chair during PLT mentoring time!
Ms. D
really likes it when we work in groups, she is always telling us that scientist
need to learn how to work with all types of people and personalities and is
therefore, always changing our seats and groups constantly. We never have the
same seat or groups, everyday our seats are assigned, and we rarely ever sit in
groups larger than 4. Since we are always sitting in groups, Ms. D has
organized the lab tables in her room into 5 groups. The tables are placed so
that 3 groups of tables are on one side of the class and 2 groups are on the
other. The tables are also positioned so that no one’s backs are to the board-
expect this had to change because of the big leak in Ms. D’s celling that no
one has fixed yet. It is always dipping gross water and getting on everything. It
annoys us, and you can really tell it annoys Ms. D. On each table there are
group roles that no one ever really looks at and supply boxes filled with
colored pencils or markers which we use regularly.
As I
keep looking around I stop at Ms. D’s desk, it is very organized and clean. She
loves to be clean- you can tell. On her desk is a printer, her computer, a
container for pens and pencils, a chemistry themed mug, location, hand
sanitizer, a rubrics cub, and two paper trays that stack on top of each other.
She lets me sit at her desk regularly, especially if I am having trouble
focusing. In our mentor sessions, we are constantly talking about how much
potential I have and most of the time I’m on it, except for the times I get
distracted by my peers. So, we decided together that when I get distracted by
my peers I can use Ms. D’s desk as a place to do my work and get back on track.
I like her desk- it is warm and inviting and behind her desk she has a charging
station for our cell phones, a pretty bookshelf filled with more book and
binders, and a closet where I like to hang my backpack and coat. I keep
everything in Ms. D’s room. When sitting behind Ms. D’s desk you can see
everything and everyone in the room, yet you’re not in the mix of it all and
that’s nice sometimes. The last thing I should mention about Ms. D’s room is
that on the big wall above the whiteboard she has the periodic table of
elements and in all 5 windows on the other side of the room she has hung light
blue and white curtains to make the room look like a home instead of a
classroom.
Since
Ms. D’s room is bright, sunny, and welcoming, I immediately think Ms. D will be
the same. Most of the time she is! Ms. D tends to be very positive, energic,
and caring. She sometimes is so caring and kind that we get away with things we
shouldn’t, we know she can be a bit of pushover. But! There are times that Ms.
D is not a pushover and has had, as we like to mimic her, “ENOUGH!”. Ms. D’s
toughness is not seen immediately when you look around her room, but slowly
after detailed observation you start to notice the organized structure to the
room. Everything is charted, listed, color coordinated. You can tell Ms. D
likes structure so there’s no surprise she gets frustrated when we are all out
of our seats not doing our work. By looking around the room you can tell that
Ms. D values kindness, structure, and group work.
Kindness
is one of Ms. D’s top values, she is always positive. So positive that at first,
we thought she was strange and we told her so. We said, “Miss you are so
strange.” She asked why, and we responded with, “because nobody is that nice.”
She seemed really confused in that moment and didn’t understand why we felt
that way. To her, people always act like that, to us, that’s not the case. It
took us awhile to get used to how nice Ms. D is, especially since we aren’t
that nice to one another. Us students do treat each other with kindness often.
But when you walk into Ms.D’s room you know it’s her room- its bright and
colorful, it has a warm and cozy feel to it and is clean.
Another
one of Ms. D’s values is structure, she loves her structure. Everything we do
from the moment we walk into the door is structured. We look for our seating on
the board, we grab a chromebook, start the warm up and wait for class to begin.
Ms. D is so structured that everyday she stands at the door and repeats, “Hi
how are, find your group, grab a chromebook, and take your seat”, over and over
again until everyone is in the class, seated, and doing the warm up. She also
lists all the behaving students on the board and has a board for class roles,
we each have role at the end of class, like: chair duty, computer duty, trash,
supply, and desk duty. Even the work Ms. D gives us is structured. Every
concept is provided a process or step sheet to follow. Ms. D loves structure
but since she loves it so much she sometimes stresses when we are not following
her structure exactly.
Ms.
D also values group work, as I said above, she is constantly having us sit in
groups and work with new people. She believes that we need to learn how to work
with all people even if we don’t want to. If we sit at the wrong table or
refuse our groups, she won’t start the class until we move. You can also tell
that Ms. D loves group work because even in our groups we have roles! The roles
you can pick from are: Leader, Recorder, Question Master, and Time keeper. Each
person is to have a role and contribute to the group work. Our work as a group
is always handed in and graded. Sometimes I get a good group and like group
work because we all help each other, sometimes I hate group work because Ms. D
pairs me with people I don’t like and they don’t do their work, which is really
annoying.
All
in all, when you look around and observe Ms. D’s room you are able to see what
type of teacher and person she is. Her room is just an extension of who she is
and how she acts and what she believes. I like Ms. D’s room and I am happy that
it is not only my chemistry room but my mentee room as well.
Statement of the Problem
Background and
justification
Definition of Terms
The follow terms are terms that are
prevalent to this study be need further clarification.
Empathy: the ability to understand another’s experiences, emotions, and feelings.
Empathy Intervention: An implemented school- based program that was used to
increase empathic awareness and perspective taking skills among students.
Perspective Taking: having the ability to understand the point of view of
another person.
Emotional Currency: trading emotions between students like money. For instance,
if a student is emotional with a peer than that peer in turn will more likely
to return the favor and be emotional as well.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to
examine the effect of empathy interventions on student relationships in a
classroom setting. Empathy interventions will be analyzed to determine the
effect on student relationships; specifically, what students say to one another
and how they feel about each other. The goal of this study is erase the use of
offensive language and increase perspective taking. During this study data will
be gathered using observations, interviews, and surveys, student discourse, and
teacher journals.
Research Questions
Throughout the
last year and a half of teaching, I have witness several behaviors and
situations where I have wondered if my students have a strong sense of empathy.
For instance, I have watched students break keys off school laptops, write and
draw on laptops and desks, break apart provided classroom pens, and break each
other’s belongings. When I see these actions I find myself asking, “why” and
“did he/she consider how this would make someone feel?”. Usually the answers to
my questions are, “I don’t know”, and “probably not”, respectively.
Having
the opportunity to research these questions and possibly seek answers would be
incredible. This research question is important because as a teacher it is my
responsibility to not only teach my students content but also teach them social
and emotional skills they can use to navigate life outside the classroom.
Empathy is an important skill to have for building relationships, understanding
different perspectives, and problem solving. If my students do not have a
strong sense or understanding of empathy, they could potentially struggle
succeeding in their everyday lives. Therefore, researching empathy and its
effect on student relationships could be a beneficial experience for my
students and myself.
Research proposal
The goal of this study is
to determine the effect empathy interventions have on student relationships and
create a model that other teachers can utilize. The analysis will hopefully
reveal patterns that determine more effective methods for increasing empathic
interactions among students.
What effect with empathy
interventions have on student interactions?
Specifically, how will empathy interventions change the
usage of offensive language between students?
Furthermore, will
increased perspective taking increase student’s positive feelings toward one
another?
Conceptual Foundation
Empathy has become a
common theme in society today. Companies are doing all they can to communicate
to the public that they are empathic and accepting of all diversities. For
instance, T-Mobile has promoted a commercial supporting all races, while Toyota’s
newest commercial indorses religion equity. The companies are aware that
empathy sells and is a key toward success. Empathy is not only found in
marketing and media, it also appears in lists that describe the qualities of
top leaders.
Top performing professionals are known to be:
honest, inspiring, accountable, creative, and empathetic. In this list the only
quality that touches on social emotional competence is empathy. To be empathic,
one must have the ability to understand the feelings and emotions of others
they are interacting with. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that empathy has
become a pillar of society today and is needed for building and navigating
relationships.
Since empathy is a
necessary skill for success, it should be skill taught in schools. However,
throughout my teaching experiences, I have witnessed several interactions and
situations that have me questioning whether my students have a developed sense
of empathy. For instance, I have watched students damage school laptops with no
care. I have seen students break and damage other’s belonging. Most
significantly, I hear students use offensive and explicit language when
speaking to one another daily.
Therefore, this study will
focus on the implementation of empathy interventions and the effect on student
interactions. Specially, student language and perspective taking will be
analyzed. To increase empathy, students will need to put themselves in each
other shoes and try to understand the feelings of that person. This skill is
not only important for the classroom and relationship building, but it is also
important for preparing students for success in their post-secondary endeavors.
Scholarship
There is considerable
research on empathy, especially in the field of developmental psychology which
ranges from bullying, to social emotional learning and expression. Several
sources have inspired my work in this area, however the work of Malt, Chaparro,
Zuffiano & Colasante (2016) have helped narrow the large topic of empathy
down to school-based interventions. Malt, Chaparro, Zuffiano &
Colasante (2016) are known for studying school-based interventions and the
effect on empathy responses in child and adolescents. I have started to read
these studies with new perspective. Instead of reading these articles to
inform, I am now reading them with the intent to act, specifically using them
to help me determine how I will implement empathy interventions into my own
classroom.
Part of my journey has been to determine how I will
measure empathy, therefore I turned to the literature published by Reid, Davis,
Horlin, Anderson, Baughman, and Campbell (2013). These authors focused their
research on determining a school appropriate scale for measuring empathy. After
reviewing their work, it has become clear that along with interviewing and
observing my students, I also need to survey them using an empathy scale made
specifically for the classroom.
Along with implementing empathy interventions into my
classroom and measuring the effect using a school appropriate scale, I also
need to gain a baseline for how my students understand empathy. I also would
like to gain an understanding of what factors have caused my students to show a
disregard for empathy. Do my students view empathy differently than I do? Hence,
the work by Luke and Banerjee (2012) has become considerably important in
inspiring my work in this area. Luke and Banerjee (2012) focus their research
on how maltreated children in foster care settings understand and portray
empathy. Several of my students are in foster care and therefore I could learn
a lot from what Luke and Banerjee find in their research. There may be some
biases I need to work through and some perspectives I need to understand about
my students before I can gather and code data on empathy.
Data Collection
Throughout this study, 3
types of data sources will be collected: observations, interviews, and surveys.
Observations on what students say during empathy interventions will be kept in
a teacher journal, while interview and survey raw data will be kept in an excel
chart. The raw data will then be coded based on common themes and patterns
found. Once the data is coded, the three sources will be triangulated to
determine which themes are most significant among all sources.
Literature Review
In
this section, past research findings and limitations will be examined to set
that stage for this current research study. The purpose of this study is to
explore the relationship between empathy interventions and the effect on
student relationships, especially on the use of foul language. Empathy research
has been exhausted in the field of psychology, which is where a few of the
literature is from. Euler,
Steinlin, & Stadler (2017) write that cognitive
and affective empathy were significantly associated with proactive aggression
and not with reactive aggression. This means that adolescents that have lower
levels of empathy are more likely to be have higher levels of aggression,
especially when the aggression is motivated by reward. Additionally, the
researchers found that “proactive… aggression is negatively associated with
feelings of guilt in children” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 9). Children that show signs of low levels of empathy and
higher levels of aggression have less guilt for their actions. This research
provides insight on this current study; students have been observed showing
signs of aggression, for instance speaking to each other with harsh language
and bold body movements. Additionally, students have been observed harming each
other’s personal items. Students show little to no remorse for their actions in
these observed situations.
Rieffe
& Camodeca (2016), in their study
determined that, “the tendency to value
emotions…related to the two core aspects of empathy” (Rieffe &
Camodeca, 2016, p. 349). Suggesting that if adolescents
pay more attention to their emotions and the emotions of others daily, they are
more likely to have a greater sense of empathy. Therefore, if adolescents have
a, “concern for inner states during an emotion experience… prohibit…adaptive
coping strategies…
and hamper adaptive empathic behavior” (Rieffe &
Camodeca, 2016, p. 349) than they will be able to pay
more attention to the emotions of others and express greater levels of empathy.
This study suggests that to increase empathy among students, the students
should learn how to not only pay attention to their own emotions but the
emotions of others, meaning the students need to increase their perspective
taking skills.
According to Malti, Chaparro,
Zuffianò, & Colasante ( 2016), suggest that school
base interventions and strategies that targeted empathy at various
developmental levels were more likely to promote prosaically and impede
aggression, meaning that implementing an empathy intervention into the
classroom is not uncharted territory and should be pursued. Therefore it was important to understand what
has been done in the past to determine the design of the current intervention. Maynard, Monk,
& Booker (2011) suggested that, “interactive tools,
such as audio, ad visual mechanisms and games, have been found to be useful in
the development of prosocial identification and expression of feelings (p. 68). Some researchers
have suggested that during interventions, communication between participants
and researches can become lost in translations, Therefore McCarthy &
LaChenaye (2017) found that microskills can be used
to improve, “interpretations of patients’ descriptions”. Along with properly
decoding interactions it is important to use a standardized measure to
determine empathic interactions as well. There are several measures out there, Reid et al., (2013)
suggests using the Kids’ Empathic Development Scale (KEDS), he suggest that affective, cognitive and behavioral empathy are
distinguishable and indicate that the KEDS is successful in differentiating
these facets” (Reid
et al., 2013, p. 250). Even though this scale has
great results, it was too completed to use for such a short intervention.
Therefore, the Brief Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B-IRI) was chosen because
it has, “a simple factor structure, improving the separability of the
individual scales, while maintaining their internal consistency and core
content coverages” (Ingoglia,
Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 462).
Furthermore, the creators of this scale concluded that the B-IRI is, “easier to
use, more appropriate than the IRI with special populations who have low
literacy skills” (Ingoglia,
Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 469).
This finding was most important, especially since the population of the current
study is a diverse group of adolescent students with low literacy skills.
Furthermore, these students come from challenging home and family environments.
Since the majority of the students
in this study come from challenging and tough family environments, it was
important to understand how emotions are expressed in such environments. Maynard, Monk,
& Booker (2011, p. 68) believe that learning how to
identify and express emotions is daunting, especially when a child is in a
deprived environment (Maynard,
Monk, & Booker, 2011, p. 68). Furthermore, research has also found that
empathy and social understanding were identified as the reason for such
socio-emotional difficulties (Luke & Banerjee, 2012). These finding confirm that
the trends already observed are typically and therefore, this work is necessary
and should be completed.
Methodology
Teacher Researcher
Methodology
Before conducting teacher research, it is important to
recognize the values that, not only support the research, but also dictate how
the research will be led. When reflecting on my own teacher research, five
values stand out. Teacher research is not a one box solution; however, it
should be trustworthy, it should include student participation and student
reflection, along with providing the researcher the opportunity to be
reflective as well.
According to Baumann and Duffy (2011), “an examination of
methodology in teacher research also reveals variation--themes that are
manifest in diverse ways, and methods that evolve as the research question and
setting dictate”, (Baumann & Duffy, 2001). Baumann and Duffy (2011) suggest
that there is not one process or one solution to follow when conducting teacher
research. Each situation, question, and process of the research is unique due
to the nature of the where the research is being conducted and therefore
teacher research and methodology should remain varied.
Even though teacher research should follow an “out of box”
solution, it should still be trustworthy. For instance, “As a
teacher-researcher, I realized that in order to be trustworthy I needed to
carry out my research fairly and produce something that was closely aligned
with the experiences of the study’s participants”, (Xerri, 2017). Xerri (2017),
suggests that the process the researcher creates and follows should be
reasonable and backed by observational data. Additionally, the product and
conclusions of the research need to be supported by evidence and should
honestly portray the experiences of the students.
To honestly portray the experiences of the students being
researched, teacher research must include student participation. Steffe and
Thompson (2000), state that, “In fact, the teaching experiment was designed for
the purpose of eliminating the separation between the practice of research and
the practice of teaching”, (Steffe &Thompson, 2000). Therefore, unlike
other research there should be little to no divide between the participants and
the researcher. For instance, “the researchers are participants in the
students’ constructions and the students are active participants in the
researcher’s constructions is precisely what recommends the teaching experiment
methodology”, (Steffe &Thompson, 2000). Therefore, the only way to
determine and later conclude what is going on with the students is to engage
the students with the research and breakdown the barriers between researcher and
participants.
Since students will be fully engaged with the teacher
research, the research should provide the students an opportunity to reflect on
their own thoughts and beliefs. Murphy (2016) suggests that, “one of the adult
educator’s most important roles is to encourage individuation. Individuation
moves the student toward increased autonomy and away from unquestioned socially
constructed views and assumptions”, (Murphy, 2016). The value of individuation
is crucial for research because without student reflection and
self-understanding, students may not be able to fully engage with the research
which could, in turn, affect the outcome and conclusion of the study.
Students should not be the only ones reflecting during the
research, in fact the researcher should be reflective as well. According to
Hongisfeld, Connolly, & Kelly (2013) research should, “serves to create
knowledge, to formulate principles of intervention and also to develop
instruments for intervention and evaluation” (Honigsfeld, Connolly, &
Kelly, 2013). To be a productive teacher researcher, one must be willing to
create principles and interventions but then adapt and change those
interventions and principles after evaluation and reflection. Also, a teacher
researcher must be willing to repeat this process several times.
Qualitative Research
Approach
Before
joining Teach for America, I rarely ever considered my identity and, in fact,
because of that ignorance was probably color blinded. I was taught for so many
years that race and identity didn’t really matter and therefore shouldn’t be
discussed or addressed. However, over the last two years, I have been presented
with several opportunities to address my identity and discover how it affects
what I believe and how I behave in my classroom. Identity is a fluid and yet a
static definition, and at this current moment, I identify as a white female
from a high socioeconomic background, spiritually religious, and dyslexic. Each
of these identity markers have helped me develop and adapt my teaching praxis.
When I
started Teach for America, I truly believed that race of my students didn’t
matter and therefore we could build relationships without discussing and
confronting race. My students could immediately tell I was color blind and were
not comfortable with me. From the moment I started teaching, my students would
say things like, “well Miss you are rich and white, what do you know”. Or
things like, “well yeah, but you’re white”. With the help of Teach for America
and their training on diversity, equity, and inclusiveness and my students; I
quickly became aware that not addressing my race and identity was a covert way
of maintaining the dominance of my white privilege. I had to change my teaching
praxis. I decided that instead of shying away from topics about race and
identity, I needed to confront them. My race and identity need to be discussed
openly with my students, my whiteness is not invisible and should not be
treated so. During these conversations, also believe that I am not the expert,
my students are, and therefore my responsibility is to listen and learn and be
proactive.
Being
from a finically comfortable and stable family has absolutely shaped how I
behave and view the world. My childhood was filled with country clubs, private
schools, skiing trips, and all the comforts I could as for. I have never
suffered or bin in a situation where there was no solution. My life and
adolescents couldn’t be farther from my students. When I started teaching I was
aware of this disconnect, and thought, like my race, that not discussing my
wealth was the best approach. However, similar to my race, my wealth and
socioeconomic background kept finding its way into my classroom. From the
clothes I wore to the place I lived in Providence, to the experiences I had
when I was fifteen. I couldn’t avoid the topic anymore and ended up having a
very frank and open conversation with my students about my socioeconomic status
and the privileges I was given. As I listened to my student’s responses, I
began to realize that they were frustrated that I initially withheld this
information and were pleased that I finally shared. I know I can’t relate to my
students lives, however, what I do know, is that I can be empathetic and
understanding. My socioeconomic background and race must be brought to the
forefront and discussed if I want to make relationships with my students. And
to do this, my praxis must include empathy, allowing my students to be the
experts, listening, and learning from my students.
When I
consider my identity, I always become unsteady when asked about religion. I
grew up Presbyterian but couldn’t tell you what that means. Therefore, for me
religion doesn’t play a large part in my daily life and I rarely ever consider
it. This became a big problem for me during my first year of teaching. For many
of my students, religion plays a big role in their lives. I have found that
when planning events, field trips, and student activities I need to consider if
an event adheres to the students’ beliefs and practices. I have had some students
unable to participate in debate competitions because the competitions are the
same time as their church services, which they are strictly not allowed to
miss. Regarding religion, my teaching praxis has developed to include religion
in my planning and expand my knowledge of religion.
The
identity marker that has had the most impact on my teaching praxis is my
disability. Having a disability is the reason I wanted to become a teacher in
the first place. Back when I was in school I struggled significantly with
reading and writing. My teachers noticed immediately that I was not “average”
student and needed extra assistance. I went through a series of testing and the
results determined that I was dyslexic. From that day on, until the ninth, I
was pulled out of every foreign language class for tutoring, provided my own
room for testing, and placed in special educational classes. I hated being
dyslexic. I was frustrated and upset that I struggled so much and was typically
lost or confused. I disliked having to explain why I wasn’t going to Spanish
yet again and felt alienated and stupid for being placed in all the “slow”
classes. I remember constantly trying to explain that my disability didn’t mean
I was stupid. I’d find myself saying things like: “but I swear I’m smart! This
doesn’t mean I’m stupid!”, “I just need more time to process, but I’ll get it
eventually!”. I was trying to prove myself with the hopes that I would be
viewed as equal to my classmates.
Being
dyslexic is one of the reasons I wanted to become a teacher. I’ve come to
realize that without my aware and proactive teachers, I would not have made it
as far as I have. It was because they noticed I needed help, that I was able to
succeed. I wanted to give back and help my students the ways in which my
teachers helped me. I need to pay it forward. Furthermore, since I can so
vividly remember what it felt like to learn with a disability, I know what it
is like to sit in the back of classroom feeling lost, dumb, and absolutely
unmotivated. It is my duty, and a significant part of my teaching praxis that I
do whatever I can to teach content so that every student can access the
information. I also, must be aware a proactive at advocating for my students
needs and helping them achieve their highest academic, social, and emotional
ability.
I have
found that my gender plays a larger role in my teaching praxis than I would
like. As a woman, it has been more difficult to earn the respect of my students
compared to my male counterparts. When I started teaching, I would hear
statements like, “Mr. X is better than you, can I take is class”, “You’re so
extra Miss, Mr. X is so chill, why can’t you be like him”. I have also found that I make relationships
more quickly with my female students than my male students. To take this
identity marker a further step, I identify as a straight woman, and have come
to realize that my teaching praxis is more heteronormative than it should be. I
find myself calling my male students gentleman at times and my female students
ladies at times. I need to change this praxis, because what if a student
doesn’t identity with those labels I provide and, in turn, doesn’t feel safe in
my class expressing themselves. I need to become more aware of how my gender
effects my classroom and my students safety, therefore my teaching praxis needs
to transform.
Even
though identity is usually about race, economic status, religion, and
disability, I feel as though it is important to address one’s personality or
emotional status. Emotional awareness, to me, is a strong part of who I am and
how I identify. I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeve, take comments and
situations to the heart, and have a strong sense of empathy. When I was
younger, I believed I could feel the emotions of the people around me. I am
typically aware of how I feel and have no problem expressing myself. My
“sensitivity” definitely affects how I react and respond in my classroom. I
tend to take a motherly approach instead of a disciplinary approach. I am known
for caring a lot about my students and being a bit of a push over. My emotional
praxis is all about second chances and understanding why a student is behaving
a certain way, getting to the bottom of how they are feeling, and working
together to move ahead.
If I was
to compare my identity to who I was when I started teaching to who I am today,
my identity has absolutely changed. Like mentioned above, identity is a fluid
and yet static definition. Over time my identity will keep changing and
evolving and this will, in turn, effect my teaching praxis and my relationships
and classroom behaviors. I have so much to learn from my students and everyday
there is something new that I didn’t know before. I have enjoyed developing and
growing my identity over the year and half and look forward to evolving my
teacher praxis even more.
Participants and Setting
To visit Evolutions High
School, you end up driving to Mount Pleasant High School. It is a strange
situation, being a school located inside a larger and well-known school. From the
moment you arrive as a visitor, student, staff member, or administrator, you
recognize that the building and “school” is Mount Pleasant’s, Evolutions High
School is borrowing the space.
Evolutions High School
is a young school, new school. The only thing that visually differentiates Evolutions
from Mount Pleasant are newly printed inspirational banners hanging on the
walls, freshly yellow painted doors, and graffiti that says, “Evolutions High
School”. Other than that, the hallways and classrooms mimic those of Mount
Pleasant’s. As you explore Evolutions High School, it is clear, that the
school’s identity is still being established.
Data Collection Tools
Data
Tool 1: Teacher Journal
The teacher
journal has been an incredibly useful research tool, especially since it was
implemented before the start of the study. The teacher journal contains all
observations, notes, thoughts, and feeling from daily experiences in the
classroom. This journal provides a place for tensions to evolve and come to
life, which has provided insight into which topics to research. Furthermore,
the teacher journal has also provided guidance on intervention activities and
questions. When using the teacher journal, I need to make sure I put my biases
aside and state the facts instead of using it as a platform for emotional
venting.
Data
Tool 2: Observation
Observations are a
handy tool, especially since observations can be made for any situation. For
this research though, observations have been made for two situations: daily
interactions between students and during empathy inventions. The observations
are helpful because they can show levels of student behavior that student
discourse can’t. For instance, if a student is talking about empathy and their
body language is tense, I can assume that the student is uncomfortable, even
though they are openly expressing themselves. Making observations of students
during daily interactions has gone well, however, observing students during the
invention has not. I have been too involved in the conversations and need to
step back so I can make correct and clear observations.
Data
Tool 3: Student Discourse
Student discourse
is an excellent data tool because it breaks down the conversations between
students. This tool has been incredibly helpful in providing a direct source
for understanding how students feel about and express empathy. Like
observations, I need to improve on tracking student discourse during empathy
interventions. Again, I am too involved in the conversations and need to
distance myself, so I can take valid notes. I find that if I miss what a
student said I end up skipping it entirely which is a loss of data.
Data
Tool 4: Brief Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B-IRI)
The B- IRI
questionnaire is a brief survey that measures the level of empathy in four
categories: emotional concern, perspective taking, personal distress, and
fantasy. This survey was used to measure the average starting level of empathy
of the class. The survey will be administered two more times to track if the
average empathy of the class is changing due to the interventions. Hopefully,
the survey results match the results of the observations, student discourse,
and teacher journal. I will know for sure as I gather more data.
Data
Tool 5: Interview
The interview has
been used to assess student feelings and ability to perspective take. This tool
so far has provided a rich amount of data, simply because it is a one-on-one
interaction and students feel more comfortable talking openly. As I interview, I
need to make sure I ask enough follow-up questions. I have been noticing that I
am trying to stick to a script and instead need to be more fluid.
Procedures
Data Analysis
After
analyzing the data collected thus far, three major themes start to emerge for
increasing positive student interactions. The major themes are: usage of foul
language, personal distress, and perspective taking. Along with the major
themes, emotions being used as currency seems to act as a mediator between
empathy intervention and student relationships.
To begin
coding I reorganized all my written and typed observations, student discourse,
and interview statements into a table. I then reviewed the survey responses and
determined the average empathy score for each empathy element: emotional
concern, perspective taking, fantasy, and personal distress. Once everything
was organized, I began to read through all the statements and survey results
several times over. The first read was just to understand what I had in front
of me. The second read was to start recognizing themes. As general themes
started to pop up, I would write them down in booklet and include which source
they came from. 
The hope was to see if the
general themes could be triangulated. The third reading of all the sources was
too look for patterns between those themes, when similarities emerged they
would be highlighted the same color. This process was repeated several times,
until the data was wrung dry. The next step I need to take is to organize
patterns, trends, and similarities by theme. However, since I am a visible
learner, I drew a diagram of how the themes could possibly connect to empathy
interventions to student relationships. Along with writing down themes and
highlighting patterns, I would also make note of questions or confusing ideas
that started to arise. Question like, why are students comfortable with
providing empathy in certain situations but not in others? For instance, why
are my students comfortable providing empathy in times of crisis but not
willing to discus empathy in hypothetical situations. I read my students the
story the Giving Tree, and asked the students how they felt about the tree,
some students said they felt bad for her while others said they didn’t care
because it was story. But when a student comes to school crying that their
friend has died, my students are able to provide their friend with support
verbally and physically. Why do my student stop themselves from exploring a
hypothetical situation? Are these situations trivial? These are areas I want to
explore further as I gather more data, specifically in interview data.
The hope was to see if the
general themes could be triangulated. The third reading of all the sources was
too look for patterns between those themes, when similarities emerged they
would be highlighted the same color. This process was repeated several times,
until the data was wrung dry. The next step I need to take is to organize
patterns, trends, and similarities by theme. However, since I am a visible
learner, I drew a diagram of how the themes could possibly connect to empathy
interventions to student relationships. Along with writing down themes and
highlighting patterns, I would also make note of questions or confusing ideas
that started to arise. Question like, why are students comfortable with
providing empathy in certain situations but not in others? For instance, why
are my students comfortable providing empathy in times of crisis but not
willing to discus empathy in hypothetical situations. I read my students the
story the Giving Tree, and asked the students how they felt about the tree,
some students said they felt bad for her while others said they didn’t care
because it was story. But when a student comes to school crying that their
friend has died, my students are able to provide their friend with support
verbally and physically. Why do my student stop themselves from exploring a
hypothetical situation? Are these situations trivial? These are areas I want to
explore further as I gather more data, specifically in interview data.
So far,
the data has shown that there is a connection between the use of explicit
language, personal distress, and perspective taking on student relationships.
The trends in the data strongly suggest that when explicit language decreases
willingness to express empathy increases. This has been found in observations,
student discourse and my teacher journal.
Also, a common trend found in interviews, student discourse, and
observation is that students who are able to perspective take are more willing
to express their empathy verbally. The last major trend seen in the data thus
far is that students, at times, shy away from empathic moments because feelings
of personal distress is uncomfortable.
There is
still loads of data to collect, explore, and analyze. While I take on this
process I hope to find more trends that solidify my current finding but also
explain them with a deeper meaning. Also, I hope to explore the pattern that
suggest emotions are currency between students and act as a mediator to all
other explained interactions.
Ethical Considerations
To protect the identity
of the students several options are considered. The first is, using an alias
for each student and make up a name. Another option is to provide each student
a random number instead of a name. If names or numbers are provided they should
be randomly assigned using a number/ name random generator as well. However, a
final option could be to discuss each student by using the term “student”, this
way the complexities of random assignment don’t need to be used.
Validity and Reliability
When engaging in teacher
research, descriptive observation can be used to uncover insight into the
classroom and bring awareness to the deep-rooted problems in that classroom.
Descriptive observation also provides an opportunity to strategies, plan, and
implement potential solutions. Once plans and strategies are implemented,
focused observation will be used to collect data around the research question.
Both types of observation are incredibly important and necessary when choosing
to conduct research.
Potential Research Bias
When working with
participants, an efficient way to cancel out confounding variables is to
randomly assign participants to an experimental group and a control group using
a random assignment generator. This way human variability and biases are
statistically canceled out. Random assignment can help regulate biases. However,
since qualitative data is being collected only and the teacher works closely
with the students, it is important to cancel out biases by picking the correct
data to collect. The data chosen needs to be clearly defined and in a form that
is not affected by relationships and biases. Furthermore, once the data is
collected, it will need to be triangulated between three or more sources to
confirm it’s validity. This process will also help weed out biases and data
irregularities.
Limitations
Findings
Argument
Empathy interventions that target
perspective taking will increase positive relationships among students by
decreasing both the use of explicit language and emotional currency.
Claim
1
Students view emotions as currency and will
only provide support to those students that deserve it. For instance, students
were asked the questions, “have you provided empathy for someone?”. Several
students expressed that, “Some people don’t deserve my empathy” and therefore
they haven’t been empathic. Some students responded by saying that they will
only be empathic for someone they care about or for someone that have given
them support before. For instance, one students specifically stated that, “I
only care for my friends and nobody else”. When asked, “was there a time you
could have been empathic but decided not to be?”, some students responded by
explaining that being empathic was uncomfortable for them, they quote, “don’t
want to feel what the other person is feeling”. This behavior is supported by
Rieffe and Camodeca (2016) who believe that, “denoting a self-oriented concern
at the expense of concern for the person who is in discomfort, was negatively
related to another aspect of emotion awareness, that is the ability to identify
causal factors underlying the emotion. So far, this data suggests that students
feel uncomfortable providing empathy, possibly because they are unable to
determine the underlying causal factors of their friend’s emotions and
therefore will only venture into this unknown territory for someone that will
most likely return the favor.
In observing the students throughout the weeks,
it was easy to see these statements come to life. During group work, when a
student was feeling down, the group
members would choose to leave the sad student alone rather than reaching out to
that students and providing support. In fact, the group members would slightly
turn their bodies away from the peer in distress, completely isolating the peer.
These groups members were not close friends and could be considered
acquaintances instead. The few times a student did reach out to help a peer,
was when one of the group members was a close friend. But even then, the
conversation was superficial and surface level. The helpful student would
provide either a pat on the back or a quick side hug. Typically, the friend
would check in with the distressed student, provide the level of empathy they
felt necessary and then leave the student alone.
Later, in the intervention, students were read the Giving
Tree and asked, during a one-on-one interview to explain how the boy in the
story made them feel. The majority of the students gave disengaged responses
like, “bad”, “sad”, “angry”. Some students went further and expressed that, “it
didn’t matter how the story made me feel, it’s a story, it can’t do anything
for me”. This quote suggests that since the story can’t provide the student any
support, why should the student waist emotional energy on the story. Therefore,
students view emotions as currency, what they give they should get back.
Claim
2
Developing
and maintaining positive relationships among students is tough emotional work
and therefore frustration typically manifests into explicit language. For instance, when students disagree on a topic,
question, or plan of strategy, instead of understanding each other’s
perspective, they will debate their side of the argument until a winner is
determined. In these moments of tough emotional work, my students use explicit
and harsh language to communicate. In my classroom you will constantly hear
statements like: “No you fucking idiot, that idea is stupid, you’re so fucking retarded,
I’m right” and “Shut the fuck up nigga, you don’t know what you are talking
about”. Along with using harsh words, my students match their rough language
with bold body language, such as, standing up, raising hands in the air,
pointing at each other with finger shaped guns, and straight on chests.
In past research, it has been found that lower scores of empathy
can be associated to higher levels of aggression (Euler, Steinlin, &
Stadler, 2017). Since my students
refuse to gain an understanding for what their peer has to say, they are demonstrating
lower levels of empathy. Furthermore, they are demonstration levels of
aggression by using explicit language and bold body movements. Even though my
students are showing lower levels of empathy and higher levels of aggressions,
it does not mean they don’t have empathy at all. In fact, during private
interviews, my students have actually expressed that they have empathy they
just chose to push it aside, “Ms. just because I cures doesn’t mean I don’t
have empathy”. This quote strongly suggests that in difficult conversations,
that involve vulnerability, my students will hide their frustration and
weakness by exhibiting signs of aggression: like cursing and using bold body
language.
Claim 3
According to Rieffe and Canodeca (2016), adolescents
who pay more attention to their own and the feelings of others will have
greater levels of empathy, including being able to understand the emotions of
others. Therefore, positive student relationships will increase when students
increase their perspective taking skills. This effect was witness from the
start of the empathy intervention to the end. At the beginning of the study, it
was observed that students would only listen to the perspective of and share
feelings with close friends. Additionally, highest levels of observed empathy
occurred during times of tragedy. For instance, a student hugging a crying peer
whose family member died the day before due to a shooting. In contrast, during
times of little to no tragedy, lowest levels of empathy were witnessed. Such
as, a student forgetting lunch or arguing over an academic disagreement. During
these disagreements students use explicit and harsh language to communicate. Students
rather prove that they are correct instead of taking time to understand the
reason for the argument. When interviewed about the Giving Tree, students
didn’t care about how the boy made them feel, the boy in the story didn’t
matter because he couldn’t give the student anything. Furthermore, when asked,
“can you understand why the boy did what he did”, some students would respond
by stating, “no I can’t understand his perspective because I would never act
like that”. This quote suggests that instead of perspective taking, students
were projecting the boy’s actions onto themselves. Additionally, at the start
of the intervention students took the Brief IRI survey, which measured their
average empathy level. As a class the students averaged a 3 in perspective
taking, meaning they felt neutral, this didn’t feel strongly either way about
perspective taking. All in all, at the beginning of the study students had low
perspective taking skills, and therefore viewed emotions as currency and used
foul language to express themselves in times of frustration, which in turn,
created poor relationships.
By the end of the
intervention, students were able to increase their perspective taking skills
which decreased their use of foul language and usage of emotional currency,
which in turn, increased positive relationships. This interaction can be seen
through several pieces of data like: observations, student discourse,
interviews, and survey results. For student observations, as the interventions
went on, student begun to perspective take
during group work. Statements like, “what do you mean by that” and “I don’t get
it, can you explain again” or “alright, fine, you’re right” could be heard
several times. Additionally, the tone and body language used were less harsh
and aggressive. It has been suggested that high levels of empathy are correlate
with prosocial behavior (Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015). These
interactions suggest that students have increased their level of empathy for
one another because foul language has decreased, which is a sign of decreased
frustration. And frustration has decreased because students are beginning to
understand the feelings of their peer.
When
asked about homelessness, students were able to express feelings of sadness and
remorse and participate in a critical conversation about the correlation between
homelessness and race. Some students went as far as expressing feelings of
action, like, “It makes me sad, I wish I could help in some way”. When
interviewed again about the Giving Tree, responses changed to, “I guess I get
why he did it”. When pushed further students would state that, “if I knew why
he did what he did, then I think I would feel differently about him”. This
quote demonstrates that students are starting to truly perspective take, they
are clearly recognizing that if they understand the motive of the boy than
maybe they would be mad at the boy. Finally, at the end of the empathy
intervention the students took the BIRI survey again, and as a class the
average perspective taking score was a 4.37. The students significantly
increased their ability to perspective take from the beginning of the
intervention to the end of the intervention and, in turn, were able to build
stronger relationships with one another.
Discussion
Memo #12: Discussion
Conclusions
and Recommendations
Memo #13: Conclusions
and recommendations
References
Comments
Post a Comment