Educational figures as models for empathetic communication at school： An exploratory examination of an integrative assessment model

Educational figures as models for empathetic communication at school： An exploratory examination of an integrative assessment model Educational figures as models for empathetic communication at school: An exploratory examination of an integrative assessment model Nov.2010,Volume7,No.11(SerialNo.61)JournalofUS.ChinaPublicAdministration,ISSN1548-6591,USA Educationalfiguresasmodelsforempatheticcommunicationatschool: Anexploratoryexaminationofanintegrativeassessmentmodel fi YuvalWolfl,RonitPeledLaskov2 DepartmentofCriminology,Bar-llanUniversity,RamatGan52900,Israel 2DepartmentofCriminology,AshkelonAcademicCollege,Ashkelon78109,Israe1) Abstract:Thispaperpresentsanexploratoryexaminationofamethodologydeliberatedtoquantify empatheticmodelinginIsraelischools.Approximatelyhalfadozendisciplesand3-5teachersineachof102 elementaryandhigh— schoolsfromvariousregionsofIsrael,affiliatedwithdifferenteducationalsectors, participatedinthestudy,whichwasconductedby40welltrainedinterviewers.Usingsophisticatedalgorithms, integrativescoreswereextractedinordertorepresenteachschool'spupils— teachersfitinviewingtheempathetic approachbytheschool'sleadingeducationalfigures.Theresultsareconceivedasindicativeoftheviabilityofthe to—be—evaluatedassessmentmethodandtheconstructofschool— empathy.Appliedimplicationsaresuggestedand continuedresearchdeliberatedtotestthehypothesisofaninversecausalconnectionbetweenschool—empathy,and school—violenceisproposed. Keywords:empatheticcommunication;educationalmodels;integrativeassessmentmodel 1.Introduction Non—empatheticnormsarereflectedinalienationandviolencetowardsout— groups(Levine&Moreland, 1994;Mullen,Brown&Smith,1992;Shah,Kruglanski&Thompson,1998;Tulberg&Tulberg,1997)andweak personae(Berkowitz.1982;Berkowitz&Heimer,1989).Regrettably,quiteafewsocializationagentsand agenciesserveascarriersofvaluesandnormsassociatedwithviolence.However,thereseemtobeagentsand agencieswhoconveytheoppositevaluesandnorms.Thepresentworkfocusesonthelatter,asitisdecreedand enactedinformaleducationalcontexts,i.e.,schools.Thatisduetoitsimpliednatureofbeingananti—thesisof alienationandviolence. Empathy,beyonddefinitionalvariations,istheabilitytoproduceavalidperceptionandabstractionofthe internalframeofreferenceofanotherhumanbeing,herorhisthoughts,feelingsanddilemmas,aswellasthe originsandimplicationsofsuchinternalstates(Barrett-Lenard,1993;Berger,1984,1989;Kunst—Wilson, Carpenter,Poser,Venohr&Kushner,1981;LaMonica,1981;Rogers,1959,1961;Stein,1970;Tuch,1997). Anempatheticapproach,asananti— thesisofalienationandviolence,isespeciallyimportantinschools, wherethemainagentofsocializationistheteacher-educator.Inquiteafewinstancesatschool,theexposureof pupilstoteachersatschoolislongerandmoreintensethanexposureathome.Atschool,therear emanymoments ofteacher-pupilinteraction.Asideofmaterial(to—be— learned)orientedcommunication,thepupilisassimilating andaccommodatingteachers'human—likegestures. YuvalWolf,professoremeritus,DepartmentofCriminology,Bar-llanUniversity;researchfi eld:cognitivepsychology. RonitPeledLaskov,Ph.D.,DepartmentofCriminology,AshkelonAcademicCollege;resea rchfield:cognitivepsychology 85 Educationalfiguresasmodelsforempatheticcommunicationatschool: . A ....... n ....... e .... x ..... p..... 1 ... o ..... r .... a .... torye— x — a —— minationofanintegrativeassessmentmodel Teachers'empatheticapproachinsuchmomentsseemstoemployseveraladvantages. Itfacilitatesleamin2 whichmanytheoreticiansconsidertobethebestifnottheonlywayforatruelearning(Basch,1983;Rogers, 1958,1959,1961;Tuch,1997).Mostteachers'traininginschoolsofeducationem【phasizestheimportanceof empatheticapproachasameanstocreateanoptimalclimateforlearning. However,thisisnoteasilyapplicable. especiallyduetotheegocentricnatureofallbeingsincludinghumansandeventeachers. TheapproachofBurwoodandWyeth(1998)regardingtheroleoftoleranceineducationstandsoutinthe presentcontext.Theseauthorsdefinetoleranceasachoicetorefrainfromactswhichareinconvenientforthe dialoguepartner(pupilinthepresentcontext).Suchavoidanceisanecessaryconditionforempathy.Itrequires refrainingfromanenforcementofthevaluesoftheeducator,anditincludesanattemptnottoblockthepupil,s ownwaytoexperienceandlearn.Theseauthors(P.465),asapartoftheirattempttosolvesomeinherentparadox. suggestrelatingtopupil'sautonomyasasuperiorvaluewhichobligestheeducatortoacceptbehaviournotin accordwithhisorherownvalues. Thissuggestionishardtofulfill,sincenotalleducatorsareeducatedinanempatheticatmosphere. Questioningofmanystudents(bytheauthorsofthepresentpaper)duringthelastdozenofyearshasindicated thatthevastmajorityoftherespondentswerebroughtupinconditionsoffrequentmoraliudgmentandconsistent operantconditioning,wheredenigrationservesasacoremeanstoextinguishbehaviorswhichdonotfitthe educators'(socializationagents)values. Overall,ajudgmentalapproachineducationalsettings(wolC2001;woleR.&wolC,I,.,20021is incompatiblewithempatheticapproach,especiallywhentheresultisdenigrationofwrongdeeds.Inmanv occasions,thistypeofresponseisperceivedbythepupilasapersonaldowngrading.Suchanapproachmay extinguishherorhisdesiretolearn.Itmightfacilitatefrustration,hostilityandaggression(Wolf,1985). Asanantithesisofthejudgmentalapproach,RuizandValejos(1999)emphasizetheconnectionbetween educationandcompassion.Theymentiontwocomplementaryapproaches:roletaking,i.e.,anattempttoviewthe relevantrealityfrompupils'perspective,andfacilitatingsocialandmoralinsights.Theimportanceofthisview shouldberelatedtothesubstantiveroleofmodelling(Bandura.1986)inschoollearning. Modellinginthecontextofschoolsisatwofoldtypeofcommunication. Schooleducationcanbeviewedasa social-psychodynamicsmadeofin-numerousmomentswherethepupilisexposedtovalues—loadedbehaviourof meaningfulfiguresatschool(Tirri,1999).Thepresent(exploratory)studyhasbeenfocusedonsuchmomentsat schoo1.Anyepisodewhereateacheriscommunicatingwiththepupilsisconceivedhereasasortofdilemma.in whichtheformerisrequiredtochooseoneofseveralpossibleapproaches,rangingfromajudgmentalpoletoan empatheticone.Inthelatter,thefoCUSiSonthepupilwhiletheteacher'Sfocusintheotherpoleisonhisorherown waytoapproachthematterto—be— learned.Thisstudyispurportedtoexemplifytheviabilityofamethoddeliberated toassessthequalityofempatheticmodellingatschoolintheeyesofbothrolepartners--pupilsandteachers. 2.Method 2.1Participatingschools InresponsetoaninvitationfromtheRabinCentre(establishedafterRabin'sassassination,tospreadhis heritage)toparticipateinanassessmentproject,232elementaryandhigh— schoolsconsented.Nevertheless,since theprojectfinallybeganamonthbeforetheendoftheschool-year,only102schoolshaveparticipatedatlast. TheseschoolsaredistributedallovertheStateofIsraelandbelongtoallethnicorigins(includingJewsandArabs, 86 Educationalfiguresasmodelsforempatheticcommunicationatschool: Anexploratoryexaminationofanintegrativeassessmentmodel andreligious-culturalsections). 2.2Designandinstrument Themeasurementmethodwasintendedtoexemplifytheviabilityofamodelwhichoverarchesteachersand pupilsunderoneassessmentumbrella.Themethodwasbasedonthepostulatesofthefunctionaltheoryof cognitionanditsmethodologicalcounterpart--functionalmeasurement(Anderson,1981,1982,1990,1991,1996, 2001:Anderson&Armstrong,1989).Thetheoryandtheconcomitantmethodarebased onthefollowing DOstulates:Anymeaningfulstimulationwhichanindividualisexposedtoiscomplexandisundergoinga subjectivemulti--phasedabstractionandtransformation. Atthefirststageofthe(entirelyspontaneousandcontinuous)processingofrelevantinformation,subjective sca1evaluesareallocatedtoeachoftheavailablebitsofinformation.Then,subjectiveweightisassignedtoeach sOurceOfinforn1ation.These"products''areintegratedviaasimplealgebraicrule,usuallyaveragingoradding? Thefinalstageofthisprocessisthereleaseofanobservableandquantifiableresponse.Thetheorypostulatesthat suchfunctionaljudgmentofanymeaningfulpartofanindividual'sreality,ifobservedvalidly(Anderson,1982, 1990,2001),shouldreflecthisorhercognitiveschemaregardingtherelatedphenomenon. AnODerationalapplicationofthismodelintermsofthepresentissueenabledanassessmentofteachers' empatheticapproach.Twosubstantiveaspectsofsuchapproachwereincludedinthemodel--empathyasa declaredframeworkofpracticalguidelinesforteacher'severydayeducationalcommunicationwithpupilsandthe applicationofsuchguidelinesinthecourseofeverydaycommunicationatschool(Ruiz&Valejos,1999). Cell1inTable1representsthesuccessfulapplicationofbothaspectsofthepresentapproach.Atthesame time,alackofaprioricommitmentandnonotablepracticeofempatheticapproacharerepresentedinCell4.The modelincludestwointermediateconditions(Cell2andCell3)aswel1.Individuals'assessmentswithinthis frameworkwerecollectedfromtwosources--school'sstaffandthemembersofpupils'counci l. 2.3Procedure Theinterviewsinallparticipatingschoolswereperformedbyaskilledteamof40femalegraduatestudents fromBar-IlanUniversity.Ineachparticipatingschool,theinterviewerfirstlyhadadiscussionwiththeprincipa1. Shedescribedandexplainedtoherorhimthenatureofthestudyandtheassessmentprocedure.Then,the principalreferredtheinterviewertothecentraleducationalfiguresatschoo1.Theinterviewerhadameetingwith eachofthesepersonaeindividually.Attheonsetofeachsuchmeeting,thetwodiscussantshadafriendlyand relaxingdiscussion(warmingup).Theinterviewerexplainedtheobjectivesofthestudyandhadassuredthe intervieweethather/hisanonymitywouldbefullyrespected.Shesaidthatthedatatobecollectedatevery participatingschoo1wasmainlydeliberatedtoprovideabaselineforfurtherstudies.Itwasstatedthatpresumably onlyoneschoolinthesectortowhichtheinterviewee'sschoolbelongswouldbeawarded,butquiteafewother schoolsmightpossiblygainhighgrading,andconsequentlyreceiveacertificatedenotinganoutstandingapproach fromtheRabinCentre.Onthebasisofthisinformation,theintervieweegaveherorhisconsent.Then, instructionsregardingthetaskoftheintervieweeweregiven. Afterthemainpartoftheinterview,theintervieweewasaskedtomakeevaluationsregardingeachofthe educationalfigureschosenbytheprincipal,followingthespecificationsofeachofthefourconditions(see Table1,resultingfromthefullbi-factorialcombinationoflevelsofthetwof_actOrs—— aprogrammaticdecree regardingtheintentiontocommunicateempathetically(hencedecree)anddailyapplicationofthis pronouncement(henceapplication). Intheconditionofoptimalpracticingofempatheticapproach(Cell1inTable1),theinterviewersaid:"With 87 Educationalfiguresasmodelsforempatheticcommunicationatschool: . A......... n .......... e .. xplora—— to — r — yexaminationofanintegrativeassessmentmodel regardtoteacherX,towhatextent,onan11-pointscale(0— 10),her(orhis)communicationatschoolcanbe characterizedascombiningadeclaredandpracticalempatheticapproach?"Theinterviewerregisteredthe interviewee'sratingwithinthemarginsofCell1,aswellasanyofher/hisrelatedremarks. Thesameprocedure wasappliedwithregardtotheremaining(three)conditionsofthemode1.Orderofconditionswasarbitrary.Each intervieweewasexposedtothesamefourconditionsincludedinthemodelwithregardtoeach ofhisother colleaguesmarkedbytheprincipal(X2,X3….,Xn).Several(3— 5)membersofthepupils'council(recommended bytheheadofthecouncil)participatedasintervieweesinareplicationofthesameprocedure. Table1Abi—factorialframeworkfortheassessmentofempatheticapproach Decree:ApplicationMuchLittle Much12 Little34 3.Findingsanddiscussion 3.1Preliminaryscoring Thefollowingstatisticalarrangementswereperformed:(1)Diagnosisofthelevelandqualityofempathetic approachofeachoftheeducationalfiguresatallparticipatingschool(preliminaryscoring);(2)enhancementof thedifferentiabilityofthescorestoimproveclassificationofschools;(3)purificationofthedistinctionbetween schoolsandselectionofthosewhostandout. Foreachstaffmemberincludedinthelistofintervieweesandprotagonists,anoverallstatisticaldescription ofherorhisdegreeofempathyatschoolwasoutlined.Thehighestofthefourratingsrelatedtothispersonwas takenasrepresentinghisempathyinputintheeyesofeachoftheassessors(colleaguesandpupils)whohave madetheratings.Basedonanoverallcontentanalysisoftheinterviewees'verbalcomments,thefollowingorder ofthefourcellsincludedintheoriginalmodelwasadopted.Cell1impliesanoptimalapproachwhichintegrates decreeandapplication;Cell2representsafocusonapplication;Cell3representsafocusondeclarationswithout sufficientapplication;naturally,Cell4receivedthelowestrank.Therewerequiteafewcases wherethehighest ratingsofthesameprotagonistdidnotmatch,i.e.,theyfellindifferentcells.Consequently,an11-pointscalewas developed(seeTable2).Basedonthisscale,twoscoreswereproducedforeachprotagonist,tosummarizethe assessmentsfromthetwosources--teachersandpupils. Table2Ascaleofempathyscoresproducedonthebasisoftheoriginalmodel(Table1) ScoreCriterion l0Theoptimalcell(Cell1)waschosen 9ThehighestratingsappearedinCell1andCell2 8ThehighestratingsappearedinCell1andCell3 7Thehighestrating(s)appearedinCell2 6ThehighestratingsappearedinCell2andCell3 5Thehighestrating(s)appearedinCell3 4ThehighestratingsappearedinCells1andCell4 3ThehighestratingsappearedinCell2andCell4 2ThehighestratingsappearedinCell3andCell4 1Thehighestrating(s)appearedinCell4 0Thesetofratingsappearednonsensical 88 Educationalfiguresasmodelsforempatheticcommunicationatschool: Anexploratoryexaminationofanintegrativeassessmentmodel Theresultsofthefirststageofstatisticalarrangementenabledtheproductionofempathyscoresonan 11-pointscaleforeachassessorineachschoo1.Toenableanintegratedschoolscore,thefollowingprocedurewas enacted:Eachschoolhasreceivedonescoreonthepreliminary1l—pointscale.i…ethescale —pointofthemodel (majority;atleasttwoassessorsfromonesource--teachersorpupils)numberofindividualscores(teachers+ pupils).Itwasfoundthat31schools(almost1/3oftheparticipatingschools)werelocatedonthehighestdegree, i.e.,themodelscoreofassessorsfromeachoftheseschoolswas10.Theremainingschoolsweredistributedalong theupperpartoftheoriginal11-pointscale.Naturally,thesearchforschoolswhichdeservetheRabinCentre prizehadtoconcentrateontheuppergroupof31schools(25ofthemwereelementary--22Jewishand3 Arab_一5(Jewish)highschoolsandoneschoolofspecialeducation). Apurifiedprocedurewasconstructedtocombinetheratingsofbothsources:Theratioofthenumberof assessors,teachersandpupils,thattheirratingsweretransformedtothescoreof10(numerator)dividedbythe entirenumberofassessorsinthegivenschool(denominator).Thedescriptivestatisticsforthe25elementary schoolsinthetopcategoryof31schoolswereasfollows:inter-quartilerangeofcombinedscores0.28 (0.92-0.64),median0.83,mean0.80.Forthefivehighschools,therange0.60(0.93— 0.33),median0.69, mean0.71.andthecombinedscoreofthespecialeducationschoolis0.70. 3.2Enhancementofthedifferentiabilityofthescores Toenhancethedifferentiabilityofthescores,thefollowingprocedurewasdeveloped:(1)Asumofeach assessor'sremaining(three)ratingswassubtractedfromher/hissquaredratinginCell1intheoriginalmodel(see Table1).Theseintermediatescoresweremeanttorepresenttheconfidenceofeachassessorinattributingan optimallevelofempathytoeachprotagonist;(2)onthebasisofthesescores,arepresentationofthefitbetween thetwosourcesofevaluationwasproducedintermsoftheratioofthenumberofthedecimalcat egories(i.e., 6l-70,7l一 80,etc.)whichincludedratingsfrombothsourcesandthenumberofallpossiblecombinationso?