Empathy Through Academic Inquiry: A "Controversial" Approach

Jessica A. Hockett and Kristina J. Doubet

At first blush, empathy and academic inquiry may seem unrelated. When discussing controversial or sensitive topics, students should focus on facts, not feelings … right? In truth, however, rigorous study of any topic, text, or issue without empathy leads to incomplete—even inaccurate—findings and conclusions.

Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005) define empathy as "the ability to get inside another person's feelings and worldview" (p. 98). Empathizing doesn't mean casting aside reality or denying one's own beliefs, convictions, or perspective; rather, it means primarily seeking to understand rather than be understood (Covey, 1989). The ability to empathize is innately human, but that doesn't mean it comes easily to all students in all situations. Associated behaviors—like listening without judging, acknowledging without agreeing, questioning without interrogating, and even attending without interrupting—are skills that take time and practice to develop.

Structured academic controversy (SAC), developed by cooperative learning experts David and Roger Johnson, is one practical strategy that rises to the challenge of teaching empathy within academic inquiry. It can be used across grade levels and subjects and is ideal for showing students what it means to empathize, because it calls for them to do so both practically and personally.

At first, SAC feels like debate, but it's different in that it requires students to empathize with and argue both sides of an issue, and it strives to build consensus rather than having the user win or beat an opponent. Here's how it works:

Setup

• Select a topic or issue for inquiry, one that has two clear sides, each of which is strengthened by empathy for different individuals or groups. (See figure 1 for sample topics.)
• Frame the topic or issue as a yes/no question, a double-sided issue, or one with dichotomous viewpoints. (See figure 1 for sample topics of each type.)
• Put students in groups of four. Assign two pairs of partners within those quads.
• Have groups flip a coin to decide which pair gets to choose the side they will argue first. See this resource for an example of "ground rules" and a method for teaching students how to talk to one another during the discussion.

Figure 1. Different types of sample SAC topics

Process

There are three "rounds" in SAC.

Round 1

• Groups separate into pairs to craft their cases (points with supporting evidence). This can involve using teacher-provided sources or self-conducted research. Resources should provide insight into the perspectives of various stakeholders.
• The foursome convenes after a set amount of time. Side A presents its case while Side B listens and takes notes.
• Side B presents while Side A listens and takes notes.
• After both sides have presented, each is allowed to ask for clarification: "Can you repeat what you said about … ?" "What did you mean when you said … ?" They can also challenge one another in a respectful manner, using the following protocol:

                a. You said: ____________________ (point made by opponents)

                b. Which I applaud, because: _____________ (area of partial agreement)

                c. However, I believe: ________________ (opposing view on the topic)

                d. Because: _______________________ (reasoning)

Round 2

• Each partnership switches positions. Side A now argues for Side B and vice versa. Again, the teacher can provide sources, or students can conduct their own research.
• It is important that each side come up with a set of points or supporting evidence that differs from those presented in Round 1.
• The partners reconvene and repeat the rest of the steps from Round 1.

Round 3

• The group collaborates to write a consensus statement based on the strongest arguments made on both sides. This is a good time to help students empathize with one another. Direct students to focus on what they agree on, can concede to, or are all wondering. Models of what consensus "sounds" like—including examples of empathetic language that communicates uncertainty, caution, or "agreeing to disagree"—can help groups acknowledge the complexity of the issue and their conclusions about it, however tentative. (See figure 2 for model sound bites.)
• The class comes together to share consensus statements, pose questions about the perspectives represented, and discern areas of agreement and disagreement among all groups.

Figure 2. Sentence frames for building consensus

To close out your use of SAC in your classroom, have students reflect—individually or in groups—on the "big picture" painted by the varying perspectives they have explored. Students respond in writing or in classroom discussion by relaying the questions the discussion raised, reflecting on how their viewpoints have shifted, or assessing their contributions to the process. These responses can take many forms—students can write questions on exit slips or in apps like Let's Recap and use these questions or observations to feed follow-up discussions. Teacher prompts such as "What do you see now that you didn't before?" or "How did it feel to argue for a side you didn't agree with?" can tap into whether and how students were able to empathize.

There's no single strategy or magic trick for teaching empathy. But, used well and often, SAC has the potential to teach young people the value of tiptoeing beyond the boundary of selfhood to "try on" the eyes, ears, and heart of another—both in the classroom and in everyday life.

References

Covey, S. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Free Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jessica A. Hockett is an education consultant and ASCD Faculty member specializing in differentiated instruction, curriculum and performance task design, and gifted education. She is coauthor with Kristina Doubet of Differentiation in Middle and High School: Strategies to Engage All Learners and its K–5 companion, "Differentiation in the Elementary Grades: Strategies to Engage and Equip All Learners" (available October 2017). Connect with her on her website or on Twitter @jahockett or @diy_diff. Kristina J. Doubet is a member of ASCD's Differentiated Instruction Cadre and associate professor of middle and secondary education at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Follow her on Twitter @kjdoubet and learn more about her work at www.KristinaDoubet.com.

ASCD Express, Vol. 13, No. 1. Copyright 2017 by ASCD. All rights reserved. Visit www.ascd.org/ascdexpress.