George Lucas Educational Foundation
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Share
An illustration of a heart at a school desk, raising its hand.

Right near the core of education, just past tolerance and just short of affectionate connectivity, is the idea of empathy. University of California Berkley's Greater Good Science Center explains empathy:

The term "empathy" is used to describe a wide range of experiences. Emotion researchers generally define empathy as the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling.

What Empathy Is and Is Not

Empathy is often confused with sympathy, which is a pretty extraordinary error depending on how tightly wound you are about these things (and whose definitions you stand behind). Dr. Brené Brown offers a divisive take on the difference: "Empathy fuels connections, sympathy drives disconnection."

This contrasts with, which explains:

Both empathy and sympathy are feelings concerning other people. Sympathy is literally "feeling with" -- compassion for or commiseration with another person. Empathy, by contrast, is literally "feeling into" -- the ability to project one's personality into another person and more fully understand that person. marks just a slight discrepancy between the two -- sympathy requires less movement and merging of emotions, while empathy is entirely that.

The chemistry, subjectivity, and nuance of language aside, there is a clear handle for us as teachers. However large you see the distinction, they certainly have very different tones. Empathy is based in compassion, while sympathy is based in analysis.

Greater Good continues, clarifying:

Contemporary researchers often differentiate between two types of empathy: "Affective empathy" refers to the sensations and feelings we get in response to others' emotions; this can include mirroring what that person is feeling, or just feeling stressed when we detect another's fear or anxiety. "Cognitive empathy," sometimes called "perspective taking," refers to our ability to identify and understand other peoples' emotions. Studies suggest that people with autism spectrum disorders have a hard time empathizing.

Ideally, empathy would be the net effect of experience, which in classrooms is a matter of both process and knowledge. Students would learn to empathize rather than be taught to empathize, as a symptom of what they know. Why this is important is a matter of implication and language. Teaching someone to feel what others feel and sit with emotions that aren't their own couldn't be any further from the inherent pattern of academics, which is always decidedly other. Teaching always begins with detachment -- learn this skill or content strand that is now apart from you. Empathy is the opposite -- it starts in the other, and finishes there without leaving.

Formal Education vs. True Connection

In your classroom, there are dozens of natural sources of empathy. But what about authenticity? There's nothing worse than "schoolifying" something that a child actually needs to know. So much of great teaching is about packaging content so that students recognize it as something they need to know and can actually use, rather than something to do "because I said so, and you don't want a zero, do you?"

Here's one way to consider it. Without empathy, you're teaching content instead of students. The concept of teachers as primarily responsible for content distribution is a dated one, but even seeking to "engage" students misses the calling of teaching. To teach a child is to miss that child. You must understand them for who they are and where they are, not for what you hope to prepare them for. "Giving knowledge" and "engaging students" in pursuit of pre-selected knowledge are both natural processes of formal education -- and both make empathy hard to come by.

So where to start doing something different? How should you “teach it”? How will you know it when you see it? Is it different for different content areas, grade levels, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, nationalities, or some other "thing"? Is this new-age mumbo jumbo, or a precise tool for a progressive teacher? How has the push of digital and social media into learning spaces emphasized the need for empathy -- or naturally reduced it?

Is empathy a skill that can even be taught, a "competency" that you should bullet-point in your lesson plan, something that requires pre-assessment? Or is it something fuller, something more persistent and whole? Scotty McLennan, the Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University, suggests:

Expressing care for another is not an innate ability present more naturally in some people than others, but rather a skill that can be taught and nurtured through a supportive educational environment.

The Human Face of Understanding

But pushed farther, it's not hard to see that empathy is both a cause and effect of understanding, a kind of cognitive and emotional double helix that can create a bridge between classroom learning and "real-life" application. Getting started with empathy in the classroom is a matter of first grasping it as a concept, strategy, and residual effect of knowledge and perspective. Heading over to Teaching Tolerance and ordering a bunch of posters and DVDs may be unnecessary -- at least at first. Internalizing how the idea of empathy can reframe everything that happens in your classroom -- your reason for teaching -- is a shift that will suggest a world of possibility for teaching lessons, activities, and strategies.

More than anything else though, empathy is a tone. Broken into parts, it is about self, audience, and purpose. It helps students consider:

  • Who am I?
  • Who is "other"? And how? In what functions and degrees?
  • How do we relate? What do we share?
  • What do they need from me, and I from them?

This leads to a staggering and often troubling question for all of us: "What should I do with what I know?"

Was this useful? (4)

Comments (6) Follow Subscribe to comments via RSS

Conversations on Edutopia (6) Sign in or register to comment

Samantha D's picture

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, especially when I say this to my colleagues almost every day. Why are we so concerned about the curriculum and the standardized test scores, that we have forgotten about the students as human beings? I would much rather take the opportunity to teach my students valuable life lessons during the day than be SO concerned about "getting through the content."

Miranda's picture

I really enjoyed reading this blog. I often ask myself if I am teaching content or students. I think that we are so overwhelmed with the pressure of teaching the curriculum and having good standardized test scores, that we try to make it through the content and forget that the students are humans. Its really said that is seems as if we are only concern about the test scores and not about the students as individuals. I remember when I was in school and was able to be taught valuable lessons as Ms. Samantha said during class. Now there is only time to teach the content and nothing else. We should be teaching students and not content.

Leslie Rose's picture

There's nothing worse than "schoolifying" something that a child actually needs to know. So much of great teaching is about packaging content so that students recognize it as something they need to know and can actually use, rather than something to do "because I said so, and you don't want a zero, do you?"

This is an excellent point. What I continue to hear, over and over, from children of all ages but especially junior high and high school students, is that they need to feel liked, supported and understood by their teachers. They generally seem to think in terms of "why should I care about this if you don't care about me?"

A recent example of teaching content, not the student, comes from one 8th grade boy I know who was taking Spanish this year (a class he needs to be eligible for many colleges) and doing poorly. He was distracted and lost, much of the time in the class. To compensate for the stress, he often chatted with friends. The teacher's response to him and others doing poorly in her class was to ridicule them by saying things like, "you're just taking up air in this class." She made him miserable and he dropped the class, mid-year.

Admittedly, the teacher was frustrated with the failing students. But what was she teaching them? That they are failures and merely "taking up air"? From my vantage point, a year of being exposed to any second language in a relaxed and supportive, or even fun, setting would have been better than none, regardless of the grade.

It is essential that teachers understand the powerful influence they have over their students and how their ability to empathize can profoundly shape how kids view school, learning and their own potential.

Thank you!

reallyleila's picture

Wow. Excellent post. Thank you for shedding some light on the real role of teachers. It is interesting because a lot of teachers think that education is just knowledge based, however you are molding minds from all avenues of life. It is in education that students minds are molded and emotions are shaped. Some teachers misunderstand the value of an education and the value of what they produce. Yes, knowledge is a key factor, but the culture that you create enables students to succeed with that knowledge.

Don Doehla, MA, NBCT's picture
Don Doehla, MA, NBCT
2015 California Language Teacher of the Year, Co-Director Berkeley WL Project at UC Berkeley Language Center

Thanks, Terry, for the thought-provoking article, and the reminder, as we begin another new school year, that we are in relationships with our students, not with our "content," whatever that content may actually really be! All too often, kids become completely turned off to what we are learning because they sense it is all about what you know, and how many points you can amass, than about who we are, who our friends, families, colleagues and neighbors are, wherever they may be on the planet. As we become more and more buried under messages from every direction, the humanizing effect of face-to-face time becomes all the more important. Let's make that time count for our kids, for each other, and for the future. We need to take many moments each day to say "how are you?" and "what makes you tick?" or "what really matters to you and to me?" Relationships first, please! The rest will follow later.

Best wishes,

Chantal Rashtian's picture

The topic of social and emotional learning is proving to be a large hurdle these days with so much social media and instant gratification through different networking sites and chats, face-to-face interactions have become scarce. Often times the only place students and adults are forced to be in social situations are in school or at work. This dilemma of diminishing social interactions and isolation behind tablets, phones, and computers can make teaching skills like empathy seem irrelevant and far-fetched. So, how can a teacher, allied professional, or educational therapist make a concept such as empathy learned? The answer isn't through a lesson plan or definition, it's through forming connections with students and creating social situations in which students truly have a chance to interact with one another using activities that enhance socio-economic understanding, ethnic traditions, and collective consciousness. The blog mentions that "Teaching always begins with detachment -- learn this skill or content strand that is now apart from you. Empathy is the opposite -- it starts in the other and finishes there without leaving" teaching can begin with attachment by opening dialogue in understanding the other (student, client, or otherwise). I believe that in education, some things (like empathy) cannot be taught through explicit instruction but can be learned through active engagement in another human's emotional perspective. By taking a humanistic approach to learning and professions we can create substantial progression in the lives of students and clients. I am currently a student in CSUN's Educational Therapy M.A. program and believe that my career relies solely on forming these empathic connections with my future clients, their families, and colleagues. I am a strong believer that becoming one with my own experiences whether positive or negative will help me become more active in forming empathetic connections with others. In order to build an open relationship becoming empathetic towards a client's situation as well as their parents, can help me as a professional develop psycho-educational goals, a learning profile, treatment plan, and curriculum tailored to a specific individual's' socio-emotional capacity. In developing these connections whether as an educational therapist, teacher, or allied professional I believe we are better able to create supportive learning environments and make valuable contributions to the formation of a student's psychological, psychosocial, and cognitive successes within educational institutions and future social/emotional endeavors.

Sign in to comment. Not a member? Register.