Generation Meh: Empathy and College Students Today

What? Me Worry?
Are you of the mind that today’s youth are “blindly self-aggrandizing?” Does all that entitlement send you through the roof? Is it just me or is there some truth to the patterns of behavior many people report seeing? In a paper presented at the Association for Psychological Sciences in Boston (May 2010), Sara Konrath found that college students today are 40 percent less empathetic than their counterparts in the 1970s, with percentages plunging primarily after 2000. Her paper, Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis, offered a measure of four aspects “interpersonal sensitivity” (n=13,737; ~63 percent female) :

• Empathetic concern (or sympathy) over the misfortunes of others;
• Perspective taking;
• An intellectual capacity to imagine other people’s points of view;
• Fantasy (or people’s tendency to to identify imaginatively with fictional characters in books or movies; and
• Personal distress (referring to the anguish one feels during others misfortunes).

The synopsis of this study, reported in the New York Times on June 27, 2010, shows that today’s college students scored significantly lower in empathetic concerns (48 percent) and perspective taking (34 percent)–considered the more important indicies of empathetic behavior. Shared social ideals such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” and “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective” are considered less important than they were by college students 30 years ago. (The results reported were not disaggregated by gender, socio-economic status, or parents’ education level and marital status. A closer examination of the results associated with these independent variables might be useful in determining if there are any correlational effects.)

So what happened?
How did narcissism become so popular? In the Times report, Konrath and her report co-authors suggest that a mixture of cultural forces associated with video games, social media, reality TV and hyper-competition have left the younger generation “self-involved, shallow, and unfettered in their individualism and ambition” (Paul, 2010). The implications are biting, indeed. Research on low empathy in children is associated with violent behavior, aggression, and other anti-social behavior (Damon & Lerner, 2006). As these low empathetic youth grow into adults, these tendencies can lead to the results we are seeing in Konrath’s report. For educators, low empathy in students could make communication, group work, collaborative and networking activities exceedingly challenging.

I do not believe video games, social media, reality TV, and hyper-competition are necessarily the main culprits here. Perhaps the amount of cognitive surplus afforded today’s youth has some impact. Perhaps kids today are spending less time on chores, i.e., contributing meaningfully to the household, and more time in front of their computers and TV. While a recent reports suggests parents are spending more time with their children, it is not clear the ways in which parents are modeling pro-social behavior for their children. Are parents plopping kids down in front of the TV or computer or are they interacting together meaningfully?

So what can teachers do?
The implications for the reported low empathy findings are complex. For teachers, the Times article and report provide an opportunity to discuss these findings with their students. The key here is opening up an opportunity for dialog with students allowing them to share their thoughts on the issue of empathy. Keeping a journal that shows what kids are doing with their time outside school and a class discussion around their findings might also be useful and revealing to students. Role-playing is another safe and pro-social way to engage students in a discussion which, in turn, can help deepen their knowledge of empathy and empathetic behavior. While these suggested activities only scratch the surface, developing empathy and empathetic behavior is a critical skill that cannot be overlooked. If we want this depressing news regarding empathy in children and young adults to change, then we need to act now. If we don’t, as the Times article suggests, “don’t expect the next generation to sigh over it, too.”

References:
Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley & Sons.

Paul, P. (2010). From Students, Less Kindness for Strangers? New York Times, June 29, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/fashion/27StudiedEmpathy.html.

Image:

http://www.wickedresistance.com/blog/wp-content/postimg/2009/01/Meh-Web.jpg

Situation Report: Notes from my AERA experience Pt. 2

Purple Chair, Downtown; Denver, Colorado

Here are my takeaways/notes from a May 2nd session titled Web 2.0: Research Issues, Results, and Future Directions hosted by Lynne Schrum and starring Chris Dede, Dan Hickey, Diane Jass Ketelhut, Donald Leu, and Allan Collins.

These reflections are my synthesized notes and not direct quotations. My hand/brain speed and coordination are no match for the rate of human speech, but, I do try. Enjoy!

• Web 2.0 = Rorschach test — there is no one right answer/definition. It’s what we make it. (Dede)

• Web 2.0 or interactive media permits creativity, collaboration, co-creating and sharing. (FYI)

• I used to believe in collective intelligence until I attended my last faculty meeting (Dede).

• Link love: University of Pittsburgh Learn Lab: http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

• New digital media are easy to use, but not easy to use well (Dede).

• New digital media requires fluency in their rhetoric/critical thinking skills (Dede).

• Web 2.0 redefines what, how, and with whom we learn (Dede).

• In most formal learning environments, new digital media is still an add-on (Dede).

• We should be using new digital media to support wisdom building (Dede).

• Wisdom includes*:

1. A cognitive dimension involving rich understanding of a variety of intellectual disciplines and fields
2. A practical-experiential dimension of sophisticated, pragmatic comprehension about how to act given the unresolvable questions, philosophic issues, and unavoidable problems (such as personal mortality) associated with everyday life (Baltes & Smith, 1990)
3. An interpersonal dimension of insightfully appreciating the interactions and contributions of diverse groups, cultures, and societies in shaping civilization
4. An ethical dimension encompassing what the ancient Greeks meant by “knowing and doing the good”
5. A metacognitive dimension of reflective judgment, awareness of the limitations of knowing and of how  these limitations affect the resolution of ill-defined problems (Birren & Fisher, 1990; Kitchener & Brenner, 1990).

This definition draws from, but is more limited than, the concept of extraordinary wisdom delineated by Randall and Kenyon (2001).

• What should we as a society be investing in to support the development of wisdom in children and adults? (Dede)

• Achievement tests undermine achievement in schooling (Hickey).

• If you haven’t already, go read Understanding By Design by Wiggins and McTighe.

• Participatory assessment offers a new way to examine student work that supports a student-centered approach. (Hickey)

• Social collaboration sites present a rich resource for exploring identity for teachers and youth. (Ketelhut)

• For many pre-service teachers, there is a reported incoherence between their online identity and their in-class identity. Specifically, their in-class identity conflicted with their online identity. (Ketelhut)

• When examing online identity issues, consider examining Kegan‘s (1996) model of psychological development consisting of six “equilibrium stages”: the incorporative stage, the impulsive stage, the imperial stage, the interpersonal stage, the institutional stage, and the inter-individual stage. (Ketelhut)

• The Internet presents a reading comprehension issue for learners. (Leu)

• The Internet presents a literacy issue. (Leu)

• If the use of the Internet is limited to educational technology courses, subject area specialists will defer responsibility for integrating it into their curriculum. (Leu)

• For new digital media to be taken seriously in education, it needs to be integrated into subject areas more completely, not as an add-on. (Leu)

• Online reading represents a problem-based comprehension issue. (Leu)

• Web 2.0 is a static construct; we should recognize it as New Literacies instead. (Leu)

• To advance this notion, teacher education must focus on pedagogy, skill development, and a health professional development diet. (Leu)

• It is important for all educators to consider: What should we be teaching in classrooms? (Collins)

• What is important to learn? (Collins)

• What about Web 2.0 or New Literacies fosters wisdom? (Collins)

• New digital media does nothing to promote morals or ethics. (Collins)

• Web 2.0 has insiders and outsiders. (Collins)

• School culture (closed) contrasts Web 2.0 culture (open). (Collins)

• Do social collaboration and social networking sites invite us to questions our identities? (Collins)

• Web 2.0 is making the equity problem in schools worse. (Collins)

• There will be a tremendous price to pay if we do not address this participatory divide. (Collins)

• Critical New Literacies include (Leu):

1. identifying important questions
2. locating information
3. critically evaluating information
4. synthesizing information
5. communicating information

[*The definition of wisdom cited above was pulled from Dede's 2009 Educational Research article: Dede, C. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom. Educational Researcher, 38(4): 261-262.]

Situation Report: Notes from my AERA experience Pt. 1

AERA 2010, Denver Colorado

Here is a collected list of notes culled from my first day reflections at the American Educational Research Association 2010 annual meeting in Denver, Colorado. Names appearing in parentheses are referenced at the bottom of this post. While I tried to capture speakers’ thoughts directly, most are paraphrased and filtered through my limited ability to listen and write at the same time. I apologize in advance for misrepresenting any of the speakers’ thoughts and ideas.

• Most schools are surrounded by fences. This is a loaded metaphor. (Ching)

• How should we define learning?

• Why does learning inside a school define learning outside of school? (Ching)

• How is learning outside of school relevant to school learning? (Ching)

• What role does technology play in learning outside of school? (Ching)

• Kids’ access to culture of participation is increasing. (Barron)

• Research suggests production activities using the computer build technical fluencies (Barron).

• There are multi-fold learning opportunities despite the myth of the digital native.

• Parents are a critical factor as learning partners (Barron).

• Given roles parents play in kids’ lives, there are significant experience divides (Barron).

• There are significant divides between the ways in which kids use technology as producers of content. (Barron, 2009).

• Production uses of technology depends on community that surrounds kids (Barron).

• In terms of the different forms and pathways of engagement with technology, parents can play several roles (Barron):

1. Teacher
2. Learning Broker
3. Project Collaborator
4. Resource Provider
5. Non-technical Support (consultant)
6. Learner
7. Employer

• How parents engage technology personally and professionally impacts kids’ use.

• For more information on informal learning research, visit http://life-slc.org

• Strong theoretical framework for designing technologically engaging activities: Cooperative Constructionism (Chapman + Papert).

• Design Experiment Methodology reference: Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141-178.

• “Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” — Henri Poincare, 1905 (via Steinkeuhler)

• Examples of learning in out-of-school environments: Computer Clubhouse (Chapman) and Casual Learning Lab (Steinkeuhler).

• There is a tension between intentional learning (other directed) and interest-driven learning (self-directed). (Steinkeuhler).

• Research shows when students are allowed to choose reading material, reading scores are markedly higher on standardized measures associated with fluency and reading level (Steinkeuhler).

• Paradox: Out-of-school learning is always compared to in-school learning. (Sessums)

• Learning happens. Schools need to rethink time, space, and their purpose. (Sessums)

• Let students do more of the driving. (Steinkeuhler)

• Teachers need to play more of a designer and advocate role in schools. (Sessums)

• More research is needed around critical periods for learning (Kuhl).

• Research shows social context and social support are CRITICAL when it comes to knowledge acquisition and skill development (Kuhl).

• Given the critical nature of social context and social support in learning, the garbage-in-garbage-out rule is easily measured. (Sessums)

• The complexity of language use impacts a child’s language and knowledge growth and development (Kuhl).

• Imitative learning is powerful (Meltzoff).

• Imitative learning is closely associated with observational learning (Meltzoff).

• Shared or joint attention is a powerful learning mechanism before we formally acquire language (Meltzoff).

• Cultural stereotypes effect a child’s’ self-concept and learning ability (Meltzoff).

• Cultural stereotypes and self-concepts are effected by observation of and engagement with peers, parents, media, teachers, and mentors (Meltzoff).

• Stereotypes can be overcome with the help of peers, parents, media, teachers, and mentors (Meltzoff).

• Educational policy: How we choose what to do defines a course of action (Malcom).

• Educational policy is influenced by our ability to choose between alternatives, by our present circumstances, and by future goals (Malcom).

• Educational policy challenges (Malcom):

1. Over (and under-) interpreting research findings (looking for the silver bullet);
2. When research collides with conventional wisdom;
3. When research collides with politics;
4. When action is seen as too hard and/or too expensive; and
5. When it is unclear how to get from the present to a future informed by research.

• Educational policy is a blunt instrument (Malcom).

• The “work:” converting research into practice (Sessums).

• To get teachers to change how they conduct their classrooms requires a skilled expert to “tow them into the big wave” (Hickey).

• What are teacher practitioner’s learning about/sharing on Twitter? (Craft)

• How teacher practitioners are being educated about integrating technology into their curriculum varies (Sessums).

• Many technology integration courses are still focusing on teaching PowerPoint, Word, and Excel (1990s) (Sessums).

• The use of participatory media is limited in many colleges and schools of education (Sessums).

• Given an imitative learning model, many teacher practitioners are not being exposed to meaningful uses of participatory media (Sessums).

• Research suggests that most teacher practitioners are at the early stages of technology integration (Mouza, Hughes, Richardson, Niess).

• Reasons cited for limited technology integration include lack of resources, prescribed curricula, and practitioners/administrators being less open to innovative ideas (Mouza).

• What is effective technology integration? What does it look like? How should it be defined? (Sessums)

• What are we trying to achieve by integrating technology into the classroom? (Sessums)

• In what ways does participatory media transform teacher practice? (Sessums)

• Technology is still considered an add-on. It is not yet viewed as an essential part of the educational process in schools (Sessums).

• What will it take for parents, teachers, school officials to move beyond thinking of technology as a teaching tool? (Sessums)

Read the rest of this entry »