Teachers' empathy: can it be predicted by self-efficacy?

Teachers and Teaching theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teachers’ empathy: can it be predicted by selfefficacy? Marina Goroshit & Meriav Hen To cite this article: Marina Goroshit & Meriav Hen (2016): Teachers’ empathy: can it be predicted by self-efficacy?, Teachers and Teaching To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1185818

Published online: 07 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20 Download by: [Tel Hai Academic College]

Date: 07 June 2016, At: 22:03

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1185818

Teachers’ empathy: can it be predicted by self-efficacy? Marina Goroshita,b and Meriav Hena a

Psychology Department, Tel-Hai Academic College, Kiryat Shmona, Israel; bLaboratory for Comparative Social Research (LCSR), Higher School of Economics, National Research University, Kiryat Shmona, Russia

Downloaded by [Tel Hai Academic College] at 22:03 07 June 2016

ABSTRACT

Teachers’ social-emotional competencies seem to play a significant role in promoting social-emotional learning in schools. Empathic teachers were found to possess a higher level of morality; to communicate more successfully with their students; to encourage them to forge empathic relationships; and to successfully motivate their students. Yet, there is a dearth of literature on how to develop such empathy in teachers. The present study, which is based on a large body of research, investigated the contribution of teachers’ self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy to teacher empathy. The sample comprised 543 teachers from the central region of Israel who completed self-report questionnaires. Findings indicated that both types of self-efficacy contribute to empathy in teachers, but the contribution of teacher self-efficacy is greater. These findings can benefit teacher educators, principals and others involved in teacher performance and well-being throughout the world. Findings may suggest that both efficacies are compelling variables that need to be addressed and enhanced in relation to teacher empathy. In addition, the findings strengthen the notion that social-emotional competence in teachers is strongly associated with teachers’ self-beliefs regarding their teaching efficacy.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 21 June 2014 Accepted 23 April 2015 KEYWORDS

Empathy; teacher selfefficacy; emotional selfefficacy

1. Introduction Recently, a growing number of researchers recommend investing efforts in developing curricula to improve students’ emotional and social competence as well as their academic abilities (Bernard, 2006; Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigle, 2004). They emphasize the significant role played by emotional competencies in promoting social-emotional learning in schools, and the ways in which these competencies benefit overall academic outcomes (Denham, 2006; Elias, 2009). Teachers bear the brunt of this complicated task (Hargreaves, 2000; Jennings, 2011). In addition to developing academic abilities, they are expected to create a supportive educational environment enabling interpersonal and intrapersonal emotional processes to take place (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Teachers possessing a high level of emotional capacity are considered to be better able to create an atmosphere suitable for developing supportive and inspiring relationships with their students, to structure lessons CONTACT Meriav Hen

[email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


2

M. Goroshit and M. Hen

that develop students’ strengths and capacities, and to foster personal commitment and motivation among their students (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). This is even more critical in an environment in which mainstreaming, multi-culturalism, and other social and educational reforms contribute to diversity in most educational settings (McAllister & Irvine, 2000). Teachers are required to adapt their teaching to a vast array of emotional, cultural and learning needs, and to find a way to include all students in the educational milieu (Bernard, 2006). Surprisingly, teachers rarely receive the training required to address and successfully handle the social and emotional challenges of teaching (Jennings, 2011). Moreover, there is insufficient research exploring the development of social-emotional competencies in teachers, and even less dealing with empathy in teachers (Cooper, 2010). However, there is a large body of literature identifying teachers’ self-efficacy as one of the key motivational notions influencing the behavior of teachers and affecting students’ learning (Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011). Teaching self-efficacy has been found to be associated with a wide range of teaching behavior including: teaching performance, teaching strategies, teaching styles, classroom management, and control over the teaching–learning process (Putman, 2012). It was also found that teachers with a high level of self-efficacy tend to be more understanding in classroom management and more likely to encourage autonomy among their pupils than teachers with low levels of self-efficacy, who tend to be more conservative in class management enforcing strict regulations and sanctions (Meijer & Foster, 1998). Emotional self-efficacy (ESE) refers to the belief individuals have about their ability to identify, express and regulate emotions in themselves, and in others (Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008) facilitating enriching social exchanges and experiences (Caprara et al., 2008). The present study examines the specific contribution of ESE and teaching self-efficacy to empathy among teachers. Both authors are teacher educators in central Israel, and believe that enhancing teachers’ emotional capacity has far-reaching implications.

2. Literature 2.1. Empathy in teachers Researchers describe empathy as a moral feeling concerning the welfare of others, facilitating interpersonal relationships and influencing people to engage in prosocial and altruistic behavior (Pizarro & Salovey, 2002). Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, and Neuberg (1997) suggested that empathy requires an accurate identification of emotional responses in others and involves well-defined abilities rather than attitudes alone. It is considered a complex, multi-dimensional concept that has moral, cognitive, emotive, and behavioral components (Mercer & Reynolds, 2002) and has been conceptualized in many different ways (Stojiljković, Djigić, & Zlatković, 2012). Baron-Cohen (2003) defined empathy as the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to follow through with an appropriate emotional response. This drive, he believes, provides a way to make sense of and predict another person’s behavior. Other researchers have defined empathy as an individual’s capacity to understand the behavior of others, to experience their feelings, and to express that understanding to them (Lam, Kolomitro, & Alamparambil, 2011). It is also found to be related to moral development and attitude (Hoffman, 2001) and to contribute to the development of affective


Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice

3

bonds, understanding, and caring actions between people (Arghode, Yalvac, & Liew, 2013). Empathy is a professional asset for teachers, physicians and social workers, and others who work with people (Stojiljković et al., 2012). Interestingly, while there is a growing body of literature concerning empathy in medical caregivers and therapists, relatively limited research has specifically focused on empathy in teachers (Barr, 2011; Hen, 2010). Cooper (2010) argued that teachers play a significant role in creating the learning environment and cultivating the classroom climate for their students’ learning, including being responsive to their needs and concerns. Thus, teacher empathy is a required teaching skill which promotes a positive learning environment. Tettegah and Anderson (2007) defined teacher empathy as the ability to express concern and take the perspective of a student. Empathetic teachers serve as a model of morality for their pupils, by engaging them in positive interaction. Such interaction enhances the quality of teaching and learning, contributes to better behavior and fosters sharing. Cooper (2004) found that empathic teachers contribute to children’s self-efficacy and to their motivation to learn. Empathic teachers have been shown to strengthen their pupils’ sense of belonging to their schools, enhance their relationships with teachers and peers, and boost their confidence in the school climate (Schutz & DeCuir, 2002). A study examining the level of empathy among guidance counselors in relation to the level of school violence found that those with high levels of empathy managed to rehabilitate pupils’ sense of well-being, increase their ability to cope effectively with anger, and reduce the number of violent acts (Ikiz, 2009). Hen (2010) found a positive correlation between levels of teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and empathy and positive attitudes toward children with special needs in a mainstream educational setting. Empathic science teachers, for example, related better to their students, and provided more support to the learning processes in math and science classes than non-empathic teachers (Lam et al., 2011). Although research supports the view that supportive learning environments, including empathic and supportive teaching practices, are conducive to student learning and achievement, teacher empathy is often overlooked. It is unclear which factors contribute to empathy in teachers and how to cultivate it (Arghode et al., 2013). Goroshit and Hen (2014) found that while gender, years of experience and academic degrees were not strong predictors of empathy among teachers, ESE was. Other studies focusing on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs found them to be strongly associated with attitudes toward disturbed behavior of pupils (Gibbs & Powell, 2012; Pas, Bradshaw, Hershfeldt, & Leaf, 2010), out-of-class referrals (Egyed & Short, 2006), multicultural diversity in class (McAllister & Irvine, 2000), and inclusion of students with learning disabilities (Barr, 2013; Roll-Peterson, 2008). In conclusion, self-efficacy in teachers has been viewed as a possible predictor of teacher empathy. 2.2. Self-efficacy among teachers According to Bandura’s (1997) theoretical framework of social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is grounded in the evolvement and exercise of human agency which enables us to exercise some influence over our actions (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Moreover, self-efficacy refers to people’s judgments regarding their own capacities to initiate and execute courses of action required to achieve designated kinds of performance (Bandura, 1997). It strongly influences the choices people make, the effort they expend, their persistence, resilience, and achievement (Britner & Pajares, 2006). High levels of self-efficacy enable individuals


4


to choose challenging settings and to modify their environment or create a new one. It represents a belief in one’s ability to cope with a variety of demands. It is primarily based on competence, prospective, and action related (Usher & Pajares, 2008). TSE may be conceptualized as beliefs of individual teachers in their ability to plan, organize, and carry out activities required to attain educational goals (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). It refers to teachers’ confidence in their ability to influence student learning, and is considered to be one of the key motivational notions influencing teacher’ professional behavior and student learning (Klassen et al., 2011). Studies reported by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of TSE and its association with a wide range of teaching and learning outcomes. These outcomes include the behavior of teachers in the classroom, their effort and ability to set goals, their openness to new ideas, willingness to experiment with new methods, their planning and organizational competence, persistence, resilience, commitment and enthusiasm for teaching, as well as their perseverance in their chosen profession. There is some evidence that teachers with low levels of self-efficacy may be more likely to use punitive or reactive disciplinary strategies in behavior management (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). They may experience greater difficulties in teaching, exhibit lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of job-related stress, compared to teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy (Betoret, 2009). Teachers with high self-efficacy tend to implement organized instructional strategies, are more open to new teaching methods and demonstrate greater persistence when working with students experiencing difficulties (Gibbs & Powell, 2012). It was also found that a high level of self-efficacy in teachers facilitates a more humane approach in classroom management and encourages autonomy among pupils. Teachers with lower self-efficacy tend to be more conservative in classroom management and employ strict regulations and sanctions (Meijer & Foster, 1998). Teachers with a high level of self-efficacy accepted the integration of pupils with learning difficulties and behavioral problems into regular classrooms, and achieved greater success in teaching these pupils than teachers with lower levels of self-efficacy (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Studies have identified a variety of external and internal variables that contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy. According to Guskey and Passaro (1994), the internal dimension refers to the extent to which teachers believe that they have personal influence and power over students’ learning, whereas the external dimension reflects teachers’ perceptions of the influence, power, and impact of factors outside the classroom. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) found that teachers’ self-efficacy levels correlated negatively with time pressures, but correlated positively with feelings of autonomy and relations with parents. Brouwers, Evers, and Tomic (2001) suggested that high levels of student disruptive behavior engendered a cyclical effect, such that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in the realm of classroom management deteriorated, resulting in high levels of teacher burnout, which in turn led to a higher levels of student disruptive behavior further reducing the teachers’ self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) proposed that teachers’ self-efficacy judgments result from the interaction between a personal weighting of the factors that make teaching difficult and their perception of personal teaching capabilities. Friedman (2003) argued that teachers’ confidence in their ability to regulate their relationship with students and colleagues significantly contributed to their overall sense of self-efficacy in school. Chan (2003) found that interpersonal intelligence predicted teachers’



5

self-efficacy in helping others. Jennings and Greenberg (2009) indicated that teachers confident in their ability to recognize emotions and emotional patterns and to generate, regulate, and use emotions such as joy and enthusiasm are better able to motivate learning in themselves and in others. Consequently, they will exhibit higher levels of self-efficacy in teaching. Such teachers know how to manage their emotions and their behavior and are able to form empathic relationships with others. They are able to regulate their emotions in healthy ways, thus facilitating positive classroom outcomes without compromising their health (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). ESE refers to individuals’ beliefs about their ability to identify, express, and regulate emotions in themselves and in others (Kirk et al., 2008). It combines Bandura’s (1997) concept of self-efficacy with Emotional Intelligence theory. People who perceive themselves as possessing a balance between emotion and thought, specifically, the ability to regulate inner feelings and beliefs of one’s self and others in order to provide useful input for consideration and action, score high on this trait. Such a balance helps people manage their negative feelings, buffers the perturbing effects of aversive experiences, facilitates adaptive coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000), and leads to rewarding and enriching social exchanges and experiences (Caprara et al., 2008). Saarni (1999) claimed that ESE is expressed as a feeling of personal effectiveness in interpersonal interactions involving emotions. People with high levels of ESE are typically highly aware of and sensitive to their own emotions as well as the emotions of others. They are open to and accepting of negative emotional experiences and can express and adapt their emotions with flexibility. High levels of ESE contribute to a sense of satisfaction with life in general, scholastic success, positive beliefs, beliefs in one’s social competence, and ability to control emotions (Schunk, 2005). Studies indicate that ESE is important for enhancing self-confidence and the ability to set challenging goals and perseverance in realizing these goals (Saarni, 1999). This may suggest that ESE is a broad domain that underlies diverse psychosocial functioning (Bandura, 1997). 2.2.1. Emotional self-efficacy ESE is a relatively new term, which contains two components: self-efficacy as presented in Bandura’s theory, and emotional intelligence as defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997) in their EI abilities model (Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008). According to this model, emotional intelligence refers to the manner in which rational thought is recruited for the purpose of solving emotional problems of an interpersonal nature. It is defined as the ability to process emotional information accurately and effectively, as a means of self-regulation and managing emotions intelligently (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). The most important aspect of emotional intelligence is the balance between emotion and thought, specifically, the ability to regulate one’s own as well as others’ internal emotions and beliefs in order to provide useful input for consideration and action. Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, perceive, express, understand, use, monitor, and manage emotions in a manner that promotes personal growth and one’s sense of personal welfare (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Many studies have examined emotional intelligence in terms of its functional and adaptive value, and found that emotional intelligence correlated strongly with the following factors: professional and scholastic achievements (Abraham, 2006; Clarke, 2010), personal welfare (Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005), physical health (Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007), choice of profession (Boyatzis & Akrivou, 2006), and social functioning (Brackett et al., 2006).


6


In addition, people with high levels of emotional intelligence were found to be optimistic, warm, and empathetic and to have a positive and stable self-image (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004). Sutton and Wheatley (2003) suggest that the substantial variation in TSE may result in part from variance in teachers’ emotions. Chan (2004) found that self-efficacy beliefs were significantly predicted by the components of emotional intelligence and suggested that differences between teachers might affect this relationship. Penrose, Perry, and Ball (2007) studied teachers and principals in Victoria and found a strong linkage between emotional intelligence and TSE. Gender, age, and length of teaching experience did not moderate the relationship between the two variables. Saarni (1999) claimed that ESE is expressed as a feeling of personal efficiency during interpersonal interactions that involve emotions. Emotional self-efficacy relates to the perceived ability to use one’s own emotional reactions as well as those of others as coping aids. People with high levels of emotional self-efficacies are typically highly aware and sensitive to the emotions of others as well as to their own. They are open to and accepting of negative emotional experiences and may change emotions in an adaptable and flexible manner. High levels of ESE contribute to sense of satisfaction with life in general, scholastic success, positive beliefs, beliefs in one’s social competence, and ability to control emotions (Schunk, 2005). Studies indicate that ESE is important for self-confidence, enabling the individual to set challenging goals and to persevere on the way to realizing these goals (Saarni, 1999). ESE in teachers refers to their beliefs regarding their ability to identify, regulate and express feelings and to be effective in interpersonal interactions involving emotions (Saarni, 1999). It plays a dual role: enabling teachers to integrate themselves into the educational and social system, thus paving their way to professional success, and at the same time enabling them to nurture their students by helping them to develop high levels of social and emotional competence (Fried, 2011; Yoon, 2002). On the basis of the above literature, this study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent do emotional and teacher self-efficacies predict empathy among teachers in Israel? (2) Is there a difference between emotional and teacher self-efficacies in their ability to predict empathy? (3) Which type of self-efficacy is a better predictor of empathy?

3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure The current research was based on a convenience sample of 543 teachers (78% females). Participants varied in age (M = 40.6, SD = 11.1, range 22–69) and years of teaching experience (M = 14, SD = 11, range 1–42). Fifty-three percent of the subjects graduated from college, 32% from university, and 14% from teachers’ seminar. Fifty-one percent of the teachers in the sample are elementary school teachers, 35% are high school teachers, and 14% are junior high school teachers. The data were collected by research assistants in 10 schools in northern and central Israel. The schools were located in a demographically mixed area and classified according


7

to their location in either inner city (70%) or rural settings (30%). The research assistants explained to the participants that the purpose of the study was to deal with attitudes and perceptions of teachers and that participation was voluntary and anonymous. Six hundred and twenty questionnaires were distributed in total and 543 were filled and returned to us, with the refusal rate amounting to about 12%. Completing the questionnaire lasted 20 min on average. All participants were assured that the data would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes.


3.2. Instruments Empathy was measured using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983). This instrument contained 28 statements measuring 4 dimensions. The questionnaire was adjusted to school situations by incorporating images of teachers and students in the items, for example: ‘I often see things from the student’s perspective “instead of ” … from another’s perspective’ (Hen, 2010). The items were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale (1 – ‘does not describe me at all’ to 5 – ‘describes me well’). In the ESE questionnaire (Kirk et al., 2008), participants were asked to assess, on a 5-point Likert scale, to what extent each item describes (5) or does not describe (1) him/ her. This questionnaire included 32 statements representing four dimensions: understanding emotions (‘I know what causes my negative feelings’), perceiving the emotions of others (‘I am able to recognize another person’s negative feelings’), facilitating (‘I know how to use positive feelings to produce good ideas’), and regulating emotions (‘I am able to change negative feelings into positive ones’). TSE was measured by a questionnaire that aimed at assessing teachers’ feelings of selfefficacy (Friedman & Kass, 2002). This instrument included 29 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 – ‘does not describe me at all’ to 5 – ‘describes me well’) in relation to three dimensions: learning tasks (‘I think that I am able to be very creative in my work with children’), relationships with students (‘I think that my way of teaching has an effect on the values and principles of my students’), communication with the organization (‘I am an active member in decision-making processes at my school’). In the current study, we were interested in predicting empathy by emotions and TSE by looking at the general constructs, rather than at their subscales. For this reason and after assuring that our measures possess high internal consistency (α = .84 for empathy, α = .83 for ESE and α = .89 for TSE), we created a general mean score for each construct. In order to assess the vulnerability of the regression coefficients to the possibility of spurious associations, we used several additional variables in line with previous studies on teachers’ empathy. These included gender (1-male), academic degree (1-M.A., 0-B.A. or B.Ed. as a proxy for education) and years of teaching experience (e.g. Castillo, Fernández-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2013; Stojiljković et al., 2012). 3.3. Analysis Our research questions dealt with prediction of empathy among teachers and with relative contribution of ESE vs. TSE to empathy. In order to answer our research questions, we used multiple linear regression analysis. A relatively large size of our sample allowed us to perform a multiple linear regression analysis within structural equation modeling framework.

8


Table 1. Means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation coefficients between the research variables (N = 543). M (SD) 1

Years of work experience

2

4

Gender (1-male) Academic degree (1-MA) ESE

5

TSE

6

Empathy


3

13.86 (10.59) .22 (.42) .24 (.4) 3.78 (.58) 3.91 (.57) 3.83 (.54)

1

2

3

r –

p –

r

p

−.16