In an era of uncertainty for education, one certainty is that relationships will be key to how we chart our way forward through a rapidly changing world. While the possibilities contained within technological advances and the growth of artificial intelligence are, indeed, dizzying, that which is human nevertheless remains at the core of education. As teacher educators, we remain committed to the idea that moments of connection and exchange between people are crucial to the educational experience, even as those moments are increasingly mediated by technology. Rather than shying away from the challenges posed by the contemporary world, riven as it is by ideological tensions and dramatic shifts in how people interact, we contend that it is incumbent upon educators to prepare young people to live well in the face of such challenges.  

There is growing concern in Europe, and beyond, around an apparent growth in youth mental health problems (e.g., Keyes et al., 2019) and a perceived decline in social cohesion and empathy (Konrath et al., 2011; 2023). While technology and artificial intelligence have much to offer, they have limits when it comes to addressing such problems and, indeed, may in some cases exacerbate them. Student wellbeing takes on a new importance in this current context, and this paper focuses on the potential of empathy education for fostering positive relationships, a key aspect of wellbeing.  

Generally defined as the ability to understand and share others’ thoughts and emotions (Weisz & Cikara, 2021), empathy is a critical social-emotional skill that has been positioned as a powerful predictor of adaptive intra- and inter-personal outcomes (Konrath & Grynberg, 2013). It has been linked to increased prosocial behavour (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2010), reduced prejudice (e.g., Miklikowska, 2018), increased civic responsibility (e.g., Hope & Jagers, 2014), and enhanced social relationships (e.g., Dekovic & Gerris, 1994), all valuable outcomes at a time when inter-group tensions and social isolation are believed to be a growing feature of young people’s lives. Adolescence has been identified as a crucial period for empathy development (e.g., Malti et al., 2016), and, following this, the authors have been involved in the development of an empathy education programme for young people called Activating Social Empathy. This is currently one of the programmes available to teachers in Ireland, the context of this research, where the concept of empathy has been included in the specification for Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE), under the umbrella of wellbeing education, a core component of the first three years of the second-level curriculum. 

The inclusion of wellbeing education in the curriculum is to be welcomed. However, teacher readiness for supporting the development and enhancement of social-emotional dispositions and skills in young people has been questioned in the national and international literature (e.g., Byrne & Carthy, 2021; Byrne et al.. 2022; Rothi et al., 2008). Significant reasons for a disjuncture between policy and practice in wellbeing education in schools in Ireland include the fact that training in wellbeing education is optional for teachers, and that, in practice, these areas of learning are often undervalued, sidelined, contested, and under-resourced (Byrne et al., 2021). To pre-empt low-levels of readiness for supporting social-emotional learning in future teachers, the authors decided to embed empathy in the curricula of two second-level teacher education programmes on which they teach. These efforts centred on developing student teachers’ understanding, motivation, skills and confidence for teaching with and for empathy. This paper presents the findings of research which examined whether these efforts were effective or ineffective in changing student teachers’ attitudes towards, and motivation for, embedding empathy in their own teaching.

This study adopts a mixed methods explanatory sequential design (Creswell, 2017) study and involves two phases of data collection. The specific objectives of the study are to explore: 1) how efforts to embed empathy in teacher education have been perceived and experienced by initial teacher education students; 2) whether these students’ conceptualisations of empathy have changed as a result of the curricular changes; 3) what students’ current positions on the role of empathy in second-level education are; and 4) what students’ aspirations/plans are in relation to teaching with or for empathy in their future careers. Phase 1 of the study involves the completion of a one-shot online survey exploring student teachers’ perceptions and experiences of empathy-related inputs on their programmes, and their current positions on the role of empathy in second-level teaching. The sampling strategy for Phase 1 will be a non-probability convenience sample. The total possible number of participants for Phase 1 is 170 , but it is estimated that the final sample will be in the range of 80-100 students. For Phase 2, a smaller number of student teachers (n = 15) will participate in one of three focus groups that will be conducted in-person or online depending on their availability on campus. The sampling strategy for Phase 2 will be also be a non-probability convenience sample, with the sample size being determined non-statistically through a review of previous qualitative-focused studies on teacher attitudes towards wellbeing education. The focus groups will explore in an in-depth manner, the student teachers’ views on the role of empathy in education, any changes in their conceptualisations of empathy, and their future plans in relation to teaching with, teaching for, or teaching without an explicit focus on empathy. Phase 1 data will be analysed using descriptive statistics (closed-ended questions) and thematic analysis (open-ended questions), while Phase 2 data will be analysed using thematic analysis. The study has received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the relevant university. As the research involves participants and researchers who have a pre-existing student-teacher relationship, the focus groups will be carried out by a researcher who did not deliver any elements of the empathy education initiative and particular attention will be paid throughout the study to power dynamics and questions of informed, non-coercive consent.

This study, founded in the premise that empathy is one of the social-emotional skills that are core to healthy human relationships and societies, sets out to examine the effectiveness of embedding empathy education in the curriculum of university-based teacher education programmes. The initiative aimed to develop student teachers’ skills and motivations for teaching with empathy in their practice and teaching for empathy in facilitating empathy education for their own students. At the current time, data collection is still underway, therefore there are no concrete findings to share at present. However, field notes and researcher reflections suggest that the initiative was met with generally positive reactions, with students highlighting that they had acquired a deeper and more critical understanding of the meaning, relevance and implications of empathy for educational contexts. Contrastingly, some students struggled with the evidenced principle of the malleability or teachability of empathy, whilst others were concerned about the potential harms associated with empathy as articulated by critics such as Paul Bloom (2016) and Jesse Prinz (2011). It is anticipated that the research findings will be of interest to teacher educators who wish to integrate areas of wellbeing education and social-emotional learning in their practice. The findings may also be relevant to policymakers who seek to negotiate the policy-practice divide in terms of wellbeing education and teacher readiness. Beyond these practical implications, this study and its parent project of research on empathy education seek to contribute to reflections and theorising on how education can, in these uncertain times, help to sustain and encourage healthy relationships in diverse and increasingly divided societies.

Bloom, P. (2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Ecco. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches (5th Ed.). Sage. Byrne, D., & Carthy, D. A. (2021). A qualitative exploration of post-primary educators’ attitudes regarding the promotion of student wellbeing. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2021.1946928 Byrne, D., McGuinness, C., & Carthy, A. (2022). Do educators value the promotion of students’ wellbeing? Quantifying educators’ attitudes toward wellbeing promotion. PLoS ONE, 17(8), Article e0273522. Deković, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(94)90038-8 Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N.D., Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Associations with prosocial behaviour, aggression, and inter-group relations. Social Issues Policy Review, 49(1), 143-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x. PMID: 21221410; PMCID: PMC3017348. Hope, E.C. & Jagers, R.J. (2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 460-470. doi:10.1111/jora.12117 Keyes, K.M., O’Malley, G., Hamilton, A., Schulenberg, J. (2019). Recent increases in depressive symptoms among US adolescents: trends from 1991 to 2018. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 54(8):987-996. doi: 10.1007/s00127-019-01697-8. Konrath S., & Grynberg D. (2013). The positive (and negative) psychology of empathy. In Watt D., Panksepp J. (Eds.), The neurobiology and psychology of empathy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Biomedical Books. Konrath, S., Martingano, A. J., Davis, M., & Breithaupt, F. (2023). Empathy Trends in American Youth Between 1979 and 2018: An Update. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231218360 Malti , T., Chaparro, A. Z, & Colasante, T. (2016). School-based interventions to promote empathy-related responding in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718-731. Doi: 10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822 Miklikowska, M. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000474 Prinz, J. (2011). Against empathy. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(1). 214-233. Rothì, D. M., Leavey, G., & Best, R. (2008). On the front-line: Teachers as active observers of pupils’ mental health. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.011 Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.002