Study finds encouraging empathy makes students better at argumentation
LAWRENCE — While teaching argumentation is a key part of education, a new study from the University of Kansas found that when students approach argumentation with empathy, they better understand their “opponents,” themselves and make a better case.
Teaching argumentation is part of the Common Core Standards. The standard approach is to guide students to present why their position is sound and to provide evidence and warrant of their claims. There is value in that formula, but guiding students to understand another person’s position, while examining their own, can produce better writing, arguing and empathetic students, KU researchers found.
Min-Young Kim, assistant professor of curriculum & teaching in KU’s School of Education & Human Sciences, taught debate in high schools in her native Korea. But she wanted to find a deeper, more meaningful way to engage students in argumentation.
“I used to lead my debaters to win the argument over the other schools. It was all about winning,” Kim said. “In the States, I was lucky enough to work with other English language arts teachers who developed this alternate approach to teaching argumentation, which made me think about other ways to teach that are not combative or ‘winning the war.’”
To further examine teaching argument, researchers observed two high school college prep English classes that approached the topic through teaching with an empathizing stance. Throughout the semester, the teachers began by teaching argumentation in the traditional sense, then had students approach it with an empathizing stance, or considering more deeply another person’s position, background and reasons for making their argument, as well as their own.
Co-written with Sanghee Ryu of the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, the study was published in the journal Research in the Teaching of English.
The study identified four pedagogical constructs teachers can use with the teaching of argument:
- Identifying the connection between arguers’ warrants and backgrounds.
- Transposing oneself into others’ backgrounds.
- Exploring interlocuters’ common and divergent grounds.
- Situating argument in a broader context.
In the study, teachers had students work through all four constructs.
The classes made their arguments as part of an exercise known as the lifeboat ethics. Students were asked to picture that they were on a boat that was sinking, without enough lifeboats for everyone. Given information about each of the passengers, they had to decide who would get a spot on a lifeboat and why. As each student developed their argument, they discussed their reasoning with an empathizing stance, through the lens of the pedagogical constructs, such as considering common and divergent backgrounds.
In interviews with the teachers and students, and analysis of the students’ output, they found the class developed arguments at a sophisticated level, based on understanding of others’ positions and the complexity of the issue. An empathizing stance was evident in the arguments, rather than a parallel argument that simply stated why the arguer’s stance was correct.
“We knew these teachers were serious about helping students think not just about winning, but thinking about themselves, what assumptions they were making and if they thought this, then what about their partner,” Kim said. “We want to analyze and position these approaches for other educators looking to best teach argumentation to their students.”
The analysis of student and teacher performance in the argumentation class showed that students provided more empathetic arguments with sophisticated writing, but that it also has sound potential for teaching civic empathy, a key skill educators should strive for to produce citizens of the 21st century, the researchers wrote. Including an empathetic stance in the teaching of argumentation can both meet the standards of educating students and provide teachers a method of going beyond that helps prepare empathizing students who understand themselves and others in their arguments, writing and life experiences.
Kim plans to continue researching the approach in more diverse classes and settings as part of her larger body of research in engaging and supporting adolescent learners through dialogue and argumentation.
“What was really fulfilling was the classes often had a reflection session and many students said, ‘We never thought we were that different.’ That opened them to a new view,” Kim said. “It’s not just a matter of right and wrong, but how we all have different worldviews and come there from different perspectives. We shouldn’t stop at formulating arguments or teaching the formula. It’s not our point to stop that but to consider what other ways we can reach students. In many argumentation classrooms, it doesn’t matter who the arguer is, if your position is there, you’re good. But maybe there’s more. Understanding who the arguer is, is very helpful.”