CHAPTER 11

Teaching Empathy in Virtual Settings

Through an Ethic of Care

Laura Parson and Sara Kitsch

Empathy is a vital piece of the human condition. Often described as

“putting oneself in another’s shoes,” to demonstrate empathy is to expe-
rience the emotional state of another and in doing so, formulate an
appropriate response. This process requires an awareness of someone
else’s uniqueness and particularities and offers the potential to appreciate
those differences (Boske et al., 2017). As such, empathy is responsible for
fostering “prosocial behavior,” defined as behaviors performed to help
or benefit others, and “providing the affective and motivational base for
moral development” (Decety, 2011, p. 92; Krebs, 1982). Empathy is
negatively correlated with aggression (e.g. Carré et al., 2013), whereas
a lack of empathy is associated with bullying, aggression, and exploitation

L. Parson (B)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
S. Kitsch
Air University, Montgomery, AL, USA

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 277

Switzerland AG 2022
L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning
for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education,
[Link]
278 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

of others (e.g. Sentas et al., 2018). For these reasons, empathy is well
suited to promote social justice behaviors.
At a basic level, empathy fosters social justice by encouraging perspec-
tive taking. As Cutright (2019) notes, empathy calls forth vulnerability
in the empathizer that allows for even a “minimal degree of solidarity,”
(p. 282), despite larger cultural differences. Some of our worst moments
as humans can be traced to a lack of empathy (e.g. the Holocaust) and
some of our best pro-social behaviors are linked to an abundance of
empathy (e.g. social work). As Gerdes and colleagues note, “Empathy is
a metaphorical compass, guiding the engine toward social and economic
justice” (Gerdes et al., 2011, p. 123). Likewise, Doehring (2018) posits
that social empathy, or thinking about unjust social systems when consid-
ering others, is an important aspect of facilitating social justice. Indeed,
studies find that when empathy is actively taught, people “approach indi-
vidual and social well-being and social justice with more sophisticated
understanding” (Gerdes et al., 2011, p. 126).
Teaching empathy is vital to sustaining the social contract and
furthering social justice, but it is also crucial to various career fields.
From healthcare (e.g. Mercer et al., 2016) to teaching (e.g. Meyers
et al., 2019), empathy facilitates safe and inclusive environments (Borba,
2018). In turn, Boske and colleagues (2017) found that social justice
pedagogy, which prominently features empathy, prepared teachers and
educational leaders to better understand what students from marginal-
ized backgrounds face as well as how to shape their emotional responses
towards these students. Additionally, studies find that teaching empathy
is effective in both face-to-face and online settings (e.g. Kelley & Kelley,
2013; Sentas et al., 2018; Stepien & Baernstein, 2006). Online training
of empathy is especially important because it increases accessibility and
affordability, which means that online education will continue to be
necessary even after acute phases of COVID-19 social distancing end.
In this chapter, we adapt a framework for teaching through the theo-
retical lens of an ethic of care for teaching empathy, online, in various
content areas and settings. An ethic of care is an ethic that “emphasizes
interconnectedness, relationships, nurturing, and responsibility towards
concrete embodied others” (Antoni et al., 2020, p. 450). Discussed as a
moral theory by Carol Gilligan (1982) and applied to education settings
by Nel Noddings (2003, 2005) and Carol Gilligan (2014), an ethic
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 279

of care in education settings is an empathetic approach to teaching. It

allows for authentic knowledge construction while emphasizing mutual
respect: “Care ethics is a relational ethic that recognizes the social and
moral implications of all educative experiences. It provides an alterna-
tive to traditional moral education that separates ethical content from
other subject areas and from experience” (Rabin & Smith, 2013, p. 164).
Teaching through an ethic of care “highlights the cost of carelessness”
(Gilligan, 2014, p. 103) and views moral education as “inextricably linked
to each individual’s influence since moral growth occurs in relationship”
(Rabin & Smith, 2013, p. 164). Because of an ethic of care’s emphasis
on relationships and perspective taking, we view it as an appropriate lens
through which to view the social justice classroom and to teach empathy
at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, and global level.
In this chapter we begin by defining empathy and exploring its
importance to different content areas. Second, we discuss approaches to
teaching empathy in different formats and mediums. Third, we discuss
what it means to teach through an ethic of care and discuss the framework
for teaching through an ethic of care. Finally, we present several ideas
for applying an ethic of care framework to teaching empathy in virtual
settings.

Empathy
As much of the literature on empathy suggests, empathy can be a difficult
concept to define. Recent origins of the term in the English language can
be traced to Titchener in 1909 who used it to refer to a kind of kinesic
imitation through which an individual learned about the consciousness
of another (Wispé, 1986). It has been developed primarily in the fields
of developmental and social psychology (e.g. Berger, 1962; Hornblow,
1980). On a basic level, empathy refers to “a willingness or tendency to
put oneself in another person’s place and to modify one’s behavior as a
result” (Hogan, 1969, p. 307). In defining empathy, Cutright (2019) is
quick to point out that empathy is not the same as sympathy noting that
sympathy is caring or concern for another whereas empathy refers to “a
form of understanding” (p. 267). Cutright (2019) adds that empathy is
the “experiential understanding of what another feels or thinks, not just a
propositional, or theoretical understanding that the other feels or thinks
280 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

a certain way” (p. 275); this includes both lower and higher empathy, or
raw sensory input plus cognitive processing.
Empathy has been conceptualized to account for both emotional
processing and social interaction (see for example Davis, 1983; Jolliffe &
Farrington, 2006). In other words, empathy requires both attention to
the emotional and mental states of another but also appropriate response
to those states (Carré et al., 2013). While previous measures of empathy
accounted more for the emotional aspects, Spreng and colleagues (2009)
notes the significant overlap between the affective and cognitive processes,
concluding that feeling and responding are likely a shared process. Bell
(2018) notes that a “balance between the types of empathy is critical
to maintaining healthy emotional boundaries” (p. 108) and to prevent
empathetic burnout, which can occur during perspective taking.
As noted previously, empathy involves emotional perspective taking.
This requires an awareness of one’s own emotions and the emotions of
others, as well as the ability to remain aware that another’s feelings are not
one’s own (Carré et al., 2013). This distinction between self and other
also facilitates social perspective taking which encourages an individual to
experience another person as they exist within their own systems of priv-
ileges, disadvantages, as well as cultural and political realities (Doehring,
2018); this requires significant effort. As Zaki (2014) argues, although
empathy can be an automatic activity, it is not always. Often, we fail to
empathize with outgroups who are not like ourselves, and at times we can
even take pleasure in the misfortune of others. As such, empathy can be
conceptualized as a motivated phenomenon (Zaki, 2014).
In the mid 1990s empathy began appearing not only as a psychological
concept that described behavior but as a scientific phenomenon in neuro-
logical studies. In particular, the discovery of mirror neurons elevated
empathy beyond behavioral perspective taking. Mirror neurons are found
in the premotor cortex; they “fire when people watch others do some-
thing as if they were doing it themselves” (Bell, 2018, p. 108). Given
this discovery, neuropsychology supports three components of empathy:
developmentally, one first “feels” emotion of another through emotional
contagion (using subcortical structures, including the limbic lobe), then
both people understand and regulate, in tandem, with cerebral maturation
(relying on, in part, the insular cortex which promotes emotional aware-
ness and regulating emotions through a top-down network that includes,
in part, the orbitofrontal cortex) (Carré et al., 2013). The expansion of
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 281

empathy as a behavior studies concept to one of neurological importance

underscores its adaptability and importance across a multitude of fields.

Educational Leadership
In an educational leadership context, Meyers et al. (2019) define
and advocate for “teacher empathy.” This includes both interpersonal
empathy (through which one person comes to know the internal state
of another, responds with care/sensitivity) as well as social empathy
(through which one comes to understand peoples’ lived situations that
offer insight on structural inequalities). Similarly, Boske et al. (2017)
investigated how schools made sense of social justice leadership with
results suggesting immersive social justice learning environments are
not only transformational but also deepen empathetic responses towards
students. The implication is that furthering empathy is critical to
promoting social justice and equity-oriented work in schools.

Military Leadership
In military culture, Cutright (2019) notes that empathy “sits uneasily”
(p. 265). Despite this, he advocates for empathy in soldiers as a way to
maintain intentions towards peace and to reveal the humanity in others.
Instead of dehumanizing enemies, as is often the case during wartime,
Cutright (2019) proposes “a management of one’s empathy that is similar
to the management of one’s senses” (p. 280); through this lens, one’s
empathy for their comrades will supersede that of their enemy. Alterna-
tively, McDougall (2019) proposes that empathy allows soldiers to better
understand their environments and notes that true leaders in the mili-
tary go beyond surface level in terms of getting to know their soldiers
and paying attention to the perspectives and feelings of others; in other
words, they apply empathy.

Engineering/STEM
In STEM, a conversation about empathy is occurring on multiple levels. A
longstanding critique of STEM centers around its inclusiveness as a field,
with more recent studies suggesting that affects (e.g. interest, belongi-
ness) not ability, are to blame for the lack of diversity in advanced STEM
degrees and employment. Burns and Lesseig (2017) suggest infusing
282 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

curriculum with empathy can curb this effect. Likewise, Carter and
Bruckman (2019) point to higher rates of mental health issues in STEM
graduate students, similarly highlighting the importance of empathy in
relationships between students and mentors. McCurdy et al. (2020) look
to the future, arguing that in addition to fostering competencies, high
school and college classes should also develop emotional connected-
ness between their students and the processes/products they work on
to develop globally minded thinkers in science education. Given these
issues in STEM and the importance of empathy in finding solutions, it is
unsurprising that empathy is also a precursor to social justice.

The Relationship Between Empathy and Social Justice

Much of the research on teaching and empathy points to the close rela-
tionship between utilizing empathy to reduce social injustices (Neary,
2019). In particular, empathy can be used as a starting point for building
alliances across lines of difference; learning about “the other” can be
transformative. Goodman (2000) points to empathy as one avenue for
motivating and engaging dominate social groups to promote equity and
social justice. In particular, he argues that understanding what motivates
individuals to support diversity and equity can help drive approaches
to engage them, resulting in more effective personal and institutional
changes. For teachers, Jordan and Schwartz (2018) argue, empathy
can bring “basic civility” (p. 27) into the learning experience; they
propose instituting “radical empathy” in classrooms. This version of
empathy necessitates students sense their professor has been “touched”
or impacted by their lived experiences, producing vulnerability in educa-
tors to facilitate growth and change (Jordan & Schwartz, 2018, p. 27).
Cartabuke and colleagues (2019) argue that what is taught in the class-
room impacts future outcomes on a larger scale. They propose teaching
empathy as part of college business programs to combat social justice
concerns on both college campuses and in corporate America writ large.
Their findings suggest the effectiveness of empathy interventions in busi-
nesses courses as a critical tool for future organizational decision makers
(Cartabuke et al., 2019).

Empathy as a Continuum of Understanding

In all of these cases, empathy is not a zero-sum game. The choice is
not “empathize or don’t”—which is why empathy should be described as
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 283

falling along a continuum. As McDougall (2019) argues, empathy does

not require you to have shared experiences with someone; we do not
have to walk a mile in another’s shoes to recognize or think about what it
might be like to do so. Commonalities can, of course, aid understanding,
but we are productively challenged when we minimize those common-
alities and instead become curious about the other. Conceptualizing
empathy as a continuum fosters this experience.
On one end on the continuum, empathizing is easy—perhaps because
we share similar or nearly identical life experiences with another indi-
vidual. It is not difficult to imagine their perspective and respond
appropriately. At the other end of the continuum empathizing is hard.
We might not share anything in common and perhaps can never fully
understand another’s situation due to differences in race, class, or gender.
However, as Cutright (2019) writes:

Empathy, however, entails an appreciative understanding that recognizes

another’s experiences are genuine even if not the same as ours … We are
not free to dismiss the other’s experience as incomprehensible or impos-
sible, because its possibility is instantiated in the other person and empathy
reveals the person’s experience to us. (pp. 281–282)

In these instances, it is a fair assumption that empathizing with someone

very different from oneself is difficult. But it is not impossible, nor does
it mean one cannot actively seek out knowledge and strategies to attempt
to move upward along the continuum.

Teaching Empathy
To teach empathy training programs employ various methods including
experiential training (role play), didactic (lecture-based), and skills
(lecture, demonstrate, practice); results on the effectiveness of these
methods is well documented. In one early study, Hatcher and colleagues
demonstrated optimistic results in increasing empathy among high school
and college students in their peer counseling skills, especially when oppor-
tunities were presented in school curriculum and developmental readiness
was considered (Hatcher et al., 1994). Another study showing promise, a
meta-analysis of training programs aimed at fostering empathy in medical
students, pointed to successful outcomes with all but a single study
reporting significant improvements in empathy in non-control groups
284 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

(Stepien & Baernstein, 2006). Importantly, Aggarwal and Guanci (2014)

note that the improvements found in Stepien and Baernstein (2006) did
not always create a lasting effect, prompting them to investigate the effec-
tiveness of one hour reinforcement courses. More recently, a meta-analysis
of nineteen studies determined the overall effect of empathy training had a
moderate effect (van Berkhout & Malouff, 2015). In sum, current litera-
ture supports the notion that empathy can be taught (and maintained)
at various ages and across numerous contexts. As such, strategies for
teaching empathy are primarily discussed in face-to-face settings, though
authors are starting to include online opportunities.

Strategies for Teaching Empathy

There are numerous strategies for teaching empathy. Many begin with
building emotional literacy and social skills. This includes learning to read
and recognize emotions in others (e.g., Borba, 2018; Johnson, 2019), as
well as developing a moral identity whereas individuals come to “define
themselves as people who value others” (Borba, 2018, p. 24). Such devel-
opment is connected to the more affective side of empathy (Bell, 2018).
Common activities for teaching affective empathy include the use of
creative outlets such as movies, books, or theater. Specifically, by viewing
films, plays, or reading literature in which the characters are different from
ourselves can help us to appreciate the experiences of others; as the story-
line develops, we become more attune to the character’s high and low
points (e.g. Batson et al., 1997).
To teach cognitive empathy it is important to engage in perspective
taking exercises (Davis, 1983). Student generated role-playing and expe-
riential activities, such as attending different cultural events, are some
specific strategies that help us to accomplish this (Bell, 2018). These
strategies are also founded on providing opportunities that promote
service learning and volunteering which also facilitates empathy (e.g.,
Johnson, 2019). Additional strategies for teaching cognitive empathy
include debating issues from various sides, self-reflection, and even the
aforementioned creative outlets such as theater and literature which
ask individuals to place themselves in a role outside themselves (Bell,
2018; Borba, 2018; Dow et al., 2007; Johnson, 2019). In all strategies,
reflection, including guided reflection led by a facilitator, is crucial for
processing the experience (e.g. Bell, 2018).
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 285

Teaching Empathy Online

The literature on teaching empathy in an online setting is some-
what limited, but growing. Preece and Ghozati (2001) found empathic
communication is common in online communities, especially among
support groups; Terry and Cain (2016) assert the importance of teaching
empathy in the digital age of healthcare. Religious and pastoral studies,
in particular, offers a fairly robust discussion of teaching empathy online.
For example, McGarrah Sharp and Morris (2014) found that the phys-
ical distance fostered by online made some aspects of empathizing
(e.g. thinking before responding) easier to accomplish. Doehring (2018)
concluded this is due to the increased perception of space and time for
reflexivity needed to respond to others. Likewise, naming shared anxieties
(in the online environment), periodic anonymous evaluations, and check-
ins all reduced anxiety in online learning and a reduction in anxiety led
to greater empathy (McGarrah Sharp & Morris, 2014).
Online learning can pose a challenge, especially when it comes to
more sensitive topics, due to is often impersonal (e.g. pre-recorded
lectures or independent assignments) or asynchronous aspects (Cares
et al., 2014). However, recent research has shown it to be effective.
For example, Kemper and Khirallah (2015) evaluated a 1-hour mind–
body skills training course that focused on mindfulness, resilience, and
empathy. Modules in the online course began with a case study and were
followed by self-reflection questions; links to academic references were
provided. Additionally, each module included links to free, downloadable
MP3 recordings of guided mind–body practices to facilitate experiential
learning. The study’s most significant findings included the popularity of
the modules for health professionals who reported high levels of stress
and burnout, as well as their effectiveness—participants reported acute,
significant increases in stress relief, empathy, resilience, and mindfulness.
More recently, Sentas et al. (2018) also evaluated empathy instruction
in an online setting. Specifically, they looked at whether a brief, online
training that consisted of written instruction, models, videos, quizzes,
feedback, and assigned practice in natural settings could increase empathy
among college-aged students. Their results, which included a two month
follow up assessment, showed increased scores in empathy. Building off
this growing body of literature which signals that empathy can indeed
be taught online, this chapter seeks to add how empathy can be taught
286 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

in online settings to promote both the development of empathy and

prosocial justice mindsets through an ethic of care.

Teaching Through an Ethic of Care

Care ethics were developed in response to traditional ethical theories
that were viewed as devaluing virtues traditionally associated with women
(Swanson, 2015). Although care ethics are often referred to as a femi-
nine ethic, that does not mean that care ethics are limited to those who
identify as women. Instead, through an ethic of care, caring is seen as
fundamental to being human (Bergman, 2004). In contrast to previous
models of ethics, however, care ethics asserts that feelings are appropriate
sources of ethics in addition to rationality (Nazir & Pedretti, 2016). Care
ethics does not reject rationality but sees emotions as the foundation of
reason (Nazir & Pedretti, 2016). Care ethics requires what perspective
taking, a fundamental component of empathy:

we must receive the situation of the other as if it were our own. To do

so requires emptying ourselves of attention to our own situation, at least
for the moment, so as to make room to take in the existential condition
of the other … A caring attention, receptivity, sympathy or disposability
leads to engrossment, the other’s situation taking over my consciousness,
if only temporarily, which in turn leads to motivational displacement, as I
join with the other in trying to respond to her needs. It is at this point
that rationality, evaluation, judgement, something like Aristotle’s phronesis,
enters the picture. Concerted thinking, both with and on behalf of the
other, will often be necessary if the caring response is to be completed
effectively. (Bergman, 2004, p. 151)

Care is also contextual: how care is qualified, defined, and required

differs from culture to culture and within cultures according to age,
socioeconomic status, and gender, but care is universal (McKenzie &
Blenkinsop, 2006).
Initially, care ethics focused the private sphere (McKenzie & Blenk-
insop, 2006), defining caring as responding according to “what [was] best
for one’s immediate relational group based on feelings of attachment and
the need to maintain relationships” (Nazir & Pedretti, 2016, p. 290).
Noddings, as described in McKenzie & Blenkinsop (2006), extended
caring to include the public sphere, breaking down care into “care for
self,” “care for close others,” and “care for distant others” (McKenzie &
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 287

Blenkinsop, 2006, p. 100). Care for self is learning how to best care for
oneself. Care for near others is about caring for those in one’s immediate
circles, such as family, friends, coworkers, or students. Finally, care for
distant others is caring for those outside of one’s immediate circle and is
where teaching for social justice might focus within an ethic of care lens.
Keeling (2014) described the elements of acting within an ethic of care
for others as consisting of:

• Paying attention; noticing with empathy others and their circum-

stances;
• Accepting responsibility to act on what is noticed, which recognizes
human connectedness and interdependence;
• Assuring ability, capacity, and competency—that is, being prepared
to respond, and respond effectively; and
• Responding, which accepts the principle of differential vulnerability
(a richer concept than simple power differentials; it holds that not
everyone is able to respond in the same ways) and does not require
reciprocity (actions taken on behalf of another do not require equal
or complementary actions in return) (p. 143).

As an ethic that “emphasizes interconnectedness, relationships, nurturing,

and responsibility towards concrete embodied others” (Antoni et al.,
2020, p. 450), an ethic of care is a viable and, we argue, vital lens through
which to teach empathy for social justice, although we acknowledge the
limitations of an ethic of care, theoretically, when it is premised on care
for near others, which requires proximity and reciprocity (McKenzie &
Blenkinsop, 2006). By expanding care to include distant others, the
potential for an ethic of care to promote social justice and empathy is
great, which is why it is the lens we chose to use when teaching empathy
in virtual settings.
In the classroom, care is relationship-centered (Noddings, 2005),
and the caring classroom focuses on creating an educational environ-
ment where caring for others (and, in this context, we argue also
being equity-minded, inclusive, critical thinkers) is both comfortable and
desired. Teaching empathy virtually requires more careful thought and
attention to teaching methods and assessments and careful scaffolding
of learning. According to Noddings (as summarized by McKenzie &
288 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

Blenkinsop, 2006), teaching through an ethic of care consists of four

elements: “modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation” (p. 102).
Modeling often occurs through a teacher’s instructional language, behav-
iors, and formative assessment techniques. Dialogue includes small- or
large-group instruction but can also involve internal dialogue such as jour-
naling or other reflecting writing. Practice involves working with or trying
the knowledge, skill, or attitude (KSA) to be learned in a scaffolded and
supportive environment. Finally, confirmation or summative assessment is
any method that helps a student and teacher see if and how the student
has learned the KSA of focus.
To help develop pro-social justice KSAs through learning empathy in
online settings through intentional curriculum design, we have adapted
McKenzie and Blenkinsop’s (2006, p. 100) table where they outline
how to implement Noddings’ (1992) Curriculum of Care organized
around “Centres of Care” (see p. 960; “care for self,” “care for close
others,” “care for distant others,” and “care for the natural world.”
This framework was originally developed by the authors to promote an
ethic of care in adventure education to be implemented in a face-to-face
teaching environment. We have adapted the table, which we refer to as
the “Curriculum of Care Chart,” as a framework to be used in planning
virtual empathy courses that can guide an instructor in their selection
of teaching methods that promote course-specific KSA development
while also being intentional about developing empathy through explicit
instruction on care for the self, near others, and distant others. To
emphasize a focus on developing care as it relates to promoting social
justice aims, we have revised McKenzie and Blenkinsop’s (2006) cate-
gories “care for distant others” and “care for the natural world” (p. 100)
to be “care for humanity,” which we argue can and should include care
for the natural world, because caring for the environment has long-term
impacts on care for humanity. Additionally, because we focus on teaching
empathy for leadership, we disaggregated McKenzie and Blenkinsop’s
(2006) “care for close others” (p. 100) into two categories, “care
for students/subordinates” and “care for colleagues/peers,” because
although both are “close others”, caring and empathetic behaviors might
look different in each context. Further, and importantly, we see the
level of responsibility and type of caring as different between those two
groups. See Table 11.1.
The Curriculum of Care chart lists, on the left side, the levels
of learning in an ethic of care (Modeling, Dialogue, Practice, and
Confirmation), and the top line lists four components of care (self,
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 289

Table 11.1 Curriculum of care chart template

Care for Care for Care for Care for

self students/subordinates colleagues/peers humanity
(distant
others)

Modeling
Dialogue
Practice
Confirmation

Adapted from McKenzie and Blenkinsop (2006, p. 100)

students/subordinates, colleagues/peers, and humanity). When the

Curriculum of Care chart is used as an instructional tool, a teacher’s
goal is to ensure that each cell of the chart is filled with an instructional
activity that promotes knowledge construction and care for the self, near
others, and humanity. While the chart could be a place to start plan-
ning an empathy course, one could also use traditional backward design
methods of course planning and then plug selected instructional activ-
ities and assessments into the table, using the table to identify gaps in
the curriculum, then adding in additional activities or assessments for any
missing aspect of care or levels of learning.

Application of the Curriculum of Care Chart

In this section, we describe how this framework for teaching empathy
through an ethic of care, using the Curriculum of Care chart as an
instructional framework, led to an online empathy course in two different
content areas: Educational Leadership and Military Leadership.

Educational Leadership
The empathy for Educational Leadership course (see Appendix A for
the syllabus) was designed as an asynchronous online professional devel-
opment course for Educational Leaders in K12 and higher education
delivered via Blackboard (a learning management system; LMS) over
7 weeks.

Course description: The concept of empathy and the importance of

empathy to leadership within educational settings. Topics covered included
290 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

the academic research on empathy, the relationship between empathy and

leadership in educational settings, applied empathy in formal and informal
educational leadership settings, and the relationship between empathy
and creating more equitable educational settings. Leaders were prompted
to create leadership philosophies and personal development that center
around empathy and equity.

The student learning objectives for the course specifically identified four
general areas of empathy knowledge. Students will be able to:

1. Define empathy and the body of scholarly literature that informs

understanding of empathy;
2. Define the impact of empathy on educational leadership outcomes;
3. Take the perspective of another; and,
4. Demonstrate empathy in informal and formal leadership settings.

Achievement for each learning objective was measured through four

summative assessments:

1. Leadership philosophy (SLOs 1, 2)

2. Professional development plan (SLOs 1, 2)
3. Perspective taking activity written reflection (SLO 3)
4. Role Plays (SLO 4).

See Table 11.2 for the Curriculum of Care chart for this course.
I (Laura) used the Curriculum of Care chart to develop this course.
Indeed, the adaptation of the Curriculum of Care chart was a result
of my literature search for appropriate philosophical frameworks and
methods for teaching empathy online in this course. After I determined
that an ethic of care was an appropriate theoretical framework through
which to teach an empathy course online, I reviewed the recent litera-
ture to see how teaching through an ethic of care had been developed
and conceptualized since I initially learned about the theory in grad-
uate school. Through that research, I found McKenzie and Blenkinsop’s
(2006) “Centres of Care” and the framework they created to select
instructional methods, which I adapted, as described previously, for a
focus on promoting social justice and teaching empathy. I used the revised
Curriculum of Care chart after developing course learning objectives and
assessments to ensure that I was providing appropriate scaffolding and
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 291

Table 11.2 Curriculum of care chart for empathy for education leadership
online course

Care for self Care for Care for Care for

students/subordinates colleagues/peers humanity
(distant
others)

Modeling Week 3 Syllabus and Discussion board Inclusive

discussion discussion boards interactions content
(diverse
perspectives,
social justice
focus)
Dialogue Week 3 Week 2 discussion Week 1 Perspective
discussion discussion taking
reflection
Practice Week 3 Role plays Role plays Role plays
mindfulness
reading
Confirmation Personal Leadership philosophy Leadership Perspective
development philosophy taking
plan reflection

adequate learning activities to allow students to learn empathy and its

associated KSAs at each dimension (the “centres” of care; care for self,
students/subordinates, colleagues/peers, and humanity).
Specifically, after identifying the learning objectives and the ways
that achievement of each objective would be measured, I filled in the
chart with the summative assessments and started adding in formative
assessments and teaching strategies to ensure that each summative final
assessment had the modeling, dialogue, and practice activities necessary
to build the skills needed to complete it. Then, I outlined the knowledge
or skills needed into an outline of content that began with founda-
tional knowledge and finished with practical application to create a course
outline organized into seven weeks (the length of the course):

Pre-work: Empathy Self-Assessment (1 hour)

Week 1: Defining Empathy (3 hours)
• Empathy in education literature
Week 2: The relationship between empathy and educational leader-
ship (6 hours)
292 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

• Review of scholarly literature on the relationship between

empathy and educational leadership
Week 3: Empathy and limiting factors (2 hours)
• Limits of empathy
• Mindfulness to mitigate empathy’s limiting factors
Week 4: Taking the perspective of the other (10 hours)
• Implicit bias test
• Epistemology: Knowledge as subjective
• Relationship between empathy and equity
Week 5 and 6: Applied empathy (7 hours)
• Empathy behaviors in formal settings (students, subordinates)
• Empathy behaviors in informal settings (peer relationships)
• Empathy skills (listening, compassion, body and voice cues)
Week 7: Personal assessment and development (1 hour)

Finally, I found appropriate readings for each week and started building
the course in our LMS.

Modeling
Because the course was delivered asynchronously, I (Laura) sought to
provide modeling at each level of care through my instructional behav-
iors which included using inclusive language, including diverse content,
modeling care in communications with individual students, syllabus
content, and through interactions on discussion board. Aligned with
Kemper and Khirallah’s (2015) incorporation of mindfulness into course
design, I incorporated mindfulness into the course design and provided
examples of mindfulness in practice.

Dialogue
Dialogue was achieved through weekly discussions and written reflections
that prompted students to reflect on and discuss course content and read-
ings. One example was the Implicit Bias/Perspective Taking discussion
and reflection. As with each week, students had scholarly articles available
for reading that reviewed perspective taking as a concept. Then, students
identified an identity group that they thought they might be biased
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 293

toward and one that they thought they might be biased against (using the
list provided by the Implicit Bias Test; [Link]
licit/). Then, they took the Implicit Bias Test and watched selected videos
(see Appendix 11.1 for the full asignment description) to learn more
about each group. Finally, they reflected on their experience taking the
tests, watching the videos, and what they learned about perspective taking
on the course discussion board. The discussion board created an interac-
tive way to reflecton their learning, while the independent exploration
and explicit instructions not to disclose which groups they identified as
more or less biased toward was designed to create a safer environment to
indepdently explore difficult topics that might have limited self-disclosure.
Finally, as discussed by McGarrah Sharp and Morris (2014), the discus-
sion board allowed for space before responding to peers, which also
allowed for more thoughtful and empathetic responses to peer’s posts.

Practice
Third, I provided practice assignments that allowed students to prac-
tice empathy KSAs with the scaffolded support of fellow students and
the instructor. One example of an activity that allowed for pract was the
Role Play assignment (see Appendix 11.2), which was designed to facili-
tate development of care for subordinates/students and colleagues/peers.
Along with readings on practical empathy skills and behaviors, students
participated in two to three role play activities. To ensure that the role
play scenarios were applicable to the context of the students (and because
I am not an expert in the day-to-day lives of the educational leaders in
the course), I asked students to develop a scenario from their own context
where empathy could be demonstrated; they could create a role play that
was either one they had experienced or one that they anticipated expe-
riencing. The next week, students acted out scenarios created by their
fellow students and, following, wrote a written reflection on their experi-
ence in the discussion board. The creator of the respective role play then
responded to the written reflections on the scenario they had created,
reflecting on and extending the experiences and questions posed by their
peers. The role play assignment allowed for real-world practice to occur at
a time that was convenient for participation and the written reflection and
discussion allowed for greater reflection and critical thinking that if partic-
ipants had completed a role play independently and if they had completed
294 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

a role play that allowed them to demonstrate empathy in a context that

was not specifically relevant to them.

Confirmation
Finally, I sought to assess at the confirmation level with final written
papers. For example, I assessed development of care for self and care for
near others (both students/subordinates and colleagues) at the confirma-
tion level through the development of a Personal Development Plan. The
Personal Development plan asked students to take the Toronto Empathy
Questionnaire a second time (they took it the first time prior to begin-
ning the course), reflect on their results, and to outline a plan to continue
developing empathy personally and professionally through a specific plan.
See Appendix 11.3 for the assignment description. The Personal Devel-
opment Plan was the final assignment that sought to prompt students to
reflect on their learning and demonstrate understanding of the content
covered in the course to create a plan to addressed any perceived areas of
improvement through continued development.
Through these assignments, I sought to help students develop their
empathy skills and focus on the development of social justice KSAs in
ways that scaffolded development and assessment. The Curriculum of
Care chart helped me to organize the think about how to ensure that
each level of care was developed and that no elements of learning were
neglected.

Military Leadership
The empathy course for military leadership was designed for active duty
and civilians taught by both of us (Laura and Sara). The course was a
synchronous workshop that occurred over two consecutive days. Each day
consisted of active learning synchronous sessions that occurred via Zoom
for two hours (9–11, and 12:30–2:30 p.m.). The “Art of Empathy”
course was marketed to students, who self-selected to take the workshop,
as,

Empathy has been called fundamental to meaningful human interactions.

In a professional setting, empathy behaviors are related to improved feel-
ings of belonging, engagement, care about work, and motivation. In a
two-day, virtual workshop, this workshop will introduce you to the concept
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 295

of empathy, the important role empathy plays in the workplace, and help
you to identify and develop competence in empathy.

Empathy Workshop Student Learning Objectives (SLOs):

1. Students will be able to define empathy;

2. Students will be able to recognize factors that limit one’s own ability
to empathize with colleagues;
3. Students will be aware that their own perspective is not universal;
and
4. Student will be able to demonstrate empathy by showing compas-
sion for disheartened, confused, or disgruntled colleagues.

Workshop summative assessments were a final short-answer quiz that

asked students to define and describe, in their own words, their under-
standing of the learning objectives. The Curriculum of Care chart for the
workshop (see Table 11.3) identified the synchronous ways we focused
on teaching empathy through an ethic of care.
Unlike the Educational Leadership course, the empathy work-
shop activities were largely synchronous, the role play activity was
similar, although it was adapted for the military context and to occur
synchronously. We also discussed mindfulness as a method to address
some of empathy’s limitations, but the content and live, guided medi-
tation were context-specific so that it would be relevant and accessible to
the audience.

Modeling
At the modeling level, we focused on modeling care through instructional
techniques likes the use of Brookfield’s Critical Incidence Question-
naire (CIQ; see [Link]
questionnaire) at the end of the day to provide formative feedback on
the workshop. We also sought to model caring interactions and self-care
such as through taking regular breaks and a guided breathing meditation.
For our strategies, especially the mindfulness, we sought to be explicit
about those behaviors we modeled that were linked to empathetic skills.

Dialogue
At the dialogue level, we focused on collaborative group activities and
discussions to allow students to develop understanding of difficult topics
296 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

Table 11.3 Curriculum of care chart for empathy workshop

Care for self Care for Care for Care for

students/subordinates colleagues/peers humanity
(distant others)

Modeling Instructional CIQs Empathy lectureDanger of a

techniques: Empathy overview Mindfulness andSingle Story
regular lecture empathy video
breaks, Caring interactions mini-lecture Sharing personal
guided with students Empathy story of when I
meditation overview lecture
made a
judgment based
on a single story
Dialogue Empathy’s Empathetic behaviors Empathy Think- Perspective
limiting readings (assigned at Pair-Share taking
factors the end of day 1) lesson/discussion
Jigsaw
Practice 1. Block 1 “Heard, Seen, & What I need Danger of a
exit ticket Respected” activity from you Single Story
2. activity reflection and
Meditation discussion
Confirmation Block 4 exit Role Plays What I need CIQs
assessments from you
reflection and
discussion

through discussion with peers. Sara’s lecture on the definition of empathy

was interactive and all activities included some component of small- or
large-group discussions. One example at Care for Colleagues/Peers level
was the Empathy Think-Pair-Share. After Sara’s lecture on the definition
of empathy, the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) activity began by asking students
to think about and jot down written responses to two questions:

1. Think about someone you admire, who you think has excellent
empathy skills. Why do you think so? What have you learned from
observing this person? Please provide concrete examples.
2. Think about someone you do not admire, who fails to exhibit
empathy. Why do you think so? What have you learned from
observing this person? Please provide concrete examples.

After students had 5–7 minutes to write down their reponses, they joined
small groups of 3–4 to discuss their answers and identify themes in their
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 297

responses. Finally, the entire course met as a group to discuss characteris-

tics of empathetic individuals. This activity helped students to understand
how empathy looked in practice and apply the theoretical and scholarly
components of empathy to real-world and military contexts.

Practice
At the Practice level, we prompted students to practice applying empathy
knowledge and skills through group activities, discussion, and role
plays. One example of practice at the Care for Colleagues/Peers level
was the “What I Need from You,” (WINFY) a Liberating Struc-
ture activity (see [Link]
from-you-winfy/). In that activity we asked students to break into groups
of 3–4 organized by role type (professional or managerial; students took
roles that they may not occupy presently) and create a list of 3–5 things
that people in their group need from the other groups. Following the
WINFY activity instructions, students created lists of what members of
their group needed from the other groups and reported their lists to
those groups in a large-group discussion. After they had written down
what the other groups needed from them, they went back to their small
groups and decided, for each item created by the other group for them, if
they could do, could not do, or could try to do what the other group
needed (responding yes, no, or I will try to each item). Finally, each
group came back to the large group and described their responses, only
explaining the “I will try” items to the group). After the activity was
complete, we asked participants to reflect on the activity and identify how
the activity related to perspective taking in another Think-Pair-Share (first
students reflected in a written format and then we discussed their reflec-
tion in a group discussion; see the Liberating Structures website for a full
discussion of the activity and its implementation). This activity allowed
students to practice perspective taking by learning about the perspectives
of those they worked with and to practice empathetic communication
skills in active listening and communicating around difficult topics such
as vocalizing expectations in professional settings.

Confirmation
Finally, we reached the confirmation level through written assessments
done after the fourth block. Those assessments included self-assessments
and written responses to questions that asked participants to write in essay
format their understanding of the content in each of the four learning
298 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

objectives. We also confirmed via informal formative assessments such

as checking understanding in group discussions after activities and chat
responses to verbal prompts that asked students to apply what they had
learned in a lecture to their professional practice.

Other Applications
The activities described above are just a starting point for developing
empathy in virtual settings and have their own limitations when it comes
to addressing all of the elements of caring for self, near, and distant others.
Instead, the goal is to think about how to teach empathy through an ethic
of care in ways that are specific to different content areas. We see applica-
tions of this framework in various content areas including Communication
and STEM fields.
Another example of developing Care for Others at the Modeling and
Dialogue level is this Ethical Public Speaking Activity for a Communi-
cation Studies Course (see Appendix 11.4). The course itself is designed
for first- and second-year college students at a four-year institution and
can be taught in both synchronous online and face-to-face formats. It
is a skills-oriented introduction to human communication, in partic-
ular public speaking. The goal of this course is to provide fundamental
skills to prepare students to meet communication challenges encountered
throughout their education and in their professional lives. The activity
was designed by Sara to facilitate a semester of ethical public speaking
practices and environment in an online or in person setting.
Early in the course, typically in the first or second week, a lesson
is devoted to ethical public speaking. Students are introduced to the
concept of ethics through a reading assignment and a brief lecture and
discussion helps position public speaking in the context of ethics and
empathetic consideration for oneself and one’s peers. Using modeling,
the instructor sets the tone for the activity by purposefully designating
the classroom as a safe space for discussion, clearly defining and unpacking
terms like “ethics” and “empathy,” and asking for student input on what
those concepts mean to them. This conversation is important as each
student brings to the classroom their own fears and anxieties about public
speaking which have the potential to overwhelm the learning process. To
help attend to those individual needs (e.g., Rabin & Smith, 2013), the
creation of a code of ethical conduct allows students to share, discuss, and
adapt their unique needs into guidelines for ethical behaviors.
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 299

Next, the activity involves individual brainstorming on what makes

someone an “ethical public speaker,” and an “ethical listener,” students
working in pairs to share, clarify, and combine lists, and eventually
a full class dialogue about what should guide speakers and listeners.
Through these various dialogues, students come to share and under-
stand a multitude of perspectives on what might make someone an ethical
public speaker or listener. Allowing time to self-reflect helps students to
acknowledge what makes them nervous (e.g. having all eyes on them) or
vulnerable (e.g. sharing a speech on a topic that impacts them personally)
and in turn more open to the concerns of their peers. Often, students are
surprised what their peers add. For example, some students focus on the
ethics of speech construction (e.g. citing sources and avoiding manipu-
lative persuasive appeals) while others emphasize a “responsible” use of
time through the selection of topics that are personally relevant.
The emphasis on co-construction of the final class list, having all
students sign (digitally or otherwise), and ensuring it is “present” during
all speaking activities (by sharing it digitally prior to online speaking days
or hanging it in class when face-to-face) models Antoni and colleagues’
(2020) call for an ethic of care that prioritizes responsibility to care for
others. This foundation offers the possibility to facilitate social justice
in the classroom when that responsibility is ever questioned or broken.
Although this activity is by no means a “course requirement,” the inten-
tional development of the space to talk about ethics and empathy and the
emphasis on shared responsibility helps to foster an ethic of care in this
otherwise standardized curriculum. The goal, in using the Curriculum of
Care as a framework for teaching empathy, is to both help to develop
content knowledge construction in a way that promotes empathy both in
content and in instructional methods.

Conclusion
We view empathy as fundamental to social justice and, therefore, teaching
empathy as fundamental to teaching social justice. Yet, virtual settings
create challenges for teaching empathy, as empathy, at its fundamental
level, might seem to require in-person contact from a neurological
perspective (e.g., mirror neurons) and to read body language and feel safe
enough to share personal experiences and emotions. Teaching empathy
virtually requires more careful thought and attention to teaching methods
and assessments and careful scaffolding of learning, which is why we
300 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

view teaching through an ethic of care and, particularly, McKenzie and

Blenkinsop’s (2006) Curriculum of Care chart helpful for thoughtfully
crafting courses that attend to each element of care in the classroom. We
hope, and initial student feedback has confirmed, that this allows us to
teach empathy in a virtual setting that still promotes true development of
empathy.

Appendix A
Appendix 11.1 Assignment Description:
Implicit Bias Test and Reflection
Follow the steps outlined in the assignment below, and then respond to
the reflective discussion prompt. You should respond and engage with
all of your peers; the minimum engagement is three responses plus your
original post. However, to maximize our co-learning, please make this an
ongoing discussion that lasts throughout the week.

1. Identify two groups different from you from the following list from
the Implicit Association Test (link below): (1) One group that you
have favorable attitudes toward and (2) One group that you think
you might have a negative perception of.
• Skin tone
• Weight
• Gender
• Age
• Sexuality
• Transgender
• Asian
• Arab-Muslim
• Disability
• Black/African American (referred to as “Race” in the Implicit
Association website)
2. Take the implicit bias test for each group you selected: [Link]
[Link]/implicit/[Link].
3. Select from the following video clips/podcasts to watch according
to the groups you selected (Please note that some links may use
language that some may find objectionable, will share stories that
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 301

are uncomfortable, and may share views that you disagree with.
The details of some stories may be triggering. Please reach out
to me before viewing if you are concerned). Author note: We did
not include video links from the original assignment, as some links
were broken and more links may be at publication. We suggest using
YouTube to find links for each of the groups you include in your activity
that are current, relevant, and appropriate for your student body.
4. Respond to the discussion board answering the following questions
(in your responses, please do NOT identify which groups you felt
you were biased toward or against; that is not the purpose of this
assignment):
1. Reflect on the process of taking the Implicit Bias test? Did you
agree with the results? Why or why not? How did taking the test
make you feel?
2. Thinking about the video clips that you watched, what did you
learn about their experiences that was new information for you?
How did that change how you perceived them?
3. How did the implicit bias test and the video clips impact how you
might work with someone who identified as a member of those
groups as a subordinate? As a colleague? As a mentor? As a friend?

Appendix 11.2 Assignment: Role Plays

Part 1:
For your first role play assignment, create a role play scenario that you
might encounter in Educational Leadership settings where empathetic
behaviors could (or should) be employed. Your role play scenario should
include, at a minimum, the following details:

1. The “players” and their roles (e.g., principal and teacher, superin-
tendent and fellow superintendent)
2. The context of the case (e.g., Conference, counseling session, staff
meeting, evaluation debrief)
3. Immediate situation (e.g., a fellow superintendent is struggling
in their new role, a teacher needs help adjusting to new state
standards).

Post your role play scenario by Friday at 5 p.m.

302 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

Part 2:
With a fellow student, colleague, friend, or family member, act out
one of the role play scenarios created by your peers, taking care to prac-
tice the empathy skills you’ve learned in the course so far (and the skills
and behaviors that you are already aware of and developing). After partic-
ipating in the role play, post a discussion response that reflects on your
experience. Your discussion post should do the following:

1. Include the name of the scenario (and the author)

2. Describe how the role play scenario went: What went well? What
could have been improved?
3. Describe what you learned: What will you do in similar situations in
the future?
4. Reflect: Is this scenario similar to others you have encountered in
your role? What surprised you about this experience.

You should do this for two role play scenarios. Post a separate discussion
post for each role play scenario.
After participating in and reflecting on your scenarios, you should
respond to the discussion posts for the role play scenario you created.
Did their experience surprise you? Was this scenario similar to a real one
in your experience? What did you learn from this process?
Role play reflections are due by 5 p.m. on Friday at 5 p.m.

Appendix 11.3 Assignment Description:

Personal Development Plan
Before responding to the following prompt, take the Toronto
Empathy Questionnaire ([Link]
empathy-questionnaire) again. Note any changes from when you took
the questionnaire at the beginning of the course.
Create a personal development plan for your continued development as
an ethical leader. Your personal development plan should, at a minimum,
do the following:

1. Self-assess your current competency as an ethical leader

2. Define your leadership goals as they relate to empathy
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 303

3. Outline your plan for continuing to develop your empathy skills and
behaviors
4. Provide a plan for how you will assess your development.

Your personal development plan is due by Friday at 5 p.m.

Appendix 11.4 Activity: Ethical

Public Speaking Activity
Students will be able to:

1. Define ethical considerations of public speaking, including empathy

2. Co-create a “Code of Ethical Conduct” for public speaking in the
classroom.

Pre-class reading: Chapter 2: Practical Concerns: Fears, Listening, and

Ethics (Braden et al., 2018).
Activity Steps.
Step 1: Brief lecture/discussion on Empathy, Ethics, and Public
Speaking; student input is encouraged when it comes to discussing
connections between these topics in their lived experiences.
Step 2: Students are asked to reflect on their own (all ideas written
down, none are critiqued or discounted at this stage): What qualities does
an ethical public speaker have? What about an ethical listener?
Step 3: Think-Pair-Share: Students are paired at random to discuss
their list in a “judgement-free zone”; the purpose is to share, clarify, and
combine lists so that each dyad has one mutually agreed upon list of what
makes an ethical public speaker and one list with what makes an ethical
listener. Students are encouraged to share “why” they included (or let
off) items.
Step 4: All pairs share their final list with the entire class (instructor is
typing this list on a shared screen during the activity).
Step 5: Full Group Dialogue: Students use “I-language” to engage in
a dialogue about any confusing, troublesome, or unclear criteria; critiques
are limited to content, not individual contributions; a consensus is needed
to add an item to the final code of conduct list. If a contribution is
questioned, the student who contributed it is encouraged to share their
perspective.
304 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

Step 6: The instructor generates a document with the final list, course
title/dates, and leaves room for signatures at the bottom; the list is circu-
lated the following class for all to sign and is either shared digitally prior
to speeches starting or posted in the classroom if in a face-to-face setting.

References
Aggarwal, R., & Guanci, N. (2014). Teaching empathy during clerkship and
residency. Academic Psychiatry, 38(4), 506–508. [Link]
s40596-0140113-z
Antoni, A., Reinecke, J., & Fotaki, M. (2020). Caring or not caring for
coworkers? An empirical exploration of the dilemma of care allocation in the
workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4), 447–485. [Link]
1017/beq.2020.1
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener,
E. C., Bednar, L. L., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can
feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the
group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://
[Link]/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F00223514.72.1.105
Bell, H. (2018). Creative interventions for teaching empathy in the counseling
classroom. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(1), 106–120. https://
[Link]/10.1080/15401383.2017.1328295
Berger, S. M. (1962). Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychological
Review, 69(5), 450. [Link]
Bergman, R. (2004). Caring for the ethical ideal: Nel Noddings on moral
education. Journal of Moral Education, 33(2), 149–162. [Link]
10.1080/0305724042000215203
Borba, M. (2018). Nine competencies for teaching empathy. Educational
Leadership, 76(2), 22–28.
Boske, C., Osanloo, A., & Newcomb, W. S. (2017). Exploring empathy to
promote social justice leadership in schools. Journal of School Leadership,
27 (3), 361–391. [Link]
Braden, S. W., Valenzano, J. M., & Kuypers, J. A. (2018). The speaker: The
tradition and practice of public speaking. Fountain Head Press.
Burns, H. D., & Lesseig, K. (2017, June). Infusing empathy into engineering
design: Supporting under-represented student interest and sense of belong-
ingness. In 2017A SEE Annual Conference & Exposition. [Link]
10.18260/1-2--28529
Cares, A. C., Hirschel, D., & Williams, L. M. (2014). Teaching about victimiza-
tion in an online environment: Translating in person empathy and support to
the internet. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(4), 405–420. https://
[Link]/10.1080/10511253.2014.965407
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 305

Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., D’ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C.
(2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a
revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679. [Link]
a0032297
Cartabuke, M., Westerman, J. W., Bergman, J. Z., Whitaker, B. G., Westerman,
J., & Beekun, R. I. (2019). Empathy as an antecedent of social justice atti-
tudes and perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 157 (3), 605–615. https://
[Link]/10.1007/s10551-017-3677-1
Carter, J. L., & Bruckman, L. S. (2019). The Elephant in the room: Where is
the empathy in science? JOM Journal of the Minerals Metals and Materials
Society, 71(7), 2158–2159. [Link]
Cutright, K. (2019). The empathetic soldier. International Journal of Philosoph-
ical Studies, 27 (2), 265–285. [Link]
8059
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence
for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44(1), 113. [Link]
Decety, J. (2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion
Review, 3(1), 92–108. [Link]
Doehring, C. (2018). Teaching theological empathy to distance learners of inter-
cultural spiritual care. Pastoral Psychology, 67 (5), 461–474. [Link]
10.1007/s11089-0180812-6
Dow, A. W., Leong, D., Anderson, A., & Wenzel, R. P. (2007). Using theater
to teach clinical empathy: A pilot study. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
22(8), 1114–1118. [Link]
Gerdes, K. E., Segal, E. A., Jackson, K. F., & Mullins, J. L. (2011). Teaching
empathy: A framework rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and social
justice. Journal of Social Work Education, 47 (1), 109–131. [Link]
10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900085
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (2014). Moral injury and the ethic of care: Reframing the conversa-
tion about differences. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(1), 89–106. https://
[Link]/10.1111/josp.12050
Goodman, D. (2000). Motivating people from privileged groups to support
social justice. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1061–1085.
Hatcher, S. L., Nadeau, M. S., Walsh, L. K., & Reynolds, M. (1994).
The teaching of empathy for high school and college students: Testing.
Adolescence, 29(116), 116.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307. [Link]
306 L. PARSON AND S. KITSCH

Hornblow, A. R. (1980). The study of empathy. New Zealand Psychologist, 9(1),

19–28.
Johnson, D. (2019). Empathetic skills and school libraries: Critical for both
students and librarians. Teacher Librarian, 46(5), 8–13.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic
empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611. [Link]
1037/h0027580
Jordan, J. V., & Schwartz, H. L. (2018). Radical empathy in teaching. In H. L.
Schwartz & J. Snyder-Duch (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning
(pp. 25–35).
Keeling, R. P. (2014). An ethic of care in higher education: Well-being and
learning. Journal of College and Character, 15(3), 141–148. [Link]
10.1515/jcc-2014-0018
Kelley, K. J., & Kelley, M. F. (2013). Teaching empathy and other compassion-
based communication skills. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development,
29(6), 321–324. [Link]
Kemper, K. J., & Khirallah, M. (2015). Acute effects of online mind–body skills
training on resilience, mindfulness, and empathy. Journal of Evidence-based
Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 20(4), 247–253. [Link]
10.1177/2156587215575816
Krebs, D. (1982). Prosocial behavior, equity, and justice. In J. Greenberg & R. L.
Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 261–308). Academic
Press.
McCurdy, R. P., Nickels, M. L., & Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem-based design
thinking tasks: Engaging student empathy in STEM. The Electronic Journal
for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 22–55.
McDougall, J. (2019). Empathetic leadership: Understanding the human
domain. Military Review: The Professional Journal of the U.S. Army, 28–34.
McGarrah Sharp, M., & Morris, M. A. (2014). Virtual empathy? Anxieties and
connections teaching and learning pastoral care online. Teaching Theology &
Religion, 17 (3), 247–263. [Link]
McKenzie, M., & Blenkinsop, S. (2006). An ethic of care and educational prac-
tice. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 6(2), 91–105.
[Link]
Mercer, S. W., Higgins, M., Bikker, A. M., Fitzpatrick, B., McConnachie, A.,
Lloyd, S. M., & Watt, G. C. (2016). General practitioners’ empathy and
health outcomes: A prospective observational study of consultations in areas
of high and low deprivation. The Annals of Family Medicine, 14(2), 117–124.
[Link]
Meyers, S., Rowell, K., Wells, M., & Smith, B. C. (2019). Teacher empathy: A
model of empathy for teaching for student success. College Teaching, 67 (3),
160–168. [Link]
 11 TEACHING EMPATHY IN VIRTUAL SETTINGS … 307

Nazir, J., & Pedretti, E. (2016). Educators’ perceptions of bringing students to

environmental consciousness through engaging outdoor experiences. Environ-
mental Education Research, 22(2), 288–403. [Link]
04622.2014.996208
Neary, A. (2019). Critical imaginaries of empathy in teaching and learning about
diversity in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(4), 444–458. https://
[Link]/10.1080/10476210.2019.1649648
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education
(2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). Caring in education. The encyclopedia of informal educa-
tion. [Link]
Preece, J., & Ghozati, K. (2001). Experiencing empathy online. In R. E. Rice
(Ed.), The Internet and health communication: Experiences and expectations
(pp. 147–166).
Rabin, C., & Smith, G. (2013). Teaching care ethics: Conceptual understand-
ings and stories for learning. Journal for Moral Education, 42(2), 164–176.
[Link]
Sentas, E., Malouff, J. M., Harris, B., & Johnson, C. E. (2018). Effects
of teaching empathy online: A randomized controlled trial. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 199. [Link]
stl0000119
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The
Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of
a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 91(1), 62–71. [Link]
Stepien, K. A., & Baernstein, A. (2006). Educating for empathy. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 21(5), 524–530. [Link]
1525-1497.2006.00443.x
Swanson, L. J. (2015). A feminist ethic that binds us to mother earth. Ethics &
the Environment, 20(2), 83–103.
Terry, C., & Cain, J. (2016). The emerging issue of digital empathy. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4). [Link]
e80458
van Berkhout, E. T., & Malouff, J. M. (2015). The efficacy of empathy
training: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of counseling
psychology, 63(1), 32. [Link]
Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a
concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2),
314.
Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6),
1608. [Link]