University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

(USC Thesis Other)

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

Bridging the Empathy Gap: A Mixed-Method Approach to Evaluating Teacher Support in
Bullying Prevention and Intervention at an Urban Middle School in India

by
Kiran Pai

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Kiran Pai
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

i

Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify the influences of and barriers to teacher support in
bullying prevention and intervention practices at a middle school based in Bangalore, India.
Teacher support is critical in ameliorating negative outcomes associated with bullying
involvement. However, most teachers feel underprepared to deal with bullying. Previous
quantitative studies have indicated a flow-on effect from teachers’ lack of knowledge about
bullying to inappropriate responses which contribute to an empathy gap in the provision for
teacher support. Few empirical studies have provided a complete understanding of the empathy
gap in teacher support using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Applying the Clark
and Estes gap analytic framework, this convergent mixed methods study sought to evaluate the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of teacher support. Survey data from forty-
two middle school teachers and interview data from eleven teachers were collected in a single
phase and then merged to identify performance gaps. The study found four knowledge
influences, one motivation and two organizational influences that may have inhibited middle
school teachers’ ability to provide anti-bullying support to students. Evidence-based
recommendations along with an integrated implementation and evaluation plan using the New
World Kirkpatrick model is presented.
Keywords: bullying, prevention, intervention, teacher support, empathy

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

ii
Acknowledgments
My own personal and professional growth at the University of Southern California is
summed up in the words of Sir Isaac Newton: “If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the
shoulders of giants”. What God intended for me went further beyond my wildest dreams. I am
grateful for the blessings of Shirdi Sai Baba.
To my chair and advisor, Dr. Ekaterina Moore, I express my deepest gratitude for her
guidance and mentorship. Her kindness, love for research and unwavering support will forever
remain etched in my memory. Dr. Moore was my North Star in helping me successfully navigate
through the doctoral program at the Rossier School of Education. I am grateful for my committee
member, friend and mentor, Dr. Chad A Rose for his constant support and encouragement. Dr.
Rose, whose passion for school improvement is worthy of emulation, will forever be my
example of excellence as a researcher, mentor and school leader. I would also like to thank my
committee member and my first instructor in the OCL program, Dr. Monique Datta. Dr. Datta’s
detailed feedback, commitment to my success and constant words of encouragement have been
invaluable to me. Overall, all three of my committee members were instrumental in defining the
path of my research.
I am also thankful to all the professors in the OCL program at the Rossier School of
Education. In particular, Dr. Melanie Brady, Dr. Eric Canny, Dr. Rebecca Lundeen and Dr.
Alison Muraszewski have not only helped shape my dissertation but also significantly
influenced the way I think about learning and motivation in classroom contexts. If proof is
necessary to show how a professor can make a lasting difference to a student 10,000 miles
away, then this is it.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

iii
I would like to thank my dear friends and family who have unwittingly joined me in
my doctoral journey. To my children: I am thankful for every moment of your playfulness that
prompted me to go into “break” mode while writing, your inquisitiveness about the “Brady
Bunch” online classes on my computer, as well as the genuine understanding and patience you
showed me when I needed to focus on my writing. These are, by far, the most cherished
memories I have about my doctoral journey.
To my loving mother, father, mother-in-law and father-in-law and rambunctious
siblings: thank you for being my rock-solid support system, and taking up my parenting duties
as I disappeared behind my desk for days on end. To my merry band of cousins, disruptors,
and trinity: your love, support and unconditional friendship mean the world to me. To my
colleagues and friends in Cohort 9: I could not have asked for a more talented, dedicated and
supportive group of classmates to share this journey with.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my husband, partner and best friend, Ravindra Pai.
Ravi has been with me through three and an half years of sleepless nights, anxiety-driven
mania, exhaustion, waves of happiness and unbridled joy on achieving the smallest of
accomplishments. His positive energy, determination and go-getter attitude has influenced me
more than even he knows. The love and support I have received from my husband, children,
family and friends have been instrumental in helping me successfully complete my doctoral
journey.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

iv
Dedication
To my sons, Ronav and Ritvik:
When it comes to chasing your dreams, never, never, never give up.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

v
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ..................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 3
Organizational Goal...................................................................................................................... 5
Related Literature ......................................................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 12
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals ............................................................................... 13
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................................. 13
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 14
Methodological Framework ....................................................................................................... 15
Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Project ........................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 18
The Nature of Bullying in Middle Schools ................................................................................ 19
Middle School Contexts ............................................................................................................ 19
Constructs of Bullying .............................................................................................................. 20
Influences and Barriers of School Support .............................................................................. 27
Relationship between School Support and Bullying Dynamic ................................................. 27
Student Perceptions of Anti-bullying Support .......................................................................... 34
Constructs of Empathy .............................................................................................................. 36
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ................................................................. 37
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ................................... 38
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

vi
Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................................... 38
Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 48
Organization .............................................................................................................................. 53
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context ................................................................................................ 62
Relationship Between Framework Components ....................................................................... 65
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ............................................................................................. 68
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 69
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................................................... 70
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................................... 70
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale............................................................................... 71
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................... 71
Data Collection and Instrumentation........................................................................................ 72
Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 75
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 78
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 79
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................... 81
Validity and Reliability............................................................................................................... 83
Ethics ............................................................................................................................................ 83
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS .................................................................... 87
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 87
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes............................................................................ 88
Factual Knowledge ................................................................................................................... 88
Conceptual Knowledge of Bullying.......................................................................................... 93
Conceptual Knowledge of Empathy ....................................................................................... 100
Procedural Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 104
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .......................................................................... 112
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes ................................................................... 118
Organization ............................................................................................................................ 118
Culture of Trust ....................................................................................................................... 119
Culture of Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 122
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

vii
Credible Role Models ............................................................................................................. 124
Consistent Feedback ............................................................................................................... 126
Synthesis Summary and Gap Identification ........................................................................... 128
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 132
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................................... 133
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................... 133
Motivation Recommendation.................................................................................................. 140
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................................. 142
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan .................................................................. 145
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ........................................................................... 145
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................................... 147
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................................. 148
Level 3: Behavior Critical behaviors ...................................................................................... 149
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................................... 153
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................................... 156
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................................... 157
Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................................. 159
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach .......................................................................... 160
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 161
Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 163
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 164
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH ............... 202
APPENDIX B: SURVEY PROTOCOL GUIDE .................................................................. 205
APPENDIX C: SURVEY ON BULLYING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION ..... 206
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ......................................................................... 215
APPENDIX E: PERMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 218
APPENDIX G: OBSERVATION FORM .............................................................................. 221
APPENDIX H: COURSE EVALUATION ............................................................................. 222
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Westwood School Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals ................................. 13
Table 2 Knowledge Type and Knowledge Influence .................................................................. 48
Table 3 Assumed Motivational Type and Motivational Influence .............................................. 52
Table 4 Assumed Organizational Influences ............................................................................... 62
Table 5 Survey Sources ............................................................................................................... 77
Table 6 Teachers' Formative Empathy Mean and Standard Deviation ..................................... 101
Table 7 Handling Bullying Questionnaire ................................................................................. 106
Table 8 Internal Trust Survey Mean and Standard Deviation ................................................... 120
Table 9. Collaboration Survey Mean and Standard Deviation .................................................. 122
Table 10 Frequency and Percentages - Credible Role Models .................................................. 125
Table 11 Frequencies and Percentages - Consistent Feedback .................................................. 126
Table 12 Summary Table of Influences ..................................................................................... 131
Table 13 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 135
Table 14 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations....................................... 141
Table 15 Summary of Organizations Influences and Recommendations .................................. 143
Table 16 The New World Kirkpatrick Model - Four Levels of Evaluation .............................. 147
Table 17 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes...................... 149
Table 18 Critical Behaviours, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers .................. 151
Table 19 Required Drivers to Support Teachers' Critical Behaviors ......................................... 152
Table 20 Components of Learning for the Program .................................................................. 156
Table 21 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 157
Table 22 Exemplar of an End-of-Module Survey, Kirkpatrick Level and Sample Questions .. 158
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 2. Flowchart of convergent mixed method design used in this study. .............................. 75
Figure 3. Teachers' factual knowledge of bullying. ...................................................................... 89
Figure 4. Teachers' conceptual understanding of bullying types. ................................................. 95
Figure 5. Teachers' value for using empathy with bullies, victims and as a bullying prevention
and intervention strategy. ............................................................................................................ 113
Figure 6. Teachers' self-efficacy for using empathy with bullies, victims and as a bullying
prevention and intervention strategy ........................................................................................... 116
Figure 7. The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Reprinted from Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of
Training Evaluation (p. 11), by J. D. Kirkpatrick and W. K. Kirkpatrick, 2016, Alexandria,
VA: ATD Publications. © 2016 by Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC www.kirkpatrickpartners.com. 146
Figure 8. Level 4 dashboard of internal outcomes. ..................................................................... 160

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
School bullying is an unfortunate reality that affects a significant portion of the youth
throughout the world. Scholars have estimated that 246 million children experience bullying in
some form every year (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018). Manifestations of bullying
include physical attacks, deliberate social exclusion, rumor-spreading, taunting, or cyberbullying,
which may occur either in or outside school (Woods & Wolke, 2004). Bullying has a serious
impact on children’s sense of belonging (McNeely & Falci, 2004) and bolsters the risk for low
self-esteem, stress, depression, and suicidal ideation (Poland & Lieberman, 2018). Children are
most vulnerable to norms of peer acceptance during middle school (Schwartz, Lansford, Dodge,
Pettit, & Bates, 2015) and therefore, are highly susceptible to bullying perpetration and
victimization.
Researchers, policymakers, and school practitioners have come to recognize the critical
role that teachers can play in decreasing perpetration. Teachers have the clearest and most direct
ability to intervene, based both on their proximity to bullying situations and their ability to teach
students prosocial behavior (Bouchard & Smith, 2017). Teachers are so influential to the
bullying dynamic that even their lack of response may contribute to ongoing victimization
(Novick & Isaacs, 2010). Aggressive behaviors left inadequately or inappropriately addressed by
teachers, contribute to increased rates of bullying in middle school settings (Oliver & Candappa,
2007). Conversely, teacher support towards both perpetrators and victims has been found to
ameliorate the negative outcomes associated with bullying involvement (Roth, Kanat-Maymon,
& Bibi, 2011).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

2
Students perceive teacher support through empathy-based approaches such as listening,
understanding problems from their perspectives, and following up to see if the bullying has
stopped (Davis & Nixon, 2010). Emotional and motivational forms of teacher support are rated
as highly valuable in student self-reports (Demaray, Malecki, Secord, & Lyell, 2013). If students
believe that their teacher cares about them, they are less likely to engage in harmful behaviors in
the face of stressful events (McNeely & Falci, 2004). Moreover, students are likely to engage in
behavioral change if they believe that their teacher understands, accepts, and respects them (Roth
et al., 2011).
Despite the relationship between teacher support and decreased perpetration, most
teachers feel underprepared to deal with bullying. Researchers have indicated a clear flow-on
effect from lack of knowledge about bullying to inappropriate responses that inhibit empathy and
teacher support (Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008; Burger, Strohmeier, Spröber, Bauman, &
Rigby, 2015). For instance, teachers who minimize what constitutes bullying are less likely to
feel empathetic towards the victims and therefore, are much less likely to intervene the situation
(Murphy, Tubritt, & Norman, 2018; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Scholars have referred to this flow-
on effect as an empathy gap through several quantitative studies (Bradshaw, Sawyer, &
O’Brennan, 2007; Craig, Bell, & Leschied, 2011; Yoon, 2004; Yoon, Barton, & Taiariol, 2004).
Previous researchers, however, have only provided a partial view by using mostly quantitative
approaches to evaluating teacher responses to bullying. There is a need to gain a more complete
understanding of the empathy gap in teacher support that requires both quantitative and
qualitative data. Understanding the factors that influence teachers’ response to bullying is critical
for the successful implementation of school-based anti-bullying efforts. To gain a complete
picture pertaining to problem, in this mixed methods study, the researcher evaluated teacher
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

3
support in bullying prevention and intervention efforts in Westwood School (pseudonym
assigned), a grade school based in urban Bangalore, in the State of Karnataka, India.
Organizational Context and Mission
Westwood School is a grade school that enrolls students from grades 1 to 12. The school
campus is spread across 18 acres and houses elementary, middle, and high school students and
staff in three separate buildings. Several neighborhood elementary schools feed into Westwood’s
middle school section, bringing in a minimum of 60 new students every year. Because the school
is based in Bangalore, 100% of the students and staff at the school are Indians. The staff
population consists of 90% female teachers in core subject teaching positions and 10% male
teachers in sports-related teaching positions. The school is owned by a board of directors. While
the board functions as a policy-making body for legal and financial accountability purposes, the
school administration has discretionary authority to drive strategic direction in all matters of
school operation. The school administration includes the principal and three senior faculty
members, who serve as heads of subject departments.
The school is registered as a not-for-profit private and independent entity and is exempt
from most educational regulations at the federal level, with some exceptions at the state level
(National Council of Educational Research & Training, 2018). The school is free to determine its
own curriculum, disciplinary policies, staffing policies, and professional development plans
based on the administration’s vision and mission. Westwood School was founded in 1998 and
the school population grew from 16 to 2,100 students and four to 172 faculty members in 2019.
Westwood’s middle school section comprises of approximately 630 students and 42 full-time
faculty members. More than 60% of the staff members are founding teachers and have
experienced a dramatic change in school leadership since the founding year. The school’s
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

4
previous mission statement articulated a singular focus on student performance using
standardized test measures derived from the academic accreditation bodies. The discipline
system has historically followed a zero-tolerance policy on student infractions, in alignment with
the school’s focus on academic achievement. While classroom disruption is treated as a serious
infraction, reports of peer bullying are treated disproportionately.
As the number of new students in middle school steadily increased, the school observed a
corresponding increase in student and parent concerns about school safety. As evidenced by
various school memoranda and office discipline referrals, the former school principal exerted
disciplinary actions with students who engaged in acts of physical aggression. Despite the
increased number of complaints regarding non-physical forms of bullying, however, there is little
or no evidence that demonstrates disciplinary action with students who engaged in taunting,
rumor-spreading, or social exclusion.
After the change of school leadership in 2017, the new school principal conducted a
school-wide parent survey to identify strengths and weaknesses towards school improvement
goals. The school also conducted an internal survey to gather students’ perceptions of school
safety, academic support and student-teacher relationships. Data from both surveys highlighted
an urgent need to address bullying behaviors and anti-bullying support as a means to improve
school safety. Specifically, the student survey revealed that 52% of middle school students
experienced bullying in the last academic year alone. Sixty-three percent of the students reported
that they did not have at least one adult in school to talk to about their problems. Over 58% of
students reported that they did not believe that their teachers liked them, cared about them, or
were interested in their well-being, which was reflected as a low school support rating.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

5
In an effort to address these issues, the school administration sought consultation from
bullying prevention and intervention (BPI) experts in order to set BPI policies, improve bullying
reporting procedures, increase adult supervision in bullying-prone hallways, and adopt a social-
emotional curriculum for prosocial learning. In the academic year of 2018, these policies set
forth the implementation of the school improvement plan for student safety and support. After
evaluating best practices in BPI implementation, the administration highlighted the importance
of teacher empathy as a protective factor in BPI efforts, teaching children prosocial behaviors,
and promoting positive student-teacher relationships.
The anti-bullying policies, published on the school’s website, included a definition of
bullying, a list of the various types of bullying and a set of empathy-based intervention
procedures for all stakeholders, particularly teachers. The school BPI policies articulated the
necessity for teachers to replace old punitive, disciplinary actions with new supportive
approaches. During staff meetings, the administration communicated that teachers will need to
adopt supportive approaches with victims who report bullying as well as with perpetrators to
promote prosocial behavior. Finally, the administration revised the mission statement to
“providing a safe, warm, and caring environment for all students to achieve to the best of their
abilities” (Westwood internal memorandum, 2018).
Organizational Goal
In the spring of 2018, the administration set a school safety goal as a benchmark for
performance, based on the data collected from the survey in the previous year. While the BPI
initiative was planned for the whole school, the focus of this study is the middle school section
i.e. the teaching staff from grades 6, 7, and 8. The 2017 survey data showed that students from
the middle school section reported lower teacher support than the elementary or high school
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

6
students. For this reason, only the middle school section was evaluated in terms of teacher
support in BPI initiatives.
With specific focus on the middle school section, by April 2021, the school aims to
improve BPI school support to students by 50%. The administration intends to administer the
same survey from 2017, with parents and students to assess the impact of BPI efforts in the near
future (School Principal, personal communication, January 22, 2018). Additionally, the
administration articulated sub-goals for students, parents and teachers as a whole-school
approach in mitigating bullying. For instance, students were expected to learn assertive skills and
report bullying incidents to their teachers. Parents were encouraged to participate in BPI
workshops to create a shared understanding of how to support student safety and well-being. In
the context of improving school support, the administration expects teachers to assume a
significant role in BPI efforts. Specifically, by October 2020, all middle school teachers are
expected to demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis. Teachers’ goals were
highlighted in the school’s safety policies and reiterated in several staff meetings through the
year.
Since the inception of BPI efforts in 2018, it is unclear to the school administration
whether teachers are engaging in empathy-based support. Further, there is ambiguity regarding
teachers’ knowledge of bullying and empathy-based BPI approaches. While some teachers have
expressed difficulty in discerning bullying from other student social interactions, others have
shared concerns about their ability to replace old intervention approaches with new ones
(Westwood internal memo, 2018). According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences should be examined to uncover potential barriers in
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

7
performance problems. Understanding knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps is
critical to the achievement of the school’s goal of improving BPI school support to students.
Related Literature
The international prevalence rate of bullying among middle school students is alarming.
A 2015 United States (U.S.) national study of bullying prevalence in middle schools showed that
21% students between the ages of 12 to 18 years reported victimization during one academic
year alone. Of those students who reported victimization, 13% were made fun of, called names,
or insulted; 12% were the subject of rumors; 5% were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; and
5% were excluded from social activities on purpose. Additionally, students most often reported
that physical appearance, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, and sexual orientation were
the reasons for being bullied at school (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2015).
Similarly, a city-wide study in India showed prevalence rates of bullying behaviors and
victimization of 31.4% among middle school students in one school year; these students reported
the negative effect bullying had on their self-esteem, their relationships with friends and family,
their school work, and their physical health (Kshirsagar, Agarwal, & Bavdekar, 2007).
Bullying is characterized by repeated exposure to aggressive acts that intentionally cause
physical harm, psychological distress, or humiliation to the victim (Olweus, 1994). Bullying
perpetration is generally thought to be repetitive, in which one victim is targeted a number of
times (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014). While this definition is
commonly applied in bullying research, there are disagreements among researchers who argue
that single acts of harm that may be as damaging as repeated victimization (Vaillancourt et al.,
2008; Volk, Veenstra, & Espelage, 2017). Nevertheless, there is a universal consensus that
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

8
power imbalance is a key feature of the bullying dynamic that merits the attention of the
academic community.
Power imbalance manifests in bullying dynamics when victims cannot defend
themselves easily, either because they are outnumbered or they are perceived to be physically or
psychologically weaker than the perpetrator (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). From a human rights
perspective, the defenselessness of the victim to combat bullying implies an obligation for others
to intervene. The United Nations (1991) Conventions on the Rights of the Child concluded that
protection from abuse is a fundamental requisite to a quality of life that children have the right to
expect.
Researchers have indicated that normative and dismissive beliefs about the severity of
bullying legitimizes the use of aggression among students. Holding such beliefs may account for
the relative lack in teacher support observed in previous studies (Craig, Bell, & Leschied, 2011;
Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015). Passive response strategies such as ignoring bullying or telling
students to work out the problem on their own, often predicts greater levels of aggression and
victimization (Smith & Brain, 2000) and significantly increases the risk of adverse consequences
to all students (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
Involvement in bullying whether as a victim, perpetrator or bystander adversely impacts
children’s social, emotional, or academic development. Victims of bullying often experience
severe emotional distress and depressive symptoms, social isolation, and loneliness when faced
with scorn and peer rejection, resulting in a lower sense of school belonging (Holt & Espelage,
2007). Bullying perpetrators are at risk of involvement in criminal acts during their adulthood
(Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fontaine, & Maughan, 2008). Students who witness bullying as
bystanders' express discomfort, fear, and insecurity within their school environment (Gini &
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

9
Espelage, 2014). These adverse outcomes leave little doubt about the necessity of reducing
bullying incidences in schools.
One study suggested that bullying behavior begins in preschool, with the highest
frequency of bullying occurring in middle school (Bellflower, 2010). The middle school years
are a particularly vulnerable time for young adolescents who are moving to a stage of identity
versus role confusion, characterized by self-image, social roles, and peer pressures that
increasingly influence behavior (Erikson, 1997). Moreover, the middle school years are
significantly influenced by a transition in Kohlberg’s (1984) stages of moral development, where
interpersonal conformity is marked by peer conformity coupled with self-concept and behavioral
changes based on one’s peer group. Such changes significantly increase the risk of children’s
involvement in bullying (Schwartz et al., 2015) as they navigate through their social-emotional
development stages.
Almost all BPI school programs rely on teachers as front-line responders to preventing
and mitigating victimization at school (Longobardi, Prino, Marengo, & Settanni, 2016; Marshall,
Varjas, Meyers, Graybill, & Skoczylas, 2009). Ultimately, teacher awareness of bullying and
willingness to intervene bullying situations are critical factors to decreasing bullying among
students. Intervention strategies in turn are determined by teachers’ perception of the seriousness
of the bullying incident (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Craig et al., 2011; Yoon, 2004). A consistent
finding across literature is that teachers tend to underestimate the extent and severity of bullying
in their school (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Dake, Price, Telljohann, & Funk, 2003), particularly in
middle schools. Teachers’ misconceptions about bullying can inhibit their ability to extend
support and empathy to students involved in bullying (Yoon & Bauman, 2014).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

10
Understanding teacher responses to bullying situations is critical to the effective
development and implementation of BPI programs. Inappropriate teacher responses that are
either passive or overly punitive have been found linked to higher levels of victimization
(Bauman & Del Rio, 2006) and lower levels of prosocial internalization (Roth & Bibi, 2009).
Additionally, scholars have indicated that students report bullying incidences based on their
appraisal of potential teacher responses, that may either be perceived as helpful or harmful
(Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005; Oliver & Candappa, 2007). Students who believe
that their teachers care about them and respect them are more likely to seek those teachers out in
times of trouble (Di Stasio, Savage, & Burgos, 2016). In contrast, if students believe that their
teachers do not care about them, they may not report bullying incidences (Novick & Isaacs,
2010).
Bullying is often covert and difficult to detect (Swearer & Doll, 2001), and students who
are bullied rarely report the incidents to teachers (Bellflower, 2010) for several reasons. The
unwillingness of students to come forward to report bullying behavior places the onus on
teachers to develop greater awareness, establish close relationships with their students, and
intervene in bullying incidents. Perceived teacher empathy and support are key factors to
whether a student will disclose their victimization to their teacher (Novick & Isaacs, 2010).
Strong relationships between students and teachers often mitigate the many ill effects of
bullying, fighting and other serious disciplinary problems (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). If
teachers do not show that they care for their students, however, students may believe that they
cannot rely on adults for protection (MacNeil & Newell, 2004).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

11
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate Westwood School’s performance in relationship to its
organizational goal of improving BPI school support for various reasons. First, evaluation of the
school’s performance in providing support to students as a BPI strategy is linked to its overall
mission of providing a safe and warm environment to all students. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), evaluating organizational performances against its mission or benchmark will help guide
the organization towards proper and effective methods to close any potential performance gaps.
Successful BPI relies upon effective teacher intervention (Yoon, 2004) and appropriate support
strategies that promote prosocial behavior in all students (Roth & Bibi, 2009).
Second, in the absence of evaluation and informative data, school administrators may
develop and implement change erroneously. Change solutions based on inaccurate assumptions
may not only fail to improve performance but may also compound problems for the organization
(Rueda, 2011). In many BPI initiatives, the absence of data regarding teachers’ knowledge has
been a significant barrier to improvement (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Newman‐Carlson & Horne,
2004; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Swearer & Doll, 2001).
Finally, while the school has established a goal pertaining to BPI support, it is unclear
whether teachers have adequate knowledge of bullying or empathy-based support. Clark and
Estes (2008) suggested that a formative evaluation of stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences enables organizations to develop corrective interventions that may,
more reliably, improve performance. In this study, the researcher seeks to use formative data
pertaining to teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational domains of BPI support to
evaluate their performance task progress.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

12
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The first group of stakeholders is the school administration, which comprises of the
school principal and three senior faculty members. The administration reinforces the school’s
mission during weekly faculty meetings and set the priority for strengthening student-teacher
relationships in the academic year of 2018. By January 2020, they will provide the organizational
support in terms of training opportunities, faculty meetings for collaboration opportunities, and
any proposed changes to the master schedule in order to invest more time in teacher-student
relationship-building without comprising the school’s high academic standards. The
administration oversees the implementation of all BPI improvement initiatives, conduct class
observations, and routinely collect feedback from students and faculty about the BPI initiative.
The second group of stakeholders are the middle school teachers. By October 2020, all
middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily
basis. Teachers are expected to recognize bullying accurately and use empathy-based support
with both the victims and perpetrators involved in bullying. Teachers will contribute to the
accomplishment of the organizational goal by creating positive student-teacher relationships and
minimizing negative social behaviors among students when they occur.
The third group of stakeholders are the middle school students. By January 2020, 100%
of the students will demonstrate, with 100% accuracy, their knowledge of the difference between
bullying and peer conflict in scenarios, how to report bullying to their teachers, and the
application of assertiveness skills to refuse bullying in response to scenarios. In order to decrease
bullying in school, students must be able to recognize, refuse, and report bullying. Each of these
goals contribute to the overall organizational performance as depicted in Table 1.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

13
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Westwood School Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission

Westwood School is committed to providing a safe, warm and caring environment for all
students to achieve to the best of their abilities.

Organizational Global Goal

By April 2021, Westwood School will improve BPI school support to students by 50%.

Stakeholder Goal

By October 2020, all middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based
support in BPI on a daily basis

Stakeholder 1 Goal
School Administration
Stakeholder 2 Goal
Teachers
Stakeholder 3 Goal
Students

By January 2020, the
administration will provide
the organizational support in
terms of training
opportunities, faculty
meetings for collaboration
opportunities and any
proposed changes to the
master schedule in order to
invest more time in
relationship-building without
comprising the school’s high
academic standards.

By October 2020, all middle
school teachers are expected
to demonstrate empathy-
based support in BPI on a
daily basis.

By January 2020, 100% of
the students will demonstrate
with 100% accuracy, their
knowledge of the difference
between bullying and peer
conflict in scenarios; how to
report bullying to their
teachers and the application
of assertiveness skills to
refuse bullying in response to
scenarios.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete evaluation of the effectiveness of BPI efforts at Westwood School
would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes, only the teacher stakeholder group
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

14
were the primary focus for this study. Teacher support was evaluated using the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) model, as Clark and Estes (2008) described.
Teachers are in a unique and influential position to promote prosocial behavior among
students and addressing issues of bullying effectively using empathy-based support practices.
Research shows that students often want teachers to take an active role in addressing bullying
situations (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006). Moreover, it is not uncommon to find that
teachers are generally called upon by other stakeholders, such as parents and the administration,
to act when incidences of bullying occur. The organizational goal of creating a safe environment
for students against bullying is contingent on the quality of teacher empathy and support at
school.
If students believe that teachers do not care about them, they may be unwilling to report
bullying (Novick & Isaacs, 2010). Students who believe that the teachers ignore or tolerate
bullying behaviors are likely to engage in continued aggression whereas explicit disapproval of
bullying and support in prosocial learning is less likely to lead to perpetration and victimization
among students (Saarento, Kärnä, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2013). Failure to meet the teacher
stakeholder goal will most likely result in unchecked victimization among students, which will
adversely impact student safety and well-being.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of teacher support at Westwood School. The researcher focused on
how teachers demonstrated empathy-based support with their students and also evaluated any
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that have may been a barrier to support
practices. In this study, the researcher utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic framework
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

15
following a mixed method design to answer research questions. The questions that guided this
study were:
1. What knowledge influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
2. What motivational influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
3. What organizational culture and context influences, perceived by Westwood middle
school teachers, affect the adoption of empathy-based bullying prevention and
intervention approaches within the school?
Methodological Framework
The researcher utilized a mixed method approach for data collection and analysis,
following Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework. Westwood middle school teachers’
current performance in relationship to the school’s goal was assessed by means of surveys and
interviews. Bullying researchers have traditionally employed quantitative methodology to
generate statistical findings with large samples in order to influence whole-school approaches to
bullying (Espelage 2014; Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Monks et al.,
2009). Qualitative bullying researchers have so far been focused on elaborating and explicating
the experiences of bullies and victims in their own words (Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015; Evans &
Smokowski, 2015; Goodwin, 2002). Little is known, however, about interplay of knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences of teacher empathy in bullying prevention and
intervention practices in a middle school context. In this study, a convergent mixed method
design was used, in which both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in parallel,
analyzed separately, and then merged during data analysis. The data gathered from the mixed
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

16
methods approach, pertaining to KMO gaps, informed the solutions and recommendations
addressed in Chapter Five.
Definitions
Bullying: Any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who
are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power
imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated; bullying may inflict
harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational
harm (Center for Disease Control, 2019)
Perpetrator: A person who uses their power to cause distress either physical or
psychological repeatedly on the victim (Shireen, Janapana, Rehmatullah, Temuri, & Azim,
2014).
Victim: A person who experiences repeated bullying episodes (Shireen et al., 2014).
Empathy: The ability to understand, predict, and experience others’ behaviors, feelings,
attitudes, and intentions by means of perspective-taking (Rogers, 1995).
Punitive discipline: Absolute, forceful form of punishment aimed towards students’
external behavioral regulation factors such as obedience and conformity. School-based punitive
discipline often involves in-school punishments, suspensions or expulsions (Suvall, 2009).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem, the
organization’s problem of practice, relevant literature, key concepts pertaining to BPI support,
and terminology. Chapter Two reviews existing literature on the constructs of bullying and
empathy-based teacher support. Literature on the gap analysis framework in the context of
teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences is also addressed. Chapter Three
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

17
outlines the research methodology for data collection and analysis in the study. In Chapter Four,
the researcher reports findings of the analysis. Finally, in Chapter Five, the researcher provides
solutions for closing performance gaps, as well as recommendations for further improvement
plans related to the organization’s goals.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Research and academic interest in the phenomenon of bullying has increasingly gathered
momentum from a previously neglected school problem to a serious human rights violation. At
the same time, researchers studying school support have brought recognition to the importance of
adult intervention in providing a safe school environment that protects students from the severe
consequences of bullying. The combination of these two intersecting bodies of research have
contributed to a paradigm shift in how bullying is conceptualized and how schools can
effectively prevent and intervene bullying situations.
In this chapter, the researcher provides a comprehensive review of literature that frames
the study. In the literature review, the researcher outlines three sections based on central themes
drawn from Westwood School’s organizational goal of providing BPI school support to students.
In the first section of the literature review, the researcher examines the nature of bullying in
middle schools. Specifically, the researcher outlines the middle school contexts that shape
students’ socialization experiences and examines the manifestations of bullying that occur in
these contexts. In the second section, the researcher outlines the influences and barriers related to
BPI school support, which includes the nature of student-teacher relationships, current school
strategies and constructs of empathy as a protective factor to students. Finally, in the third
section of the review, the researcher integrates relevant literature into Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework to provide a complete picture of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of teacher empathy in providing BPI school support.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

19
The Nature of Bullying in Middle Schools
Middle School Contexts
The transition to middle school marks an important developmental milestone in both
American and Indian schools. In India, middle schools are discernibly different from elementary
schools, with structural challenges that include larger classrooms, increased number of teachers,
departmentalized teaching, a greater emphasis on academic achievement, and correspondingly
lower levels of supportive contact between teachers and students (Azam, Kingdon, & Wu, 2016;
Deb, Strodl, & Sun, 2014; Santhya, Zavier, & Jejeebhoy, 2015). Reviews of literature pertaining
to middle school contexts in America have shown similar structures (Akos, Rose, & Orthner,
2015; Coelho, Marchante, & Jimerson, 2017; Nelemans, Hale, Branje, Meeus, & Rudolph,
2018). Scholars’ syntheses of prior research on the middle school transition have suggested that
moving to middle school can cause significant disruptions to preadolescent children’s social,
emotional, cognitive, and physical developmental domains (Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010;
Vollet, Kindermann, & Skinner, 2017; Yu, Johnson, Deutsch, & Varga, 2018).
Transitioning from elementary to middle school is a normative, yet tumultuous, part of
preadolescent growth and development. The middle school transition often involves physically
moving to a new school building where students encounter both new teachers and new peers,
given that multiple elementary schools feed into a given middle school (Benner, Boyle, &
Bakhtiari, 2017; Nelemans, Hale, Branje, Meeus, & Rudolph, 2018). During this transition,
students become increasingly concerned about peer acceptance (Schwartz et al., 2015) and also
exhibit greater sensitivity to social exclusion (Sebastian, Viding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010).
Although school transitions are predictable in nature, the consistent theme across literature is that
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

20
students tend to struggle as they learn to negotiate their new educational contexts while
reconstructing their social lives.
Because preadolescent children spend a significant part of their waking hours in school
(Nelemans et al., 2018), relationships formed within school walls with both teachers and peers
have a powerful influence on their social development (Yu et al., 2018). Erikson (1974) posited
that the preadolescents experience an increased need for belonging, social acceptance, emotional
closeness and desire for autonomy which provides the context for identity formation. Yet, these
needs are discordant with middle school contexts that are characterized by new and unfamiliar
peer settings at school, increased adult control and decreased personal contact with teachers
(Longobardi, Prino, Marengo, & Settanni, 2016; Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010).
While positive peer interactions and adult support can bolster preadolescents’
psychological well-being, experiences of bullying victimization, lack of social support and
feelings of isolation can pose a significant developmental risk (Wang & Fletcher, 2017;
Verschueren, 2015). Middle school years are marked with the increased risk of bullying
perpetration and victimization (Schwartz et al., 2015) as students try to reorganize their social
lives. Consequently, it is important to understand how bullying manifests in middle school
contexts in order to administer effective anti-bullying interventions.
Constructs of Bullying
Given the meteoric rise of studies in school BPI science, it is necessary to understand
specific behaviors that constitute bullying. Bullying has been predominantly conceptualized as a
unique subcategory of aggression (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014;
Rose, Nickerson, & Stormont, 2015; Olweus, 1993). There is a lack of agreement among
researchers, however, concerning the definition of bullying. The inherently complex nature of
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

21
bullying and its various manifestations has kindled a debate among researchers to reconcile
varying definitions and measures of bullying (Green, Felix, Sharkey, Furlong, & Kras, 2013;
Sercombe & Donnelly, 2013; Vaillancourt et al., 2008; Volk et al., 2017). There is a degree of
heterogeneity of definitions of bullying in current literature; therefore, it is important to provide a
rationale for the choice of definition and conceptualization of bullying that informs the study.
Definition of bullying. In Olweus’s (1993) pioneering study in school-based bullying,
the author described the phenomenon as “an intentional harmful act carried out repeatedly and
over time in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power” (p. 9). This
widely cited definition outlines three main facets: repetition, intentionality of harm and
imbalance of power. The fourth definitional facet is unequal affect which refers to the high levels
of emotional distress that victims experience while perpetrators, in comparison, exhibit little
emotion (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011; Olweus, 1993).
While Olweus’s definition is commonly applied in bullying research, there are some
disagreements regarding its practical application (Vaillancourt et al., 2008; Volk et al., 2017).
Researchers and practitioners have concurred that an imbalance of power is a common
characteristic of bullying (Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012; Martínez, Murgui, Garcia, & Garcia, 2019;
Volk et al., 2017). Yet, there are ideological differences regarding repetition and the practical
limitations related to measuring intentionality of harm (Jang, Song, & Kim, 2014; Sercombe &
Donnelly, 2013; Vaillancourt et al., 2008).
Olweus’s definitional criterion of repetition in bullying is used by most researchers in the
field (Bauman & Yoon, 2014; Espelage, 2014; Gladden et al, 2014, Hymel & Swearer, 2015;
Rose et al., 2015; Ryoo, Wang, & Swearer, 2015). According to Olweus (1993), aggressive
behavior has to be repeated on more than one occasion before it can be defined as bullying.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

22
However, this criterion is not endorsed by some researchers who argue that a single act of harm
qualifies as bullying when it is perceived to have a likelihood of being repeated in the future,
such as threats of future aggression (Jang et al., 2014; Vaillancourt et al., 2008; Volk et al.,
2017). In the case of cyberbullying, researchers argue that a single act of posting can easily cause
repeated victimization when other internet users spread the original post in other social media
outlets (Jang et al., 2014; Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013). A single act of harm can be just as
damaging to the mental and emotional health of a victim as much as repeated acts of harm
(Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland, & Westby, 2014).
Researchers have also found that children’s characterization of repetition in bullying was
incongruent with theoretical and methodological operationalizations within bullying literature.
Vaillancourt et al. (2008) surveyed definitional constructs across 1767, randomly assigned
students aged 8-18 and found that only 6% of the students included repetition in their definitions
of bullying. Similarly, Hellström, Persson, and Hagquist’s (2015) mixed method study of 149
secondary students found that the traditional criteria of bullying did not fully reflect adolescents’
understanding and definition of bullying. The study found that repetition was not included in
over half of the examples of bullying provided by students. Further, the qualitative results
showed that adolescents focused on the victim’s feelings to decide whether not a behavior was
constituted as bullying. Greif and Furlong (2006) justify that student judgements of bullying may
arise from preconceived notions of the meaning of the term, rather than relying on the definition
intended by researchers. Nonetheless, the criterion of repetition has irrefutable implications on
the necessity of teacher involvement in BPI. Bullying has been consistently conceptualized as a
process between the bully and victim (Espelage, 2014; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hymel &
Swearer, 2015; Olweus, 2001; Rigby, 2002; Ryoo et al., 2015) which includes repetition as
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

23
recognizable characteristic that serves as a “call-to-action” for teacher involvement (Novick &
Isaacs, 2010; Yoon & Bauman, 2014).
Researchers argued that definitional criterion of intentionality of harm is often difficult to
measure (Jia & Mikami, 2018; Monks et al., 2009; Sercombe & Donnelly, 2013) owing to its
abstract nature (Volk et al., 2017). To resolve this, Volk, Dane, and Marini (2014) suggested that
teacher interventions should involve empathic investigations to understand the rationale that
prompted student aggression in the first place. From an evolutionary standpoint, Volk et al.
(2014) suggested that individuals bully others to obtain goals related to social reputation,
reproduction, or resources. It is, therefore, vital that teachers use empathy as a support tool to
engage in inquiry that seeks rationale for behavior in the context of potential goals of intent. An
investigation of intentionality may enable researchers and practitioners to identify important
causes and outcomes of bullying involvement (Volk et al., 2014).
Most researchers endorse power imbalance as a definitional criterion in identifying
bullying (Nelson, Burns, Kendall, & Schonert-Reichl, 2018; Hellström, Persson, & Hagquist,
2015; Turner, Finkelhor, Shattuck, Hamby, & Mitchell, 2015; Volk et al., 2014). In general,
power imbalance is disregarded when two students of similar strength or social status are in a
state of conflict and therefore, is not considered bullying (Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012; Nelson et
al., 2018). The criterion of power imbalance is related to coercion (Martínez, Murgui, Garcia, &
Garcia, 2019) and an emphasis of placing superiority of power over the victim (Cuadrado-
Gordillo, 2012). Volk et al. (2014) postulated that bullies cognitively engage in a cost versus
benefit analysis in targeting weaker individuals, incapable of retaliation or gathering coalition
(i.e., cost) as a means to meet their goals (i.e., benefit). Bullying prevention intervention
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

24
strategies that include adult intervention can potentially increase the cost of bullying and thus,
discourage the bully from continuing aggressive behaviors towards the victim.
In summation, these studies present a cogent argument about analyzing key components
of bullying as it relates to intervention and school support. Determining characteristic features of
the bullying dynamic is necessary in establishing an operationalizable definition that can guide
intervention strategies. While there are disagreements regarding definitional criterion, the
definition of bullying as described by Olweus (1993) has previously found empirical application
in various manifestations of bullying that occur among students.
Recently, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) provided a uniform
definition of bullying in a report titled Bullying Surveillance among Youths: Uniform Definitions
for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements. The uniform definition was constructed to
facilitate the comparison of research across various intervention and prevention programs. In this
report, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) defined bullying as “any unwanted
aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating
partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times
or is highly likely to be repeated; bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth
including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.” The definition was constructed
to include definitional facets of power imbalance, harmful intent, repetition and unequal affect as
well as the various types of bullying.
Types of bullying among middle school students. The scope of bullying research has
expanded to include various forms of aggressive behavior such as physical aggression (Tharp-
Taylor, Haviland, & D’Amico, 2009), verbal taunting, sexual harassment, discriminatory
harassment, relational aggression (Wang, Iannotti, Luk, & Nansel, 2010), and cyberbullying
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

25
(Gimenez-Gualdo, Arnaiz-Sanchez, Cerezo-Ramirez, & Prodocimo, 2018). A considerable body
of research has been dedicated to forms of “traditional” bullying, which can involve direct and
indirect aggression. Direct aggression involves physical violence (e.g., hitting, kicking,
punching, and pushing) and verbal aggression (e.g., teasing, threatening, and taunting), both of
which are discernible acts of violence (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).
Indirect aggression is sometimes referred to as relational aggression. It is far more subtle
in nature, and includes manipulative acts such as ostracizing, extorting, excluding or intimidating
another individual (Wang et al., 2010). Sexual aggression is defined in terms of how the behavior
is received by the victim i.e., if an unwelcome behavior has a sexual element that makes the
victim feel offended, intimidated or humiliated (Leemis, Espelage, Basile, Mercer-Kollar, &
Davis, 2019; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2008;). Sexual aggression can occur through direct, physical
forms or indirect, covert forms such as verbal or relational aggression (Connolly et al., 2015).
Relational aggression also involves gossip, rumor-spreading, sabotage, and other subtle
behaviors that cause harm to victims in a social context (Levine & Tamburrino, 2014). In
addition, relational aggression includes a subcategory of discriminatory harassment, which
involves aggressive behavior targeting an individual’s personal characteristics that may be race-
based, gender-based, sexual orientation-based, disability-based, and weight- or physical
appearance-based harassment (Bucchianeri, Gower, McMorris, & Eisenberg, 2016; GLSEN,
2015; Turner et al., 2018).
Cyberbullying is a contemporary form of bullying that involves aggressive behavior
inflicted over the internet or through electronic devices such as mobile phones (Salmon, Turner,
Taillieu, Fortier, & Afifi, 2018). Examples of aggressive behaviors through these mediums
include abusive comments, threats, misuse of personal information, impersonation, and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

26
circulation of private information (Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). Some researchers have suggested
that cyberbullying can occur as a continuation of traditional bullying executed through new
means (Jang et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2004). The harmful effects of cyberbullying can be more
pronounced than traditional bullying owing to the potential for a wider audience, permanency of
posts, and potential for anonymity on the part of bully perpetrators (Kowalski, Giumetti,
Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). For instance, Slonje et al. (2013) found that students believed
that bullying through the use of picture or video posts on social media was more harmful than
traditional forms of bullying.
Previous researchers have found that bullying behavior tends to peak in middle school
and then decrease (Perlus, Brooks-Russell, Wang, & Iannotti, 2014; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel,
2009). Moreover, direct bullying declines with age, while indirect bullying and cyberbullying
tend to increase between the ages of 11 and 15 years (Gimenez-Gualdo et al., 2018; Perlus et al.,
2014). Victimization in the forms of indirect bullying and cyberbullying have been found to be
more predictive of social and psychological maladjustment, school avoidance, and depression
than direct bullying (Brendgen & Poulin, 2018; Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014;
Modecki et al., 2014).
In addition to the aforementioned types of bullying, it is important to note behaviors that
do not constitute as bullying. Specifically, there are three types of behaviors that are not
interpreted as bullying: instrumental aggression, retaliatory aggression and jostling (Doll &
Swearer, 2006; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Rose et al., 2011). Instrumental aggression is
described as protective behavior that an individual demonstrates to defend his or her property,
reputation or well-being of a peer, while retaliatory aggression is an impulsive behavior that
occurs in the “heat of the moment” (Rose et al., 2011). Jostling is described as rough and tumble
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

27
play, often done in jest or affection, that is not done to inflict harm or dominate the other child
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
While not a complete list of experiences that middle school students face, this study aims
to situate bullying in a broad spectrum of aggression to cover both traditional and contemporary
forms of bullying among middle school students. In addition to identifying bullying, it is
important for teachers to understand the various forms of bullying and the potential ramifications
associated with each form.
Influences and Barriers of School Support
Relationship between School Support and Bullying Dynamic
Recent bullying researchers have advocated for the implementation of BPI programs with
whole-school based practices that target multiple contexts of children’s social-ecology. Many
modern BPI programs prioritize raising awareness about bullying at the classroom, school and
community level, by means of standardized methods such as parent, teacher and student training
for recognizing bullying and intervening when it occurs (Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2012).
While these standardized methods are imperative to BPI efforts, particularly with respect to anti-
bullying policies, school rules and specific techniques for intervention; the role of the teacher-
student relationships is critical to effective intervention (Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015; Yoon &
Bauman, 2014). Murray-Harvey and Slee (2010) argued that whole-school approaches to
bullying are weakened when teacher-student relationships are not considered. In this section, the
researcher examines the influences teacher-student relationships and school support through the
lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological systems theory.
Social-ecological theory. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological systems theory has
been increasingly applied in extant research to identify relational factors underlying children’s
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

28
bullying experiences and shaping prevention practices. Traditionally, bullying researchers have
placed emphasis on the “dyadic bias” related to the individual characteristics of bullies and
victims (Dodge, Price, Coie, & Christopoulos, 1990; Pfeiffer, 1980). Contemporary authors,
however, have situated bullying within an ecological context where bullies and victims are a part
of a larger interrelated system that draws influences from multiple social domains (Bouchard &
Smith, 2017 ; Evans & Smokowski, 2015; Lee, 2011; Rose, Espelage, Monda-Amaya, Shogren,
& Aragon, 2015; Swearer & Doll, 2001).
Ryoo, Wang, and Swearer (2015) suggested that children’s involvement in bullying, as
bullies, victims, or bystanders, is fluid in nature and roles can change over time. Bullying
perpetrators can also become victims, and vice-versa in varying social contexts and at different
times. Involvement in bullying (e.g., victim, bully, bully-victim) are correlated with negative
academic and social-emotional outcomes (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & O’Brennan, 2013; Kelly et
al., 2015). Haltigan and Vaillancourt (2014) argued that “pure bullies” or “pure victims” may not
be socially or emotionally maladjusted but may be experiencing negative social experiences in
varying inter-relational contexts (p. 2426). Therefore, bullying as a complex, social-ecological
phenomenon must be considered, beyond the dyadic bias, to understand interrelated systems that
minimize or perpetuate children’s bullying experiences (Hong & Espelage, 2012)
The social-ecological systems theory is based on the principle that all individuals are part
of an interrelated system that consists of several roles and entities, but keeps the individual at the
center and looks at how the other entities affect the individual. In the microsystem, the individual
is situated in the center and is most affected by other individuals in the immediate environment.
In a child’s microsystem, for instance, the most influential individuals would include the child’s
family, peer network, and teachers at school. The mesosystem involves the interplay of two or
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

29
more environments that are relevant to the child, such as parents and teachers drawn from the
child’s home and school environments, or teachers and peers connected to the individual student
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). According to Hong and Espelage (2012), children’s experiences in one
microsystem (e.g. child-teacher) can influence the interactions in another microsystem (e.g.
child-peer). For this reason, teachers’ involvement is a relevant mesosystem risk factor for
victimization in school (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
The social-ecological approach suggests that teachers are uniquely situated to influence
positive student interactions while simultaneously reducing the propensity for misbehavior,
aggression and bullying (Swearer & Doll, 2001). Much of this influence is subtly exerted
through supportive student-teacher relationships. Teacher relationships extend into children’s
multi-layered domains of behavioral and social development (Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015). There
is general consensus that quality student-teacher relationships inform student behavior related to
bullying (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009; Longobardi et al., 2016;
Longobardi, Iotti, Jungert, & Settanni, 2018). Given the pivotal role such relationships play in
providing anti-bullying support, there is a need to analyze two levels of the social-ecological
model known to be impactful on children’s bullying experiences: the microsystem and the
mesosystem. In the following sections, the researcher examines the influence of student-teacher
relationships in the microsystem and student ecology in the mesosystem.
Impact of student-teacher relationships. The quality of student-teacher relationships has
been found to be more influential in mitigating bullying situations than school policies alone
(Wang, Swearer, Lembeck, Collins, & Berry, 2015). Warm and supportive student-teacher
relationships have been consistently associated with lower levels of aggressive behaviors, while
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

30
negative student-teacher relationships are associated with an increased involvement in bullying
and antisocial behaviors (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010; Roth et al., 2011).
Murray-Harvey and Slee (2010) conducted a quantitative study of Australian middle
school students to examine the relationship between supportive teacher relationships and
students’ experiences of bullying and victimization. The results of the study showed that
supportive relationships were directly associated with reduced reports of victimization and
social-emotional adjustment while stressful relationships with teachers were associated with non-
productive coping strategies (e.g. anxiety, depression and aggression) and bullying.
Emotional and motivational forms of teacher support are rated as highly valuable in
student self-reports (Demaray et al., 2013). If students believe that their teacher cares about
them, they are less likely to engage in harmful behaviors in the face of stressful events (McNeely
& Falci, 2004). Moreover, students are likely to engage in behavioral change if they perceive that
their teacher understands, accepts, and respects them (Roth et al., 2011).
Teacher empathy is central to shaping meaningful, supportive, and caring relationships
(Farmer et al., 2018). Teacher empathy sets the foundation for the development of quality
student-teacher relationships, a more supportive class environment, and a feeling of
belongingness at school (Garandeau, Vartio, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2016; Norwalk, Hamm,
Farmer, & Barnes, 2016). Teachers’ active display of empathy and positive regard towards their
students are powerful enablers for prosocial behaviors among students (Cooper, 2004). Jennings
and Greenberg (2009) suggested that teachers’ social-emotional competencies are an important
contributor to positive student-teacher relationships. If teachers show greater concern and
empathy to students by understanding the causes associated with challenging behaviors, they can
effectively respond to the students’ individual needs without resorting to default punitive actions.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

31
Authoritarian displays of control over students have been found to be ineffective in enabling
students to internalize positive behavior and have deleterious effects on the quality of student-
teacher relationships (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Influence of teacher behavior on peer groups. School-based social processes align with
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological framework of nested systems that play a role in
triggering, sustaining, and diminishing children’s bullying experiences. Researchers have been
concerned about social processes in the mesosystem that contribute to bullying behaviors among
students, with specific attention to teacher influences on student ecology or peer groups
(Bierman, 2011; Bouchard & Smith, 2017; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Teacher interactions
with individual students in a classroom can impact how other students view those students
through social referrals (Bierman, 2011). Hughes and Chen (2011) found a bidirectional linkage
between teacher-student relationship quality and peer acceptance, with students’ preferences for
peers mirroring teacher preferences. In their study, students made inferences about the likability
of another student through observations of the teacher-student relationships. Students learn both
through the explicit and implicit messages given by teachers, which, in turn, alters the dynamics
of student ecology (Hughes & Chen, 2011). Moreover, negative student-teacher relationships
have been associated with peer-related aggression (Bierman, 2011; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008).
Chang et al. (2007) suggested that the stigma associated with poor teacher-student relationship
quality could increase children’s victimization experiences. Conversely, children’s aggressive
behaviors and rejected status may be improved by higher quality teacher-student relationships
(Chang et al., 2007). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological model provides a perspective on
the influential, yet subtle interactions that shape students’ socialization experiences at school.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

32
Collectively, these studies demonstrate that associations between student-teacher relationships
and bullying experiences are critical to informing whole-school approaches to BPI.
Current school practices in BPI. The social-ecological model is often used to
rationalize the implementation of school-wide approaches to BPI. Consequently, there is a
significant emphasis on the role of teachers and administrators in effectively addressing bullying
behaviors at school (Bouchard & Smith, 2017; Burger et al., 2015; Novick & Isaacs, 2010; Yoon
& Bauman, 2014). Recent researchers have advocated for the implementation of BPI programs
with whole-school based practices that target multiple contexts of children’s social-ecology. In
school-based practices, however, scholars have found varying concepts of bullying that
significantly alter the prevention outcomes (Rigby, 2018; Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Preast, 2018;
Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Specifically, teachers’ cognitive appraisal of bullying through either
permissive or punitive frames of references tend to defeat the purpose of BPI school support.
Passive approaches. There is a significant range of subjectivity that teachers apply to the
concept of bullying, which, in turn, results in disproportionate implementation of BPI support.
For instance, Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) found that the teachers who subscribed to beliefs
that bullying is a normal part of childhood, were less likely to reprimand bullying perpetrators
and more likely to utilize passive responses with victims of bullying. Crick, Grotpeter, and
Bigbee (2002) found that teachers reported preference for passive responses in cases of relational
bullying, discounting it as normative childhood behavior and erroneously perceiving it as less
harmful than physical aggression. Although teachers treat indirect or relational bullying as the
least serious form, victims of bullying have identified social exclusion as the worst form of
bullying (Yoon et al., 2004). Bauman and Del Rio (2006) identified school practices that prompt
teachers’ passive response to BPI, especially those related to indirect bullying. Teachers
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

33
indicated that physical incidents require teacher intervention because there were school policies
that demanded that they do so, which in turn, indicated that these events are more serious than
relational bullying. Behaviors used in relational bullying are less likely to be expressly forbidden
by school policies (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006).
Overlooking or ignoring bullying behaviors can potentially reinforce bullying
perpetration. From a social learning perspective, bullies receive reinforcement for their actions
indirectly by teachers’ permissive attitude and lack of action (Green et al., 2013). Lack of
appropriate consequences can contribute to repeated victimization because it implicitly allows
continued success of the bully exerting control over a victim (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000),
which is likely to perpetuate victims’ feeling of isolation.
Punitive approaches. Punitive approaches or disciplinary methods that involve sanctions,
has emerged as a dominant school approach to misbehavior in recent years. Disciplinary policies
aim to deter students from engaging in misbehavior through severe consequences that can range
from office discipline referrals (e.g., being sent to the principal), suspensions (e.g., temporary
removal from class), and expulsions (e.g., permanent removal from school; Allen, 2010). The
common features of contemporary BPI programs entail anti-bullying policies, classroom rules
against bullying, increased teacher supervision, and consistent sanctions for aggressive, rule-
breaking behavior (Newman‐Carlson & Horne, 2004; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Ttofi &
Farrington, 2011).
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program recommends firm sanctions including serious
talks with bullies, sending them to the principal, making them stay close to the teacher during
recess time, and depriving them of privileges (Olweus, 2004). Default punitive responses,
however, can alienate disaffected students and incite oppositional behaviors that they aim to
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

34
prevent (Okonofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016). Because high-quality relationships with
teachers are associated with prosocial behaviors (McNeely & Falci, 2004) and low peer
aggression (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010), punitive disciplinary interactions risk undermining
the relationships with students and defeat the purpose of anti-bullying school support.
Roth et al. (2011) argued that profound forms of internalization may not occur if there is
an overemphasis on external control measures such as disciplinary actions. These researchers
found that students’ acting considerately towards others in order to obtain praise or avoid
punishment was positively correlated with students’ self-reported bullying towards classmates.
Moreover, punitive disciplinary measures as control mechanisms that pressure children to think,
feel, and behave in particular ways may predict only shallow internalization of prosocial values
(Roth et al., 2011). Students’ aggressive behavior is likely to continue in places and times where
teacher supervision is limited such as in the restroom, hallways, playgrounds, parking lots, and
ways to and from school (Goodwin, 2002; Perkins, Perkins, & Craig, 2014). While anti-bullying
policies and disciplinary guidelines are initially necessary to set firm boundaries for student
safety, default punitive actions may only limit bullying situations in the short term (Roth et al.,
2011).
Student Perceptions of Anti-bullying Support
Almost all BPI school programs rely on teachers as front-line responders to preventing
and mitigating victimization at school (Longobardi et al., 2016; Marshall et al., 2009). A
consistent finding across literature is that students are often reluctant to inform teachers of
bullying incidences (Danby & Theobald, 2012; Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010; Novick &
Isaacs, 2010). The directive to inform adults is critical given that bullying occurs most frequently
in areas where adult supervision is least available (Novick & Isaacs, 2010). Students’ reluctance
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

35
to report bullying may be attributed to their concerns that teachers may not believe their reports
(Oliver & Candappa, 2007), may reveal their report resulting in retaliation from the perpetrator
(Boulton, Boulton, Down, Sanders, & Craddock, 2017) or make the situation worse (Rigby,
2017). Di Stasio et al. (2016) found that students who felt their teachers cared about them and
respected them were more likely to seek those teachers out in times of trouble. In contrast, if
students believe that their teachers do not care about them, they may not report bullying
incidences (Novick & Isaacs, 2010). In order to bridge the empathy gap between students’
expectations and teacher behaviors, it is important to understand what makes students feel
supported by their teachers in school.
The role of teacher empathy is often subsumed within studies of student-teacher
relationships, given that teachers are inextricably linked to student perceptions of supportive
school experiences (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012; Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015; Eliot et al.,
2010; Flaspohler et al., 2009). Students perceive teacher support by verbal expressions of
empathy (e.g., I understand what you mean), nonverbal expressions such an encouraging pat on
the back or supportive hugs, and provision of time to discuss peer problems (Noddings, 2005;
2010). Students’ perceptions that their teachers care about them, believe in them, and treat them
fairly and respectfully significantly encourages help-seeking behavior from victims (Eliot et al.,
2010) and internalization of prosocial behaviors from perpetrators (Roth & Bibi, 2009).
Given that middle school contexts can potentially increase victimization (Schwartz et al.,
2015), it is essential that teachers strive to connect with students and buffer effects of bullying
through empathy-based approaches. The Carnegie Corporation (1989) emphasized the need for
teachers to extend empathic understanding to middle school students and stated, “Every student
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

36
needs at least one thoughtful adult who takes the time and effort to talk with the student about
their problems” (p. 38).
Constructs of Empathy
Empathy is often described as the ability to understand, predict, and experience others’
behaviors, feelings, attitudes, and intentions by means of perspective-taking (Decety & Jackson,
2006; Rogers, 1995). According to Noddings (2005), empathy requires “stepping out of one’s
personal frame of reference and into the other’s point of view, understanding their objective
needs, and what they expect of us” (p. 24). Noddings referred to the following aspects that
constitute empathy-based interactions: active listening skills, sensitivity, making students feel
important, making students feel understood, establishing trust, and giving students the feeling
that someone cares for them.
Rogers (1995) posited that empathy is demonstrated by being accepting of students
without conditions, judgment, or evaluation in a manner that conveys unconditional positive
regard. Rogers described unconditional positive regard as a feature of empathy that is
communicated by actively listening to each student with warmth, rather than hasty judgements
made in disdain. Unconditional positive regard involves cognitive and affective domains of
empathy. According to Decety and Jackson (2006), empathy requires a cognitive capacity to
understand the perspective of another person. Additionally, empathy can also assume an
affective form when the observer’s verbal and nonverbal cues in expressing emotion are
recognized by the individual as similar to their own emotion (Decety & Jackson, 2006).
Although empathy is commonly thought to be an innate and automatic quality,
Schumann, Zaki, and Dweck (2014) suggested that empathy is a malleable attribute that can be
taught and developed. They posited that empathic mindsets are anchored in malleable theory
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

37
(i.e., that one can develop intelligence and skills), as opposed to fixed theory (i.e., one cannot
develop intelligence and skills in a particular domain). People’s mindsets of empathy affect
whether or not they engage in the empathic effort to understand other individuals. Targeting
people’s theories of empathy, starting with their mindsets, can result in long-term applications of
empathy that extend across situations, including challenging ones (Schumann et al., 2014). While
several researchers have examined the role of student-teacher relationships in BPI (Craig &
Pepler, 2007; Hughes & Chen, 2011; Kowalski et al., 2014; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008), few
have considered the influences of teacher empathy in extending support to students. By
understanding the influences of teacher empathy in the context of BPI, teachers will be in a
better position to address the needs of students and engage in empathy-based supportive
strategies.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
In this study, the researcher utilized the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes
(2008) to evaluate the influences and barriers of teacher support at Westwood School. The gap
analysis framework is a problem-solving model that generates effective solutions to performance
problems by identifying and analyzing existing gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers. Clark and Estes (2008) postulated that organizational goals can be
achieved only when the gap between optimal stakeholder performance and actual performance is
closed. In this study, the researcher applied the gap analysis framework by evaluating the
influences and barriers of teacher support as it relates to BPI at Westwood School.
Theoretical constructs pertaining to knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture
were utilized to clarify performance gaps that then determined the intervention required to
improve performance. First, the researcher utilized Krathwohl’s (2002) four knowledge types:
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

38
(a) factual; (b) conceptual; (c) procedural; and (d) metacognitive—to determine whether or not
teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills. Second, the researcher examined teachers’
motivational influences to facilitate empathy-based teacher practices. Motivational influences
include an active choice to accomplish the goal, persist through action, and exert the necessary
mental effort to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Additionally, two
motivation theories integral to the formation of empathy-based teacher practices: the expectancy
value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 2000) were evaluated.
Finally, organizational influences as it relates to teachers’ performance in engaging in empathy-
based approaches were considered in the context of the school resources, systems, structures, and
culture. The assumed stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences framed
the methodology of the study discussed in Chapter Three.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
This review of current literature analyzes teachers’ knowledge and skills related to
empathy-based BPI approaches. In order to meet Westwood School’s organizational goal of
improving school support, all middle school teachers need to demonstrate empathy-based
approaches to BPI on a daily basis. Teachers need to have knowledge of two key constructs
related to intervention in order to achieve their performance goals: knowledge of bullying and
knowledge of empathy as a BPI response. According to Clark and Estes (2008), lack of
knowledge of the performance task can contribute to anxiety and despondency among
stakeholders and may subsequently hinder goal accomplishment. Relevant literature on empathy-
based interventions are organized into corresponding knowledge domains for evaluation.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

39
A powerful way to understand knowledge-related performance problems is to draw on
cognitive learning theories and segment potential influences of the problem into four different
domains of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge constitutes basic and concrete elements of information,
such as knowledge of terminology and specific details. Conceptual knowledge builds on factual
knowledge to form interrelationships among basic elements within a larger structure such as
knowledge of classification, categories, principles, generalizations, theories, models, and
structures. For instance, teachers’ knowledge of the definition of bullying may be identified as
factual knowledge, while the knowledge of various types of bullying and its associated severity
would constitute as conceptual knowledge. Similarly, teachers’ knowledge of the underlying
principles of empathy and empathy-based support relates to conceptual knowledge.
Procedural knowledge pertains to methods of inquiry or “how to do” a certain task which
may involve knowledge of subject-specific criteria, methods or skills. It may also involve
techniques, sequences, or steps necessary to accomplish a certain task. For example, teachers’
knowledge of empathy-based strategies in addressing bullying constitute as procedural
knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the knowledge of cognition in general as well as
critical awareness of ones’ own cognitive processes in accomplishing of a certain goal (Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2002).
Clark and Estes (2008) cautioned that inadequate information about stakeholders’
knowledge can lead to inappropriate training solutions that may disorganize previously learned
knowledge. For the purpose of this research, only knowledge types pertaining to teachers’
factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge of empathy-based support will be analyzed.
Metacognitive knowledge is useful in calibrating learning strategies of previously acquired
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

40
factual, conceptual and procedural domains (Pintrich, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge will be
excluded from the study in order to assess the fundamental knowledge that directly impacts
teachers’ performance goals. It is important, therefore, to critically examine factual, conceptual
and procedural domains of knowledge in order to gain an accurate understanding of teachers’
knowledge and skills pertaining to empathy-based BPI approaches.
First, teachers must have factual knowledge of bullying. Second, teachers must have both
the conceptual knowledge of the various types of bullying, as well as the conceptual knowledge
of empathy-based support in mitigating bullying. Third, teachers must know how to demonstrate
empathy-based support as a BPI strategy. Specifically, teachers must know how to demonstrate
empathy-based support to encourage help-seeking behavior from students as well as promote the
adoption of prosocial behaviors in perpetrators. The demonstration of empathic practices relates
to procedural knowledge as it involves a knowledge of techniques and methods of eliciting help-
seeking behaviors and teaching prosocial behaviors as an intervention response. Each knowledge
type is critical to the achievement of the organizational goal of improving BPI school support to
students.
Recognize bullying. The first knowledge influence is associated with factual knowledge.
Teachers need to recognize bullying accurately in order to meet the organization’s goal of
providing BPI school support to all students. Bullying is characteristically different from other
social interactions such as school fights or angry outbursts. By definition, bullying is described
as repeated exposure to aggressive acts that intentionally cause harm to the victim (Olweus,
1994). Teachers’ factual knowledge of bullying may well determine whether they perceive an
incident as bullying or not.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

41
Determining which behaviors constitute as bullying is difficult for teachers (Mishna,
Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005), and can contribute to a lack of intervention in bullying
situations (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001). Many scholars have indicated that teachers
frequently confuse bullying behaviors with peer conflicts (Hazler et al., 2001, Olweus, 1994;
Towl, 2014; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). For instance, Hazler et al. (2001) found that 83% of the 231
teachers who participated in their study misdiagnosed non-bullying scenarios as bullying when
physical harm characteristics were presented. The teachers also overlooked other scenarios such
as social exclusion and verbal abuse, which did not include physical harm characteristics. Hazler
et al. (2001) posited that misidentification of physical confrontations as bullying, when it is not,
can lead to potentially inappropriate reactions.
Mishna et al. (2005) identified underlying assumptions and misconceptions that
influenced teachers’ definition of bullying. Many of the teachers in the study doubted the
victimized children's reports of non-violent bullying and deemed the reports as less serious and
characterized the behaviors as normal, youthful play. Similarly, in Towl’s (2014) study of
school-based social relationships and bullying incidences, the investigator found that teachers
perceived social interactions such as conflict and bullying to be similar in nature, and therefore
demonstrated varying levels of empathy to victims and consequently applied inconsistent
approaches to diagnosing the problem.
Recently, Rose, Monda-Amaya and Preast (2018) conducted a study with 221 preservice
teachers to understand their conceptualization of both the types of bullying as well as its
characteristics to the general definition of bullying. The study utilized a survey instrument called
the Bullying Perception Scale, which contained a “Types of Bullying” subscale (i.e. physical,
verbal, indirect and sexual) and a “Bullying Characteristics” subscale (i.e. imbalance of power,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

42
intentionality, repetition, unequal levels of affect). Using these subscales, respondents were
asked to rate how crucial the eight items were to their personal definition of bullying on a Likert
scale. In contrast to findings from previous literature, the researchers found that the overall mean
ratings for Types of Bullying and Bullying Characteristics were fairly consistent and moderately
high. The teachers in this study supported all types and characteristics of bullying as relatively
important components of their definitions of bullying. However, it remains unclear why teachers
included all the components from the subscales in their definition of bullying (Rose et al., 2018).
Extant literature has, thus far, investigated teachers’ responses to bullying quantitatively.
Few studies have qualitatively examined teachers’ definitions of bullying (e.g. Marshall et al.,
2009; Mishna et al., 2005). While these studies are critical to evaluating teachers’ factual
knowledge of bullying, it is important to gain a complete understanding of the influences of
teachers’ conceptualization of bullying, using both quantitative and qualitative data.
Knowledge of various types of bullying. The second knowledge is associated with the
conceptual knowledge of bullying. Teachers need to know the various types of bullying in order
to facilitate their empathic effort to intervene. Scholars have provided evidence indicating that
teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about victimization may influence their own levels of
empathy for the victims and resulting intervention approach (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Cooper,
2004; Mishna et al., 2005). Direct bullying, which often manifests as physical confrontations or
verbal abuse, garners the most attention from teachers due to its overt nature and the rising
concern about violence (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Mishna et al., 2005; Yoon & Kerber, 2003).
Indirect bullying, which includes social exclusion or rumor-spreading, is often discounted as less
harmful behavior (Hazler et al., 2001; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Teachers also erroneously
perceive cyberbullying to be less serious than physical bullying (Craig et al., 2011; Gimenez-
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

43
Gualdo et al., 2018). Yet, indirect bullying and cyberbullying are more strongly related to
emotional distress, social and psychological maladjustment and depression than direct bullying
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1994).
Yoon and Kerber (2003) found that teachers’ empathic responses were influenced by the
type of bullying exhibited. Teachers perceived physical aggression more harmful than relational
aggression such as social exclusion. Teachers’ misconceptions related to the seriousness of
relational aggression resulted in proposed solutions such as having the perpetrator and victim
talk to each other about their problems, which suggested a more passive strategy to bullying
intervention (Yoon & Kerber, 2003). Yoon (2004) found that teachers’ perceptions of bullying as
serious transgression were significantly positively correlated with the reported likelihood of
teacher intervention and demonstration of empathy towards victims. Yoon, who utilized
hypothetical vignettes of bullying situations to examine the cognitive patterns of bullying
intervention with 98 teachers, suggested that increasing teachers’ awareness of the nature of
bullying and the negative outcomes associated with it may correspondingly evoke empathy
towards the victims.
Correspondingly, Bauman and Del Rio (2006) found that the degree of teacher empathy
and involvement was significantly less for indirect forms of bullying than for physical or verbal
forms. Ambiguity about the various types of bullying may explain the tendency of teachers to
respond more empathically to physical bullying than other types. Collectively, these researchers
have highlighted that teachers who are knowledgeable about bullying and perceive the act to be
serious tend to demonstrate more empathy towards students and take a more active position in
intervention. An appraisal of teachers’ knowledge of bullying, therefore, serves as a critical
determinant to empathy-based interactions with students.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

44
Knowledge of underlying principles of empathy. The third knowledge influence is
associated with the conceptual knowledge of empathy. Teachers’ knowledge of bullying and
empathy serve as interwoven concepts that inform empathy-based BPI. Accordingly, teachers
need to know the underlying principles of empathy and empathy-based BPI. Scholars have
suggested that empathy-based approaches to bullying interventions can bolster school support by
fostering trust and promoting a sense of belongingness among students (Crothers et al., 2006;
Flaspohler et al., 2009; Roth et al., 2011). When students believe that their teachers care about
them, they trust their teachers to intervene and protect them from bullying and intimidation
(Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004).
Underlying principles of empathy are often characterized by acceptance, respect and
authentic care and concern on the teacher’s part (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010). The current
body of research on teacher empathy has been built on Carl Rogers’s (1995) empathic approach
to client-centered therapy, where the teacher is akin to the counsellor and student to the client.
Central to Rogers’s concept of empathy are two key principles that influence human interactions:
(a) the ability to engage in perspective-taking in order to understand another's feelings and
viewpoints; and (b) the ability to communicate that understanding to the individual. Scholars
have indicated that these principles of empathy often act as a precondition to most non-punitive,
empathy-based bullying intervention approaches such as restorative justice, the no-blame method
and autonomous-supportive intervention (Crothers et al., 2006; Garandeau et al., 2016; Roth et
al., 2011). Such approaches prioritize remediation over punishment and aim to address bullying
behavior by exercising principles of empathy.
In order to achieve Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving anti-bullying
school support, it is important that teachers adopt an active, empathic approach to bullying
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

45
intervention, rather than a passive or punitive one. Passive approaches such as overlooking or
ignoring bullying can inhibit student self-disclosure of victimization (Flaspohler et al., 2009) and
implicitly encourage bullying perpetration (Craig et al., 2000). Concurrently, purely authority-
based punitive approaches have been shown to result in short-term behavioral change regarding
the bully’s behavior (Rigby, 2004; Roth et al., 2011), which encourages subtle and undetectable
forms of bullying which may occur in the absence of teacher supervision.
Empathy-based support include addressing the bully’s motives for their behaviors by
engaging in active listening, acknowledging feelings, taking perspectives and providing insights
in the harm that their bullying has caused, and helping them find non-aggressive remediation
strategies (Roth et al., 2011; Roth & Bibi, 2009). To illustrate, Roth et al. (2011) found that
students who experience an empathy-based relationship with teachers are more likely to develop
an internalization of consideration towards classmates, which, in turn, is negatively related to
self-reported bullying. Consistent to these findings, Okonofua et al. (2016) concluded that
teachers who adopt an empathic mindset and approach to correcting student behavior, created
better relationships with students and reduced school-based disciplinary problems over an
academic year. These researchers warned, however, that empathy-based approaches should not
be overly permissive; rather, it should encompass discipline and behavioral expectations in a
context of mutual understanding and trust.
Lastly, teachers must adopt an empathic approach in student interactions in order to
encourage help-seeking behaviors from all students. Flaspohler et al. (2009) found that an
absence or ambiguity about teacher care or empathy can inhibit student self-disclosure in reports
of victimization. Victimized children were more likely to report poor connections with teachers
because they believe that their teachers do not care (Flaspohler et al., 2009). These findings
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

46
suggest the importance of anti-bullying support from teachers in buffering the negative
consequences associated with bullying.
Demonstrate empathy. The last knowledge influence is associated with procedural
knowledge. Teachers need to know how to demonstrate empathy with students as a BPI support
strategy. Cooper’s (2004) study indicated that teacher empathy is often initiated in student
interactions by engaging in active listening, giving attention, showing interest, and
communicating with students in informal, out-of-classroom non-academic contexts. According
to Noddings (2010), empathy-based communications such as attentive listening, observation, and
responding, which includes questioning, paraphrasing, and summarizing the students’
statements, are the best means of engaging in empathy-based communications with students. In
demonstrating empathy with students, teachers must begin interactions with the intention of
understanding students within the students’ frame of reference, rather than their own frame of
reference (Barr, 2011; Noddings, 2005).
Espelage and Swearer (2003) suggested that teachers demonstrate concern by responding
swiftly and judiciously to bullying incidents, so that students know they can depend upon
teachers when they need protection or assistance. Empathy-based approaches may be drawn
from the study of Roth et al. (2011), which included elements such as acknowledgement of
feelings, taking perspective, providing rationale, allowing choice, and minimizing pressure to
encourage deeper internalization of prosocial behaviors in bullying perpetrators. Perspective-
taking, the cognitive aspect of empathy, helps teachers understand students’ peer ecologies
better. It also encourages teachers to respond more appropriately to student behavior (Barr,
2011). Empathy-based bullying intervention approaches have the potential to help bully
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

47
perpetrators internalize prosocial behaviors (Roth et al., 2011) and encourage help-seeking
behavior from potential victims of bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
Bauman, Rigby and Hoppa (2008) conducted a study with 735 U.S. teachers and school
counsellors with a survey instrument that drew upon constructs from earlier studies (i.e. Bauman
& Del Rio, 2006; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). The researchers analyzed the teachers’ use of various
strategies in response to a hypothetical bullying incident: passive strategies such as ignoring the
incident, empathic strategies such as anti-bullying rationalization and demonstration of care and
concern, and punitive strategies such as disciplining the bully. The results of the study showed
that respondents, in general, were inclined to take some action in the hypothetical scenario
presented. Notably, a strong endorsement of disciplining the bully suggested that the respondents
supported the use of sanctions for the bully, even though the hypothetical situation was one of
relatively low severity. Additionally, the results showed that the respondents were less inclined
to work with the victim. The findings indicated a need for greater familiarity of non-punitive
strategies (Bauman et al., 2008). Because empathy is at the heart of BPI school support, it is
critical that teachers have the requisite procedural knowledge of demonstrating empathy as an
intervention technique with all students.
In sum, the predominant view in contemporary research is that teachers generally require
more training to expand their knowledge of bullying and intervention approaches (Barr, 2011;
Cooper, 2004; Craig et al., 2011; Hazler et al., 2001; Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004; Novick
& Isaacs, 2010; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Diagnosing potential
knowledge gaps is a critical first step in developing appropriate solutions. Smith and Ragan
(2005) warned that violating this principle may result in poorly designed training solutions that
may be inappropriate and ineffective in helping teachers’ meet their performance goal. From the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

48
perspective of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic framework, a comprehensive evaluation of
teachers’ knowledge domains will determine specific gaps that prevent teachers’ from achieving
their performance goals. Table 2 shows the knowledge type and knowledge influence from
Westwood School in relation to its organizational and stakeholder performance goals.
Table 2
Knowledge Type and Knowledge Influence
Organizational Mission

Westwood School is committed to providing a safe, warm and caring environment for all
students to achieve to the best of their abilities.

Organizational Global Goal

By April 2021, Westwood School will improve BPI school support to students by 50%.

Stakeholder Goal

By October 2020, all middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based
support in BPI on a daily basis.

Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Factual knowledge Teachers need to recognize bullying.

Conceptual knowledge Teachers need to know the various types of
bullying.
Conceptual knowledge Teachers need to know the underlying
principles of empathy.

Procedural knowledge Teachers need to know how to demonstrate
empathy with students as a BPI support
strategy

Motivation
Apart from knowledge influences, it is important to ascertain motivational influences
necessary for Westwood School’s teachers to achieve their performance goal. Rueda (2011)
argued that knowledge alone does not guarantee task performance. Clark and Estes (2008)
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

49
posited that motivation accounts for up to 50% of achievement in education and training. From
an organizational perspective, internal resistance to change is often attributed to a lack of
motivation (Knoster, Villa, & Thousand, 2000). For instance, individuals may resist change if
they do not perceive the value of the task or if they do not feel confident in their abilities to
performance the task (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation is described as an internal state wherein individuals initiate action towards the
persistent pursuance of goals while exerting the appropriate amount of effort to achieve goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2008; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Clark and Estes (2008) posited
that three factors that influence motivation include: (a) active choice to choose a goal; (b)
persistence and perseverance in achieving a goal despite obstacles and distractions; and (c)
mental effort or mental energy exerted toward goal achievement. Lack of motivation can
seriously inhibit the pursuit of goals. Motivation is also influenced by ones’ interest, self-
efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation (Mayer, 2008). These are critical motivational
influences that impact teachers’ empathic action towards addressing student bullying behaviors
effectively. In this section, the researcher will analyze the current literature pertinent to two
motivation constructs—value and self-efficacy—that are relevant to the accomplishment of the
teachers’ performance goals.
Value. The first motivation construct that will be examined is value. Eccles (2006)
theorized that motivational influences related to active choice are fundamentally answered by the
individuals’ answer to the question, “Do I want to do this task?” Value for the task is a strong
predictor for active choice. An individual’s value for a task depends on how well the task is
aligned with their goals and plans or fulfils other basic psychological needs (Eccles, 2006). For
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

50
example, if individuals do not perceive any benefit or utility value in completing the task, they
may not make the active choice to start or persist in the task accomplishment.
In particular, the construct of utility value is applicable to teachers’ choice in actively
engaging in empathy-based anti-bullying approaches. Utility value is the perceived usefulness or
relevance of the task in facilitating ones’ long-term goals (Eccles, 2006) and is often associated
with extrinsic motivation to reach a desired end state (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In short, utility
value is based on rationales for engaging in the task; not for its own sake, but to reach to some
desired state. To achieve the organizational goal, teachers need to see the value of using empathy
as a BPI support strategy. Teachers may find utility value in evidences that highlight that
empathy-based anti-bullying approaches promotes prosocial behaviors (Roth et al., 2011) and
positive teacher-student relationships (Bouchard & Smith, 2017), and minimizes bullying
perpetration (Crothers et al., 2006).
Craig et al. (2011) found that anti-bullying training is correlated with teachers’ expressed
concern and value for engaging in bullying intervention. Teachers who received prior instruction
in bullying intervention reported a stronger belief in the value of intervention and also reported a
willingness to intervene in bullying incidences. In contrast, teachers who did not receive such
training reported lesser concern for bullying incidences. Similarly, Kallestad and Olweus (2003)
found that teachers who received prior training related to the importance of BPI support
responded to bullying scenarios with greater concern in comparison to those without such
training. Yoon (2004) argued that school-based BPI efforts must be grounded in a rationale that
highlights potential short and long-term consequences of bullying of both bullying perpetrators
and victims of bullying. Providing a rationale for bullying intervention may not only increase
teachers’ concern but also evoke teachers’ empathy to intervene (Bauman et al., 2008; Boulton,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

51
1997; Dake et al., 2003). As previous researchers have identified, it is crucial to highlight the
importance of empathy in BPI so that teachers perceive value in engaging in the performance
goal. If teachers do not perceive the value in engaging in the task, the school’s goal of providing
BPI support will be at risk.
Self-efficacy. The second motivation influence that will examined is self-efficacy. Eccles
(2006) theorized that individuals’ beliefs of their own competencies and expectancies of success
often predict persistence and mental effort, once active choice is made. Individuals’ beliefs about
their own competencies are drawn from performance-related questions that answer, “Can I do the
task?” (Eccles, 2006). Individuals’ judgement of their competencies and capabilities is referred
to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000). According to Bandura, a strong sense of self-efficacy is
contingent on the acquisition of cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory tools. For instance, if
individuals do not have sufficient knowledge of the task or receive inadequate or infrequent
feedback on their performance, their motivation to persist in the task may diminish.
Teacher preparedness and sense of self-efficacy have been found to influence teacher
behaviors in bullying intervention. Boulton (2013) found that teachers often fail to implement
anti-bullying interventions because these previously-constructed beliefs related to self-efficacy
are left unaddressed. Teachers’ self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness beliefs, and level and type
of training played an important role in influencing behaviors towards proactive bullying
intervention. Teachers reported that they would refrain from intervening bullying incidences
unless they felt adequately equipped to act (Boulton, 2013). Hen and Goroshit (2016) found a
strong positive association of teachers’ self-efficacy on empathy, in that teachers who believe in
their ability to regulate their emotions, report greater confidence in demonstrating empathy with
students. Bradshaw et al. (2007) surveyed 1,547 teachers, finding a significant inverse
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

52
correlation between perceived severity of bullying and sense of self-efficacy. Teachers who
perceived bullying as a serious problem, also reported a weaker belief in their ability to deal with
bully perpetrators. The same teachers reported reasonable confidence in speaking with victims
without blaming them but reported low levels of confidence in dealing with bullies.
In summation, this body of research support the notion that teachers who value the task
and possess a strong sense of self-efficacy are more likely to demonstrate empathy-based
bullying intervention approaches effectively. In order to accomplish Westwood School’s
organizational goals, teachers need to believe that they are capable of demonstrating empathy-
based approaches to BPI with students. Table 3 shows the motivation type and assumed
motivational influence pertaining to the teachers at Westwood School.
Table 3
Assumed Motivational Type and Motivational Influence
Organizational Mission

Westwood School is committed to providing a safe, warm and caring environment for all
students to achieve to the best of their abilities.

Organizational Global Goal

By April 2021, Westwood School will improve BPI school support to students by 50%.
Stakeholder Goal

By October 2020, all middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based
support in BPI on a daily basis

Motivation Type Assumed Motivational Influence
Value Teachers need to see the value of using empathy
as a BPI support strategy.

Self-Efficacy Teachers need to believe they are capable of
demonstrating empathy as a BPI support
strategy.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

53
Organization
The third category of influence in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic model is the
organizational culture. Because knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are
interconnected (Clark & Estes, 2008), an organization’s culture has the potential to either widen
or close the gaps in stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation towards goal accomplishment
(Rueda, 2011). In this section, the researcher focuses on the review of literature related to the
role of organizational culture that influences teachers’ performance goal of engaging in empathy-
based BPI with students on a daily basis.
General theory. In order to evaluate organizational influences related to Westwood
School, it is important to first establish a working definition of an organizational culture. Schein
(2017) described organizational culture as values, beliefs and shared assumptions that a group
learns over a period of time as that group solves problems of its survival through external
adaptation and internal integration. Central to Schein’s (2017) description of an organizational
culture is the socialization process of teaching these patterns of beliefs, behaviors and rituals to
new members of the group as the “correct way to perceive, think and feel” (p. 6). Essentially,
shared assumptions among individuals in the organization reflects a degree of consensus that has
resulted from the reinforcement of certain beliefs and values about what strategies work and
what strategies do not work (Schein, 2017).
Once a group has learned to hold common assumptions, the resulting automatic patterns
of perceiving, thinking, and behaving provide meaning, stability, and comfort (Schein, 2017).
This is particularly important to note because extant literature on school-wide anti-bullying
reforms are replete with findings of implementation fidelity problems (Bradshaw, 2015;
Garandeau et al., 2016; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Rueda (2011)
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

54
argued that such reforms are often ignored or partially implemented because they fail to take into
account the cultural model and setting of the school’s contexts. A school’s cultural model and
setting is critical to goal accomplishment and therefore, ought to be considered when
constructing appropriate solutions (Rueda, 2011).
An organization’s culture can be analyzed in terms of its cultural model, which includes
values, beliefs, attitudes that are generally intangible and automated, and cultural settings, which
include policies, procedures, and practices that manifest as concrete, visible activities within the
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Misalignments between cultural model and
setting can contribute to performance problems within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For instance, if teachers are generally aware of the school’s
mission and goals, but do not receive the requisite resources and support to achieve the goal,
performance problems are likely to arise. Similarly, underlying values, beliefs, and generally
accepted assumptions about what is important, coupled with appropriate organizational policies,
can contribute an alignment in the culture-performance dyad.
Cultural model influences. Cultural models are shared mental schema of how the world
works or ought to work and often includes cognitive and affective elements such as espoused
beliefs and values that determine behavior, perception, thought and feeling (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Westwood School’s cultural model can be viewed through the lens of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological theory, which takes a multilevel perspective of factors
that influence collective behavior in school. Since school culture serves as a mediating factor in
any school reform (Fullan, 2001), it is important to evaluate cultural model influences that may
act as a bridge or barrier to Westwood School’s organizational goal. In this section, the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

55
researcher examines the cultural model influences of organizational trust and support between
the faculty and school administration.
Culture of trust. The first cultural model is associated with a culture of trust within the
organization. In order to achieve Westwood’s organizational goal of improving anti-bullying
school support to all students, there needs to be a culture of trust among the school members.
Researchers have indicated that trust increases strategic flexibility (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,
2015), supports greater organizational adaptability (Louis & Murphy, 2017), and enables
cooperative endeavors (Gray, 2016). High levels of trust among school members have been
associated with high levels of cooperation and collaboration around school goals (Bryk, Sebring,
Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). In schools with a
strong culture of trust, teachers feel more assured about engaging in reform initiatives without
the fear of retribution from the administration (Bryk et al., 2010). School leaders who prioritize
relationships often make themselves available to school staff and help establish trust by
encouraging open communication (Brewster & Railsback, 2003). Hinde (2004) observed that
only schools exhibiting benchmarks of a positive school culture underscored by collegial trust
among school members can successfully enact change initiatives.
In Coyle’s (2008) qualitative study, the researcher examined the intersection between
school culture and the fidelity of the Olweus anti-bullying program implementation, finding that
affective elements of trust, care, and warmth conveyed by school leaders to the faculty were
mirrored in relationships that several teachers had with their students. A culture of collegial trust,
along with sense of collective responsibility among staff, were also found to support the
successful implementation of the anti-bullying program. Interviews with the school principal and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

56
teachers found common themes of open communication, honest and fair feedback, and inclusion
as elements that engendered a strong culture of trust among the school members (Coyle, 2008).
Smith and Birney (2005) found a relationship between two dimensions of school bullying
(i.e., teacher protection and student bullying) and organizational trust among faculty and the
school administration. These researchers found a negative correlation between organizational
trust and student bullying, and a positive correlation between organizational trust and teacher
protection. In an atmosphere of high collegial trust, teachers engage in collective actions that
secure school safety and student protection. Additionally, collegial trust enabled teachers to
communicate more openly and freely about pressing issues related to bullying intervention with
each other and thus addressed school safety concerns more proactively (Smith & Birney, 2005).
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that clear, honest, and consistent feedback engenders
trust and enables people to adjust their performance to achieve the organization’s goal. Trust
among school members promotes commitment to pursue goal accomplishment, even during
challenging times (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is important, therefore, to consider the role that
organizational trust plays accomplishing the school’s goal of providing anti-bullying support to
all students.
Culture of collaboration. The second cultural model influence is associated with culture
of collaboration. The organization needs a culture of collaboration between school staff members
in order to achieve performance goal. Collaboration is described as the shared influence in
decision making between the top management and employees as well as among the employees
within the organization (Northouse, 2016). School leaders promoting collaborative processes
often consult teachers, obtain their ideas and opinions and integrate their suggestions into
decisions in school reform efforts (Somech, 2005). Hord (2007) posited that a culture of
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

57
collaboration occurs when administrators view themselves on the same level as teachers, rather
than in a hierarchy. When teachers are involved in a collaborative process with the school leader,
they can discuss and implement effective empathy-based strategies in addressing bullying
situations.
Collaboration among employees is considered useful when there is a need for greater
clarity on strategies required to achieve goals, when the task is unstructured and ambiguous; and
when the followers are autonomous and respond favorably to being involved in decision making
(Northouse, 2016). A collaborative culture is in contrast to an authoritarian culture, which is
necessary where formal authority systems and group norms are weak, organizational rules are
unclear, and the task is highly repetitive (Northouse, 2016).
In the context of Westwood School, authoritarian approaches may run counter to the
organizational structure of the school since the formal authority systems, group norms and
organizational rules are well-established over the span of 23 years. Furthermore, a significant
majority of the teachers at Westwood School are skilled teachers who have served the school for
an average of over 15 years. According to Northouse (2016), directive and authoritarian
leadership approaches may be inappropriate in such contexts and followers may perceive the
leadership as dogmatic, apathetic, and excessively controlling.
Somech and Oplatka (2009) argued that collaboration and involvement in decision-
making enhances teachers’ sense of ownership of school goals, as well as their willingness to be
involved in and exert influence on a broader range of decisions outside of their immediate job
scope in order to improve school functioning. They hypothesized that collaborative involvement
would be positively related to role breath, where teachers took additional efforts outside of their
immediate teaching job scope. These researchers found that collaborative participation, when
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

58
teachers participate in school decision-making processes at higher levels, was positively
associated with their intervention efforts, which in turn was negatively associated with school
violence. By allowing teachers to participate in decision-making, they are placed with a unique
opportunity to see themselves as part of the “bigger picture” in critical aspects of school
functioning, and will be willing to tackle the phenomenon of bullying and school violence as a
part of their duties (Somech & Oplatka, 2009).
Teacher involvement in anti-bullying policy development has been found to influence the
“buy-in” change process. According to Kotter (2008), buy-in is an agreement to a change
initiative and often involves a new set of actions that are agreed upon, once a logical and
congruent case for the change is made. Participative leadership has been found to influence buy-
in and sustainable efforts towards organizational change initiatives (Northouse, 2016). When
teachers’ ideas and opinions are sought, they feel valued and more inclined to engage in change
initiatives (Benoliel & Barth, 2017). Other scholars have supported this view, stating that
followers cognitively adjust their obligations based on how they feel they have been treated by
the organization (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Kotter, 2008).
Steele, Elkin, and Roberts (2008) performed an evaluative study of an ongoing anti-
bullying program in junior high school, finding varying levels of teacher buy-in that
consequently affected the implementation fidelity of the program. Teachers who were involved
in the policy formulation, with the administration, reported great satisfaction with the program as
well as a decrease in bullying between classes. On the other hand, teachers who were given
program directives, but were not involved in policy formulation, voiced their opinion that
schoolwide intervention was unwarranted and therefore disengaged from program-related efforts.
In the absence of buy-in, teachers did not feel a sense of ownership of the program, and felt that
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

59
it was an unnecessary burden from the administration rather than help (Steele et al., 2008). In
summation, a culture of collaboration has the potential to not only promote problem-solving in
BPI (Somech & Oplatka, 2009) but also conveys trust in teachers’ capability to attain school
goals (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002) as well as reinforce commitment towards the
organization’s goal (Kotter, 2008)
Cultural setting influences. Cultural settings are described as visible, concrete
manifestations of cultural models that appear within activity settings as work processes and
resources (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). According to Clark and Estes (2008), insufficient
and ineffective organizational processes, as well as a lack of resources, often create
organizational barriers to achieve performance goals. Organizational support is a critical factor in
narrowing stakeholders’ performance gaps and facilitating goal attainment (Rueda, 2011).
Within school systems, organizational support is needed to build the teachers’ knowledge
competency as well as their self-efficacy in achieving their performance goal (i.e., demonstrating
the empathy-based BPI approaches on a daily basis). Two cultural setting influences affecting
this performance goal involve in-service training opportunities, such as credible models, and
consistent feedback on performance.
Credible role models. The first cultural setting influence is associated with credible
models. The organization needs credible role models that have previously demonstrated
empathy-based bullying intervention approaches. Role models assist the organization by
demonstrating behaviors and attitudes that need to be learned in order to accomplish a
performance goal (Schein, 2017). According to Pajares (2007), credible role models not only
establish positive outcome expectancies, but also reinforce procedural strategies that strengthen
knowledge, skills and self-efficacy. Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) posited that role models
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

60
can help other individuals in the organization either by explicit verbal explanation of the
cognitive process or by encouraging others to build a conceptual model through tacit
observation.
Through this review of literature in anti-bullying professional development, the
researcher has identified that ongoing, collaborative, and embedded learning practices in the
school culture increases both task value and collective efficacy. Traditionally, schools seek to
improve anti-bullying professional development standards by relying extensively on didactic
workshop training formats. Such formats, however, have generally been found to be ineffective
in increasing transfer of skills to the classroom (Glazer & Hannafin, 2006). In contrast, programs
that provide in-service training by positive, credible role models who provide feedback have
produced more sustainable and enduring benefits (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008).
From a social-cultural perspective, Acquadro-Maran, Tirassa, and Begotti (2017) found
that teachers recognized as experts by their peers can positively influence self-efficacy and
knowledge of appropriate bullying intervention strategies among other teachers. In a similar
vein, Boyer (2010) suggested that empathy development among novice teachers was influenced
through mentorship opportunities with positive role models who engaged in empathic teaching.
In contrast, when organizations do not provide role models from whom to learn, the
sustainability of organizational change to learn new competencies is considerably weakened
(Schein, 2017). It is essential, therefore, for schools to have credible role models who have
previously demonstrated empathy-based BPI support in order to help teachers achieve their
performance goals.
Consistent feedback. The second cultural setting influence is associated with the
organizational process of providing feedback on performance. The organization needs to provide
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

61
consistent feedback on the effectiveness of empathy-based support in order to assist teachers
accomplish their performance goal. Providing feedback and sharing expertise is closely related to
observations and interactions with credible role models (Mayer, 2008; Pajares, 2007). Izadinia
(2015) concluded that positive role models, open communication, and continuous feedback
significantly contributed to the teacher improvement in performance tasks.
Feedback that is accurate, private, fair and most importantly, consistent, can enhance task
performance substantially (Shute, 2008; Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2015).
Scholars have found that in-service training opportunities that offer repeated opportunities for
practice, vicarious learning and feedback help increase teachers’ self-efficacy in managing
bullying, while increasing the accuracy of their perceived competencies (Bell, Raczynski, &
Horne, 2010; Boulton, 2013; Noell et al., 2005).
In order to engage in effective empathy-based support, hearing from those who teachers
seek to help is crucial. In addition to feedback from professional mentors, student feedback has
been found to significantly influence teachers’ cognitive reframing of bullying intervention
strategies. Good (2011) found that iteratively integrating student feedback into bullying
intervention strategies helped reduce gaps between teacher intervention efforts and student
expectations.
In conclusion, cultural models and settings are critical factors that contribute to
organizational goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The absence of trust
among school members (Coyle, 2008) and lack of collaboration in teacher-led BPI efforts
(Somech & Oplatka, 2009) can seriously impede the school’s organizational goal. In addition,
provisions for in-service training and support in the form of credible role models (Onchwari &
Keengwe, 2008) and consistent feedback on performance (Shute, 2008) are critical to the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

62
achievement of the school’s goal. Table 4 summarizes these contextual influences on teachers’
demonstration of empathy-based support.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
Westwood School is committed to providing a safe, warm and caring environment for all
students to achieve to the best of their abilities.

Organizational Global Goal
By April 2021, Westwood School will improve BPI school support to students by 50%.

Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, all middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based
support in BPI on a daily basis

Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Model 1: The organization needs a culture of trust among the school members
Cultural Model 2: The organization needs a culture of collaboration among school staff in
order to achieve performance goal.

Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs credible models that have previously demonstrated empathy-based
BPI approaches.

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide consistent feedback on the effectiveness of empathy-
based BPI approaches.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is a graphic representation of a problem of practice, theories,
prior research findings, and previous literature addressing the issue (Maxwell, 2013). Essentially,
the purpose of a conceptual framework is to shape the direction and design of the study. Ravitch
and Riggan (2017) viewed conceptual frameworks as a technique in connecting various elements
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

63
of the research process, such as the research problem, research design, data collection and
analysis, together. This technique allows researchers to consider aspects of the study that are
known and unknown (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conceptual frameworks can also serve as a
persuasive device that justifies the rationale and importance of the study (Ravitch & Riggan,
2017).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that conceptual frameworks are useful in depicting
the researchers’ philosophical worldviews and methodological stance that frame the study.
Conceptual frameworks are often derived from a disciplinary orientation or philosophical
worldview that the researcher brings to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Philosophical
worldviews reflect the researcher’s beliefs about the world. It is the conceptual lens through
which researchers examine their research study, inform the research design, and guide analysis
(Creswell, 2018). The current study was guided by a pragmatic worldview to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the research problem. Pragmatism is an outcome-oriented and
problem-solving paradigm that focuses on “what works” as the truth regarding the research
questions under investigation (Maxwell, 2013).
In this study, the researcher utilized an adapted version of the Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis model as a conceptual framework to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to the teachers’ ability to apply empathy-based approaches to
BPI with middle school students at Westwood School. These influences are critically examined
within broader theoretical constructs related to empathy, bullying, and social-ecological systems.
Clark and Estes posited that a critical analysis of stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences will guide the organization towards effective solutions to close
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

64
performance gaps. Without the framework, organizations may implement strategies that may fail
to improve performance, as well as potentially contribute to additional problems.
In this study, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are organized
independently of each other in order to classify the type of influence and method for assessing
the influence. Despite classification, however, a relationship exists between the identified
influences. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that knowledge influences are impacted by motivation
influences and vice-versa. Furthermore, organizational culture and influences may impact both
knowledge and motivation influences of stakeholders. For example, teachers may be
unmotivated to replace punitive approaches with empathy-based approaches to BPI because they
lack the knowledge of the necessary methods and strategies to achieve their goal. Similarly, if
the school fails to provide training opportunities or feedback on performance, teachers will not
have the resources to exercise empathy-based approaches.
The conceptual framework for this study that the knowledge and motivation influences of
stakeholders is a part of and related to organizational influences and the overall success of
organizational goals. The culture of the organization along with organizational influences impact
the knowledge and motivation influences of stakeholders. Conversely, the knowledge and
motivation of stakeholders affect organizational influences as well as the organizational culture.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

65

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Relationship Between Framework Components
Figure 1 illustrates the teachers’ knowledge (blue), motivation (vermillion red) and
organizational context (orange) as a representation of the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic
framework. Although each of these influences are analyzed as components of the gap analysis,
they share a relationship that affects the successful accomplishment of the organizational goal.
The organizational goal, positioned in the center of the figure as a white circle, is encompassed
by a grey circle that denotes empathy and is connected to and moderated by the three gap
analytic influences. The center white circle shows the organizational goal within the context of
Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological theory. The illustration within the circle denotes teacher
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

66
support to children. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are depicted as
convergent circles that contribute to the accomplishment of the organizational goal.
The dotted arrows represent the view held by several researchers that bullying
interventions are often a dynamic bi-directional process, rather than a static one (Bauman & Del
Rio, 2006; Cornell & Bradshaw, 2015; Misha et al., 2005; Yoon et al., 2004). The arrows over
each convergent circle illustrates the simultaneous interaction between each of the influences.
Stakeholders’ knowledge influences can affect motivational influences and also be affected by
organizational influences. For instance, if teachers do not have the conceptual knowledge of the
nature of bullying, as well as the underlying principles of empathy-based support, they may not
perceive such interventions to hold any value. In the same token, if the organization does not
provide feedback on empathy-based approaches or provide any credible role models, teachers’
procedural knowledge may be adversely impacted. Additionally, the lack of feedback and
credible role models may affect teachers’ self-efficacy in accomplishing their performance goals.
Cultural influences can also affect the teachers’ knowledge and motivation. Teachers
engaged in a collaboration may experience greater self-efficacy and be more motivated to
acquire knowledge of intervention efforts. Conversely, teachers alienated from BPI policies
within a culture of distrust may experience low self-efficacy or value for the task. Each influence
has the potential to impact the teachers’ acceptance and willingness to engage in the performance
task. A gap in any one of these influences will affect the accomplishment of the school’s central
goal.
Finally, the conceptual framework is supported by philosophical and theoretical
constructs that inform the design of the study. The theoretical constructs from previous literature
include the theories related to nature of bullying, the phenomenon of empathy and social-
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

67
ecological systems theory of teacher-student relationships. The pragmatist worldview draws on
the source of potential theories held by the stakeholders in the study and takes into account their
beliefs, values and insights (Maxwell, 2013). As shown in the figure, the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational elements affect the achievement of teachers providing empathy-based support
to all students. Achieving the stakeholder goal directly affects the achievement of the
organizational goal of providing a safe, warm and supportive climate to all students at Westwood
School.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the researcher reviewed a substantial body of research that emphasizes the
importance of BPI school support. Throughout this literature review, the researcher outlined the
interrelated constructs of bullying and teacher empathy as well as potential influences that
promote or obstruct teachers’ ability to provide BPI support to students. These constructs were
represented in the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), which provides a context for the
research design and methodology outlined in Chapter Three. The researcher performed this
literature review to inform the present research study, the aim of which is to examine the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that inform the teachers’ use of empathy-
based BPI support.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

68
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The aim of this evaluation study was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting middle school teachers at Westwood School in accomplishing
the school’s organizational goal of improving BPI school support to students by 50%. In order to
meet the school’s organizational goal, all middle school teachers must demonstrate empathy-
based support as a BPI strategy on a daily basis. In this study, the researcher utilized Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analytic framework following a mixed method design to answer research
questions. The questions that guide this study include:
1. What knowledge influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
2. What motivational influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
3. What organizational culture and context influences, perceived by Westwood middle
school teachers, affect the adoption of empathy-based bullying prevention and
intervention approaches within the school?
The researcher utilized a convergent, parallel mixed method design to answer these
research questions. A convergent, parallel mixed method design is a type of design in which both
quantitative and qualitative data are collected in parallel, analyzed separately, and then merged to
answer the study’s research questions (Creswell, 2018). The rationale for mixing both types of
data is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone are sufficient to capture the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences pertaining to teachers’ ability to provide
BPI school support.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

69
Previous literature has examined the association between teacher awareness and
involvement in BPI (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Craig et al., 2011; Gimenez-Gualdo et al., 2018;
Hazler et al., 2001; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). These studies have been quantitative investigations
that describe responses to bullying but do not concurrently incorporate the voices of participants.
In their review of bullying research, Hong and Espelage (2012) noted that the over-reliance on
quantitative approaches has provided only a partial view of certain aspects of the bullying
phenomenon. The researchers suggested that a mixed methods approach would be helpful in
gaining a complete understanding of teacher involvement in bullying prevention and
intervention. Therefore, this study sought to build on past quantitative studies and extend
qualitative inquiry into teacher involvement on similar constructs. This chapter outlines elements
of the research study which include: participating stakeholders, research design, data collection,
instrumentation, and data analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
This study focused on middle school teachers in order to best understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that inform their use of empathy-based BPI
approaches. At Westwood School, there were approximately 42 teachers who taught at the
middle school grade level, which include grades 6, 7, and 8. The middle school teaching staff
consisted entirely of women with varying levels of qualifications and teaching expertise.
Additionally, all faculty members were of Indian origin.
Using the convergent mixed method design, the researchers’ intent was to collect
different but complementary data on the same problem of practice. Therefore, all 42 teachers
from the middle school population were invited to participate in a survey and semi-structured
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

70
interviews to examine their potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
pertaining to their performance goals.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers who taught middle school classes at Westwood School were
selected to participate in the survey. Because this study is situated in the middle school context
where bullying has been found to be prominent and teacher support practices are ambiguous
(Westwood internal memorandum, 2018), it was important to gather data about middle school
teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of BPI school support.
Criterion 2. The researcher recruited only teachers who worked as full-time staff at the
middle school level. Part-time teachers and student workshop consultants were excluded from
the study because only full-time teachers were expected to achieve the school’s organizational
goal.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The researcher selected the research participants based on simple random sampling, in
that a representative sample of middle school teachers were asked to participate in the study.
According to Creswell (2018), a simple random sample is one in which each unit in the
accessible population has an equal chance of being included in the sample. A proxy researcher
sent an email to all teachers in the middle school section that consisted of (a) the purpose of the
study, (b) a biographical description of the principal investigator and third-party proxy
researcher, (c) a summary of the research process that includes purpose, duration and list of
procedures and, (d) an invitation to participate in the study voluntarily. In addition, teachers
received a detailed informed consent form attached to the email that described their rights to
participate, refuse or withdraw from the study as well as protection of their privacy and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

71
confidentiality. Each of these items are listed in Appendix A. The email also included a list of
checkboxes that will allow teachers to choose to participate either in the survey or interview,
both or neither. Teachers who chose to participate in the survey were automatically directed to an
online survey link that excluded any identifying markers such as names or contact information.
The option to exit the survey at any time was provided.
The online survey stayed open for response at the teachers’ convenience during a 3-week
period. The proxy research sent a second reminder email containing the same content in the
second week to encourage maximum participation. The data collection process involved a
parallel collection of the teachers’ responses to the survey within the same time frame of data
collected through semi-structured interviews.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The same sample group of 42 teachers were also invited to participate in 45-
minute semi-structured interviews that was conducted by a third-party proxy researcher on a
digital audio call platform, Zoom.
Criterion 2. The researcher recruited only full-time middle school teachers for the
interviews. Part-time teachers and consultants were excluded from the study because full-time
teachers were expected to achieve the school’s organizational goal.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Similar to that of the survey recruitment strategy, the researcher selected participants for
interviews based on simple random sampling, wherein a representative sample of middle school
teachers were asked to participate in the study. Although qualitative research often involves the
use of purposive sampling, a random approach significantly negates the likeliness of researcher
bias in the selection of participants (Shenton, 2004). As described in the previous section, the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

72
proxy researcher sent an email to teachers that contains information pertaining to the study as
well as a list of checkboxes that allowed teachers to choose to participate either in the survey or
interview, both or neither.
Teachers who chose to participate in the interviews were automatically directed to a
calendar tool that allowed them to schedule interviews based on their convenience. Teachers
were asked to provide at least two date and time options to allow for mutual scheduling with the
third-party proxy researcher. The duration for each interview was approximately 45 minutes. The
proxy researcher contacted participants enlisted in the calendar tool sequentially. Prior to the
interview, participants were reminded that they may cease the interview process at any time.
When two participants chose to withdraw from the interview process, the third-party proxy
researcher deleted their scheduling details and selected the next participant for the interview. As
described in the previous section, a second email reminder was sent to all the participants to
encourage maximum participation.
In order to protect teachers’ privacy and confidentiality, the proxy researcher conducted
interviews via a digital audio-call platform, Zoom. The principal investigator received
transcribed data that excluded any identifying markers from the recruitment sample.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The two primary methods of data collection chosen for this study were surveys and
interviews. These methods supported the intent of the study, which was to evaluate potential
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and barriers pertaining to teachers’ use of
empathy-based BPI approaches at Westwood School. Data collection by means of surveys is the
most commonly used methodological approach in bullying research (Hong & Espelage, 2012;
Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Surveys can be an efficient way to collection information from a target
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

73
population and answer evaluative research questions (Irwin & Stafford, 2016). When the sample
is selected, findings from the study may be generalized to the target population (Salkind, 2017).
In this study, a survey was used to quantitatively describe existing conditions and attitudes as it
relates to teacher knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of BPI support.
At the same time in the study, qualitative semi-structured interviews were used to explore
teachers’ perceptions of how and why gap analytic factors may promote or hinder their ability to
provide support to students. Semi-structured interviews are useful as a complementary tool to
surveys because it provides in-depth information on a given topic that may be absent from
quantitative methods (Johnson & Christensen, 2010).
It is important to note that the study could not utilize observations, document analysis and
focus group interviews as data collection methods. First, teachers’ actual practice of bullying
intervention was not observable since teachers engaged in intervention behavior only in response
to bullying reports, which could occur at any time during the academic year. Second, the school
lacked relevant, substantial documents such as incident reports or internal communication
memoranda for document analysis. Moreover, documents pertaining to BPI support were limited
to the school improvement survey in 2017, overall anti-bullying policies, strategic plan memos
and the school mission statement. While these documents demonstrated an intent to provide BPI
support, they did not indicate how bullying incidences have been addressed since the
implementation of the school improvement plan in 2018.
Finally, focus group interviews were not suitable for investigating sensitive topics such as
organizational trust between staff members, which was a construct that was examined in the
study’s KMO framework. Research is defined as sensitive if it requires disclosures of behaviors
and attitudes which would normally be kept private, which might result in social censure or
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

74
disapproval from the group or which might cause discomfort to the respondent to express in a
public setting (Wellings, Branigan, & Mitchell, 2000). The semi-structured interviews were
designed to accommodate the need for privacy, confidentiality and a non-condemnatory attitude
that a focus group format could not guarantee.
In summation, the data set obtained from both surveys and interviews helped identify
performance gaps and determine areas of improvement. The researcher utilized Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis framework, followed by a convergent mixed method study, to compare and
discuss the similarities and differences of both quantitative and qualitative data. The reason for
collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, in a single phase, was to determine whether
survey responses differ from individual perspectives and if so, to identify areas of convergence
or divergence where responses and perspectives may be similar or differ. The step-by-step
procedure for conducting a convergent study is outlined the procedural flowchart, adapted from
Creswell (2018), in Figure 2.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

75

Figure 2. Flowchart of convergent mixed method design used in this study.
Surveys
To evaluate middle school teachers’ influences related to BPI support, five surveys from
previous research were combined to form the KMO survey instrument used in this study. Each of
these surveys were sequentially aligned with each gap analytic influence: knowledge,
motivation, and organization. The literature review, as discussed in Chapter Two, informed the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

76
selection of the survey items used in this study. The quantitative survey consisted of 68 survey
items with Likert scales; 39 items assessed teachers’ knowledge, six items assessed their
motivation, and 23 assessed their organizational influences. Appendix B presents the survey
protocol and Appendix C presents the survey. This section describes the process of survey
development and administration.
First, teachers’ knowledge influences were evaluated with three existing surveys: Rose et
al. (2018) perception of bullying questionnaire, Gaumer-Erickson, Soukup, Noonan and
McGurn’s (2015) empathy questionnaire, and Bauman, Rigby and Hoppa’s (2008) the handling
bullying questionnaire. Specifically, section A comprised of 12 items that measured teachers’
factual knowledge of bullying and conceptual knowledge of types of bullying, while section B
comprised of 14 items that measured teachers’ conceptual knowledge of empathy such as
perspective-taking and active listening. Section C included both procedural knowledge and
motivational constructs. As a result of the pilot test, items that measured motivation (C1 to C-6)
pertain to teachers’ utility value and self-efficacy were adapted by the researcher to minimize
verbosity for participants.
Second, teachers’ organizational influences were evaluated with two existing surveys:
Hoy and Tschannen-Moran’s (1999) internal trust survey and Tschannen-Moran’s (2001)
collaboration survey (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Section D measured organizational cultural
models pertaining to internal trust between the school staff, while section E measured
collaboration among the school staff as well as organizational cultural settings such as feedback
and credible models. The researcher added survey items E7 and E8 to measure organizational
cultural settings.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

77
With the exception of the empathy questionnaire, all surveys were designed for the target
population of this study. Permissions to use and adapt the questionnaires for the purposes of this
study were received from the original authors. Appendix E presents a copy of these permissions.
Table 5 shows the KMO constructs and corresponding sources in the survey.
Table 5
Survey Sources

The survey was conducted digitally over a 3-week period, using an online survey solution
called Qualtrics. Based on the field test, the response time for completing the survey was 15-18
minutes. The participants in this study consisted of middle school teachers at Westwood School.
The survey was administered via email to all 42 middle school teachers employed full-time at
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

78
Westwood School. To establish the validity of the instrument, the survey was examined by a
panel of experts in the areas of bullying research and school support. Additionally, the researcher
conducted a pilot test with non-participant high school teachers and colleagues as well as to
ascertain accessibility, length, difficulty, and duration of the survey. Suggested revisions in the
areas of content and format to reduce verbosity were made to the survey.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews provided the interviewer with the opportunity to probe and
expand the interviewees’ responses (Creswell, 2018). The interview approach allowed the
researcher to gain understanding around specific themes, while also leaving space for ideas
important to each participant, which they may not have previously considered (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocols included open-ended questions that were based on the
same framework of themes measured by the survey (i.e. knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences). Appendix D presents the interview guide and protocol.
The interview protocol contained 12 questions to evaluate teachers’ responses to potential
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. Eight questions were open-ended. Four
interview items contained close-ended questions in order to create a natural conversational flow
leading into an open-ended series of questions. For example, the proxy researcher asked
participants if they considered conflict and bullying to be different concepts. Based on the
participants’ yes-or-no response, the proxy researcher followed up with an open-ended question.
The third-party proxy researcher conducted one-time, semi-structured interviews in
English with each participant for approximately 40-45 minutes. The proxy researcher endeavored
to ensure that participants were relaxed in order to provide as much as data as possible (Creswell,
2018). Therefore, teachers were asked to provide at least two date and time options that allowed
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

79
for mutual scheduling with the proxy researcher. The proxy researcher conducted interviews via
Zoom audio call using an interview guide. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed using
Zoom and Rev.com software.
Data Analysis
In the convergent data collection design, the researcher first analyzed the information
separately and then merged the two databases for comparison. The researcher performed data
analysis to evaluate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences pertaining to
BPI support, and also examined the extent to which quantitative and qualitative results converge
or diverge. The merging approach is also described as simultaneous integration wherein data will
be analyzed to draw out common concepts across a set of findings (Creswell, 2018).
A descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted to gain a general understanding of
patterns across the target population i.e. the middle school teachers at Westwood School.
Descriptive analysis refers to statistically describing, aggregating and presenting constructs of
interests or associations between these constructs (Salkind, 2017). The survey items were
sequentially organized to reflect constructs pertaining to teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Descriptive analysis was relevant to the purpose of the study in that it
identifies patterns of data that convey meaningful information about the influences of and
barriers to teacher support in BPI practices. Since the scales of measurement in the survey were
ordinal, measures of central tendency, basic frequency analysis, and percentages were utilized as
statistical tools for description.
Qualitative data analysis involved several steps such as data cleaning, coding, thematic
analysis and data representation. First, an online transcription service, Rev.com, was used to
convert audio files to transcripts. After transcripts were reviewed, missing or inaudible data was
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

80
identified. To facilitate member checking, the proxy researcher emailed participants their own
transcripts to further improve accuracy and credibility of the data. Some missing or inaudible
data were corrected using participant’s feedback while some inaudible data that could not be
corrected were removed from the transcripts. After the member checking process was complete,
interviewees were labelled as Ms. A, Ms. B., Ms. C etc. on the transcripts to facilitate data
codification and reporting. The data was then stored into secured digital files using the NVivo
software. Data security procedures to protect participants’ confidentiality and anonymity
included use of pseudonyms, password-protected files, and encrypted software.
All the transcripts were read and reviewed several times prior to the coding process.
Initial thoughts on the transcripts were captured in memos and in documented discussions with
field experts. The open coding process was conducted both deductively and inductively.
Specifically, a priori codes, that were deductively drawn from the study’s conceptual framework,
were developed prior to data analysis. The conceptual framework framed the way the data was
reviewed and helped the researcher to connect the data explicitly to the constructs in the
conceptual framework. Next, codes that emerged from the data owing to either typicality or
atypicality were developed inductively as in-vivo codes. Analytical tools such as the Corbin and
Strauss (2008) techniques helped with the coding process. Data patterns that emerged from both
a priori codes and in-vivo or emergent codes were organized in the NVivo software. These data
patterns served as axial codes in developing overarching themes of the findings. Words, phrases
or terms that repeated with more than six participants (out of 11), or how frequently a priori or
emergent codes appeared, were considered typical of the data set.
Identifying data patterns were quantitatively organized by the NVivo software in
accordance of the typicality of data. Priori codes, in-vivo codes and axial codes were captured in
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

81
a codebook. The codebook served as a useful frame of reference during the cyclical phase of
reviewing transcripts, analyzing relationships between codes, as well as examining typicality
within overarching themes. This process facilitated thematic analysis of the data which involves
examining underlying ideas, assumptions and conceptualizations drawn from emerging codes or
concepts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Thematic analysis of patterns across data sets, underpinned
by a central concept, informed the assertion in relation to a specific research question. Finally,
findings from the qualitative study were represented descriptively to depict overarching themes
and the relationships between codes.
During the data merging process, quantitative and qualitative data were compared and
presented as descriptive summary statements. Descriptive summaries demonstrated ways in
which the data confirmed, disconfirmed, or expanded on each other, consistent with the concepts
in the conceptual framework (Creswell, 2018). Thus, the merged summaries provided
triangulated data from which knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps could identified.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness involve establishing the truth, accuracy, and honesty of a
research study’s findings (Maxwell, 2013). Several steps were taken to increase credibility and
trustworthiness of the findings while minimizing inherent bias in the qualitative data collection
of the research. First, it is important to note that the researcher is the owner of the school
organization and does not naturally interact with teachers on a regular basis. Because power
aspects in the research relationships must be considered (Marshall, 2004), a third-party proxy
researcher was contracted to conduct the interviews, to reduce the researcher’s implicit bias and
issues of power differentials.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

82
The researcher did not have access to raw data or any data with information or comments
that may be considered identifiers of participants. The researcher received the transcribed scripts
of the interviews devoid of identifiers. The lead researcher of the study and the contracted proxy
researcher received ethics training through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative as
mandated by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Moreover, the lead researcher ensured the
proxy researcher collected data in the ethical manner.
Second, the researcher utilized methodological triangulation by combining qualitative
and quantitative approaches in a single study to enhance the credibility of the study (Creswell,
2018; Maxwell, 2013). Methodological triangulation can overcome challenges related to single
method and single theory biases and thus, increase internal credibility of the research finding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Third, member checking was done during data collection to increase
both the credibility of the study. Member checking provides an opportunity to correct potential
errors and challenges pertaining to perceived interpretations (Maxwell, 2013).
Fourth, the researcher engaged in a peer-review process with field experts to improve the
validity of the findings. Written accounts of the peer-review debriefing sessions were maintained
to document both the peer and researchers’ interpretations of the findings. Peer review provides
an external check of the research process to countercheck any misconceptions, misassumptions,
or incorrect interpretations that may have been drawn by the researcher (Creswell, 2003).
Finally, the researcher presented the findings as rich, thick description of the participants’
narratives in the study. With rich, thick detailed descriptions, readers can make decisions to
transfer information to other settings and determine whether findings can be transferred based on
shared characteristics (Creswell, 2003).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

83
Validity and Reliability
Validity refers to the extent to which scores from a measure represent the intended
variable while reliability refers to consistency of a measure (Johnson & Christensen, 2010). The
intent of random sampling methods, wherein participants were randomly selected for both the
quantitative and qualitative data collections, were to reduce selection bias and increase reliability
(Krueger & Casey, 2009). The number of participants contributed to greater validity in the study,
since the results could be generalized about the target population (Johnson & Christensen, 2010).
While the results of the study do not allow the researcher to generalize to other contexts, the
results of the study can be generalized about the study population by itself.
Ethics
Treatment of research participants is an important and fundamental issue that necessitate
the attention and consideration of educational researchers (Johnson & Christensen, 2010).
Researchers should consider ways to mitigate elements of undue influence that may make
potential subjects feel compelled to take part in a research study (Marshall, 2004). In studies
where employees are research participants, employees are considered vulnerable subjects due to
their susceptibility to coercion in the work environment (Resnik, 2016).
The researcher conducting this study is also the owner of the school organization that
serves as the research site. In order to mitigate potential ethical issues arising from power
differentials, the researcher took several measures to protect employees from coercion, undue
influence, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidentiality when they participate in employer-
based research. To mitigate issues of coercion and undue influence, a third-party proxy
researcher outside of the school organization was contracted to administer the survey and
conduct the interviews. The researcher and proxy researcher were certified in research ethics by
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

84
the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative mandated by the IRB. The researcher, as a
principal investigator, ensured that the proxy researcher collects data in the ethical manner
outlined by the researcher.
The essential element of the research study and IRB process is that of informed consent
(Creswell, 2018). Researchers have an obligation to ensure that participants are informed of the
study’s purpose procedures, risks, benefits, alternative procedures, and limits of confidentiality
prior to acquiring their consent to participate in the study (Creswell, 2018). The researcher
ensured that participants were provided information of their protection through the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP). Additionally, the
participants were informed of the full purpose and extent of the research process. Participant
anonymity was maintained during the survey process and confidentiality was assured during
interview procedures. The researcher provided survey participants with the information fact sheet
for exempt non-medical research along with the informed consent for non-medical research form
(Appendix A) and obtain a signature from each participant. Through informed consent, the
sample population gained knowledge of voluntary participation and potential risks involved in
participation (Glesne, 2011).
To protect the anonymity of participants, identifying information such as name, subject
department or class sections were not included in the survey. Potential participants received a
digital survey link with the attached consent form as well as exit link if they wished to withdraw
participation at any time. A secondary link was provided to invite participants for interviews.
Participants were informed of the informed consent, interview process, purpose of interview and
backgrounds of the proxy researcher.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

85
Participants who chose to participate in the study were informed that there was no
professional risk to participation. Participants were informed that their decision to participate in,
not to participate in, or to withdraw from the study would have no effect on the employee’s
hiring, promotion, performance evaluation or other employment benefits. The informed consent
document clearly indicated that research participation would have no impact on employment
benefits. Rather, participants were informed of the purpose of the study and value of their
contribution to the school’s bullying prevention and intervention strategies. Participants who
were willing to continue participation by means of e-mail correspondence for member checking
purposes were contacted by the proxy researcher.
Because the researcher was not directly involved in survey administration and interviews,
the proxy researcher ensured that participant anonymity and confidentiality was maintained. The
proxy researcher did not share any of the names or identification markers to the lead researcher.
The lead researcher, as a principal investigator, received only transcribed data devoid of
identifying markers. All information obtained during the course of the research study is
considered privileged information and will under no circumstance be publicly disclosed in a
fashion that would identify the individual or the organization.
Limitations and Delimitations
The first limitation presented within this study was social desirability bias. Social
desirability is the tendency of some respondents to respond to interview or survey questions in a
way they deem to be more socially acceptable than their true answer (Johnson & Christensen,
2010). The second limitation pertains to the generalizability of the study to other contexts. The
study was limited in the small sample size from which the data were drawn. This research was
focused on a single group of middle school teachers in Bangalore, India, which prevents the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

86
researcher from comparing findings across multiple school contexts. Further research is needed
to improve the findings of this study through a larger sample size.
The third limitation pertains to correlation of variables. Although the non-experimental
quantitative portion of the study examined a relationship between variables, the researcher could
not reach causal conclusions. The delimitations of the study included exclusion of variables
outside of the middle school setting that could impact teachers’ BPI support. Such variables
included, but were not limited to age, socioeconomic status, and work experience. In addition,
the researcher delimited the study’s focus to middle school teachers of one grade school.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

87
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this evaluation study was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting middle school teachers at Westwood School in accomplishing
the school’s organizational goal of improving BPI support to students by 50%. This study
utilized a convergent mixed method design to answer research questions. The data were collected
three weeks prior to the start of the school year session for 2019-2020, to leverage teachers’ time
and availability. This chapter outlines the following elements of the study: participating
stakeholders, survey results and interview findings of the study, summary and a synthesis of
identified influences. The results and findings, along with a summary, are sequentially
categorized under knowledge, motivation, and organization influences utilizing Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analytic framework.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What knowledge influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
2. What motivational influences affect Westwood middle school teachers’ ability to
demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
3. What organizational culture and context influences, perceived by Westwood middle
school teachers, affect the adoption of empathy-based bullying prevention and
intervention approaches within the school?
Participating Stakeholders
Forty-two middle school teachers participated in the survey component of the study,
while 11 teachers from the same population participated in the interview component of the study.
During data collection, teachers were sent an introductory email in the first week and a reminder
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

88
email in the second week to encourage participation in both the survey and interview
components of the study. When two out of 13 participants chose to withdraw from the interview
process, the third-party proxy researcher deleted their scheduling details and selected the next
participant for the interview. Eleven teachers participated in the interviews. The online survey
was closed after achieving a 100% response rate in the second week of data collection, while
qualitative data collection concluded when the proxy researcher did not receive additional
participation from the sample pool in the third week of data collection. Qualitative data analysis
commenced when the researcher received de-identified transcripts from the proxy researcher.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Research Question #1: What knowledge influences affect Westwood middle school
teachers’ ability to demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
Factual Knowledge
The first knowledge influence is associated with factual knowledge. In order to meet
Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving BPI support to all students, teachers need
to recognize bullying accurately. At first glance, the survey results appeared to confirm teachers’
factual knowledge of bullying. The survey data showed that teachers supported all four
definitional criterions of bullying (imbalance of power, harmful intent, repetition, and unequal
affect). However, the interview findings and survey results drawn from five other items, did not
corroborate the conclusions drawn from the factual knowledge survey results. While the results
from the five survey items are discussed in the conceptual knowledge section, this section
presents the survey results pertaining to the definitional components of bullying, the interview
findings, and the summary of merged results.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

89
Survey results. As Figure 3 shows, a majority of the respondents rated imbalance of
power (79%), intent to cause harm (81%), repetition (81%) and unequal affect (69%) as critical
or absolutely critical to the definition of bullying. Overall mean ratings for each definitional
component were moderately high (M = 4.1), suggesting that teachers supported all definitional
characteristics of bullying.

Figure 3. Teachers' factual knowledge of bullying.
Interview findings. To assess teachers’ factual knowledge of bullying, responses from
several interview questions were analyzed. Teachers were asked to provide their own
understanding of the word “bullying” and were also asked to share bullying incidents they have
observed in the past. Two overarching themes emerged as a result of data analysis: (a) the
onerous process of constructing a definition and, (b) physical power imbalance perceived as a
distinctive characteristic of bullying.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

90
Constructing a definition. The first interview question asked teachers to provide their
own definition of bullying (see Appendix D). As made apparent by high levels of contemplation
and frequent reconsiderations, the process of constructing a clear definition of bullying seemed
difficult for teachers. Codified data analysis showed that six teachers revisited their original
definition several times during the interview process. For instance, one of the interviewees, Ms.
C initially expressed that bullying often involved “an older or bigger child showing his strength
to someone who’s weak”. She revisited the definition when she recounted a past incident
affirming that “it’s bullying when it happens many times”. Similarly, Ms. B incorporated other
criteria such as repetition and unequal affect in her definition when attempting to differentiate
bullying from conflict.
Atypical from the overall data set of responses was two teachers’ interchangeable use of
the words “bullying” and “conflict”. For instance, Ms. G. stated that “bullying is a kind of
conflict when two students don’t get along with each other”. Ms. F’s initial definition of bullying
as “a conflict between two individuals” changed when asked how bullying was similar to or
different from conflict. Ms. F reflected on the question expressing that “conflict can turn into
bullying if one tries to show his strength on the other”, thereby adding an element of power
imbalance. The interchangeable use of the words “bullying” and “conflict” suggest confusion of
the construct on part of the teachers. The application of the four definitional components makes
bullying characteristically different from school fights or angry outbursts (Olweus, 1993; Towl,
2014).
Consistent with the findings of Mishna et al. (2005), identifying an incident as bullying
was complex and confusing for most teachers. In the absence of a clear definition, teachers often
construct their own personal meaning of bullying; which in turn influences how they characterize
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

91
reported or observed aggression (Mishna et al., 2005). In effect, teachers’ frequent
reconsideration of their definition suggests a lack of clarity about what constitutes bullying.
Physical Power Imbalance. More germane to teachers’ own definitions were the
manifestations of power imbalance in overt forms of aggression. These forms of aggression
seemed to provide a concrete frame of reference as teachers sought to find a set of words that
encapsulated their view. In their narratives of past bullying incidents, nine teachers described
bullies as ‘larger’, ‘stronger’, ‘older’ or ‘bigger’ individuals who “showed strength”, while
victims were described as ‘shorter’, ‘smaller’, ‘younger’ and ‘thinner’. In combination, these
words implied physical characteristics of children involved of bullying.
As exemplified by one of the interviewees, Ms. K expressed that bullying involved one
who “tries to show his power and strength over someone else who’s weaker”. During the
interview processes, Ms. K shared a past incident where she described a student who was
physically aggressive with another as a “bigger and older boy who tried to show his strength to a
boy in the elementary class”. Her definition suggested physical power imbalance perceptible in
overt aggression. In like manner, the use of the phrase “show of strength” as a physical
characteristic of power imbalance appeared in similar forms across nine different transcripts.
Atypical of most responses, one teacher, Ms. B, included the criterion of unequal affect in
her definition. She also highlighted the corresponding severity of aggression associated with
unequal affect. Ms. B offered the following definition:
One child, who might be stronger or bigger, causing harm to someone who is not as
strong. . . that is bullying. Like for example. . . Hitting and punching is the worst kind. . .
physical sort of bullying. The child may not come to school for fear of safety. Even the
use of abusive language, continuously, can make the child feel bad.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

92
In her definition that consisted of a range of negative behaviors with physical aggression
at one end and verbal aggression at the other, Ms. B implied that one form of bullying was more
serious than the other. Moreover, Ms. B drew attention to the consequence of physical bullying
which may cause school avoidance on part of the victim for fear of physical safety. The
inference drawn from this excerpt was that Ms. B ascribed lower severity to verbal bullying,
which could emotionally upset the victim but may not merit school avoidance.
Finally, criteria such as ‘repetition’ and ‘intent’ was present in a few teachers’ definitions
of bullying. Specifically, only five teachers utilized phrases such as ‘for a long time’, ‘happens
again’ and ‘repeatedly’ denoting repetition, while three teachers incorporated terms such as
‘deliberately’ and ‘on purpose’ to describe intent. The use of phrases such as “bully is popular”
and “the victim is left out” in characterizing relational power imbalance were described by only
two teachers.
Previous research has shown that teachers are more concerned about physical aggression
than relational aggression because of the perceived severity of harm they believe is inflicted on
the victim (Bell & Willis, 2016; Hazler et al., 2001; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). Yet, the harm
associated with relational aggression has been found to be more strongly linked with social and
psychological maladjustment than physical aggression (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
Given that an anti-bullying policy and BPI curriculum were introduced at Westwood
School over a year ago, it was assumed that there would be a high degree of consensus among
the faculty as to what they understood by the term ‘bullying’. However, there was no evidence of
common understanding of the term as defined by researchers. The notion that bullying is
indicative of physical power imbalance emerged as a predominant definitional facet among
teachers.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

93
Summary. When the data sets were merged, two key incongruencies pertaining to
teachers’ factual knowledge were identified. First, when asked to define bullying in their own
words, a majority of the teachers who were interviewed found it difficult to construct a clear
definition. In the daily events at school, it is teachers who are front-line responders to bullying
situations (Longobardi et al., 2016; Marshall et al., 2009). Teachers’ cognitive appraisal of a
situation as normal or bullying influences their course of action (Hazler et al., 2001; Yoon &
Bauman, 2014). Therefore, it is vital that teachers have readily available to them the definitional
criteria of what constitutes bullying. Moreover, the interview findings showed power imbalance
as a recognized characteristic by majority of the teachers. Yet, the definitional criterions of
harmful intent, repetition and unequal affect are critical in distinguishing other social interactions
such as conflict from bullying (Bauman & Yoon, 2014; Espelage, 2014; Hymel & Swearer,
2015; Rose et al., 2015; Olweus, 1993).
Second, the survey data from items A4-A7 indicated that teachers supported all four
definitional criterions (imbalance of power, harmful intent, repetition, and unequal affect). When
compared, the survey results across both factual and conceptual knowledge constructs showed
that teachers’ predominant frame of reference was physical aggression. For instance, results from
the five other survey items (A8-12) suggested that teachers may have overlooked definitional
components and erroneously characterized physical social interactions such as playful jostling as
bullying. While this is discussed further in the conceptual knowledge section, the consolidated
findings suggested a gap in teachers’ factual knowledge of accurately recognizing bullying.
Conceptual Knowledge of Bullying
The second knowledge influence is associated with conceptual knowledge of the various
types of bullying. In order to meet Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving BPI
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

94
support to all students, teachers need to know the various types of bullying. Bearing resemblance
to the merged findings of factual knowledge, the analysis of teachers’ conceptual knowledge of
bullying mirrored incongruency when teachers quantitatively supported all forms of aggression
but qualitatively discussed only direct forms of bullying.
Survey results. The mean score for each bullying type such as physical aggression (M =
4.43), verbal aggression (M = 4.52), sexual aggression (M = 4.36), verbal indirect aggression (M
= 4.02) were consistently high. However, the mean score for behavioral indirect aggression (M =
3.76) was comparatively lower, which suggests a possibility that teachers perceive the severity of
behavioral indirect aggression (e.g. social exclusion and ignoring) to be lower than other forms
of aggression.
Noteworthy in this data are the mean scores for non-bullying behaviors in that
instrumental aggression (M = 3.48), retaliatory aggression (M = 3.74) and jostling (M = 3.55)
were all above the mean score of 3, suggesting that teachers may have had difficulty in
differentiating between bullying and non-bullying behaviors. Teachers may have misidentified
non-bullying behaviors as bullying when presented with physical characteristics (e.g. acting
defensively, harming the bully, play fights), which suggests that teachers’ predominant frame of
reference of bullying is physical aggression.
As shown in Figure 4, aggregated results showed that teachers consider physical
aggression (82%), verbal aggression (90%), sexual aggression (84%), verbal indirect aggression
(72%), and behavioral indirect aggression (69%) as behaviors that constitute as bullying, as well
non-bullying behaviors such as instrumental aggression (46%), retaliatory aggression (65%) and
jostling (60%).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

95

Figure 4. Teachers' conceptual understanding of bullying types.
Interview findings. In analyzing the interview transcripts, three significant themes
emerged pertaining to teachers’ conceptual knowledge of bullying. These themes are (a) the
severity of physical aggression, (b) the subjectivity of non-physical aggression and, (c) gender
roles in bullying. First, several teachers drew upon instances of physical aggression to describe
the types of bullying they have observed in the past. Second, teachers ascribed a degree of
subjectivity to victim’s reports of non-physical aggression. Finally, teachers’ accounts of
bullying episodes included more male students involved in bullying than female students. These
themes signal gaps in teachers’ conceptual knowledge of bullying types.
Severity of physical aggression. When asked what types of bullying have been observed
in the past, all 11 teachers stated that they’ve witnessed either physical (e.g. hitting, kicking,
pushing) or verbal bullying (e.g. name-calling, abusive language) at school. Only two teachers
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

96
included relational bullying (e.g. social exclusion, spreading rumors) in the types of bullying
they have seen at school. In describing past bullying incidences, teachers seemed to perceive
physical aggression as more severe than verbal aggression. Codified data analysis showed that
nine teachers utilized descriptive words such as “unacceptable”, “serious”, “extreme”, or
“atrocious behavior” in reference to physical aggression, that required “immediate action” or
needed to be “dealt with seriously”.
Ms. E, for instance, expressed her belief that “physical bullying is unacceptable” and
continued that it must be met with a “a zero-tolerance attitude” on part of the faculty and school
administration. However, when recounting a past report of verbal aggression, Ms. E stated that
she told the victim to “just walk away” and “not allow the bullying” to affect her. The inference
drawn from Ms. E’s excerpts is that the bully is held accountable for physical aggression, owing
to its perceived, heightened severity. However, it appears that Ms. E. feels that the victim bears
responsibility to ignore, dismiss or avoid acts of non-physical aggression. These findings further
support the idea of physical aggression perceived to be more severe than other forms of
aggression (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Marshall et al., 2009; Naylor, Cowie, Cossin, de
Bettencourt, & Lemme, 2006).
In assigning severity to physical aggression, four teachers weaved in references to the
school’s BPI policy. For example, Ms. B who previously stated that “hitting and punching were
the worst kind”, proceeded to maintain that ‘it’s in our school policies…violence has no place in
our school’. For Ms. I, incidences involving physical harm were serious enough to warrant
intervention. She continued, “bullying has to be dealt with seriously. Such behavior is against
our school’s anti-bullying policy”. It appears that some teachers’ interpretation of the severity of
bullying was drawn from the school’s policy and protocols. Similar to the findings of Bauman
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

97
and Del Rio (2006), teachers indicated physical incidents were more serious because policies
demanded that they do so, which implied that these events were more serious than other forms of
aggression.
Subjectivity of non-physical aggression. While physical aggression was largely
construed as unacceptable behavior, some teachers maintained a subjective perspective about
non-physical forms of bullying. Specifically, three teachers recounted incidences of verbal
indirect aggression, while two recounted incidences of relational aggression. For instance, Ms. D
recounted a time when a student from one of her classes reported an incident involving name-
calling. She explained:
If a child complains about bullying, I’d think, ‘is that really bullying or just a
misunderstanding?’ I feel it’s subjective. It depends on the emotional quotient of a child.
Some children might be very sensitive and feel bad about every little thing. So, for that
child, even a simple joke among friends might upset him. (Ms. D)
Later in the interview process, Ms. D narrated another incident of physical aggression,
which she described as “terrible”. She stated that she was accompanied by her colleagues to
intervene the situation, when she decided to approach the victim first since it was her “job to
make sure he [the victim] was okay”. In comparison to her previous statement about the incident
of physical aggression, Ms. D may have inadvertently implied that verbal aggression was
subjective to the victim’s emotional disposition.
Two teachers described past incidences of relational aggression that involved social
exclusion and rumor spreading. Ms. H, for instance, recalled a time when a colleague shared
with her an incident about a student from their class who may have been experiencing social
exclusion during lunch hour. Ms. H expressed, “My heart went out to the child when I heard the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

98
story. Usually, it’s the popular kids who get to decide who’s in the group. And the unpopular one
gets deliberately left out.” Ms. H then continued to describe her own past victimization
experiences during childhood. It appeared that Ms. H did not personally observe any incidences
of relational aggression. However, her description of the incident involving social exclusion, as
shared by her colleague, reflected some knowledge of relational aggression as indicated by the
phrases “popular kids who decide” and victims being “deliberately left out”.
Ms. K briefly mentioned a past incident of relational aggression stating that “there was
one case of rumor spreading, a few months ago.” While she did not fully describe the incident,
Ms. K expressed her uncertainty of whether it constituted as bullying since “it depends on the
victim’s mindset”. The notion that indirect bullying was subjective to the victim’s emotional
disposition was represented in three other teachers’ interviews. Similar to the findings of Mishna
et al. (2005), teachers doubted the subjectivity of victim’s responses. Exemplifying this notion
was Ms. A’s transcript which showed:
Just teasing doesn’t affect a child whose maturity level is high. He might brush it off or
laugh it off. Or he might take it seriously and label this, “bullying”. But this is based on
his perspective, isn’t it? If the child is just too sensitive or has low self-esteem, then he
feels that everyone’s bullying him.
The word “teasing” implies verbal aggression (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). However, Ms.
A’s characterization of verbal aggression as “just teasing” suggested a low severity assigned to
this form of bullying. Similar to Ms. A’s description of verbal aggression, two other interviewees
conveyed their belief that the victims may have misconstrued “normal teasing” or “poking fun”
as bullying. Normative beliefs about the severity of bullying may not only legitimize the use of
aggression among perpetrators (Smith & Brain, 2000) but it may also lower the level of teacher
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

99
support as observed in previous studies (Craig, Bell, & Leschied, 2011; Troop-Gordon & Ladd,
2015). The lack of recognition of nonphysical aggression as a serious form of bullying
contributes to the conceptual knowledge gap as indicated in the findings of this study.
Gender roles. Although the study did not intend to examine teachers’ perceptions of
gender-roles in the bullying dynamic, the study found that all teachers but one recalled bullying
episodes that involved more male bullies and male victims than female bullies or victims.
Codified data showed the use of more masculine pronouns (e.g. he, him) than feminine ones (e.g.
she, her) in teachers’ descriptions of bullies and victims. Boys are more often involved in
physical aggression than girls (Olweus, 1993). Since physical aggression is more obvious to
adults (Crick et al., 2002), it is possible that teachers either did not notice or construe covert
forms of aggression among girls. However, teacher support must be made available to all
students, both male and female.
Summary. Similar to the merged findings of factual knowledge, the survey results and
interview findings suggested a gap in teachers’ conceptual knowledge about the various types of
bullying. Quantitatively, teachers’ misidentification of non-bullying behaviors (instrumental
aggression, retaliatory aggression and jostling) as bullying may be attributed to their construal of
bullying in physical forms. It is possible that survey items that included vocabulary such as
“acting defensively”, “harming the bully” and “play fights” were interpreted as physical harm.
Moreover, teachers’ knowledge of the severity associated with each bullying type appeared
misinformed. The overemphasis of physical bullying in teachers’ interviews implied that
teachers noticed and ascribed greater severity to physical acts of aggression than verbal or
relational aggression. The combination of these data sets suggested a gap in teachers’ conceptual
knowledge.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

100
Conceptual Knowledge of Empathy
The third knowledge influence is associated with conceptual knowledge of empathy. In
order to meet Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving BPI support to all students,
teachers need to know the underlying principles of empathy as it relates to empathy-based BPI.
The survey results and interview findings showed a gap in teachers’ conceptual knowledge of
empathy. Although teachers appeared to demonstrate empathetic concern both quantitatively and
qualitatively, the absence of key characteristics of empathy such as active listening, empathic
acknowledgement and, authentic perspective-taking in both data sets, reflected a gap in
conceptual knowledge.
Survey results. As shown in Table 6, the overall mean scores for items that measured
teachers’ conceptual knowledge of perspective-taking (M = 4.48) were moderately high
suggesting that teachers may have engaged in perspective-taking under normal circumstances.
However, the mean score for item B3 was low (M = 3.26), suggesting that teachers may have
found it difficult to engage in perspective-taking when they disagreed with a student.
Similarly, the overall mean scores for items that measured teachers’ conceptual
knowledge of active listening (M = 4.4) were moderately high. The mean for items B10 (M =
3.07) and B13 (M = 3.90) were comparatively low, showing a possibility that most teachers may
not demonstrate empathic acknowledgement when students share an opinion or a problem.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

101
Table 6
Teachers' Formative Empathy Mean and Standard Deviation
Item Empathy Questionnaire Items Mean Std.
Deviation
B.1. I try to see things from the student’s point of view 4.52 .740
B.2. When I don’t understand a student’s point of view, I ask
questions to learn more.
4.57 .590
B.3. When I disagree with a student, it’s hard for me to understand
their perspective.
3.26 .939
B.4 I consider a student’s circumstances when I’m talking to them. 4.57 .630
B.5. I try to imagine how I would feel in the student’s situation. 4.64 .577
B.6. When a student is upset, I try to remember a time when I felt the
same way.
4.31 1.047
B.7. Sometimes I wonder what it would feel like to be in my
student’s situation.
4.40 .857
B.8. When a student is upset, I try to show them that I understand
how they feel.
4.57 .630
B.9. I say things like “I can see why you feel that way”. 4.24 .932
B10. I’ve been known to say “you are wrong’ when a student is
sharing their opinion.
3.07 1.332
B.11 When a student is sad, my actions let them know I understand
(like a hug or a pat on the back)
4.69 .563
B.12 I say things like “something like that happened to me once, I
understand how you feel”.
4.05 1.125
B.13 I’ve told my students things like “you shouldn’t be upset about
that” or “stop feeling that way”.
3.90 1.246
B.14 When I know one of my students is upset, I try to talk to them
about it.
4.67 .570

Interview findings. In analyzing the interview data, two significant themes emerged
pertaining to teachers’ understanding of empathy. These themes are: (a) describing empathy and,
(b) fixing problems. The first theme describes how teachers attempted to differentiate the
construct of empathy from sympathy. The second theme describes how teachers expressed
empathic concern by solving students’ problems.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

102
Describing empathy. The codified data analysis of interview transcripts showed that
eight teachers attempted to distinguish empathy from sympathy in their descriptions of the
construct. When asked to provide their own understanding of the word “empathy”, teachers
expressed that empathy involved “going beyond listening” towards “action to help students”. For
instance, Ms. A responded:
Empathy means understanding how a person feels and trying to help them out of their
troubles. It’s not like sympathizing. . . where you just listen to the other’s problems or
feel bad for the other person but do nothing about it.
Ms. A construed sympathy as an act of “just listening” to an individual’s problems. While
Ms. A’s conveyed a clear intent to help individuals in need, the role of active listening appeared
to be misunderstood. Scholars consistently rate active listening as an important factor in
supportive interactions (Bodie & Jones, 2012; Bodie, Vickery, & Gearhart, 2013). Because
active listening is often associated with the feeling of validation (Gearhart & Bodie, 2011), it is
crucial for teachers to understand the principle of active listening in order to provide students
meaningful support. Another excerpt exemplifying teachers’ explanation of empathy was Ms.
H’s response. The notion that sympathy was associated with listening and inaction was reflected
in her explanation:
There's a strong difference between empathy and sympathy. Being empathetic means
seeing what happened to the child and solving the issue for them. Not being idle. Make
sure some action is taken. Sympathy means listening to the whole story, saying “so sad”
and walking away.
To Ms. H, the construct of empathy appeared to be inextricably linked to solving
problems for students. Ms. H’s diagnostic perspective of solving problems for students, may not
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

103
necessarily underscore children’s need for validation. While empathy does often involve
empathic concern or action (Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007), the fundamental human need to be
understood must be fulfilled in order to extend empathetic support (Gearhart & Bodie, 2011).
Similar to Ms. A’s response, Ms. H associated sympathy with “listening to the whole story”,
signaling potential misconceptions about the role of active listening in empathy-based
conversations.
Fixing problems. Another significant theme that emerged was the teachers’ synonymous
use of empathy and problem-solving. Ms. K, for instance, briefly described empathy as “helping
him get out of the situation”. In the similar vein, six teachers utilized the word “empathy” in the
context of fixing problems for students. Take, for instance, the excerpt from Ms. E’s transcript:
I feel empathy when a child or anybody for that matter, has encountered a problem and
we think about how we could extend our help to them. . . Give them guidance on what
the right perspective is and what the wrong one is. We show them the right way to go
about things.
The choice of words such as “guidance”, “right perspective” and “right way” implied that
Ms. E believed that students are in need of answers to their problems, rather than empathetic
support. From Ms. E’s frame of reference, empathy was construed as a problem-solving
construct, by providing distressed children with answers to their problems. However, empathy
requires stepping into another’s frame of reference to understand their point of view (Noddings,
2005) before forming our evaluation and responses to the other individual.
The excerpts across both themes are illuminating for two reasons. First, it appears that
teachers’ empathy is mediated by their desire to solve students’ problems. The phrases “find
solutions”, “settle things”, “get out of the situation” and “next step” implied that teachers
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

104
appeared to operate from a reactive mode of response rather than the more cognitively complex,
introspective mode. Second, teachers’ belief that expeditious problem-solving was an expression
of empathy, was central to their conceptual understanding of the construct.
Finally, the transcripts showed a conspicuous absence of empathic acknowledgement and
perspective-taking in teachers’ personal meaning of empathy. Teachers’ accounts of bullying
intervention depicted missed opportunities for empathic connection with students. The facets of
active listening, perspective-taking and non-judgmental acknowledgement of feelings are
particularly important to the expression of empathy-based support (Decety & Jackson, 2006;
Rogers, 1995).
Summary. Merged data suggested a gap in teachers’ conceptual knowledge of empathy.
Although the mean scores drawn from the survey were moderately high across most subscales,
specific items (e.g. B3, B10, B13) signaled conceptual gaps in teachers’ understanding of
empathy. This survey result was further supported with the interview findings that showed an
absence of empathic acknowledgement and perspective-taking. Moreover, teachers’ potential
misunderstanding of sympathy and empathy may have caused them to overlook the importance
of active listening. Burleson et al., (2009) described sympathy as an implicit recognition of the
distressed person’s emotional experiences and an offer to provide explanations of the distressing
event. Empathy, on the other hand, involves explicit recognition and validation of emotions by
explicitly articulating them and encouraging the distressed person to talk about them (Burleson et
al., 2009).
Procedural Knowledge
The last knowledge influence is associated with procedural knowledge. In order to meet
Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving support to all students, teachers need to
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

105
know how to demonstrate empathy with students as a BPI support strategy. Teachers’ procedural
knowledge was validated when both the survey results and interview findings showed similar
knowledge gaps in how teachers responded to bullying situations.
Survey results. As shown in Table 7, mean scores for items C7 (M = 4.29), C9 (M =
4.00), and C17 (M = 4.17) showed a possibility of an endorsement for disciplining the bully.
However, items C11 (M = 4.2) and C19 (M = 3.98) showed a choice for empathic engagement
with the bully. Bearing in mind that these responses were associated with the same hypothetical
scenario presented in the survey, the moderately high mean scores across these constructs
suggest that teachers were possibly unsure of how they would respond to bullies.
The mean scores for C18 and C19 suggested a possibility that more teachers were
inclined to work with the victim (M = 4.62) than the bully (M = 3.98). A majority of the teachers
indicated that they would not ignore the incident (M = 1.24), let the students sort it out
themselves (M = 1.90), or leave it for someone else to sort out (M = 1.55). A majority of the
teachers were unsure of whether they would send the bully to the principal (M = 3.00).

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

106
Table 7
Handling Bullying Questionnaire
Item Handling Bullying questionnaire items Mean Std.
Deviation
C.7. I insist that the bully “cut it out”. 4.29 .891
C.8. I would ignore it. 1.24 .576
C.9. I would make sure the bully was suitably punished. 4.00 .826
C.10. I would leave it for someone else to sort out. 1.55 .889
C.11. I would share my concern with the bully about what happened with
the victim and get the bully to behavior in a more caring and responsible
manner.
4.52 .862
C.12. I would let the students sort it out themselves. 1.90 1.055
C.13. I would talk to the victim to understand the incident that has just occurred. 4.57 .859
C.14. I would discuss with the bully options from which he or she could make a
choice in order to improve the situation.
4.17 1.057
C.15. I would send the bully to the principal. 3.00 1.269
C.16. I would tell the kids to “grow up”. 2.12 1.194
C.17. I would warn the bully of punishment for his or her actions. 4.17 1.057
C.18. I would talk to the victim about their problems. 4.62 .854
C.19. I would talk to the bully about their problems. 3.98 1.047

Interview findings. To evaluate procedural knowledge, teachers were asked: (a) to share
a story about when they had to handle a bullying incident (b) how they would interact with
students who reported a bullying incident and, (c) how they would encourage students to share a
problem about bullying with them. Correspondingly, three significant themes emerged from
these lines of inquiry, which reflected teachers’ bullying prevention and intervention approaches.
These themes are: (2) handling the bully, (b) working with the victim and (c) open door policy.
Handling the bully. Patterns in the data showed that disciplinary consequences with
bullies, especially with those involved in physical aggression, was an intervention strategy
employed by almost all respondents. Nine teachers shared narratives of physical aggression that
resulted in some form of intervention, signaling their perception about the severity of this
bullying type. Moreover, teachers indicated that visible signs of physical bullying such as
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

107
bruises, cuts or damaged clothes prompted impassioned responses from the victim’s parents. One
teacher, Ms. I, who previously dealt with two children involved in physical aggression said,
“parents expect immediate action” which correspondingly necessitated the need for perpetrators
“to be taken to task”. These disciplinary consequences link back with teachers’ severity of
physical aggression, discussed in the factual and conceptual knowledge sections.
In analyzing codified data, two teachers responded to bullying by verbal admonishment.
For instance, Ms. G recalled an incident of abusive language being used by a child perceived to
be the perpetrator, in the hallway. She explained, “I stepped in right away and warned the child
about consequences if he were to repeat the behavior”. Similarly, Ms. C shared an incident of a
new student who had joined school but was disliked by his peers owing to his “mean behavior”
and use of “bad language against them.” Ms. C continued to say that she “instructed the other
children to accept the student’s behavior since he was new” but later “took [the boy] aside and
strictly told him that such behavior is not tolerated.”
In these excerpts, the use of empathy-based strategies such as talking to the bully about
their problems, and then rationalizing the need for prosocial behavior was absent. Empathy-
based support includes addressing the perpetrator’s motives by initiating dialogue through active
listening, acknowledgment of feelings and perspective-taking as well as helping them find non-
aggressive remediation strategies (Roth et al., 2011; Roth & Bibi, 2009). Instead, verbal
admonishment to cease verbal abuse was administered. This finding is disconcerting because
punitive responses are associated with lower levels of prosocial internalization (Roth & Bibi,
2009; Roth et al., 2011). The effectiveness of punitive strategies is open to question (Skiba,
2000) since perpetrators may continue to engage in aggressive behavior when they are out of
their teachers’ supervision range (Roth & Bibi, 2009).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

108
The transcripts from the other nine teachers showed a combination of two strategies:
verbal admonishment and referrals. For instance, Ms. B recounted an incident where she had to
“immediately pull the bully aside and give him a strict warning” but later sent a referral, while
Ms. E noted that she “gave the child several warnings” before sending him to the principal. Both
Ms. B and Ms. E suggested an attempt to intervene direct bullying incidences before yielding to
referrals to resolve the situation. Similarly, Ms. F relayed how she used a referral to resolve
physical bullying:
Like once, I had this boy in my class who was known to be a frequent bully. He was
extremely aggressive. . . he would try to show his strength on the other kids. Many times,
I told him to desist from such behavior, but he did not listen. I felt that I am unable to
manage the issue. So yes, taking help from a professional counselor to handle the issue. .
. It’s a better option. I feel only counselors can handle such a thing.
The incident Ms. F recounted appears to be one of physical aggression as implied by the
phrases “extremely aggressive” and “show his strength on other kids.” Ms. F’s inclination to
have the counselor intervene may have indicated low self-efficacy. The reliance on counselors to
intervene is later discussed in the motivation section. Ms. F's self-reported low self-efficacy also
suggests a possibility that she was not knowledgeable about how to use empathy-based
intervention support. The use of the word “professional counselor” suggests that Ms. F considers
the counselor as a knowledgeable individual who can successfully promote prosocial behaviors
with perpetrators.
As discussed in Chapter One, the school’s administration attempted to replace previous
punitive, disciplinary actions with new supportive approaches. Although, the administration
stated that teachers were encouraged to adopt supportive approaches, it does not appear that
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

109
teachers had the procedural knowledge of how to use empathy-based BPI with perpetrators. As
depicted by nine interview transcripts, the majority of the teachers generally perceived that
bullies were in need of discipline and the principal or counselor’s intervention would result in
improved behavior. The use of empathy as a tool for behavioral change in directly working with
the bully, was absent from teachers’ responses.
Working with the victim. Five teachers indicated that they would directly work with the
victim in order to help them cope with victimization more effectively. This strategy seemed to
apply to students who experienced verbal or relational forms of bullying. Teachers stated that
they would help the victim “be emotionally stronger”, “ignore the bully”, or “disregard the
bully’s behavior” by changing their perspectives about the bullying incident. For instance, one of
the respondents, Ms. A stated that she would first work with the victim and help boost the
victim’s self-esteem. Having indicated that she would prefer to use office referrals for incidences
involving physical bullying, she clarified that she was “mostly talking about very small issues
here.” Ms. A then narrated a past incident when a student reported verbal bullying to her:
After I heard the whole story, I told the child, “Don’t make it an issue” because this is
what the bully wants. See, the bully usually wants attention and will do anything to get it, even if
it is bad. If you make it an issue, then it may get worse. . . I told him such things happen. It is
better that he works on changing his perspective. Yes, what the bully did is wrong. But it is
better to work on ourselves than to try to change others.
In this excerpt, there was a conspicuous absence of terminology that suggests empathic
acknowledgement or perspective-taking. Rather, the use of the phrase “don’t make it an issue” as
a first response when a student reports bullying, suggests an inadvertent invalidation of students’
feelings or experience. Invalidation is the process of denying, rejecting or dismissing someone’s
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

110
feelings (Cholewa, Goodman, West-Olatunji, & Amatea, 2014). It appeared that Ms. A intended
to help the student feel better or differently, by changing his viewpoint about the bullying
incident. Nevertheless, invalidation, however well-intentioned, undermines a person’s subjective
emotional experience as inaccurate, insignificant, or unacceptable (Immordino-Yang, Darling-
Hammond, & Krone, 2018).
Similarly, another respondent, Ms. E recalled an incident when the parent of a female
student reported verbal aggression. On working with the victim, she stated that she attempted to
change the victim’s perspective of the situation by telling her:
I told her it’s entirely up to you. You’re feeling bad because you’re allowing it to happen
to you. . . If someone says something mean to you, just walk away. It’s such a simple
matter, isn’t it? Why stand there and listen? You cannot be bullied if you refuse to accept
the bullying, correct? No one can make you feel inferior. I strongly believe in this.
Ms. E noted that it was important to show students “the right way to go about things”,
which involved changing one’s own perspective about non-physical victimization. The use of the
phrase “it’s a simple matter” suggested a lack of empathic acknowledgement. Judgement-based
invalidation with the use of the phrase “you’re allowing it to happen to you” may communicate
to the individual that their emotional experience is unwarranted, unacceptable or unworthy
(Noddings, 2005). According to Rogers (1995), the precursor to acknowledging another's
feelings is to first to accept someone's feelings and understand their views from a non-
judgmental standpoint. However, these features of empathy-based support with victims appeared
to be absent from some of the teachers’ responses.
Open door policy. A majority of the teachers referred to an open-door policy to
encouraging bullying reports wherein students were expected to walk into the faculty room and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

111
report victimization to teachers at any time. When asked how they would encourage kids to share
a bullying problem, nine teachers indicated that children were permitted to enter the faculty room
and share their problems about bullying. As exemplified by Ms. K’s excerpt:
The kids are free to talk to anyone they want in school. They should be comfortable
enough to come out and share their problem. Most of us are in the faculty room, and they
are quite free to meet us at any time. They are given the freedom to talk about any issue
they have or want to express. If they believe they are been bullied, then they can always
approach us.
Ms. K’s expression of her availability in the faculty room suggested a passive approach
to encouraging students to report problems. The expectation that victims could report bullying to
teachers in the faculty room appeared to be seriously misinformed. Since students are often
reluctant to inform teachers of bullying incidences (Danby, Theobald, & Ebrary, 2012; Eliot,
Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010; Novick & Isaacs, 2010), it is less likely that they would disclose
victimization to teachers in the presence of other adults, at the risk of personal discomfort.
Rather, teachers’ active approach in communicating with students in an informal, non-academic,
and confidential setting is likely to encourage students to engage in help seeking behavior
(Cooper, 2004).
Atypical to most responses, two teachers indicated that they would attempt to build a
rapport with children. Specifically, Ms. H stated that she would share her own “past experiences
as a child who was unpopular and bullied at school.” She expressed her belief that sharing her
own past bullying experiences would encourage help-seeking behavior among students. Ms. J
stressed on the importance of “building a bond with students” so that children knew “who to
reach out to when they’re in trouble”. Both these excerpts demonstrate an understanding of
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

112
empathy-based support as a prevention tool, though these findings were not reflected in most of
the teachers’ responses.
Summary. Teachers’ procedural knowledge gap was identified when the results of both
data sets converged with regards to how teachers responded to bullying situations. Specifically,
the survey results suggested that teachers were possibly unsure of how they would respond to
bullies. The qualitative findings showed that most teachers preferred to either discipline the bully
or send referrals. Consistent with previous research (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008;
Troop & Ladd, 2002), teachers appeared to endorse avoidance as well as advocate assertion to
victims. Although teachers did not expect children to independently cope with victimization,
avoidance or assertion advocacy in the absence of empathic acknowledgement may be
interpreted differently by students. For instance, telling the students to “walk away from the
bully” without providing a way to do so may not be effective.
Researchers have indicated that advocating avoidance often has the opposite effect in that
victims may engage in revenge-seeking behavior or continue to experience higher levels of
victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Moreover, the pronounced absence of
empathic acknowledgement may inhibit students’ positive beliefs about teacher support. Finally,
teachers’ expectations that the students should disclose victimization in the faculty room,
denoted a procedural knowledge gap in using empathy as a prevention strategy.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Research Question #2: What motivational influences affect Westwood middle school
teachers’ ability to demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a daily basis?
Value. The first motivation influence is associated with value. In order to meet
Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving BPI support to all students, teachers need
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

113
to value empathy-based anti-bullying approaches. A motivational gap in teachers’ value for
empathy as a BPI strategy did not appear to be present. Both data sets indicated that teachers felt
that it was important for them to demonstrate empathy with students as a BPI support strategy.
Survey results. As shown in Figure 5, all the teachers felt that it was important or very
important to demonstrate empathy with victims (100%). Less than 65% of the teachers believed
that it was important to demonstrate empathy with bullies, while 22% of the teachers provided a
neutral rating. About 14.2% of the teachers felt certain that it was not important to demonstrate
empathy with bullies. The aggregated results for item C3 showed that teachers felt strongly about
the value of demonstrating of empathy as bullying prevention strategy (98.2%).

Figure 5. Teachers' value for using empathy with bullies, victims and as a bullying prevention
and intervention strategy.

Interview findings. Overall, all teachers expressed their belief in the value of empathy as
a bullying prevention and intervention strategy, especially with victims. Although empathy was
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

114
predominantly perceived to involve solving students’ problems, most teachers indicated the
importance of an active demonstration of empathy by responding to victim, rather than ignoring
the victim’s report. Specifically, all 11 teachers used phrases such as “help the child”, “make
sincere effort to solve the problem” and “make a difference to the child” which suggested a value
of empathy as an intervention tool in dealing with victims. Exemplifying most responses, Ms. H
explained:
It’s definitely important to show empathy. All of us have experienced unkind acts at
some point in our lives. Or maybe we have seen someone close to us who has
experienced it. In any case, it’s not difficult to understand what the child might have gone
through.
In this excerpt, Ms. H appeared to attempt a connection of her own previous experience
in helping her understand students’ bullying situations. In a similar vein, studies have shown that
teachers who reported previous personal experience with bullying were more sensitive about
student’s victimization experiences (Mishna et al., 2005; Raj, Aluede, McEachern, & Kenny,
2005).
As a prevention tool, seven teachers supported the use of empathy both a preventative
measure and an implicit behavioral correction measure for perpetrators. The following excerpt
from Ms. A, was similar to the sentiments expressed by other teachers:
The lessons are so helpful in being able to explain the concept of empathy to students. I
have seen a difference in class, when we talk about how important it is to place yourself
in the other’s shoes. When they do so, they will easily understand where the shoe bites
and how difficult it is for someone to feel bullied. They understand why they should not
engage in bullying and if it happens to someone, why they must do something about it.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

115
Ms. A’s rationalization of empathy as a tool for prosocial learning was framed in the
context of addressing perpetrators behavioral deviances. Specifically, Ms. A expressed her belief
that bullying behavior would cease when children were exposed to empathy training. Consistent
with the findings of Craig et al. (2011), teachers’ expression of concern and value for BPI
strategies may be a result of their awareness of the school’s anti-bullying goals. Craig et al.
(2011) found that articulated anti-bullying missions, policies and instructions bolstered teachers’
value for prevention and intervention efforts.
Finally, one teacher, Ms. F advocated for utilizing empathy as tool to develop a deeper
understanding of behavioral issues related to bullying. Although Ms. F previously indicated that
counsellors were best suited to resolve bullying situations, she emphasized the importance of
“understanding the bully’s point of view” and explore “root causes for his or her behavior.”
Summary. The gap in teachers’ value for empathy as a BPI strategy was not present. The
survey results indicated that all the teachers felt that it is important or very important to
demonstrate empathy with victims (100%), while the interview findings mirrored the results with
teachers’ willingness to “make a difference” to children who have been victimized. Qualitatively,
most teacher indicated that bullies could benefit from empathy training while one teacher
believed it was necessary to incorporate empathy as a behavioral change tool. Similarly,
teachers’ value for empathy as a bullying prevention strategy in teaching students prosocial
behavior (e.g. role modelling, SEL classes) was consistent across both data sets.
Self-efficacy. The second motivation influence is associated with self-efficacy. In order
to meet Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving BPI support to all students,
teachers need to believe they are capable of demonstrating empathy as a BPI support strategy.
The gap in teachers’ self-efficacy was identified in both the survey results and interview
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

116
findings. Teachers quantitatively reported low-self efficacy, especially in dealing with bullies, as
well as through their narratives in the interviews.
Survey results. Item C-4 asked the extent to which teachers felt confident in their ability
to demonstrate empathy with students who bully others. Results for this survey item were
disparate. Only 23% felt they were very confident and 19% believed they were confident. In
contrast, 7% of the teachers believed they were not confident, while 9% believed they were not
confident at all. A majority of the teachers (41%) indicated that they were unsure about their
abilities in demonstrating empathy with bullies. The results items C5 and C6 indicate that a
majority of teachers feel confident in their ability to demonstrate empathy with students who are
bullied by others (93%) as well as confident in their ability to demonstrate empathy as a bullying
prevention strategy (91%). Figure 6 shows the percentages of teachers’ self-reported self-
efficacy levels.

Figure 6. Teachers' self-efficacy for using empathy with bullies, victims and as a bullying
prevention and intervention strategy
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

117
Interview findings. Four teachers explicitly stated low-self efficacy in their ability to use
empathy in dealing with bullies. Data from nine interview transcripts showed that a preferred
strategy in dealing with bullies was referrals to either the school counselor or principal. These
transcripts suggested a possibility of low self-efficacy on part of the teachers. Ms. H, for
instance, believed that intervening bullying situations may “make a mess of things” and
therefore, preferred to refer to the counselor or principal. She continued:
You see, I'm not qualified to manage behavioral issues. . . I’m a [subject] teacher.
Psychology is not my specialization, unlike the counselor. I can only do so much in
correcting behavioral issues.
Ms. H expressed her belief that theoretical knowledge and professional experience in
behavioral management was necessary in bullying intervention. References to her qualification
suggested that she may not have believed that she was adequately equipped to intervene
incidences. Speaking along similar lines, another teacher, Ms. C expressed that she “wanted to
help” but felt limited with her capacity to change the bully’s behavior. She continued that a
“more knowledgeable person like the principal or the counselor” were better equipped to manage
bullying issues. Consistent to the findings of Boulton (2013), teachers reported that they would
refrain from intervening bullying incidences unless they felt adequately equipped to act.
Improving teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is crucial. Preparedness and high levels of self-
efficacy are associated with teachers’ willingness to intervene (Hen & Gorshit, 2016).
In contrast, six teachers expressed a strong belief in their ability to use empathy in
dealing with victims while five teachers expressed the need for more training in effective
communication with victims. For instance, Ms. B stated that she was unsure of whether she was
addressing the victim’s issues “properly”, concluding that she “probably needed to learn more on
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

118
the subject”. Similarly, Ms. K expressed that she would “do her best” to work with victims,
adding that she was “trying to learn and figure it all out.” As depicted by both excerpts, there was
a degree of uncertainty teachers had about their own self-efficacy in successfully utilizing
empathy as a BPI tool with victims.
Summary. When merged, both survey results and interview findings showed a gap in
teachers’ self-efficacy to demonstrate BPI support to students. Almost all teachers appeared to be
unsure of their abilities in dealing with bullies, while some teachers felt more efficacious in their
abilities in dealing with victims. Teachers’ self-efficacy influences their willingness to involve
themselves in dealing with bullying situations (Boulton, 2013; Mishna et al., 2005). Moreover,
an overreliance on principals or counselors to intervene might not improve teacher support to
students.
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
Research Question #3: What organizational culture and context influences, perceived by
Westwood middle school teachers, affect the adoption of empathy-based bullying prevention and
intervention approaches within the school?
Organization
The third category of influence in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic model is the
organizational culture. This section shows the survey results and findings of Westwood School’s
cultural model and cultural settings. Cultural models include organizational beliefs and values
that determine individuals’ behavior and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The
cultural model evaluated in this study was culture of trust and cultural of collaboration. The
study also evaluated cultural settings which are visible, concrete manifestations of cultural
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

119
models that appear within activity settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The cultural
settings evaluated in this study were credible role models and feedback.
Culture of Trust
The first organizational influence is associated with trust. The organization needs a
culture of trust between school staff members in order to achieve performance goal. The
organizational gap in the cultural of trust did not appear to be present. The survey results and
interview findings showed high levels of trust among faculty members and the administration.
Survey results. As shown in Table 8, the mean score for most of the survey items were
above four, indicating a possibility that teachers worked in a culture of trust and generally
supported each other. Majority of the teachers reported high levels of collegial support (M =
4.50), faith in their colleagues’ integrity (M = 4.26), dependability on each other during difficult
times (M = 4.31), belief in each other's capacity to intervene bullying situations well (M = 4.10),
collegial trust (M = 3.98) and openness to one another (M = 3.93).
Mean scores of teachers’ trust in the school principal (M = 4.55), perception of the
principal’s competence in anti-bullying efforts (M = 4.69), faith in the integrity of the principal
(M = 4.68) were also consistently high.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

120
Table 8
Internal Trust Survey Mean and Standard Deviation
Items Trust Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Deviation
D.1. Teachers in this school trust the principal. 4.55 .772
D.2. Teachers in this school trust each other. 3.98 .975
D.3. The teachers in this school support each other. 4.50 .707
D.4 The teachers in this school have faith in the integrity of the
principal
4.69 .643
D.5 The principal in this school typically acts with the best
interests of teachers in mind.
4.55 .772
D.6 Teachers in this school believe in each other. 4.10 .906
D.7 Even in difficult situations, teachers in this school can
depend on each other.
4.31 .749
D.8 Teachers in this school intervene bullying situations well. 4.10 .821
D.9 Teachers in this school rely on the principal. 4.55 .705
D.10. Teachers in this school have faith in the integrity of their
colleagues
4.26 .798
D.11 The principal in this school is competent in doing her job as
it relates to anti-bullying efforts.
4.69 .643
D.13 When teacher in this school tell you something, you can
believe it.
3.88 1.064
D.14 Teacher in this school concern for their students. 4.60 .665

Interview findings. When asked if all school members, including the principal, support
each other, all teachers but one responded in the affirmative. Teachers shared that staff members
have ‘helped figure out what to do’, ‘given advice’ and made them feel better about themselves,
especially through difficult times. The notion that the school staff were “like family” emerged as
a pattern in the data. While Ms. I stated that the staff and principal “work as a team” and “work
as a family”, Ms. F indicated that school staff were “supportive in every way possible. We are
always there for each other.”
Demonstrations of collegial support were visible in six teachers’ narratives of past
bullying incidences. For instance, when asked to share an account of a past incident, Ms. H
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

121
recalled a time when she approached her colleagues for help regarding intervention. She
continued, “Whenever we're faced with a challenge, we talk about it with our colleagues. We
springboard concerns, thoughts and ideas off each other. My colleagues will just hear me out”.
Ms. H discussed the exchange of knowledge and learning experiences that occurred in
her work environment. Moreover, Ms. H’s characterization of collegial trust included open
communication, collective problem-solving and active listening, all of which are crucial to the
culture of trust (Coyle, 2008). Similar references to “spring boarding ideas” were apparent in the
transcripts of four other teachers. For instance, when asked how the school staff support each
other, Ms. B expressed:
We work out the issues together, all of us in my department. We’ll discuss things, discuss
solutions to bullying problems. Ultimately if it doesn’t work, we talk to the principal
about it and try to come up with ideas together. But yes, everyone is generally supportive
when I'm looking for solution.
Ms. B’s consistent depiction of plurality was found in the words “we” and “together.”
Collegial trust is high when teachers know they can rely on each other in difficult situations and
circumstances (Bryk & Schnedier, 2002). The findings from this study mirrors that of Smith and
Birney (2005), wherein collegial trust appeared to enable teachers to communicate more openly
and freely about pressing issues related to bullying intervention with each other.
Summary. The organization gap pertaining to the culture of trust did not appear to be
present. When merged, the survey results and interview findings showed high levels of collegial
trust among staff members. Teachers’ professional interdependence in bullying intervention was
reflected in the merged findings of this study.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

122
Culture of Collaboration
The second organizational influence is associated with collaboration. The organization
needs a culture of collaboration between school staff members in order to achieve performance
goal. The organizational gap pertaining to the culture of collaboration was identified in two
ways. First, both the survey and interview data showed that teachers explicitly stated a lack of
involvement in the school’s BPI mission. Second, although teachers quantitatively and
qualitatively indicated that they worked collectively in resolving bullying issues, evidences of
meaningful collaboration in decision-making capacities were absent.
Survey results. The mean for most items reflecting involvement in the school’s anti-
bullying mission were low. It is likely that a majority of the teachers were not involved in
determining anti-bullying professional development activities (M = 2.76), selecting bullying
prevention lesson (M = 2.95), evaluating anti-bullying programs for students (M = 2.88) and
developing consequences for rule breaking pertaining to bullying (M = 2.81). However, there is a
possible indication of collective support among teachers in resolving student behavior problems
(M = 4.19). Table 9 shows results pertaining to the culture of collaboration at school.
Table 9.
Collaboration Survey Mean and Standard Deviation
Item Collaboration survey item Mean Std. Deviation
E.1. Determining anti-bullying professional development activities. 2.76 1.144
E.2. Resolving student behavior problems 4.19 .804
E.3. Selecting bullying prevention classroom lessons 2.95 1.103
E.3. Evaluating anti-bullying programs for students. 2.88 1.103
E.4 Developing consequences for rule breaking pertaining to bullying. 2.81 1.110
E.5. Determining school rules pertaining to bullying. 2.55 .968

Interview findings. The willingness to disclose knowledge gaps with staff members in
the context of collective learning emerged as a pattern across almost all interviews. Specifically,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

123
10 teachers expressed the notion of collective learning among colleagues. One excerpt by Ms. D
exemplified these beliefs:
Working with my colleagues helped me develop my own understanding about handling
such issues [bullying]. My department [teacher team] is very supportive and I don’t feel
odd to share my limited experience. It’s like. . . everyone is learning and there is no
shame to not knowing something, you know?
Ms. D referred to the ease of open communication in her use of the phrase “no shame to
not knowing something.” Additionally, Ms. D’s own comfort in approaching her colleagues for
the purposes of problem solving appeared to facilitate her disclosure of knowledge gaps.
However, Ms. D’s excerpt did not include any policy-level involvement in collaborative action.
Similar patterns of collective learning in a cooperative environment appeared in Ms. I’s
interview:
We work as a team. We work as a family. Teacher to teacher support is so important,
especially when behavioral problems arise. As it is...Managing bullying problems alone
is very difficult. I discuss problems with my colleagues all the time.
Similar to Ms. D, Ms. I preferred to discuss bullying issues with her colleagues rather
than “manage bullying problems alone”. To Ms. I, the collective learning context and collegial
support appeared particularly important in resolving bullying issues. However, there were no
references to any form of collaboration in the school’s anti-bullying mission at the policy level.
These findings suggest a significant degree of collegial trust and cooperation. However,
when asked if they were involved in the school’s anti-bullying mission, none of the teachers
stated any form of involvement in the school’s anti-bullying mission at a policy level. The
interview data showed that eight teachers stated that they would like to be involved in the
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

124
school’s anti-bullying mission. Yet, there appeared to be a lack of meaningful collaboration in
the form of shared decision making in the school’s anti-bullying efforts.
Although a high level of cooperation among colleagues was apparent across both data
sets, collaboration appears to be limited to resolving bullying issues. Lofthouse and Thomas
(2017) suggested that cooperation and collaboration are different constructs wherein cooperation
involved teachers consenting to working together to improve an individual practice, while
collaboration involved sharing obligations and decision making about shared teaching practice.
Summary. The organization gap of pertaining to the culture of collaboration was
validated. As indicated by low mean scores in teachers’ involvement in the school’s anti-bullying
mission and strategy as well as qualitative data, teachers are not involved in shared influence
decision making with the school administration. While the findings indicate that teachers interact
with their colleagues and the school principal in resolving bullying issues, an increased
participation in the anti-bullying mission may evoke a greater motivation and commitment to
demonstrating empathy as a BPI strategy on the part of teachers.
Credible Role Models
The first cultural setting influence is credible role models. The organizational gap in
teachers’ accessibility to credible role models did not appear to be present. The survey results
showed that majority of the teachers knew who to approach for questions about BPI strategies.
Similarly, all the teachers who were interviewed stated that they would approach senior faculty,
counselors or the principal for assistance with BPI strategies.
Survey results. When aggregated, 64.3% of the teachers indicated that they knew who to
turn to for questions about bullying strategies. About 23.8% of the teachers provided a neutral
rating, while less than 12% of the teachers indicated that they did not know who to turn to if they
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

125
had questions about bullying strategies. Table 10 displays the frequencies and percentages
pertaining to credible role models.
Table 10
Frequency and Percentages - Credible Role Models
Likert Scale
Not at all (1) to Very Much (5)
Frequency Percent
1 3 7.1
2 2 4.8
3 10 23.8
4 15 35.7
5 12 28.6
42 100

Interview findings. In order to evaluate whether or not teachers had access to credible
role models, they were asked who they turn to for help with bullying intervention. All teachers
responded in the affirmative referring to either senior faculty, the counselors or the principal as
supportive role models. For instance, Ms. A stated that she would approach the senior faculty for
assistance, since they had “more experience” and have previously provided “guidance whenever
needed”. Ms. H stated that she would approach the principal if she found the problem too
difficult to handle on her own, which suggested referrals. Similarly, Ms. C indicated that she
relied on the “principal and counselor’s judgement” whenever she had concerns about bullying
problems. Ms. J stated that her “first point of contact” would be the counselor as she was more
“knowledgeable about bullying problems”. Overall, it appears that interviewees have individuals
in school who they recognize as experts and professional mentors.
Summary. When merged, both the survey results and interview findings showed that a
majority of the teachers had access to credible role models within their organization. Teachers
qualitatively identified senior faculty members, the counsellors and the principal as individuals
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

126
they could approach for questions about BPI practices. In summation, the organization gap of
credible role models did not appear to be present.
Consistent Feedback
The second cultural setting influence is consistent feedback. The school organization
needs to provide consistent feedback on the effectiveness of empathy-based support to facilitate
teachers goal accomplishment. However, the organizational gap pertaining to teachers’ access to
consistent feedback was identified. As observed in both the survey results and interview
findings, teachers may not have received consistent feedback about their bullying intervention
strategies.
Survey results. The survey item asked teachers to rate the following survey item on a 5-
point Likert scale: “When it comes to resolving bullying incidences, I receive consistent
feedback about the effectiveness of my strategies.” The results showed that 52.4% of teachers
chose a neutral rating while an aggregated 38.1% of the teachers indicated that they rarely
received consistent feedback on their BPI strategies. When aggregated, less than 10% of the
teachers indicated that they receive consistent feedback. Table 11 presents the frequencies and
percentages of teachers’ access to consistent feedback.
Table 11
Frequencies and Percentages - Consistent Feedback
Never (1) to Often (5) Frequency Percent
1 1 2.4
2 15 35.7
3 22 52.4
4 2 4.8
5 2 4.8
Total 42 100

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

127
Interview findings. When asked if teachers receive feedback about their decisions to
intervene, four teachers stated that they received consistent feedback while five teachers
explicitly stated that they did not. For example, Ms. J acknowledged that she received feedback
from her team lead. However, Ms. B offered a contradictory response, “there isn't a formal
feedback method when it comes to these aspects, but I think maybe a higher up makes her own
observation about our practices”. Ms. B noted that there was no feedback mechanism set in place
for BPI efforts, which she phrased as “these aspects.” The implication that “maybe a higher up”
observes her practices, suggest a lack of a concrete, formal feedback system.
Two teachers, Ms. G and Ms. A shared that student responses served as informal
feedback mechanism to them in the past. When asked about whether she received feedback, Ms.
G responded:
No, there isn't really any sort of feedback from anyone. If you have managed to have a
nice bond with the child and then you can follow up with the child. See if they are feeling
better. From the conversation that you have with them, you know how the child is doing,
so it’s a different kind of feedback.
Ms. G considered follow up as a self-initiated feedback mechanism. However, this
suggests a lack of formal feedback mechanism on teachers’ performance. In recounting a past
incident of victimization, Ms. A stated that she “followed up after a few days” and found that the
victim was “absolutely fine.” For Ms. A, this served as a feedback on her intervention strategy.
While student feedback has been found to significantly influence teachers’ cognitive reframing
of bullying intervention strategies (Good, 2011), it is crucial that teachers have access to formal
feedback. Providing teachers with consistent, formal feedback, tailored to their bullying
intervention strategies, can support teachers to make substantial changes to their existing
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

128
practices (Bell, Raczynski, & Horne, 2010; Grierson & Woloshyn, 2013; Noell et al., 2005).
Overall, the findings authenticate the conclusion that teachers do not consistently receive
feedback from professional mentors.
Summary. Results and findings suggest a lack of consistent feedback, across both data
sets. Teachers qualitatively indicated inconsistent formal feedback which was also reflected in
the survey results. Therefore, the organizational gap pertaining to teachers’ access to consistent
feedback was identified.
Synthesis Summary and Gap Identification
This chapter presented the results of the survey and findings of the semi-structured
interviews in order to answer the study’s research questions. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap-
based analytical framework, this mixed-methods study sought to evaluate teachers’ knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences of BPI support practices. Consequently, the study
found four knowledge gaps, one motivation gap and two organizational gaps. Despite
classification of results within each type of gap analytic influence, a relationship exists between
identified influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). The interaction of these influences and gap analytic
identification is discussed in this section.
Both data sets showed that teachers’ frame of reference for bullying was physical
aggression. This frame of reference emerged prominently in the evaluation of teachers’ factual,
conceptual and procedural knowledge. The findings in this study that revealed the difference in
teachers’ intervention strategies between overt and covert forms of bullying is confirmed by
previous research (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Mishna et al., 2005; Yoon & Kerber, 2003; Yoon,
2004). Although the school’s anti-bullying policy recognized all forms of bullying, overt forms
of bullying were taken more seriously by teachers. As a result, teachers were more inclined to
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

129
attend to the physical risks in their appraisal of bullying situations while underestimating the
risks of psychological injuries caused by covert aggression with both boys and girls.
Although teachers valued empathy as a construct, they appeared to overlook perspective-
taking and empathic acknowledgement in their interactions with victims. Teachers appeared to
be unfamiliar with empathy-based BPI strategies with bullies in order to promote prosocial
behavior. However, it is critical that teachers develop their knowledge of empathy-based BPI in
order to improve school support to all students. While it is important to evaluate victimization
reports and gather data for interpretation, it should not conflict with empathy. The merged
findings showed that teachers perceived covert aggression to be less severe and believed that the
victim involved ought to be emotionally resilient. However, some students do not have the
emotional strength to put the incident behind them and a lack of support from the teacher can
heighten their sense of isolation and rejection, causing extensive emotional damage (Rodkin,
Espelage & Hanish, 2015).
Teachers’ knowledge gap of bullying and empathy-based BPI are further widened with
the interaction of organizational influences pertaining to a lack of policy-level collaboration and
consistent feedback. While teachers cooperate with each other and support one another in
resolving bullying issues, it is critical that teachers are given the opportunity to extend collegial
cooperation into a meaningful collaboration as it relates to shared decision making. Including
teachers in the decision-making process and allowing for more collaborative experiences can
help teachers share their reflective experiences (Lofthouse & Thomas, 2017). Moreover,
consistently documented feedback may enable teachers to evaluate their beliefs and construct
their knowledge about bullying prevention and intervention.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

130
Lieberman and Mace (2008) asserted that teachers learn through “practice (learning by
doing), through meaning (learning as intentional), through community (learning as participating
and being with others), and through identity (learning as changing who we are)” (p. 227).
Because learning is a social process, the collaborative context of bullying prevention and
intervention at the policy level as well as a consistent feedback mechanism, are likely to improve
not only the collective knowledge and skills of teachers but also their self-efficacy levels
(Somech & Oplatka, 2009).
In summation, the identified influences represent the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers, that if alleviated, would positively affect teachers’ empathy-based BPI
strategies. These influences are described in Table 12.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

131
Table 12
Summary Table of Influences
Influence Type Assumed Influence Identified?
Knowledge
Declarative (Factual) Teachers need to recognize bullying. Yes
Declarative (Conceptual) Teachers need to know the various types of bullying.

Yes
Declarative (Conceptual) Teachers need to know the underlying principles of
empathy.
Yes
Process Knowledge Teachers need to know how to demonstrate empathy
with students as a BPI support strategy
Yes
Motivation
Value

Teachers need to see the value of using empathy as a
BPI support strategy.

No
Self-Efficacy

Teachers need to believe they are capable of
demonstrating empathy as a BPI support strategy.

Yes
Organization
Cultural Model 1 The organization needs culture of trust among the
school members
No
Cultural Model 2 The organization needs a culture of collaboration
among school staff in order to achieve performance
goal.
Yes
Cultural Setting Influence 1 The organization needs credible models that have
previously demonstrated empathy-based BPI
approaches.

No
Cultural Setting Influence 2

The organization needs to provide consistent feedback
on the effectiveness of empathy-based BPI
approaches.

Yes

Next, Chapter Five makes recommendations and suggested interventions based on the
identified influences found in both modes of inquiry. These recommendations are drawn from
the gap analytic framework in order to close performance gaps as it relates to teachers’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

132
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
A thorough literature review resulted in a culmination of factors that influence teachers'
use of empathy-based bullying prevention and intervention strategies. Using these factors, a
conceptual framework was developed that focused the methodology of this study to evaluate the
factors that were assumed to affect the specific stakeholder group that this study is focused on –
the middle school teachers at Westwood School. Chapter Four presented the results and findings
from the survey and semi-structured interviews to answer the study’s research questions. A Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis was performed, which identified all but three of the assumed
influences. Specifically, four knowledge influences, one motivation influence and two
organizational influences were identified in the convergent, mixed method data analysis. This
chapter identifies evidence-based recommendations to close performance gaps pertaining to the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences identified in this study. In addition, an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan (IEP) using the New World Kirkpatrick model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is presented.
The recommendations along with the integrated IEP were developed utilizing
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social-ecological systems theory as a frame of reference. According to
Hong and Espelage (2012), practitioners should consider the complex interrelations between
individuals in various systems and draw upon multiple methodologies across ecologies to ensure
the effective implementation and evaluation of BPI programs. Rather than implementing a single
training program, the recommendations and integrated IEP presented in this chapter include
ecologically-based assessment tools (e.g. teacher reports, parent surveys, student feedback)
across multiple ecologies to reinforce empathy-based teacher support. Finally, this chapter
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

133
discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the integrated plan, limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge types identified by Krathwohl (2002) of factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge were analyzed in relation to teachers’ utilization of empathy-based BPI
practices. Each of these knowledge types are inextricably linked to the stakeholders’
performance goal, and it is important to understand what knowledge is required to achieve the
goal (Rueda, 2011; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). In this study, four knowledge gaps were
identified during data collection such as teachers’ factual knowledge of bullying, conceptual
knowledge of bullying, conceptual knowledge of empathy and procedural knowledge of
empathy-based BPI support. Each of these knowledge types are prioritized as having a
significant impact on the stakeholder goal of closing the empathy gap. As discussed in Chapter
Two, factual knowledge consists of basic and concrete elements of information such as the
definition of bullying, which constitutes specific details and terminology. Conceptual knowledge
builds on factual knowledge to form interrelationships among basic elements within a larger
structure such as the classification of bullying and the principles of empathy. Finally, procedural
knowledge involves knowledge of “how to do” a certain task (Krathwohl, 2002).
Because teachers do not have appropriate factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge
of empathy-based BPI support, three types of support as suggested by Clark and Estes (2008)
have been identified to close knowledge gaps. First, the simplest and most basic form of support
is providing information so that teachers know what must be done in order to do achieve their
performance goal. Second, job aids can be provided, which may include checklists, charts,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

134
diagrams, or flowcharts that show processes on how to accomplish a certain task. Lastly, training
can be provided wherein teachers are provided with opportunities for observation of
demonstration, practice and performance feedback, along with basic information and job aids
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 13 provides the knowledge influence, knowledge type, principle related to each
need, and a context specific recommendation for satisfying the need. A discussion of the context
specific recommendation based on learning theory and results from this inquiry follow the table.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

135
Table 13
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Identified
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type

Priority Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to
recognize bullying.

Factual

Yes How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide training that utilizes
case studies to help teachers
apply the four definitional
criterions of bullying in
bullying scenarios (as
examples) and non-bullying
scenarios (as non-examples).

Provide information containing
the four definitional
components of bullying found
in the anti-bullying policy,
along with references to the
text.

Teachers need to know
the various types of
bullying.

Declarative
(Conceptual)

Yes How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide training that utilizes worked
examples as well as case studies to
help teachers classify various types
of aggression in bullying scenarios
(as examples) and non-bullying
scenarios (as non-examples).

Provide a job aid that includes a
clearly structured chart indicating
different types of bullying, found in
the anti-bullying policy, along with
references to the text.

Teachers need to know
the underlying
principles of empathy.

Declarative
(Conceptual)

Yes Increasing germane
cognitive load by engaging
the learner in meaningful
learning and schema
construction facilitates
effective learning
(Kirshner et al., 2006).

Provide a job aid that includes key
principles of empathy (active
listening, acknowledging feelings,
taking perspective).

Teachers need to know
how to demonstrate
empathy with students
as a BPI support
strategy

Procedural Knowledge

Yes To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide training with empathy-based
bullying intervention case
studies, demonstrations, and practice
accompanied with feedback.

Factual knowledge recommendation. The results of surveys and interviews suggested a
factual knowledge gap. Teachers’ quantitative misidentification of non-bullying interactions and
fragmentary definitions of bullying in the interviews suggested that teachers struggle in
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

136
recognizing bullying among other student interactions. Several studies indicate that teachers’
cognitive appraisal of intervention responses begin by first evaluating the situation and then
determining a course of action (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Ellis & Shute, 2007; Yoon &
Bauman, 2014). Teachers’ primary appraisal of a bullying situation depends on their knowledge
of clear definition of bullying (Hazler et al., 2001). Subsequently, teacher’s factual knowledge of
the four definitional criterions of bullying is an essential prerequisite to accurately recognizing
bullying situations. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggested that the manner in which
individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know. Therefore,
the recommendation is to provide training that utilizes case studies to help teachers apply the
four definitional criterions of bullying.
The case studies can include bullying scenarios that serve as examples and non-bullying
scenarios that serve as non-examples. This activity will be supplemented with information
containing the four definitional components of bullying found in the anti-bullying policy, along
with references to the text. The information support will help individuals identify and understand
important points (Mayer, 2011) while training will provide teachers tasks that promote selecting,
organizing, and integrating definitional components in their identification of bullying scenarios
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Conceptual knowledge recommendation. Two conceptual gaps were identified as a
result of the data analysis. Specifically, teachers’ overemphasis of physical bullying in both the
survey and interviews suggested a conceptual gap in their understanding of the range of bullying
behaviors that students often exhibit. In addition, both data sets pertaining to teachers’
conceptual knowledge of empathy revealed a lack of empathic acknowledgement and
perspective-taking in their interactions with students.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

137
Since teacher intervention in all forms of bullying is crucial to the accomplishment of
their performance goal, it is necessary to address conceptual gaps in teachers’ knowledge of
bullying. The tendency of teachers to respond to physical bullying is attributed to perceived
seriousness of the bullying act (Gimenez-Gualdo et al., 2018; Mishna et al., 2005; Yoon &
Kerber, 2003) as well as clarity of school policies (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). In contrast,
teachers are often faced with uncertainty about the best course of intervening action because they
perceive relational bullying to be ambiguous (Yoon et al., 2004). Ambiguity can be mitigated by
providing training that emphasizes the seriousness and harmful impact of all types of bullying
(Bauman & Del, Rio, 2006). Therefore, it is important to highlight the school’s current anti-
bullying policy in which relational bullying is a component of the BPI package.
Gaps in teachers’ conceptual knowledge of bullying will be addressed by providing case-
study based training to help teachers classify various types of aggression in bullying scenarios
(as examples) and non-bullying scenarios (as non-examples) along with a job aid that includes a
clearly structured chart of different types of bullying. The case study training material will also
include references to male and female students’ involvement in the bullying dynamic. Case
studies that include examples and nonexamples will be utilized to uncover any misconceptions
and erroneous assumptions during the training session. The case-study training recommendation
will also incorporate references to the school’s anti-bullying policy.
These recommendations are based on the information processing learning principle that
indicates that the way individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The training activity is designed to provide worked
examples to help teachers make sense of the material rather than just focus on memorization
(Kirshner, Sweller & Clark; 2006; Mayer, 2011; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Van Gerven et al.,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

138
2002). Moreover, the job aid activity is designed to help individuals identify and understand
important points (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
The second conceptual gap pertains to teachers’ knowledge of the underlying principles
of empathy. Specifically, the survey and interview data sets showed that teachers overlooked
perspective-taking and empathic acknowledgement in their interactions with students. Rather
than an innate quality, scholars regard empathy as a malleable attribute that can be taught,
developed and influenced by training (Schumann et al.; 2014). While training is allocated to
support teachers’ procedural knowledge, the recommendation to close conceptual knowledge
gaps is to provide a pictorial job aid that includes key principles of empathy (active listening,
acknowledging feelings and taking perspective).
The training recommendations to close knowledge gaps are based on the cognitive load
theory which refers to the way information is processed during learning. To enhance learning,
instructional activities must be designed in a way that optimizes cognitive load or the learner’s
working memory. Sweller (1988) suggested that there are three types of cognitive load that must
be managed effectively to enhance learning: intrinsic load, germane load and extraneous load.
Intrinsic load is the inherent effort associated with a specific topic, germane load is the mental
effort required to store information in long-term memory and, extraneous load is the way
information is presented to a learner. Instructors must design training activities to manage
intrinsic load, increase germane load and decrease extraneous load to promote effective learning
during and after training sessions (Sweller, 1988).
This recommendation is based on the cognitive load theory principle where teachers’
germane cognitive load is increased when information is constructed in a meaningful manner, to
facilitate effective learning. (Kirshner et al., 2006). Therefore, pictorial job aids that present
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

139
information in the context of a familiar situation utilizing words and pictures rather than words
alone (Mayer, 2011) will increase teachers’ working memory capacity in enabling them to recall
the three principles of empathy. Job aids will supplement the training for teachers’ procedural
knowledge.
Procedural knowledge recommendation. The results of surveys and interviews
revealed gaps in teachers’ procedural knowledge of demonstrating empathy as a BPI support
strategy. Specifically, both data sets showed an absence of teachers’ use of empathy-based BPI
support in resolving bullying issues. The recommendation is to provide training utilizing
empathy-based bullying intervention case studies, instructor-led demonstrations, and practice
accompanied with feedback from the instructor. The case studies and training materials will
incorporate information about the role of empathy as a protective factor in preventing and
intervening bullying situations. The materials will also include information about the fluidity of
children’s involvement in bullying, either as perpetrators, victims, by-standers or bully-victims.
Information about the role of empathy-based support in influencing positive student interactions
will be incorporated in the training material and during the instructor-led demonstrations.
This recommendation is based on the information processing principle which indicates
that task mastery is achieved when individuals acquire component skills, practice integrating
them, and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Deliberate
practice of perspective-taking, active listening and empathic acknowledgement with peers can
improve procedural knowledge outcomes. Previous studies on empathy training show moderate
success in didactic and experiential learning formats where the facilitator lectures on theory and
concepts and then provides experiences for the participants to engage in deliberate practice
through hypothetical cases, games and problem solving (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000;
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

140
Fernndez-Olano, Montoya-Fernndez, & Salinas-Snchez, 2008; Riess, Kelley, Bailey, Dunn, &
Phillips, 2012; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Additionally, information about the value of
communicating with students about their problems in a confidential setting, will be incorporated
in the training materials. During the training, the instructor will highlight the importance of
extending empathy-based support to students in an informal, non-academic and confidential
environment.
The factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge influences will be addressed through
information and job aids incorporated in the training program. Because the task of acquiring new
information about BPI practices may be inherently challenging, teachers’ cognitive intrinsic load
must be considered when designing training activities. One strategy to manage teachers’
cognitive intrinsic load is to segment complex material into small, simple parts to enable
enhanced learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). In keeping with this information processing principle,
four 30-minute asynchronous training modules along with two half-day application workshops
will allow for information to be broken down into manageable chunks while providing for
frequent practice to be spread out over shorter learning sessions.
Motivation Recommendation
There are two types of motivation that were evaluated in this study: expectancy value
theory and self- efficacy theory. Only one gap pertaining to self-efficacy theory was identified
through data analysis. Table 14 provides the motivation influence, motivation type, principle
related to the need and a context specific recommendation for satisfying the need. A discussion
of the context specific recommendation based on learning theory and results from this inquiry
follow the table.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

141
Table 14
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Identified Motivation
Influence

Motivation Type Priority

Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to see the
value of using empathy
as a BPI support strategy
with bullies.

Value
No

None

None

Teachers lack
confidence in their
ability of demonstrating
empathy as a BPI
support strategy.
Self-Efficacy Yes Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).

Modeling increases self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Provide training in which an
instructor scaffolds instruction
at the beginning of the
training, and then builds in
multiple opportunities for
practice.

Provide teachers with the
opportunity to observe
similar models
demonstrate empathy-based
BPI practices during training
sessions.

Self-efficacy recommendation. Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1977), is the belief
that a person can achieve a performance goal. The study revealed that teachers felt uncertain
about their ability to demonstrate empathy as a BPI support, especially with bullies. Individuals
with higher self-efficacy demonstrate higher persistence when faced with challenges (Bandura,
1977; Rueda, 2011). Two recommendations are offered to improve teachers’ self-efficacy.
The first is to provide scaffolded instruction at the beginning of the training, and then
building in multiple opportunities for practice. The concept of scaffolded instruction originated
from Lev Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development which is the distance between
what learners can do by themselves and the next level of learning that can be accomplished with
competent assistance (Raymond, 2000). Scaffolding provides support based on the learner’s zone
of proximal development and helps learners accomplish tasks that they normally would not be
able to accomplish on their own (Hartman, 2002). Subsequently, learners’ self-efficacy increases
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

142
when they accomplish close, concrete and manageable tasks in a scaffolded learning
environment (Pajares, 2006).
The second recommendation is to utilize credible role models to demonstrate empathy-
based BPI in the training sessions. The study showed that teachers have access to credible role
models (senior faculty, principal and counselors). Therefore, the school’s senior faculty,
principal and counselors can be solicited to model empathy-based BPI practices during training
sessions in order to build teachers’ self-efficacy. Observing a credible, similar model engaging in
behavior that has functional value (Pajares, 2006) can improve teachers’ self-efficacy level.
Finally, the instructor will make it clear that teachers are capable of learning what is being taught
and can perform the task.
Researchers have suggested that teachers’ self-efficacy for addressing difficult situations,
with both bullies and victims, affect how they interact with students (Bradshaw et al., 2007) and
intervene bullying situations (Yoon, 2004). Moreover, teachers who experience high levels of
self‐efficacy for working with bullies and victims are more willing to adopt new educational
practices (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002). Thus, providing teachers scaffolded instruction and
credible role models who can demonstrate empathy-based BPI will increase the teachers’ self-
efficacy through guided practice and modeling (Pajares, 2006).
Organization Recommendations
There are four types of organizational influences that were evaluated in this study:
organizational culture of trust, organizational culture of collaboration, credible role models and
consistent feedback. According to Clark and Estes (2008), missing or inadequate processes and
materials can prevent the achievement of performance goals. As an outcome of the data analysis,
one cultural model gap pertaining to the culture of collaboration was identified; and one cultural
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

143
setting gap pertaining to teachers’ access to consistent feedback was identified. Table 15
provides the organizational influence, organizational type, principle related to the need and a
context specific recommendation for satisfying the need. A discussion of the context specific
recommendation based on learning theory and results from this inquiry follow the table.
Table 15
Summary of Organizations Influences and Recommendations
Identified Organizational
Influence
Priority Principle

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model 1: The
organization needs culture of
trust among the school
members.

No

None

None

Cultural Model 2: The
organization needs a culture of
collaboration among school
staff in order to achieve
performance goal.

Yes Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders facilitate
creative and collaborative
problem-solving. (Schein,
2004)
Foster collaboration among
teachers involved in the
decision-making for various
BPI committees.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs credible
models that have previously
demonstrated empathy-based
BPI approaches.

No

None

None

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization does not
provide consistent feedback on
the effectiveness of empathy-
based BPI approaches.

Yes Feedback that is accurate,
private, fair and consistent can
enhance task performance
substantially (Shute, 2008).

For feedback to be effective, it
should be timely, task focused
and goal-focused (Kluger
& DeNisi, 1996).
Provide documented feedback
and schedule consistent time for
individual meetings to reflect on
empathy-based BPI strategies.

Cultural model. Results from the collaboration survey and interview revealed that a low
level of collaboration in the context of shared decision-making with the school administration
and other faculty members. Although teachers collaborated with their colleagues and the school
principal in resolving bullying issues, low involvement in the school’s anti-bullying mission was
identified in both the survey and interviews. Studies show that the involvement of teachers in
BPI efforts can influence the level of implementation of school-wide prevention programs
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

144
(Somech & Oplatka, 2009; Steele et al., 2008). In the context of Westwood School, a culture of
collaboration in BPI efforts will enable teachers to see themselves as part of the picture and may
influence their knowledge and motivation towards their performance goal. Shared influence in
decision-making promotes a culture of collaboration among the top management and employees
(Northouse, 2016).
Thus, the recommendation is to promote a collaborative process by including teachers in
various BPI committees to critically evaluate the curriculum and lesson plans, professional
development plans, and obtaining their ideas about student behavior management and integrating
their suggestions into decisions in BPI efforts. This recommendation is based on the principle
that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders facilitate creative and collaborative
problem-solving (Schein, 2004).
Cultural setting. Both the survey results and interview findings revealed an
organizational influence gap in teachers’ access to consistent feedback on their BPI practice.
Researchers have found that training opportunities that incorporates repeated practice and task-
focused feedback can help increase teachers’ self-efficacy in managing bullying, while also
increasing their knowledge and skill sets (Bell, Raczynski, & Horne, 2010; Noell et al., 2005).
Thus, the recommendation is to provide written, documented feedback incorporated in
the school’s anti-bullying efforts in order to help teachers gain performance-targeted feedback on
their performance. Documented feedback incorporated in the school’s data management system
can contribute to improved BPI support efforts in promoting positive change in teacher behaviors
(National Academies of Sciences, 2016). Consistent schedules must be set to discuss the
documented feedback in individual meetings between the head of department or principal and
the teacher. This is based on the learning and motivation principle where feedback that is
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

145
accurate, private, fair and consistent can enhance task performance substantially (Shute, 2008).
For feedback to be effective, it is critical to provide feedback that is timely, task-focused and
goal focused (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This context-specific recommendation also supports the
need for the school to introduce BPI documentation such as incident reports and teacher
feedback, that was previously absent.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The integrated IEP are developed utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick model. The
identified gap analytic influences in conjunction with evidence-based recommendations are
framed within the context of this model. Before recommendations can be implemented, it is
critical to integrate an evaluation plan in the solution package. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) there are three reasons to integrate implementation of a program with
evaluation: program improvement, maximizing employees’ transfer of learning from training to
on-the-job performance, and demonstration of value of training to the organization.
As illustrated in Figure 7, the New World Kirkpatrick model presents four levels of
evaluation, in reverse, to demonstrate value of the training with respect to the organization’s
goal. Level 4, the first step of evaluation, is the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a
result of the implementations of solutions, support and accountability package. Level 3 is the
degree to which participants apply what they have learned during the training when they are back
on the job. At this level, the evaluation plan considers the extent to which teachers are using
program solutions as well as the extent to which the organization supports teachers to use
solutions on the job. Level 2 assesses teachers’ learning by measuring their knowledge, skills,
attitudes, self-efficacy, and commitment necessary to engage in the critical behaviors evaluated
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

146
in Level 3. Finally, Level 1 evaluates an individual’s reaction to desired behavior including
learner’s engagement and satisfaction.

Figure 7. The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Reprinted from Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of
Training Evaluation (p. 11), by J. D. Kirkpatrick and W. K. Kirkpatrick, 2016, Alexandria,
VA: ATD Publications. © 2016 by Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC www.kirkpatrickpartners.com.
As a framework for integrated implementation and evaluation, the New World
Kirkpatrick model will allow the organization to measure the progress towards desired outcomes.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) advocated evaluation prior to and during implementation to
examine the execution of proposed solutions and evaluate how they align with the overall
organizational goal. The cascading impact of an integrated IEP impacts the developments of all
four levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), thus allowing for continuous improvement to be
made and contributes to the overall success of the initiative. Adapted from the study’s
recommendations, table 16 shows the model consisting of the New World Kirkpatrick model of
four levels of evaluation.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

147
Table 16
The New World Kirkpatrick Model - Four Levels of Evaluation
Kirkpatrick Evaluation Level Westwood School Level Description
Level 4 Measures internal and external outcomes with respect to the
organizational goal
Level 3 Measures teachers’ critical behaviors after the completion of the
empathy-based BPI training program.
Level 2 Measures learning goals in the form of teachers’ knowledge,
skills, attitudes, self-efficacy and commitment as an outcome of
the training.
Level 1 Measures teachers’ reactions to the program (e.g. learner
satisfaction, job relevance, engagement).

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Westwood school’s mission is to provide a safe, warm, and caring environment for all
students to achieve to the best of their abilities. In response to increased bullying incidents and
low teacher support as reported by middle school students, the school aims to improve BPI
support to all students by April 2021. The stakeholder group of focus for this study were the
middle school teachers of Westwood School. In the context of their stakeholder performance
goal, all middle school teachers are expected to demonstrate empathy-based support in BPI on a
daily basis.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of teacher support at Westwood School. Gap analysis of survey results and interview
transcripts revealed seven identified influences that represent knowledge, motivation and
organization barriers to teachers’ accomplishment of their performance goal. The proposed
solution, a comprehensive training program, alongside with on-the-job organizational supports
should produce the desired outcome in teachers’ utilization of empathy-based support in bullying
prevention and intervention.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

148
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
There is a significant body of research to support the correlation between teacher care and
student outcomes (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray & Malmgren, 2005; Ramsden, 1987),
student engagement, and school connectedness (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; Patrick, Ryan, &
Kaplan, 2007; Roorda, Koomen, Split & Oort, 2011), and student behavior (Baker, Grant &
Morlock, 2008; Okunofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016; Rutledge, Cohen-Vogel, & Roberts,
2015). Table 17 identifies internal and external outcomes, the metric used to measure progress,
and the method for collecting data to evaluate Level 4 results of the integrated IEP. There are
three internal outcomes and one external outcome that will result from the proposed training,
support and accountability solution package. The internal outcomes are (a) improved student
perceptions of teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention (b), reductions in student
expulsions, suspensions and referrals, and (c) increased self-efficacy in teachers’ ability to
provide empathy-based BPI support. If these three internal outcomes are achieved, then the
school will have met their goal of providing BPI support to all students. The external outcome is
improved parents’ perception of teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

149
Table 17
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s)

Method(s)
External Outcomes

Improved parents’ perception of
teacher support in bullying
prevention and intervention.

Number of parent complaints
about bullying related to lack of
teacher intervention

Parent perceptions
School records of parent
complaints and feedback
recorded at the principal’s office
and counselor’s office.

Survey feedback from parents
about teacher support in bullying
prevention and intervention.

Internal Outcomes

Improved student perceptions of
teacher support in bullying
prevention and intervention.
Students report that they have at
least one teacher in school they
feel cares for them and supports
them.

School records of student
feedback from the principal’s
office and counselor’s office.

Survey feedback from students
about teacher support in bullying
prevention and intervention

Reductions in student expulsions,
suspensions and referrals.

Number of expulsions,
suspensions and referrals
School records from the
principal’s office and counselor’s
office.

Increased self-efficacy in
teachers’ ability to provide
empathy-based BPI support.
Self-disclosed level of efficacy
discussing empathy-based BPI
Feedback during staff meetings

Teacher BPI survey

Level 3: Behavior Critical behaviors
The stakeholder group of focus are the middle school teachers at Westwood School. The
first critical behavior is teachers filling out an incident report that includes the victim’s account
of bullying as well as the teachers’ interactions with the perpetrator(s). A bullying incident report
will serve as a job aid and help teachers identify and classify bullying behaviors using a
checklist. The report will also serve as a document on which feedback will be recorded.
Observed bullying or student reports of bullying will be documented by the teacher and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

150
submitted to the principal. Finally, the report can be utilized as a course correction tool to ensure
teachers are providing support to students involved in bullying either as perpetrators or victims.
The second critical behavior is teachers’ utilization of empathy-based BPI support with
victims. Reflective discussions documented in staff meetings and feedback collected from
students will serve as data metrics. Reflective memoranda of bullying incidents will be
incorporated in the staff’s meeting minutes that is submitted to the principal on a weekly basis.
Finally, the third critical behavior is teachers’ utilization of empathy-based BPI support with
perpetrators. The metrics to measure this critical behavior are the documentation of empathy-
based interaction or activity with perpetrator in bullying incident report, teachers’ meetings with
the counselor and student feedback. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these
outcome behaviors are listed in Table 18.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

151
Table 18
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)

Method(s)
1.Teachers fill out a bullying
incident report containing:
a) victim’s account of bullying.
b) teachers’ interaction with
perpetrator(s)
Bullying incident report Submit bullying report to the
principal.

2.Teachers utilize empathy-based
BPI support with victims.
Reflective discussions in staff
meetings

Student feedback

Teachers submit a memo of peer-
based reflective discussions to the
principal.

Anonymous student survey
administered at end of first
semester and end of year
3.Teachers utilize empathy-based
support with perpetrators.

Documentation of empathy-based
interaction or activity with
perpetrator in bullying incident
report

Teachers’ meetings with the
counselor

Student feedback
Submit the report to the
counselor.

Submit minutes of meeting with
counselor to the principal.

Anonymous student survey
administered at end of first
semester and end of year

Required drivers. Required drivers provide a level of support and accountability that
ensure implementation of the solutions though reinforcement, monitoring, encouragement, and
rewarding (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) based on the performance of critical behaviors on
the job. Teachers require the support of the school’s counselors and principal to reinforce what
they learned in training and to encourage them to apply what they have learned in demonstrating
empathy-based BPI with students. Multiple required drivers have been identified to support
teachers including job aids, weekly check-ins, collaborative involvement in BPI committees,
peer modeling and feedback. Table 19 identifies the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of teachers and the timing of each driver.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

152
Table 19
Required Drivers to Support Teachers' Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
Principal’s office supplies the
bullying incident forms to teachers
Semesterly

1, 3
Counselors provide job aid of how
to complete bullying incident report
using the checklist
Semesterly

1, 2,3
Teacher meeting with counselors to
discuss bullying reports and
empathy-based strategies in BPI.

Weekly 1, 2, 3
Team meeting to evaluate BPI
efforts collaboratively and for
additional professional
development.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer modeling
during team meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from the
counselor.
Semesterly

1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Principal publicly acknowledges
teachers’ success in progress
towards 50% support. E.g. “As per
student survey results, we were
50%, we are now at 60%.”
Semesterly, whole school staff
meetings
1, 2, 3

Monitoring. Three strategies could be used to ensure that the required drivers occur: a)
the counsellors can create opportunities at the staff meetings to share success stories; b) two
months after training, the instructor can ask course participants to self-report their confidence
and self-efficacy in job related tasks; and c) the principal can assess the performance of teachers
every semester. Frequent checks can help the organization monitor progress in teachers’ actual
behavioral change and make organizational support adjustments to influence desired critical
behaviors.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

153
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Teachers must possess the knowledge, skills and motivation to enable
their performance of Level 3 critical behaviors listed in Table 18. Following completion of the
recommended solutions, the teachers will be able to:
1. Recognize bullying with 100% accuracy (Factual knowledge).
2. Classify different bullying types (Conceptual knowledge).
3. Exemplify the underlying principles of empathy (Conceptual knowledge).
4. Apply procedures of empathy-based bullying prevention and intervention with
students (Procedural knowledge).
5. Indicate confidence that they can demonstrate empathy as a BPI support strategy with
all student (Self-efficacy).
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved with a
training program that focuses on bullying identification, prevention and intervention.
Specifically, the middle school teachers will learn how to identify bullying and differentiate it
from other social interactions, how to classify bullying and how to utilize empathy as a BPI
support strategy. The program is blended in that it consists of four 30-minute asynchronous
training modules and two half-day application workshops at Westwood School. The total time
for completion of the program is 600 minutes (10 hours).
The asynchronous e-learning modules will include videos that teachers can pause, stop or
rewind to review the information as well as job aids, demonstrations and worked examples.
Specifically, teachers will be provided learning material with information containing the four
definitional components of bullying found in the anti-bullying policy, along with references to
the text. A job aid will be included with a clearly structured chart indicating different types of
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

154
bullying. Another audio-visual job aid that includes key principles of empathy (active listening,
acknowledging feelings, taking perspective) will be provided along with a video of hypothetical
scenarios showing demonstrations of examples and nonexamples of bullying among students.
Following the demonstrations, teachers will be provided the opportunity to practice using job
aids and will receive feedback from peers and the instructor. The e-learning module will have a
self-assessment checkpoint to allow teachers to formatively assess their own knowledge.
The synchronous training will be conducted over two half-day application workshops at
the school. During the synchronous in-person workshops, the focus will be on applying what
teachers have learned asynchronously to empathy-based BPI support applications. Learning
activities will include opportunities for participants to practice and receive feedback, teach back
to each other, ask questions and discuss practice-based BPI problems which will help build
competence and confidence. The instructor will provide training with empathy-based bullying
intervention case studies, demonstrations, and practice accompanied with feedback. The
instructor will also provide training that utilizes case studies to help teachers identify bullying
and classify various types of aggression in bullying scenarios (as examples) and non-bullying
scenarios (as non-examples). To enhance teachers’ confidence, the counsellors will model and
demonstrate empathy-based approaches with victims and perpetrators. Activities that build
commitment will include discussions on students’ bullying and victimization experiences, moral
obligations to care for children and the use of empathy in promoting prosocial behavior.
Teachers will also have opportunities to discuss barriers or challenges to BPI program
implementation.
Components of learning. In the New World Kirkpatrick model (2016), there are five
components of learning: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. These
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

155
components support the gap analytic framework described by Clark and Estes (2008). Teachers
must be able to correctly identify bullying (factual knowledge) and classify the bullying type
(conceptual knowledge) so that they can provide appropriate empathy-based support to victims
and perpetrators. In considering teachers’ commitment and confidence, which relate to their
motivation, it is important that teachers value the training as a prerequisite to their newly learned
knowledge and skills on the job. They must be confident in applying what they have learned on
the job. Table 20 lists the recommended evaluation methods and timing for each component of
learning.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

156
Table 20
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge self-assessment checks using multiple
choice.
In the asynchronous portions of the course during
and after video demonstrations.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think,
share” and other individual/group activities.
Periodically during in-school application workshops
and documented via observation notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the course
using hypothetical scenarios with multiple-choice
items.
In the asynchronous portions of the course at the end
of each module.
Demonstration in groups and individually of using
the job aids to successfully perform the skills.
During the workshops.
Quality of the feedback from peers during group
sharing
During the workshops.
Individual application of the empathy-based BPI
skills
At the end of the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey
asking teachers about their perceived level of
proficiency before and after the training.
At the end of the workshop.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of teachers’ statements and
actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of
what they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey using Likert scale items for agreement Following each module in the asynchronous portions
of the course.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item to
check for confidence levels.
After the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 reaction evaluates the degree to which the participants find the training favorable,
engaging and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The evaluation of this
level will provide requisite feedback on the faculty instructors and the quality of the program.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

157
Reactions can be measured through the observations of the instructor, dedicated observer, or
surveys. Table 21 provides insight into the methods and tools that will be used for Level 1
evaluation of the empathy-based BPI training program.
Table 21
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics in the learning management
system
Ongoing during asynchronous portion of the
course.
Observation form filled by faculty team lead During the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Brief online survey After the completion of each asynchronous
module
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Learner Satisfaction
Brief online survey

After the asynchronous modules
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Data analytic tools from the
learning management system will collect data about the duration and completion of modules by
teachers. This data will reflect the engagement with course material. Table 22 shows a brief
online survey which will automatically be administered after the completion of asynchronous
modules to evaluate teachers’ overall satisfaction with the online course as well as relevance to
the job. This survey measures both Level 1 and 2. During the in-school application workshop, a
team lead from the faculty will complete observations using a form to evaluate the application
workshop training (Appendix G). Finally, teachers will provide their level of satisfaction,
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

158
commitment, attitude, and competency of what has been learned in the course evaluation, two
weeks after the completion of the training (Appendix H).
Table 22
Exemplar of an End-of-Module Survey, Kirkpatrick Level and Sample Questions
Kirkpatrick
Level
Sample Questions
1 Learner Satisfaction Survey
Help us improve the program by rating the following:
Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
• I understood the learning objectives.
• I was able to relate each of the learning objectives to the learning I
achieved.
• I was appropriately challenged by the material.
• I found the course materials easy to navigate.
• I felt that the course materials will be essential for my success.
• I will be able to immediately apply what I learned
2 How did participating in the training program influence the following:
Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
• Helped me understand how to identify bullying better.
• Helped me understand how to differentiate bullying types better.
• Helped me understand the principles of empathy better.
• Helped me understand how to demonstrate empathy-based
practices as an intervention strategy with students who are bullied by
others.
• Helped me understand how to demonstrate empathy-based
practices as an intervention strategy with students who bully others.
• Led me to a better understanding of how to demonstrate empathy-
based practices as a bullying prevention strategy.
• Increased my self-confidence in demonstrating empathy-based
practices in bullying prevention and intervention

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six weeks
after the implementation of the training, the school leadership will administer three surveys to
assess the extent to which desired outcomes have been achieved. Using the blended evaluation
approach, these surveys will be administered to three stakeholder groups: teachers, students, and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

159
parents. The first survey will measure the teachers’ learning satisfaction and job relevance of
training (Level 1); teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitude, self-efficacy, and commitment towards
performance goals (Level 2); teachers’ on-the-job application of empathy-based BPI practices
(Level 3). The second and third survey will measure the extent to which internal and external
outcomes pertaining to teacher support is positive, from the view of students and parents
respectively (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
School-wide programs that encourage collaborative, data-based decision making among
staff and administrators can promote a positive change in student and teacher behaviors
(National Academies of Sciences, 2016; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Therefore, the Level 4 goals for
middle school teachers are measured by student feedback of teacher support as internal
outcomes, as well as parent feedback to measure external outcomes. The collection of student
feedback through formal semesterly surveys and in interviews and observations provides the
accountability for growth required to build critical behaviors. The previous school-wide survey
that was conducted prior to this study should be used as a baseline measurement to evaluate
gains from the training program and organizational support. A data archive of incident forms as
well as documented complaints, observations and feedback will need to be maintained for
monitoring and accountability purposes. Student survey results will be used as a dashboard to
report the data as a monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards will be developed to
monitor performance of Level 1, 2, and 3 goals. Figure 7 shows a sample dashboard of internal
outcomes pertaining to student survey results pre and post implementation of the training
program.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

160

Figure 8. Level 4 dashboard of internal outcomes.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The combination of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model with the Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick model provided a comprehensive approach to
analyzing performance problems, developing solutions as well as implementing and evaluating
recommendations to close identified gaps. However, the New World Kirkpatrick model is
focused exclusively on training, which limits the application of solutions to gaps from
knowledge and motivational influences. Solutions to organizational or cultural barriers are rarely
resolved in training efforts (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals within an organization may have
the necessary knowledge, skills and motivation to perform their tasks, however if organizational
or cultural barriers exists, these individuals may not meet their performance goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

161
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this study are noted here to provide transparency, communicate the full
scope of the study and provide clarity on the findings presented in the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Although the study attempted to use mixed methodology to overcome weaknesses from
quantitative or qualitative methods, there were several limitations to the study. Some limitations
were apparent at the outset of the project, while others developed over the three years during
which this study was in progress.
First, there were inherent limitations to an employer-based research study. The dual role
of researcher and practitioner is not new to educational research (Coupal, 2005; Glesne, 2010;
Mockler, 2015), when the purpose of research is to connect theory to practice. Yet, additional
ethical challenges exist when the researcher holds dual roles of researcher and practitioner
(Coupal, 2005, Mockler, 2007). The matter of ethical research transcends research interests, and
ethical principles must manifest in the structures and processes of practitioner inquiry (Marshall,
2004). To mitigate undue influences, the principal researcher was removed from the study in
replacement of a third-party, proxy researcher. The principal researcher and proxy researcher’s
roles were addressed as a part of the study introduction and consent to participate research
process. Additionally, the proxy researcher reiterated voluntary participation in informed consent
forms prior to and during the data collection process in both the survey and interviews. However,
these strategies could not fully mitigate participant’s self-section bias in the research study.
As the study progressed, the urgent need for teachers and school administrators to address
bullying was reflected in burgeoning political and media discourse in India. In the weeks prior to
the start of data collection, the state government enforced an anti-bullying mandate requiring all
educational institutions to take “stringent actions towards perpetrators such as immediate
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

162
suspension or expulsion, depending upon the severity of the harm” (Ministry of Human
Development, 2019). While the regulatory process of mandate enforcement was unclear, it was
against the school leadership’s ethos and intent to use empathy-based student support strategies.
The debate within the school among various stakeholders may have heightened teachers’
perceived seriousness of appropriate bullying intervention. Therefore, the anti-bullying socio-
political climate as well as the researcher’s role, may have contributed to the full response rate
observed in the survey results. It is also likely the political discourse of physical harm, citing
cases of extreme aggression, was a factor to the participation bias in the study.
Other limitations were the small sample size of the quantitative portion of the study and
the lack of generalizability beyond the middle school teachers at Westwood School. To protect
participant’s anonymity, the study did not collect data of teachers’ experience, grade teaching
levels or qualifications. This extended a limitation to the analytical comparison of participant
responses within different groups. The short duration of data collection was an additional
limitation since data could not be collected beyond the three weeks in keeping with participants’
busy schedules. Although Creswell (2016) recommends intensive, long-term involvement in rich
data collection to improve validity, these strategies were not feasible for the duration of the data
collection.
Delimitations are elements of the study the research can control. The researcher chose to
study teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention because the intent was to provide
actionable, context-based solutions to the school leadership and faculty. McMillan and Schumar
(1993) suggested that “some studies of highly sensitive problems probably could not be done by
an outside investigator” (p. 416). The position of the researcher as both the practitioner and
investigator provided an opportunity for deeper understanding of intervention experiences and
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

163
realities of the participants. The evidence-based recommendations of the study are expected to
contribute to the school’s goal of improving support to all students. Since bullying research
traditionally relied on quantitative methods, the researcher selected a convergent, mixed methods
approach to build on past quantitative studies and extend qualitative inquiry into teacher
support.
Future Research
The findings of this study and the literature that guided its development and analysis lend
to several recommendations for future research that could extend further inquiry into the
influences of teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention. This research study
utilized a convergent, parallel mixed method design to identify and analyze gap analytic
influences. While the study provided critical insights with the respect to the research questions,
the weakness of the convergent design was its inherent inability to explain mechanisms or
contexts behind quantitative relationships in qualitative terms through the voices of the
participants (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
For instance, the teachers’ quantitative ratings of bullying and non-bullying types
suggested a conceptual gap in their understanding of different forms of aggression. However, the
researcher was unable to uncover teachers’ perspectives, ideas or rationales for their quantitative
ratings in the interviews due to the nature of the convergent design methodology and limited
time constraints for data collection. A recommendation for future research is to utilize an
explanatory sequential mixed methods design where the quantitative data is collected first and
then analyzed with explanations with in-depth qualitative data. Specifically, the second phase
where qualitative data collection builds upon the quantitative data will provide the opportunity to
interpret quantitative results in a more holistic manner.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

164
Another recommendation is to extend the examination of teachers’ gap analytic
influences over a longer period of time and with a larger sample size. A longitudinal study would
facilitate a deeper understanding of the social-ecological influences that affect teachers’
knowledge and motivation pertaining to bullying prevention and intervention. A larger sample
size of teachers could yield data for comparative statistics between different teacher groups
across grade teaching levels to identify how teacher support is provisioned in different grades at
the middle school level.
Finally, extending research across more than one middle school may confirm the validity
of identified influences using the gap analytic framework as a common denominator. This
research study was limited to the context of one middle school, which impacts the
generalizability of the findings. Examining gap analytic influences across multiple middle school
contexts would be useful in determining whether the identified influenced are generalizable to
other middle schools.
Conclusion
School bullying is often associated with serious long-term emotional and psychological
damage for students involved in the bullying dynamic (Barker et al., 2008; Gini & Espelage,
2014; Holt & Espelage, 2007). Because bullying often occurs in schools
teachers are essential to prevention and intervention efforts (Acquadro-Maran, Tirassa, &
Begotti, 2017). Yet, these efforts are weakened when teacher-student relationships are not
considered (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010). Empathy-based relationships with students can
provide teachers the opportunity to view the whole child in relation to their social ecology in
which he or she is embedded and in turn, respond with appropriate intervention measures.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

165
As discussed in Chapter 1, Westwood School’s 2017 survey data, prior to the current
study, revealed that more than half of the students did not believe that their teachers liked them,
cared about them, or were interested in their well-being. Ultimately, if students believe that their
teachers do not empathize with them or care about them, they are less likely to disclose
victimization (Novick & Isaacs, 2010) and less likely to desist from bullying behavior and
improve prosocial skills (Roth & Bibi, 2009). Although teachers are not a direct constituent of
the peer ecology, they have considerable influence on the peer ecology by acting as bridging
agents to shaping students’ social behavior in other settings (National Academies of Sciences,
2016).
Given Westwood School’s organizational goal of improving empathy-based teacher
support by 50%, this study sought to identify the influences of and barriers to teacher support in
bullying prevention and intervention practices at a middle school based in Bangalore, India.
Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework, the study identified four knowledge
gaps, one motivational gap and two organizational gaps that may have inhibited teacher support
in BPI practices. The KMO gaps identified in this study must be addressed in order to bridge the
empathy gap in teacher support practices.
One of the knowledge gaps that warrants attention is teachers’ construal of empathy as a
problem-solving construct. It is understandably challenging for teachers to resist the urge to
make an immediate appraisal of bullying reports and “fix” students’ problems. However,
offering an empathetic ear in lieu of judgement can go a long way in emotionally validating a
child who feels isolated and misunderstood. Empathy-based interactions, which include
listening, acknowledging one’s feelings and taking the others’ perspective, can give students the
feeling that someone cares for them (Noddings, 2005).
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

166
Finally, the findings from this study compels school administrators and teachers from
Westwood School to engage in empathy-based interactions with students involved in bullying.
The study offers evidence-based recommendations, along with a comprehensive implementation
and evaluation plan, to bridge the empathy gap in teacher support practices in alignment with
Westwood School’s organizational goal. Teacher support is inextricably linked with positive
relationships with students, which cannot occur without teachers’ empathic expression, concern
and effort to support students’ well-being.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

167
References
Acquadro Maran, D., Tirassa, M., & Begotti, T. (2017). Teachers’ intervention in school
bullying: A qualitative analysis on Italian teachers. Frontiers in Education, 2.
doi:10.3389/feduc.2017.00036.
Akos, P., Rose, R. A., & Orthner, D. (2015). sociodemographic moderators of middle school
transition effects on academic achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(2),
170–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614529367.
Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. Classroom
Management, 34(1), 15-28. Retrieved from https://wp.auburn.edu/educate/.
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Research, 92(2), 86–99. doi:10.1080/00220679809597580.
Ayers, S. L., Wagaman, M. A., Geiger, J. M., Bermudez-Parsai, M., & Hedberg, E. C. (2012).
Examining school-based bullying interventions using multilevel discrete time hazard
modeling. Prevention Science, 13(5), 539–550. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0280-7.
Azam, M., Kingdon, G., & Wu, K. B. (2016). Impact of private secondary schooling on
cognitive skills: Evidence from India. Education Economics, 24(5), 465–480.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2015.1110116.
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.),
Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness: Essays in honor of the
60th birthday of August Flammer (pp. 17-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

168
Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N., & Maughan, B. (2008). Joint
development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: Relations to delinquency and
self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47,
1030-38. Retrieved from https://www.jaacap.org/.
Baker, J., Fisher, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The Teacher-Student Relationship As a
Developmental Context for Children With Internalizing or Externalizing Behavior
Problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3–15. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3
Barr, J. J. (2011). The relationship between teachers’ empathy and perceptions of school culture.
Educational Studies, 37(3), 365–369. doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.506342.
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios:
Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 219–231. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219.
Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for
handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856.
doi:10.1080/01443410802379085.
Bauman, S., & Yoon, J. (2014). This Issue: Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying. Theory Into
Practice, 53(4), 253–256. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947215
Bell, C. D., Raczynski, K. A., & Horne, A. M. (2010). Bully busters abbreviated: Evaluation of a
group-based bully intervention and prevention program. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 14(3), 257–267. doi:10.1037/a0020596.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

169
Bellflower, T. (2010). Examining the perceptions of school violence through the views of middle
school students, parents, teachers, and community members (Doctoral dissertation,
Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/724/
Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Bakhtiari, F. (2017). Understanding students’ transition to high
school: Demographic variation and the role of supportive relationships. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 46(10), 2129–2142. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0716-2.
Benoliel, P., & Barth, A. (2017). The implications of the school’s cultural attributes in the
relationships between participative leadership and teacher job satisfaction and burnout.
Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), 640–656. doi:10.1108/JEA-10-2016-0116.
Berkowitz, R. (2014). Student and teacher responses to violence in school: The divergent views
of bullies, victims, and bully-victims. School Psychology International, 35(5), 485–503.
doi:10.1177/0143034313511012.
Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety, and absence
from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bully‐victims. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 67–74. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01132.x.
Bierman, K. L. (2011). The promise and potential of studying the “invisible hand” of teacher
influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 297–303. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.004.
Bouchard, K., & Smith, J. D. (2017). Teacher-student relationship quality and children’s
bullying experiences with peers: Reflecting on the mesosystem. The Educational Forum,
81(1), 108–125. doi:10.1080/00131725.2016.1243182.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

170
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 223–233. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8279.1997.tb01239.x.
Boulton, M. J. (2013). Teachers’ self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness beliefs, and reported use
of cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying among pupils: Effects of in-service
training with the I DECIDE program. Behavior Therapy, 45(3), 328–343.
doi:10.1016/j.beth.2013.12.004.
Boulton, M. J., Boulton, L., Down, J., Sanders, J., & Craddock, H. (2017). Perceived barriers
that prevent high school students seeking help from teachers for bullying and their effects
on disclosure intentions. Journal of Adolescence, 56, 40–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.009.
Boyer, W. (2010). Empathy development in teacher candidates. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 38(4), 313–321. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0419-8.
Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American
Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332. doi:10.1037/a0039114.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at
school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology
Review, 36(3), 361–382. Retrieved from http://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr.
Brendgen, M., & Poulin, F. (2018). Continued bullying victimization from childhood to young
adulthood: A longitudinal study of mediating and protective factors. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 46(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0314-5.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

171
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003). Building trusting relationships for school improvement:
Implications for principals and teachers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Bucchianeri, M. M., Gower, A. L., McMorris, B. J., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2016). Youth
experiences with multiple types of prejudice-based harassment. Journal of Adolescence,
51(1), 68–75. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.012.
Burleson, B., Hanasono, L., Bodie, G., Holmstrom, A., Rack, J., Gill Rosier, J., & McCullough,
J. (2009). Explaining Gender Differences in Responses to Supportive Messages: Two
Tests of a Dual-Process Approach. Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 265–280. Doi:10.1007/s11199-
009-9623-7
Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., Spröber, N., Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2015). How teachers respond
to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator
effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education,
51(1), 191–202. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.004.
Cantin, S., & Boivin, M. (2004). Change and stability in children’s social network and self-
perceptions during transition from elementary to junior high school. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(6), 561–570. doi:10.1080/01650250444000289.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

172
Carnegie Corp. of New York. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st
century: The report of the task force on education of young adolescents. New York, NY:
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.
Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, K. (2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer
victimization: Concern, consequences, and implications. Professional School Counseling,
5(2), 138–147. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/school-
counselors/publications-position-statements/professional-school-counseling-journal.
Chang, L., Liu, H., Fung, K. Y., Wang, Y., Wen, Z., Li, H., & Farver, J. M. (2007). The
mediating and moderating effects of teacher preference on the relations between students’
social behaviors and peer acceptance. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(4), 603–630.
Retrieved from https://www.wsupress.wayne.edu/journals/detail/merrill-palmer-
quarterly.
Cholewa, B., Goodman, R., West-Olatunji, C., & Amatea, E. (2014). A Qualitative Examination
of the Impact of Culturally Responsive Educational Practices on the Psychological Well-
Being of Students of Color. The Urban Review, 46(4), 574–596. Doi: 10.1007/s11256-
014-0272-y
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Coelho, V. A., Marchante, M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2017). Promoting a positive middle school
transition: A randomized-controlled treatment study examining self-concept and self-
esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 558–569.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0510-6.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

173
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking
visible. American Educator, 4(6), 6-91. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/our-
news/periodicals/american-educator.
Connolly, J., Josephson, W., Schnoll, J., Simkins-Strong, E., Pepler, D., MacPherson, A., …&
Jiang, D. (2015). Evaluation of a youth-led program for preventing bullying, sexual
harassment, and dating aggression in middle schools. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
35(3), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614535090.
Cooper, B. (2004). Empathy, interaction and caring: Teachers’ roles in a constrained
environment. Pastoral Care in Education, 22(3), 12–21. doi:10.1111/j.0264-
3944.2004.00299.x.
Cornell, D., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). From a culture of bullying to a climate of support: The
evolution of bullying prevention and research. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 499–
503. Retrieved from http://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr.
Coupal, L. (2005). Practitioner-Research and the Regulation of Research Ethics: The Challenge
of Individual, Organizational, and Social Interests. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 6.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Reciprocity through the lens of the psychological
contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11(10, 1-18. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/pewo20/current.
Coyle, H. E. (2008). School culture benchmarks: Bridges and barriers to successful bullying
prevention program implementation. Journal of School Violence, 7(2), 105–122.
doi:10.1300/J202v07n02_07.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

174
Craig, K., Bell, D., & Leschied, A. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge and attitudes
regarding school-based bullying. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de
l’Éducation, 34(2), 21–33. Retrieved from http://cje-rce.ca/.
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 48(2), 86–93. doi:10.1037/cp2007010.
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward
bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21(1), 5–21.
doi:10.1177/0143034300211001.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in
the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36.
doi:10.1177/0143034300211002.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive
children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer
provocations. Child Development, 73(4), 1134–1142. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00462.
Crothers, L. M., Kolbert, J. B., & Barker, W. F. (2006). Middle school students’ preferences for
anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International, 27(4), 475–487.
doi:10.1177/0143034306070435.
Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do these criteria
conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 27(10), 1889–1910. doi:10.1177/0886260511431436.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

175
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2003). Teacher perceptions and
practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal of School Health, 73(9), 347–
355. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb04191.x.
Danby, S., Theobald, M., & Ebrary, I. (2012). Disputes in everyday life: social and moral orders
of children and young people (1st ed., Vol. 15). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Davis, S., & Nixon, C. (2010). The youth voice research project: Victimization and strategies.
Retrieved from http://njbullying.org/documents/YVPMarch2010.pdf
Deb, S., Strodl, E., & Sun, J. (2014). Academic-related stress among private secondary school
students in India. Asian Education and Development Studies, 3(2), 118–134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-02-2013-0007.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 54–58. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2006.00406.x.
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Secord, S. M., & Lyell, K. M. (2013). Agreement among
students’, teachers’, and parents’ perceptions of victimization by bullying. Children and
Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2091–2100. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.018.
Di Stasio, M. R., Savage, R., & Burgos, G. (2016). Social comparison, competition and teacher-
student relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts bullying and victimization.
Journal of Adolescence, 53(2), 207–216. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Coie, J. D., & Christopoulos, C. (1990). On the development of
aggressive dyadic relationships in boys’ peer groups. Human Development, 33(4–5),
260–270. doi:10.1159/000276523.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

176
Eccles, J. S. (2006). A motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for
learning, teaching, and supporting. In R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Optimizing
student success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and
responsibility (pp. 199-224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School
Psychology, 48(6), 533–553. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001.
Ellis, A. A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation
and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 649–663.
Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/20448279.
Erikson, E. H. (1974). Dimensions of a new identity. New York, NY: Norton.
Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and
victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947216.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Evans, C. R., & Smokowski, P. R. (2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics:
Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2289-
2307. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5.
Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers'
beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-244. doi:10.1348/000709902158865
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

177
Farmer, T. W., Dawes, M., Hamm, J. V., Lee, D., Mehtaji, M., Hoffman, A. S., & Brooks, D. S.
(2018). Classroom social dynamics management: Why the invisible hand of the teacher
matters for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 39(3), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517718359.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what,
when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior.
Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100
Fernndez-Olano, C., Montoya-Fernndez, J., & Salinas-Snchez, A. (2008). Impact of clinical
interview training on the empathy level of medical students and medical residents.
Medical Teacher, 30, 322–324. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701802299
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand
by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on
quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636–649. doi:10.1002/pits.20404.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5.
Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). School bullies’ intention to
change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal,
condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17(8),
1034–1043. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

178
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2015). From teasing to torment: School climate
revisited, a survey of U.S. secondary school students and teachers. Retrieved September
22, 2018 from www.glsen.org.
Gearhart, C., & Bodie, G. (2011). Active-Empathic Listening as a General Social Skill: Evidence
from Bivariate and Canonical Correlations. Communication Reports, 24(2), 86–98.
Doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.610731
Gimenez-Gualdo, A., Arnaiz-Sanchez, P., Cerezo-Ramirez, F., & Prodocimo, E. (2018).
Teachers’ and students’ perception about cyberbullying. Intervention strategies in
Primary and secondary education. COMUNICAR, 26(56), 29–38. doi:10.3916/C56-2018-
03.
Gini, G., & Espelage, D. D. (2014). Peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide risk in
children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 312, 545-546. Retrieved from
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/.
Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying
surveillance among youth: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data
elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated
professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education,
22(2), 179–193. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.004.
Goldbaum, S., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2003). Developmental trajectories of
victimization: Identifying risk and protective factors. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 19(2), 139–156. doi:10.1300/J008v19n02_09.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

179
Good, R. (2011). Formative use of assessment information: It’s a process, so let’s say what we
mean. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 16(3), 1-6. Retrieved from
https://pareonline.net/.
Gray, J. (2016). Investigating the role of collective trust, collective efficacy, and enabling school
structures on overall school effectiveness. Education Leadership Review, 17(1), 114–128.
Retrieved from https://www.icpel.org/ed-leadership-review.html
Green, J. G., Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., & Kras, J. E. (2013). Identifying bully
victims: Definitional versus behavioral approaches. Psychological Assessment, 25(2),
651–657. doi:10.1037/a0031248.
Griffith, R., Bauml, M., & Quebec-Fuentes, S. (2016). Promoting metacognitive decision-
making in teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 242–249.
doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1173997.
Guerin, S., & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 17(3), 249–261. doi:10.1007/BF03173535.
Haltigan, J. D., & Vaillancourt, T. (2014). Joint trajectories of bullying and peer victimization
across elementary and middle school and associations with symptoms of
psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 50(11), 2426–2436.
doi:10.1037/a0038030.
Harness Goodwin, M. (2002). Exclusion in girls’ peer groups: Ethnographic analysis of language
practices on the playground. Human Development, 45(6), 392–415.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000066260.
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and Instruction (pp.
23-69). New York: City College; University of New York.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

180
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school
bullying situations. Educational Research, 43(2), 133–145.
doi:10.1080/00131880110051137.
Hellström, L., Persson, L., & Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying -
adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73(1), 4–4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-73-4.
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2016). Social-emotional competencies among teachers: An
examination of interrelationships. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1151996.
doi:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1151996.
Hinde, E. R. (2004). School culture and change: An examination of the effects of school culture
on the process of change. Essays in Education, 12(1), 61–72. Retrieved from
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=28862&tip=sid.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14(3), 206–221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and
bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 984–994.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer
victimization in school. Educational Review, 64(1), 115–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598917.
Hord, S. M. (2007). Learn in community with others. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 39-
40. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-0276-928X/.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

181
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3(4), 81-150. Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-
contemporary-business/oclc/1754519.
Hughes, J. N., & Chen, Q. (2011). Reciprocal effects of student-teacher and student-peer
relatedness: Effects on academic self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(5), 278–287. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.03.005.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An
Introduction. American Psychologist, 70(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038928.
Immordino-Yang, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Krone, C. (2019). Nurturing Nature: How Brain
Development Is Inherently Social and Emotional, and What This Means for Education.
Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 185–204. Doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1633924
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1 of 3) (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Izadinia, M. (2015). A closer look at the role of mentor teachers in shaping preservice teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.003.
Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence
cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of General Strain Theory. Computers
in Human Behavior, 31(1), 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.007.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

182
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693.
Jia, M., & Mikami, A. (2018). Issues in the assessment of bullying: Implications for
conceptualizations and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, 108–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.004.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kallestad, J. H., & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the
Olweus bullying prevention program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1),
Article 21. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does
Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A
Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change.
In R. Villa & J. Thousands. (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education:
Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93-128). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

183
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying:
Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer
victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 431–453.
Doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.005
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral
stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2018). The 2017
National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation's Schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN). 121 West 27th Street Suite 804, New York, NY 10001.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the
digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kshirsagar, V. Y., Agarwal, R., & Bavdekar, S. B. (2007). Bullying in schools: Prevalence and
short-term impact. Indian Pediatrics, 44(1), 25-28. Retrieved from
https://www.indianpediatrics.net/.
Kumar, K. (1992). Does class size really make a difference? Exploring classroom interaction in
large and small classes. RELC Journal, 23(1), 29–47. doi:10.1177/003368829202300103.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

184
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives: Related
spheres of influence? Child Development, 70(6), 1373–1400. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00101.
Lamm, C., Batson, C., & Decety, J. (2007). The Neural Substrate of Human Empathy: Effects of
Perspective-taking and Cognitive Appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1),
42–58. Doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
Leemis, R. W., Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., Mercer Kollar, L. M., & Davis, J. P. (2019).
Traditional and cyber bullying and sexual harassment: A longitudinal assessment of risk
and protective factors. Aggressive Behavior, 45(2), 181–192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21808.
Levine, E., & Tamburrino, M. (2014). Bullying among young children: Strategies for prevention.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-
013-0600-y.
Lofthouse, R., & Thomas, U. (2017). Concerning collaboration: teachers’ perspectives on
working in partnerships to develop teaching practices. Professional Development in
Education, 43(1), 36–56. Doi:10.1080/19415257.2015.1053570
Longobardi, C., Iotti, N. O., Jungert, T., & Settanni, M. (2018). Student-teacher relationships and
bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.001.
Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2016). Student-teacher relationships
as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high
school. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/
psychology.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

185
Louis, K. S., & Murphy, J. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader’s role.
Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-
2016-0077.
MacNeil, G. A., & Newell, J. M. (2004). School bullying: Who, why, and what to do. Prevention
Researcher, 11(3), 15–17. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/thepreventionresearcher
Marshall, M. L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., & Skoczylas, R. B. (2009). Teacher
responses to bullying: Self-reports from the front line. Journal of School Violence, 8(2),
136–158. doi:10.1080/15388220802074124.
Marshall, P. A. (2004). Informed consent in international health research. Journal of Empirical
Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 25-41. doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.25.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal Relationships, Motivation, Engagement, and
Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational Practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365. Doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583
Martínez, I., Murgui, S., Garcia, F., & Garcia, O. F. (2019). Parenting in the digital era:
Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying
victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90(Journal Article), 84–92.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.63.8.760.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

186
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction
(3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health‐
risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support.
Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284–292. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08285.x.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487–503.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective
interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740.
Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student
aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions
to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 661–685.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ Understanding of Bullying.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’Éducation, 28(4), 718–738.
doi:10.2307/4126452.
Mockler, N. (2014). When ‘research ethics’ become ‘everyday ethics’: The intersection of
inquiry and practice in practitioner research. Educational Action Research, 22.
Doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.856771
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

187
Modecki, K. L., Ph. D., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Ph. D., Guerra, N. G., Ph. D., & Runions,
K. C., P.H (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber
and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Bullying in
different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 14(2), 146–156. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004.
Murphy, H. R., Tubritt, J., & Norman, J. O.-H. (2018). The role of empathy in preparing teachers
to tackle bullying. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(1), 17-23.
Retrieved from https://naerjournal.ua.es/.
Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher–student relationship program in a
high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and
lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology - J SCH PSYCHOL, 43, 137–152. Doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2005.01.003
Murray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. (2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school
bullying. School Psychology International, 31(2), 271–295.
doi:10.1177/0143034310366206.
National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2016). Preventing Bullying Through
Science, Policy, and Practice. Doi:10.17226/23482
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). Student reports of bullying and cyberbullying:
Results from the 2013 school crime supplement to the National Victimization Survey.
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubs
info.asp?pubid=2015056
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

188
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2018). Evaluation and measurement of
outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-
resources/evaluation-and-measurement-of-outcomes
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’
definitions of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 553–576.
doi:10.1348/00070990SX52229.
Nelemans, S., Hale, W., Branje, S., Meeus, W., & Rudolph, K. (2018). Individual differences in
anxiety trajectories from Grades 2 to 8: Impact of the middle school transition.
Development and Psychopathology, 30(4), 1487–1501.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417001584.
Nelson, H. J., Burns, S. K., Kendall, G. E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2018). The factors that
influence and protect against power imbalance in covert bullying among preadolescent
children at school: A thematic analysis. The Journal of School Nursing, 34(4), 281–291.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517748417.
Newman‐Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention
for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 82(3), 259–267. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00309.x.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education and caring. Theory and Research in Education, 8(2), 145–
151. doi:10.1177/1477878510368617.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

189
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., …& Duhon,
G. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A
comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 87–106.
Retrieved from http://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Norwalk, K. E., Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., & Barnes, K. L. (2016). Improving the school
context of early adolescence through teacher attunement to victimization: Effects on
school belonging. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(7), 989–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615590230.
Novick, R. M., & Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: The impact of student reports of
bullying on teacher intervention. Educational Psychology, 30(3), 283–296. Retrieved
from https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cedp20/current.
Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage
empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5221–5226. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523698113.
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of “telling.” Oxford Review of
Education, 33(1), 71–86. doi:10.1080/03054980601094594.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current
perspectives (pp. 97–130). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_5.
Olweus, D. (2004). Bullying is not a fact of life. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

190
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124–
134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher
professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19–24.
doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0233-0.
Pajares, F. (2007). Culturalizing educational psychology. In F. Sahh & R. Hoosain (Eds.),
Culture, motivation, and learning (pp. 19–42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom
social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 83-98. Doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Perkins, H. W., Perkins, J. M., & Craig, D. W. (2014). No safe haven: Locations of harassment
and bullying victimization in middle schools. Journal of School Health, 84(12), 810–818.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12208.
Perlus, J. G., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., & Iannotti, R. J. (2014). Trends in bullying, physical
fighting, and weapon carrying among 6th-through 10th-grade students from 1998 to
2010: Findings from a National study. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 1100–
1106. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301761.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (1980). Aggression in the schools. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(3), 323–
324. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4403_21.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and
engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom
interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

191
research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). New York, NY, US: Springer Science +
Business Media. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Poland, S., & Lieberman, R. (2018). Bullying and suicide revisited: What schools can do now.
Communique, 46(5), 8-9. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/
communique/index.aspx.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in
adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 30(4), 479–491.
doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05.
Raj, K., Aluede, O., McEachern, A.G., & Kenny, M.C. (2005). A new perspective on managing
school bullying: Pre-service teachers’ attitudes. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 43-49.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide
research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with Mild Disabilities (pp. 169-201).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company.
Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student
adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development and
Psychopathology, 15(1), 119–138. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000075.
Richard, J., Schneider, B., & Mallet, P. (2012). Revisiting the whole-school approach to
bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33, 263–
284. doi:10.1177/0143034311415906.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

192
Riess, H., Kelley, J., Bailey, R., Dunn, E., & Phillips, M. (2012). Empathy Training for Resident
Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Neuroscience-Informed Curriculum.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 1280–1286. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2063-z
Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their
implications. School Psychology International, 25(3), 287–300.
doi:10.1177/0143034304046902.
Rigby, K. (2017). Bullying in Australian schools: The perceptions of victims and other students.
Social Psychology of Education, 20(3), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-
9372-3.
Rigby, K. (2018). Exploring the gaps between teachers’ beliefs about bullying and research-
based knowledge. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 6(3), 165–
175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1314835.
Rodkin, P., Espelage, D., & Hanish, L. (2015). A Relational Framework for Understanding
Bullying Developmental Antecedents and Outcomes. The American Psychologist, 70,
311–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038658
Rogers, C. R. (1995). What understanding and acceptance mean to me. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 35(4), 7–22. doi:10.1177/00221678950354002.
Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and
victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special
Education, 32(2), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361247.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

193
Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Preast, J. L. (2018). Pre-service special and general
educators’ perceptions of bullying. Exceptionality Education International, 28(2), 33–54.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost (No. 133693477).
Rose, C. A., Nickerson, A. B., & Stormont, M. (2015). Advancing bullying research from a
social-ecological lens: An introduction to the special issue. School Psychology Review,
44(4), 339–352. doi:10.17105/15-0134.1.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The Influence of Affective
Teacher–Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement: A
Meta-Analytic Approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. Doi:
10.3102/0034654311421793
Roth, G., & Bibi, U. (2009). Beyond external control: Internalization of prosocial values as
important in preventing bullying at school. Planning and Changing, 40(3/4), 242–254.
Retrieved from https://education.illinoisstate.edu/planning/manuscript/.
Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2011). Prevention of school bullying: The important
role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social values. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 654–666. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.002003.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rutledge, S. A., Cohen-Vogel, L., Osborne-Lampkin, L., & Roberts, R. L. (2015).
Understanding Effective High Schools: Evidence for Personalization for Academic and
Social Emotional Learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1060–1092.
Doi:10.3102/0002831215602328
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

194
Ryoo, J. H., Wang, C., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Examination of the change in latent statuses in
bullying behaviors across time. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 105–122.
doi:10.1037/spq0000082.
Saarento-Zaprudin, S., Karna, A., Hodges, E., & Salmivalli, S. (2013). Student-, classroom-, and
school-level risk factors for victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 51(3), 421-434.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.02.002.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Salmon, S., Turner, S., Taillieu, T., Fortier, J., & Afifi, T. O. (2018). Bullying victimization
experiences among middle and high school adolescents: Traditional bullying,
discriminatory harassment, and cybervictimization. Journal of Adolescence, 63(1), 29–
40. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.005.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2001). The Science of Training: A Decade of Progress. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
Santhya, K. G., Zavier, A. J. F., & Jejeebhoy, S. J. (2015). School quality and its association with
agency and academic achievements in girls and boys in secondary schools: Evidence
from Bihar, India. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 35–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.12.002.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-
theory/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

195

Schumann, K., Zaki, J., & S Dweck, C. (2014). Addressing the empathy deficit: Beliefs about the
malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036738.
Schwartz, D., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2015). Peer
victimization during middle childhood as a lead indicator of internalizing problems and
diagnostic outcomes in late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 44(3), 393–404. doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.881293.
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K., & Blakemore, S. (2013). Social brain development and
the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition, 83(1), 92–
92. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.07.008.
Sercombe, H., & Donnelly, B. (2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics.
Journal of Youth Studies, 16(4), 491–502. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.725834.
Shireen, F., Janapana, H., Rehmatullah, S., Temuri, H., & Azim, F. (2014). Trauma experience
of youngsters and teens: A key issue in suicidal behavior among victims of bullying?
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(1), 206-10. Retrieved from
http://www.pjms.org.pk/index.php/pjms.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
Singal, N. (2008). Working towards inclusion: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24(6), 1516–1529. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.01.008.
Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance: Zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice.
Policy Research Report SRS2. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

196
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.
Smith, P. A., & Birney, L. L. (2005). The organizational trust of elementary schools and
dimensions of student bullying, International Journal of Educational Management,
19(6), 469-485. doi:10.1108/09513540510617427.
Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research.
Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 1–9. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1<1::AID-
AB1>3.0.CO;2-7.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., Andy P. D. Liefooghe, Almeida, A., Araki, H.,&
Wenxin, Z. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and
gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development,
73(4), 1119–1133. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00461.
Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-
victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 565–581. doi:10.1348/0007099042376427.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239–268.
doi:10.1002/ab.10047.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to
managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777–800.
doi:10.1177/0013161X05279448.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

197
Somech, A., & Oplatka, I. (2009). Coping With school violence through the lens of teachers’
role breadth: The impact of participative management and job autonomy. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 424–449. doi:10.1177/0013161X09334278.
Steele, R. G., Elkin, T. D., & Roberts, M. C. (2008). Handbook of evidence-based therapies for
children and adolescents: Bridging science and practice. New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73691-4.
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 7–23. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_02.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 257–285.
Tettegah, S., & Anderson, C. J. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ empathy and cognitions: Statistical
analysis of text data by graphical models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(1),
48–82. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.010.
Tharp-Taylor, S., Haviland, A., & D’Amico, E. J. (2009). Victimization from mental and
physical bullying and substance use in early adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 34(6),
561–567. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.03.012.
Towl, P. (2014). Would the real bully please stand up? New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, 49(1), 59–71. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/40841.
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies:
Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(1), 45–60. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

198
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential
ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66–
92. doi:10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0024.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7(1), 27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.
Turner, S., Taillieu, T., Fortier, J., Salmon, S., Cheung, K., & Afifi, T. O. (2018). Bullying
victimization and illicit drug use among students in Grades 7 to 12 in Manitoba, Canada:
A cross-sectional analysis. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 109(2), 183–194.
doi:10.17269/s41997-018-0030-0.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). UNESCO report reveals high levels of violence and
bullying in schools. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-report-reveals-
high-levels-violence-and-bullying-schools
United Nations. (1991). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C.
(2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486–495.
doi:10.1177/0165025408095553.
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive
load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and
Instruction, 12, 87–105.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

199
Visconti, K. J., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). Prospective relations between children’s responses
to peer victimization and their socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 261–272. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.05.003.
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic review
and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 423–434. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008.
Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F., & Simons, R. J. (2015). Promoting effective teacher-
feedback: From theory to practice through a multiple component trajectory for
professional development. Teachers and Teaching, 21(8), 990–1009.
doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1005868.
Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition.
Developmental Review, 34(4), 327–343. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001.
Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying?
Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying
research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36(Journal Article), 34–43.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003.
Vollet, J. W., Kindermann, T. A., & Skinner, E. A. (2017). In peer matters, teachers matter: Peer
group influences on students’ engagement depend on teacher involvement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000172.
Wang, C., Swearer, S. M., Lembeck, P., Collins, A., & Berry, B. (2015). Teachers matter: An
examination of student-teacher relationships, attitudes toward bullying, and bullying
behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31(3), 219–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2015.1056923.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

200
Wang, D., & Fletcher, A. C. (2017). The role of interactions with teachers and conflict with
friends in shaping school adjustment. Social Development, 26(3), 545–559.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12218.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health,
45(4), 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., Luk, J. W., & Nansel, T. R. (2010). Co-occurrence of victimization
from five subtypes of bullying: Physical, verbal, social exclusion, spreading rumors, and
cyber. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(10), 1103–1112. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq048.
Wellings, K., Branigan, P., & Mitchell, K. (2000). Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data:
Using focus groups to research sensitive topics. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 2(3), 255–
267. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910500422241.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children
and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 135–155.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.002.
Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(1), 37–45. Retrieved from
http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net/.
Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention
strategies. Research in Education, 69(1), 27–35. doi:10.7227/RIE.69.3.
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

201
Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school:
Educational implications of developmental research. Journal of Early Adolescence,
24(3), 303–318. doi:10.1177/0272431604265681.
Yoon, J., & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bullying
prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 308–314.
doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.947226.
Yu, M., Johnson, H., Deutsch, N., & Varga, S. (2018). “She calls me by my last name”:
Exploring adolescent perceptions of positive teacher-student relationships. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 33(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416684958.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

202
APPENDIX A:
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research

Title of the Study: Bridging the Empathy Gap: A Mixed Method Approach to Evaluating
Teacher Support in Bullying Prevention and Intervention at an Urban Middle School in India
Principal Investigator: Kiran Pai, University of Southern California
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Ekaterina Moore, University of Southern California
Email: kiran.pai@usc.edu

Dear Educators,

You are invited to take part in a research study related to teacher support in bullying prevention
and intervention practices at school. This research study is foundational to my dissertation in
exploring how schools provide support to students in preventing and intervening bullying
situations. I am conducting this study under the guidance and direction of Dr. Ekaterina
Moore, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for my doctoral degree at the Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California.

Ms. Karina Momary, an outside, third-party proxy researcher has been contracted to conduct the
study in my place, due to ethical considerations of my personal involvement in data collection.
You will find the contact and background details of the proxy researcher in this form.

This form is part of a process called “informed consent” that allows you to understand this study
and research process before deciding to participate.

Voluntary Participation
Participation in this study is voluntary and you can withdraw your involvement at any time.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You should read the information
below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled if you
choose not to participate or discontinue participation.

Please be assured:
• There is no professional risk to participation.
• All information obtained during this study will be securely maintained to assure
confidentiality and anonymity, and upon completion of this study all data will be deleted.
• Analysis and reporting of any data will be done so in such a way that the identity of
• study participants cannot and will not be identifiable.
• Your decision to participate in, not to participate in, or to withdraw from the study will
have no effect on hiring, promotion, performance evaluation or other employment
benefits.
• Your participation will have no impact on employment benefits.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

203
The purpose of this study is:

• to gain insight into potential influences of and barriers to support practices in bullying
prevention and intervention.
• To help improve school practices in bullying prevention and intervention with middle
school children.

Potential Benefits of the Study:

• By participating in this study, you will be directly influencing professional development
practices related to bullying prevention and intervention at the institutional level.
• By participating in this study, you will be improving our chances of truly decreasing
bullying among middle school children at school.

The methods that will be used to meet this purpose include:

• Online Survey
• One-on-one online audio-call interviews via Zoom or Skype

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality

The survey is designed to protect your privacy as it does not ask for identifying information such
as your name, subject department or grade teaching level. Your responses to the survey will
remain anonymous. Any information that could identify you will be removed from your
interview responses. The proxy researcher will only provide your transcribed data to the
principal investigator. The proxy researcher may request a follow-up interview based on your
consent and willingness to participate. Information from the follow-up interview will also be de-
identified in order to protect your privacy and confidentiality.

About the Proxy Researcher

Ms. Karina Momary is a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California. She is also the director of student life and community at Stanford Online
High School, USA. Education and Student Life are passions of hers. Her teaching focus has been
public speaking and debate and she has worked with students from around the world to improve
their debate skills. Karina has received her research ethics and compliance training from the
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative as mandated by the Institutional Review Board. For
any questions regarding the research process, you may contact Karina on email:
momary@usc.edu.

If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns or
suggestions and want to talk to someone other than the researchers about the study, please call
the University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board at: 213-821-
5272 or email upirb@usc.edu.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

204
By clicking the "consent" button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is
voluntary and that you are aware you may choose to end your participation in the survey and/or
interview at any time and for any reason.
• If you choose to participate in survey, you will be directed to a survey link.
• If you choose to participate only in the interview, you will be directed to a calendar link
where you will be asked to provide your convenient time and date to schedule an online
audio-call interview on either Skype or Zoom, as per your choice.
• If you choose to participate in both the survey and interview, you will be first directed to
the survey link and then asked to click on the interview schedule link at the end of the
survey.
• If you do not wish to participate, you may ignore this email or click on the decline option
provided.

Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some
features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.

Thank you!

􀀇 I consent to participating in both the survey and interview.
􀀇 I consent to participating in only the survey.
􀀇 I consent to participating in only the interview.
􀀇 No, I do not consent to participation.

With Warm Regards,
Kiran Pai

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

205
APPENDIX B:
Survey Protocol Guide

Welcome to the Teacher Support in Bullying Prevention and Intervention research study!

In advance, thank you for being willing to share your experience and views on the topic of
support practices in bullying prevention and intervention at the school. As part of my dissertation
research at the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California, this survey is
meant to better understand influences of and barriers to anti-bullying support.

You will be presented with a series of questions about bullying prevention and intervention and
asked to provide your response to each of the questions. The survey should take you
approximately 20 minutes to complete.
• Please be assured that all your responses will remain anonymous and that analysis of
individual data into summary reports will prevent any individual responses from being
traced to an individual respondent.
• There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in the study.
• Your participation in this research is voluntary.
• You have the right to withdraw at any point during the survey, for any reason, and
without penalty or prejudice.

By clicking the "consent" button, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is
voluntary and that you are aware you may choose to end your participation in this survey at any
time and for any reason.

􀀇 Yes, I consent to participation in this survey.
􀀇 No, I do not consent to participation.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

206
APPENDIX C:
Survey on Bullying Prevention and Intervention

Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Questionnaire

Section A: Defining Bullying

Directions: Think about how you define bullying. Please examine the defining characteristics
listed in Column A. In Column B indicate the extent to which that characteristic is critical for a
situation to be defined as bullying. For example, if anger was listed as a defining characteristic, a
rating of 5 would indicate that you believe that anger is an absolutely critical component of the
definition of bullying and must be present in any bullying situation. However, if you feel anger is
not at all critical to the definition of a bullying situation, you would rate it a 1.

Not at all Critical Absolutely Critical
1 2 3 4 5

Column A
Defining Characteristics
Column B
Critical for a situation to be defined as bullying
A1. Physical Aggression
(e.g., hitting, kicking, fighting, slapping)
1 2 3 4 5
A2. Verbal Aggression
(e.g., intimidation, abusive language,
mimicking, racist remarks)
1 2 3 4 5
A3. Sexual Aggression
(e.g., sexual harassment)
1 2 3 4 5
A4. Imbalance of Power Between Bully
and Victim
(e.g., bully is more popular, bully is
physically stronger)
1 2 3 4 5
A5. Intent to Cause Emotional or Physical
Harm to Victim
(e.g., systematic, does not happen in the
“heat of the moment”)
1 2 3 4 5
A6. Aggression is repeated over the course
of days, months, or years
(e.g., Bully(s) harasses victim over time,
Bully(s) harasses multiple victims)
1 2 3 4 5
A7. Aggression has an Unequal Level of
Affect
1 2 3 4 5
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

207
(e.g., Victim shows high levels of
emotional distress, bully displays little
emotion and often blames the victim)
A8. Verbal Indirect Aggression
(e.g., telling lies, spreading rumors)
1 2 3 4 5
A9. Behavioral Indirect Aggression
(e.g., social exclusion, ignoring)
1 2 3 4 5
A10. Instrumental Aggression
(e.g. acting defensively to protect oneself
or others)
1 2 3 4 5
A11. Retaliatory Aggression
(e.g. harming the bully in retaliation in the
“heat of the moment”)
1 2 3 4 5
A12. Jostling
(e.g. pretend aggression, mutual teasing,
play fights)
1 2 3 4 5

Section B: Empathy Formative Questionnaire
Please CHECK ONE response that best describes you. Be honest, since the information will be
used to help you in school and also help you become more prepared for bullying prevention and
intervention. There are no right or wrong answers.

B1: I try to see things from the
student's point of view.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B2: When I don't understand a
student's point of view, I ask
questions to learn more.
Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B3: When I disagree with a
student, it's hard for me to
understand their perspective.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B4: I consider a student's
circumstances when I'm talking
about them.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B5: I try to imagine how I would
feel in the student's situation.
Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

208
B6: When a student is upset, I try
to remember a time when I felt
the same way.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B7: Sometimes I wonder what it
would feel like to be in my
student's situation.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B8: When a student is upset, I try
to show them that I understand
how they feel.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B9: I say things like " I can see
why you feel that way."
Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B10: I've been known to say
"You are wrong" when a student
is sharing their opinion.

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B11: When a student is sad, my
actions let them know I
understand (like a hug or pat on
the back).

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B12: I say things like "Something
like that happened to me once, I
understand how you feel."

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B13: I've told my students things
like, "You shouldn't be upset
about that" or "Stop feeling that
way."

Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

B14: When I know one of my
students is upset, I try to talk to
them about it.
Not Very Like Me Very Like Me
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

209

Section C: The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)
Teachers have alternative ways of dealing with incidents of bullying in a school. To some extent,
what is done depends on the circumstances in which the bullying takes place, and the severity of
the bullying. It is, of course, sometimes difficult to generalize, but in answering the following
questions, indicate a response that best describes you.

C.1.
It is important for me to
demonstrate empathy with students
who bully others.

Not At All Important. Very Important
1 2 3 4 5

C.2.
It is important for me to
demonstrate empathy with students
who are bullied by others.

Not At All Important. Very Important
1 2 3 4 5

C.3.
It is important for me to
demonstrate empathy as a bullying
prevention strategy.
(E.g. role modelling empathetic
behavior)

Not At All Important. Very Important
1 2 3 4 5

C.4.
I feel confident in my ability to
demonstrate empathy with students
who bully others.

Not At All Confident. Very Confident
1 2 3 4 5

C.5.
I feel confident in my ability to
demonstrate empathy with students
who are bullied by others.

Not At All Confident. Very Confident
1 2 3 4 5

C.6.
I feel confident in my ability to
demonstrate empathy as a bullying
prevention strategy.(E.g. role
modelling empathetic behavior)
Not At All Confident. Very Confident
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

210
Imagine the following scenario:

A 12-year-old student is being repeatedly teased and called unpleasant names by another, more
powerful, student who has successfully persuaded other students to avoid the targeted person as
much as possible. As a result, the victim of this behavior is feeling angry, miserable, and often
isolated.

Please select the answer which is closest to what you think you would do.

I definitely
would
I probably
would
I am unsure I probably
would not
I definitely
would not
C.7.
I insist that the
bully “cut it out.

    
C.8
I would ignore it.

    
C.9.
I would make sure
the bully was
suitably punished.

    
C.10.
I would leave it for
someone else to
sort out.

    
C.11. I would
share my concern
with the bully
about what
happened to the
victim, and seek to
get the bully to
behave in a more
caring and
responsible
manner.
    
C.12. I would let
the students sort it
out themselves.

    
C.13. I would talk
to the victim to
    
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

211
understand the
incident that has
just occurred.

C.14. I would
discuss with the
bully options from
which he or she
could make a
choice in order to
improve the
situation.

    
C.15. I would send
the bully to the
principal.

    
C.16. I would just
tell the kids to
"grow up."

    
C.17.
I would warn the
bully of
punishment for his
or her actions.
    
C.18.
I would talk to the
victim about their
problems.

    
C.19.
I would talk to the
bully about their
problems.

    

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

212
Section D: Internal Trust Scale

Internal Trust-Scale Directions: The following are statements about your school. Please indicate
the extent to which you agree with each statement along a scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree.

D.1.
Teachers in this school trust the
principal.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.2.
Teachers in this school trust each
other.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.3.
Teachers in this school typically
support each other.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
D.4.
The teachers in this school have
faith in the integrity of the
principal.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.5.
The principal in this school
typically acts with the best interests
of the teachers in mind.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.6.
Teachers in this school believe in
each other.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.7.
Even in difficult situations, teachers
in this school can depend on each
other.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.8
Teachers in this school intervene
bullying situations well.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

213
D.9
Teachers in this school can rely on
the principal.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.10.
Teachers in this school have faith
in the integrity of their colleagues.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.11
The principal in this school is
competent in doing her job as it
relates to anti-bullying efforts.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.12.
Teachers in this school are open
with each other.
Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.13.
When teachers in this school tell
you something, you can believe it.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

D.14.
Teachers in this school show
concern for their students.

Strongly Disagree. Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

Section E: Collaboration Survey
To what extent do teacher committees influence decisions of this kind?

E1. Determining anti-bullying professional
development activities.

Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

E.2. Resolving student behavior problems

Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

E.3. Selecting bullying prevention
classroom lessons.

Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

214
E.4.. Evaluating anti-bullying programs for
students.

Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

E.5.. Developing consequences for rule
breaking pertaining to bullying.

Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

E.6. Determining school rules pertaining to
bullying.
Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

E.7. When it comes to resolving bullying
incidences, I receive consistent feedback
about the effectiveness of my strategies.

Very Rarely Very Often
1 2 3 4 5

E.8.
If I have questions about bullying
prevention strategies, I know who to turn
to.
Not at all Very Much
1 2 3 4 5

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

215
APPENDIX D:
Interview Protocol

Hi! Thank you for agreeing to talk with me today. My name is Karina Momary. I am a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California or USC in Los Angeles. I will be
conducting this interview with you on behalf of Ms. Kiran Pai, who is currently researching
bullying prevention for her doctoral studies at USC. Owing to ethics board regulations, Kiran
cannot conduct the interviews herself. It is important that you know that your responses will
remain confidential and will be used to develop a better understanding of how you and your
peers view anti-bullying practices. Kiran will only receive the raw interview data without
identifying information. The purpose of the study is to gain an understanding of the bullying
prevention and intervention efforts at your school. This interview will take about 40 minutes and
include 12 questions regarding your viewpoints on school-based anti-bullying practices. I would
like your permission to tape record this interview, so I may accurately document the information
you convey. If at any time during the interview you wish to discontinue the use of the recorder or
the interview itself, please feel free to let me know.
At this time, I would like to remind you of your written consent to participate in this
study. Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. If at any time you need to
stop or take a break, please let me know. You may also withdraw your participation at any time
without consequence. Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin? Then with your
permission we will begin the interview.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

216
Interview Questions

Note: The statement prompts in italics are designed as reference points for the proxy interviewer
and will not be asked in the interview.

1. What is your understanding of the word “bullying”?

2. What kinds of bullying have you seen in the past?
3. Do you think there is a difference between conflict and bullying?
a. If the participants says yes, how do you distinguish between the two?
b. If the participants says no, in what ways are conflict and bullying similar?

4. When students report a bullying incident to you, how do you interact with them?

5. How would you encourage students to share a problem about bullying with you?

6. Can you tell me about a time when you had to handle a bullying incident?

7. Your school goals include using empathy as a bullying prevention and intervention
strategy –

a. How do you feel about this?
b. What does empathy mean to you?
c. How do you feel about your ability to use empathy in dealing with bullies?...and
victims?
d. How do you feel about your ability in demonstrating empathy with students as a
prevention strategy?

8. Do all the school members, including the principal, support each other at school? In what
ways?
a. If not, what are the barriers?

9. Can you tell me about time you collaborated with colleagues about bullying issues?

10. Have you been involved in the school’s anti-bullying mission? How so?
a. If not, how would you like to be involved?

11. What resources are available in your school that would help you with your decisions
about intervening in bullying situations?
a. Who do you turn to for help about bullying intervention?

12. Do you get feedback about your decisions to intervene?
a. What kind of feedback?
b. How often?

Before we conclude this interview, is there anything else you would like to share?
BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

217
If participant wishes to discontinue study, conclude the interview. Thank participant for their
participation.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

218
APPENDIX E:
Permissions

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

219

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

220

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

221
APPENDIX G:
Observation Form
Select a response for each statement to indicate your level of agreement with regards to
the instructor’s training:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Comments
Instructor used language that is clear
and understandable to the
participants

Instructor asked questions and
encouraged discussions with
participants

Instructor provided
participants sufficient time for
practice

Instructor encouraged participants to
explain ideas covered in the training
session

Instructor addressed participant
misconceptions or barriers to
learning.

Instructor satisfactorily answered all
the participants’ questions.

Instructor explicitly relates
presentation to empathy-based
bullying prevention and intervention
practices.

BRIDGING THE EMPATHY GAP

222
Appendix H:
Course Evaluation
For each of the questions below, please select the response that best characterized how you feel
about the statement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The objectives of the training were
clearly defined.

Participation and interaction were
encouraged.

The content was organized and
easily to follow.

The subject matter was relevant to
me.

The training materials were useful to
me.

The instructor was well prepared.

The instructor provided feedback on
my performance.

I have the opportunity to apply what
I learned during training on the job.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify the influences of and barriers to teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention practices at a middle school based in Bangalore, India. Teacher support is critical in ameliorating negative outcomes associated with bullying involvement. However, most teachers feel underprepared to deal with bullying. Previous quantitative studies have indicated a flow-on effect from teachers’ lack of knowledge about bullying to inappropriate responses which contribute to an empathy gap in the provision for teacher support. Few empirical studies have provided a complete understanding of the empathy gap in teacher support using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Applying the Clark and Estes gap analytic framework, this convergent mixed methods study sought to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of teacher support. Survey data from forty-two middle school teachers and interview data from eleven teachers were collected in a single phase and then merged to identify performance gaps. The study found four knowledge influences, one motivation and two organizational influences that may have inhibited middle school teachers’ ability to provide anti-bullying support to students. Evidence-based recommendations along with an integrated implementation and evaluation plan using the New World Kirkpatrick model is presented.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Pai, Kiran (author)

Core Title Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/20/2019

Defense Date 10/10/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bullying,Empathy,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,Prevention,teacher support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Datta, Monique Claire (committee member), Rose, Chad A. (committee member)

Creator Email kiran.k.pai@gmail.com,kiranpai@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-236398

Unique identifier UC11673146

Identifier etd-PaiKiran-7946.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-236398 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PaiKiran-7946.pdf

Dmrecord 236398

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pai, Kiran

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA