A scalable empathic-mindset intervention reduces group disparities in school suspensions
Okonofua, J. A., Goyer, J. P., Lindsay, C. A., Haugabrook, J., & Walton, G. M. (2022). Science advances, 8(12), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj0691.
-
examining5,822Students, grades7-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Empathic Instruction)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Full sample (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
16.80 |
19.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Students with special education status (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
13.70 |
23.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one in-school suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Full sample (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
9.40 |
14.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Hispanic (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
11.40 |
16.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Black or Hispanic (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
20.80 |
26.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Full sample (QED sample);
|
17.30 |
22.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Black (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
30.70 |
36.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Students with prior suspensions (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
49.60 |
56.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Students without prior suspensions (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
10.60 |
12.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Students without special education status (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
17.00 |
18.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
At least one out-of-school suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Full sample (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
9.30 |
10.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
At least one suspension day |
Empathic Instruction vs. Instruction on using technology to promote learning—Okonofua et al. (2022) |
1 Semester |
Not Black or Hispanic (RCT longitudinal student sample);
|
14.90 |
15.90 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 49%
Other or unknown: 51% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Asian 6% Black 17% Other or unknown 14% Two or more races 5% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Other or unknown 85% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 20 middle schools across 17 cities within a large public district located in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 30 teachers to the intervention group and 36 teachers to the comparison group. A total of 5,822 students taught by these teachers in grades 8 and 9 were included in the study. Approximately 49% of the students were female and 6% had a special education status. 58% were White, 17% were Black, 6% were Asian, 5% were two or more races, and the rest did not report race. Fifteen percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
The "empathic-mindset" intervention is a brief online exercise aimed at enhancing teacher-student relationships by fostering an empathic approach to student misbehavior. The intervention includes targeted articles, narratives, and reflection exercises, completed at the beginning of the school year, emphasizing the importance of understanding students' perspectives and maintaining positive relationships during misbehavior. The intervention consists of a 45-minute module completed online and a 25-minute follow-up booster module.
Comparison Group
Comparison teachers received a training module which was a similar length as the empathic mindset intervention but that did not focus on misbehavior. The module focused on using technology to promote learning.
Support for implementation
Implementation support was not provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).