Analysis of a 90-minute online module shows that empathetic practices could enhance teamwork among STEM students, suggesting the need for new pedagogical strategies.
The growing demand for a globally competent STEM workforce showcases the importance of embedding empathy into undergraduate education. As a core dimension of global competence, empathy enables individuals to engage diverse perspectives and navigate collaborative challenges. Yet, within STEM curricula, affective empathy often receives less attention relative to cognitive and behavioral dimensions among students. This study investigated how a 90‐min self‐paced online module on cross‐cultural teamwork influenced STEM students' reflections on empathy. The research was guided by two questions: RQ1: How do STEM students' expressions of empathy differ across the three empathy dimensions when reflecting on multicultural teamwork scenarios? RQ 2: How do STEM students conceptualize and articulate empathetic practices in response to scenarios involving team interactions after completing the module on cross‐cultural collaboration? A total of 1763 first‐year STEM undergraduates completed scenario‐based reflection tasks embedded in the module. These reflections were analyzed using a combination of latent Dirichlet allocation and qualitative thematic analysis to capture both broad patterns and nuanced insights. The findings revealed that students relied primarily on logical reasoning and conscious decision‐making, with fewer demonstrations of affective empathy. Although cognitive and behavioral dimensions were articulated, affective responses appeared less frequently, indicating an imbalance in how empathy was expressed across dimensions. The results highlight the value of incorporating structured empathy‐building activities into STEM curricula. At the same time, they emphasize the need for pedagogical strategies that foster affective empathy, which can help students collaborate effectively in interdisciplinary teams and contribute to the global workforce.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2025 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: