An instrument for measuring scientific empathy in students’ disciplinary engagement: the scientific empathy index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A crucial component of disciplinary engagement for learners in science is that of scientific empathy—in other words, the metaphysical connection between the student and the object of study, as scientists embody when deeply engaged in their work. Scientific empathy is the factor that stimulates and maintains students’ desire to inquire and that elicits creative problem-solving in their “doing” science as a distinctive disposition from general empathy. As such, in this study, the scientific empathy index (SEI) was developed to measure these traits of scientific empathy. For this purpose, two-rounds of factor analyses were conducted in the preliminary and the main tests of SEI. To prove the validity of the main test, correlation and mediated analysis were additionally conducted between other problem-solving scales and Final SEI. The first-factor analysis was conducted on 1,048 elementary, middle, and high school students as a preliminary test for extracting SEI questions. Based on the preliminary test results, 956 K-12 students were newly recruited, and the validity of the main test was confirmed through a second-factor analysis. Through these analyses, it was identified that the scale comprised five factors: sensitivity, situational interest, scientific imagination, empathetic concern, and empathetic understanding of others. Each scientific empathy factor revealed both cognitive and affective process dimensions including individual and social interrelations of students’ empathy in doing science. SEI was more highly correlated than the general empathy scale in the process of creative problem-solving and science process skills. In addition, it was found to exhibit a mediating effect between creative problem-solving and scientific inquiry. These findings validate the newly developed SEI and how it contributes to providing science learners with a useful tool for quick and easy measurement of scientific empathy and its components for the empathized involvement process between the student and their research subject.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".