Working with oral history in history lessons as a measure to promote historical competences: A cluster-randomized controlled intervention study

学校当局和历史教育专家建议，让学生在学校里体验同时代人的口述历史，因为口述历史可以为学生提供非常好的学习经历，并培养他们对历史话题的兴趣。过去的见证者不仅在学校，而且在纪念文化和大屠杀教育中发挥着重要作用。此外，家庭叙事在青少年（尤其是移民背景的青少年）历史意识的发展中占有重要地位。与此同时，口述历史的叙述也涉及一些“风险”：它们通过特定的“光环”和“真实性”对记忆文化、学校文化和家庭文化产生了特殊的影响。这些可能会与历史课的首要目标相冲突，历史课的目标是培养历史（批判性）思维的能力。此外，与目击者一起工作可能与所谓的“禁止压倒学生”（Beutelsbacher共识中的“Überwältigungsverbot”）相矛盾。一项对申请人的预先干预研究初步表明，如文献中所讨论的，在学校采访过去的目击者的好处和风险得到了证实。在他们的认识论原则的能力测试中（对需要分解历史叙述和理解过去目击者的个人观点的见解），现场组的学生比视频和文本组的学生得分低，但他们对口述历史方法的学习和激励潜力的评价远远高于视频和文本组的学生。在本随机对照干预研究中，我们将比较三组（现场，视频，候补组，N = 1872名高中轨道九年级学生）的（差异）有效性。本文将进一步探讨四个研究问题：(1)由于新开发的测量历史思维能力的工具，我们将测量在历史课上研究口述历史对整个历史思维理论建构的影响。此外，我们将检查学生对某些主题的知识，他们的兴趣，以及他们对教学单元的评价。(2)对“民主德国和平革命”的干预将由教师自己进行，他们将接受教学单位强制性手册的培训。两个干预组和一个候补对照组的研究设计符合随机对照现场试验的标准。(3)由于需要相应的准备工作来开发一种工具，通过学习者捕捉目击者的“光环”的感知，这将有可能评估目击者是否对提高的表现具有中介和调节作用。

School authorities and history education experts recommend giving students the chance to experience the oral histories of contemporaries in school because oral histories can provide students with exceptionally good learning experiences and foster their interest in historical topics. Eyewitnesses of the past play an important role not only in school but also in the culture of remembrance and in Holocaust education. Furthermore, family narratives comprise a significant part of the development of youths’ historical consciousness (especially those with immigration backgrounds). At the same time, oral history accounts involve some "risks": their particular influence on the culture of remembrance, school, and family through a specific "Aura" and "authenticity". These can potentially conflict with the prior goals of history lessons, which are to foster competencies in historical (critical) thinking. Furthermore, working with eyewitnesses might contradict the so-called “prohibition against overwhelming students” ("Überwältigungsverbot" in the Beutelsbacher Consensus). A prior intervention study of the applicants gave initial indications of a confirmation of the benefits and risks of interviewing eyewitnesses of the past in school as discussed in the literature. In the competence tests of their epistemological principles (insights into the need to deconstruct historical accounts and understanding the individual perspective of an eyewitness of the past), students in the live group scored worse than those in the video and text groups, but they evaluated the learning and motivational potential of the oral history approach considerably higher than the students in the video and text conditions. In the present randomized controlled intervention study, we will compare the (differential) effectiveness of three groups (live, video, waitlist control group, N = 1872 ninth graders in the highest school track). Four further research questions will be examined: (1) Thanks to newly developed instruments to measure competencies in historical thinking, we will measure the effect of working with oral histories in history classes concerning the entire theoretical construct of historical thinking. Furthermore, we will examine students’ knowledge of certain topics, their interest, and their evaluation of the teaching unit. (2) The intervention on the "Peaceful Revolution in the GDR" will be held by the teachers themselves, who will be trained with an obligatory manual for the teaching unit. The study design with two intervention groups and a waitlist control group is in line with the standards of randomized controlled field trials. (3) Thanks to corresponding preparatory work required to the development of an instrument to capture the perception of the “aura” of the eyewitness through the learners it will be possible to assess whether the eyewitnesses have a mediating as well as a moderating effect on the increased performance.