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

校方和历史教育专家建议，让学生有机会在学校体验当代人的口述历史，因为口述历史可以为学生提供特别好的学习体验，并培养他们对历史话题的兴趣。过去的目击者不仅在学校中发挥重要作用，而且在纪念文化和大屠杀教育中也发挥重要作用。此外，家庭叙事是青少年(特别是有移民背景的青少年)历史意识发展的重要组成部分。同时，口述历史记述也涉及一些“风险”：它们通过特定的“光环”和“真实性”对纪念文化、学校文化和家庭文化产生了特殊的影响。这些可能会潜在地与历史课的先前目标相冲突，历史课程的目标是培养历史(批判性)思维的能力。此外，与目击者合作可能会违反所谓的“禁止压倒性学生”(Beutelsbacher Consensus中的“úBerwältiunggsverbot”)。先前对申请者的干预研究初步表明，如文献所述，证实了在学校约谈过去的目击者的好处和风险。在认识论原则的能力测试中(对解构历史叙述的必要性的洞察和对过去目击者个人观点的理解)，现场组的学生得分低于视频组和课文组，但他们对口述历史方法的学习和动机潜力的评价远远高于视频和课文条件下的学生。在目前的随机控制干预研究中，我们将比较三组(现场直播、视频、等待名单控制组，N=1872名最高学校轨道的九年级学生)的(差异)效果。四个进一步的研究问题将被考察：(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堂上处理口述历史的效果，涉及整个历史思维的理论结构。此外，我们将考察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必修手册的培训。两个干预组和一个等待名单对照组的研究设计符合随机对照现场试验的标准。(3)由于开展了相应的准备工作，以便开发一种工具，通过学习者捕捉目击者对“光环”的感知，将有可能评估目击者是否对提高的成绩起到调停和缓和作用。

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.