The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.10, pp.13-29, 2021

REVIEWS OF POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

History and Civics Lessons in Austria and Japan:
An Intercultural, Comparative Approach of Classroom Observationin the Framework of Process-oriented History Didactics
Bettina Paireder

Department of History Didactics, Social Studies and Citizenship Education/Institute ofHistory/University of Graz & Department of Economic and Social History/University of
Vienna, Austria

Introduction
This paper emerged as the outcome of the partnership between the Hiroshima University Educational
Vision Research Institute (EVRI) and the Austrian Institutes of History Didactics of the Universities of Vienna
and Graz and the Centre for Intercultural Research in History Didactics, Social Studies and Citizenship Education(CICR). In the context of an intensive transnational exchange between Japanese and Austrian research in teacher
education of the CHE-subjects1, a series of classroom observations in Vienna, Graz and Hiroshima was initiated.
Due to its descriptive character, classroom observation is a very valuable method in comparative andintercultural research in teacher education (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014, p. 104). It doesn’t aim at evaluatingor judging an existing system, but at finding significant differences which can be used to gain information andinspiration, and which can serve as the starting point for further research.2
The article focuses on the theoretical background of observations of history/civics classrooms bystressing the role of the observer(s), by pointing out the reasons for and/or the necessity of classroom observations,by presenting the ‘observation matrix’ as a tool for the observation of history/civics lessons and, finally, by
giving examples of classroom observations of civics lessons in two schools in Hiroshima.

The History/Civics Class as a Social System
When talking about classroom observation, the term classroom, as the object of observation, should firstof all be defined. In this paper, I follow the process-oriented approach of history didactics developed by Alois
Ecker at the University of Vienna (Ecker, 2015, 2018b), which conceives of the ‘classroom’ as a social system
based on the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann3 and the communication theory of Paul Watzlawick.4 The
reason for using this approach is the fact that learning in a classroom means always learning in a group. The
members of the group (learners and teachers) influence each other and consequently influence the process oflearning.
The main form of operation of social systems is communication. Students learn (gain knowledge andcompetences) and teachers teach – both by asking, informing, discussing, arguing, justifying, evaluating,13

Bettina Pairedercomparing etc. All these are operations using language; they are operations of communication. This iscomplementary to the idea of the psychic systems, thus, individual learners whose main operation form ishuman consciousness based on imaginations, feelings, thinking, reflecting (Luhmann, 1984, p. 20ff; 2002). Bothsocial systems and psychic systems have in common that they are grounded in sense-making processes(Luhmann, 2017, p. 44). This corresponds to the theory of history of Jörn Rüsen, who stresses thata) historical sense making underlies historical learning and thatb) sense-making enables communication. (Rüsen, 2013, p. 35)
The example of a history class establishes that the ‘sense-making-horizon’ is history, and the main
operation form is talking and negotiating about history. During classroom observations, we can observe theseoccurrences of communication (communication structure, interventions, interferences etc.) and we can draw
conclusions about the historical learning process(es) of the observed learning group. On the contrary, it is notpossible to observe the consciousness of psychic systems.
At least since the paradigmatic change in history didactics from the cognitive learning approach to thecompetence-oriented and process-oriented learning approach, the observation of communication structures in
the classroom has become a valuable method for gaining knowledge about the learning process of historical/
civic-oriented thinking. The main questions in this context are “how do students learn about history?” and “whathappens during a history lesson at the communicative level that initiates and enhances or prevents and impedes
historical learning?”.
Coming back to the definition of the object of observation – which is in this case the history/civics class–, the following assumptions can be made:- History/civics lessons at schools and history/civics courses at universities are social systems.
- Each history/civics class – whether at school or at university – is an individual social system anddiffers from another history/civics class.
- The social system includes the students and the teacher(s)/teacher trainer(s).
- The basic operation for learning about history/civics in the classroom is communication about
history/civics.
- The main objective of communication in a history/civics class is historical/civics-oriented sensemaking.

Classroom Observation and the Role of the Observer“Classroom observation” is used in different contexts of research and evaluation. One of the mostcommon practices is classroom observation as a method of assessment5, that is, assessment of students as wellas assessment of teachers. In this case, the main objective of classroom observation is to judge the student andthe quality of learning or to judge the teacher and the quality of teaching. That goes so far as to have classroom
observation used as a method to identify “good” and “bad” teachers, even if the reliability of classroom
observation is limited due to the subjectivity of the observer.6
Classroom observation in intercultural, comparative research of didactics of history, social studies andcitizenship education differs from the approach of teacher observation as described in the paragraph above. In
particular, the main interest is to describe and to explore the procedure and the technique of learning about

14

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

history/civics and the process of historical thinking in different cultural perspectives. The emphasis is placed on
observation of communication processes during history/civics lessons and their impact on historical learning or
on historio-political learning.
Observing means to watch and to take notice of facts without analysing the situation. However, thehistorical-cultural background of the observer is nevertheless always present during the observation act, as,every perception is a construction depending on the subject (Unseld, 1997, p. 223ff). In this context, the role ofthe observer and her/his involvement in the observation process requires special consideration. We can state thatevery member of the system is also an observer of the system (= first order observation). That is, during history
lessons, students observe teachers, teachers observe students, and students observe colleagues. To explain it in
Niklas Luhman’s words: “The social system observes psychic systems; the psychic systems observe psychic
systems, the psychic systems can observe social systems.” (Luhmann, 2017, p. 142) This means that all
participants of the history lesson observe and are at the same time themselves observed. They observe as a
psychic system and/or as part of the social system (Luhmann, 2002, p. 292f). It is evident that observers who are
inside the system have blind spots. When they observe one thing, they can’t observe another one. It follows,
then, that an “external” observer can be invited to observe the social system, thus the history/civics class (=second order observation): “an observer observes the observer” (Luhmann, 2017, p. 150). However, bothobservers of first and of second order observations are never outside the system. They bring their own experiences
into the system as they are psychic systems with emotions, personal reflections and pre-concepts. As aconsequence, they can’t ignore this fact when observing, judging and interpreting the observed situation byreferring to their own subjective perception even if they make a concerted effort to be as objective as possible.
During classroom observation, the perception may be holistic, but the observer cannot see the whole picture.
Her/his observation is selective and in and of itself determined by the system. (Probst, 1985, p. 201) Observersof second observation influence the system simply by attending the history lesson. The observer of second
observation is mostly a person who is usually not part of the system. Consequently, pupils and the teacher reactin different ways to this intervention to the system.
First order observations serve to bring operations forward inside the system (e.g. historical sense
making). Second order observations observe these operations (e.g. process of historical sense making) and areable to analyse, to consult, to make suggestions for corrections and changes. (Becker & Reinhardt-Becker, 2001,
p. 68) They can reveal ruptures and barriers as well as uplifting or propulsive moments during the learning
process.

Example: Lesson Studies in Japan
In Japan, a tradition of lesson studies (= Jugyou Kenkyuu) has existed since at least the late 19th century.
Lesson studies are based on classroom observations aiming at improving practical teaching and teacher
education. They are considered to be the most common form of teachers’ professional development. (O'Leary,
2020, p. 26) “At a minimum, the colleagues of teachers at the same school and, in many cases, teachers fromother schools and/or education board members, observe and analyse each other’s classes.” (NASEM (= National
Association for the Study of Educational Methods), 2011, p. 15) These observation practices with perspectivesof different social systems (different schools probably with different teaching traditions, educational board
structure, etc.) show very clearly how to work on differences, how to share experiences and how to see schools

15

Bettina Pairederas learning organizations (classrooms as learning social systems) (Sarkar Arani, Shibata, & Matoba, 2007, p.
25). Starting with Japan, the method of lesson studies has recently become more widely practiced throughout
the whole world, such as in the UK and the US (O'Leary, 2020, p. 27f).

Classroom Observations in the Framework of History/Civics Teacher Education Courses
at Austrian Universities
Organisation of History/Civics Teacher Education Courses
The model of History Teacher Education in Austria links closely theoretical learning during university
courses and its practical transfer to history classes at school.7 Following the process-oriented approach,“observation”, “feedback/evaluation” and “(self-)reflexion” are the keywords which serve as the vehicle forproceeding with the learning process of trainees.
During the first two lessons of the university course (lasting one semester, about 10-14 lessons), trainees
deal with preparative issues which are crucial for the further development of the course:a) Self-reflection on students’ proper experience with history teaching:
As a first exercise, trainees have to reflect on their own experiences of history/civics lessons as students:
best-practice-examples, bad experiences, boring lessons, exciting exercises, assessment methods, learning
process, materials used during lessons, interactions between teacher and students as well as interactions between
students, interventions of the teacher during the learning process, etc. As a second exercise, they have to define
aspects which they consider important when teaching history/civics and define objectives which they want toachieve in the framework of their profession.
These exercises aim firstly to induce a change of perspective in the role of student and teacher. Trainees
who are accustomed to the role of learners have to become properly aware of their new roles as teachers.
Secondly, the exercises help to build up a certain distance from personal experiences and to transfer theseexperiences to a meta-level – a challenging task, but particularly necessary for classroom observation andteaching practice. Following the studies and investigations of Edward Conrad Wragg, observers often observe
what they want to see and ignore what they don’t wish to see (Wragg, 1999, p. vii). Self-criticism and evaluationof the observed actions prior to the communication situation in the observed system can be enhanced by raisingself-awareness (Norman, 1976, p. 217), which leads to the effect that the subjectivity of the observers can at least
be reduced, even if it may never be completely eliminated.
b) Defining thematic topics, theses and research questions:
History teacher education courses at Austrian universities link closely the subjects of the science ofhistory, social studies and citizenship education with the didactics of the CHE-subjects. This is why students
work thematically on a concrete topic before they start planning school lessons. In a first step, they deal with a
topic at an academic level. In a second step, they work on links between the topic elaborated and didacticaltheories. Classroom observations are the starting point for obtaining a clear idea of the target group (addressees;
history class). Based on these observations, they take decisions about the main issues in terms of the thematiclevel which they want to teach, and they connect them with first order concepts (substantive concepts) and

16

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

second order concepts (organizing concepts). In this way, they become aware of historical thinking strategies
and they reflect on the analytical dimensions of historical understanding (Cercadillo, Chapman, & Lee, 2017, p.
530).
c) Team-building
Students of history teacher education courses work in groups during the whole semester. The groups arecore elements of the course design and have positive effects at different levels:- Thematic level (subject history, social studies and citizenship education): One topic can beworked on in depth by dealing with different research questions within the group. As group members
have to produce common results (presentation, seminar paper), they work together, exchange anddiscuss research results, which leads to higher quality in terms of the level of thematic content.
- Professional level (history/civics teacher education): Team-teaching, project teams and working
groups are more and more important in the Austrian school system. Specifically, team-teaching isvery common in lower secondary schools (‘Neue Mittelschule’), whilst subject teachers teach
together with experts (e.g. history teachers work together with native speakers of foreign languages).
Teachers of different subjects organise school projects. Working groups are installed by school
management to guarantee quality standards at the educational institution. The organisation of theuniversity course in teams (working groups of 3 to 5 trainees) is therefore useful training for the future
work of teachers at school.
- Communication level (group dynamics): At the beginning of this article, ‘communication’ wasdescribed as the main form of operation of social systems. This is why trainees have to be trained incommunication strategies and group dynamic theories. A lot of work remains to be done to integratethese aspects more systematically in teacher training courses. Nevertheless, team-building processes
and group work exercises during the whole semester of the university courses contribute to a better
understanding of communication processes in groups (systems) and between groups (systems).8
The following diagram (figure 1) indicates the two-part learning environment (university–school) of
teacher training courses at Austrian universities. This means that history/civics teacher training courses areorganised in an interdisciplinary way: historians, subject didacticians and schoolteachers collaborate with theaim of training teachers for their future professional careers (Ecker, 2018b, p. 10). The connecting element/
subject between university and school is the trainee herself/himself with her/his competence training (individual
research and self-reflection).

Figure 1: Organisation of history teacher education courses at Austrian universities; © Bettina Paireder17

Bettina PairederAt university, trainees develop the chosen topic by presenting and discussing main theses, relevant
literature and research results. They learn about theoretical models and concepts of didactics of history, social
studies and citizenship education with the aim of linking content and didactical theories in such a way that canlater be elaborated upon for lesson planning purposes. Additionally, the university offers space and time forreflection, evaluation, feedback, discussions by relating personal experiences and subjective perceptions with
relevant theories. This means that there is a continuous array of exercises on self-reflection and several feedbackloops during the whole semester course.
At school, the focus is on classroom observation and teaching practice as developed during theuniversity course and supported by a mentor who is a practising teacher, mostly history/civics teachers of thehistory/civics class where the trainees carry out their teaching practice.
Individual research and self-reflection: In addition to the university course and the school practice(observing, teaching, evaluating), trainees have to deal individually with the specific topic which they havechosen for group work. They have to do research (going to libraries and archives) and to prepare a presentation
about their topic to be presented at the university course. They also have to write a paper about the topic and their
specific research question. The whole learning process is accompanied by blog entries for reflecting regularly on
the ongoing process of learning and professionalisation.

Classroom Observation in the Framework of Process-oriented History Didactics
Classroom observation supports the learning process of trainees during the whole semester, boththeoretically and practically. Students meet on a weekly basis at university, where they prepare, evaluate anddiscuss classroom observation and teaching practise in a theory-based way.
Three times per semester, they actually go to school and work with one concrete history/civics class.
That is, one classroom observation takes place at the beginning of the training course and one teaching practise
unit and another classroom observation (= peer observation) both take place in the last third of the semester.
1st Classroom Observation:
The first classroom observation is carried out at the beginning of the course and aims at giving students
information about the learning system in this specific history/civics class where they will practice as teachers
some weeks later. Normally, there are groups of about four students who observe one or two lessons held by theregular history/civics teacher of the class. Each trainee of the team focusses on one specific observation question(see below, Subject Specific Observation Question(s)) which they have developed during the university course.
They also observe the communication processes and the lesson structure of the history class, following the fieldsof the “Matrix of Observation of History Classes” (see below, The Observation Matrix). After the classroom
observation, they describe what they have seen, analyse the classroom situations and the communication
structures of the observed history/civics class, together with the teacher of the history/civics class who imparts
her/his own observations. They are also invited to ask the teacher details about the pupils, their background, theirknowledge, the learning environment etc. Finally, the trainees put together their research results and write anobservation report. This requires communication about the observation which means that the perceptions ofdifferent persons respectively their different psychic systems are implicated in the observed social system.
During the discussion, instances of consent and dissent are defined and discussed in a way which makes the18The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

research results clear and connectable to a systematic approach of lesson planning for this concrete history/civics
class.9
2nd Classroom Observationa) Perspective of the teacher trainee and the learners (first order observation):
During the last month of the semester, the trainees practice at school as a history/civics teacher in a classwhich they have observed before. While they are teaching, they observe the learning process of the class, theteaching process compared to the planned lesson and the communication structures during the history/civics
lesson. These observations have a close relationship to the personality and to the professional profile of theteacher’s role of the trainee. It is indeed just as Niklas Luhmann puts it: “observation means nothing more thanhandling distinctions” (Luhmann, 1995, p. 36) in the sense that “the distinction is used to acquire information”(Luhmann, 1995, p. 440). Aiming at noticing differences and communicating these distinctions, the observer (inour case the trainee who acts as a teacher) needs to be aware of pre-concepts. She/he refers to her/his teaching/learning experiences, her/his historical consciousness and her/his expectations and her/his beliefs about theprocess of historical learning in the classroom. Observation is, thus, self-referential. In the next step, the trainee
asks the pupils for feedback. Their observations are also self-referential and in addition, they observe in the roleof the history class as a social system. In this way, the system observes itself (double self-referential observation).
b) Perspective of the peers and the mentor (second order observation):
At the same time, during the teaching performance of the trainee, peers and a mentor (who is usually theregular history/civics teacher of the class) observe the learning/teaching process of the history/civics class.
Subsequent to the history/civics lesson, the observation results of the trainee in the role of the teacher,of the pupils, of the peers and of the mentor are all put together and the learning/teaching process is thenevaluated with the main objective of having improved knowledge and awareness about the processes of training
historical/civics-oriented thinking, of building up historical/civics-oriented competences and of building
historical consciousness and political understanding.

Method of Classroom Observation in the Framework of Process-oriented History
Didactics
In accordance with the process-oriented approach, the methodof classroom observation follows a two-step approach (see figure 2)
which can be used both in teacher education courses and for researchin the field of history/civics didactics.10(1) Observation: What can be seen/noticed?
a) The history/civics lesson is observed systematically by completingthe fields of the observation matrix.
b) Specific observation questions- 1st classroom observation: Students concentrate specificallyon one observation question which they have developed

Figure 2: Method of classroom
observation; © Bettina Paireder19

Bettina Pairederduring the university course and in coordination with their working group partners.
- 2nd classroom observation: Peers concentrate on general observation questions which are part of theobservation matrix.
(2) Interpretation: What can be concluded?
a) Students ask the main teacher of the history/civics class about further information (background information,
pre-concepts, details about the addressees, learning environment …)b) The research results are put together and the group of first order observers and second order observers
discusses, interprets and evaluates the perceptions (= reflection and evaluation).
The Observation Matrix
The ‘Observation Matrix’ is based on the ‘Matrix for Designing History Courses/History Lessons’
which was developed by Alois Ecker as a tool for supporting the planning of history lessons following theprocess-oriented approach of teaching history (Ecker, 2021). It exists in an analogue version (pdf file to beprinted out; word file to be filled in) and in a digital version as an interactive tool (matrix.geschichtsdidaktik.eu).

Part 1The very first part of the matrix indicates general information about the observed history lesson: dateand duration of the observation, information about the school and the class, name of the teacher, number of thestudents, main topic, etc. The general information will be completed by the history/civics teacher of the class.
During their observation, the observers have to determine what the main objective(s) of the lesson are,as well as what didactical concepts (substantive and organizing/procedural concepts of historical thinking) andwhat historical/civics-oriented competencies are stressed during the observed lesson, and they have to note theirconsiderations in the spaces provided in the matrix. The associations to the didactical approach as indicated by
the observers are then compared to the plans of the history/civics teacher. The differences and similarities serveas the starting point for further evaluation of the observed history/civics lesson.

Part 2
The general, introductory part is followed by the actual matrix for designing the history/civics lesson or
the teacher education course in detailed sequences (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Sequences of the Observation Matrix; © Alois Ecker

20

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Following the structure of the observation matrix, the observers concentrate on observation tasks which
are significant for analysing the process of historical/civics-oriented learning. Consequently, the focus is subject
specific and compatible with research in the field of history/civics didactics.
During their observation time in the classroom, they should only describe what they are able to perceive;
they should not write down hypotheses or conjectures. As a result, some fields could eventually remain empty
during the observation process. It is up to the evaluation discussion − which is carried out after the classroom
observation − to analyse the reasons behind and the consequences resulting from the empty fields for theprocess of historical/civics-oriented learning.
- Organizational structure:
This section gives general information about the individual sequences of the lesson design/course
design. That includes time/duration of the sequence and the function of the sequence in the learning
process, such as opening the topic, ensuring intermediate results, presentations etc.
- Aims, rationales:
Each sequence is based on subject specific learning objectives. Observers describe the goals that areclearly transmitted, the competencies that are visibly developed, as well as what organizing/procedural
concepts and what aspects of historical learning are addressed and trained in detail.
- Topics, sub-themes:
Here, the observers name the topic/theme which is covered by this sequence. What substantial concepts
are in the focus? What thematic questions are addressed? To which historical/societal/political theories
and categories does the teacher refer while addressing the topic?
- Structure of organisation:
This section deals with learning organisation, methods and media. The main attention focuses on thecommunication structure and the learning arrangement. The observers note which learning arrangement
has been selected (hierarchical, team-oriented or process-oriented) and what method is applied within
the selected arrangement. Additionally, the framework of the learning arrangement is likewise described(learning environment, utilized media and sources etc.).
- Analysis, interpretation, transfer:
What kind of transfer can be observed? In pursuit of moving the setting of reproductive learning
forward, transfer and interpretation/analysis of the compiled content are key aspects in the historicallearning process. The observers note whether and what kind of competence building, practical use,
evaluation, establishing connections between space, time and facts that they notice during theirobservation act.
- Back-coupling:
Referring to the assumption that historical/civics oriented learning correlates to a stable communication
structure, a deliberate reference to the learning group (= back-coupling) is evident.11 On the one hand,observers take note of the strategies in the learning system of giving feedback and asking for feedback.
In what ways is the relationship between cognitive and affective learning as well as between collective
and individual learning ensured? Are questions posed that actually lead to an improvement incomprehension and further practice? What methods and forms of feedback are utilized? On the other
hand, observers take note of situations of disfunction and misunderstandings during the learning

21

Bettina Pairederprocess.
- Reflection:
Reflection is a significant category for building historical consciousness and political understanding on
the part of the learners. The observers describe activities which promote reflection and record time andspace reserved for reflection activities during the learning process.

Part 3 and 4
Subsequent to the matrix reflection, questions for the teacher (= part 3) and generic observationquestions for the observers (peers and mentor) (= part 4) are framed. They serve as a guideline to give a detailed
observation report focusing on historical/civics-oriented learning:• What parts of the lesson – due to the planning – seemed to run smoothly? What difficulties occurred
during the history/civics lesson? (time management, method, choice of material, selected themes …)
How did these difficulties manifest? What consequences could be observed?
• What could be observed with regards to communication structures and communication processes?
How was communication initiated, blocked, interrupt, motivated, etc.? In what ways did theinterventions of the teacher bring communication about history/civics forward? Did communication
at the meta-level (communication about the learning process, not directly about the content) occur?
In what cases was this essential and when was it counterproductive?
• What disorders could be observed during the history/civics lesson (interruptions, misunderstandings,
disruption of communication, etc) and in what way did they influence the further teaching process?
Who was responsible for the disorders? How could the situation be dissolved?
• What kinds of interactions (between teacher and learners as well as between learners) could beobserved?
• What methods and interventions did the teacher use to proceed or to inhibit the historical/civics
oriented learning process? What group-dynamic processes enhanced or hindered historical/civics
oriented learning?
Subject Specific Observation Question(s)Apart from the analytic part of the classroom observation, a subject specific observation question
focuses on an individual observation objective. This gives the observer the possibility to place emphasis on adifferentiated research question of history/civics didactics. To that extent, three parameters have to be defined
before starting the observation process: research field – research question(s) – research method.

Example:- Research field: methodology in the framework of the historical learning process- Research questions: What different methods are used? How long does the teacher work with one
specific method? How is the method integrated into the historical learning process (role of teachersand students; communication structure; trained skills/competences/concepts)? How is the method
introduced and closed? How are transitions between different methods organized?
- Research method: table to be filled in during the observation of the history lesson (see figure 4)

22

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Figure 4: Example for a table to be used for classroom observation; © Bettina PairederM = “method”
Evaluation / Self-reflection
After the observation processes, the observers (peers, mentors, trainees, teacher) put together theirobservation results. This could be the entries in the observation matrix, the observations along the specificquestions, outcome from the self-reflection of the teacher, feedback results from the pupils, etc. Together, they
compare and interpret the observations. Normally this process is carried out at school, directly after the lesson
observation.
In the next step, the observation results and the possibilities of interpretive approaches are brought to theuniversity course, where they are evaluated and discussed against the background of didactical theories andrelevant literature.
What follows is an intense phase of reflection. The history/civics lesson has been evaluated through thestudents’ eyes, the mentor’s eyes, the trainees’ eyes and through the lens of theory/literature. In the perspectiveof history/civics teachers’ training, trainees step into the phase of reflective practice. They learn from theobservations, examine their practice reflectively, reorganise their experiences and beliefs and develop theirprofessionalism as future history/civics teachers.12 In the perspective of the field of history/civics didactics,
knowledge will be gained, subject-specific approaches can be improved and new research questions can beformulated.

Intercultural Comparative Approach of Classroom Observation: Observation-reportfrom Two Civics Classes in Hiroshima
In the framework of the partnership between the Educational Vision Research Institute (EVRI) of
Hiroshima University and the Austrian Institutes of History Didactics of the Universities of Vienna and Graz and
the Centre for Intercultural Research in History Didactics, Social Studies and Citizenship Education (CICR),
two Austrian researchers (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Alois Ecker and Dr. Bettina Paireder) had the opportunity to be invitedby Prof. Dr. Kazuhiro Kusahara and Ass.Prof. Dr. Hiromi Kawaguchi to observe two civics classes in Hiroshima,
Japan (Sept. 2018).
- Itsukaichi Highschool, 12th grade, 50 min. (class A)
Topic: concept of thinking economically- Otsuka Junior High School, 9th grade, 50 min. (class B)
Topic: concept of efficiency and fairness in the framework of contemporary society
Our research focused on communication processes in the classroom. To that end, we framed the23Bettina Pairederfollowing observation questions:
1. How was communication organised in the civics classes?
2. What kind of didactical approach to civic education was at the centre of classroom communication?
The classroom observation was perfectly organised. We had all the necessary information about thelearning environment. We had translated lesson plan handouts and a simultaneous translation was also provided.
Subsequent to the classroom observation, we had a conversation with the civics teacher, the headmaster and ourJapanese colleagues, who participated in the observation process as well.
In the following, I will summarize results of the classroom observations in Hiroshima.

How Was Communication Organised in the Observed Civics Classes?
The two classes followed two different communication structures of learning: hierarchical learningorganisation (class A), team-oriented learning organisation (class B).13a) hierarchical learning organisation

Figure 5: Model of hierarchical learningorganisation; © Alois Ecker

Figure 6: Photo classroom observation (A);©Bettina Paireder

As the model (figure 5) shows, the teacher’s role in the hierarchical learning organisation is to lecture,and the pupils’ role is to listen. An interaction between the pupils is not allowed or intended which is symbolisedin the chart by a cross. As we could observe in class A (see figure 6), there were two very brief opportunities forthe pupils to talk to a partner (about half a minute, timed by a clock at the blackboard). However, pupils did not
actively communicate with the teacher. We don’t have any information about the learning progress of the group(social system whose main operation form is communication) nor about the individual learners (psychic system
whose main operation form is human consciousness). Neither feedback nor reflection was not envisioned during
this lesson. The main aim of hierarchical learning organisations is to give information. There is no critical
discussion intended.

24

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Figure 7: Model of team-oriented learningorganisation; © Alois Ecker

Figure 8: Photo classroom observation (B);© Bettina Pairederb) team-oriented learning organisation
The traditional form of team-oriented learning organisation is working in groups (figure7). The teacher
is in the role of an organiser and advisor of the working process. She/He gives orders for the organisation ofwork, coordinates time-schedules, advises, supports the pupils while working, but she/he is not usually involvedin the details of the content-related aspects of work for as long as the groups work. However, if there arequestions, e.g. difficulties regarding either group organisation or content-based aspects, the teacher intervenes insuch a way that helps the group to continue its working task (as indicated for one of the groups in figure 7). The
teacher is no longer the only expert who has to give every detail of information. It is up to the pupils to acquire
knowledge and to discuss a problem in a critical manner. The pupils organise their working process aiming at
being able to present a result at the end of the group work. For the time that they work together, the groups
themselves develop an individual working style /working culture which can be different from the working
culture of another group in the classroom. During our classroom observation in class B (see figure 8), more thanhalf of the time the communication structure of the lesson was organised in a team-oriented way. To give one
example of demonstrating the idea of the history/civics class as a learning social system (including teacher(s)and learners), I want to cite the civics teacher who told us after the end of the lesson: “not only pupils learn, butalso I learn from the pupils’ work.”

What Kind of Didactical Approach to Civic Education Was at the Centre of Classroom
Communication?
Both lessons followed a conceptual approach. Class A worked on the concept of economical thinking,while class B worked on the concept of efficiency and fairness. However, the approach of political sense-making
was different. In class A, reproduction (taking over given positions) was at the centre, while in class B, politicalmaturity and personal responsibility were the focus. These different objectives corresponded to different
communication models as demonstrated in the following table1:

25

Bettina Paireder

Table1: Didactical approach of political sense making (comparison)
What kind oflearning
organisation
dominated thelesson?
How was the
opening session(introduction to
the topic)
organised?
What method waschosen for gaining
knowledge?

What civicorientationcompetencies
were developed?

Class Ahierarchical learning organisation

Class B
team-oriented learningorganisation

The teacher presented crucial
questions related to the topic.
(teacher driven)

Pupils were asked to reflect on
their perception of a TV-comic
personality. The teacher created aconnection between the living
reality of the pupils and the topic(pupil oriented).
Five steps approach: 1Introduction of the question;
2-individual reflection; 3-group
work; 4-presentations of theresults of the group work; 5-selfassessment
Practical issues are at the centre.
The pupils link a given theoretic
model to their personal concepts.
Competency is linked toperformance (exemplary approachof sense-making*).

The largest part of the lesson
consisted of a differentiated inputof the teacher with visualisation on
the blackboard. Additionally, there
were short question-answer
sections and partner conversations.
Theoretic models/concepts are at
the centre (traditional approach of
sense-making*).

* See schematic spiral of the levels of competency in historical learning by Jörn Rüsen. “Traditional formation of
meaning does not just apply to a general theory of universal development of historical thinking. It also concerns themental processes in which historical consciousness unfolds in the life of a human being. With growing cognitivecompetencies, we can reach and practice a (logically) higher level of forming historical meaning, an exemplary
formation of meaning. To reach this level we need the development of the power of human judgement, or thedevelopment of cognitive competencies […].” (Rüsen, 2017, p. 198f)

Conclusion: Classroom Observation in the Framework of Intercultural,Comparative Research
To date, intercultural, comparative research in teacher education remains a rather small field in our
global world. There are a lot of obstacles and challenges that have to be overcome:- Differences in the theoretical framework of intercultural research- Different theories/schools of the academic disciplines- Lack of common methodological approaches of intercultural comparative research in teacher
education- Lack of awareness about historical, political, societal and cultural differences- Sensitivity of cultural identity- Political struggles of power- Language barriers
The partnership between EVRI and CICR is a wonderful example of efforts at working for overcoming
these difficulties and at doing research in a mutual exchange.
Classroom observation gives deep insight into the heart of history didactics. When visiting classes at

26

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

school, you enter into a polity, society and culture and it is evident that one benefits from this background for the
research tasks of history/civics didactics. That is to say that the common reflection on the part of colleagues ofJapan and Austria – both teachers and researchers – enables a culture-sensitive interpretation of the observation
results. To that extent, it was a unique experience to discover both a big number of similarities and very inspiring
differences between learning/teaching history, social studies and citizenship education in two classes ofHiroshima and in two regions of the world (Japan and Austria) that are far apart from each other.
One of the most important findings of the intercultural comparative approach of classroom observation
described here is that process-oriented history didactics is valuable and appropriate as the theoretical basis ofintercultural comparative research. Systems-theory can be said to be a theory which is applicable everywhere in
the world. History/Civics classes are social systems constituted by communication processes and aiming at(historical/civics-oriented) sense-making. The communications are influenced by psychic systems, by othersocial systems (e.g. the school, other classes) and by the environment14 of the social system. These parameters
apply to all regions of the world. However, every system is different – within one region and beyond. This is thatthe environment of history/civics classes in Austria differs from the environment of history/civics classes inJapan, which has an influence on learning/teaching processes. Intercultural comparative research in history/
civics teachers’ education examines in what way communication processes affect historical sense-making andpolitical understanding. The instruments (e.g. matrix for observing courses of teacher education of CHE-subjects
and history/civics lessons) and methods (e.g. classroom observation) which were used for comparative classroom
observation are developed in the framework of the process-oriented history didactics and proven to be valid andsuitable.
Intercultural comparative research in history/civics didactics in an increasingly globalized world canserve to promote mutual learning, understanding and development of strategies for educating tolerant andrespectful global citizens who know about their historicity and their responsibility for the future.

Notes
1. CHE (Civic and History Education Study) is a European comprehensive study, conducted by Alois
Ecker, which describes and analyses the formation of school teachers of the historio-political subjects‘History’, ‘Civic/Citizenship Education’, ‘Politics’, ‘Social Studies’ and ‘Cultural Studies’ – the socalled “CHE-subjects” for the first time (Ecker, 2018a).
2. See Gregory Bateson “any difference which makes a difference” (Bateson, 1972, p. 381) or George
Spencer-Brown “we cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction” (Spencer-Brown, 1969,
p. 1) or Niklas Luhmann who defines observation as distinction and indication (Luhmann, 2017, p. 147).
3. See inter alia ‘Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie‘ (Luhmann, 1984) [English
translation: ‚Social Systems‘ (Luhmann, 1995)] or „Einführung in die Systemtheorie‘ (Luhmann, 2017)[English translation: ‚Introduction to systems theory‘ (Luhmann, 2013)].
4. See “Pragmatics of human communication” (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
5. A summary of studies related to classroom observation as a method of assessment as well as an overview
on methodological approaches to classroom observation in this context can be found in Matt O’Leary(2020).

27

Bettina Paireder

6. “Events are inevitably filtered through the interpretive lens of the observer” (Foster, 1996, p. 14).
7. The development of the partnership model between university and secondary schools in Austria is
described in the article of Alois Ecker, “Process-oriented subject didactics. The integrating project ofsubject didactics (pedagogy) at the University of Vienna, Austria”, published in the International Journalof Curriculum Development and Praxis (Ecker, 2018b, p. 8f).
8. Gerhard Schwarz, Austrian philosopher and expert in communication and group dynamics, lists anddescribes main points of group dynamic competences of teachers and objectives of education for anunderstanding of pedagogy that emphasizes a future-oriented learning process of students/pupils (‘directpedagogy’) (Cercadillo et al., 2017).
9. This procedure follows the methodological three steps as described by Helmut Willke: observing –describing – understanding (Willke, 1993, pp. 178-188).
10. Being adapted to subject-specific requirements of classroom observation, the basis of this methodologicalapproach could be used for other school subjects than history and civics as well. The subject specificfocus has to be differentiated in accordance with the needs and requirements of history/civics lessons by
developing adequate observation questions and observation tools.
11. Niklas Luhmann underlines that “Understanding is an indispensable feature” for comprehensive andsense-making communication. “When one communicative action follows another, it tests whether thepreceding communication was understood” (Luhmann, 1995, p. 143).
12. Gillie Bolton gives an overview about objectives and methods of reflective practice in his book
“Reflective Practice. Writing & Professional Development” (Bolton, 2010).
13. Alois Ecker distinguishes three models of communication: the process-oriented system, the teamoriented system and the hierarchical system (Ecker, 2002).
14. In systems theory “environment” means everything that does not belong to the system. “It is simply
everything else” (Luhmann, 1995, p. 181).

References
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Becker, F., & Reinhardt-Becker, E. (2001). Systemtheorie: Eine Einführung für die Geschichts- undKulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Cercadillo, L., Chapman, A., & Lee, P. (2017). Organizing the past: Historical accounts, significance andunknown ontologies. In S. Berger, M. Carretero, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of researchin historical culture and education (pp. 529-552). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ecker, A. (2002). Grundmodelle der Kommunikation und ihre Anwendung auf den Geschichtsunterricht.
Didactics Online. Wien, Austria.
Ecker, A. (2015). Bausteine einer Theorie der prozessorientierten Geschichtsdidaktik. In Verband
Österreichischer Historiker und Geschichtsvereine (Ed.), Tagungsbericht des 26. Österreichischen
Historikertags. Krems/Stein 2012 (pp. 496-511). Sankt Pölten, Austria: NÖ Landesarchiv und NÖ
Institut für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich.

28

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Ecker, A. (2018a). The education of history teachers in Europe—A comparative study. First results of the“civic and history education study”. Creative Education, 9, 1565-1610.
Ecker, A. (2018b). Process-oriented subject didactics. The integrating project of subject didactics(pedagogy) at the University of Vienna, Austria. International Journal of Curriculum Development
and Practice, 19, 1-21.
Ecker, A. (2021). Communications on history. Identity building and historical sense-making in the history
classroom. - A matrix for empowering historical thinking in teacher education. Creative Education.
Foster, P. (1996). Observing schools: A methodological guide. London, UK: Paul Chapman.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main, Germany:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (2013). Introduction to systems theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Luhmann, N. (2017). Einführung in die Systemtheorie (7. Aufl.). Heidelberg, Germany: Carl-AuerSysteme-Verlag.
NASEM (= National Association for the Study of Educational Methods) (Ed.) (2011). Lesson study inJapan. Hiroshima, Japan: Keisuisha.
Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
O'Leary, M. (2020). Classroom observation: A guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning.
London, UK: Routledge.
Phillips, D. D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2014). Comparative and international education: An introduction totheory, method, and practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Probst, G. J. B. (1985). Regeln des systemischen Denkens. In G. J. B. Probst & H. Siegwart (Eds.),
Integriertes Management: Bausteine des systemorientierten Managements (pp. 181-204). Bern,
Switzerland: Verlag Paul Haupt.
Rüsen, J. (2013). Historik: Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft. Köln, Germany: Böhlau Verlag.
Rüsen, J. (2017). Evidence and meaning: A theory of historical studies (English-language edition). New
York, NY: Berghahn.
Sarkar Arani, M. R., Shibata, Y., & Matoba, M. (2007). Delivering jugyou kenkyuu for reframing schools
as learning organizations: An examination of the process of Japanese school change. Nagoya Journalof Education and Human Development, 3, 25-36.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). Laws of form. London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
Unseld, G. (1997). Das Abenteuer ‚Erkennen‘: Ein soziologischer Reisebericht (1. Aufl.). Frankfurt am
Main, Germany: Insel.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study ofinteraction patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Willke, H. (1993). Systemtheorie: Eine Einführung in die Grundprobleme der Theorie sozialer Systeme (4.
überarb Aufl.). Stuttgart, Germany: Fischer.
Wragg, E. C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

29