The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.9, pp.13-26, 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE: How can social studies relate to youth civic engagement?

Social Studies Education Utilising Children’s Motivations:
Methodology to Connect Children and Society Through theDismantling of ‘Performed Consensus’
Noboru Tanaka

Faculty of Education, Gifu University, Japan
Abstract
The pedagogical research in Japanese social studies (SS) faces major challenges, which have come to blur the
relationship between SS educational content and children’s motivation (for learning). The contents of SS
education practices are often separate from the real world, for it perceives an ideal form of a democratic society(the ideal social image). There is a discrepancy between teachers’ discussion of the ‘idealised society’ andchildren’s reality. SS education aims to foster citizenship that moulds a democratic society independently. To
promote ‘independent formation’, steps are required to nurture citizenship that encompasses children’s
participation in the real world (Tanaka, 2015).
This paper summarises how children’s motivation (for learning) and urgency have been captured in relation to
SS education research and brings out the implementation of results. Then, it proposes a lesson design concept
based on the conclusions. First, information is presented with respect to the treatment of children’s motivation(for learning) and urgency in past SS education research and practice. Afterward, a theoretical approach andlesson design plan are suggested for use in SS education. In other words, this research applies a sociologicaltheoretical approach to the development of social studies lessons.
Traditionally, a significant question that prevails in the study of classwork is ‘What is school/learning?’ Schools
and teaching do not always result in a successful learning of children. It is possible for a child to attend schooland just pretend to learn. Thus, it is important to ask the question, ‘How does school/learning work?’ In essence,
this question is reframed from the perspective of school and learning functioning as a formal scaffold tochildren’s learning, serving as a category of implementation.
This perspective raises the following two questions. First, ‘How does one perceive children’s engagement with classes
and society?’ By reconsidering ‘functions’ as the ‘effects’ of school and learning, the goal of school/learning work can
be changed to how to make improvements from the students’ viewpoint (their epistemological reality). Second, ‘How
does one manage student engagement in the classroom?’ This research focuses on ‘performed consensus’ by students.
In other words, the students reconsider the state of engaging in a lesson as a formal participation of ‘pretending toparticipate’. In order to dismantle the situation, this paper considers the development of a concrete methodology ofengagement for students to autonomously and independently engage with classes and society.
Keywords: social studies, children’s motivation, engagement, cultural studies, communication theory

13

Noboru Tanaka

Past Achievements and Future Tasks of Social Studies Education Research in Japan
Japanese social studies (SS) education research has aimed at cultivating agency in democraticsocieties. It has always focused on how to understand (i.e. content) and how to handle (i.e. method) society
as the learning target. In conventional studies, Japanese SS pedagogical research has identified two main
characteristics. The first characteristic is the need for a normative empirical research and practice. While‘normativeness’ is the design of certain models and ideas, ‘demonstration’ is its realisation. An example ofthe former is the development of SS education research and the principles and logic of classroom practice.
In other words, this type of research has been centred on the theoretical and practical verification ofidealised studies and implementation strategies. The second characteristic entails the analysis of therelationship between social perceptions and civil qualities. For example, there is a debate on whether
cognition and qualities are captured in a unified manner (monism), or separately as cognition-based
qualities (dualism). How does one perceive social awareness and citizen characteristics as subjects?
Further, how are they developed?
Japanese SS pedagogical research is faced with major challenges, which have blurred therelationship between SS education content and children’s motivation (for learning). SS education practices
content is often far removed from the real world, assuming the ideal form of a democratic society (the idealsocial image). There is a discrepancy between teachers’ discussion of the ‘idealised society’ and children’s
reality. SS education aims to foster citizenship that moulds a democratic society independently. In order topromote this ‘independent formation’, steps are required to nurture citizenship that encompasses children’s
participation in the real world (Makaiau & Tanaka, 2018). However, as mentioned above, research on SS
education in Japan has been based on normative empirical research, with just a few investigations
conducted on the relationship between children’s perceptions and society. This tendency is also highlighted
by the extremely low proportion of SS education research studies in Japan in comparison to the researchstudies in the US (Kiritani, 2012).
Many such studies have been carried out in Japan primarily by Ueda (1994) and Ichikawa (2015).
However, they have often presented an ambiguous link between ‘teacher urgency’ and ‘child urgency’, andhave created no problem-solving learning strategies that involve ‘problem finding’, as originally describedby John Dewey. In many cases, the problems have been treated ontologically. Stated differently, a few
ontological issues are set to inspire children in earnest, and a few may voluntarily affect children’s existingvalues and ideas with their own ambitions. In addition, since the pseudo-solutions are targeted towards aclassroom context, inconsistencies may arise in the real world, which may carry the possibility of being
unsolvable. In essence, teachers must (1) research children’s awareness, interest and earnestness as they
pertain to the lesson theme in advance; (2) scrutinise the socio-cultural setting in which the children’s
sharpness is generated; and (3) utilise children’s sharpness in society. To date, no study on learning has
critically examined the cultural context or considered the relationship between classwork and the realworld. This paper summarises how children’s motivation (for learning) and urgency have been captured
with regard to SS education research and presents the implementation of results. Furthermore, it proposesa lesson design concept based on the conclusions.

14

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Research on Children’s Motivation in SS Education ResearchChildren’s Motivation in Education Research
The relationship between children’s interests and educational goals, content, and methods has always
been a topic of research and controversy. For example, Turner defined motivation as ‘a learning methodologythat can be adjusted unilaterally at a high level’ and explained in terms of an approach toward learning (Turner,
1995). Stipek organised various definitions of motivation in a historical context, arranged the characteristics of
intrinsic and extrinsic drive based on Skinner’s research, and came up with a motivation model called the‘cognitive-behavioural modification (CBM) approach’ (Stipek, Rachelle, Denise, & Sharon, 1995). Whileprevious definitions of motivation have comprised of cognitive investigations that trigger learning, Stipekemphasised children’s own self-study, and presented a behavioural analysis model to modify learning. In
applying these findings, Guay defined motivation as ‘the root reason for behavioural expression’ (Guay et al.,2010) and reiterated the importance of encouraging children to take part in educational activities. However, themotivating factor is extremely complex, in which all of the beliefs, perceptions, values and interests that a childalready holds are closely related (Ito, 2013, 2017; Nishimura, 2017). As a result, some of the actions caused bymotivation may or may not be recognised (Emily, 2011).
Research that captures children’s motivations (i.e. motivation theory) can be broadly divided into thefollowing four components: (1) Physiology and neurology: genetic features and physiological processes ofarousal and regulation; (2) The behaviourist approach: operant conditioning, motivation through incentives, andsensory stimuli; (3) Expectations, value theory, social motivation, and attribution theory; and (4) Emotions andemotion theory.
However, according to Keller, it is difficult to construct an integrated theory because motivations differ
depending on the speciality and context in which research is conducted (Keller, 2010). Therefore, as asserted byKuhn, each theory has its own assumptions and research techniques, as well as limited applications (Kuhn,
1963).
In response to the aforementioned studies in the field of psychology, learning in schools and research ineducational practices have also been transformed (Finn & Voelkl, 1993; Kage, 2013). Educational psychologist
Lynley Anderman scrutinised intrinsic and extrinsic ambition, and noted the need to go through entrance exams
and learn efficiently as a backdrop to a call for change in learning (Anderman, Andrejewski, & Allen, 2011).
Anderman designed a learning environment based on objectives using the keyword ‘goal orientation.’
Meanwhile, Eric M. Anderman pointed out that such goals can be categorised into ‘understanding’ and ‘skills’,
and that achieving both can inspire children and establish a learning milieu that makes use of these aspects(Anderman & Patrick, 2012).

Children’s Motivation in SS Education Research
The findings of the (educational) psychology studies presented above have gradually influenced SS
education. Oliver and Lump revealed that the significance of SS is linked to testing, and that subject learning isdeveloped solely through extrinsic drive (Oliver & Lumpe, 1996). Martin, Weinberg, Wilson, Fraser, Bayford
and Todd, among others, observed the relationship between children’s motivation and SS in the US. They

15

Noboru Tanaka

demonstrated that children’s motivation triggers SS learning, and that real situations are not fulfilled, in addition
to suggesting the approaches for improvement. Thus, several studies aimed at investigating children’s views
have been underway since 1990s, which also includes studies in the realm of SS education.
Under this influence, research on SS education in the US has emerged as a field that probes therelationship between children’s interests and SS based on the fieldwork involving specific children and action
research. In a pioneering study, Newman highlighted the importance of student engagement based on a surveyof secondary schools and found that, if achieved sufficiently, student engagement can enable students to not only
learn to understand events, but also develop skills such as critical thinking. Newman discovered that teachers
must consider children’s standpoints when designing lessons because of their major influence (Newmann,
1992). Hootstein surveyed 60 students and 18 teachers of a middle school to examine the students’ interests inlearning about their country’s history (US history). Hootstein (1995) verified that the following are crucial tofurthering students’ involvement: capturing their interests; cultivating their understanding of values, historicalexperiences and the significance of learning history; and organising active learning activities that connect
students to the real world.
Meanwhile, Hahn derived a novel concept referred to as ‘civic knowledge’, and based on the interviews
with middle school students, reinterpreted the theory of knowledge in SS and elaborated the logic that connects
liberal arts education to citizenship development (Hahn, 1996). This reinterpretation analyses children’s
relationship with the broader society (Hahn, 1999). Similarly, Thornton arranged a number of US SS education
practices into social sciences education strategies that deal with matters of social controversy. Thornton argued
for teacher gatekeeping to prompt children to learn independently (Thornton, 2004). Instead of conducting SSclasses as part of a liberal arts education approach, Summers developed value learning, which allows children
to express curiosity in their coursework, and in turn fuels their interest in the content of SS lessons, thereby
catalysing concern for the real world (Summers, 2008).
Manfra and Lee (2012) found that learning about SS does not increase children’s interest, and thatcurrent classes do not encourage social participation. Some scholars have argued that using social media inclassrooms encourages a sense of urgency among children, which can enable them to acquire SS education(Manfra & Lee, 2012). Manfra and Lee (2012) also proposed incorporating social networking services (SNS)and Internet blogs that are close to children’s experiences and interests into lessons. There has been an ongoing
research to develop approaches to spark children’s interest in societal issues since the 2000s.
In this regard, work by Barton and Levstik (2004) deserves special attention. They examined children’s
historical perceptions of trends and issues in advance, and underscored the need to gain a grasp of their thought
patterns (Barton & Levstik, 2004). For example, they observed how teachers capture children’s understandingof the American revolution, the civil rights movement, and the Bill of Rights, as well as how students develop acertain general conception of these phenomena, and can thus act to strengthen such conceptions. Barton andLevstik also discussed the need to apprehend the complexities of children’s cognitive processes (e.g. absorbing
textbook passages, information in museums, and data about local landmarks for regional education). In addition,
they probed children’s level of activeness in learning history, as well as their interest in analysing it, visiting
museums, and talking about historical events. Hence, when students come across new historical interpretations
in various contexts (e.g. through lessons or interview research), they also investigate their own position withrespect to the new information they encounter (such as whether to accumulate or scrutinise it). SS education

16

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

research in the US is now expanding to consider and examine children’s awareness.
The above research presents a logic that will drastically change the curriculum theory of SS education.
In the past, many US social studies education researchers pointed out that subject theory, which emphasises
subject content based on the social sciences, is becoming ubiquitous. The situation is the same for learning aboutsocial problems (Hess, 2008). The sharpness of learning differs greatly depending on the questions posed byteachers and those discovered by children. However, there was not much debate in this regard until the late1980s. The correlation between children’s perceptions and motivations and SS learning has nonethelesstransformed the logic underpinning US SS education research.
For example, one of the educational theories that has been attracting attention in the United States inrecent years is Hip Hop Pedagogy (hereinafter abbreviated as HHP) advocated by Christopher Emdin of theCollege of Teacher Education, Columbia University. HHP is an educational theory that incorporates hip-hop
music into classrooms (Mercedal-Sabbagh, 2005; Hill, 2009). The goal of HHP is to encourage critical dialogue
about the cultural texts that children consume inside and outside the school. The main contents of this theory are
confrontational phenomena, dilemmas, contradictions, etc., which deal with the beliefs and values of children,
as seen in themes such as race, class, gender, and sexuality. The method uses critical dialogue. Critical dialogue
is the reproduction/reconstruction of analysis, criticism, and cultural/social texts (contexts). The core idea is a
critical inquiry, which regards hip-hop culture as the lens of society, and conducts learning to decipher the society
represented by hip-hop culture (Tinson & McBride, 2013). The core teaching material of HHP is music. There
are two major classes. The first major class is on the analysis of lyrics, the sociocultural context in which the song
was created, and the social function of the song. We will select specific music and artists, and interpret the social
context, claims, challenges, and ideas that are inherent in the songs and lyrics. The second major class is on theexpression of social problems in songs (freestyle rap). Students are expected to analyse and interpret the societyon their own, and express the analysis results and assertions in songs.
Tanaka (2015) points out to a method of SS learning based on cultural studies as a principle of suchlearning. This study brings out the thoughts and powers of things and events that are familiar to students withrespect to the study of SS. As one of them, the contents of lessons deals with cultural issues such as subculture
and pop-culture. Students who routinely come into contact with cultural issues are taken in, and in some cases
accepted uncritically (Hall, 1981, 2018). By treating students to familiar cultures, through which they dismantle
their thinking frameworks, they can become aware of the familiar politics to which they unconsciously interact.
At the time, the important thing is to focus on one’s own intrinsic interest, that is, motivation. This methodology
stands for the development of learning that emphasizes students’ awareness and motivation and thinks about the
everyday society autonomously.

SS Education Research Based on Children’s Motivation
Target Substantiation Based on the Changes in Research Questions
Classroom study in the backdrop of motivation greatly changes the research questions at hand, unlike
conventional queries. Traditionally, a major question in the study of classwork has been ‘What is school/
learning?’ However, schools and teaching do not always lead to children’s learning. As explained in further
detail (below), it is possible for a child to attend school and to pretend to learn. Hence, we must instead ask, ‘How

17

Noboru Tanaka

does school/learning work?’ In essence, this question is reframed from the perspective of school and learning
playing the role of a formal scaffold to children’s learning and serving as a category of implementation. Whenquestions are reframed in this way, the following lower-level questions are generated.
(a) How do schools function?
(b) How do subjects and learning affect children? (How do children approach learning?)
Brubaker stated that ‘populations are maintained by the daily act of classification, categorisation, andidentification. Race and ethnicity are used in our perceptions, interpretations, representations, classifications, andcategorisations; race, ethnicity, and nationality are not tangible things in the world, but rather are views of theworld—they are epistemic realities, not ontological realities’ (Brubaker, 2016). This indicates that society, as
seen by children, differs based on their perceptions, and is not ontologically concrete. In other words, children
cannot innately discern a ‘common society’ (Tanaka, 2015, 2017; Tanaka & Makaiau, 2018). Given that eachchild views society from different angles, the class centres on the epistemological reality they perceive, andapproaches their ideas on society, thereby realising their learning. This can be referred as ‘genuine learning’.
Japanese SS education has confused this ontological reality with the epistemological one. For example,
since the 1990s, lessons in school have often been conducted with children regarded as a part of society;furthermore, decision-making, consensus building, and policymaking are practiced accordingly. Yoshimura(1996) developed a learning theory in which consensuses on social issues are created in the classroom. He
proposed various approaches (Yoshimura, 1996). However, children have different affiliations (e.g., schools,
communities, countries, families, and gender identity). As a result, they often fluctuate based on the criteria ofindividual social issues and events based on the diversity of their affiliations (Edward, 2017). For this reason,
decision-making and value judgements are not only different from others, but also extremely multi-layered
within the self. This means that the grounds for urgency are distinct and that the solutions, the means for solving
them, and the motivation will each be unique. That is, even if one makes a choice or forms a consensus in class,it will only be ad hoc. Children’s criteria are epistemological rather than ontological. Children pretend that they
have made decisions and reached a consensus with respect to the society and events that they have recognisedon their own.
Social phenomena are nothing more than epistemological ideas. Students cannot gain approval,
agreement, or find common understanding. Hence, by dealing with the society to which they belong (theepistemological one), they become aware of their own engagement with society and their own learning. In
essence, motivation is children’s impetus to take part in ‘learning’. This is based on Luhmann’s idea that
‘understanding motivation aids retroactively, [distinguishing] whether an action exists in the first place’(Luhmann, 1986). Lessons must focus on the students’ epistemological world to impel them to participate inauthentic learning. This is the students’ engagement with their lessons.

The Relationship Between Student Engagement and Schoolwork
What is the relationship between the drive for learning and engagement with classwork? In order tograsp the connection between these elements, the following two questions are posed:● Do you foster student engagement in class?
● Do you utilise student engagement in class?

18

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Traditionally, it has been difficult to quantify results with respect to the first question (the degree ofengagement). Although Ishido (2008) remarked that teachers cannot apprehend students’ ‘understanding’ (thedouble binding of the subject), it is inherently difficult for teachers, a third party, to completely grasp students’
epistemological perspective. As such, it is necessary to appreciate the lessons conducted based on the outcomesof using and applying the knowledge transmitted, in addition to the qualities and skills that students acquire
during such lessons. In other words, since it is difficult to verify whether the student engagement is actually
nurtured, it is better to utilise the ‘engagement’ that students already display.

Teaching Practices that Leverage Children’s Motivation
SS Education Theory, Drawing on Communication Theory
Next, this paper discusses how ‘student engagement in class’ can actually be utilised by presenting
specific cases. The lessons outlined in this paper are grounded in the communication theory developed by Niklas
Luhmann, a sociologist who considers society to have been formed by communication (Luhmann, 1986, 2009).
He divided communication into three elements – information, message, and understanding – based on theprinciple of selection (Nagaoka, 2006; Tanaka, 2015). Luhmann calls this ‘understanding of operation by selfcompliance’. That is, lessons cannot be completed through the function of teachers’ deductive communication
alone. Children’s socialisation does not go as intended by teachers, but depends on their own knowledge andsocial image, as well as the position and context in which they are located. For example, the teacher selects anddiscards information ‘A’ in the lesson and uses it as teaching material. Usually, the teacher communicates it tostudents in lesson and seeks understanding of the phenomenon. However, students do not always understand thephenomenon as a perfect ‘A’. They interpret it in the knowledge that one already has (existing knowledge) or theimage of society (image) that one considers, and then accept it. Therefore, there is a possibility that they will
have a slightly different understanding such as A+, A−, and A°. In addition, some students may have a completely
different understanding than B or C, or may not accept it. Especially, when it is different from a student’s own
interpretation, understanding, and cultural background, or when it constitutes knowledge, which is separate fromthe student’s real world (life). There is a limit to intentional socialisation and counter-socialisation (Tanaka,
2014, 2016). In order to further children’s understanding (i.e. to broaden and deepen their awareness), it isnecessary to capture their existing social image and comprehension, as well as to negotiate with them. That is tosay, it is necessary to set up a lesson as a negotiation process between the teacher and child, or between thechildren (versus a lesson as a communication process).
In addition, the educational content to be dealt with is distantiated from the ideal social image andnormative society. The society in which children live realistically is targeted for learning. Some events are
difficult to agree on in actual society, and there are circumstances where they do not develop as expected. This
does not necessarily entail that Habermas’ ‘ideal speech situation (‘every subject with the competence to speak
and act is allowed to take equal part in a discourse’) is guaranteed in all social settings’ (Habermas, 1984).
Rather, it is necessary to simulate a more realistic community and aim towards negotiating with the wider
society rather than reaching an agreement or coordination with others. The following is a summary of this SS
theory:19

Noboru Tanaka《Selecting the educational content》● Children’s social reality (i.e. the epistemological reality)● The use of children’s social image● (Premise) Starting after accepting reality (not modelling an idealistic society)《Selecting the educational method》● The class as communication → The class as a negotiation process● Considering the connection between self and society《Educational goals》● Fostering the ability to reconcile with society (no consensus building)Luhmann thinks that structural understanding of the real world is difficult. The reason for this is thatsociety is always changing, and it is considered as a structure composed of multiple communications. Society isunobservable and can only be inferred. However, we cannot but live in that ambiguous society. SS theory basedon communication theory aims to assume such a society, position itself in it, and imagines (anticipate) a futuresociety. The SS theory, based on communication theory, has three core assumptions. The first is the unificationof social awareness and citizenship. Citizenship comprises of social recognition and equality, and does not takethe position of dualistic SS education theory grounded in liberal epistemology, which is not related to citizenshipdevelopment. SS education is positioned as a subject that cultivates citizenship with the goal of spreadingawareness of living in the society.
The second premise is to select educational content and methods based on children’s own perceptions.
This educational theory does not take the position of nurturing the so-called ‘smart children’ with the objectiveof understanding and accepting the results of social sciences. It promotes the use of children’s social awarenessand social image as educational content based on the analysis and criticism of social phenomena. It, however,does not only strive to teach the achievements of social sciences but also attempts to reinterpret thoseachievements by considering the respective roles of society and oneself. There is no need to devise or grasp lofty
theories or knowledge. Instead, the goal can be to acquire a stance with which one can live smoothly in society,that is, to raise ‘children who can make a compromise with society’.
The third assumption is the non-enforcement of civil behaviour. The lesson’s purpose is limited toindividuals’ citizenship development, and specific activities are left to the discretion of individuals’ own
judgements. This is a text theory for awareness/reflection/renewal of one’s own value judgement criteria.

Classwork Implementation, Designed to Dismantle the ‘Performed Consensus’
Next, as an example, we present the case of an SS class that utilises student motivation based oncommunication theory. The lesson theme was ‘modern society from the perspectives of characterisation’.
The lesson used media material that the students found familiar and interesting: the movie Library Wars. The
work is a novel by Hiro Arikawa. She produced many works that indirectly talk about society by linking it withfictitious societies. She raises various phenomena of the real world, such as ‘Ground Self Defense Force’and ‘Maritime
Self Defense Force’. This work, which was published between 2006 and 2008, has been republished as a comic bookfrom 2008 to 2019. In 2013, it was made into a movie, and in 2015, it was made into a TV drama and a movie. Morethan six million copies of the work have been sold in Japan. The work is popular across different generations. When I

20

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

asked the school students about the work before practicing the lesson, more than 80% of them had come across thework in either novels, manga, or movies. This shows that the work was not only a popular work in general, but wasalso a work, which was familiar to the students who practiced the lesson.
The plot focuses on middle and high school students, and depicts a future Japanese society with complex
media regulations, most prominently the government’s Media Improvement Act, which was passed to allow
government censorship. In the class, the students did not watch the entire film, but rather only a characteristic
scene lasting approximately five minutes. The project practiced was the ‘News Paper in Education’ project,which actively used newspapers for lessons. Thus, the students were exposed to the newspaper media on a daily
basis in their classes, and they learned to critically analyse the media in their classes. Since the students who
attended this class had already learned the theory of media literacy, they were also interested in the issue of media
regulations covered in this work. The lesson’s main flow proceeded as follows:• Some students watched a portion of the movie, while the others were excluded. They analysed andevaluated the Media Improvement Act depicted in the work (some students had insufficient information).
They then created a scenario.
• Some students who did not watch the scene returned to the classroom, and the pre-listening students
conveyed the content of the Media Betterment Act to the returning group of students. In this activity,
students who did not watch the scene were made aware of the process through which other students ina minority accepted the information shared by the majority. They pondered over the emotions of subjects
in a state of not having enough information.
• They explained ‘characterisation’ as a sociological concept. (Characterisation is the process of labelling
oneself or others to a certain extent and capturing its properties within a framework.) The students had
to explain that it required a certain character who could understand the situation by properly
supplementing the knowledge of hearsay in a situation where there was no sufficient information.
• The students analysed the characterisation that occurs in society, and attempted to define characterisationin order to lead public opinion in a certain direction by themselves.
• The students thought about how to characterise themselves and how to deal with the abundant‘characterisation’ in society.
The following table1 provides further details regarding this class.
Table1. Structure of lesson
Teacher’s instruction

Students activity○ Show video of “Library Wars”(In order to create an information gap, somestudents does not watch it: called Team A)・View video ①○ Listen to the impression of “Society
after the Enactment of the Media
Improvement Act (society where the bill
regulating the media is adopted andinformation on the library and the Internet
is censored)”. (→ There are many
disagreements as a whole class)→ Illustrate“Reason for Opinion Against
Media Improvement Act”

△ I think it’s too much to crack down on
the expression.
△ I think you should just read and judge.
△ I think there is no better law.

21

Noboru Tanaka○ Meet Team A, and the team members
explain to Team A the society where theMedia Improvement Act was enforced.
Team A writes the impression theyreceived and writes it on the whiteboard.
(Based on the impression given by the teammembers, it grasps the “pretending” ofunderstanding the information despite thelack of information.)* Is the improvement law really bad? (View
the whole picture again)・ Team A students come back to lesson.
▲ I don’t know because I was out.
▲ Censorship has been started by theMedia Improvement Act.
▲ The Media Improvement Act is a lawthat controls expression.
▲ Even if the media is correct, it is toomuch.

・ Watch video ① again
・ Write to worksheet ①.

・ Distribute worksheet (1) and explain theconcept of “characterization”. (Wepretend to grasp the tendency of the target
using a certain framework based on existingknowledge and recognition) [Characterized
and experienced]○ Show and explain a picture of a “womenonly vehicle.”
Challenge“Let’s characterize the world”○ Make an ad explaining “women-only
vehicles”. However, create ads that inspire
specific people to specific values based on
the conditions presented. (Men in their 20s,
women in their 20s, men in their 60s). In
that case, please use it as information to
guide the newspaper at hand.
・ Receive a paper on which “who willlead to what opinion” is written and makean article. (After completion, write on thewhiteboard and present to the front)○ Explanation of the example (presenting
an article that leads to an opinion in favor of“Mt. Mushroom” with “Takenoko no
Sato vs Mushroom Mountain” as the
subject)
・ Write the headings and information
characteristics of each team on worksheet②.
-Analyze the next group of your group.

○ Analyze the headings of each group andwrite on the worksheet (2) who they are
targeting. After that, each group announced
the target of the article, the opinions theywanted to guide, and the articles theyreferred to.

22○ Using the figure used earlier, explain the
structure of characterization using a femaleonly vehicle as an example (explained by
students → graspd by teacher)△ The sender of the information, the video
part is an article I made.
△ The recipients of information and people
are the target gender, approval anddisagreement.
(△ People who are not interested in
information.

〇 In the real world, information is not a
simple form as handled in class, but a visual
device in the form of a flyer or newspaper.

・ Exchange of opinions

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

○ We are included only in the charactersthat the majority have. Also, we arecharacterizing ourselves. How do we facesociety now that society is becoming acharacter? (Group exchange, overall
exchange)○ Please analyze the media using“Characterization” in the future. Also
consider the process of characterizing
yourself and the current status.
The following is a summary of the above based on the lesson’s goals:(a) Capture the fact that we are making judgements based on limited information (capture the‘performing self’);(b) Create a situation in which the student does not have sufficient information, highlight the emotions
and behaviours that appear in such a situation, and then make specific value judgements that also
capture the happenings in the real world (capturing the realities of society through ‘play’); and(c) Realise the ‘characterisation’ that occur in society (actually ‘characterise’; capturing the reality ofsociety through ‘performing’ and ‘self-acting’).
In this lesson, we first aimed to dismantle Luhmann’s ‘performed consensus’ (Luhmann, 2004). As amatter of course, a circumstance in which the students perform an act that they understand can be viewed in thefollowing two ways. The first way is to view the concept of approval as a ‘learning ability’. This is a feature oflearning driven by consensus building and learning propelled by decision-making, which has already been
discussed. During the lesson, the children act on a position, which is designated as correct. In other words,
learning is based on the premise of an ideal society. The second approach involves a concept that does not
require acting (for which this paper advocates). However, since schools and classes create an inherent power
relationship, students do a considerable amount of ‘acting’. Hence, it is difficult to maintain a complete distancefrom acting. For this reason, in this exercise, we first set the stage to capture the actual reality of society through‘playing’, and then establish a procedure to reflect ‘self-acting’.

Conclusion
This study aims to describe the concept of SS teaching by utilising children’s motivations. Firstly, as amethod, the information related to the treatment of children’s motivation (for learning) and urgency in past SS
education research and practice was organised. After that, a theoretical approach and lesson design plan were
proposed for use in SS education.
The conclusions of this study are twofold. First, with respect to the question, ‘How do you perceive
children’s engagement with classes and society?’, by reconsidering ‘functions’ as the ‘effects’ of school andlearning, the object can be changed to, ‘how to realise improvement from the viewpoint of students’ (the students’
epistemological reality). This suggests that students take part in the lesson content, as each lesson engages with
their consciousness and identity. Second, the question of ‘How can we handle student engagement in the class?’
is better conceptualised as an evaluation of the outcomes of each lesson (the students’ understanding) when
applying acquired knowledge. There is no need to force social participation. This makes each lesson a playful

23

Noboru Tanaka

interaction in which students can express themselves as they engage. In this paper, we examined these factors
with a class that attempted to dismantle ‘performed consensus’.
SS education and its research are currently at a crossroads. How should we perceive diversifying
societies and children, and actualise learning? Needless to say, all students are already taking part in the society.
Schools and classroom lessons are the main drivers of students and social divergence. SS education research isalready expanding into normative research, which includes empirical studies. However, it will be necessary tocontinue seriously observing children and find ways to make them feel truly motivated.

References
Anderman, E., & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence,and classroom climate. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of researchon student engagement (pp. 173-191). New York, NY: Springer Science Business + Media.
Anderman, L., Andrejewski C., & Allen J. (2011). How do teachers support students’ motivation andlearning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113, 969-1003.
Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bruabaker, R. (2016). Globalizing world and politics of belonging: Immigration, citizenship and nationstate. (S. Sato et al. Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Akashishoten.
Edoward, S. (2017). Thirdplace: Spatial turn of postmodanism (M. Kato Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Seidosya.
Emily, L. (2011). Motivation: A literature Review, Research Report. Retrieved from http://images.
pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Motivation_Review_final.pdf
Finn, J., & Voelkl, K. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement. Journal of Negro
Education, 62, 249-268.
Guay, F., Julien, C., Catherine, R., Herbert, M., Simon, L., & Michel, B. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, andcontrolled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711–735.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hahn, C. (1996). Research on issues-centered social studies. Handbook of teaching social issues, 99, 2639.
Hahn, C. (1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J. A.
Amadeo (Eds.), Civic education across the countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA
Civic Education Project (pp. 583-608). Delft, Netherlands: Eburon Publishers.
Hall, S. (1981). Notes on deconstructing the popular. In R. Samuel (Ed.), People’s history and socialist
theory (pp. 227-240). London, England: Routledge.
Hall, S. (2018). Essential essays: Foundations of cultural studies & identity and diaspora. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Hess, D. (2008). Controversial issues and democratic discourse. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbookof research in social studies education (pp. 124-136). New York, NY: Routledge.

24

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Hill, M. L. (2009). Beats rhymes classroom life: Hip-hop pedagogy and the politics of identity. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Hootstein, E. (1995). Motivation strategies of middle school social studies teachers. Social Education, 59,
23-26.
Ichikawa, H. (2015). Achievements and lessons in problem-solving learning explored through the actual
conditions of children: A sense of understanding and basics. Tokyo, Japan: Gakubunsya.
Ishido, N. (2008). Luhmann’s theory of educational system. Tokyo, Japan: Kouseisha-kouseikaku.
Ito, M. (2013). Power of emotion: A body that resonates with the media. Tokyo, Japan: Serikashobo.
Ito, M. (2017). Sociology of emotion: The quest for “micro perception” in the post-media era. Tokyo,
Japan: Seidosya.
Kage, M. (2013). Theory of motivation for learning: Educational psychology exploring motivation. Tokyo,
Japan: Kanekoshobo.
Keller, J. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach (K.
Suzuki et al. Trans.). New York, NY: Springer.
Kiritani, M. (2012). Trends of social studies education research: Analysis of Journal of Educational
Research on Social Studies. Bulletin of Japan Social Studies Research Association, 48, 67-76.
Kuhn, T. (1963). The Structure of science revolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Luhmann, N. (1986). Power (K. Nagaoka. Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Keiso shobo.
Luhmann, N. (2004). The educational system of society (J. Murakami Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: University ofTokyo Press.
Luhmann, N. (2009). Society of society1 (Y. Baba et al. Trans.). Tokyo: Hosei University Press.
Makaiau, A. S., & Tanaka, N. (2018). Philosophy for children: A deliberative pedagogy for teaching social
studies in Japan and the USA. The Journal of International Social Studies, 8(2), 29-54.
Manfra, M., & Lee, J. (2012). “You have to know the past to (blog) the present:” Using an educational blog
to engage students in US history. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 118-134.
Mercedal-Sabbagh, T. (2005). Hip hop stories and pedagogy. Boca Raton, Fl: Florida Atlantic University.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad72/4c2b6522f62b76203b11495514ca4eb6cc21.
pdf?_ga=2.15651190.1792907070.1598838373-648529372.1597040451
Nagaoka, K. (2006). Luhmann: Revolution of social theory. Tokyo, Japan: Keiso shobo.
Newmann, F. Ed. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nishimura, K. (2017). Philosophy of emotion: Analytical philosophy and phenomenology. Tokyo, Japan:
Keiso shobo.
Oliver, W., & Lumpe, A. (1996). The relationship of student attitudes toward science, mathematics, English
and social studies in U.S. secondary schools. Research in the Schools, 3(1), 13-21.
Stipek, D., Rachelle, F., Denise, D., & Sharon, M. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on
young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209-223.
Summers, J. (2008). Cognitive approaches to motivation in education. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century
education: A reference handbook (pp. I-113-I-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tanaka, N. (2014). Curriculum design for social studies education based on cultural studies: Development25

Noboru Tanaka

of media studies using encording decording theory. Annual report of the Faculty of Education, Gifu
University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(1), 23-36.
Tanaka, N. (2015). Social studies education based on Luhmann’s theory of communication: Lesson study
for enabling students to reconsider the relationship between society and oneself. Japanese Educational
Research Association for the Social Studies, 83, 1-12.
Tanaka, N. (2016). History learning as citizenship education: Collaborative learning based on Luhmann’s
theory of communication. The Journal of Social Studies Education (The International Social Studies
Association), 5, 57-70.
Tanaka, N. (2017). Research methodology of lesson studies for enabling to construct social relevance:
How social studies educational research in U.S. handled student’s motivation to learn. Bulletin ofJapanese Educational Research Association for the Social Studies, 50, 81-90.
Tanaka, N., & Makaiau, A. S. (2018). The nature of dialogue and inquiry-based learning: Through thereconsideration of social studies education research methodology in a globalized society. The Journalof social studies, 134, 72-85.
Thornton, S. (2004). Teaching social studies that matters: Curriculum for active learning. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Tinson. C., & McBride, C (2013). Introduction to special issue: Hip hop, critical pedagogy, and radialeducation in a time of crisis. Radical Teacher, 97, 1-9.
Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.
Ueda, K. (1994). Education for humans: Social studies and its beginnings. Nagoya, Japan: Reimei Shobo.
Yoshimura, K. (1996). A social studies lesson for developing consensus-building ability. Journal of
Educational Research on Social Studies, 45, 41-50.

26