International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Designing and Evaluating Learning System
for Collaborative Historical Analogy
Ryohei Ikejiri
The University of Tokyo, Japanikejiri@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Ryo Yoshikawa
Nagoya Bunri University, Japan
yoshikawa.ryo@nagoya-bunri.ac.jp
Yasunobu Sumikawa
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japansumikawa-yasunobu@tmu.ac.jp

The application of historical causation to modern social problem solving is considered important in history
education for high school. Additionally, a collaborative historical analogy is needed. In this study, we design anovel learning system that makes the combination of grouping students to maximize collaborative historicalanalogy and helps students to connect their historical analogies collaboratively. By integrating previous researchon collaborative historical analogy, we designed an online learning system named the History Time Capsulethat provides online collaborative writing spaces where students check the validity of their historical analogy
and integrate their historical analogy collaboratively. As a result of an evaluation, this learning systemachieved a certain result for grouping and collaborative historical analogy. Moreover, we propose some future
works of devising a method or an algorithm that minimizes the variance among pairs and groups, better
scripts for collaborative historical analogy, and so on.

Keywords: Analogy, Collaborative Learning, Grouping, History Education, Web Application

Introduction
Learning Historical Analogy
There has been growing interest in historical analogy. Staley (2002) insists that history provides not only informationon the past but also alternative solutions to similar modern issues. There have been a few cases wherein American
politicians have considered historical lessons when they frame diplomatic policies, which cannot be judged, based on
individual experience (Abbott & Adler, 1989). Thus, learning history as the resource of analogy can aid in analyzing
the reasons behind existing modern social issues and help us devise alternative solutions to confront them. Also inhistory education, the application of historical causations in solving modern issues is considered important. Indeed,
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology–Japan (2018) considers the fostering of theability to apply historical knowledge to modern issues to be one important goal.
To help promoting the application of historical causation to modern problem solving, some researchers havedeveloped effective learning methods. For example, Mansilla (2000) examined how students successfully apply
historical causation to current issues. Ikejiri, Fujimoto, Tsubakimoto, and Yamauchi (2012) designed a competitive
card game for high-school students studying world history. This research has revealed effective instructions forpromoting the transfer of historical causation correctly: dividing information about causation into “problem,”“solution,” and “result,” using history to build an informed comparative base between both past and modern cases;
recognizing contextual differences between them; and checking the validity of historical analogy made by students
with each other in a group composed of two pairs. Moreover, Sumikawa and Ikejiri (2015) propose a mathematicalframework estimating similarity between a present social issue and historical causation. Ikejiri and Sumikawa (2016)
developed a web application, the History Time Machine, that help Japanese high-school students of world history to
search for historical causation similar to authentic social issues and to transfer historical causation to authentic social
issues appearing in recent news.

Collaborative Historical Analogy
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

6

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

While historical analogy is useful for confronting modern social issues, there are mainly two problems when it isused by one person. First problem of historical analogy made by one person is what each person thinks the similar
historical event to the modern one is up to the person. Holyoak and Thagard (1980) showed a case in which someAmerican politicians thought World War II was similar to the Gulf War and that they should intervene in the Gulf
War, and other politicians thought the Vietnam War was similar to the Gulf War and that they should not intervene
in it. Because modern social issues have complicated reasons, solutions to modern ones should be composed ofsome historical analogies from different viewpoints. Thus, the more different historical analogies there are in agroup, the more collaborative historical analogy that we define as historical analogy connecting one’s historicalanalogy from one viewpoint with another’s historical analogy from different viewpoint will be promoted.
Second problem is that historical analogy made by one person often causes the misuse of analogy (Fisher, 1970).
Ikejiri et al. (2012) proposed a learning method with a group composed of two pairs for preventing the misuse ofanalogy and showed that polishing a same historical analogy in a pair was effective for enhancing the quality ofhistorical analogy. Thus, it is important to ensure that each pair is composed of two students that draw on arelatively similar history regarding historical analogy and that making students in each pair checking the validity ofeach historical analogy. This step should be done before connecting historical analogies from different viewpoints.
In sum, two steps are needed to promote historical analogy. The first step is checking the validity of each historicalanalogy in each pair composed of two students that each draw on a relatively similar history for historical analogy.
The second is connecting one’s historical analogy from one viewpoint with another’s historical analogy from adifferent viewpoint in a group composed of two pairs that each draw on a relatively different history for historicalanalogy.

Problems in Previous Research about Collaborative Historical Analogy
There are some research studies that have helped enhance collaborative historical analogy. Ikejiri, Yoshikawa, andSumikawa (2019) propose an algorithm that makes pairs composed of two students that each draw on a relatively
similar history for historical analogy and groups composed of two pairs that each draw on a relatively different
history for historical analogy. Moreover, Yoshikawa, Ikejiri, and Sumikawa (2019) developed an online system wherestudents discuss their historical analogies in pairs and groups. We will explain these details in next chapter.
However, there are two challenges noted by previous research studies. First, there is no designed learning system
integrating an instruction for prompting collaborative historical analogy with an online system (Yoshikawa et al.
2019) that has implemented the algorithm for grouping (Ikejiri et al. 2019). Second, there is no evaluation for highschool students with learning system high-school students. Addressing these problems may provide effectively
learning collaborative historical analogy with high-school students in history classroom.

PurposeIn this study, we design and evaluate a learning system that promotes collaborative historical analogy. We address
three research questions as follows:
RQ1: How is a learning system to promote collaborative historical analogy?
RQ2: Can our learning system make more ideal pairs and groups compared with attendance numerical order?
RQ3: To what extent high-school students create collaborative historical analogy with our learning system?
The next section summarizes three previous research needed to design a learning system. The History Time
Machine that helps students to search similar historical events to modern social issues, an online system wherestudents discuss their historical analogies in each pair and, for each group, an algorithm for grouping.

Preliminaries
The History Time Machine
The History Time Machine (Figure 1) was devised by Ikejiri and Sumikawa (2016). The History Time Machinepreserves over 100 historical causations. The description of historical causation is composed of three sentences,“Problem,” “Solution,” and “Result.” The following is an example.

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

7

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Title: Bloc Economy
Category: diplomacy, commerce, community
Due to the 1929 economic crisis, many countries had to decide how to stabilize their economies. To reduce theeffects of the crisis and stabilize their economies, the Great Powers decided to create closed economic spheres(bloc economic spheres) comprising colonies and friendly countries and centered on specific currencies.
Therefore, the conflicts between the blocs grew intense as other countries' goods were excluded; small- andmedium-sized countries that relied on trade grew poor; and international affairs became unstable.
Each historical causation is assigned one or more categories from the following 13 categories; reign, diplomacy, war,
production, commerce, study, religion, literature and thought, technology, popular movement, community, disparity,and environment. If historical causation is related to specific categories, these categories are tagged “1” and others
are tagged “0.” Thus, feature vectors of all historical causations are created in advance, as shown in Table 1.
With History Time Machine, students explore daily web news that interests them (topics that include social issues),
copy and paste the text. Next, students select categories related to the social issues of the news. Subsequently, theHistory Time Machine detects and provides similar historical events by counting the number of same categories
attached to events if students push the search button (Sumikawa & Ikejiri, 2015). Sumikawa and Ikejiri (2015)
assume that the more the same category is increased, the more similarity is also increased. For example, in Table 1,
the number of the same categories between modern issue and History 1 is two, while the number of the same
categories between modern issue and History 2 is one. So, the History Time Machine judges that History 1 is moresimilar to modern issue than History 2 in this case. After searching for similar historical events, students identify thesimilarity between the current social issues and historical causation and use the historical causation as a resource forconsidering the current social issues from a new perspective (Ikejiri & Sumikawa, 2016).

Figure 1. The interface of the History Time Machine

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

8

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Table 1The Example of the Vectors of Historical Causations

Interactive System for Collaborative Historical Analogy
Figure 2 provides an overview of interactive system developed by Yoshikawa et al. (2019) including the History Time
Machine for collaborative historical analogy. After collecting texts of news articles from a database, this system
performs five steps: providing news and related historical events with the History Time Machine, creating feature
vectors, making pairs and groups, creating collaborative writing spaces for pairs and groups, and archiving results ofthe discussion (Yoshikawa et al., 2019).

Figure 2. Overview of Interactive System in Yoshikawa et al. (2019)

Algorithm for Grouping
The algorithm for grouping in Ikejiri et al. (2019) creates feature vectors for all students based on the categories
selected by them. This algorithm uses a “similarity score” that is calculated by counting the number of same categories
between two feature vectors. These scores are automatically calculated in all combinations of the pairs formed fromall students or all combinations of groups created from all pairs. In creating the groups, the feature vector of eachpair is generated by adding each number of the category (ex. the feature vector of the pair is {1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0,
10, 0, 0, 0} if one student selects History 1 in Table 1 and the other student selects History 2 in Table 1) and used forthe calculation of the similarity score. Based on the calculated scores, the pairs are created in descending order ofsimilarity score or the groups are created in ascending order of similarity score. The experimental results prove that
only this algorithm creates suitable groups compared with other popular-clustering algorithms (Ikejiri et al., 2019).
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

9International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

DesignFor addressing RQ 1 of “How is a learning system to promote collaborative historical analogy?.” we designed a novel
learning system, “the History Time Capsule”. Figure 3 shows the overview of processes using the History Time
Capsule. Once all students determine their discussions with the History Time Machine devised by Ikejiri and Sumikawa(2016) with some modern news, the History Time Capsule automatically makes ideal pairs and groups by using thealgorithm of Ikejiri et al. (2019) with feature vectors based on the categories of historical causation selected by students.
Then, students discuss with their partner or group members. While the interactive system is designed based on theinteractive system developed by Yoshikawa et al. (2019), we additionally designed the interface and instruction forcollaborative historical analogy. Figure 4 shows how students use the History Time Capsule for collaborative historicalanalogy. The details are as follows.

Figure 3. Overview of processes using the History Time Capsule(The shadowed boxes in Figure 3 are newly designed processes for the main History Time Capsule)

Figure 4. The image of processes using the History Time Capsule(1) Login and Selecting news. Initially, each student logs into the History Time Capsule using their own accounts,
and selects one piece of interesting news. Note here that we assume that the accounts and news are prepared by a
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

10International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

teacher in advance.
(2) Applying historical causations. Next, each searches for historical causations similar to the selected news using
the History Time Machine (Figure 1). Students select categories that are related to the social issues in the news andsearch for related historical causations by clicking the search button. We expect students to identify the similarity
between current social issues and historical causations and to use the historical causations as a resource for considering
current social issues from a new perspective. From the search results, students predict what outcomes will be obtainedby applying historical causations to social issues included in the news stories they have selected.
(3) Discussion in each pair. After all the students input their outcomes with the History Time Machine, pairs areautomatically formed by this system. We expect that two students in each pair make use of relatively similar histories
for historical analogy. Each pair collaboratively combines two documents about their outcome inputs imported fromthe History Time Capsule. In the online collaborative writing space, they communicate with each other in the chatbox (Figure 5). We expect them to understand their historical analogies deeply and to check their validity.
After finishing their combining, each pair submits the document and wait for the next grouping.
(4) Discussion in each group. After all pairs submit their documents, two pairs that make use of different historicalanalogies from each other are automatically paired off. We expect them to consider the current social issues from two
different perspectives with the discussion imported from each pair work, leading them to check the validity of their
historical analogies. Then, they communicate among them in the chat box. Finally, they integrate documents about
their outcome collaboratively (Figure 6).
After each group submits the documents, each document is automatically archived as a web page that students cancheck anytime. We expect that students will reflect on or return to their predictions after a set period of time.

Figure 5. The interface of the History Time Capsule in a discussion in each pairIJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

11International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Figure 6. The interface of the History Time Capsule in a discussion in each group

Evaluation
Implementation with the History Time Capsule
We conducted lessons for 40 high-school students in Japanese public schools who learned world history to evaluate
our learning system. The lesson was conducted on July 3rd and July 10th in 2018. All the students could use thedesktop PC in both lessons. In the lesson (60 min) on July 3rd, the teacher explained the social issue of the Japaneselabor problem and each student applied historical causation to the labor problem. All the data written by students
was saved in the form of a Microsoft word file. In the lesson (60 min) on July 10th, the lesson started after each
student opened the word file written about the solution of the Japanese labor problem on July 3 rd. After all thestudents reviewed each solution with the History Time Machine in the last lesson, the teacher explained how to use
the History Time Capsule. Next, all the students logged in the History Time Capsule and selected the news about
the Japanese labor problem. They copied and pasted the data applying the historical causation with the word filemade on July 3 rd. After all the students input the data, pairing and groping was controlled by this grouping system.
They discussed in each pair and wrote collaborative solutions to the problem by pair with the History Time Capsulein 15 min. Finally, they discussed their solutions in each group and wrote collaborative solutions to the problem ingroups using the History Time Capsule in 20 min. Figure 7 depicts students learning this lesson. All the data
describing their solutions written by students were saved in the History Time Capsule.

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

12

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Figure 7. Lesson with the History Time Capsule

Evaluation Method
Analysis of Pairing and Grouping. This system aims at pairing students that draw on a relatively similar history andmaking a group composed of two pairs that each draw on a relatively different history for historical analogy. For
addressing RQ 2 of “Can our learning system make more ideal pairs and groups compared with attendance numericalorder?,” we calculate the similarity score with this system and compare between the case of lessons with the History
Time Capsule and the virtual case of pairing and grouping in attendance numerical order. We assume that the similarity
score in pairs is higher with the History Time Capsule and the similarity score in groups is lower with the History
Time Capsule.
Analysis of Collaborative Historical Analogy. For addressing RQ 3 of “To what extent high-school students create
collaborative historical analogy with our learning system?,” we first collected all the data of titles of selected history,
key ideas of historical analogies written by each student, by each pair and by each group and created a list of these
data. Next, we verified whether each group’s historical analogies included the key ideas connecting one pair’s key ideas
with the other pair’s different ideas according to the definition of collaborative historical analogy in this study.

ResultPairing and Grouping
The results of similarity scores in pairs and groups between the lesson with the History Time Capsule and the virtualcase of attendance numerical order were as follows: the similarity score mean in pairs with the History Time Capsulewas 2.5 (SD = 1.05) and the similarity score mean in pairs in the virtual case of attendance numerical order was 0.85
(SD = 0.99). The similarity score mean in groups with the History Time Capsule was 3.3 (SD = 4.83) and the similarity
score mean in groups in the virtual case of attendance numerical order was 4.5 (SD = 1.35).
Subsequently, the results of a t-test to examine the scores in pairs with the History Time Capsule and in the virtualcase of attendance numerical order confirmed a significant difference (p <.05). This shows that this learning system
was effective in forming pairs composed of two students, making use of relatively similar histories for historicalanalogy. Otherwise, the difference between the scores in groups was not statistically significant. This is because of theinability to minimize the variance among the groups.

Collaborative Historical Analogy
Table 2 shows changing process of the key ideas of solutions written by each student, by each pair and by each group.
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

13

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

In Table 2, the red ideas refer to ideas made by pair A and the blue ideas refer to ideas made by pair B. In the column“The key ideas of solutions written by each group,” star marks for ideas with “red ideas & blue ideas” refer tocollaborative historical analogies.
As a result of analysis, 60% of groups made collaborative historical analogies in implementation. For example, group
2 created a collaborative historical analogy. Student 2-A1 selected the historical causation of “Black slaves and thetriangular trade” and created historical analogy including the key idea of a foreign worker. Student 2-A2 also selected
historical causation for “Black slaves and the triangular trade” and created historical analogy including the key idea of
foreign worker and dispatched workers. They combined historical analogies including key ideas of foreign worker,
dispatched workers, and employee training after their discussion in the pair. On the other hand, student 2-B1 selected
the historical causation of “Improvements in printing technologies” and created a historical analogy including the key
idea of AI and ICT. Student 2-B2 selected the historical causation of “Christianity and learning” and created ahistorical analogy including the key idea of religion and common language. They combined historical analogies
including key ideas of AI and ICT, a manual written in a foreign language and tolerance in religion after their discussion
in the pair. Then, they integrated their proposed solutions to the Japanese labor problems as follows.
Improving efficiency by utilizing AI and ICT. Actively hiring foreign workers to reduce the burden on the mental and physical aspects ofJapanese workers. At that time, understanding the differences of cultures and religions of each country. We think that a better society canbe made by the entirety of Japanese society becoming tolerant of religious events, improving the skills of foreign workers by making manualsof foreign languages and having a problem directly addressed to workers by setting up opportunities for Japanese to work with foreigners.
In this case, the underlined part is the ideas connecting pair A’s key idea of “employ training” with pair B’s key ideaof “manual written by foreign language.”

Discussion
Regarding RQ 1, we designed the History Time Capsule that aims at pairing students who make use of relatively
similar history for historical analogy and also aims at creating groups composed of two pairs who make use of
relatively different histories for historical analogy. On the basis of a similarity score, these aims were achieved.
Regarding RQ 2, we found that the similarity score in pairs was significantly higher with the History Time Capsulethan in the virtual case of attendance numerical order. Otherwise, the difference between the scores in groups was
not statistically significant, while the similarity score in groups was lower with the History Time Capsule than in thevirtual case of attendance numerical order. We also found that the similar scores for groups were varied widely as
follows: The score of group 1–4 was 0 points, the score of groups 5–6 was 1 point, the score of group 7 was 2 points,
the score of group 8 was 5 points, the score of group 9–10 was 12 points. The inability to minimize the varianceamong the groups caused the no difference between the similarity scores with the History Time Capsule and in thevirtual case of attendance numerical order. A future challenge is to minimize the variance among pairs and groups as
much as possible.
Regarding RQ 3, we found that the History Time Capsule could partially promote collaborative historical analogy.
Referring to Table 2, it can be seen that 90% of groups had the different pairs’ ideas of historical analogies except
group 9 and that 60 % of groups can create historical analogies connecting one pair’s key ideas with the other pair’s
differing ideas in 20 min. This is so owing to the features of importing each students’ ideas and pairs’ discussions
Table 2
Changing Process of Key Ideas of Historical Analogies Written by Each Student, Each Pair and Each GroupID

The Title of Selected History

1-A1
1-A2
1-B1
1-B2
2-A1
2-A2

Top-down modernization
Top-down modernization
Boat route to India and domestic
industry
The flourishing of the Islamic world
Black slaves and the triangular trade
Black slaves and the triangular trade

2-B1
2-B2

Improvements in printing technologies
Christianity and learning

The key ideas of historicalanalogies written by each
student
・Manager・Human nature
・Law

The key ideas of historicalanalogies written by eachpair・Manager・Human nature
・Law

The key ideas ofhistorical analogies
written by each group
・Manager・Human nature★Law & Manager

・Work environment
・Foreign worker
・Foreign worker
・Dispatched workers
・AI and ICT・Religion
・Common language

・Foreign worker
・Dispatched workers
・Employee training
・AI and ICT・Manual written byforeign language

・Foreign worker
・AI and ICT・Tolerance in religion★Employ training &Manual written byforeign language

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

14International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

3-A1
3-A2
3-B1
3-B2
4-A1
4-A2
4-B1
4-B2
5-A1
5-A2
5-B1
5-B2
6-A1

Top-down modernization
Top-down modernization
Industrial Revolution and the divisionof labor
Industrial Revolution and the divisionof labor
Labor union formation
Labor union formation
Annexation of Ireland
Strengthening of the serf system in
Eastern Europe
The United States becoming an
industrialized country

6-A2
6-B1

Monsoon trade
Rubber and plantations
Labor union formation
Académie française and thestandardization of the national
language
Fall of the Great Powers’ regime
New Deal policies

6-B2
7-A1
7-A2
7-B1

Artillery’s invention
Factory Act
Factory Act
Persecution of Jews

7-B2

Black slaves and the triangular trade

8-A1
8-A2
8-B1

United States’ poverty problem
Sparta’s policies
Coffeehouses

8-B2

Factory Act

9-A1

Mass poverty and revolutions

9-A2

Factory Act

9-B1
9-B2
10-A1
10-A2
10-B1
10-B2

Factory Act
Factory Act
Mass poverty and revolutions
Factory Act
Factory Act
Factory Act

・Superior・Superior and newcomer
・Capitalist and labor
・Capitalist
・Labor union
・Work environment
・Appropriate salary・Compliance・Foreign worker
・Automation
・Disparity
・Hiring more labors
・Labor union
・ICT
・Multilateral cooperation
・Work environment
・High salary・Training
・Union・Request for improvement
・Power demand supply
balance・Compellation to stop・prolonged work
・Robot・Equalization
・Sharing ideas fromvarious fields
・Labor union・Law
・Surveillance
・Request for improvement
・Capitalist and labor
・Labor union
・Law
・Labor union・Law
・Poor classes
・Law
・Law
・Committee of labor
problem・Tolerance in religion
・Superior and newcomer・Revelation
・Equal Relationshipbetween Capitalist and
labor
・Law
(Nothing)
・Antidiscrimination
・Appropriate working
time・Foreign worker
・Automation
・Hiring more labors
・ICT
・Referring foreign cases
・Work environment
・High salary・Request for
improvement & Union
・Automation
・Law

・High salary★Equal Relationshipbetween Capitalist andlabor & Revelation
・Superior andnewcomer
・Appropriate working
time★Foreign worker &Automation & Hiring
more labors
・Results-oriented
approach
・ICT
・Referring foreigncases・Work environment
High salary★Request for
improvement &Automation
・Law

・Sharing ideas fromvarious fields

・Surveillance & Sharing
ideas from various fields

・Request for
improvement
・Law

・Request for
improvement
・Labor union・Law
・Poor classes & Law
・Counseling Center
・Law & Committee oflabor problem★Committee of labor
problem & CounselingCenter・Law

and groupings for enhancing collaborative historical analogy. However, four groups could not create a collaborative
historical analogy. We think that there are two reasons: lack of time and insufficient scripts for collaborative historicalanalogy. For example, group 4 and group 9 showed that the activity time in each pair and in each group wereinsufficient for discussing and writing integrated historical analogies by analyzing the chat data. Furthermore, group 6
only enumerated each pairs’ ideas and group 8 focused on odd pairs’ ideas. These cases will be improved by giving
more scripts for collaborative historical analogy.
In conclusion, we designed a novel learning system that partially promotes collaborative historical analogy. On theother hand, there is work for the future. First, a method or an algorithm that minimizes the variance among pairs andgroups is needed. For example, even though they analyze the same historical event, a person finds different factors of
causation from ones found by others according to his/her standpoint. Therefore, adding new data that reflects each
student’s historical analogy to the vector for grouping may be effective. Second, it is necessary to devise better scripts
for collaborative historical analogy. For example, before discussion in each pair and each group, giving the prompt,“Let’s start commenting on another pair’s historical analogy critically” or “Let’s think about whether your historicalideas can complement other’s historical ideas” may promote connection between the historical analogies of pairs.
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

15

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.6-16

Redesigning the interface of the History Time Capsule is a future challenge. Third, a comparative experiment between
groups with our system and without our one is needed to verify the effectiveness of our system from the viewpointof collaborative historical analogy by analyzing the quality of the collaborative documents between them.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K16314.

References
Abbott, C., & Adler, S. (1989). Historical analysis as a planning tool. Journal of American Planning Association, 55(4), 467473.
Fisher, D. H. (1970). Historians’ fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1980). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Massachusetts, MA: The MIT Press.
Ikejiri, R., Fujimoto, T., Tsubakimoto, Y., & Yamauchi, Y. (2012). Designing and evaluating the educational materials
which would allow high school students to apply historical events in world history to the problem solving inmodern. Japanese Journal of Educational Media Research, 19(1), 1-12, in Japanese.
Ikejiri, R., & Sumikawa, Y. (2016). Developing world history lessons to foster authentic social participation by
searching for historical causation in relation to current issues dominating the news. Journal of educational researchon social studies, 84, 37-48, in Japanese.
Ikejiri, R., Yoshikawa, R., & Sumikawa, Y. (2019). Towards enhancing historical analogy: Clustering users having
different aspects of events. FICC 2019: Advances in Information and Communication, 756-772.
Mansilla, V. B. (2000). Historical understanding beyond the past and into the present. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas & S.
Wineburg (Ed.), Knowing teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp.390-418). New York,
NY: New York University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2018). Koutou gakkou gakushuu sidou youryou kaisetsu
chiri rekishi hen. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/08/29/1407073_03_1.pdf
Staley, D. J. (2002). A history of the future. History and Theory, Theme Issue, 41(4), 72-89.
Sumikawa, Y., & Ikejiri, R. (2015). Mining historical social issues. Intelligent Decision Technologies (Smart Innovation, Systems
and Technologies), 39, 587-597.
Yoshikawa, R., Ikejiri, R. & Sumikawa, Y. (2019). Interactive grouping framework to enhance collaborative historicalanalogy. Proceedings of HCI International 2019, HCII'19, Springer, to appear.

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.6-16, ISSN 1882–2290

16