[Chris Higgins]

I have a BIG IDEA. I am thinking of suggesting to my HoD at a forthcoming INSET day that we throw out the Industrial Revolution from the SoW. How long have we laboured to make this an interesting and accessible subject. How many times have we sighed and beaten our brows when we realise this is such a big TURN OFF for our students. At my school we have an accelerated KS3 so students only have 2 years of History if they don't go on to study it at GCSE. Since the GCSE syllabus is so beridden with World Wars I vote we do more Tudors and Stuarts in the second year of KS3 instead of ploughing on with Spinning Jennies and Tarmac Adam just because we think it's 'worthy' (to quote a colleague at my school). It isn't, and for our students it is immensely dull!

Ideas please. I'm prepared for a torrent of hostile criticism. Do you worse History Forum!

[Richard Drew]

One question Chris (and I am not trying to be awkward) - how will thekids understand the issues of the world wars - and in particular the nature of modern industrial warfare - without a grounding in the Industrial Revolution.

Don't throw it out, make it interesting.

I plan in this order:

1) What skill do you want to drive the enquiry (significance, cause/consequence, interpretations)
2) What are the essential facts i want them to know, issues i want them to understand
3) What engaging assessment can i set them to test that K&U + those skills
4) How can i deliver those in an engaging way

Throw out the spinnig jennies etc if you have to, but keep the IR. Working and living conditions, the pros and cons of the empire, demands for the vote, amazing inventions - these can all be hugely exciting if you want them to be.

[Chris Higgins]

I agree with what you say about the different strategies for delivering this unit, e.g. engaging activities, useful assessment etc, but can't the same be applied to another field of enquiry that genuinely engages the students?

[arthur hull]

Hello,

I teach this through the Great Exhibition of 1851. It has become my very favourite topic!!

I use the enquiry question, "What can the Great Exhibition tell us about the Victorians?" (yes, I know, not quite at the start of the industrial revolution but we look at the materials used to make the building to prove the point that, as one student put it, "The Great Exhibition tells us that the Industrial Revolution was in full swing!").

Using the building as a 'vehicle' to look at changes happening really hooks the students in. I use mini-questions then to look at these changes. Rather than saying, "today we will look at transport" I ask, "How were six million people able to visit the Great Exhibition?". We look at improvements in communication through the question, "Why could people in France hear about the Exhibition straight away whilst others had to wait?". Cue a lesson on the telegraph. Using stories like the attempt to lay the first trans-Atlantic cable within this gives students an opportunity to talk about how daring the Victorians were! Look at Empire through the visiting countries, Danielle wrote the BIG POINT, "The Great Exhibition tells us that the Victorians were doing more than building a Crystal Palace, they were building an Empire!"

Sorry to witter on, half way through we change the question to, "Can the Great Exhibition tell us about the darker side of Victorian life?" (cue a clip of Darth Vader music from Star Wars!) Becky said, "Even though the Great Exhibition showed the world that the Victorians were clever, bright and daring, there is another side to the 19th century. As if you look into the dark corners of the Exhibition you will realise that not everyone led the same lives as Victoria and Albert." Exciting stuff!!

Saskya arrived last week with the most amazing piece of Year Eight work I have ever seen, a fifteen page essay that was exciting, imaginative and told the story of the Industrial Revolution. If anyone would like details of resources and examples of work, please post a message back.

[MissKay]

This makes me livid. I haven't got time right now for a torrent of criticism, but I'm perfectly prepared to work myself up to one!

Firstly - it's entertaining. The pupils at my school love doing the Industrial Revolution. Nothing grabs their attention like a child mangled in a carding machine! We study the changes, the factories, the growth of towns, the railways and the franchise. All of which the pupils enjoy. There is a wealth of accessible, entertaining and lively primary source material. A good history teacher should be able to make any topic area interesting. It's immensely dull for pupils if it's taught in an immensely dull way.

Secondly - it's relevant. For pupils in my area the Industrial Revolution is their heritage. It's the reason their families came to England, it's the reason their ancestors died and it's the reason our city looks the way it does. It's absolutely, 100% vital that we teach children about their roots. You would never consider wiping Black History out of the curriculum because it was 'boring' but if I chose not to teach children about the Industrial Revolution then I would be depriving the pupils of an understanding of their shared past.

Sorry! No time for a full rant... may return later...

[Dom_Giles]

Chris - I'm with you. Down with the boring Industrial Revolution.

We're doing it at the moment and are trying to get though it as quickly as possible. We use the "Mind and Machines" books and it does the whole thing in one chapter (number three I think). So we can then get onto more intersting topics like slavery before we lose the students and they opt for colouring in GCSE.

In reply to those who say it's an intersting and valid topic I would say, what isn't. Surely ALL History is valid and much of it intersting but in Chris' case he has to get though the whole History of the World in two years and something has to go. It really infuriates me that THEY call it "accelerated learning". That's just Newspeak for "cutting back on the curriculum to get better GCSE grades."

Anyway, Go Chris GO!!!

[Karen Miller]

May I add my voice in support of MissKay. I live and work in the 'industrial North' and consider the sturdy of industrial changes to be important, interesting and I'm not sure if I care about whether it's relevant. Sometimes I think that word is used too much. I love doing the mills - mine are at this moment practising their limps and deformaties to take part in re-enactments of the Royal Commission investigations. I also study the Empire and slavery and getting the vote. I do living conditions if I've got time using the census returns for the local area. I think it is important to look at this section of British history before launching into the 20th century where Hitler can dominate.
Karen

[Lucy Harris]

When I was at school I disliked the 'industrial revolution' intensely - yet loved it when reintroduced to the period at degree level
The thought of missing this section out actually makes me feel quite faint!!
What, no slavery debates? What, no understanding of the development of democracy?? No consideration of the old adage 'Let's put the great into Great Britain' AND all the faults with this lovely phrase??

Yes the development of the canal system is dull - so talk about it in one lesson alongside other transport stuff (anyone remember getting kids to draw cross sections of experimental road surfaces?? I was one of those kids damn you!)

Can't support ditching this one I'm afraid - our local study unit is even based on this period - & the local canal industry too!!

[Russel Tarr]

We have not gotten rid of the IndRev as a topic, but we have cut it right back to its "Juicy bits". I always start by talking about Entrepreneurs and compare Gates, Dyson and Branson in a Venn diagram to get an "X factor" of what makes a successful businessperson. We then play the Interactive Simulation to develop understanding.

From then, I move swiftly onto effects:
Local focus - The Interactive Coalbrookdale database;
National focus - The Jack the Ripper unit (easily the most popular part of the year)
International focus - The Slave Trade and its impact

I think really it depends on the individual teacher and the area in which they are teaching as to whether the topic "works" or not. I think it works well as a 10 week unit but if it runs over that it does seem to be a big turn-off. It can be really good though - and child labour is a subject which I agree is particularly engaging (which reminds me that I should really try to spare a few lessons for it...)

[Danno44]

I agree that many aspepcts of the Industrial Revoultion are VERY dull - however, we have altered our SOW over the past few years, bit by bit to focus on the more interesting bits - eg we make 'business plans' to set up a business in 1790 (which the kids like) based on Arkwright, we focus on cities (all the muck, crime, jack the ripper, buildings - all lined to the empire etc- which is very popular) and we do single lessons on the dull stuff like agriculture and transport etc..

The kids get the genral idea of the overall changes that took place in the period which then leads on to the world wars which we do in year 9.

I would advise you not to throw it out but gradually change it to suit your kids and the teachers in your dept.

hope this helps!?

Dan

[Ian Dawson]

The trouble with the Industrial Revolution as it used to be taught was that it had precious few people in it - it had machines, roads, factories all whirring away without any obvious human input. There was a lot of lousy Industrial Rev work when the NC first came in because people simply transplanted back their Soc and Ec courses and tried to cram 2 years into 10 weeks.

Nowadays we ought to be able to start with a fresh piece of paper and focus on the changes that people faced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - after all this period was one of the two most significant periods in human history. The first was the Neolithic Rev transition from hunter-gatherers to settled farming and then came the transition from rural farming to urban manufacturing - which we tend to call the Industrial Revolution because we haven't come up with a more exciting label yet.

So, yes, Chris, I reckon you have to teach about that mammoth transition because it's so significant in human history but use all those good ideas people have been throwing in - I like the business plans and simulations because all those entrepreneurs were exciting. Have a look at Wedgwood smashing duff pots with his wooden leg and producing the first teapots whose lids fitted and so poured tea effectively. Start from the setting up of the Football League - why was it started in the 1870s? Build a ripple diagram that works back all the way from Notts County throgh railways and urbanisation to population increase and farming improvements - and there's good stuff on police chasing fans who were pursuing referees. One ref made his escape in a horse-drawn carriage in the 1890s. Focus on the people not the machines - if we were that interested in machines we'd be physics teachers, not history teachers.

Finally, if you must mention the words Industrail revolution save them for the end - after you've intrigued and enthused your pupils with all these people and the decisions they made and the lives they've lived - ask the pupils what would you call this period? Do you think the Industrial Rev is a good name or a boring one - what would you prefer to call it? The Age of slavery?

Lecture over

Ian

[Chris Higgins]

Thanks Ian for your suggestions. I like your idea of saving the Industrial Revolution as a term until last. I do like the idea of teaching the Jack the Ripper unit but can I justify it in terms of improving students general understanding of the era or is it just an opportunity to have a lot of Horiible History style fun. (Although I have no problems with that personally). I've just finished working through Christine Counsell's unit on the Greg family and Quarry Bank Mill and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the work students produced. May be I'm coming round to the idea of continuing with the Revolution that shall have no name until the end of the unit.