Richard Jones-Nerzic

This sounds very interesting. Perhaps you could make this part of your presentation in Toulouse? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Andy, you took the words right out of my mouth. Establishing a flexible, professional website that is relatively easy to manage has to be an early priority. Unfortunately, team members who have Virtual School experience with CMS will need some convincing. I'm looking forward to being convinced.

It is targeted at European classes but I'd very keen to collaborate with you and your students on something, perhaps using a discussion forum.

Keith Jenkins has done much popularise PM in history circles in the UK. His Re-Thinking History must be nearly 15 years old now. He published this reader a few years ago. Much of it is actually quite readable.

I am Richard Jones-Nerzic, History teacher and Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse. I am coordinator of the E-Help project. When it opened in 1999, the IST was Europe's first fully laptop school. My website is an attempt to document this educational experiment. I am an administrator of this forum and the Student Education Forum I am also a member of the European Virtual School History Department.

Good idea. I was thinking of making a case study video of the Child Labour example from the Spartacus site. I have a mind to record the students engaging with the materials in discrete stages. i) Planning and Researching ii) Debating Online via the Student Forum iii) Speeches to Camera. This is exactly what I have in mind for the resources we develop for our European History curriculum. I want to show how the resources can be used. I have always been most inspired by watching lessons in action.

Hi Lia, you need to change your school details in your signature now. The question of Stalin's use of terror is also bound up in the question of 'totalitarianism', Robin's essay on the student forum is a good overview. http://studenteducationforum.ipbhost.com/i...st=0entry1317 In the traditional, 'totalitarian' view 'terror' and coercion is very important to understanding why people acted as they did. In the social history/post-Glasnost views (when historians have actually looked at the evidence) terror appears to be less significant. My old professor Neil Harding had an excellent phrase to describe the nature of control in the USSR - 'organic labour state'. Put basically, if the state (the Party) controls access to everything, you tend to try and please the state. Saying and doing the right thing, makes it more likely that you and your family will gain access to scarce resources like health care, education and consumer goods. Robin's essay: Was Stalin’s Russia a Totalitarian Regime During the Period of 1929-1941? Robin Webb, 2004 There are two main fields of thought brought up when addressing this question; the traditional and revised views. In general, the traditional ideas date back to pre-1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the revised views have only just begun to emerge. The traditional stance was to see Stalin’s Soviet Union as true totalitarian regime, much more so than Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Their key argument was linking Stalin’s ruthlessness with the overall effectiveness of the USSR as such a regime. Stalin was labelled the most ‘efficient’ of all ‘totalitarian’ dictators. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of archived documents, newer ideas surfaced and are still developing today. Some views remained the same, such as Stalin being seen as the world’s most ruthless dictators, due to his cynical and unparalleled use of terror on such a massive scale. Some ideas, however, are changing. The efficiency of the USSR is no longer seen as the product of Stalin’s ruthlessness and Stalin’s Russia has been accused of being even more ‘ramshackle’ than Nazi Germany. The most important, however, is that Stalin is seen to have been pushed by the circumstances as much as he controlled them. One of the five main sections focused on by traditional view was the political set-up of Stalin’s Russia. They argued it to be more rigidly controlled than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, as the Bolshevik government was not an amendment to an existing structure, but a whole new system all together. The Bolsheviks had completely destroyed the Tsarist political system and rejected any form of Western democracy, such as the Provisional Government. The Soviets were subordinated to the Bolshevik party under Lenin with little objection, and as a result Stalin exerted greater personal control. Stalin’s Russia was seen as a ‘personalised dictatorship’. He kept political opposition to a minimum through his methods of control. It is argued by ‘traditional’ historians that Stalin put in practice an unprecedented and unparalleled use of terror and coercion. Stalin surpassed Hitler and Mussolini through his use of the secret police, the NKVD, and mass purges. Stalin faced little political opposition, and it is clear to see why. Any possible hostility would have been extinguished as quickly as possible. This allowed Stalin to easily introduce political, economic and cultural changes such as the 1936 constitution. “He could easily stamp out any move towards meaningful oppositional to him.” (Stephen J Lee). Some of these early ‘historians’ even perceived the famine as a deliberate act to secure power. Stalin was seen to, therefore, have complete and unimpeded control over every aspect of Russia, including the economy. Stalin used his political power to introduce economic changes with mixed success. Collectivisation of 1928 was seen as a disaster in terms of agricultural production and created widespread peasant opposition. The traditional view, however, is that his intention was to exploit agriculture to subsidise industrial growth, in which he gained long term success. The introduction of the first three Five Year Plans came with little resistance, and heavily developed Russian industry resulting in their survival in World War Two. Stalin controlled the economy in such a way that he in no way relied on outside assistance – he exploited Soviet production. Stalin insisted heavy industry came first, causing the peasants to subsidise industrial growth by sacrificing profits and the dream of owning consumer goods. Stalin’s economic policy was therefore seen as ruthless and totalitarian, arriving at an effective industrial outcome. The same idea of complete control by Stalin as an individual continues in the traditional views of Stalin’s foreign policy. Stalin’s precise objectives when it came to foreign affairs were unclear, but the traditional interpretation saw that he determined the overall rationale of the policy and personally dictated the course it should take. Although Stalin experienced both errors and successes, he was labelled the most pragmatic of all statesmen. ‘Traditional’ historians, including E.H. Carr, saw Stalin as a strong totalitarian dictator. One key event used to argue this point is the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. They were unsure to label Stalin as an adept planner or supreme opportunist, but they were certain about one thing – this was the cynical act of a ruthless dictator at the peak of his power. It was argued Stalin extended his power and control over all aspects of life, including Russian culture. Stalin took Russia’s culture in his hands, deciding to reverse the ‘radicalisation’ of Lenin’s era. Lenin wanted to achieve social equality by abolishing classes and weakening the family, as well as establishing new approaches to education. Stalin, according to early views, aimed to enhance his own image and exert control though social channels by restoring differentials based on economic performance, reviving the family as the main social unit and emphasizing a traditional Russian culture. Stalin was going against Lenin’s ideas and, more importantly, communist principles. This did not matter, as Stalin was to seen to have controlled every aspect of Russian life. These traditional views, however, were not developed by historians but political scientists, left wing writers and Cold War propagandists, such as Arendt and his ‘Model of Totalitarian Conquest’ comparing the USSR to Nazi Germany. The only reliable views of Stalin’s regime came after Glasnost and the opening of Russian archives. Only after Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the idea of Glasnost did historians begin to abandon assumptions. The view of Stalin as the most ruthless dictator remained, but many ideas began to change, and are still changing today with the discovery of new material. There is much continuality with the traditional views when it comes to the idea of Stalin’s rise to power, though also many differences. He is viewed to have gained power by partly through his own abilities, but mainly through circumstances moving in his favour, such as the introduction of the NEP and the end of War Communism in 1921. By 1927 the idea of moderation was failing and radicalism was reviving with new energy, which coincided with Stalin’s consolidation of power. This allowed Stalin to launch new programs such as collectivisation, political centralisation and the Five Year Plans. Stalin is now seen to have been reactivating the earlier dynamism of the Bolsheviks and stealing policies for which he once condemned Trotsky. Stalin is now seen as determined to go with the idea of radicalisation though the economy and society. So, little difference between the traditional views so far, but this is when it begins to change. Stalin’s use of power. Revisionism uncovered that there was less power at the centre than commonly supposed, as the core of the administration and party encountered difficulties exercising control over local officials and institutions. Although Stalin took the initiative for most of the policies, he frequently lost control over their implementation. Local officials and groups were too enthusiastic about carrying out orders, the central authority had to constantly apply the brakes. As a result, chaos occurred. The centre therefore had to recreate the initial momentum. It is seen as a “violent swing in the pendulum” (Stephen J Lee) as local interests interpreted central policies in the most favourable way, causing the centre to take corrective action. In general Stalin’s political power was initially proactive, but became reactive in for major areas – the purges, the economy, Russia’s society and foreign policy. The early view of Stalin labelled him as entirely responsible for the millions of people who died in the purges. Revised views, however, argue he may have certainly initiated it, but could he actually control it? Modern historians argue it may have gained momentum far beyond Stalin’s intention. These arguments are based on the fact that the local forces interpreted Stalin’s orders in their own way. Therefore, incidences of terror ebbed and flowed as Stalin attempted to regain initiative. Two historians that carried out a major investigation into the Soviet Purges are John Arch-Getty and Gábor Rittersporn. They accuse earlier historians of ignoring the evidence and accepting rumour and see the totalitarian model as convenient to Trotskyites and NATO, believing it is no less truthful than the original Soviet version. Traditional views on the economy have also been attacked by contemporary historians. Stalin was seen by ‘traditional’ views as an economic genius, creating a master plan and using his overall power to control it’s path. Modern historians, however, take a different stance. Collectivisation of 1928 is seen to have been implemented too rapidly and unsystematically, with local officials and NKVD exceeding quotas, leading to their rebuking by Stalin. The brakes were applied once again. Stalin’s policy became more defensive and his second offensive had to be launched, but the whole economy was caught up in the purges. Just as with the purges, local managers of industry reinterpreted their instructions to fit their own or local interests. In general the economic changes put in place by Stalin were defective in both planning and execution. Alex Nove, and economic historian, investigated Stalin’s policies and noted how they fluctuated in reaction to problems rather than following a ‘master plan’ as originally thought. The views of society in Stalin’s Russia have also changed since Glasnost, resulting in a much different interpretation of Stalin’s regime. Revisionist historians have noticed that Stalin did not reverse the radical Bolshevik trend as once thought. They condemn this view as too positive a perception. Changes put in place by the Bolsheviks were slowly fading after 1921 due to the introduction of NEP. Stalin attempted to revive radical policies in relation to the family and educations. He supported traditional society, traditional institutions and the revival of conservative education policies. The traditional view was that Stalin did so to increase his personal power by abusing the social divisions it would create. The revised view is Stalin was merely reacting to escape the consequences of plan that was failing, that of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Modern social historians, such as Moshe Levin of the University of Pennsylvania, blame not only Stalin for the way Russian society was, but also the party, the government agencies as well as the Russian peasants themselves. Not only did the opening of the archives deduce early analyses of society to mere misinterpretations, but also those of foreign policy. Stalin has been accused by recent historians for assisting the rise of Hitler up to 1933 when he finally realised he had helped create a monster he could not control. He sought security with the French by signing the Franco-Soviet Pact of 1935, which was later ruined by Stalin’s distaste for appeasement. He was therefore pushed towards the Nazi-Soviet Pact as the “climax of a series of adjustments and attempts to regain lost initiative.” (Stephen J Lee) Stalin’s actions, therefore, in all areas of ‘power’ were to compensate for mistakes and a loss of control. In closing, after Gorbachev and Glasnost there was an explosion of social and particularly local Russian history revealed to the public. The totalitarian model is gradually being eroded away by analysis of this material, though it is still seen as useful to non-Russian republics and Russian anti-communists. The debate of whether or not Stalin was a totalitarian dictator will continue, as most sources released have yet to be studied. In my personal view, it appears Stalin’s Russia was not a totalitarian regime and just as incoherent as that of Hitler or Mussolini. Bibliography Books Grant, J.; Stalin and the Soviet Union (Addison Wesley Longman Limited 1998) Lee, S.J.; Stalin and the Soviet Union (Routledge 1999) Websites ‘Ruling the Totalitarian State: Leader, Army, Party’ http://www.unlv.edu/faculty/gbrown/western...v2c30lsec2.html

In an earlier discussion, I expressed concern about any rationale for history teaching that includes the word 'nation' or 'country'. Producing a European history curriculum that is based on nations seems to miss the point to me. This is why I think it important that we teach through themes.

In three years time (and hopefully long before then!) our project will have produced a website intended for European history teachers. This website will contain materials of use to history teachers who wish to exploit the potential of ICT in their history teaching whether in a first or second language learning environment. I foresee this site as offering advice and support through a series articles, videos, case-studies etc. produced by ourselves and associates, in and around the focus points of our six meetings over the next three years. With the addition of an online forum to add interactivity, I envisage the website as the 'virtual' base of those who will attend our proposed series of courses starting in the summer of 2007. With the evolution of these courses, I'd like to think that the website (and forum) will continue to develop and adapt to the changing demands of ICT in the history classroom. In addition to this 'core' E-HELP website, we are also committed to producing exemplary curriculum resources as outlined in another thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2015 Personally, for practical reasons, I think these curriculum areas should be separate websites linked to the E-HELP 'core' site with a certain aesthetic and functional consistency... but now the thorny question... Assuming we can agree on the exciting, dynamic, 'important' content and aesthetic and functional consistency, what do we think this website will do? Are there any existing websites, which are a guide to good practice (in part or in entirety)? Or do we need to start from scratch? What have we learned from using history websites in our teaching over the last three years? Have our viewpoints about successful websites changed significantly in this time? What are the major trends (technical or otherwise), which we think will influence how we construct our websites in three years time?

I have used it when Google throws it up as a search result. I used an article on it to produce a student friendly text for my website last year. I felt confident in the accuracy of the subject because it was something I know very well. I used the wikipedia version because it was quicker to edit theirs than to write my own from scratch. I know my students use it, although I have never recommended it. As this thread on the student forum illustrates: http://studenteducationforum.ipbhost.com/i...p?showtopic=153

There are three outcomes of the E-Help project: a European history teaching/learning curriculum website, an interactive forum and a residential course in Toulouse in the summer of 2007. I'd like this thread to consider the last of these outcomes. How will History teachers be expected/expecting to use ICT in three years time? What will our course need to offer them? Practical observations and theoretical reflection equally welcome.

One of the most important aspects of the E-HELP project is our commitment to producing new online resources for European history students and teachers. In addition to content themes that are inherently important (students should know about subject x), we also hope to produce a website that is an exemplary use of the medium. There will be other threads about web issues, ICT and history 'skills', here I'd like us to focus on the content. In our application for Comenius funding, we said we would produce resources on the following list of topics: · Minority languages in Europe: a cultural politics of the 20th century · Europe’s other half: women in 20th century · And then there were 25: integration and expansion of nations in 20th century Europe · Peace and Terror: a 20th century history of pressure groups · Sporting Times: from pastime to primetime · Globalisation: European work patterns and processes In justifying this list I wrote: Historical topics were chosen for three reasons: (i) They have contemporary relevance and importance. The ‘past-present’ focus attempts to explain the contemporary issue within an historical context. In this way we are able to contribute directly to the promotion of certain transversal priorities e.g. Minority languages in Europe directly promotes the priority of ‘linguistic diversity’ and Sporting Times directly promotes ‘education through sport 2004’. (ii) They promote a European added value and foster a European identity. History curricula are usually overly concerned to inculcate a particular, exclusive national narrative and identity. In contrast we are an international group of history teachers with a track record of commitment to European ideals. (iii) They meet a need for curriculum resources currently lacking, that we are excited to provide, in ways that meet various national criteria and a range of language needs. For example, the International Baccalaureate European syllabus provides for the study of ‘20th century European society’ though ‘sport, gender issues, pressure groups, peace movements, terrorism, globalization’ etc. but there are precious few resources to enable teachers to do this. We are not committed to any of these topics. They were chosen to score points in the application process and did not necessarily reflect previously expressed interests of the E-HELP group. However, we now have to decide on topics that will form the curriculum basis of the E-HELP project. So, what topics should we be covering that have (i) contemporary relevance (ii) European added value (iii) and are currently lacking.

One of the first tasks of the E-Help project is to identify examples of current good practice in (History) education and the Internet. To this end I have started a discussion on the Student Forum inviting students to identify and explain 'what works for them'. It has already generated some interesting responses. http://studenteducationforum.ipbhost.com/i...p?showtopic=153 Perhaps we might use this thread to reflect on what our students are telling us?

This area of the Education Forum is (now) visible to the institutional members of the E-HELP project and the associate members but only these members may post.

Brilliant. What can I say? In terms of impact, this was like reading John Slater's wonderful pamphlet all those years ago as a PGCE student. On assessment, source-work, coverage (following the IGCSE and IB, I have no choice but to deliver 20th century history!), interpretations (KS4 regression), and history/citizenship, on everything actually, I couldn't agree more. For me, the study of the past in schools needs to move beyond the narrow discipline of academic 'history'. We must recognise that as citizens, students need to become as much discriminating consumers of the past, as pale imitators of the producers of history. I can't help feeling that that our students still study history in the way it was designed to train bright young Victorian men how to become civil servants of the Empire. I often wonder how traditionalists felt when they read Slater: Celts looked in the starve - factual recall - famous dead Englishmen - essay as eccentric literary form. To me in the early 90s, how we had been teaching history was so obviously wrong. Reading your seminar, I am reminded how far we still have to go. A few years ago I started teaching the IB. Although innovative in many ways, the history syllabus and assessment system is very English. I wrote some time ago on the History Teachers' Forum some thoughts which echo your own: 'Generally, there appears to be no attempt to move beyond a narrow, rather Rankean empiricism with its fetishist obsession with the “documents”. Spend ten minutes examining two sources and comment on their reliability. Confronted with such a question, I have often been tempted to ask “why?” What are we as teachers hoping to achieve? Are we hoping to imitate what real historians do or is it some sort of elaborate IQ test that has little to do with history? At an IB conference I attended the senior examiner seemed to delight in revealing that students could expect to achieve up to 17 or so marks out of the 20 available without having to know much of the historical context at all! I suspect, therefore, that quite a bit of IB History teaching time must be dedicated to teaching the “skills of source analysis” or as I prefer to see it, learning to jump through the very contrived and intellectually restricted hoops, in a limited amount of time. Where did the idea of a document paper come from? I suspect it had something to do with developments in Britain. The Schools Council History Project in the 1970s and the GCSE in the 1980s attempted to address the perceived crisis in History teaching (a subject identified by students as boring and difficult) by reducing the assessment (and therefore teaching emphasis) on content recall and essay writing (or the boring and difficult). As John Slater once put it: “Skills – did we even use the word? – were mainly those of recalling accepted facts about famous dead Englishmen, and communicated in a very eccentric literary form, the examination length essay”. It was almost inevitable after its introduction at GCSE that document work would find its way into the A Level, as it universally had done by the end of the 1980s. When exactly did it make it into the IB? Perhaps IB was the innovator? Either way, the document paper is like the essay, a very eccentric intellectual form. But it is not really the artifice or eccentricity that bugs me; it is the fact that methodologically it ignores intellectual developments in the social sciences over the last 30 years. A student doing IB History need never have to consider the implications for History of the work of Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Rorty et al. Yes, I know history was slow to adjust; historians have always had a healthy scepticism of abstract ideas. But for goodness sake, there will be people teaching IB History this year who were not even born when Hayden White’s Metahistory was first published (1973). It is now nearly ten years since Keith Jenkins began his campaign to bring post-modernism to the historian masses (Re-thinking History 1991) and now there is even an Access to History textbook for Advanced Level students that takes up the challenge. (History and the Historians, John Warren) As this last text recognises, although as historians we may not accept the arguments of the post-modernists who attempt to undermine our theoretical foundations, we cannot afford to ignore them either. As it stands therefore, history at IB is in a sort of intellectual vacuum cut adrift from not only general intellectual developments but even more bizarrely (in its non-relationship to the TOK programme), IB History appears cut adrift from its own general academic programme. The student who has made a number of profound observations on the epistemological fragility of history in TOK, confronting questions such as “can we know anything about the past?”, will always have to return to a realistic down to earth acceptance of “whether I can know or not, I’ve just got to get on and do it” IB History programme. This amounts to a sort of intellectual resignation that is so out of keeping with the professed spirit of the IB. ' http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index...showtopic=1944#

The short answer is that it takes considerably less time to master the basics of DV editing than any other programme I have ever used. And even more importantly, it takes considerably less time to teach it. The software is very intuitive and everything is done with a click and drag of a mouse. I recently did a seminar on this subject on the school history forum. http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index...?showtopic=3704 I think some of what I said there is appropriate. Until a few years ago, unless you had a dedicated multi-thousand pound media studies lab, film making with students was pretty much impossible. Even then teachers were restricted to working with small groups of (generally) older students and the level of expertise required meant that those involved tended to be media studies specialists. Now as a result of a number of technical developments, any teacher of any subject can take their class of 30 students of any age, into a computer lab and make movies. The four technical developments are worth highlighting because when put together, you can begin to realise how very recent the possibilities associated with digital video actually are. Firstly, all Windows PCs since Me have had video editing software included as part of the software package. Before this you either had to have a suite of iMacs or an expensive site license for a specialist digital video-editing package. Since last year Microsoft have improved their software beyond recognition, so that with MovieMaker 2 you can do pretty much all that commercial DV software like Pinnacle can do. Even more importantly, the software is very easy to use. I use it with all my students (11-18 years old) and we also use it with much younger children in our Primary section. After a five-minute introduction to the basics, students can be left to work the rest out for themselves. Of all the software I have used with students over the last five years, MovieMaker is not only the easiest to get to grips with, but it is also the one I have learnt about most from the students themselves. Secondly, digital video has become widely available and easy to make. A quick search on the internet for .mpeg or .ram files exactly how available they are. But more importantly, the cost of digital cameras that also shoot video has come down significantly in the last two years. Five years ago I was fortunate enough to be able to work in class with a handful of Sony Mavicas, each retailing at about £700-800. We considered this so novel at the time, we even made a film about it. (worth viewing if you've ever wondered what a laptop classroom looks like) http://www.intst.net/humanities/history/dv/laptop2000.wmv Now those same cameras are about a quarter of the price and there are much cheaper ones that can do the job just as well. You might be surprised at how many of your students own a digital (video) camera or have webcam or mobile phone that also does digital video. Even if you have an old analogue camcorder, £50 worth of video capture card can turn it all digital. Thirdly, although digital video files are very big, the average PC now has the hard drive and processor necessary to cope with them. In addition portable storage devices (USB memory sticks etc.) now allow us to move big files between computers very easily. Moving DV files between students in lessons or between class and home would otherwise be very difficult. Finally, broadband Internet connection not only allows us to download DV files with relative ease, it also allows us through our websites to share our student’s films with the wider Internet community. If you do make films with students, it helps motivate if they know that their work will be viewed beyond the classroom. From my experience, most people don't know they have digital video editing software. For some reason, Microsoft decided to hide Moviemaker in the ‘Accessories’ folder of the Windows startup: Start > Programs > Accessories > Moviemaker. If you have a recent version of XP, you may find it in the more obvious location of ‘Programs’. Once you’ve opened MovieMaker, you immediately see why it is such an easy programme to use. Everything is controlled through one logically divided screen. On the left of the screen under the title ‘Movie Tasks’ (the Task Pane) are what I have called the three stages of film creation: 1. Capturing (getting your video, images and sound into the MovieMaker programme) 2. Editing (cutting, trimming, adding effects, transitions and text) 3. Making (choosing how you want the video to play back e.g. on a CDRom or streamed on the web) Capturing Let’s assume you’ve got your raw video somewhere on your computer like the video of Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech. Click on ‘import video’ and choose the location where your video is saved. MovieMaker will give you the option of dividing the original video up into ‘clips’ based on where the computer identifies breaks in the original film (e.g. where different cameras were used). MovieMaker will then import the video clip(s) and put thumbnails of the video(s) in centre pane of your screen (e.g. Farm 057 in the example above). MovieMaker tells you what to do next at the bottom of your screen: ‘Drag media to the storyboard to begin making a movie’. Select and drag your film clips into the timeline or storyboard (two ways of viewing the same thing) in the order you wish them to play. In my example above, I have chosen to show the timeline view. Once your clips have been dropped onto the timeline/storyboard you can play your clips through the preview screen. This is controlled through the DVD type icons below it. Editing My example screen above highlights the five layers of film editing. A video that has been dropped onto the timeline is automatically split between two layers: the video images on Level 1 (Video) and the accompanying audio in Level 3 (Audio). If you wished to ‘mute’ the original video soundtrack (as in Dan’s question), right click on the relevant audio section and select ‘mute’ from the menu. At this point it is worth experimenting with the ‘trimming’ function to shorten your imported clips. Move your cursor to the end or beginning of a clip and red arrows appear; MovieMaker will tell you to ‘click and drag to trim the clip’. After making any changes, save your work. You have not made a movie yet, only a ‘Windows MovieMaker Project’ (.MSWMM file), the work in progress. The most common error made by students is when saving at this point, they think have made their movie. At the beginning of the lesson emphasise that there are three stages to making a movie; write the details of the stages on the board and keep referring to them during the lesson. Next it is worth experimenting with effects. These can be found by clicking on ‘video effects’ on the task pane. Here you can lighten or darken your video, speed it up, slow it down, perhaps 'age' it by adding sepia tones or 1930s newsreel effects etc. The next task option is ‘video transitions’. This allows you to control how one clip will ‘cut’ into the next (fade, dissolve, roll etc.). If you add a transition, it will appear on Level 2 (Transition) of the timeline view and from there it can be lengthened or shortened. If you decide to import any music, this will appear on Level 4 (Audio/Music) of the timeline, as will narration, which can be added by clicking on the microphone icon (or Tools > Narrate Timeline). Level 5 (Title Overlay) is the last editing layer and will show any text that has been added to the movie. In my example above, I have added the words ‘Un oeuf’ for the exciting moment in my Primary school trip farm movie where a hen delivered on cue for the camera. To add text, (titles, subtitles, credits, translations etc) click on ‘make titles and credits’ in the task pane and follow the instructions on screen. Making This is the third stage that many students forget about. Once you are happy with the editing, it is time to make the movie. On the Task Pane under ‘Finish Movie’, click ‘save to my computer’ and as well as choice of location of where to save your movie, MovieMaker will also give you a choice of quality for the finished film. Select ‘other settings’ and choose a size that suits your purpose. At the IST, we use 340kbs because our videos are intended for an Internet audience, but it is also worth saving a higher quality file for playing on your own computer.

Not my idea but taken from the Christine Counsell series of British textbooks: 'Think Through History'. The idea is to take a complex event like the Reformation and invite students to produce a clear explanation for younger students. Because we have a Primary section in the school the older student accounts are actually assessed by the younger pupils. We have annual presentation where we bring both sets of students together, here with Mr Simkin making the presentations in 2001! http://www.intst.net/humanities/y8/term2/r...l_of_honour.htm What I would add to this discussion is how far ICT has made peer assessment so much easier to set up (and not just peer assessment of written work). I routinely ask students to evaluate each other's work once it has been placed on the school server. On a related point, a very high percentage of my website is student work. I try to give a good example for each assignment so that students know what they are aiming for something before they start. And much of the work is what the class have selected themselves (by secret ballot). This is particularly true of PowerPoints, websites and videos such as in this most recent example:http://www.intst.net/humanities/y8/term3/a.../2004/index.htm This always leads to discussion about why one piece is better than another, which , I suppose is the whole point of peer evaluation.

I am very interested in following your experiment in so far as it mirrors my own experience in Toulouse. The IST is five years old tomorrow and we've been working in a laptop environment for most of that time. Personally, I can't imagine going back to an environment in which my students can work on a computer at any given moment. I suppose that answers the question about how much impact it has had on my teaching...

Had a letter from the European Commission this morning... 'I am pleased to inform you that your above-mentioned proposal has been selected'. At last! The financial agreement and the contract will be sent soon, so we don't know exactly how much we've got yet or how we will be entitled to spend it. I received the comments of two independent experts who assessed our project. Most comments are very positive but I think we should expect a reduction in our allocation in the light of what they say. As expected our desire to bring in outsiders 'leading edge practioners' met with some concern: who? and why? being their main points. No Eastern Europe involvement was also mentioned. The first discussion point needs to be the timing of the first meeting. I have been advised that the contract process may continue to delay the project start-up (we can't spend money until this has been resolved) and that we may be advised to delay the first meeting (originally planned for the Oct/Nov halfterm). Personally I'd very much like to have a meeting before Xmas if possible, even if it only involved team members in the first instance. Thoughts?

I received an email about two weeks ago. It said 'important message attached'. I was in a rush and didn't have time to open the attachment but was very excited for the rest of the day. When I finally opened the attachment it was a letter to inform me that the Comenius office has moved their address. So, in brief, no.....

With a BA in history and politics and MA in political philosophy, I have been a history teacher since 1993. I am currently Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse in France and I was previously Head of Politics at Olchfa School in Swansea, south Wales. I teach IGCSE History and IB History and consequently have a current 'expertise' in modern history.

With a BA in history and politics and MA in political philosophy, I have been a history teacher since 1993. I am currently Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse in France and I was previously Head of Politics at Olchfa School in Swansea, south Wales. I teach IGCSE History and IB History and consequently have a current 'expertise' in modern history.

With a BA in history and politics and MA in political philosophy, I have been a history teacher since 1993. I am currently Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse in France and I was previously Head of Politics at Olchfa School in Swansea, south Wales. I teach IGCSE History and IB History and consequently have a current 'expertise' in modern history.

With a BA in history and politics and MA in political philosophy, I have been a history teacher since 1993. I am currently Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse in France and I was previously Head of Politics at Olchfa School in Swansea, south Wales. I teach IGCSE History and IB History and consequently have a current 'expertise' in modern history.

With a BA in history and politics and MA in political philosophy, I have been a history teacher since 1993. I am currently Head of Humanities at the International School of Toulouse in France and I was previously Head of Politics at Olchfa School in Swansea, south Wales. I teach IGCSE History and IB History and consequently have a current 'expertise' in modern history.

With the new academic year in September, I will have been teaching history in a laptop classroom for five years. I suppose I might be well qualified to answer any questions about issues relating to that. Currently, I am particularly interested in how forums and digital video might be used by students (and teachers) in their learning.