In my experience as a school teacher, I have tried to approach the learning of history with cycle 3 (9-12 year-old pupils) in the form of a project. For various reasons, this attempt was unsuccessful. However, it has allowed me to highlight the importance of knowing how to judge the relevance of the pedagogy chosen according to age, discipline and the time of learning.

This teaching is stuck between two methods, if you like. Indeed, in cycle 2 (6-9 year-old pupils), pupils approach history in their close environment, learning the notions of past-present-future, understanding genealogical relationships, that they belong to a period and grow up in this one and that, as a result, their parents and grandparents did not have exactly the same experience of childhood. It is therefore quite easy to place its teaching in a more active and child-centered pedagogy.

Later on, it will be important not only to learn a collection of knowledge but to "think in history"^[1], as Henri Moniot says. The didactics of history in France has given much thought to how to adapt this teaching, which is very much imbued with the "school culture", to a new learning pedagogy.

However, Cycle 3 finds itself in this in-between period where it is necessary to learn this collection of knowledge in order to be able to step back and learn this recommended way of thinking about history. Didactic pedagogy is then welcome. But it should not be abused! Combining it with a more active pedagogy and alternating between the two would probably lead to greater motivation and efficiency.

The example that I chose to follow and that worked rather well, was based on the pupils' questioning. We didn't solve problems, but we tried to answer a question with a slightly different but equally effective approach: documentary research.