Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and thank you for joining me for today's history lesson.

My job today is to help guide you through our history resources in the lesson.

And I'm gonna be working to make sure that by the end of our time together you can securely meet our lesson objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the Industrial Revolution where we've been asking ourselves did industrialization revolutionise people's lives in Britain? By the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to evaluate the extent of change in people's lives during the Industrial Revolution.

So we're really gonna think about some of the different elements of change at this time from politics to the economy and society, and take a big picture view of the changes which were taking place.

There are two key words which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are exploitative and franchise.

If something is exploitative, it involves treating others unfairly in a way that helps make money for you but could harm others.

And the franchise refers to the group of people who can vote in a country's elections.

Today's lesson is going to be split in two free parts, and we're going to begin by focusing on different types of change, which occurred during the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The revolution affected many different areas of life in Britain, including population, work, living conditions, and politics.

We'll summarise some of the main changes which occurred in each of these areas.

So let's start by thinking about population change.

There was large scale migration to urban areas during the Industrial Revolution.

The table on the screen makes this really clear.

We can see that whereas in 1700, just 17% of the population in England and Wales lived in large urban areas, by 1800, this had risen to 28%.

And by 1850 this had increased further to 45%.

So there was a major increase in the amount of people living in urban areas.

Industrial towns and cities grew rapidly.

So this included major new centres of industry such as Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow.

Glasgow's population actually more than quadrupled between 1750 and 1841, showing just how dramatic these population changes could be.

So let's make sure our understanding of population change during the Industrial Revolution is really secure.

I want you to write the missing word in the following sentence.

Migration during the Industrial Revolution meant that 45% of the population lived in large, blank areas by 1850.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the missing word was urban.

Migration during the Industrial Revolution meant that 45% of the population lived in large urban areas by 1850, in other words, in large towns and cities.

So now we can focus on changes in living conditions.

Rapidly rising population led to overcrowding in industrial cities.

Housing conditions were often unsanitary, and all of this combined meant that death rates were highest and rose fastest in areas where industrial workers lived, often because they were living in unhealthy spaces where it was quite easy for diseases caught by one person to spread to and infect others.

This was a particular issue with diseases such as typhus and tuberculosis, which killed many people in Britain's industrial cities.

We'll now turn our attention to work during the Industrial Revolution.

New inventions made manufacturing more productive.

These inventions included things such as Richard Arkwright's water frame, or James Watt's steam engine.

The factory system was also introduced during the Industrial Revolution.

This involved factories producing materials constantly.

And this required workers to do 12-hour shifts with a new shift starting as soon as one finished to make sure that machines could constantly stay on and remain operational.

The work completed in factories and mills during the Industrial Revolution was often exploitative.

And this was for a range of reasons.

For one, workers often received low wages.

For example, in Glasgow, the wages received by cotton mill workers actually decreased in the early 19th century because as more machines were used, workers only needed to have very few skills, and employers had them doing simple tasks that meant they didn't have to pay them a lot.

The work was also exploitative because workers were given little protection.

They were often put in dangerous situations around different machines, or the factories could be hazardous.

Cotton mills often had a lot of dust in the air, which could cause lung problems for workers, and yet they were given little or no protection against these.

And finally, the work completed in factories and mills could be considered exploitative because of the use of child labour.

Children were cheaper for employers to hire than adult workers, and they could often do certain tasks that adults weren't capable of.

For example, children were often hired as scavengers in cotton mills and had to work beneath the machines whilst they were on to collect scraps of cotton.

This work though was incredibly dangerous.

An image of children working in a cotton mill can be seen on the screen.

In the picture, a scavenger can be seen crawling out from beneath one of the cotton spinning machines.

So let's make sure that our understanding of changes in work during the Industrial Revolution is really secure.

What impact did machines like the water frame and steam engines have on wages in a cotton industry? Did wages for most workers decrease, wages for most workers increased, or wages for most workers remain the same? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was A.

The use of machines like the water frame and steam engines led to wages for most workers in the cotton industry decreasing.

This was because employers no longer had to hire skilled labourers.

Instead, they could hire unskilled people and therefore justify paying them lower wages.

And let's try another question.

Why was child labour exploitative? Was it because children did all the same work as adults in mills, that children were not paid at all for their work, or that children worked in dangerous situations? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was C.

Child labour could be considered exploitative because children worked in dangerous situations.

For example, many children were hired as scavengers in cotton mills having to work beneath cotton spinning machines, even whilst they were on, which put them at huge risk of getting caught up in the machines, losing limbs, or in some really unfortunate cases, even being killed.

Politics was another area affected and changed during the Industrial Revolution.

Industrial workers supported the reform of Parliament.

They argued that it needed to become more representative of them, especially as they grew as a part of the population.

The Great Reform Act was passed in 1832 as a result to some of these increasing pressures for political change and reform in Britain.

One of the key changes in the Great Reform Act was that industrial cities like Manchester gained MPs of their own for the very first time.

The franchise was also extended, but although more people could vote, after 1832 this was still only one in five adult males.

So the vast majority of the population of industrial workers still could not vote, especially if they were women who were excluded completely.

So thinking about everything that we've heard about different types of change during the Industrial Revolution, I want you to study the different aspects of life shown in the table.

And for each aspect of life, I want you to provide one example of change, which occurred during Britain's Industrial Revolution.

In other words, one example of how population changed, one example of how work changed, one example of how living conditions changed, and one example of how politics changed.

So pause the video here, complete your table and press play when you're ready to reflect on your answers.

Okay, some really good work on that task.

So I asked you to provide examples of change, which occurred for different aspects of life in Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

Your answers may have included, that an example of population change was that 45% of a population lived in large urban areas by 1850.

An example of changing work was that new inventions like the water frame and steam engine, allowed greater amounts of cotton to be manufactured.

An example of a change in living conditions was that diseases like typhus became more common in crowded cities so death rates began to increase.

An example of change in politics is that the Great Reform Act extended the franchise by 60%, so that one in five adult males could vote after 1832.

So really well done if you managed to provide your own examples, whether they were the same as the ones on the screen or different for each of those areas of life.

So now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson where we're gonna focus on how we can think about the extent of change during the Industrial Revolution.

The extent of change in people's lives during the Industrial Revolution is a subject of historical debate, especially because not all aspects of life were impacted by the Industrial Revolution in similar ways.

The extent of change experienced during the Industrial Revolution could be considered significant.

If you were gonna make this judgement , that might suggest that major changes had taken place or that large numbers of people had been affected by the changes that occurred.

Other historians might judge that the extent of change experienced during the Industrial Revolution was moderate.

This might suggest that the changes were noticeable but not major, although a fair number of people were affected rather than a large number.

Finally, historians might sometimes judge changes, which occurred during the Industrial Revolution as insignificant.

That might suggest that actually there was still a lot of continuities, things that had stayed pretty much the same, although only very small numbers of people were affected.

So there's a spectrum of judgments that we could provide when judging the extent of change during the Industrial Revolution.

We think about an example of providing a judgement of change during the Industrial Revolution.

We have a table on the screen that shows death rates across Britain from 1820 to 1829, and then again in 1831 to 1839.

We can see in the table that the death rate per thousand people in Great Britain in 1820 to 1829 was 23.

1, and that it fell to 22.

4 in the next decade.

We can also see from our table that in Glasgow specifically, the death rate in 1820 to '29 was 28.

6, whereas it rose to 34.

2 in 1831 to 1839.

So if we were gonna make a judgement about the extent of change which occurred during the Industrial Revolution, we might go through the following thought process.

That death rates in Glasgow were rising.

This occurred despite a national decline.

This might suggest that cities, especially these industrial cities growing during the Industrial Revolution, were becoming much less healthy.

And so a historian might describe this as a significant change in specifically urban living conditions.

So this is an example of how we can come to our own judgement about the extent of change during the Industrial Revolution.

So let's make sure our understanding it, the thought process we must go through is really secure when we're considering the extent of change.

Manchester and Birmingham were able to elect their own MPs for the first time after 1832, but were still underrepresented in Parliament.

To what extent does this suggest politics changed during the Industrial Revolution? Does that sound like a significant change, a moderate change, or an insignificant change? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that example suggests there was moderate change in politics because we can see something happening that's new affecting quite a lot of people.

Manchester and Birmingham gaining the right to elect their own MPs for the first time.

But we can still see there's a big continuity in politics that both cities and other industrial locations around the country continue to be underrepresented after 1832.

So we might suggest that that change is moderate.

We have a new example on the screen now that says most industrial workers were still excluded from the franchise, that is the group of people who had the right to vote, after the Great Reform Act was passed.

So to what extent does this suggest that politics changed during the Industrial Revolution? Does it suggest a change was significant, moderate, or insignificant? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that this particular example suggests that change in politics was insignificant because we can see a clear continuity here.

Before the Great Reform Act was passed in 1832, most industrial workers were excluded from the franchise.

And after it was passed, the exact same situation still existed.

So that change appears to be insignificant because there are clear continuities.

And let's try a third example.

Many skilled cotton spinners lost their jobs as their work was completed by machines instead.

To what extent does this suggest that work changed during the Industrial Revolution? Does it sound like a significant change, a moderate change, or an insignificant change? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that this particular example would suggest that there was significant change in work because this is actually a major change in how work was completed, and it affected many different people who'd previously worked as cotton spinners in the country.

So now that we've made sure our understanding is secure, we're ready to put all of our knowledge into practise.

I want you to study the information in the table.

For each row where you've got an example of the situation from 1750 and an example of the situation in 1840, I want you to assess the extent of change as either significant, moderate, or insignificant, which appears to have occurred.

So you need to compare those two situations and think how similar or different do they appear to be.

And what does that suggest the extent of change was? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your answers.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to assess the extent of change, which appeared to have occurred in each of the scenarios detailed in your tables.

For our first row, where we saw that in 1715 most cotton manufacturing occurred in homes, whereas by 1840, most cotton manufacturing occurred in mills, well, that would suggest there was a significant extent of change.

For our second example that told us children did some work, but mostly in their homes for families back in 1750, whereas 500,000 children were in work mainly in mills by 1840, that could be assessed as a moderate change.

On our third row, we had an example from 1750 that told us rotten boroughs like Old Sarum elected two MPs.

Whereas by 1840, we were told that a Great Reform Act abolished many rotten boroughs.

So this could be called a significant change.

And finally, our bottom row told us that in 1750, typhus outbreaks took place but were mostly limited to prisons.

Whereas by 1840, typhus had become a leading killer of industrial workers in cities.

This could be described as a moderate change.

So let's move on to the second part of task B now.

I want you to study the answers from your completed table, and you should justify each of your answers with a partner in one or two sentences.

You should consider this task as an opportunity almost to convince a fellow historian that your historical judgments are correct.

Now, to try and make your arguments most convincing, your justifications may refer to how different or similar the situations between 1750 and 1840 were.

Was there anything new for example? Was there anything that stayed the same? And you might also refer to how many people were likely to have been affected.

These are both really good criteria to use when trying to justify whether you think a significant, moderate, or insignificant amount of change has taken place.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on some of your justifications.

Okay, really well done for all your work on that task, and I hope you enjoyed some of those discussions that you were having to justify your different judgements.

So, if we are thinking about justifying our assessments of the extent of change, some of our answers may have included that there was significant political change as the abolition of rotten boroughs made parliament more representative.

You may have said something like, the change experienced by children was moderate.

They had already been working in 1750, but by 1840 the types of work they did was different.

Your discussions may also have included justifications such as, there was significant change in cotton manufacturing as it moved location from people's homes to newly built mills.

Or, public health changed moderately.

Many of the diseases spreading in 1840 had done so for years, but much more people had started to be infected.

So really well done for all of your effort on that task, especially if some of your justifications sounded like the ones we've just seen.

So now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today where we're going to focus on evaluating the Industrial Revolution.

Historians often have to make overall judgments about historical developments and events.

Historians disagree about the extent of change, which occurred during the Industrial Revolution.

These disagreements are often influenced by which aspects of life, i.

e.

work or living conditions that a particular historian is considering.

So we're about to see two different attempts at evaluating the extent of change during the Industrial Revolution.

And I want you to think really carefully about the strengths or perhaps the areas for improvement in both attempts.

So we have Aisha who says, "There was insignificant change during the Industrial Revolution.

For example, the Great Reform Act of 1832 did not remove the property qualification for voting.

This meant that most industrial workers still could not vote, and so the franchise remained limited." We also have an evaluation from Jun who says, "There was insignificant change during the Industrial Revolution.

For example, the Great Reform Act of 1832 did not remove the property qualification for voting.

The Act also did not introduce salaries for MPs or remove the need for them to own property." So thinking about our two attempts at evaluation, which student, Aisha or Jun, do you think evaluates the political impact of the Industrial Revolution more effectively? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your answer.

Okay, well done if you said that Aisha is the student who evaluates the political impact of the Industrial Revolution more effectively.

And we're gonna think about exactly why Aisha's evaluation is so successful.

One of the things that stands out about Aisha's evaluation comes right at the start where a clear judgement on the extent of change is given.

Aisha says that there was insignificant change.

Something else that's really strong about Aisha's evaluation is that she provides specific factual detail as an example of the type of change that was happening.

In this case she talks about the Great Reform Act and in fact that the property qualification was not removed for voting.

But Aisha's example, unlike the one we saw from Jun, then goes further.

It doesn't spend the rest of its time providing just other types of factual detail.

It moves on to an explanation of why that example, why her specific factual detail is relevant to her judgement.

So she says with the property qualification, most industrial workers still could not vote, and this meant the franchise remained limited.

So actually, Aisha does really well to show that this meant there was still continuities in politics about who had the right to vote and who didn't.

And this makes her evaluation really impressive.

Thus, we really need to remember that when we're writing in history, a good evaluation will include an explanation of how evidence supports a particular historical judgement.

So we have a statement which says, "A good historical evaluation will spend most of its time listing detailed factual examples." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, really well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we must be able to justify our answer as well.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that, "A good evaluation will include an explanation of how evidence supports a particular historical judgement ." Whereas the other justification says that, "Detailed examples are not necessary so long as the paragraph also includes a clear historical judgement ." So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that A was the correct justification.

A good evaluation will include an explanation of how evidence supports a particular historical judgement.

That explanation is just as important as the evidence and the judgement in your overall evaluation.

Okay, so now we're ready to put all of our knowledge and understanding from today's lesson into practise.

We have a judgement from Alex who says, "The Industrial Revolution led to insignificant change in Britain, except for in work." How accurate is this view of the impact of the Industrial Revolution? I want you to write one paragraph to evaluate changes in work, and one paragraph to evaluate changes in another area of life.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your answers.

Okay, really well done for your hard work on that task.

I was asking you to do quite a lot there.

So we had Alex's judgement which says, "The Industrial Revolution led to insignificant change in Britain, except for in work." And I asked you how accurate this view of the impact of the Industrial Revolution was.

Your answer may have included, it is accurate to say that work changed significantly because of the Industrial Revolution.

For example, new inventions like the water frame, which could spin 96 cotton threads at once, were introduced in the cotton industry.

These machines were important because they made cotton manufacturing more productive.

The use of the water frame also led to many skilled spinners losing their jobs as they could not match the machine's output.

This shows that work changed significantly.

Your answer may also have included as a second paragraph, however, I do not agree that other changes were insignificant.

For example, the death rate in Glasgow and other industrial cities rose in the early 19th century whilst it fell in Britain as a whole.

This suggests that many people in Britain's industrial cities were increasingly exposed to poor conditions, which threatened their health.

This shows that living conditions changed significantly as well as work.

So really well done.

If your two paragraphs look something like those models we've seen, then do keep in mind there are many other aspects of life that you could have talked about for the second paragraph in your own answer.

So we've now reached the end of today's lesson, which means we're in a good position to summarise our learning.

We've seen that during the Industrial Revolution, inventions like the water frame changed manufacturing, especially in the cotton industry.

Many people migrated to urban areas and industrial cities, but suffered from poor working and living conditions.

Many people demanded reform of parliament to make it more representative.

The Great Reform Act improved the representation of industrial areas, but still left most industrial workers without the vote.

And historians still debate the extent of change to ordinary people's lives that took place during the Industrial Revolution.

So thank you for all of your hard work during today's lesson.

It's been a real pleasure being able to help guide you through our lesson today, and I look forward to seeing you again in future.