For theDay of Remembrance 2026–2027, the MIM (Italian Ministry of Education and Merit) is promoting the 15th edition of the national competition dedicated to the history of the eastern border, the exodus, and pathways of resilience, with submissions due byJanuary 2027. This teachers’ guide translates the call for entries into practical teaching choices: from designing a Learning Unit (Unità di Apprendimento, a structured teaching/learning module) tostudents’ oral preparation, all the way to the responsible use ofAI exam simulations(seeoral exam simulation) to train presentation skills, argumentation, and the use of sources.
Quality control: language editing, argumentative coherence, compliance with the assignment, length (if audio/video), and accessibility (subtitles or transcript when possible).If you want to set up ready-to-use activities for class and department, exploreStudierAI for teachers
start for free
teachers’ guide to competitionsreusable: same method, different topics, skills that last.1) Activation and framing (1–2 hours). Define vocabulary and context: eastern border, exodus, public memory. Use short introductory materials and make it clear that you will be working on
, not on slogans. Setting criteria and expectations from the start lowers conflict and improves engagement.what the expected output is2) Guided research (2–4 hours + independent study). Provide a “minimum package” of reliable sources (2–3 secondary + 1–2 primary) and ask students to expand it with clear rules: every new source must be accompanied by
(author, date, purpose, reliability, perspective). This step is crucial against copy-and-paste and builds information literacy.
- 3) Product design (1–2 hours). Before “writing,” create a blueprint: audience, central message, supporting evidence, choice of medium (text, audio, video). The claim–evidence–reasoning technique works well here:
- .
- 4) Production with checkpoints (3–6 hours). Break the work into short deliverables: outline, first draft, revision, final version. Each checkpoint receives quick feedback (including via rubrics). Pedagogical evidence: frequent formative assessment improves performance and self-regulation more than a single final grade.
5) Structured peer review (1 hour). Give each group a review protocol: “two strengths + one question + one concrete improvement.” Peer review works if it is guided by criteria and if students submit a short note: “what we changed after the feedback.”
6) Oral preparation and sharing back (1–2 hours). Even if the work is written or multimedia, plan a short oral presentation (3–5 minutes) with questions. It helps consolidate learning and prepares skills useful for oral questioning and exams: clarity, time management, correct use of sources.
Essential rubric (from 1 to 4 levels) for the oral component:historical accuracy, use of evidence, argumentative coherence, subject-specific vocabulary, communicative effectiveness, timekeeping. Sharing the rubric before the activity increases fairness and reduces performance anxiety.
Simulating exams and oral questioning with AI: an ethical workflow and how StudierAI can helpguiding question → source investigation → building a product → public sharingAI can support innovative teaching if we use it as a “cognitive tutor” and not as a shortcut. In the context of the competition (and more generally of the
as a project opportunity), the most productive use is training: questions, rebuttals, rephrasing, oral simulations. With
- you can set up guided pathways for the class and for individual students, keeping track of assignments and fostering autonomy.
- Ethical workflow (recommended) in 5 steps, also useful as a school policy:
- Define what is allowed: brainstorming, outlines, revision questions; not allowed: generating the final submission without reworking and without citation.
Require traceability: each group submits a short log (prompts used, what was accepted/rejected, which sources were verified).source literacySource checking: every significant claim must be linked to a reliable external source; AI is not a source.
Bias and perspectives: do an exercise comparing two historiographical narratives; discuss what changes and why.
Deadlines and submission methods (digital and postal): a checklist to avoid mistakes
Many schools miss opportunities due to formal errors: files not named correctly, missing consent forms, non-compliant formats, late submission. Since the deadlines are set at•Question generator with increasing difficulty
Essential checklist (adapt it to the instructions in the call and the attachments):
- Interview role-play
- File naming and metadata: class/school/title of the submission; create a “master” folder with the final version locked.
- Rephrasing and summarising
- Bibliography/webography and credits: primary/secondary sources, archives consulted, any interviews (date and method).
- Quality control: language editing, argumentative coherence, compliance with the assignment, length (if audio/video), and accessibility (subtitles or transcript when possible).
StudierAI for teachers
start for free
teachers’ guide to competitions
1) Activation and framing (1–2 hours). Define vocabulary and context: eastern border, exodus, public memory. Use short introductory materials and make it clear that you will be working onsources and arguments, not on slogans. Setting criteria and expectations from the start lowers conflict and improves engagement.
2) Guided research (2–4 hours + independent study). Provide a “minimum package” of reliable sources (2–3 secondary + 1–2 primary) and ask students to expand it with clear rules: every new source must be accompanied byassessment sheet(author, date, purpose, reliability, perspective). This step is crucial against copy-and-paste and builds information literacy.
3) Product design (1–2 hours). Before “writing,” create a blueprint: audience, central message, supporting evidence, choice of medium (text, audio, video). The claim–evidence–reasoning technique works well here:thesis → evidence → explanation.
4) Production with checkpoints (3–6 hours). Break the work into short deliverables: outline, first draft, revision, final version. Each checkpoint receives quick feedback (including via rubrics). Pedagogical evidence: frequent formative assessment improves performance and self-regulation more than a single final grade.
5) Structured peer review (1 hour). Give each group a review protocol: “two strengths + one question + one concrete improvement.” Peer review works if it is guided by criteria and if students submit a short note: “what we changed after the feedback.”
6) Oral preparation and sharing back (1–2 hours). Even if the work is written or multimedia, plan a short oral presentation (3–5 minutes) with questions. It helps consolidate learning and prepares skills useful for oral questioning and exams: clarity, time management, correct use of sources.
Essential rubric (from 1 to 4 levels) for the oral component:historical accuracy, use of evidence, argumentative coherence, subject-specific vocabulary, communicative effectiveness, timekeeping. Sharing the rubric before the activity increases fairness and reduces performance anxiety.
Simulating exams and oral questioning with AI: an ethical workflow and how StudierAI can help
AI can support innovative teaching if we use it as a “cognitive tutor” and not as a shortcut. In the context of the competition (and more generally of theMIM competition for teachersas a project opportunity), the most productive use is training: questions, rebuttals, rephrasing, oral simulations. WithStudierAIyou can set up guided pathways for the class and for individual students, keeping track of assignments and fostering autonomy.
Ethical workflow (recommended) in 5 steps, also useful as a school policy:
- Define what is allowed: brainstorming, outlines, revision questions; not allowed: generating the final submission without reworking and without citation.
- Require traceability: each group submits a short log (prompts used, what was accepted/rejected, which sources were verified).
- Source checking: every significant claim must be linked to a reliable external source; AI is not a source.
- Bias and perspectives: do an exercise comparing two historiographical narratives; discuss what changes and why.
- Process-centred assessment: rubrics that reward quality of evidence, revision, and the ability to answer questions.
Concrete examples of AI-based activities for students’ oral preparation (without replacing studying):
•Question generator with increasing difficulty: from descriptive presentation (“explain the context”) to argumentation (“assess causes and consequences”) to metacognition (“which sources support your thesis?”).
•Interview role-play: the AI plays the role of an examiner who asks for clarification, challenges a generalisation, and requests a documented example.
•Rephrasing and summarising: the student brings a draft and asks to obtain a clearer version, then compares and justifies the choices (an activity useful for language competence).
In practice, you can have the class work with short sessions (10–12 minutes) of simulation, followed by self-assessment: “Which question challenged me? Which source will I use to answer better?” This is self-regulated learning: students learn to diagnose gaps and plan their studying.
If you want to set up ready-to-use activities for class and department, exploreStudierAI for teachersandstart for freeto create a training pathway for the oral test linked to your project on the Day of Remembrance. Over time, this also becomes ateachers’ guide to competitionsreusable: same method, different topics, skills that last.
