INTRODUCTION

This WebQuest is intended to carry out collaborative and cooperative group work (with 4 students per group), using the Internet as a basis for the search for knowledge.
With this work, your group will discover how fascist / Nazi regimes appeared in the 1930s and the problems that today's democracies face. By characterizing fascism / nazi, one can establish the relationship that exists today with the increase of populist and nationalist parties in Europe.

Your group will search the Internet on the abovementioned topics, using the links at the end of this WebQuest, or any other you find that are related to the topic. Collaborative and cooperative work is essential to be able to prepare the final presentation on Prezi. You must follow the guide step by step, conducting learning by discovery, researching the Internet, thus focusing on the work of the members of the group. In the end, the presentation on Prezi, is prepared by the group, it must respect some rules, which are explained below. But before that, here are some things you need to know:

TASK

Your task is using the Internet to search for information.

They have to search the Internet and prepare a presentation on Prezi, where the characteristics of the totalitarian regimes of the 1930s must be explained as well as forms of advertising; why democracies have failed; why Europe today is faced with an increase in voters in populist/nationalist parties.

The Prezi presentation must contain:

• Fascism / Nazism images / schemes;
• Short phrases explaining the characteristics of the fascist/nazi regimes, related to the increase of populist/nationalist parties in the parliaments of European countries, thus answering the initial question -problem;
• Bibliography;

Delivery time: 15 days;

It must be sent by e-mail to the teacher.

PROCESS

This Webquest should be conducted in groups of 4 students.

1. What problems did democracies face in the 1930s?
Search the post-World War I economic difficulties on the Internet.

2. What is the main political consequence resulting from these problems?
Search the Internet for information on the triumph of dictatorial political movements.

3. What is the main political consequence resulting from these problems?
Search the Internet for information on the triumph of dictatorial political movements.

4. What were the principles of Italian fascism and German Nazism?
Search the Internet for information about the characteristics of fascism/nazism.

5. Are democracies in danger today?
You are ready to answer the problem question. Search the Internet to find the answer to the abovementioned question.

Some clues: links the crisis of the 1930s with the current world crisis; there is a relation between fascism/nazism and current populist/nationalist parties.

6. Prepare a group presentation on Prezi taking into account all the knowledge acquired, answering the problem question.
Do not forget to put the bibliography of the resources used to conduct the research.

7. A member of the group is to send the conducted work to the teacher according to the schedule indicated in advance by the teacher (15 days).

RESOURCES

https://www.diferenca.com/nazismo-e-fascismo/
https://www.infoescola.com/historia/ascensao-do-fascismo-e-do-nazismo/
https://ensina.rtp.pt/artigo/crise-ditaduras-e-democracia-na-decada-de-30-a-ascensao-do-regime-nazista-na-alemanha/
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populismo
https://fronteirasxxi.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Partidos-Populistas-info-3b.pdf
http://www.scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1645-91992019000200003
https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/mundo/populistas-triplicam-votacao-na-europa-em-20-anos_n1112619

CONCLUSION

As the WebQuest was carried out while in a work group, respecting the cooperative and collaborative spirit, focusing on students' learning, they should reflect on:

• work developed by each member of the group;
• compliance with tasks and deadlines previously established;
• respect for the ideas of the other members of the group;
• respect for group work rules;
• critical spirit;
• creativity;
• research capacity;
• autonomy;
• communication of scientific knowledge correctly and effectively;
• use of electronic tools;
• how did the use of the internet facilitate learning.

Evaluation of learning achievements

In this section we will not dive very deep into the underlying educational theories about evaluation and testing: there’s too much out there than we could possibly cover in this small project report.

Instead, we want to concentrate on procedures that enable both students/pupils and their teachers to establish if the learning goals of the Webquest were achieved and, if so, to what extent. We recommend teachers make use of a combined evaluation procedure, that consists of:

1. Statements by learners (after being asked to do so)
   • telling what they learned about the subject (knowledge-oriented self-evaluation): now (after going through the Webquest) I know that …
   • telling what he/she learned about herself/himself (formative evaluation, in this case, diagnostic self-evaluation): now (after going through the Webquest) I know about myself that I …
     This pair of basic statements add up to a so-called learner report, in which the pupil/student reflects on what the Webquest brought him/her in terms of acquired knowledge and new personal views and attitudes concerning the subject.

   For instance:

   • ‘I learned that in medieval times the hygiene of people was hardly a concern which helped to let epidemic diseases like the Plague cause so many casualties’ Or:
   • ‘I learned the facts and I know the earth is warming, but I cannot understand why people were so stupid to pollute the world and let it warm up so much.
   • ‘I learned from the information about diseases that this subject is more appealing to me than I would expect in advance: maybe I should consider a medical career’. Or:
     ‘The Webquests confirms what I thought already: I could not care less about the climate and global warming. In fact, I thought it was all a hoax and I still do!’

   This kind of assessment seems more subjective than it actually is: in his standard work on testing and evaluation (and much more), simply called Methodology (1974), Prof. A.D. de Groot described how consistent the student’s self-evaluations appeared to be: when asked again after 5 or 10 years, their evaluation would almost be the same. De Groot advised teachers to use the learner report as a start for joint evaluations, striving for consensus between teacher and student/pupil about the learning outcomes and their value for the learner, but also compared with the learning objectives as stated in the curriculum.

2. The learning achievements are visible in the output produced by the students: it is physical evidence: reports, answers to questions asked in the Webquest, presentations, and performance during presentations (preferably recorded). The teacher completes an evaluation grid stating clearly what the learning outcomes for the student/pupil are. The categories in the grid can be modified by the teacher to cover more precisely the content of a Webquest.

   >We advise teachers to use the grid to start a joint evaluation discussion, aiming at consensus or at least understanding between the teacher and the student/pupil about the learning outcomes: were they achieved (as planned in the curriculum and communicated before the Webquest started) and to what extent? To communicate the learning goals clearly before any learning activity starts, is a transparency requirement that is widely acknowledged in the educational community. The history of making learning objectives explicit goes back to the evaluation ‘Bible’ by Bloom, Hastings and Madaus: ‘Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning’ (1971), a standard work that also served as inspiration for the earlier mentioned Prof. De Groot.

The procedure also applies when students/pupils have worked together on a Webquest. The teacher will ask questions about individual contributions: ‘What did you find? What part did you write? How did you find the illustrations? Who made  the final presentation?’

All the evidence (of learning efforts and outcomes plus joint evaluations) is preferably stored in the learning portfolio of the student, or in any other suitable storage system (folders with written or printed documents, online collection of files, etcetera ).

Changes in personal points of view and feelings are harder to value and here the consensus between teacher and student/pupil about experiences during the learning process provides essential insights.

The grid below gives an example of how the evaluation of the learning process and achievements can be shaped: what kind of reactions to the Webquest does the teacher expect and how valuable are they? Is the teacher capable to explain the value or score allocated to answers or presentations given by pupils? Does the pupil/student understand the evaluation outcomes, and does he/she agree? If an agreement (consensus is not possible, it is still the teacher who decides how to value the student’s work.

Please note that the text in the grid addresses the pupil/student directly: this is important and it is in fact a prerequisite for using such an evaluation grid: it is specifically meant to enable a discussion of learning results between teacher and student and not to communicate learning achievements of learners to others who had no direct role in the Webquest.

Evaluation Grid