Introduction

We are witnessing the growth of Digital Information and Communications Technologies that increasingly influence the way we access and produce knowledge. The answers to many of our questions can often be found a click away, provided by an array of available online materials, whether on You Tube® videos, blogs, Web pages, hyperlinks, forums, or Wikis. However, the most significant projection has come from the popularization of social networks, especially Facebook® (^{Valente, Almeida, & Geraldini, 2017}).

These are some of the tools that comprise what is called Web 2.0, in which the main feature is to enable the production of content by users, not limiting them to only accessing information, but also disseminating digital culture, defined by content production and sharing, an activity that is constantly part of young people’s lives today (^{Carvalho, 2008}).

Nevertheless, schools have found themselves cut off from this reality. Old-fashioned teaching practices that transform students into mere containers of information predominate in schools, and traditional methodologies, based on the acritical exposition of content on the part of the teacher, are still very present, causing student disinterest (^{Berbel, 2011}; ^{Diesel, Santos Baldez, & Neumann Martins, 2017}). This is especially true for History, mainly considered a subject of rote learning (^{Bittencourt, 2009}; ^{Nadai, 1993}; ^{Schmidt, 2000}).

We would like to defend that the use of active methodologies-centered on student learning and not on teaching per se, with the aim of students building knowledge actively (^{Berbel, 2011}), associated with the critical use of Web 2.0-can maximize student participation in the classroom, transforming them into subjects of their own learning process, heightening interest in studying and, as a consequence, turning them into better content learners.

In Brazil, professional education is offered in many modalities, both in public and private schools. The largest of these initiatives can be found in the Rede Federal de Educação Profissional, Científica e Tecnológica (Federal Network of Professional, Scientific and Technological Education), created in 2008, and present in all the states in Brazil that have federal education institutes. In these wholly autonomous and public institutes, high school, undergraduate and even graduate programs are offered, focused mainly on the local development of regions served by the campi. In this context, Integrated High School programs are provided, joining propaedeutic and professional education. Therefore, classical subjects such as History are articulated with technical ones, related to professional abilities.

Within this scenario, figuring out how to teach History is a twofold problem: on the one hand, it is a known fact that teaching that requires mere memorization does not produce learning; on the other hand, because advocating for quality education as a whole is one of the most important premises of high school education associated to professional formation (^{Kuenzer & Grabowsk, 2016}), it becomes a matter of urgency to understand how our students are taught and how they learn in this specific context.

Understanding History is crucial for the development of a person’s critical thinking. Through History, the student is able to see that the material, social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the present are rooted in a historicity which simply cannot be ignored, as if the present existed in isolation, disconnected from the past and historical processes. From the perspective of History classes, it is understood that “(…) the learning of History must not be concerned only with content (substantive concepts) but also with the progression of historical thought, leading the student to think historically” (^{Aguiar, 2014}, p. 156).

Therefore, historical learning should become internalized and complete-as well as subjective-so students can see the connection between their own lives and the difficulties and experiences of people in the past, and so students can foresee a better future and thus manifest “historical awareness” (^{Rüsen, 2012}).

Hence, the present article proposes to consider the following issue: in the search for new educational practices, how can the use of Web 2.0 resources instigate students’ interest in History? This article is part of a master’s research in which the general aim is to investigate the contributions of teaching History in an omnilateral or polytechnical High School program-where there is the articulation of theory (scientific knowledge) and practice (technical knowledge)-integrated in professional education in Brazil. In the present article, the elements of an interactive didactic sequence using Web 2.0 resources are studied with the purpose of integrating History contents in specific technical subjects and contributing to the development of historical awareness. Thus, an educational product was developed, applied, and analyzed. We then verified to what extent this product contributed to attaining the aims proposed and subsequently answering the questions set out by this research.

Teaching history and historical awareness

History projects itself on the collective memory of people mainly through memories, monuments, museums, texts, books, schools and media, with the aim of making individuals who are part of a specific social group share the same recollection/memory. Thus, a community is no longer simply a group of “I”s and becomes a group of “we”s (^{Carretero & Rosa, 2007}, p. 57).

Historical memory, however, is built individually. It is an individual ability that depends mainly on what is relevant to each person and their ideals. We choose what we want to forget and the way we wish to remember something, according to our conscious actions. This mental operation is carried out because of historical awareness, producing the “composition of meaning regarding the experience of time” (^{Rüsen, 2001}, p. 59).

Despite different versions of historical facts-due to the multiple interpretations we can have of past experiences-the teaching of History in most Brazilian basic education schools has persisted in disseminating a unilateral view, hindering interpretative freedom and the student’s creativity by choosing traditional teaching methods (^{Moreno, 2019}; ^{Schmidt, 2000}).

The Didactics of History, whose main advocate is the Historian and Philosopher Jörn Rüsen, attempts to displace the traditional form of teaching History with research and the development of theoretical tools that can strengthen History classes, backed by what is called historical awareness (^{Moreno, 2019}).

History teachers can encourage student autonomy through active student participation, the development of critical thought and by supporting multiple readings of facts that are studied. If, on the contrary, we simply deposit our truths on students, without any space for interpretive freedom, behaviors of control are reinforced (^{Berbel, 2011}). As a result, traditional classes tend to limit students’ knowledge, since they simply impose the teacher’s ideas on students, who must mechanically memorize information considered important based solely on a teacher’s criteria (^{Freire, 2017}).

Historical Education criticizes the simple idea of transmitting content since it posits that learning does not occur when students receive knowledge but in interaction with knowledge. In this way, they can develop their own arguments and ideas. A student cannot learn History by merely memorizing facts and dates if these are dead pieces of information with little meaning to their life today. Therefore, historical facts are much more relevant and generate better learning if they are somehow connected to what students experience, think, or believe, thus helping them uncover the workings of society (^{Moreno, 2019}).

Didactics of History is part of the area of Historical Sciences that specifically focuses on the teaching/learning of History, empirically researching how History is taught and learned. Its main object of study is historical awareness, basically assumed as understanding how past, present, and future are related. In addition, it is based on the premise that learning about History can help an individual in their practical life (^{Rüsen, 2001}).

The traditional form of teaching History produces controlled historical awareness which leads to the annihilation of autonomous thought and to limited historical thinking. Therefore, over the decades, the idea of History as a foundation for practical life was put aside and its usefulness questioned by students (^{Moreno, 2019}). On the other hand, “historical learning”, the focus of Historical Education, aims at transforming information into knowledge, offering “historical literacy”, developing a historical mindset in students, so they can be in connection with other ages and locations. Thus, students can try to understand what motivated people’s actions in the past and, at the same time, analyze and understand how these actions impact their world today (^{Schmidt & Cainelli, 2009}, p. 66).

“Historical learning” refers to changes produced in the structure of historical awareness. It cannot be understood as the mere knowledge of the past, regardless of the quantity of information retained, but refers to the way we use past experiences to progressively release us from traditional historical awareness and lead us to historical thought of a genetic nature (^{Rüsen, 2010}, p. 51).

Historical thought is ingrained in human daily life, a part of the essence of humanity itself. We usually mark the passage of time by observing the nature of our own lives. In general, we divide our existence into birth, childhood, adult life, aging and death. These stages function as initial temporal markers to guide the choices we make day by day, which implies that there are certain choices in the present that will affect the future (^{Cerri, 2001}). This is explained by the fact that “humans need to establish an interpretive frame about what they experience as changes in themselves and in their world over time” (^{Rüsen, 2001}, p. 58). The frame referred to is called historical awareness, i.e., the manner in which each human interprets the world and themselves based on their own knowledge about the past.

The most important goal of historical education is the development of historical awareness in students so they can overcome traditional historical awareness, based on linear time, or critical awareness completely disconnected from the past. Thus, students would develop genetic-critical awareness and consider the complex relations between past and present, using the experiences people of other ages as a guideline to practical life today (^{Schmidt & Cainelli, 2009}).

The society we live in is a result of the decisions of people who lived before us, leading us to become who we are. This is an important aspect as it takes into consideration the fact that our decisions, both individually and collectively, also create a specific future for our descendants. Hence, we have moral and ethical responsibilities. Though we cannot change the past, when we interpret and narrate it based on our individual and collective struggles, we bring up questions about the present and think about the future considering principles of freedom, democracy, and citizenship (^{Schmidt & Cainelli, 2009}).

Historical awareness can help us overcome banking education in the teaching of History and helps us see school not as a place of didactic simplification and the transmission of content based on erudite university knowledge, but as a producer of different types of knowledge. In other words, it does not reproduce what is called scientific History, produced academically, but builds upon students’ and teachers’ personal historical knowledge in Basic Education (^{Cerri, 2001}).

Teaching History can help the oppressed the fatality of their condition, i.e., that their reality cannot be changed because of poverty, lack of education or simply because it is God’s will. “This fatalism is almost always connected to the power of destiny, or fortune or fate-unmovable forces, or a distorted view of God” (^{Freire, 2017}, p. 67), which is the result of an ‘order’ that the oppressor has introjected into the oppressed, binding their eyes so the real causes of their exploitation cannot be seen.

Educational practices and web 2.0

Traditional forms of teaching still predominate in schools, based on data memorization, and students who are treated as passive beings. The teacher, whose function is to transmit content, is the center of the teaching and learning process. This method is the main target of criticism of active methodologies (^{Diesel et al., 2017}).

The greatest problem is that “though it is vital, information itself, if it is memorized, merely reproduces, or maintains what already is, turning learners into spectators of the world” (^{Berbel, 2011}, p. 25).

According to ^{Freire (2017}) classes centered on narration are dead-like or petrified. They entail a narrator-the teacher-who considers they know the truth; acting as the only subject in the situation, lecturing to the students who must listen as ‘patient objects’, without reflecting on their concrete living conditions.

The traditional learning method is also called banking education because students are treated as ‘containers’ that the teacher will ‘fill’ as they pass on knowledge, as if they were making ‘deposits’. In this model, the more content deposited into students, the more highly regarded the teacher; while, on the other hand “(…) the more they allow themselves to be docilely ‘filled’, the more these students excel” (^{Freire, 2017}, p. 80).

^{Freire’s ideas (2017}) are the basis for what is called Active Methodologies, positing that we should start with the knowledge of the students themselves, defending the resolution of problems and overcoming challenges. Thus, the elaboration of new information by students for the solution of problems is encouraged, enabling real learning instead of the mere memorization of what is imposed (^{Berbel, 2011}).

Digital information and communications technologies are overwhelmingly present in students’ daily lives, expanding in large measure due to the portability of mobile devices which, together with wireless connections, allow information on the Web to be accessed from almost anywhere (^{Valente et al., 2017}). This creates new challenges for schools that have been pressured by digital culture, popularized by social networks, especially Facebook®, Instagram® and Twitter®, where there is plenty of information to be found. The main feature these networks present is the sharing and production of information, with the intensification of social interactions and the collaborative production of knowledge.

With this in mind, it is important to establish new teaching practices, since methods based on the transmission of content can no longer adequately respond to what is expected from a citizen or qualified professional. “The growing complexity of various areas in life worldwide, nationally and locally have demanded the development of human abilities for thinking, feeling, and acting with more intensity and more broadly (…)” (^{Berbel, 2011}, pp. 25-26).

A way to motivate student interest is to find methodologies that enhance student protagonism, promoting a more emphatic voice in the classroom setting. Active methods are not centered on teaching, or on the teacher, but focused on student learning. Active methodologies aim at making students think critically and autonomously, demanding that the teacher be open to understanding and accepting different opinions. When students perceive that they are co-participants of the teaching and learning processes, they consequently become more motivated (^{Diesel et al., 2017}). Commitment comes from the curiosity inspired in students as they see their contributions being praised when they join in trying to solve a specific problem. This gives them a “feeling of belonging”, leading to more commitment to studying (^{Berbel, 2011}).

The teacher’s attitude is also mentioned by ^{Freire (1996}) as being crucial for overcoming banking educational practices. He states that “when a teacher enters a classroom, he/she should become open to inquiries, curiosity, students’ questions, their inhibitions; they should be critical and inquisitive beings, restless when facing the task at hand - that of teaching and not simply handing out knowledge” (p. 121).

The lack of articulation between school knowledge and the student’s social context is another factor that can cause a drop in student interest. Lack of contextualization is common in the traditional methods where the main point is transmitting content (^{Freire, 1996}). Content should be related to problems that are really experienced, while students should be aided in understanding and solving them, connecting theory and practice (^{Diesel et al., 2017}).

As a counterpoint to expository classes in which students must remain silent and seated individually at their desks, without exchanging ideas with their classmates, active methodology welcomes group work, encourages interaction, discussions, and the exchange of ideas among classmates. It also focuses on students creating something new, according to their own ideas, by interpreting and re-elaborating what they have studied and not merely reproducing what is already known.

Any teacher who is intent on developing a confident attitude on the part of students, and who encourages critical thinking and autonomy as well, must challenge students, establishing what is known as dialogic education. Teachers should be able to listen to students so that communication really takes place and is not simply a monologue. A dialogic teacher is able to listen to what students have to say, as well as always encourage them to speak and produce their own understanding of an issue, instead of merely receiving it as a given. Learning takes place in dialogicity, in the exchange of ideas, in intercommunication and not in unequivocal imposition (^{Freire, 1996}). Dialogicity leads to the development of the student’s critical spirit. Thus, they can form their own vision of the world and become independent, free. If, on the contrary, we continue shackled to banking education, we will strengthen society’s oppressiveness and a culture of silence that nurtures conformism among the popular classes (Freire, 2017).

Furthermore, we must realize that the situations that young people are experiencing today, influenced by Web 2.0, and, above all, by social networks, demand that we adopt new educational approaches, since “it is crucial we understand the social practices that are inherent to a digital culture, characterized by participation, creation, invention, the opening of spatial and temporal limits in the classroom (…)” (^{Valente et al., 2017}, p. 458). Hence, we will present the possibilities of using social networks, especially Facebook®, for teaching in general, but more specifically for the teaching of History.

‘New languages’ in teaching, such as videos, music, movies, photos, and others, can attract students to History classes (^{Fonseca, 1990}, ²⁰⁰³). The Internet, for instance, has been a great help in classes, since students can access a variety of information and also produce and share knowledge, one of the main advantages of Web 2.0 (^{Sanavria, 2014}). According to ^{Veen and Vrakking (2009}), schools are in dire need of modernization and should therefore use currently available technologies that favor education.

Thus, the Internet is a powerful tool for education, growing quickly and astoundingly, impacting several areas in our lives, influencing the way we now relate to each other, and how we communicate, consume, and even learn (^{Lévy, 1999}).

In the beginning, Web 1.0, as it was called, was exclusively used for access to information exposed on online pages, such as in reading or downloads, but without the possibility of alteration or criticism. Web 1.0 allowed us to find a large quantity of ready-made content, while communication on the computer was done by the only means available then: e-mails (^{Sanavria, 2014}). When Web 2.0 was created, it democratized access to and production of online information, besides making interactions between people more dynamic, and the publication of content easier. Today, we are not required to be programming experts to create a site and publish content, and thanks to the appearance of social networks, this can be done easily through “posts” (^{Carvalho, 2008}, p. 7). “Web 2.0 has important social repercussions that potentialize collective work processes, effective exchanges, the production and circulation of information, and the social construction of knowledge supported by computing” (^{Primo, 2007}, p. 1).

Elaborated by Tim O’Reilly in 2004, Web 2.0 is a new type of Web in which the user can also be the producer of content, therefore no longer taking on a passive role.

A user can potentially share, organize, and produce information (^{Coutinho, 2008}; ^{Primo, 2007}). With the emergence of Blogger® in 1999, Wikipedia® in 2004, and YouTube® in 2005, the model could then count on cooperative writing as well (^{Cobo Romaní & Pardo Kuklinski, 2007}).

Cyberspace is part of our students’ daily lives, an environment with its own culture and language, in which the main social interactions of teenagers and young adults take place-as well as the exchange of ideas and knowledge. In the digital era, cyberspace has made the world outside the school become dialogic, allowing people from different social classes, ages, and origins to disclose what they think, share what they like and/or think is relevant, allowing searches according to the answers they need and enabling conversations among users with the same interests, thus forming virtual communities that share knowledge and experiences. The integration of people, machines, and information create cyberspace, where you can find the construction and introjection of values, techniques, codes, forms of socialization and action, thus inaugurating a new form of being in the digital age, a new culture, ‘cyberculture’ (^{Lévy, 1999}).

The popularization of mobile devices associated to Web 2.0 increased the ease of accessing information from anywhere, making these tools useful for browsing and producing content (not only consuming), thus strengthening social networks. Therefore, “the online resources and tools of easy publication of Web 2.0 are an opportunity for teachers and students to learn cooperatively, publicizing and sharing their experiences and knowledge” (^{Carvalho, 2008}, p. 12).

The construction of people’s identities today is intensely linked to their participations on social networks and the relations established there with “others”, especially on Facebook®, a special space for social relationships where we can explain and defend our choices, attitudes, ideas, tastes and styles. In sum, it reveals “my position shown to the world, my way of living, my identity” (^{Ribeiro, 2017}, p. 38).

Social networks make it possible for people to connect through Web 2.0 digital technologies; modifying how people interact and relate to time and space. Thus, people can physically be at home and virtually be somewhere else, like on Facebook®, playing online with someone from another country, in a world that is increasingly marked by ubiquity (^{Ribeiro, 2017}).

In 2011 Facebook® released a guide entitled ‘Facebook® for Education’, to help teachers who wanted to elaborate class plans using the social network in the classroom. The publication highlights the importance of Web 2.0 in its introduction. It recommends, for instance, that contact and communication between educator and students take place in ‘groups’ and ‘pages’ created by teachers on Facebook®, exclusively with education in mind, where they will be able to interact, comment, share, and solve doubts. There is a reminder that these groups should preferably be ‘closed’, besides emphasizing the capacity to expand learning beyond the space and time of the traditional classroom (^{Phillips, Baird, & Fogg, 2011}).

The expansion of digital, social, and mobile technologies has created a culture where young people participate more in creating and sharing content, deeply changing how students communicate, interact, and learn. In many cases, students spend the same amount of time (or more) online in an informal learning environment, interacting with classmates and reading comments, than with teachers in a traditional classroom (^{Phillips et al., 2011}, p. 3).

In this context, we must understand the importance of the Internet and especially of social networks in teaching and learning processes. We can agree with ^{Coll, Mauri and Onrubia (2010}, p. 67) that, though technologies have not yet brought on the innovations hoped for by schools, they have a ‘great potential’ to transform education. Nevertheless, it is still possible that teaching practices come across the traditional banking context in the use of technologies, merely using it as a more sophisticated form of transmitting information.

The word ‘ubiquity’ stands out in most texts by researchers when speaking of the advantages of the Internet in accessing information. The Internet, one of the focal points of this research-in trying to figure out precisely what Web 2.0 is and how it contributes to teaching History-is a ubiquitous network, i.e., one in which learning can happen any place, any time (at home, at work, at leisure, etc.). Therefore, traditional learning scenarios are being modified by virtual scenario technologies of online education (^{Coll et al., 2010}) and, to corroborate our definition, ^{Santos (2011}) states that ubiquity means the divine capacity to be present in all places, a synonym of omnipresence.

With the emergence and consolidation of the Web, we have seen the advent of what is known as Information Society (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}). With this in mind, it is extremely important to bring the Internet into the school, otherwise we risk creating “social or cybercultural exclusion” (^{Silva, 2014}, p. 174). If this technology is simply ignored, we may face an increase in the difficulty of people finding a proper role in the workforce.

We have certainly heard or read numerous times that technologies are tools. Nevertheless, we agree they are more like “thinking machines/cerebral machines”, since they are not simply extensions of humans, but possess some sort of functional autonomy. Thus, these machines extend our cognitive and communicative capacities (^{Santos, 2011}, p. 96) and, at the same time, produce “a new culture”, “the so-called cyberculture, which the teacher must master and recognize” (Santos, 2011, p. 96).

The Internet interconnects different technologies on the worldwide network of computers, thus forming cyberspace. The Web is not a media but numerous integrated medias that together create cyberspace, with its own sociability and forms of communication that are distinctive to cyberculture. Technologies allow synchronic (meaning in real time, for example, chats) and a-synchronic (forums, e-mail) communication. These contribute with an important communicative and educational potential for Virtual Learning Environments (VLE), allowing communication to be ‘one on one’, ‘one with all’ and mainly ‘all with all’, most commonly found on cyberspace, thus characterizing online education as an expansion of participation and the cooperation of pairs (^{Santos, 2011}).

The issues discussed so far contribute immensely to the elaboration of our didactic sequence, in which the core idea is the use of Facebook®, a social network that stands out in cyberculture today, in its specific sociability, languages and codes for the teaching of History in the context of Professional and Technological Education (^{Levy, 1999}). We wanted to understand the benefits brought on by the Web, namely research, sharing and the collaborative development of knowledge, encouraging interaction among students who are involved in the use of Internet resources (^{Dias, 2011}).

Computers evidently are not machines that can give us answers, but they can offer multiple readings, depending on the hyperlinks, linking words, hypermedia, and information accessed on the same page, or on another page on the Web, enabling several non-linear paths, sometimes leading to a labyrinth of information. On the one hand, discoveries, the elaboration of new knowledge and autonomous learning activities can result. On the other hand, there can be confusion because of the “noise” so much sparse information produces. Therefore, on this path, you need to know the difference between what is useless and what is important, so as not to ‘drown’ in a huge ocean of knowledge (^{Alava, 2002}; ^{Silva, 2014}).

Hence, for the inclusion of technology in schools to have a positive outcome, the teacher must continue to have a fundamental role, no longer as a disseminator of content, but as a guide/mediator who can help the student filter, analyze, and interpret information obtained in research on the Web, and also help to produce individual points of view (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}).

The research developed

The present research was developed with a descriptive-explanatory qualitative approach, aimed at identifying, describing, and analyzing the concepts of Integrated High School students in a Brazilian public school regarding the learning of History in the context of professional education. The main subjects investigated were twenty-six students in a third-year Computer Technician program integrated in High School, two (2) coordinators and the History teacher of the class mentioned.

The data analyzed were the discourses/descriptions of History teaching/learning. It is important to mention that the descriptions refer to experienced situations, i.e., real situations, since “in terms of qualitative research, data is collected through descriptions made by the subjects (…)” (^{Martins, 2010}, p. 63).

The method used was action-research, aimed at solving a collective problem together, with the direct, active and conscious participation/intervention of the researcher, but also with participative cooperation from the object being studied; this is how the research and the action within the context under study was carried out (^{Thiollent, 2011}).

The study was divided into the following stages:

1) Bibliographic revision about Professional Education integrated in High School and History classes, followed by state-of-the-art research regarding what was produced on the topic;

2) A prior survey on students’ concepts about History class, through a semi-structured questionnaire;

3) The elaboration and application of a didactic sequence with the support of Web 2.0 resources using Facebook® as a teaching platform, joining History and practice as an educational principle;

4) A survey on students’ impressions, through interviews, about the /teaching/learning experience and their analyses of possible contributions History classes and Web 2.0 might have to their lives.

We applied the questionnaire to a third year High School class since these students have gone through several teaching/learning experiences (and for a longer time than other classes), not only in the environment of Professional Education, but also with History classes. In addition, since they are about to finish the last year of Basic Education, as well as their technical program, in theory they will soon be able to join the job market. Therefore, the reflections, perceptions and hopes about their future school experiences are useful to define what needs to be improved in the school’s pedagogical proposal and in teachers’ actions, as well as what should remain the same, thus aiding the school in guaranteeing an authentically significant learning experience for future students.

The treatment of data occurred within the scope of content analysis since it can bring important contributions to research in the Humanities, especially in the interpretation of written or oral messages, aiding in uncovering meanings and senses hidden behind apparent discourses. This demands close observation of words, silences, and repetitions, to “remove the dangers of automatic understanding” and avoid “the simplistic reading of what is real” (^{Bardin, 1977}, p. 28).

Our educational product is an interactive didactic sequence (^{Oliveira, 2013}) that may intensify the dialog and exchange of ideas among students, aiming at what ^{Freire (2017}) defends as being dialogic education. The theoretical concept for History classes is ‘Learning History’ as we consider the use of historical sources essential for students to interpret and observe in the context of the world today. Thus, we may be able to contribute to overcoming the abstract, traditional form of teaching History based on memorization. We used Web 2.0 as a platform for teaching/learning, and specifically Facebook®, since this social network is a part of young people’s daily lives. We made historical sources (images, films, texts) available on Facebook® and, after problematizing these, encouraged discussions/debates among students through comments made on posts.

The theme of the didactic sequence was the ‘Vargas Age’ (1930-1945), an emblematic period in the recent history of the Brazilian Republic, mainly due to the consolidation of Labor Laws. The period is named after the president at the time, Getulio Vargas. The sequence was composed of eight classes, 50 minutes each. The scope of the didactic sequence were activities with the following main objectives: understanding the social, political and economic context of the period of Labor Reform; identifying the law’s main guarantees for workers; analyzing historical documents of various formats that reflect workers’ social conditions during the Vargas Age; analyzing the main points of the Labor Reform.

After inviting students to study the historical event and have debates about it using Facebook® - which they did without hesitation - we created a group called ‘Dialogs with History’, which students joined as participants. After that, the remaining classes took place in the school’s Technology Room.

In the present research we not only wanted to improve the efficiency of ‘transmitting’ content, but, above all, for teachers and students themselves to own the digital resources as teaching/learning tools by potentializing these. Students could become agents of their own knowledge since, after analyzing the Vargas age, they also needed to communicate what they thought about it. Web 2.0 has the advantage of democratizing access to and the production of online information, besides making interactions among people more dynamic and simplifying the publication of content, especially with the rise of social networks that have made all this easier with the inclusion of posts (^{Carvalho, 2008}, p. 7).

Results

The data analyzed reveal that simply using technologies is not able to change teaching practices, since they can also serve the interests of traditional teaching and not only teaching based on an active methodology. This all depends on the teacher’s approach, as well as a change in pedagogical attitudes, so the teacher can overcome the idea that they are a narrator and establish their role as mediator. What we tried to establish is the role of mediator, using technological resources and giving students the role of protagonists with our didactic sequence.

When asked what they thought about using Facebook® in History classes, all the students interviewed said it was a very engaging and positive experience, stating they enjoyed participating. Students considered the pedagogical approach used original, innovative, something they had never seen in all their school years. They also affirmed the proposal made the History classes more interesting, motivating them to be involved and actively participate in activities.

Young peoples’ lives are permeated by digital culture; they are already used to its demand for active participation, and all the creativity and innovation that come with it. Thus, we believe it is paramount that pedagogical practices become more innovative, aligned with the reality experienced by students. Bringing social networks into the school represents an innovation in relation to the traditional way of learning and teaching (^{Valente et al., 2017}).

We posit that this urgency in changing teaching methods must include the potential Information and Communications Technologies offer in school education (^{Veen & Vrakking, 2009}), thus affecting new teaching approaches in History classes (^{Araújo, 2018}) and tailoring schools to the expectations and interests of what are known as digital natives (^{Prensky, 2001}).

The communication tools found on Facebook® enabled the exchange of information among students and encouraged debate; in other words, they generated interaction. This is one of the main features of Web 2.0, which allows not only network access but also the publication of information, especially through comments made on social networks (^{Carvalho, 2008}).

Students interact with comments and reactions, especially “likes”. In addition, including the internet as a source of research encouraged by teachers-as an aid in the elaboration of answers to questions proposed to students-was indicated as being a facilitator in understanding the topic being studied. It was also pointed out that counting on the teacher as a mediator was important, since they were there to guide and help students with any possible doubts.

The inclusion of technologies in schools and their methodological implications-renewing educational practices-does not take the teacher out of the equation: they take on a role with new forms and meanings, no longer as a mere narrator of information that will simply be reproduced and memorized by students. This is especially true when we consider that students have direct access to knowledge available on the Internet by carrying out searches that lead them to develop their own knowledge (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}). Thus, the teacher has a very important role in guiding, mediating, helping in the selection of more reliable and relevant content, clarifying doubts and encouraging students to formulate their own knowledge.

Interaction is a central aspect of the active methodology we adopted, welcoming the break with traditionalist teaching methods and encouraging the students’ interaction with classmates. It grants student protagonism: they are called upon to speak, express themselves, state their convictions, doubts and beliefs, debate their ideas with the rest of the class and with the teacher, create an ideal space for the exchange of these ideas. In this confrontation and dialog, where each and every one has the freedom to express their opinions, respecting all others, and is expected to formulate authentic ideas, going beyond the repetition of content without criticism or self-reflection (^{Diesel et al., 2017}).

Students were unanimous in their answers about the interaction experienced, demonstrating massive adherence to the model carried out in our didactic sequence for History class.

Young people were born and raised in an Information Society and many are familiar with the new Information and Communications Technologies, present in their daily lives. Social relations have changed, facilitating communication and the exchange of information among people, creating a new way of understanding the world and transmitting what we think about it, producing new forms of thought, representation, sharing and elaborating knowledge (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}).

We believe that bringing social networks into the classroom will draw us closer to the social context experienced by young people, considered by ^{Freire (1996}) to be essential, since it values their knowledge and generates a greater interest in the content studied. Hence, we posit a dialogic education anchored on the exchange of knowledge-based on Freire’s ideas (2017)-where teachers and students can learn together as they communicate, revealing their ideas and discussing them collectively, with a liberating praxis for education in mind. In this mindset, students are encouraged to build awareness that is free from the imposition of oppressors (^{Freire, 2017}).

Students demonstrated they understood that the Internet’s biggest asset is ubiquity. Their opinions reveal that one of the greatest advantages allowed by the activities developed using Web 2.0 is to be able to count on a ubiquitous network, allowing them to access information anytime, anywhere, even when they are not in the classroom. The only requirement was to be connected to a computer or mobile phone (^{Coll et al., 2010}). Thus, students could join the group and participate even when they were at home, making their own comments, or simply reading what others had to say, answering sometimes by just liking or reacting to a comment, or even bringing information that could give support to their participation during the class itself.

The popularization of mobile technologies has given people greater access to networks and has, above all, increased browsing interactivity. This represents a huge development in terms of communication by broadening the existing alternatives with online browsing and the collaborative development of knowledge (^{Cobo Romaní & Pardo Kuklinski, 2007}). We no longer have to find physical books to carry out our research or communicate ideas only in printed publications such as journals and books. Wherever we go, we can carry whole libraries in digital form.

Therefore, we agree with ^{Alava (2002}) that computers are machines that create multiple possibilities and paths for reading. They do not give us definite and exclusive answers, but invite people to dive into hyperlinks and add onto what they understand about a specific topic.

It is true that a person may even choose to accept the superficial information brought up at the beginning of a search, but they may be tempted to want more. In their eagerness to know more, they tend to follow new directions, comparing different information and possibly summarizing what was seen and read to become as authorial as possible.

This sort of confusion is a result of the informational saturation found on the Internet, a phenomenon called “infoxication”, referring to the abundance of unvalidated and unnecessary content that pollutes and intoxicates cyberspace, with a large amount of false information (^{Cobo Romaní & Pardo Kuklinski, 2007}). Informational excess may end up jeopardizing the selection of what is actually valid, relevant, and trustworthy, causing a feeling of anxiety when information cannot be found, or because of the time it can take to locate information needed right away. Hence, with the explosion of information, there is the paradoxical danger of generating an explosion of disinformation (^{Cobo Romaní & Pardo Kuklinski, 2007}). We noticed a concern among students in finding pages that were trustworthy, based on the popularity of sites.

Therefore, what students say points to a convergence of ideas, from where we can surmise that the strategies they used while browsing and choosing content considered more trustworthy are based on principles supported by the cyberculture they are a part of, influencing how they act in digital space. This is seen concretely in how they share codes, intellectual and material techniques, behaviors, values, and ways of thinking (^{Lévy, 1999}).

Though students are clearly experienced in using the internet, they still feel lost amid the noise coming from the maze of scattered information on the Web (^{Alava, 2002}). Naturally, the “wealth of information and ease of access to the Web does not guarantee that individuals are more and better informed,” a problem that is compounded by the lack of criteria to guide the search (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}, p. 23).

If, on the one hand, the Internet is a labyrinth in which, without proper guidance, we can become lost, on the other hand, it represents great potential for individual and social development, thanks to easy access and the dissemination of information (^{Coll & Monereo, 2010}, p. 23).

Conclusion

We used the potential of Web 2.0 in our classes to allow cooperation, dialog and the exchange of information based on the collaborative construction of knowledge, mediated by comments, reactions and likes left by classmates on Facebook posts. Therefore, the aim of using technological resources was not to reinforce the transmission of information about the content studied, but the production of knowledge by students. This showed to be a successful learning experience.

The Didactics of History guided us, contributing to the development of our didactic sequence. Thus, in following learning method guidelines, we began by carrying out a prior survey about the students’ ideas, considering what they knew. During classes, we allowed them to be the agents of their own knowledge through the interpretation of historical sources made available to them on Facebook®, where they could communicate their understanding about the subject studied by answering with comments on the social network.

During the application of the didactic sequence, we noticed a great deal of student involvement and enthusiasm since, by using Facebook®, they felt their own culture and knowledge were important. This encouraged an environment of familiarity with the digital tool used, favoring dialogic education in teaching and learning based on the ideas developed by Paulo Freire.

All the students interviewed appreciated the didactic sequence that was applied. They stated they had enjoyed the approach used, emphasizing this was a pioneer experience for them, resulting in a high level of satisfaction, especially in their interactions and debates. Their work together was an educational principle in itself because, they stated, they learned with one another, another important advantage of Web 2.0, since it offered an array of directions and several formats of information. They also argued that the activities could be done and/or followed from their own homes thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet.

We posit that changes in teaching practices are not only necessary but urgent in History classes. The teacher must become a mediator and facilitator of the learning process, making use not only of the fact students consider History classes relevant, but also of what digital technologies can offer today, especially in the new languages for History learning. Therefore, according to what the students interviewed said, the point is not that they dislike the class itself, as we tend to think, but how it is taught.

In light of the above, and to offer quality education for History classes at Integrated High Schools, so students actually learn to think historically, new practices must be developed, with less reproduction of content and more production of knowledge. As teachers, we must overcome the view that teaching History is the mere reproduction of erudite knowledge, produced in universities, and that we should simplify it to oppressively deposit information on passive students. We need to break away from practices that are only concerned with the dissemination of content, with passing on what was developed by specialists. Instead, we should produce historical knowledge in the school itself. This requires a commitment with the social transformation of students and the development of historical thought that is critical and emancipatory.

The use of Facebook® as a learning and teaching platform for History has shown to be promising, enabling varied formats of historical sources to become available to be worked on (images, film, texts). Furthermore, it encourages productive discussions and debates among students through the comments made in posts.