Values

Opinion Line on the statement: “Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament is a good way to govern.” Students first position themselves along an opinion line according to their views. Then they read a short text on democratic principles using the INSERT method (marking what they agree with, question, or find new). Afterwards, they reposition based on the new evidence and discuss what influenced their thinking.

Role play – Press conference: Students simulate a press conference with roles for the government, opposition, and journalists. Each group prepares statements and questions on a current issue. Afterwards, students evaluate performance and accountability, reflecting on transparency and the role of the press in a democracy.

Case study: From Weimar to Nazi Germany. Students investigate the factors that undermined diffuse support for democracy during the Weimar Republic. They create a visual map of the democratic “guardrails” (e.g., institutions, norms, civil society) and identify when and how these failed, leading to the rise of authoritarianism.

Mini‑inquiry: compare moments of high vs. low trust in one country’s history; identify triggers and reforms.

Dystopia book club (e.g., Orwell’s *1984*). Reading circles identify what democratic safeguards are missing and how that affects citizens.

Op‑ed writing: “What builds trust in institutions?” Peer‑review for argument quality and evidence.

Values Quadrant – Liberty vs. Order and Individual Rights vs. Collective Goals: Students explore moral and political tensions by placing real-world cases (e.g., curfews, data privacy, climate action) on a values quadrant. They then justify their placements, reflecting on how societies balance freedom, responsibility, and the common good.

Poster or short video “Democracy matters when…”. Focus on everyday examples (student council, local participation).

Analyse a (fictional or open) dataset of ‘importance of democracy’ by country/age; compute means, graphs; discuss patterns and possible causes.

Design and run a class survey on institutional trust; calculate confidence intervals and present results.

Simulate an e‑petition and deliberation forum with moderation rules; reflect on how platform design supports or harms democratic culture.

Chess Board activity: Students position themselves on a large floor grid according to their agreement with statements such as “I would not want a migrant as a neighbour.” After discussing perspectives and emotions, they research local initiatives that promote intercultural contact and inclusion.

Data investigation: Students compare public claims about migration, employment, or welfare with empirical evidence from official data sources. They then write a briefing paper summarising their findings and conclusions.

Policy lab: Students co-design practical measures to reduce perceived competition, such as language courses, recognition of qualifications, or mentorship programmes, and present them as policy proposals.

Neighbourhood mapping: identify diversity in the local area; interview project about everyday neighbour relations. Includes mapping and analysing the local space.

Narrative project: interview or write a profile of a neighbour from a different background; focus on common ground.

Photo essay “Neighbours”: visual stories that highlight diversity and shared spaces; gallery walk critique.

Students engage in a structured dialogue about the moral reasons for hospitality versus avoidance toward others. They share personal views and ethical arguments, then connect the discussion to concepts of human dignity and reciprocity, reflecting on what it means to treat others as equals.

Past migration waves: what fears were expressed then, and what happened later? Timeline & reflection.

Survey experiment in class: Students design a short survey with different wordings of the same question to test how phrasing affects the perceived level of threat or bias. They collect class data, calculate percentages, means, and correlations, and analyse the results statistically to discuss how wording can influence interpretation and perception.

Rights in everyday life: Students explore everyday situations to identify which rights safeguard personal freedom and autonomy—such as the right to education, privacy, or freedom of movement. They discuss how these rights allow individuals to make independent choices and what challenges arise when freedom is restricted.

Mock committee hearing on a proposed law; include expert testimony and citizen voices; deliberate and vote.

Head‑Heart‑Hands: After watching a short film, students reflect using the Head-Heart-Hands model — What do I think, feel, and do when someone’s freedom is limited? They connect emotional, cognitive, and action-oriented responses to deepen their understanding of the value of freedom.

Structured academic controversy on one of the issues with evidence packets; rotate roles to ensure empathy.

Personal essay: “A time I exercised (or lacked) free choice”; peer feedback on agency and context.

Rhetoric lab: analyse persuasive speeches for and against permissiveness; deliver balanced micro‑speeches.

Legal change timelines: Students research and create timelines showing when major legal changes occurred in different European countries regarding homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and euthanasia. They then compare the sequences and driving factors—such as social movements, political reforms,

Debate online freedom of expression and privacy: how do algorithms or social media platforms influence what we can say or see?

Analyse survey data about people’s perceived freedom across Europe (e.g. from Eurobarometer or EVS) and discuss patterns or inequalities.

Create posters, photography, or digital art representing personal or collective freedom — and what limits or empowers it.

Audit of representation: Research and calculate % of women in local/national offices and leadership; propose improvement actions.

Compare EU family policies; students design a family‑friendly school/work policy.

Suffrage and feminist movements case studies; role‑play key actors.

Content analysis of textbooks/news for gender stereotypes; present findings and alternatives.

Work with indicators (gender pay gap, leadership ratios); visualise with charts and interpret.

Four Corners on care responsibilities; debrief using fairness and capability approaches.

Explore how gender stereotypes have influenced scientific research or medical testing. Discuss examples of bias in science history and ways to ensure inclusivity today.

Analyse representation in art and media — who is visible, who is missing? Create an inclusive visual campaign on “equal opportunities.”

Compare indicators such as access to education, income, or health between countries and regions. Discuss why equality matters globally and locally.