Москва, Россия
Социальный конструктивизм, предложенный Л. С. Выготским в 1968 г., на протяжении долгого времени оказывал влияние на педагогическое сообщество, способствуя убеждению, что обучение является взаимонаправленным процессом между студентами и преподавателями. Несмотря на верность этого утверждения, достижение конечной цели образования не гарантирует, что путь к ней был полностью проложен. Многочисленные факторы могут стать препятствиями на пути к полному раскрытию потенциала студента. На сегодняшний день геймификация стала фундаментальным аспектом глобализированного образования как инструмент для достижения этой цели. Новым, крайне инновационным аспектом геймификации является метод «забавный факт» (FFA), который может использоваться преподавателем для налаживания успешных отношений со студентами и поддержки усвоения знаний в группе. Цель – рассмотреть новый метод к использованию цифровых достижений для решения возникающих проблем в образовании в ответ на сокращение внимания студентов в быстро меняющемся мире. Проведен всесторонний анализ эффективной реализации экспериментального метода FFA, выделены его преимущества, недостатки и области применения. Исследование сопровождено иллюстративными примерами. Представляется необходимым изучить проблемы, связанные с FFA, а также уровень трудозатрат, необходимых от педагогов для его эффективного использования. Научная новизна исследования заключается в разработке метода, который благодаря тщательным корректировкам и стратегическому применению может служить динамичным и адаптивным решением современных педагогических вызовов. Следует отметить возможность применения FFA для освоения студентами абстрактных концепций и идей, зачастую воспринимаемых ими как несущественные, тем самым способствуя активному вовлечению учащихся в учебный процесс. Pеализация данного метода подходит для студентов профильных учебных заведений – тех, кто достаточно зрел, чтобы осмысленно взаимодействовать с геймификационными стратегиями, но в то же время достаточно молод, чтобы извлечь пользу из гибкости, предлагаемой методом FFA. Помимо детального описания FFA, в статье рассматриваются преимущества этого метода, его слабые стороны и перспективные области применения. Метод изучается как с точки зрения студента, так и с точки зрения преподавателя как средство для укрепления процесса усвоения. В итогах исследования отражен потенциал правильно введенного и реализованного в учебной среде метода FFA в качестве эффективного решения для современных практик геймификации и обучения. Предложены рекомендации по предотвращению неправильного использования метода, подчеркнута важность мудрого применения для максимизации учебной выгоды. Результаты исследования демонстрируют потенциал FFA даже на его начальной стадии развития. Подчеркивается настоятельная необходимость в использовании данного метода в будущем, особенно учитывая ограничения, присущие традиционным педагогическим техникам, которые зачастую не обладают адаптивностью, вовлеченностью, необходимыми для удовлетворения требований цифровой эпохи и эпохи глобализации.
педагогика, метод Fun Fact, конструктивизм, геймификация, методика обучения, поддержка обучения
1. Muhamad H. M., Saeed S. H. R. Pedagogical thinking in pragmatism John Dewey. Journal of University of Raparin, 2021, 8(2): 168–191. https://doi.org/10.26750/vol(8).no(2).paper8
2. Dagar V., Yadav A. Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 2016, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000200
3. Kathleen G., Dell'Arena S. High school teachers describe growth mindset related to teaching pedagogy and students’ academic achievement. Psychology, 2022, 13(7): 994–1008. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2022.137068
4. Candra H., Retwanati H. A meta-analysis of constructivism learning implementation towards the learning outcomes on civic education lesson. International Journal of Instruction, 2020, 13(2): 835–846. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13256a
5. Post C., Sarala R., Gatrell C., Prescott J. E. Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, 57(2): 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549
6. Granja D. O. Constructivism as theory and teaching method. Sophia, 2015, 19: 93–110. (In Span.) https://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n19.2015.04
7. Macaro E., Akincioglu M., Han S. English medium instruction in higher education: Teacher perspectives on professional development and certification. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2019, 30(1): 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12272
8. Liu C. C., Chen I. J. Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 2010, 3(4): 63–66. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i4.199
9. Gough N. All around the world: Science education, constructivism, and globalization. Educational Policy, 1998, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904898012005003
10. Corsaro W. A. Interpretive reproduction in children's peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1992, 55(2): 160–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786944
11. Alsawaier R. S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 2018, 35(1): 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009
12. Saleem A. N., Noori N. M., Ozdamli F. Gamification applications in e-learning: A literature review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2022, 27: 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09487-x
13. Sanesi M. The digital divide: Teaching beyond the screen. 15th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies: Proc. Conf., Palma, 3–5 Jul 2023. Palma, 2023, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2023.0037
14. Buoncompagni G. Epidemiology of news: Doom scrolling, information overload, and other "Media Pathologies" in our infected society. Journal of Sociological Research, 2023, 14(1): 17–27. https://doi.org/10.5296/jsr.v14i1.20808
15. Volkova T. G., Talanova I. O. Gamification: Problems and trends. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2022, (5): 26–33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20323/1813-145x-2022-5-128-26-33
16. Murphy L., Eduljee N. B., Croteau K., Parkman S. Relationship between personality type and preferred teaching methods for undergraduate college students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2020, 6(1): 100–109. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.690
17. Suhendra A. The effectiveness of utilizing the productive pedagogies framework as a reflection instrument in teaching and learning of mathematics. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 2022, 43(3): 721–726. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.3.25
18. Gunnlaugson O., Cueto de Souza R., Zhao S., Yee A., Scott C., Bai H. Revisiting the nature of transformative learning experiences in contemplative higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 2022, 21(1): 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446211067285
19. Alhothali H. M. Inclusion of 21st century skills in teacher preparation programs in the light of global expertise. International Journal of Education and Practice, 2021, 9(1): 105–127. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2021.91.105.127
20. Chee K. N., Ibrahim N. H., Yahaya N., Surif J., Rosli M. S., Zakaria M. A. Z. M. A review of literature in mobile learning: A new paradigm in teaching and learning pedagogy for now and then. Advanced Science Letters, 2017, 23(8): 7416–7419. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9488
21. Buckley P., Doyle E., Doyle S. Game on! Students' perceptions of gamified learning. Educational Technology & Society, 2017, 20(3): 1–10. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196115 (accessed 17 Sep 2024).
22. Kuteeva M. Revisiting the "E" in EMI: Students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2020, 23(3): 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1637395
23. Geri N., Winer A., Zaks B. A learning analytics approach for evaluating the impact of interactivity in online video lectures on the attention span of students. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 2017, 13: 215–228. https://doi.org/10.28945/3875
24. Mudiono A., Wiyono B. B., Maisyaroh M., Supriyanto A., Wong K. T. The effects of the communicative approach and the use of information technology on students’ motivation and achievement in Indonesian language learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2023, 14(3): 808–819. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1403.29
25. Bradbury N. A. Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Advances in Physiology Education, 2016, 40(4): 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2016
26. De Léon L., Corbeil R., Corbeil M. E. The development and validation of a teacher education digital literacy and digital pedagogy evaluation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2023, 55(3): 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1974988
27. Reilly A. L., Denny P. Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment. Computer Science Education, 2010, 20(2): 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2010.486275
28. Gündüz A. Y., Akkoyunlu B. The gamification tool for the classroom response systems: Kahoot! Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 2020, 35(3): 480–488. (In Turk.) https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019052870
29. Hemmi Y. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and his concept of Native Language: Sindarin and British-Welsh. Tolkien Studies, 2010, 7: 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1353/tks.0.0063
30. Wang Y. F., Hsu Y. G., Fang K. The key elements of gamification in corporate training – The Delphi method. Entertainment Computing, 2022, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100463
31. Hammarfelt B., de Rijcke S., Rushforth A. D. Quantified academic selves: The gamification of research through social networking services. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 2016, 21(2). URL: https://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/SM1.html (accessed 17 Sep 2024).
32. Hino K., Funahashi Y. Teachers’ guidance of students’ focus toward lesson objectives: How does a competent teacher make decisions in the key interactions? ZDM – Mathematics Education, 2022, 54: 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01345-7
33. Rivera E. S., Garden C. L. P. Gamification for student engagement: A framework. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2021, 45(7): 999–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1875201
34. Chen Y., Qin X. Student fatigue and its impact on teaching effectiveness based on online teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 2023, 29: 10177–10200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12197-3
35. Rui P., Moreira A. C., Zurlo F. Gamification in innovation teams. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2022, 6(3): 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.05.003
36. Klem A. M., Connell J. P. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 2004, 74(7): 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x
37. Pluck G., Johnson H. L. Stimulating curiosity to enhance learning. GESJ: Education Sciences and Psychology, 2011, 2(19): 24–31. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292088477_Stimulating_curiosity_to_enhance_learning (accessed 17 Sep 2024).
38. Alsawaier R. S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 2018, 35(1): 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009
39. Inayat A., Ali A. Z. Influence of teaching style on students' engagement, curiosity and exploration in the classroom. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2020, 7(1): 87–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.2736
40. Taylor L., McGrath-Champ S., Clarkeburn H. Supporting student self-study: The educational design of podcasts in a collaborative learning context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2012, 13(1): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411429186
41. Tam K. Y., Van Tilburg W. A., Chan C. S. Whatever will bore, will bore: The mere anticipation of boredom exacerbates its occurrence in lectures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2023, 93(1): 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12549
42. Prasetyo A. H., Jasiah J., Idriyani N., Setyawati S. P. Resilience and the character of student curiosity in discovery learning-based online learning. International Journal of Applied Guidance and Counseling, 2022, 3(1): 15–21. https://doi.org/10.26486/ijagc.v3i1.2289
43. Coates H. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 2005, 11(1): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074915
44. Sakarkaya V., Bümen N. T. What triggers teacher research engagement and sustainability in a higher education context in Turkey? Participatory Educational Research, 2022, 9(2): 325–342. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.43.9.2
45. Alfattal E. A new conceptual model for understanding international students’ college needs. Journal of International Students, 2016, 6(4): 920–932. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i4.326
46. Çilek A., Çoban F. N., Çetin E. Examining the lifelong learning competencies of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 2023, 5(1): 439–447. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1312486
47. Friesen N., Anderson T. Interaction for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2004, 35(6): 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00426.x
48. Şen N., Yildiz D. H. Examining the relationships between English teachers’ lifelong learning tendencies with professional competencies and technology integrating self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 2022, 27: 5953–5988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10867-8
49. Carless D., Winstone N. Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 2023, 28(1): 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
50. Macaro E., Han S. English medium instruction in China’s higher education: Teachers’ perspectives of competencies, certification and professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2020, 41(3): 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1611838
51. Morrison-Love D., Patrick F. Supporting student teachers to integrate theory, research, and practice: Developing the adaptive subject pedagogy model. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2022, 42(3): 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2116422
52. Mahmud S. N. D., Rahman Z. A. Education for sustainability curriculum and pedagogy in higher education institution: Using complex adaptive system as a framework. Creative Education, 2018, 9(15): 2627–2646. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.915198
53. Bebell K., Bogoslovskiy V. I., Dobudko T. V., Zhukova T. A., Pisareva S. A. Model for improving the framework of multicultural pedagogy in Russia and Germany. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2015, 6(4): 176–183. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s1p176
54. Hickey C., Keddie A. Peer groups, power and pedagogy: The limits of an educational paradigm of separation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 2004, 31: 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216805
55. Demir O., Aslan S. A., Demir M. Examining the relationship between teachers’ lifelong learning tendencies and digital literacy levels. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 2022, 5(2): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1034697
56. Pulido-Martos M., Cortés-Denia D., de la Rosa-Blanca J. J., Lopez-Zafra E. The shirom-melamed vigor measure for students: Factorial analysis and construct validity in Spanish undergraduate university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249590
57. Pitulko K., Li O., Kolosova O., Sedova T., Antonova N. Students’ coping with mental states caused by intrapersonal conflict. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 2022, 53(1): 8–14. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2022.140476
58. Squires G. Individuality in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 2006, 5(2): 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078012331377246
59. Abacioglu C. S., Epskamp S., Fischer A. H., Volman M. Effects of multicultural education on student engagement in low- and high-concentration classrooms: The mediating role of student relationships. Learning Environments Research, 2023, 26: 951–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09462-0
60. Junker R., Donker M. H., Mainhard T. Potential classroom stressors of teachers: An audiovisual and physiological approach. Learning and Instruction, 2021, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101495
61. Razali S. N. A. M., Rusiman M. S., Gan W. S., Arbin N. The impact of time management on students' academic achievement. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2018, 995(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/995/1/012042
62. Strom P. S., Strom R. D., Sindel-Arrington T., Rude R. V. Student attention and distraction in community college. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2023, 13(1): 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v13n1p41
63. Lundberg C. A. The influence of time-limitations, faculty, and peer relationships on adult student learning: A causal model. The Journal of Higher Education, 2016, 74(6): 665–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2003.11780863
64. Khan K., Tahir T., Ishfaq U., Khan A. A study to examine teachers’ classroom time management strategies at secondary school level. Journal of Business & Tourism, 2021, 3(2): 59–71. https://doi.org/10.34260/jbt.v3i2.73
65. Tormey R. Rethinking student-teacher relationships in higher education: A multidimensional approach. Higher Education, 2021, 82: 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00711-w
66. Pozas M., Letzel-Alt V., Schwab S. The effects of differentiated instruction on teachers’ stress and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2023, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103962
67. Rollo S., Crutchlow L., Nagpal T. S., Sui W., Prapavessis H. The effects of classroom-based dynamic seating interventions on academic outcomes in youth: A systematic review. Learning Environments Research, 2019, 22: 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9271-3
68. Pressley T. Ha C., Learn E. Teacher stress and anxiety during COVID-19: An empirical study. School Psychology, 2021, 36(5): 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000468
69. Ramakrishna M., Singh P. The way we teach now: Exploring resilience and teacher identity in school teachers during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 2022, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.882983
70. Uzir N. A., Gašević D., Matcha W., Jovanović J., Pardo A. Analytics of time management strategies in a flipped classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2020, 36(1): 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12392
71. Ploettner J. C. A critical look at teacher development for English-medium instruction. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2019, 9(2): 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2019-0016
72. Goldbach A., Hauser M., Schuppener S., Leonhardt N., van Ledden H., Bergelt D. Social responsibility in the context of inclusive higher education development – experiences and insights from the perspective of participatory teaching. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2022, 23(4): 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2021-0140
73. Herman K. C., Reinke W. M., Eddy C. L. Advances in understanding and intervening in teacher stress and coping: The coping-competence-context theory. Journal of School Psychology, 2020, 78: 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.001
74. Ryymin E. H. Perspectives from higher education: Applied sciences university teachers on the digitalization of the bioeconomy. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2021, 11(2): 24–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1420
75. Marsh H. W. Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential baises, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1984, 76(5): 707–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.707
76. Ng L. K., Lo C. K. Flipped classroom and gamification approach: Its impact on performance and academic commitment on sustainable learning in education. Sustainability, 2022, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095428
77. Gironella F. Gamification pedagogy: A motivational approach to student-centric course design in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2023, 20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.53761/1.20.3.04
78. Aşıksoy G. The effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment (GFCE) on students’ motivation, learning achievements and perception in a physics course. Quality and Quantity, 2018, 52: 129–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0597-1
79. Singh M. N. Inroad of digital technology in education: Age of digital classroom. Higher Education for the Future, 2021, 8(1): 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2347631120980272
80. Von der Embse N., Mankin A. Changes in teacher stress and wellbeing throughout the academic year. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 2021, 37(2): 165–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1804031
81. Akarsu N., Turhan M. The relationship between school moral atmosphere and student engagement in secondary schools. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2022, 9(4): 694–704. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1060331
