DOI: 10.15293/1812-9463.2103.03
УДК 37.015.3+159
Dakhin Alexander Nikolayevich
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Department of Geometry and IOM, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6229-3169 E-mail: dakhin@mail.ru
Pedagogy of gamification
The article deals with the issues of didactic support of students ‘ play activities that contribute to improving the effectiveness of education. Gamification is exactly the tool that ensures the motivated involvement of students in the cognitive sphere, and social, physical and communicative activity is the applied result of the introduction of this tool into the structure of both general and pedagogical education. The purpose of this article is to present the methodological grounds for the use of the game both in the organization of children’s recreation and in the didactic provision of pedagogical education that can apply gamification for pedagogical purposes. The issues raised are especially relevant in the conditions of excessive fascination of teenagers with all kinds of computer games, which causes concern for their “digital dementia”, since it is accompanied by the adoption of already programmed scenarios. Digital autism also causes alertness, which leads to physical inactivity and other somatic problems. Practice insistently requires researchers to put the modern socio-cultural phenomenon, which is gamification, at the service of modern education with an appropriate pedagogical justification.
Keywords: gamification, modernization of education, pedagogical project, cognitive experience, educational competence.
Text Referens
1. Shmakov S. A. Games of students – a phenomenon of culture. M.: New school, 1994. 238 p.
2. Yaroslavtseva N. V., Dakhin A. N. Projects in pedagogy and pedagogy of modern projects. School technologies. 2018. No. 6. pp. 23-31.
3. Dakhin A. N., Gulyaevskaya N. V. Operational representation of results in cognitive learning technology. Philosophy of Education. 2020. Vol. 20. No. 3. pp. 203-219.
4. Yaroslavtseva N. V., Kolukhambekov A. S., Tsybulko A. A., Shirshov A. G., Dakhin A. N. Cognitive model in the structure of pedagogical technology. Prospects of science and education. International Electronic Scientific Journal. 2020. № 3 (45). P. 65-76. DOI: 10.32744/pse. 2020.3.5
5. Makarenko A. S. Ped. soch. M.: Prosveshchenie, 1983-86.
6. Kershensteiner G. The concept of a labor school. M., 1912. 257 p.
7. Kashapov M. M., Perevozkina Yu. M., Perevozkin S. B., Kashapov A. S. The specifics of the development of role expectations in the process of personality formation. Siberian Pedagogical Journal. 2020. No. 2. pp. 127-140.
8. Barbashina E. V. On the history of the formation of the concept of ontology. Humanities in Siberia. 2003. No. 1. pp. 44-48.
9. Zhafyarov A. Zh. Competence approach: consistent theory and technology. Science for Education Today. 2019. No. 2. pp. 81-95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.06
10. Pushkarev Yu. V., Pushkareva E. A. Reflexive principles of personality development in the conditions of changing information content. Science for Education Today. 2019. No. 2. pp. 52-66. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.04
11. Mayer B. O. On clustering of cognitive learning theories. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. 2018. No. 2. pp. 119-134. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1802.07
12. Zinchenko V. P. Is it necessary to overcome the postulate of immediacy? // Questions of psychology. 2009. No. 2. pp. 3-20.
13. Dewey J. Democracy and education. N.Y., 1949. 350 р.
14. Montessori M. Her life and work. London, 1957. 231 p.
15. Kolb D. Towards an applied theory of experimental leaning. Theories of group processes. Wiley, 1975. P. 33-57.
16. Pinar W. An Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction. N.Y., 2002. 177 р.
17. Shale D. G. Toward a reconceptualization of distance education. Amer. J. Distance Education. 1988. Vol. 2, no. 3. P. 25-35.
