In her book Active Literacy Across the Curriculum, Jacobs (2006, p.45) highlights the importance of developing creative instructional activities that initiate Mental Velcro– a state by which pupils can commemorate knowledge without it being abandoned. The purpose of Mental Velcro is to support students in identifying the sticking point when engaging in reading, listening, and visual activities (Jacobs, 2006, p.45).
To illustrate the significance of initiating Mental Velcro for students, Fisher (2013) shares a past event with his mentor, Vivian, a teacher and brain-based learning specialist. After discussing about innovative activities, Fisher’s mentor asked him what he remembered about seventh grade. He responded enthusiastically by sharing memories of an art contest, dissecting a frog, and attending a big school dance. The mentor then proceeded to ask how often such activities took place. Fisher answered that they had only occurred once throughout his schooling experience. The mentor then challenged Fisher to recall three worksheets, questions, or even a topic from his Social Studies textbook. The struggle to recognise such learning activities persisted until Fisher admitted he was unable to do such a thing (Fisher, 2013).
Despite an expanding body of research indicating the insufficiency of traditional-based learning, as well as the, immense cognitive, behavioural and emotional advantages of digitally oriented learning (Tynjala, 1999, 357-442; Engum et al., p.67-74; Hannay and Newvine, 2006, p.1-11; Clayton et al., 2010, p.349-364), many educators still favour the instructionalist approach due to its familiarity and straightforwardness (Giannikas, 2016, p.160; Gashan and Alshumaimeri, 2015, p.176). Regarding this, educationalists have managed to embody the simplicity of traditional-based learning and conveniences of digital learning by advancing towards a curriculum of gamification (Huang and Soman, 2013; Kirvakova et al., 2014).
Huotari and Hamari (2012, p.19) define gamification as the application of game-based experiences, elements and principles within a non-game scenario. The rise and attention of gamification has been witnessed across multiple fields of marketing, health, politics and quite significantly education. Whilst many consider gamification to be a new, innovative concept, its utilisation can be traced as far back as the 19th century, whereby individuals such as Coonradt (1984) integrated game-based feedback loops within the workplace as a means of diminishing low productivity rates. Likewise, ever since the development of Pavlovian (1897) and Skinnerian (1938) behavioural psychology, educators have always integrated elements of gamification through means of reward (stickers) and punishment (detention).
A case study by Borys and Laskowski (2013) revealed that educators who employ gamification techniques within their pedagogy witness higher rates of attendance, deeper levels of concentration, and sharper degrees of enthusiasm than those who do not. Ryan and Deci (2000) accentuate that by organising classroom and curricula activities in conjunction with gamification principles, students may become so captivated by the process of learning, such that they may not want to stop. Ryan and Deci (2000) go on to further explain that a major contributor as to why gamification is a powerful educational approach is due to its direct impact on pupil intrinsic motivation. Whilst conventional learning activities primarily involve elements of extrinsic motivation (assessments), gamification elements seek to cultivate a learning experience that revolves around internal rewards- enjoyment, progression and creativite expression (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.68).
Skinner (1938) and Thorndike (1905) both demonstrated how positive and negative reinforcements become motivational drivers of human behaviour. Activities which lead to pleasant conclusion are more likely to be repeated more consistently than those that lead to an unpleasant outcome. Regarding this, Duhigg (2012) asserts that it is only through successfully constructing motivational mechanics of reinforcement and emotions by which successful gamification platforms can emerge.
Whilst the extensive use of digital game-based learning is relatively new, it is important for educators to understand the “four” fundamentals of effective gamification:
-
Conceptual challenges- effective games merge an abundance of pedagogy and intriguing challenges that result in higher levels of conceptual learning, as opposed to insignificant fact recall.- Productive failure-
“Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures as from his successes” (Dewey)- from (Salkind, 2008, p.393).
Dewey believed that there is much to learn from failure, as there is through books and experts. He understood the ability to learn from a mistake as a powerful asset towards constructivist learning. Thus, it is essential for effective educational games to motivate learners in continuing despite failure. Whether it be through instructional feedback or visual illustrations, such feedback games must supplement children to learn by developing and testing hypothesis. 
Careful Calibration- Vygotsky (1980, p.86) observed that as children solve problems within the presence of a more knowledgeable other (MKO), they gradually develop the competency to discover solutions without the accommodation of others. Through this observation, he speculated that the purpose of education is to provide learners with experiences that are in contingent to their zone of proximal development (ZPD), so that as time progresses, the learner advances and expands their framework of potential development (Berk and Winsler, 1995, p.24). Concerning this, practical gamification systems must detect and establish the zone of proximal development of the learner to ensure that learners are not extensively being challenged to frustration, nor lightly engaged to boredom.
Accessibility- great games provide everyone an equal opportunity to access resources and information. Whilst progress will vary amongst every individual, effective gamified systems supply continual opportunities to develop abilities and expertise at all levels.
Examples of gamification tools:
References:
- Berk, L. and Winsler, A., 1995. Scaffolding Children’s Learning: Vygotsky and Early, p.24
- Borys, M. and Laskowski, M., 2013, June. Implementing game elements into didactic process: A case study. In Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference (pp. 819-824).
- Clayton, K., Blumberg, F. and Auld, D.P., 2010. The relationship between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), pp.349-364.
- Coonradt, C.A., 1984. The game of work. Gibbs Smith.
- Duhigg, C., 2012. The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business (Vol. 34, No. 10). Random House.
- Engum, S.A., Jeffries, P. and Fisher, L., 2003. Intravenous catheter training system: computer-based education versus traditional learning methods. The American journal of surgery, 186(1), pp.67-74.
- Fisher, M., 2013. Digital Learning Strategies: How Do I Assign and Assess 21st Century Work?. ASCD.
- Gashan, A.K. and Alshumaimeri, Y.A., 2015. Teachers’ attitudes toward using interactive whiteboards in English language classrooms. International Education Studies, 8(12), p.176.
- Giannikas, C.N., 2016. The use of interactive whiteboards: enhancing the nature of teaching young language learners. CALL communities and culture–short papers from EUROCALL 2016 Edited by Salomi Papadima-Sophocleous, Linda Bradley, and Sylvie Thouësny, p.160.
- Hannay, M. and Newvine, T., 2006. Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), pp.1-11.
- Huang, W.H.Y. and Soman, D., 2013. Gamification of education. Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
- Huotari, K. and Hamari, J., 2012, October. Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 17-22). ACM.
- Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N. and Yordanova, L., 2014. Gamification in education. Proceedings of 9th International Balkan Education and Science Conference.
- Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), p.68.
- Salkind, N.J. ed., 2008. Encyclopedia of educational psychology. Sage Publications, p.393.
- Skinner, B.F., 1938. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century. New York.
- Thorndike, E.L., 1905. Elements of psychology. AG Seiler, New York.
- Tynjala, P., 1999. Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International journal of educational research, 31(5), pp.357-442.
- Vygotsky, L.S., 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press, p.86
Whilst the interpretation varies amongst discipline to discipline, authoring systems are generally defined as computational systems that allow users to develop multimedia applications for shaping multimedia objects. Concerning education, Krebs et al (2003) interprets an authoring tool as programmes that help educators develop digital learning resources. Such tools can be utilised at a micro-level; stand-alone learning object; or a macro-level; merged within a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) or Institutional Learning Management Systems (LMS).The rapid expansion of educational authoring tools has not only allowed educators to seek creative ways in constructing a dynamic curriculum, but has also allowed the process of learning to become more personalised in contingent to the learner’s development. Murray, Blessing and Ainsworth (2003) accentuate that the immense advantages offered by e-learning authoring tools possess the capacity to deter modern educational issues. They assert that by adopting such a tool, educators can speed up the process of planning, increase levels of pupil engagement, maximise knowledge retention, and lower school funding costs (Murray et al, 2003, p.323-467). With over a hundred distinct authoring tools effortlessly waiting to be applied within the classroom environment, the decision to select may feel bewildering.
Many individuals consider an assessment to be a modern phenomenon, conjoining the term with an academic program, an examination, or even the curriculum. However, the concept of assessment and significance of assessing others can be traced as far back as the ancient Greek period; whereby individuals such as Socrates developed a method of systematic questioning, inductive reasoning and universal defining, to assess flaws in reasoning and comprehension, as well as, bring forth a better understanding to learners (Overholser, 1993, p.67). The idea of assessing as a medium in measuring the success of goals and outcomes has always been an integral component of instruction. Throughout the period of each teaching session, educators; consciously or subconsciously; are always making professional judgments on learners’ performance and translating it into feedback (Jones, 2005, p.1). Brown and Knight (1994) proclaim that by employing an assessment as a diagnostic tool, learners increase a sense of purpose, motivation and encouragement. Race, Brown and Smith (2007) further elaborate by accentuating that the outcomes and approaches in delivering the results of an assessment shape the learners life and career, as it is only through progressive feedback by which the learner can surpass previous accomplishments. It has also been reported that learners who receive a variety of assessment tasks and feedback on a regular basis, are more prone to develop skills, strategies and processes that lead to more effective, pleasant and competent learning experiences (Race et al., 2007, p.7).
Whilst the classroom pupil rate advances (DfE, 2011, p.4-35), and the requirements for teaching intensifies (DfE, 2011, p.3-14), Gohl et al (2009) asserts that by integrating technology-enabled assessments, the time, resources and disruption required for the management of traditional paper-based assessments immediately deteriorates. In addition to this, the US Department for Education (2017, p.55) exemplifies that by conjoining digital tools with assessments, learning becomes more personalised, as educators are able to depict a more comprehensive and distinct illustration of the learners needs, abilities and interests. Reeves (2009) makes a further remark by accentuating that through embedded assessments, educators can witness a visual representation of the pupil’s thoughts during the learning process. As a result, real-time feedback can be provided through learning dashboards by which the learner can instantly produce action. Immediate and longitudinal studies on the impact of parental/external involvement within a schooling system has demonstrated the various positive influences collaboration has amongst both educator and learner performance (Ames, 1993; Freytag, 2001, Keith et al., 1998). 
By employing aspects of digital assessment, not only do parents gain an understanding of the child’s behaviour, but also receive an all-inclusive insight on specific concepts that the child understands or has difficulty comprehending; ultimately allowing the learning process to further extend within the home (Oldfield et al., 2012). As technology advances and further improves our capacity to innovate long-standing assessment approaches, it is the responsibility of public education systems to utilise such tools and resources in ways which produce the greatest impact on student performance.
He asserts that such a trend in assessment can cause an alarming educational system that revolves around control, rather than freedom. In addition to privacy concerns, Timmis et al (2015) specifies the diversity of each individual learner. Whilst content creation, media authoring and information sharing tools provide innovative possibilities for active participation, it can be argued that not all learners will receive such advantages (Timmis et al.,2016, p.466-467). For instance, Dawson (2010) explains that integrating digital assessments on social group settings such as a discussion board, may cause some members to feel socially excluded; as such platforms allow individual contributions to be visible amongst others within the group. Despite the increasing amount of cognitive, behavioural, and pedagogical benefits digital assessments can bring to global education systems, it is important for educationalist to consider and eradicate the potential challenges, risks and violations such an approach can accompany.
According to Pepeira (2007), western thought has predominantly emphasised on the dualism of the mind and body. Not until recently has this separation been examined by which the development of new concepts from multidisciplinary areas of research has been elicited (Anttila, 2007, p.79; Bishop, 1994; Putnam, 2000; Vail 2006, p.30). Amongst the many field of studies, neuroscience is a multidisciplinary area that has revolutionised the way modern society perceives the functioning and significance of the mind (Ayd, 2000, p.688; Shulman, 2013, p.59; Longstaff, 2011; Languis et al., 2014). Squire et al (2013, p.3) defines neuroscience as the structural analysis of the brain, spinal cord and central nervous system. The researchers assert that by analysing the design, functioning and intelligence of such organ systems, educators can comprehend the biological basis and reasoning for behaviour, cognition and thought. Although neuroscientists study various aspects of neuroscience simultaneously, sub-branches such as cognitive, behavioural and educational neuroscience aim to expand their understanding of neurology to become more competent and attain progressive outcomes within the professional workplace (Kedia et al, 2017, p.1-12). The contribution of neuroscience has restructured and transformed fields of law, medicine and psychology (Diamond and Amso, 2008, p.136-141; Solnais et al., 2013, p.68-81; Jenkins and Mitchell, 2011, p.3-83), yet, for many decades the collaboration between researchers from education and neuroscience has remained non-existent (Carew and Magsamen, 2010, p.685-688); leading to a state by which many educators have lacked the training, qualifications and understanding on the relationship between the neuro-system and cognitive development (Zadina, 2015, 71-77).
Digital Digest 