4.6 Article

Could Gamification Be a Protective Factor Regarding Early School Leaving? A Life Story

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13052569

关键词

gamification; adolescence; game-based learning; early school leaving; dropout; well-being; mental health; life story; grounded theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The European Union recognizes the interrelationship between mental health, well-being, and education, particularly in relation to Early School Leaving (ESL). Research suggests that innovative teaching methods can enhance adolescents' mental health and decrease ESL rates. This article examines how game-based teaching techniques impact the well-being of students at risk of ESL, highlighting the potential benefits and risks of gamification in education.
The European Union has recognized the close relationship between mental health, well-being, and education, encouraging studies and whole school interventions that work in the interrelationship between mental health and school, especially in aspects related to Early School Leaving (ESL). Literature shows that there are research gaps in this regard, but there are some inklings to think that innovative teaching methods can improve both adolescent ' s mental health and reduce the rates of ESL. The main objective of this article was to find out how the use of game-based teaching techniques affects the well-being of students at risk of ESL. The life story of one young student that has left school early has been studied, focusing on the impact that gamification had in his scholar trajectory and well-being. Data analysis was carried using the constructivist version of the grounded theory. Results showed a certain degree of interrelation between all three aspects. Pointing that a period of gamification can have a positive effect in school engagement as a result of better levels of wellbeing, but also, that if this methodology is not maintained or accompanied it can cause a rebound effect acting as a risk factor to ESL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据