Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning

Matteo Sanezi

doi:10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116

VAK Russia 5.8.2

APPLYING THE FUN FACT APPROACH FOR ACTIVE LEARNING Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning

АА Аа

Published in Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences · Volume 9, Issue 1 · Pages 104–116 · Rubric: Theory and Methodology of Education and Upbringing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116 · EDN: KHYBLN

Received: 04.10.2024 Accepted: 31.10.2024 Published: 25.02.2025 Language of publication: ENG

Authors

Matteo Sanezi

Patrice Lumumba People's Friendship University of Russia Russian Federation · Moscow

ABSTRACT

Social constructivism, introduced by Lev Vygotsky in 1968, has significantly impacted the pedagogical community. It fosters the belief that learning is a collaborative process between students and teachers. While this holds true, simply stating the end goal of education does not guarantee that the path is fully paved. Numerous factors can present obstacles to the complete realization of a student’s potential. Today gamification has become a fundamental aspect of the globalized classroom as a tool to achieve this. The Fun Fact approach (FFA) is an innovative side of gamification, which can be used to foster a successful relationship with the students and to support the acquisition of notions on part of the classroom group. The paper examines how to harness digital advancements to tackle the challenges of education, especially the declining attention spans of students in today's fast-paced environment. We offer an in-depth analysis of the effective implementation of the experimental FFA, emphasizing its advantages, disadvantages, and key areas of application, accompanied by illustrative examples. Within this framework, the paper examines the challenges associated with the FFA, as well as the level of commitment and effort required from educators to utilize it efficiently. The innovative aspect lies in its ability to create an approach that, through careful adjustments and strategic implementation, acts as a flexible and adaptable solution to current educational challenges. Particularly noteworthy is the ability of the Fun Fact approach to tackle the common reluctance among students toward abstract concepts or ideas they view as insignificant. This approach ensures relevance and engagement in the learning process. The implementation of this approach is ideally suited for students in advanced academic settings – those who are mature enough to engage meaningfully with gamification strategies, yet young enough to benefit from the flexibility offered by the FFA. After explaining in detail what the FFA is, we examine its advantages, disadvantages and applications. We look at this approach from the perspective of both a student and a teacher as a means to bolster the acquisition process. We ultimately draw our conclusions by reflecting on how the FFA, when properly implemented and executed, holds promise as an effective solution for modern gamification and teaching practices. Additionally, we provide recommendations on how to prevent its misuse, emphasizing the importance of employing it wisely to maximize academic benefit. The findings demonstrate the potential of the FFA, even in its nascent stage of development. The conclusions highlight the pressing need for this approach in the future, particularly considering the flexibility constraints associated with traditional teaching methods. Traditional methods often struggle to offer the adaptability and engagement necessary to meet the demands of the digital age and the era of globalization.

KEYWORDS

pedagogy, fun fact approach, constructivism, gamification, teaching strategy, teaching support

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

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. El constructivismo como teoría y método de enseñanza. Sophia, 2015, 19: 93–110. 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.)

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. Sınıf cevap sistemleri için oyunlaştırma aracı: Kahoot! Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2020, 35(3): 480–488. 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

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

PDF JATS XML

Chief editor

Irina Morozova

ishmorozova@yandex.ru

Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Egor Trezubov

egortrezubov@mail.ru

4801

downloads

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons

GOST

Sanezi M. Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning // Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025. no. 1. pp. 104-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116. EDN: KHYBLN. (Date of access 14.10.2026).

MLA

Matteo Sanezi. "Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning." Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences 9.1 (2025): 104-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116. EDN: KHYBLN.

APA

Sanezi M. (2025). Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(1), 104-116. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116 EDN: KHYBLN.

Chicago

Matteo Sanezi. "Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning." Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences 9, no. 1 (2025): 104-116. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116. EDN: KHYBLN.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Sanezi M. | title = Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning | journal = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences | year = 2025 | volume = 9 | issue = 1 | pages = 104-116 | doi = 10.21603/2542-1840-2025-9-1-104-116 }} EDN: KHYBLN

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

APPLYING THE FUN FACT APPROACH FOR ACTIVE LEARNING Applying the Fun Fact Approach for Active Learning

Confirmation