Content uploaded by Athanasios Drigas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Athanasios Drigas on Sep 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Antonios I Christou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonios I Christou on Sep 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 67
iJIM | eISSN: 1865-7923 | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) |
JIM International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies
Christou, A.I., Tsermentseli, S., Drigas, A. (2023). The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential
of Young Students. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 17(18), pp. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i18.42437
Article submitted 2023-06-19. Revision uploaded 2023-07-18. Final acceptance 2023-07-23.
© 2023 by the authors of this article. Published under CC-BY.
Online-Journals.org
PAPER
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors
in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential
of Young Students
ABSTRACT
Environmental sensitivity, which refers to the capacity to recognize and react to environ-
mental stimuli, has been linked to increased levels of metacognition, which is the capacity
to learn about one’s own learning processes. Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a char-
acteristic that can make people more sensitive to the stimuli and settings in their surround-
ings. Regarding the development of mobile game-based educational procedures, the study
of the neurocognitive bases of the mechanisms underlying them, such as metacognition and
environmental factors, could play a crucial role in the implementation of these educational
practices. The purpose of the current narrative review is to identify the key mechanisms by
which mobile games aect young learners’ metacognitive and environmental sensitivity pro-
les and to suggest future research directions on the specic selection of gamication-based
educational interventions.
KEYWORDS
sensitivity, childhood, gamication, metacognition, learning, neurocognition
INTRODUCTION
The term “metacognition” refers to a learner’s awareness of their own cognition
and cognitive processes [1]. Reective abilities and the capacity to self-regulate men-
tal processes are both incorporated into the idea of metacognition [2]. A child should
have the best learning results possible from a developmental standpoint when meta-
cognitive skills are successfully implemented. According to this theory, it is expected
that a young learner will acquire and use the best possible levels of metacognitive
skills that will help him or her monitor, control, and modify his or her own internal
cognitive processes. Due to a growing awareness of the need to take steps to educate
self-regulated and self-directed learners who can employ autonomous digital tech-
nologies to aid their self-learning capacity, there has been a resurgence in interest in
Antonios I. Christou1(*),
Stella Tsermentseli1,
Athanasios Drigas2
1University of Thessaly,
Volos, Greece
2National Centre for Scientic
Research “Demokritos,” Agia
Paraskevi, Greece
antchristou@uth.gr
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i18.42437
68 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
the literature around metacognition in more recent years [3]. Schools are the ideal
settings for meta-cognition because they have a major impact on a person’s capacity
to experience need satisfaction, which can also boost motivation and increase school
involvement [4] [5].
From a children’s learning-developmental perspective, they are also inuenced
by a range of non-cognitive factors, such as personality and the environment of
the classroom, besides their IQ. One of the most in-depth theories on sensitivity to
environmental stimuli in recent years is the concept of sensory processing sensitiv-
ity (SPS), which is characterized by high environmental sensitivity [6] [7]. Despite
extensive adult research on SPS, children’s literature has only lately become a focus
of attention [7]. From a learning standpoint, it is feasible that arrangements in the
school environment and specialized educational interventions may have a dierent
eect on kids who have features that make them more susceptible to environmen-
tal stimuli.
Additionally, information technologies are being used more and more in edu-
cational settings with the goal of maximizing kids’ learning potential in a variety
of ways. For instance, [8] shows how information technology has been utilized to
design tailored learning experiences for each learner. Gamication-based learning
experiences can be developed using information technology, and these possibili-
ties have been shown to be more motivating and engaging for students [9]. This is
especially relevant to the currently chosen review. Mobile game-based learning plat-
forms can provide students with a fun and interesting approach to learning while
also monitoring their progress and providing them with tailored feedback [10].
It’s intriguing to see that more and more evidence is emphasizing the cru-
cial neurocognitive mechanisms at play in SPS and metacognition. Designing
gamication-based educational interventions that are based on the learner’s specic
neurocognitive prole will be very important for designing technology-assisted edu-
cational interventions. Delinquently making such potential multidirectional contri-
butions will be essential for doing this.
The rst section of this paper is devoted to the presentation of key theories surround-
ing metacognition, environmental sensitivity, and early learning. More specically,
the section presents briey the self-determination theory (SDT) and its contribution
to better understanding early learning. Moving on, the key concepts surrounding SPS
are also presented, along with their key implications for development and behavior.
The section is concluded with a cross-theory discussion between the key constructs
of interest, metacognition, sensitivity, and gamication-based learning.
The second section moves into discussing key evidence in the literature sur-
rounding the neurocognitive underpinnings of metacognition, SPS, and gami-
cation-based learning. The sections aim to highlight key mechanisms that may be
involved in regulating metacognition and sensitivity, but also that may be signicant
in the designation of eective gamication-based learning.
The third and last section concerns the potential implications of the abovemen-
tioned neurocognitive mechanisms in designing gamication-based educational
interventions with the maximum potential impact on children’s learning. Key contri-
butions of such mechanisms to dierentiated learning and suggestions on designing
learning tools that account for individual dierences based on the neurocognitive
prole of the young learners are discussed.
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 69
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
Self-determination theory is a macro-theory that claims that in order for people
to be naturally motivated and involved in their daily activities, a small number of
psychological prerequisites must be met [4]. Numerous studies carried out have
shown that autonomy (i.e., volition) is particularly crucial for learning new skills
because it is linked to positive outcomes such as interest in the course material,
conceptual understanding, and classroom adjustment [11]. Internal regulation, in
which people act because they feel they should rather than because they want
to, is a form of controlled motivation. External regulation, such as reward and
punishment contingencies, is another form of controlled motivation. In contrast,
identied or integrated regulation is a component of autonomous motivation
and happens when people take ownership of the regulation of their own actions
because it is personally signicant to them. An action is done out of interest
because it is enjoyable in and of itself when one is motivated by intrinsic factors
[12] [39].
Competency requirements are also linked to knowledge of eectively coordinated
conduct. Although Stroet et al. [14] claim that competence is connected to motivation
and engagement in learning, Marshik et al. [13] claim that competence denotes the
requirement for self-condence in one’s abilities. When they believe they can han-
dle their academic obstacles better, for example, kids are competent. In the same
vein, Froiland and Worrell [5] assert that children exhibit higher levels of intrinsic
motivation and academic engagement when they feel supported in their need for
competence. Students who feel capable but not independent lack the intrinsic drive
to learn as a result. The SDT assumption that autonomy and competence are both
critical criteria for the preservation of intrinsic motivation is supported by a large
body of experimental data to date [15]. Although metacognition has gained a lot of
academic attention in the years surrounding primary and higher education, it is
frequently ignored in childhood education [16].
According to research, educational initiatives that promote autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness can also increase students’ participation in metacognitive
processes and improve academic achievements [17–18]. Meeting these requirements
has been referred to as the sense of need satisfaction and has been demonstrated to
support psychological development, intrinsic drive, and involvement in academic
work [19] [4]. It has been said that the need for relatedness, which is connected to
feelings of connection with others, is a fundamental need that might aect learning
[14]. For instance, young kids feel a connection to their teachers and peers, which
can boost learning outcomes [20]. An individual’s need for connection makes them
want to be somewhat dependent, rather than completely independent, of someone
they trust, but they also need autonomy so they have a sense of will and choice
about their own dependence and behavior. The acquisition of such skills may be
associated with individual characteristics that relate to one’s ability to respond to
environmental cues.
The environmental sensitivity hypothesis contends that each person’s sensitivity
to their surroundings varies [21]. Environmental sensitivity has been described as
70 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
critical for an individual’s ability to adapt eectively to the conditions of a given
environment, and there are individual dierences in the sensitivity prole among
dierent individuals, with some individuals described as more sensitive than oth-
ers. According to a review study [7], the theories of SPS [22], biological sensitivity
to context [23], and dierential susceptibility [24] are often referred to as environ-
mental sensitivity. These theories all contend that people with high levels of sen-
sitivity benet more from supportive environments [25–26], but they also suer
more when exposed to unsupportive environments [27–28]. The only theory, how-
ever, that accurately describes environmental sensitivity as a personality attribute
is the idea of SPS [7]. Adults are often assessed for SPS using self-report question-
naires, whereas adolescents are assessed using the highly sensitive child (HSC)
scale [29–30].
Sensory processing sensitivity is characterized by a particular set of behavioral
manifestations, such as emotional reactivity, sensitivity to subtleties, and overstim-
ulation [6] [31]. More specically, “depth of processing” is related to taking more
time to process stimuli in unfamiliar environments [32]. This is also accompanied by
“planned behavior,” where an individual’s response is thought to be more eective
in a given or known situation because the individual has already learned how to
demonstrate a response [6]. Additionally, emotional reactivity describes someone’s
stronger emotional reactions to environmental stimuli [33] [35]. Increased aware-
ness of environmental subtleties, such as smells or tastes, is another feature of SPS
[7] [22] [34]. Lastly, overstimulation characterizes high-SPS individuals, which can
be caused by auditory, visual, and social stimuli [7]. In a similar vein, behavioral
studies have suggested that individuals with high SPS scores manifested a greater
response when completing a positive mood induction task, which was interpreted
as heightened positive aect [35].
Interestingly, SPS may also be important for early learning and child develop-
ment because it aects how children experience school and how well they learn.
High-SPS kids are more sensitive to their environment, according to a few studies in
the educational context [25]. These studies, however few, are mostly concerned with
preventive rather than daily classroom experiences. For example, in noisy or visu-
ally congested situations, children who are extremely sensitive to sensory input may
feel overwhelmed or distracted, which can have a negative impact on their atten-
tion and capacity to learn. Future studies must provide more information about the
benets of SPS in helping kids realize their individual learning potential both within
and outside of the classroom.
The SDT includes the basic psychological need theory, which contends that every-
one experiences need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction, regardless of circum-
stance, personality, or cultural background [4] [36]. According to this idea, eortful
control and behavioral regulation are crucial preconditions for both need satisfac-
tion and academic success [37–38]. The signicance of need satisfaction, however,
may also depend on other personal variables, such as SPS [12] [39]. SPS may aect the
signicance of need satisfaction for motivation and behavioral engagement within
a learning setting because students with greater SPS are more reactive to their envi-
ronment [6] [7] [31]. Interesting studies have looked at the connection between SPS
and behavior. The Pluess et al. study [29], which was based on attention, activation
control, and inhibitory control, showed that SPS was most signicantly positively
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 71
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
correlated with eortful control. This would indicate, in accordance with the SDT,
that students with higher SPS are better able to control their behavior, for example,
if they choose tasks that are within the range of their abilities (autonomy and com-
petence), get along with their peers (relatedness), and become actively involved in
class (behavioral engagement).
Furthermore, there is currently no convincing empirical evidence to establish
a major relationship between metacognition and SPS, despite studies looking into
this connection. The relationship between SPS and emotional intelligence, a notion
related to metacognition, was examined in one study by Acevedo et al. [40]. Despite a
minor positive correlation between SPS and emotional intelligence, the study found
that this relationship was not statistically signicant.
While there isn’t much direct evidence connecting metacognition and SPS in
terms of child learning, the separate lines of research we highlighted earlier imply
that both domains are important for child development and education in var-
ious ways. Our understanding of these aspects of children’s development will be
improved by further research in this area, which will also help to identify the most
eective educational strategies for helping kids improve intellectually, socially, and
emotionally.
Gamication, which is dened as the use of game and mobile game design
elements in learning environments, has the potential to support early learn-
ing [41–42]. Children are more likely to be motivated to study when learning
activities are made more interesting and enjoyable, according to research [43].
Gamication can oer a more dynamic and immersive learning experience that
enables kids to grow in motivation, self-ecacy, and high-level thinking in a safe
and supervised environment [44]. By monitoring and evaluating each learner’s
progress, modifying the diculty, or oering tailored feedback to support learn-
ing, gamication can also allow for personalized adjustments to learning experi-
ences [45].
Additionally, the usage of information technologies in schooling may impact
metacognition and SPS. Despite the fact that there hasn’t been much research,
particularly looking at the relationships between information technologies in edu-
cation, metacognition, and SPS, there is some evidence to suggest that employ-
ing technology to promote both constructs may be advantageous. Regarding
metacognition, it has been suggested that SDT could serve as a crucial theoreti-
cal foundation for developing gamication-based educational interventions that
seek to improve students’ learning motivation and performance [46]. It has been
discovered that classrooms with technological enhancements encourage pupils
to become more aware of their own learning processes. For instance, a study by
Hadwin et al. [47] found that using a metacognitive tool within an online learning
environment improved students’ metacognitive awareness and ability to manage
their learning. SPS claims that there is currently no direct research on gamication
applications in kids’ education that take the learner’s environmental sensitivity
prole into account. Future research to further explore this topic may focus on
the precise gamication features that are eective for children with dierent sen-
sory processing proles. This topic of research is further developed in the section
that follows.
72 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
A crucial component of learning and problem-solving that emerges progressively
throughout childhood is metacognition. According to some theories, metacognition
starts to take shape during childhood and improves with time, thanks to both learn-
ing and brain development. Children should be able to evaluate the accuracy of
their information around the age of six, according to Schraw and Moshman [48],
but it takes them until they are between the ages of 10 and 14 to be able to control
their cognition, which involves planning, monitoring, and evaluating. In a similar
vein, more recent observations suggest that during the early years of life, children
can reect on their performance, but there is a mismatch between the accuracy of
their evaluation and their actual measured performance [49]. Such skills for eec-
tive evaluation of their performance are developmental achievements that come
later in life [91]. In this area of inquiry, there are numerous contributors that have
been highlighted in empirical research, including training [50], task-relevant feed-
back and task diculty levels [49], and working memory [51].
The prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, default mode network, and hip-
pocampus are just a few of the brain regions that have been connected to metacog-
nitive functions in studies. In research employing functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI), Davidson et al. [52] carefully evaluated how cognitive control and
executive functions developed from 4 to 13 years of age. According to the study, the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain linked to working memory and
cognitive control, became more active as people aged when performing activities
that required inhibitory control and task switching. A comprehensive explanation of
the brain mechanisms governing cognitive control was also suggested in Banich’s lit-
erature review on executive functions [53]. The anterior cingulate cortex, according
to the author, is engaged in conict monitoring and error detection, and it becomes
especially active when kids are given tasks that require them to keep track of their
own performance. In a similar vein, a more recent longitudinal fMRI study sought to
evaluate the neurobiological bases of nine- to ten-year-old children’s metacognitive
monitoring as they performed arithmetic tasks and gave performance assessments
[54]. According to the study, children’s left inferior frontal gyrus grew during the
problem-solving task and while engaging in a task involving procedural monitoring.
The observed eect was correlated with the participant’s arithmetic development
during a three-year developmental window, which also highlighted the matura-
tional procedures taking place on the prefrontal cortex and the corresponding devel-
opment of metacognitive monitoring.
In a study employing fMRI, Ghetti and Bunge [55] looked into the brain changes
that underlie the development of episodic memory during middle childhood. Age-
related increases in the hippocampus’ activity via tasks requiring memory integra-
tion and source watching suggest that this area is engaged, combining information
from several sources to support metacognitive assessment. Overall, these ndings
suggest that the maturation of the brain regions responsible for self-awareness,
monitoring, control, memory, and self-referential processing promotes the growth
of metacognition in young people. However, considering the known limited ver-
bal ability and working memory capacity in the early years of life [56], generat-
ing operational denitions and developing accurate neurocognitive measurements
of children’s metacognitive skills is a rather exigent task [57]. The particular brain
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 73
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
mechanisms involved in metacognition and how they change as people age will
require more investigation using a variety of techniques and larger sample sizes.
It’s interesting to note that there is compelling evidence that both children and
adults share the same brain areas that are engaged in metacognition. Nevertheless,
depending on the precise metacognitive task presented, the participants’ precise
developmental stage, and the observed individual variations, the degree of activa-
tion within these regions varies among dierent ages [58]. In a study by Germine
et al. [59], the brain correlates of metacognition in a sample of children and adults
were examined using fMRI. When making metacognitive assessments of their own
performance, both groups exhibited activation in the prefrontal cortex, parietal cor-
tex, and anterior insula, according to their ndings. However, the adult individuals
showed higher activation in these areas compared to the kid participants, which
may indicate that adults’ metacognition relies more on these regions. Similar to this,
studies have revealed that as people age and gain experience, their prefrontal cortex
becomes more concentrated and ecient, which may support the development of
metacognitive abilities [52] [60].
The precise pattern of activity and functional connectivity within these regions
may change depending on the specic task requirements and the stage of develop-
ment, similar to how the anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, and fault mode
network are thought to play a role in metacognition in both children and adults [53]
[55] [61]. Overall, both children and adults have the brain regions involved in meta-
cognition, but depending on age and experience, these regions may develop and
operate dierently. To fully comprehend these brain regions’ developmental paths
and how they serve metacognitive functions across the lifespan, more research
is required.
Research suggests that a number of brain areas are involved in sensory pro-
cessing and may have a role in changing sensitivity to sensory inputs, even though
the neurological mechanisms behind SPS in children are not fully understood. For
instance, the fMRI study by Acevedo and colleagues [62] compared the brain activity
of individuals with high and low SPS levels in reaction to emotional stimuli. The
activation of brain areas linked to depth of processing, memory, and physiological
regulation in response to emotional stimuli is positively correlated with SPS (and its
interaction with the early environment). The ndings demonstrated that those with
high SPS responded to emotional stimuli with more amygdala activation than indi-
viduals with low SPS, a brain region involved in processing emotional information.
One such brain part is the thalamus, which transmits bodily sensory information
to the relevant cortical regions for further processing. Young children’s SPS may be
related to the thalamus’s critical role in ltering sensory data and controlling the
ow of information to other brain regions. Accordingly, those with high SPS scores
displayed greater activation in the brain regions linked to the visual areas related to
ne visual distinctions [32]. Additionally, connections between higher SPS and the
activation of working memory and attention-related brain areas were reported by
an fMRI study conducted during a task demanding attending to context in the visual
landscape [63].
Electroencephalography (EEG) was also employed in a dierent study by
Jagiellowicz et al. [32] to look into how the brain reacts to auditory stimuli in people
with high and mild SPS. Overall, the processing of sensory information is probably
74 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
mediated by the thalamus, primary sensory cortex, and amygdala. This may inu-
ence individual dierences in susceptibility to sensory inputs [40]. To fully compre-
hend the brain mechanisms underlying SPS in youngsters, more study is necessary.
Gamied learning experiences have been proposed to be particularly aective
as they oer incentivised conditions that can assist in the engagement of learners in
goal-directed behavior [64]. Such an assumption is backed up by data demonstrat-
ing that incentives can enhance a specic set of cognitive processes that are critical
to learning [65] and incorporate working memory capacity [66–67]. An increasing
corpus of research is impressively highlighting the importance of games in educa-
tional procedures for children. These ndings imply that games can have a positive
eect on a number of cognitive functions and brain areas that support motivation
and learning. For instance, playing mobile games improved attentional control and
visuospatial skills in a randomized controlled trial study of young adults [68]. These
mental operations are essential for academic learning as well and can be improved
with gamication techniques. Another fMRI study looking at changes in brain
activity in response to a gamied math app in youngsters found that the brain’s
attention and numerical processing regions changed as the children’s math skills
increased [69]. In a similar vein, fMRI studies have documented that reward can
mediate the increased activity in prefrontal and parietal regions that are strongly
associated with working memory [70–72]. In activities involving the learning of
complicated mathematics, second language acquisition [73], spatial skills [74], and
learning in many other areas, activation of the dorsal fronto-parietal network has
been reported [75]. It’s interesting to note that there is evidence to suggest that
when attention is directed toward an external learning activity, the default-mode
network (DMN), another brain network linked to top-down modulation of atten-
tion and working memory, may become less active. More specically, it has been
found that the DMN activates when attention is diverted from self-referential tasks
(i.e., those involving autobiographical memory, theory of mind, and aective deci-
sion-making) [76–77].
Additionally, new research has identied emotions as key factors in ecient
learning. According to Greipl et al.’s [78] evaluation of neuro-functional activity pat-
terns when participants received feedback, they examined a wide range of brain
regions implicated in emotional and rewarding processes (such as the amygdala or
ventral tegmental area). The study revealed that mobile game-based learning can
support learning processes with the contribution of reward and emotional engage-
ment on a neurofunctional level. This evidence is in line with accumulating evi-
dence that suggests that the emotional engagement of learning can be impacted to
facilitate learning processes [79–81].
Overall, these ndings point to a positive inuence of gamication treatments on
cognitive functions and brain areas associated with learning and motivation. These
ndings show the potential of gamication in educational interventions for young
children, but more research is needed to fully comprehend the mechanisms under-
lying these outcomes and to pinpoint the most eective gamication strategies for
various learner types. However, how gamication features are planned and imple-
mented can greatly aect how eective they are. Gamication strategies must be
founded in motivation and learning research and tailored to the needs and abilities
of each learner.
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 75
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
It would be crucial to consider the fundamental neurocognitive mechanisms
that cause individual dierences in learning if we wanted the gamication-based
learning experience to have the greatest impact on each learner. It’s important to
note that some evidence suggests the brain circuits responsible for SPS may also be
in charge of metacognition. It’s interesting to note that research reveals that meta-
cognition and game-based learning can both inuence various brain regions; how-
ever, the particular brain regions aected can vary depending on the individual,
the activity, and the situation. More specically, the insula, prefrontal cortex, and
anterior cingulate cortex are all active during metacognition. These areas medi-
ate executive functions such as attention, working memory, and decision-making
[82–83]. Gamication-based learning, however, has been demonstrated to activate
a number of brain regions associated with motivation, reward processing, and
attention. The amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and ventral striatum are a few of these
[84]. For instance, the ventral striatum is connected to the rewarding part of game-
based learning activities, but the prefrontal cortex is involved in planning and deci-
sion-making during these activities [80]. However, gamication-based learning and
metacognition have complicated and poorly understood impacts on the brain. Along
with the possible impacts of various gamication and metacognitive activities on
distinct brain regions, individual dierences in learning preferences and styles may
also be important.
To our knowledge, there isn’t any research that specically examines the function
of these components collectively with reference to the neurocognitive link between
SPS, meta-cognition, and game-based learning [85]. However, each of these elements
has a unique potential inuence on how the brain functions. For the employment of
game-based learning aids in the classroom, the aforementioned study on the neu-
rocognitive relationship between environmental sensitivity and metacognition may
have signicant ramications. The shared neural networks in metacognition and
SPS during development may have signicant eects on how well children learn
[62]. In a similar vein, gamication-based learning can also activate dierent areas
of the brain associated with reward, motivation, and attention that are critical in
early-year learning [65].
Designing successful educational interventions may require further investigation
in this eld of study. First of all, educators could better accommodate students with
high SPS by having a better grasp of the underlying brain networks. For instance,
children with high SPS may be more susceptible to environmental distractions
such as noise or bright lights, which can aect their learning potential. In order
to improve their ability to learn, their learning environment may be changed to
remove sensory distractions. Additionally, a deeper comprehension of the brain pro-
cesses underlying metacognition may help guide instructional strategies for devel-
oping metacognitive abilities in young learners [1]. Young learners could benet
from the development of metacognitive abilities by including tasks that encourage
76 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
reection and self-awareness, such as journaling or self-evaluation activities. The
explicit teaching of thinking regulation and monitoring by educators could also aid
in improving the learning eciency of students [86].
One way that the research on the neurocognitive link between metacognition and
environmental sensitivity may be helpful in gamication applications is the creation
of mobile games that are better adapted to the demands of learners with high levels
of environmental sensitivity [79]. To make mobile games more pleasurable for peo-
ple with high SPS, mobile game designers may, for instance, provide options that let
learners adjust the sensory environment of the game, such as the ability to change
the brightness or volume. Designers could also add elements such as opportunities
for reection and feedback on learners’ performance that aid in the development of
metacognitive abilities [87]. Additionally, mobile game designers might include ele-
ments that call for learners to exercise inhibitory control or cognitive exibility, both
of which are frequently impaired in people with high SPS. In the mobile game, for
instance, having players pause and deliberate before choosing their course of action
might aid in the development of inhibitory control.
Research has shown that the neurological connection between metacognition,
contextual sensitivity, and gamication-based learning has important ramications
for the development of gamication applications in child learning [88]. Further
research into these relationships may also assist in guiding the creation of mobile
games that are better adapted to the demands of learners with lower executive
function or cognitive exibility, as seen in people with high SPS [89]. For example,
designers may include elements that make the player pause and consider their
choice before selecting it in the mobile game, helping students to build inhibitory
control. Additionally, designers could incorporate components that make students
switch between tasks using dierent sensory modalities, which helps with the devel-
opment of cognitive exibility.
Gamication and the understanding of the neurocognitive processes that under-
lie learning and development are both crucial to individualized instruction in spe-
cial education [90]. Dierentiated teaching is a strategy in which teachers adapt their
lessons to each student’s specic requirements and aptitudes. Teachers can design
a learning environment that is interesting, motivating, and matches the individual
needs of each student by incorporating gamication into diversied teaching prac-
tices. For children who have diculty processing sensory information, educators
can create gamication-based learning programs that provide sensory stimulation
in a regulated and adaptable manner. This will enable the student to progressively
adjust to the sensory environment. Overall, educators can tailor the learning envi-
ronment to each student’s needs by using techniques that highlight the neurocogni-
tive mechanisms that underlie learning and development. This will eventually lead
to improved academic and social results.
Overall, the evidence suggests that technology might be a useful tool for promoting
these dimensions in educational environments, while additional study is required
to properly understand the relationships between information technologies, meta-
cognition, and SPS. The use of information technologies in areas like personal-
ized learning, teamwork and communication, and data analysis can aid students
in growing their capacity for metacognition. Personalized education, for example,
can help students better understand their unique learning preferences and change
their techniques accordingly, while cooperation and communication can promote
metacognitive reection and problem solving. Students can develop metacognitive
self-regulation abilities and a better awareness of their strengths and shortcomings
by receiving feedback on their learning progress through data analytics, which
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 77
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
helps them. Gamication applications for child learning may become more useful
and specialized if knowledge of the neurocognitive mechanisms behind SPS, meta-
cognition, and game-based learning is incorporated [79]. To completely comprehend
the connections between these constructs and their consequences for educational
interventions, more research is, however, required.
DISCUSSION
Finally, it’s critical to emphasize how benecial and productive all digital tech-
nologies are for the eld of education. The use of these technologies, which include
mobile devices [92–93], a range of ICT apps [94–95], and especially games [96], facil-
itates and improves educational processes, including evaluation, intervention, and
learning. In addition, the use of ICTs, theories and models of metacognition, mind-
fulness, meditation, and the development of emotional intelligence [97–108], speed
up and improve even more educational practices and outcomes, particularly for the
learning potential of young students.
More precisely, knowing the neurocognitive processes that underlie dierent
elements of learning can help parents and teachers better understand how to cre-
ate environments that support learning in children. The information regarding the
neurocognitive connection between metacognition and environmental sensitiv-
ity, as outlined in the present narrative review, could prove valuable in creating
gamication-based applications that are tailored to the requirements of learners
with varying cognitive proles, including individuals with hightened levels of envi-
ronmental sensitivity. Gamication apps should generally be designed with learn-
ers’ various needs and skill levels in mind, especially those with environmental
sensitivity proles. Educators and parents may help children develop crucial abili-
ties such as motivation and self-regulated learning by using tactics that target these
neurocognitive mechanisms. They can also give children an enjoyable and success-
ful learning experience.
On the other hand, information technologies can be used to create learning set-
tings that are more accommodating for children who have SPS. For instance, by
allowing students to pick the elements of their learning environment, personalized
learning platforms can oer them control over it. Additionally, compared to typical
classroom settings, virtual and augmented reality technology can provide students
with more immersive and interesting learning opportunities. In conclusion, the
employment of information technology in education may have an impact on both
metacognition and sensory processing sensitivity by giving students the chance to
practice metacognition. There is currently very little research examining the direct
impacts of such implementations on a person’s potential for metacognition and pro-
le of sensory processing.
[1] J. H. Flavell, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry,” American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906–911, 1979. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
[2] D. S. Fleur, B. Bredeweg, and W. van den Bos, “Metacognition: Ideas and insights
from neuro- and educational sciences,” npj Sci. Learn., vol. 6, no. 13, 2021. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41539-021-00089-5
78 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
[3] H. B. Santoso, R. D. Riyanti, T. Prastati, F. A. H. S. Triatmoko, A. Susanty, and M. Yang,
“Learners’ online self-regulated learning skills in Indonesia open university: Implications
for policies and practice,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 7, 2022.
[4] R. M. Ryan, and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being,” Am. Psychol., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78,
2000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
[5] J. M. Froiland and F. C. Worrell, “Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and
achievement in a diverse high school,” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 321–336,
2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21901
[6] E. N. Aron, A. Aron, and J. Jagiellowicz, “Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in
the light of the evolution of biological responsivity,” Pers Soc Psychol Rev, vol. 16, no. 3,
pp. 262–82, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434213
[7] C. U. Greven, F. Lionetti, C. Booth, E. N. Aron, E. Fox, H. E. Schendan, M. Pluess,
H. Bruining, B. Acevedo, P. Bijttebier, and J. Homberg, “Sensory processing sensitiv-
ity in the context of environmental sensitivity: A critical review and development of
research agenda,” Neurosci Biobehav Rev, vol. 98, pp. 287–305, 2019. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.009
[8] A. Meghdari and M. Alemi, “Cognitive-social robotics: Mysteries and needs,” Iranian
Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 18, no. 70, pp. 55–76, 2016.
[9] D. Dicheva, C. Dichev, G. Agre, and G. Angelova, “Gamication in education: A systematic
mapping study,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 75–88, 2015.
[10] M. Papastergiou, “Digital game-based learning in high school computer science edu-
cation: Impact on educational eectiveness and student motivation,” Computers &
Education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
[11] J. Reeve, E. L. Deci, and R. M. Ryan, “Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework
for understanding socio-cultural inuences on student motivation,” in Big Theories
Revisited, D. M. Mclnerney, & S. Van Etten (Eds.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press,
2004, pp. 31–60.
[12] M. Vansteenkiste, C. P. Niemiec, and B. Soenens, “The development of the ve
mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends,
and future directions,” in The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and
Achievement (Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16 Part A), T. C. Urdan and
S. A. Karabenick (Eds.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, 2010, pp. 105–165.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007
[13] T. Marshik, P. T. Ashton, and J. Algina, “Teachers’ and students’ needs for autonomy, com-
petence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement,” Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 39–67, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11218-016-9360-z
[14] K. Stroet, M. Opdenakker, and A. Minnaert, “Eects of need supportive teaching on
early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature,” Educational
Research Review, vol. 9, pp. 65–87, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003
[15] M. Flannery, “Self-determination theory: Intrinsic motivation and behavioral change,”
Oncol. Nurs. Forum., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 155–156, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1188/17.
ONF.155-156
[16] S. Chen and B. A. McDunn, “Metacognition: History, measurements, and the role in early
childhood development and education,” Learning and Motivation, vol. 78, p. 101786,
2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101786
[17] A. E. Black and E. L. Deci, “The eects of instructors’ autonomy support and stu-
dents’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination
theory perspective,” Science Education, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 740–756, 2000. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 79
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
[18] C. P. Niemiec, M. F. Lynch, M. Vansteenkiste, J. Bernstein, E. L. Deci, and R. M. Ryan,
“The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college:
A self-determination theory perspective on socialization,” J. Adolesc., vol. 29, no. 5,
pp. 761–75, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.11.009
[19] C. P. Niemiec and R. M. Ryan, “Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom
applying self-determination theory to educational practice,” Theory and Research in
Education, vol. 7, pp. 133–144, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
[20] J. Reeve and H. Jang, “What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during
a learning activity,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 209–218, 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
[21] M. Pluess, “Individual dierences in environmental sensitivity,” Child Development
Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 138–143, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120
[22] E. N. Aron and A. Aron, “Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion
and emotionality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 345–368,
1997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
[23] W. T. Boyce and B. J. Ellis, “Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-
developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity,” Dev, Psychopathol,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 271–301, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145
[24] J. Belsky and M. Pluess, “Beyond diathesis stress: Dierential susceptibility to envi-
ronmental inuences,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 135, no. 6, pp. 885–908, 2009. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0017376
[25] M. Pluess and I. Boniwell, “Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treatment response
to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity,”
Personality and Individual Dierences, vol. 82, pp. 40–45, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2015.03.011
[26] M. Slagt, J. S. Dubas, M. A. G. van Aken, B. J. Ellis, and M. Deković, “Sensory processing
sensitivity as a marker of dierential susceptibility to parenting,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 543–558, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000431
[27] C. Booth, H. Standage, and E. Fox, “Sensory-processing sensitivity moderates the asso-
ciation between childhood experiences and adult life satisfaction,” Pers. Individ. Dif.,
vol. 87, pp. 24–29, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.020
[28] S. Boterberg and P. Warreyn, “Making sense of it all: The impact of sensory process-
ing sensitivity on daily functioning of children,” Personality and Individual Dierences,
vol. 92, pp. 80–86, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.022
[29] M. Pluess, E. Assary, F. Lionetti, K. J. Lester, E. Krapohl, E. N. Aron, and A. Aron,
“Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the highly sensitive child scale
and identication of sensitivity groups,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 51–70, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406
[30] S. Weyn, K. Van Leeuwen, M. Pluess, F. Lionetti, C. U. Greven, L. Goossens, H. Colpin,
W. Van den Noortgate, K. Verschueren, M. Bastin, E. Van Hoof, F. De Fruyt, and
P. Bijttebier, “Psychometric properties of the highly sensitive child scale across devel-
opmental stage, gender, and country,” Current Psychology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00254-5
[31] J. R. Homberg, D. Schubert, E. Asan, and E. N. Aron, “Sensory processing sensitivity
and serotonin gene variance: Insights into mechanisms shaping environmental sen-
sitivity,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., vol. 71, pp. 472–483, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2016.09.029
[32] J. Jagiellowicz, X. Xu, A. Aron, E. Aron, G. Cao, T. Feng, and X. Weng, “The trait of sen-
sory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes,” Soc. Cogn.
Aect. Neurosci., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 38–47, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq001
[33] E. N. Aron, The Highly Sensitive Person (Eds.). E. Aron and A. Aron, Kensington Publishing
Corp, pp. 1–4, 2013.
80 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
[34] E. N. Aron and A. Aron, “Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introver-
sion and emotionality,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 73, pp. 345–368, 1997. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345
[35] F. Lionetti, E. N. Aron, A. Aron, D. N. Klein, and M. Pluess, “Observer-rated environmental
sensitivity moderates children’s response to parenting quality in early childhood,” Dev.
Psychology, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 2389–2402, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000795
[36] J. Schüler, V. Brandstätter, and K. M. Sheldon, “Do implicit motives and basic psycholog-
ical needs interact to predict well-being and ow? Testing a universal hypothesis and a
matching hypothesis,” Motivation and Emotion, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 480–495, 2013. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9317-2
[37] M. O. Caughy, B. Mills, D. Brinkley, and M. T. Owen, “Behavioral self-regulation, early
academic achievement, and the eectiveness of urban schools for low-income ethnic
minority children,” Am. J. Community Psychol., vol. 61, no. 3–4, pp. 372–385, 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12242
[38] A. K. Edossa, U. Schroeders, S. Weinert, and C. Artelt, “The development of emotional and
behavioral self-regulation and their eects on academic achievement in childhood,”
International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 192–202, 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0165025416687412
[39] M. Vansteenkiste, R. M. Ryan, and B. Soenens, “Basic psychological need theory:
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions,” Motiv. Emot., vol. 44, pp. 1–31,
2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
[40] B. P. Acevedo, E. N. Aron, A. Aron, M. D. Sangster, N. Collins, and L. L. Brown, “The highly
sensitive brain: An fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and response to others’
emotions,” Brain Behav., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 580–594, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242
[41] K. F. Hew, B. Huang, K. W. S. Chu, and D. K. W. Chiu, “Engaging Asian students through
game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies,” Computers & Education,
vol. 92–93, pp. 221–236, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010
[42] J. Zhao, G. J. Hwang, and S. C. Chang, et al., “Eects of gamied interactive e-books on
students’ ipped learning performance, motivation, and meta-cognition tendency in a
mathematics course,” Education Tech. Research Dev., vol. 69, pp. 3255–3280, 2021. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10053-0
[43] K. Cagiltay, B. Bichelmeyer, and G. Kaplan Akilli, “Working with multicultural virtual
teams: Critical factors for facilitation, satisfaction and success,” Smart Learn. Environ.,
vol. 2, no. 11, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0018-7
[44] R. J. Baxter, D. K. Holderness, and D. A. Wood, “Applying basic gamication techniques to
it compliance training: Evidence from the lab and eld,” Journal of Information Systems,
vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 119–133, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51341
[45] R. Cózar-Gutiérrez and J. M. Sáez-López, “Game-based learning and gamication in initial
teacher training in the social sciences: An experiment with MinecraftEdu,” International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016. https://educa-
tionaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4
[46] K. Seaborn and D. I. Fels, “Gamication in theory and action: A survey,” Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Stud., vol. 74, pp. 14–31, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
[47] A. F. Hadwin, S. Järvelä, and M. Miller, “Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared
regulation of learning,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance,
B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). 2011, pp. 65–84. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
[48] G. Schraw and D. Moshman, “Metacognitive theories. Educational psychology review,”
vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 351–371, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
[49] L. Lavis and C. E. Mahy, ‘“I’ll remember everything no matter what!’: The role of meta-
cognitive abilities in the development of young children’s prospective memory,” Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 207, p. 105117, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jecp.2021.105117
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 81
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
[50] J. P. Pozuelos, L. M. Combita, A. Abundis, P. M. Paz-Alonso, Á. Conejero, S. Guerra, and
M. R. Rueda, “Metacognitive scaolding boosts cognitive and neural benets following
executive attention training in children,” Dev. Sci., vol. 22, no. 2, p. e12756, 2019. https://
doi.org/10.1111/desc.12756
[51] M. Cottini, D. Basso, A. Pieri, and P. Palladino, “Metacognitive monitoring and control
in children’s prospective memory,” Journal of Cognition and Development, vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 619–639, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2021.1916500
[52] M. C. Davidson, D. Amso, and L. C. Anderson, “Development of cognitive control and
executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibi-
tion, and task switching,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 2037–2078, 2006. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006
[53] M. T. Banich, “Executive function: The search for an integrated account,” Current
Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 89–94, 2009. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01615.x
[54] E. Bellon, W. Fias, D. Ansari, and B. De Smedt, “The neural basis of metacognitive moni-
toring during arithmetic in the developing brain,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 41, no. 16,
pp. 4562–4573, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25142
[55] S. Ghetti and S. A. Bunge, “Neural changes underlying the development of episodic
memory during middle childhood,” Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 381–395, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.05.002
[56] D. Whitebread and D. Neale, “Metacognition in early child development,” Translational
Issues in Psychological Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/
tps0000223
[57] L. Gascoine, S. Higgins, and K. Wall, “The assessment of metacognition in children
aged 4–16 years: A systematic review,” Rev. Educ., vol. 5, pp. 3–57, 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1002/rev3.3077
[58] S. M. Fleming, R. J. Dolan, and C. D. Frith, “Metacognition: Computation, biology, and
function,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 367,
no. 1594, pp. 1280–1286, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0021
[59] L. T. Germine, B. Duchaine, and Nakayama, “Where cognitive development and aging
meet: Face learning ability peaks after age 30,” Cognition, vol. 118, pp. 201–210, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.002
[60] B. Luna, S. Marek, B. Larsen, B. Tervo-Clemmens, and R. Chahal, “An integrative model of
the maturation of cognitive control,” Annu. Rev. Neurosci., vol. 8, no. 38, pp. 151–70, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-034054
[61] R. N. Spreng, W. D. Stevens, J. P. Chamberlain, A. W. Gilmore, and D. L. Schacter, “Default
network activity, coupled with the frontoparietal control network, supports goal-
directed cognition,” Neuroimage, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 303–317, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2010.06.016
[62] B. Acevedo, E. Aron, S. Pospos, and D. Jessen, “The functional highly sensitive brain:
A review of the brain circuits underlying sensory processing sensitivity and seem-
ingly related disorders,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., vol. 373, p. 20170161, 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0161
[63] A. Aron, S. Ketay, T. Hedden, E. N. Aron, H. Rose Markus, and J. D. Gabrieli, “Temper-
ament trait of sensory processing sensitivity moderates cultural dierences in neural
response,” Soc. Cogn Aect Neurosci., vol. 5, no. 2–3, pp. 219–26, 2010. https://doi.org/
10.1093/scan/nsq028
[64] A. K. Przybylski, C. S. Rigby, and R. M. Ryan, “A motivational model of video game
engagement,” Review of General Psychology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 154–166, 2010. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0019440
82 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
[65] D. C. Krawczyk and M. D’Esposito, “Modulation of working memory function by motiva-
tion through loss-aversion,” Hum. Brain Mapp., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 762–774, 2013. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21472
[66] S. E. Gathercole, S. J. Pickering, B. Ambridge, and H. Wearing, “The structure of working
memory from 4 to 15 years of age,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 177–90, 2004. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
[67] T. P. Alloway and R.G. Alloway, “Investigating the predictive roles of working memory
and IQ in academic attainment,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 106,
pp. 20–29, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
[68] A. F. Anderson and D. Bavelier, “Action game play as a tool to enhance perception, atten-
tion and cognition,” in Computer Games and Instruction, S. Tobias and J. D. Fletcher (Eds.).
IAP Information Age Publishing, 2011, pp. 307–329.
[69] P. A. Howard-Jones, T. Jay, A. Mason, and H. Jones, “Gamication of learning deactivates
the default mode network,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1891, 2016. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01891
[70] D. C. Krawczyk, A. Gazzaley, and M. D’Esposito, “Reward modulation of prefrontal and
visual association cortex during an incentive working memory task,” Brain Res., vol. 13,
no. 1141, pp. 168–177, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.052
[71] S. J. Beck, C. A. Hanson, S. S. Puenberger, K. L. Benninger, and W. B. Benninger,
“A controlled trial of working memory training for children and adolescents with
ADHD,” J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 825–836, 2010. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15374416.2010.517162
[72] A. C. Savine and T. S. Braver, “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modu-
late preparatory neural activity during task-switching,” J. Neurosci., vol. 30, no. 31,
pp. 10294–10305, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2052-10.2010
[73] D. López-Barroso, P. Ripollés, J. Marco-Pallarés, B. Mohammadi, T. F. Münte,
A. C. Bachoud-Lévi, A. Rodriguez-Fornells, and R. de Diego-Balaguer, “Multiple brain
networks underpinning word learning from uent speech revealed by independent
component analysis,” Neuroimage, vol. 15, no. 110, pp. 182–193, 2015. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.085
[74] F. Nemmi, M. Boccia, and L. Piccardi, “Segregation of neural circuits involved in spatial
learning in reaching and navigational space,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 51, pp. 1561–1570,
2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.031
[75] W. Schneider and J. M. Chein, “Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and
biological mechanisms,” Cogn. Sci., vol. 27, pp. 525–559, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15516709cog2703_8
[76] J. Smallwood and J. W. Schooler, “The restless mind,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 132,
no. 6, pp. 946–958, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946
[77] J. C. McVay and M. J. Kane, “Does mind wandering reect executive function or execu-
tive failure? Comment on Smallwood and Schooler (2006) and Watkins,” Psychological
Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018298
[78] S. Greipl, E. Klein, A. Lindstedt, K. Kiili, K. Moeller, H.-O. Karnath, J. Bahnmueller,
J. Bloechle, and M. Ninaus, “When the brain comes into play: Neurofunctional cor-
relates of emotions and reward in game-based learning,” Computers in Human Behavior,
vol. 125, no. 106946, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106946
[79] S. Greipl, M. Ninaus, and K. Moeller, “Potential and limits of game-based learning,”
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 363, 2020. https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2020.110047
[80] J. L. Plass, B. D. Homer, and C. K. Kinzer, “Foundations of game-based learning,”
Educational Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 258–283, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461
520.2015.1122533
iJIM | Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023) International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 83
The Role of Mobile Games and Environmental Factors in Improving Learning and Metacognitive Potential of Young Students
[81] C. M. Tyng, H. U. Amin, M. N. M. Saad, and A. S. Malik, “The inuences of emotion on
learning and memory,” Front Psychol., vol. 24, no. 8, p. 1454, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01454
[82] T. Shallice and P. W. Burgess, “Decits in strategy application following frontal lobe dam-
age in man,” Brain, vol. 114, pp. 727–741, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/114.2.727
[83] A. D. Craig, “How do you feel now? The anterior insula and human awareness,” Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 10, pp. 59–70, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555
[84] K. M. Kapp, The Gamication of Learning and Instruction: Case-Based Methods and
Strategies for Training and Education. New York: Peer: An Imprint of John Wiley &
Sons, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207270.2211316
[85] A. Mackey and S. M. Gass, Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd ed.).
Routledge, 2015.
[86] A. Gopnik and H. M. Wellman, “Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian
learning mechanisms, and the theory theory,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 138, no. 6, pp. 1085–1108,
2012. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028044
[87] A. Furnham and H. Cheng, “The big-ve personality factors, mental health, and social-
demographic indicators as independent predictors of gratication delay,” Personality and
Individual Dierences, vol. 150, no. 109533, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109533
[88] W. Toh and D. Kirschner, “Self-directed learning in video games, aordances and
pedagogical implications for teaching and learning,” Computers & Education, vol. 154,
no. 103912, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103912
[89] J. Belsky, X. Zhang, and K. Sayler, “Dierential susceptibility 2.0: Are the same children
aected by dierent experiences and exposures,” Development and Psychopathology,
vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420002205
[90] A. Drigas, E. Mitsea, and C. Skianis, “Metamemory: Metacognitive strategies for improved
memory operations and the role of VR and mobiles,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 12, no. 11,
p. 450, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110450
[91] M. E. Parra-González, J. López-Belmonte, A. Segura-Robles, and A. J. Moreno-Guerrero,
“Gamication and ipped learning and their inuence on aspects related to the
teaching-learning process,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 2, p. e06254, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.heliyon.2021.e06254
[92] Stathopoulou, et al., “Mobile assessment procedures for mental health and literacy skills
in education,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 21–37, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i3.8038
[93] A. Stathopoulou, Z. Karabatzaki, D. Tsiros, S. Katsantoni, and A. Drigas, “Mobile apps the edu-
cational solution for autistic students in secondary education,” Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies (IJIM), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 89–101, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i02.9896
[94] A. Drigas and A. Petrova, “ICTs in speech and language therapy,” International Journal
of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 49–54. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3991/
ijep.v4i1.3280
[95] M. Xanthopoulou, G. Kokalia, and A. Drigas, “Applications for children with autism in
preschool and primary education,” Int. J. Recent Contributions Eng. Sci. IT (IJES), vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 4–16, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v7i2.10335
[96] C. Kefalis, E. Z. Kontostavlou, and A. Drigas, “The Eects of video games in memory
and attention,” Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. (IJEP), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 51–61, 2020. https://doi.
org/10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11290
[97] E. Mitsea, N. A. Lytra, A. Akrivopoulou, and A. Drigas, “Metacognition, mindfulness and
robots for autism inclusion,” Int. J. Recent Contributions Eng. Sci. IT (IJES), vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 4–20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v8i2.14213
[98] C. Papoutsi, A. Drigas, and C. Skianis, “Virtual and augmented reality for develop-
ing emotional intelligence skills,” Int. J. Recent Contrib. Eng. Sci. IT (IJES), vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 35–53, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v9i3.23939
84 International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) iJIM
| Vol. 17 No. 18 (2023)
Christou et al.
[99] S. Kapsi, S. Katsantoni, and A. Drigas, “The role of sleep and impact on brain and learn-
ing,” Int. J. Recent Contributions Eng. Sci. IT (IJES), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 59–68, 2020. https://
doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v8i3.17099
[100] A. Drigas, E. Mitsea, and C. Skianis, “The role of clinical hypnosis and VR in special edu-
cation,” International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering Science & IT (IJES),
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4–17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v9i4.26147
[101] I. Chaidi and A. Drigas, “A 2020 parents’ involvement in the education of their chil-
dren with autism: Related research and its results,” International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning (IJET), vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 194–203, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/
ijet.v15i14.12509
[102] A. Drigas, E. Mitsea, and C. Skianis, “Clinical hypnosis & VR, subconscious
restructuring-brain rewiring & the entanglement with the 8 pillars of metacogni-
tion × 8 layers of consciousness × 8 intelligences,” International Journal of Online &
Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 78–95, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3991/
ijoe.v18i01.26859
[103] A. Drigas and M. Karyotaki, “Attention and its role: Theories and models,” International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 169–182, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i12.10185
[104] A. Drigas and M. Karyotaki, “Executive functioning and problem solving: A bidi-
rectional relation,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 76–98, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i3.10186
[105] L. Bakola and A. Drigas, “Technological development process of emotional Intelligence
as a therapeutic recovery implement in children with ADHD and ASD comorbidity,”
International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 75–85,
2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i03.12877
[106] A. Drigas and L. Bakola, “The 8×8 layer model consciousness-intelligence-knowledge
pyramid, and the platonic perspectives,” International Journal of Recent Contributions
from Engineering, Science & IT (iJES), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 57–72, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/
ijes.v9i2.22497
[107] A. Drigas and C. Papoutsi, “Nine layer pyramid model questionnaire for emotional intel-
ligence,” International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), vol. 17, no. 7,
pp. 123–142, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i07.22765
[108] A. Drigas, C. Papoutsi, and C. Skianis, “Metacognitive and metaemotional training strat-
egies through the nine-layer pyramid model of emotional intelligence,” International
Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering, Science & IT (iJES), vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 58–76, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v9i4.26189
Antonios I. Christou is an Assistant Professor in Child Neurocognitive
Development at the University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece. He is currently the
Coordinator of the Section of Neuropsychology of the Hellenic Psychological Society
(E-mail: antchristou@uth.gr).
Stella Tsermentseli is an Associate Professor in Developmental Psychopa-
thology and Cognitive Functions at the University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece (E-mail:
tsermentseli@uth.gr).
Athanasios Drigas is a Research Director at N.C.S.R. ‘Demokritos’, Institute of
Informatics and Telecommunications–Net Media Lab & Mind-Brain R&D, Athens,
Greece (E-mail: dr@iit.demokritos.gr).
