technology

doctorate education

And So It Begins!!

-

Stress mounting quickly with due assignments — Check!

A literature review reading list 39 pages long — Check!

Rising expenses to cover book purchases — Check!

PhD officially started — Check!

Yes, as of August 2026, I’m a doctoral student. I’m studying via Griffith University and my doctoral thesis will be within educational pedagogy. Technically I’ll be a Doctor of Education … if I ever finish. I’ve made a positive start – I’ve handed in 2 assignments for the coursework that runs parallel to my main doctoral thesis. Fingers crossed on those! LOL My plan here (in this blog) is to try and be motivated enough to post regularly about my readings. It won’t get noticed, but it will keep me writing and re-stating it here will help me learn it all.

A quick “precis” to my thesis, which is still evolving and being sharpened to a point, is the use of AI (groans from the audience) in the classroom and how AI can potentially be a differentiation tool for teachers. I’m treading carefully here by ensuring that teachers don’t feel like they’re being put out of work or criticised. Teachers work their socks off for students. No denying that. But there’s a lot of evidence (citations coming soon) that differentiation doesn’t happen effectively in classrooms, which is mostly due to poorly targeted CPD, overworked teachers and underfunded schools … but I’m not touching that part, not even poking at it, for fear of provoking the pitchfork crowd. Instead, I’ll posit that AI can be a useful tool within the classroom to support teachers with bespoke differentiation tasks where AI can work with students one-on-one and focus on their specific, and often diverse, learning needs.

Phew! Now I’ll walk away and hope I don’t draw too much attention. But the thesis part is worth mentioning because I’ve pivoted from gaming, gamification and such (bye bye Triforce of Gamer Knowledge, hopefully I’ll return to you one day) to the more important evolution of AI and its role in education.

A few things worth noting – I might be making a few more regular jaunts to Australia to meet face to face with my supervisors and do some work on my thesis. Haven’t been home in about 11 years, so that’ll be a bit of a culture shock! And I’m going to have to get published as an academic before completing my thesis, and I’m going to have to defend my thesis. Blimey!

So this is just a signpost … um … post. The bell has rung, class has started and the path to Dr has been laid before me. Let’s see how it goes! 🙂

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

The Digital Culture and “Peda-Socio” Transformation

-

The Digital Culture and “Peda-Socio” Transformation

The internet and computing (as technologies) are no longer tools, but have been integrated into human communication. They have become a part of the communication and is a part of meaning creation. Such technology is now more the environment than the tool. 

Snyder asserts that young people are immersed in the digital age – where technology is the norm. Why then, she asks, are adults not learning from children how to integrate digital culture into schools? Data shows that 89% of students find school boring. A similar percentage are actively engaged in online communities. 

The lure of online communities is the ability to create an identity and explore an online life with people from around the globe. Through imagination, young people are engaging in a “reality” where they are able to ask questions, foster social relations and develop knowledge.

Considering this reality of life outside the school, in which youth are actively and captivatingly engaged in social networks, creation, exploration, self empowerment and identity development, we begin to see that youth have both the motivation and the skills to connect and learn. 

This is a motivation that is crucial to understanding and improving learning. Snyder claims that educators need to explore the implications for learning and digital citizenship which are beyond the classroom and school’s borders. This relates back to how young people see technology – as a part of the process of creating meaning.

The idea of studying technology in education (when technology is perceived as a learning device) is too limited. The growing importance of cyberspace reinforces the divide between schooling and society. Young people are creating new connections, networks and resources for learning that mirror 21st century life.

This is the thrust of Synder’s view – that technology has an integrated role in society. Following a constructivist theory framework, we are co-creating our realities together alongside technology.

Through this co-construction we give meaning to our realities, resulting in common language, symbols, values, behaviors, norms, and understanding. As learners, we make sense out of our world by analyzing and synthesizing our experiences in an attempt to give meaning. The elements that contribute to our sense making process are those parts of an event or experience with and through which we interact and act. In contemporary society, technology and media have become a part of this social interaction process. 

Technology is changing our behaviour and perception, influencing the way we socially construct digital culture of meaning. We are shaping, and are shaped by, the technology we use.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

The battle over technology in schools

-

(Disclaimer, this post is more of a rant and less of an academic critique!) Every teacher has heard it hundreds of times – there’s this crazy rhetoric amongst school officials that “student to computer ratios” and “number of smart boards” are excellent metrics for evaluating how well a school has “incorporated” technology into the school environment. Yet, the reality inside classrooms is that the technology is rarely shared beyond ICT. English, math and science rarely use computers or labs. Smart boards are gathering dust in the corner of history classrooms. Teachers are too busy to rebuild their curriculum around technology and many are too afraid of technology to try and do more with it. Add to that the fact that technology breaks, becomes obsolete every two years and technical problems eat up valuable instruction time.

So it’s no surprise the European Commission has concluded 63% of 9 year old students are missing the digital equipment they need at school.

Between 50% and 80% of students in EU countries never use digital textbooks, exercise software, broadcasts/podcasts, simulations or learning games. Most teachers at primary and secondary level do not consider themselves as ‘digitally confident’ or able to teach digital skills effectively, and 70% would like more training in using ICTs. Pupils in Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic are the most likely to have internet access at school (more than 90%), twice as much as in Greece and Croatia (around 45%).

Let’s be honest … this shouldn’t be a surprise. Currently teachers are severely undertrained for using computers or any technology in the classroom. Digital textbooks are few and far between, learning games are limited (too specific, too expensive, too outdated). Many teachers have no idea what a podcast is. Existing software is poorly used and rarely implemented. Technology is outdated and inadequately maintained. And I think that’s being quite generous! Decisions about technology in schools is being made by politicians and bureaucrats … and to make matters worse, there’s no consensus on what technology has value and how it can be applied in a standardised way across schools.

But to be fair, and taking a step back, this is not an easy problem to solve. By the time schools get around to agreeing on a strategy, the technology they are considering is already old. Teachers need to be trained and re-trained regularly. Technology needs to be maintained and updated every few months. Despite which, schools will still be years behind the cutting edge … while students are years ahead, already adept at using instagram, whatsapp, facebook and other new apps to communicate online.

However, one possible way forward is by looking closely at teachers. The teacher is the interface between the education system and the students. The teacher is the conduit. So it’s the responsibility of the education system to make sure teachers are able to do that job effectively. But how? Teacher training already has mandatory learning areas for would be teachers. They must learn about student welfare, learning methodologies, social justice, pedagogy and practice, and other areas that relate to effective teaching. Yet, very few universities have mandatory technology training for teachers – including how to use that technology in a classroom. And I’m not talking about smart boards. I’m talking about using Google groups as virtual classrooms. I’m talking about using iphone/android apps to communicate with students, record test scores, share resources. I’m talking about podcasting, documentary making, social media, RPG storylines and other technology areas being core parts of a teacher’s curriculum.

I’ll get a lot of hate for this, but if teachers can’t use technology, they probably don’t belong in a modern classroom. The trend now is BYOT – bring your own technology – and if teachers don’t know how to utilise the technologies they have available to them, then they are doing a disservice to students. Step 1 is start with rebuilding teacher training courses at university. Step 2 is less reliance on gimmicky technologies and more reliance on curriculum writing that takes advantage of student skills, personal technologies (smart phones) and access to hardware (computers) and software (apps) that will help students to achieve their goals.

Today’s luddite test: How many teachers use dropbox or cloud storage for their teaching resources?

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Three Papers by Jesper Juul

-

Three Papers by Jesper Juul – A brief synopsis of his recent works relating to computer game design.

*Note, all of the papers below are available for free from the Jesper Juul’s website (linked above).

Paper 1 – Zero-Player Games

Juul’s analysis of gaming looks closely at the players themselves and how player is defined. Importantly, the paper shows that there’s a distinction between games and gamers, and also, that games do not require a player (the player-centric model).

Zero-player games are games which require no significant human interaction for the game to be played. These are divided into four categories:

  1. Setup only games – games where the player starts the game and observes (without interaction) the remainder of the game.
  2. Games played by AIs – simply, games where the computer (AI) assumes the role of the player.
  3. Solved games – Games played by computers with the purpose of solving it – such as figuring out guaranteed winning moves, etc.
  4. Hypothetical games – non implemented games designed to describe or examine a question.

By understanding how games can be played without a player, paradoxically, the player can be more easily understood. Juul concludes with five distinct player traits:

  1. Players have continued agency
  2. Players as humans
  3. Players as temporal beings
  4. Players as having intentionality
  5. Players as having aesthetic preferences

Juul’s paper shows that a distinction can be made between game (artifact) and games (the activity). As well, it gives a strong rebuttal to the dominance of the player-centric model, since it doesn’t actually centre on players and overlooks their aesthetic preferences.

Paper 2 – Easy to use and incredibly difficult: On the mythical border between interface and gameplay

Interface and game play are seen, by many as Juul suggests, as vastly different. He argues that there’s no distinct border between the two. Interface is the tools (software and hardware) used to affect the game state. Gameplay is the core activity of the game.

The analysis focuses on defining the two elements and understanding how they have been used in game design. Importantly, Juul looks closely at the relationship between interface and gameplay, then compares their realisation in various games.

He concludes that gameplay is usually a simple premise or idea made challenging by the interface. The purpose of games is to be fun. Doing so often requires challenging the user. There’s a lot of fluidity between interface and gameplay. Because games are entertaining they are not always designed to be efficient. Intentionally adding inefficient elements to the gameplay or interface increases difficulty. This is a desired effect.

Most importantly, games provide an opportunity for the gamer to improve certain skills.

Blizzard uses the term skill differentiation to describe how requiring a range of skills allows a player to grow: a real time strategy game can have “twitch” skills, multitasking, strategic thinking, understanding of economy, knowledge of a map, and so on, as skill differentiators.

This means that difficulties of interface or gameplay simply become a skills hurdle for players to jump. The gameplay and interface in games is often blurred and, as games become more innovating, is redefined.

Paper 3 – The Fear of Failing? The many meanings of difficulty in video games

The role of failure in games is interesting and important to consider. Juul explores two important questions regarding failure.

  • What is the role of failure in games?
  • Do players prefer games where they do not feel responsible for failing?

There are two approaches to looking at “winning” in games.

  • Goal oriented – where the focus is on winning, which should be made as easy as possible
  • Aesthetic perspective – where there should be a reasonable combination of challenge and variation

Added to that are the methods of punishing players for failure.

  • Energy punishment – loss of energy, usually leading to life punishment
  • Life punishment – losing a “life”, usually bringing the player closer to game termination
  • Game termination – ending the game, forcing the player to start from the beginning
  • Setback punishment – making the player “replay” the game from a certain point

When a player fails, they might attribute the failure to three possible causes.

  • Personal – personal traits, skills or disposition (eg. I didn’t move fast enough)
  • Entity – the characteristics such as the game elements (eg. The enemy in game is too powerful)
  • Circumstance – luck, chance or other transient causes (eg. My fingers slipped off the controller)

Juul developed an empirical study, based on an earlier study by Malone in 1982, to test how players responded to different punishments (energy punishment and life punishment). The study concluded that players prefer to feel personally responsible for failure when they play a game. When players failed, then succeeded, they gave a higher rating for the game, reflecting that they felt more satisfied. This is in comparison to players who didn’t fail at all and players who failed too often (both groups gave less positive reviews of the game).

From the overall analysis, four observations were made about games and failure.

  1. The player does not want to fail (feels sad, inadequate)
  2. Failing makes the player reconsider their strategy (making the game more interesting)
  3. Winning provides gratification
  4. Winning without failing leads to dissatisfaction

This is an interesting outcome. Gamers want games to be difficult. While they hope to win, gamers will fail and feel personally responsible. Once they’ve reviewed their strategy and tried again, they will eventually win. The gamer feels gratification and is satisfied with the game.

Failure in games creates a sense of depth. Failure forces the player to re-evaluate strategies and practice their skills. Doing so reflects improvement and success (overcoming adversity).

A game should be neither too easy, nor too hard. Failure adds content!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Why I Blog

-

Why I Blog

Lupton’s short explanation of why she blogs is worth a read. Not only is blogging immediate and personal, but it breaks down academic walls which act to keep society and academia apart. I like the notion that academic though need not always be so formal, which is an attitude many academics (but few academic institutions) are embracing.

Mostly I agree with her assertion that it’s important to keep our writing away from academic paywalls. This is very high on the list of my pet-peeves – paying for scholarly works. While google scholar, academia.edu and other sites are helping to remove paywalls, too many sites are still profiteering from paid access to academic writing. 

I own my writing. It’s mine. As I progress through my studies towards completing my doctorate, I intend to make all my work free for anyone to read and share. This is the way the internet works and academia needs to get with the program

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

High Score Education – Games, not school, are teaching kids to think.

-

High Score Education – Games, not school, are teaching kids to think.

Although somewhat dated, this short article by James Gee touches on some important elements of gaming and learning. The education system still pushes a “memorize and test” philosophy. Gee laments that children are not learning to think, they’re learning to memorise … and good students aren’t good at thinking they’re just good at “doing school”.

This is a very valid concern. Gee believes that games are an agent of mental training. That children aren’t meant to be memorising.

Learning isn’t about memorizing isolated facts. It’s about connecting and manipulating them.

I like that. It’s a very succinct way of describing what should be our relationship with information. This is exactly what the internet can do – provide an environment where we manipulate information by mixing, sharing and remixing between collectives online.

Gee states that the secret of video gaming’s success isn’t the games themselves or the 3D graphics, but the underlying architecture of the game. Each level is incrementally more difficult, pushing the gamer further and further beyond their abilities. This is the ‘regime of competence principal’. The game is just difficult enough to simultaneously provide pleasure and frustration for the player. It’s hard enough to be challenging, but through effort the player can be rewarded by winning the game.

Games also incorporate expertise. Gamers become masters of a game, but are then forced to adapt and evolve as the game becomes more complex.

As Gee notes, kids often say that playing games doesn’t feel like learning. They’re focused on playing. Again and again, educational experts push this point. Learning must become a secondary objective to having fun. When students are focused on having fun they forget that they’re also learning.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teachers want access to more technology in the classroom

-

Teachers want access to more technology in the classroom

A nation wide survey conducted last year discovered that teachers want more technology in the classroom. Access to computers seems to be high and a lot of teachers are using websites, images and other media in their daily classroom routine.

However the problem, according to the survey, is that teachers feel they don’t have access to the “right” kinds of technology. The biggest barrier to technology, unsurprisingly, was budget constraints.

Teachers have their hearts in the right place. Most teachers cite ‘motivating students’ as their reason for wanting more technology in the classroom.

What surprised me was that 943% of teachers believed that interactive whiteboards ‘enrich’ classroom education. I understand the limitations of classroom technology and also the often low levels of training teachers have in using technology in the classroom. Particularly, teachers aren’t always well versed in areas like the internet and social media. However, I cannot fathom why interactive whiteboards (a 20+ year old technology) is still desired in a classroom environment.  I had access to them over 10 years ago and nobody in my school was interested in using them. Their application, quite honestly, is limited.

Overcoming budget is an understandable problem. One idea might be to apply a BYOT (bring your own technology) attitude. Allowing students to bring mobile devices to class – and use them directly for learning – will help raise motivation levels. Also, students are more likely to enjoy using computers (internet and social media) than they are using interactive whiteboards.

Teachers should start moving towards a more participatory methodology for learning. Provide students with the basic ideas or questions and let them use the resources that they’re comfortable with (online environments) and it might be surprising what they can produce.

Perhaps the problem in modern education is that we’re too focused on telling students what tools they can use to solve problems (such as learning, knowledge acquisition and skills building). Instead, let them choose their own tools. Why can’t a pyramid be modeled in Minecraft? Why can’t student presentations be done via youtube?

The best part is that teachers don’t even have to think of tools that students might choose. Students will do that! Technology? Not a problem, students will use the technology they have and whatever they’re comfortable with. Teenagers are happy to work when doing so on their own terms. Whatever students are studying, just give them core ideas and let them figure out the rest. Study after study proves that student will work when they work for themselves.

Motivation goes up. Creativity goes up. Original content and content creation goes up … all without the teacher lifting a finger.

Win!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teens and Technology – Pew Report 2013

-

Teens and Technology – Pew Report 2013

Pew Internet is a good source for quantitative data regarding teens and internet use. Their recent reports have made some interesting conclusions about teen behavior online. Most of the following data is from the Teens 2012 keynote by Dr K. Purcell.

http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/July/Teens-2012-Truth-Trends-and-Myths-About-Teen-Online-Behavior.aspx

Some of the more interesting findings summarised. For the following data, the term ‘teen’ refers to the age group 12-17 (school age) teenagers unless otherwise stated.

  • 80% of teens use social networks
  • 95% of teens use the internet (the highest age group)
  • 88% of teens use a desktop/laptop computer to access the internet
  • 49% of teens use a phone to access the internet

Phones:

  • 77% of teens have a cell/mobile phone
  • only 23% have a smart phone
  • 47% of teens talk to friends on the phone several times a week or more (decreasing)
  • 69% of teens send text messages several times a week or more (increasing)
  • only 17% of teens send emails several times a week or more

Some surprises there. The low frequency of smartphones amongst teens is likely due to their high cost and relative “newness” in the tech market. Teens are more interested in texting than talking. Email is not a popular option amongst teens, possibly because it’s not considered mobile or immediate. More effort is required to email whereas texting is short and faster.

Social Media

  • 93% of teens have a facebook account
  • 16% of teens use twitter, of which 12% have an account
  • only 2% of teens use tumblr and skype
  • 27% of teens record and upload videos of themselves online
  • 62% of teens keep their profiles private (viewable only by friends)
  • 39% of adults have “friended” their children on social networking sites

Clearly teens prefer facebook as their go-to social networking venue. Very few use twitter (more common amongst adults) and almost no teens use tumblr or skype (which is surprising!). Also, teens seem to be good at maintaining their privacy online and quite a few connect to their parents on social networking sites as well.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teenagers and their sleepless lives

-

Teenagers and their sleepless lives

While the BBC has done a good job of surveying wider opinions regarding teens and technology, they’ve fallen short by focusing on the views of kids who are well educated, mature and responsible. 

I don’t know how many 14 year old would use the word ‘hierarchy’ in a conversational setting, but I get the feeling that the BBC is putting quite a positive spin on teens and their technology.

Don’t get me wrong, the overall view of youth and technology should be positive … but not all teens use their tech toys in a positive way. there’s a lot of negative sides to the use of tech as well. 

It’d be good if the BBC’s thoughts on the issue were more well rounded.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

No End to Magical Thinking When It Comes to High-Tech Schooling – Larry Cuban

-

No End to Magical Thinking When It Comes to High-Tech Schooling – Larry Cuban

It irks me that so many people are positioning themselves as tech-pocolyptics … bemoaning the view that technology is the cause of our problems and that money is being wasted trying to make schools technology hubs.

Cuban’s blog, while usually interesting, takes a view that technology is being wrongly viewed as a ‘magic bullet’ to solve all of educations problems. Cuban has asserted, mistakenly, that “many fantasize” about the notion of technology replacing teachers.

Humans are, by our very nature, social creatures. The internet is redefining the way people interact, no doubt, but not isolating people like some would suggest. The internet is creating a space, a new literacy, where people can interact in larger, less structured groups.

Teachers will be replaced by devices and robots? The idea is ludicrous. It’s even more ludicrous to suggest that many fantasize about it. There will always be teachers. Perhaps we will call them mentors or guides. But they will be educators and their space will change as new technologies emerge (which is a good thing, since education has been static for over a century). So on one hand Cuban can generalise that there’s a desire for teachers to become redundant, but educators will always have a place in society – it’s just that their role might be redefined – which is long overdue.

Cuban’s critique on Mitra’s TED talk and his ambitions for cloud learning is also unwarranted. Cuban is also quick to point out the perceived failure of the OLPC (one laptop per child) program. He alludes to Mitra’s inevitable failure as well.

Failure is not a bad thing. As an eminent academic once said to me “fail early, fail often”. This is a way of learning through experimentation. OLPC was doomed to failure but that’s not the point. Mitra’s cloud schooling in India will never be a success, but that’s not important either. What’s important is that these people are pushing at the edges of learning and technology and finding ways of making it work.

Ask any scientist how often they fail compared to how often they succeed. Why are we so afraid of failure?

While I agree that education has a tendency to shoehorn technology in the classroom and hope it’s a success. But there needs to be a differentiation between the politics of “student / computer ratios” and educational innovators who are trying to find solutions in an ever shifting technology landscape. Wasting millions of dollars on interactive whiteboards (which every teacher hates) is completely different to funding experimental programs to test ideas involving new technologies.

The OLPC concept started before smart phones, before raspberri pi, before a laptop was an accessible technology. Right now it looks antiquated but the idea was revolutionary.

Cuban would prefer that taxpayers, parents and politicians be assuaged.

I’d like to finish with a quote by Mitra himself, since he was the target of Cuban’s rant.

I said schools as we know them now, they’re obsolete. I’m not saying they’re broken. It’s quite fashionable to say that the education system’s broken. It’s not broken. It’s wonderfully constructed. It’s just that we don’t need it anymore. It’s outdated.

I think this is the most important rebuttal to Cuban’s thinking. Education and politics continues to drag its heels looking for “magic bullets” perhaps, but instituting no real change. While we defer to parents and politicians for fiscal accountability, kids sit in classrooms that they hate while being bombarded with an education they loathe.

I may not be as eloquent as Mr Cuban. However it’s easy to criticise without actually offering a productive way forward. I’m tired of deferring decision making to parents and politicians who have no clue about technology and no actual interest (beyond re-election promises) in fixing problems.

The longer we allow people to hold technology back, the worse the problem gets.

‘Bottom dollar’ thinking is stifling creativity and innovation. Politics and political point scoring are wasting money. Teaching mindsets are 19th century … and children are the ones suffering.

Scroll to Top