This document details a study on gamifying the teaching of media theory to undergraduate students. The researcher introduced elements of gamification like competitive video assignments and theory-based games into seminar activities. Compared to control groups, the experimental group that used gamification had slightly higher average grades, enjoyed the games, and reported deeper engagement with the material. A wider variety of essay questions were also answered, indicating broader theoretical engagement. While successful, developing the games required significant work.

1. GAMIFYING THE TEACHING
OF THEORY TO
UNDERGRADUATE MEDIA
STUDENTS.
DR MARCUS LEANING
SCHOOL OF MEDIA AND FILM
UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER

2. INTRODUCTION
This paper details research into the use of games to aid in
student learning of theory for undergraduate students on the
BA Media Studies programme at the University of
Winchester.

3. WHAT TO DO WITH A
PROBLEM LIKE THEORY?
Critical and social theory often presents significant problem
for students and lecturers.
• Difficulty in grasping the relevance of the subject :
i. To student’s preferred activities – making things;
ii. Expectation of subject – “I didn’t know I had to do this”.
• Difficulty with the complexity or level of abstraction of the
subject matter.
• Difficulty with pedagogic practices of extensive and tricky
reading and summative assessment performance.
This causes two problems - engaging the student in the material
and the students’ performance.

4. TEACHING THEORY
Campbell (1997) identifies two distinct strategies for teaching
theory both with advantages, disadvantages and
peculiarities:
• Nominalization – theory is taught in discreet courses identified
primarily as theory.
• Problematization – theory is integrated into the teaching of
other aspects.

5. Nominalization Problematization
Programme Theory in discrete modules /
courses.
Theory integrated into topic
modules
Focus Often ‘Survey’ in style Applied theory – focus is
upon texts or practices
rather than theory
Handling of theory Contextualise theoretical
developments historically,
culturally and socially.
Theory limited to text or
practices – not require
students to go beyond
superficial application.
Method Lecture and seminar,
reading.
Practice based
Advantage / rationale Students need to be
introduced directly
to theory otherwise
they will never develop
confidence to read it for
themselves
Students need theory
contextualised through
application to help them see
its use
Disadvantages A gap between theory and
its application.
Never a full engagement
with theory
Adaptation of Campbell’s (1997) models of theory teaching.

6. PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING
THEORY CONTEMPORARY(ISH)
BRITISH MEDIA(ISH) EDUCATION
1. Constructivist / Progressive: “Make it ‘real’ /
relevant” – take it to them - “Make theory real,
using examples that mean something to your
students.”
2. Productive: “Put theory in practice” Integrate
theory into practical modules.
3. Technological: “Use tablets and social media!”
Ipads and Twitter solve everything.
4. Nostalgic: “Make them work” - I had to do it and
so should they.

7. TEACHING PROBLEM
• It is hard stuff - students may find it very difficult
and do not do well.
• Seen as irrelevant and student interest is often
low.
I wanted to explore classroom activities that make
it more interesting, foster engagement and may
enhance performance (but not my only goal).
My interest is in actual activities and teaching
practices rather than a new perspective or
changing what is taught.

8. EXPLORING MEDIA THEORY
/ ADVANCED TOPICS IN
MEDIA STUDIES
Two 2nd year (level 5) courses to get students theoretically
engaged.
Primarily normalization model - lecture / seminar, survey of
key theories / topics, summative assessment at end.
After a year I wanted to find a way to raise student
engagement with the material – both encourage participation
and engagement (with the breadth of material covered on the
course) and deepen understanding
I sought to ‘gamify’ learning activities in seminars on one
module.

9. GAMIFICATION
NOTHING THAT IS LEARNED UNDER COMPULSION STAYS WITHTHE MIND - DO NOT, THEN, MY
FRIEND, KEEP CHILDREN TO THEIR STUDIES BY COMPULSION BUT BY PLAY.
PLATO,THE REPUBLIC.
Gamification is the use of game mechanics / activities in
non-game environments – “The application of gaming
metaphors to real life tasks to influence behaviour,
improve motivation and enhance engagement”
(Marczewski, 2013).
Gamification involves adding a new layer to an existing
process that incorporates a new symbolic or ludic
meaning above and beyond the merely instrumental
activity of the task.
Piano Staircase at the Odenplan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipMib6ejGuo

10. GAMIFYING THE TEACHING
OF THEORY
I did two things:
• Introduced an aspect of gamification to existing formative
exercises;
• Actually made games to get them to engage.

11. LUDIFYING OR
GAMIFYING EXISTING
SEMINAR ACTIVITIES
Each week had a set reading.
Groups of two to three students had to make a two minute
video on the reading and upload it to youtube.
This was shown in the seminar.
Gamified bit:
Each student in the seminar could award up to 10 marks and
a league table was made of the videos with a prize awarded
for the highest scoring.
Formative – light hearted competition.
http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=HYSktbpDHME&feat
ure=youtu.be

12. Position Team Video Score
1 Joseph, Rachel and Katie Postmodernism 7.8
2 Zoe and Beth Feminism 7.4
3 Joseph, Rachel and Katie Marx 7.3
4 Shelby and Lucy Feminism 6.8
5 Harrison and Daryl Class Q and A 6.4
6 Julia, Jamie and Louise
Strinarti mass
culture
5.5
7 Julia, Jamie and Louise
Symbolic
anihilation
5.5

13. GAMES IN SEMINARS
Each seminar incorporated a ‘game’ aspect that would
require the students to engage in the reading to a quite
extensive degree.
Games were different each week:
• McLuhan cryptic crossword;
• Postmodern ‘Choose your own adventure’;
• The Amazing Mechanical Baudrillard Pub Quiz Machine
• Synoptic ‘University Challenge’.

17. RESEARCH QUESTION
Big question: did the activities work?
Did adding the ‘gamification’ element to the module improve
student engagement and performance?

18. RESEARCH DESIGN
Compared ‘experimental group’ with three control groups.
Experimental group = Exploring media theory in 12/13
Control group 1 = Exploring media theory in 11/12
Control Group 2 = Advanced topics in media studies in 11/12 (same
cohort as control group 1 but S2 module)
Control Group 3 = Advanced topics in media studies in 12/13 (same
cohort as experimental group 1 but S2 module)
11/12 12/13
Exploring
Media Theory
Control group 1 (N=35) Experimental group (N=27)
Advanced
Topics in Media
Studies
Control group 2 (N=37) Control group 3 (N=26)

19. INSTRUMENTS
4 instruments used:
1. Comparison of grades.
2. Focus groups on student engagement (part of a
University / HEA funded project (FASTEC) conducted by
LTDU).
3. Analysis of anonymous module feedback forms.
4. Frequency of essay question selection.

20. 1. RESULTS:
Comparison of arithmetic mean grades:
Experimental group average score is slightly
higher than control groups.
11/12 12/13
Exploring
Media Theory
57.06% 59.43% +2.37%
Advanced
Topics in
Media Studies
58.65% 57.29%
+2.14%

21. 2. FOCUS GROUPS:
Conducted as part of a larger University wide project on the
relationship between student assessment and engagement in
seminar and online activity.
I parasitically secured the transcripts of the focus groups
with each group.
Very revealing (and quite bruising!) about what they thought
of the class.
No real criticism of the games and lots of positive comment.

22. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP -
COMMENTS EXPLICITLY
RELATED TO THE GAMES:
• “It makes you actually do the work and we
always get to use our notes but then you
actually review what you’ve learnt last week.”
• “It’s good fun because it’s different to the
normal academic way of doing things. You
spend so much time in the library reading, to
come in and have a bit of fun it’s like ‘Oh yes,
let’s do that’.”
• “It’s always a little bit competitive but in a fun
way.”

23. CONTROL GROUP 3
• “It helped the information sort of stick in your head a bit more.
Whereas now we’re just left to our own devices to discuss the
topic for like half an hour. We sometimes get a bit off track.”
• “Last year [semester 1, 2012] I would actually go through my
notes before class, because I knew we would play a game
and it would get a bit competitive. This time it’s just discussion
in a little group….most of the times the topic swayed off into
anything but what we were supposed to talk about.”

24. 3. MODULE FEEDBACK
FORMS
Very positive about the games from control group:
• “Love the games, makes me do the reading”
• “The seminar activities are very entertaining, fun and we end up
learning + recapping”
• “The games are great and not what I was expecting”
• “The games helped make me do the reading”
• “seminars a good reflection on the lecture especially the quiz”
• “The choose your own adventure game was hard and I had to go
back over my notes a lot but it was brilliant”
• “post modernism story sheet was cool”
• “Ha ha university challenge was excellent”
• “fun seminars”
No negative comments on the games (though lots on other
issues).

25. 4. FREQUENCY OF ESSAY
QUESTION SELECTION
EMT 9 QS, ATMS 10 QS
2.9
17.1
8.6
57.1
14.3
Exploring Media Theory 11-12
7.4
14.8
11.1
7.4
14.8
11.1
22.2
11.1
Exploring Media Theory 12-13
2.7
10.8
43.218.9
2.7
8.1
13.5
Advanced Topics in
Media Studies 11-12
3.8
7.7
50.0
19.2
7.7
3.8
7.7
Advanced Topics in
Media Studies 12-13
Students in the
experimental
group answered a
wider and more
evenly distributed
variety of
questions than in
other groups take

26. SUMMARY
Using games did result in:
• Slightly higher average scores -
• A lot of enjoyment of the games and reported
deeper engagement with reading material – a
factor to explain the higher grades?
• Wider selection of questions answered could
indicate a broader engagement.
• Lot of work to develop the games however…

27. REFERENCES
Campbell, A. (1997) Teaching Literary Theory to
Undergraduates: What Have We Learned? English, 46 (185):
131-159.
Marczewski, A. (2013) Gamification: A Simple Introduction
and a bit more, Amazon Digital Services, Inc. Seattle: WA..