Since 2010, gamification, a concept and practice, gained attention in academic research. Results of its effectiveness were mixed and often lacked the use of grounded models or frameworks. Dichev et al. (2019b) proposed the existence of demotivational factors and highlighted two distinct sets of motivational drivers--one linked to game elements and another tied to the learning activities. Fifty two out of 93 online accounting students participated in the study, employing a convergent mixed methods design. They engaged by completing a measurement tool designed to differentiate Dichev et al.'s (2020) five proposed gamification learner types and assess if these types influenced learner participation in gamified activities. The gamified activities were voluntary, and points accumulated could be used in a class store where items could be purchased that helped individuals and the class. The measurement tool that was used failed to differentiate any of the learner types. This may be in part due to the low participation as well as the proposed typology. The study examined whether expectancy-value theory, specifically the cost construct, predicted student engagement in gamification. There were statistically significant results indicating that cost was negatively correlated with expectancy (ability) and value. While there was a statistically significant relationship between performance and task orientation, the Capable Explorer learner type was associated with a stronger task orientation (intrinsic motivation). None of the gamified activities were significant when compared to Self-Identified Gamification Learner Type (SILT) or the orientation scales. However, the Expectancy-Value Cost (EVC) subscales were compared to the orientation scales resulting in significant correlations. The statistically significant relationships occurred between Post Task Orientation and Post Value and Post Expectancy. The Cost correlation was negative with Post Task Orientation and was not significant. The qualitative analysis provided a broader understanding of what the participants experienced as they participated in the gamified activities. Help, one of the main codes, was determined to show both value and expectancy (ability). This code was divided into self and other. Those helping others displayed expectancy, whereas those who received help were identified as utility value. Cost was seen when the participants stated what demotivated their learning as well as when they described their participation in the gamified activities. One pattern that emerged during the analysis was that Capable Explorers tended to mark that the gamified activities were motivating more on the post-survey. The reasons were often labeled as utility value. Regardless, due to the low participation rate and consequently low power, any statistically significant or nonsignificant findings needed to be viewed skeptically. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]