Student Perceptions of Engagement With Secondary Mathematics in A Gamified, Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study

GAMIFIED STANDARDS-BASED ENGAGEMENT 1
Student Perceptions of Engagement with Secondary Mathematics in a Gamified,
Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study
Albert Bryant
Dissertation Submitted to the Doctoral Program
of the American College of Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Instructional Technology
March 2024
Student Perceptions of Engagement with Secondary Mathematics in a Gamified,
Albert Bryant
Approved by:
Dissertation Chair: Cathy McKay, EdD
Committee Member: Ashraf Esmail, PhD

Copyright © 2024
Albert Bryant
Abstract
In the secondary school setting, student engagement with mathematics has been declining for
various reasons and for a significant amount of time. Gamification and standards-based grading
are strategies that have the potential to improve student engagement with mathematics. The
problem was poor student engagement with classroom activities in secondary mathematics. The
purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore former students’ perceptions regarding the
student engagement in teaching and learning activities they experienced with secondary
mathematics content in the gamified, standards-based grading system at a rural high school in a
midwestern state. This basic qualitative research study sought to fill a gap in the literature by
investigating former student perceptions of their engagement with mathematics. Grounded in
constructivist learning theory, this study reported student perceptions of their engagement.
Fifteen to twenty-five former students from the population of 46 who have experienced gamified,
standards-based grading in their high school math class were selected by voluntary response
sampling. Participants in the study first answered an online questionnaire asking about their
perceptions of their experiences and then completed an interview conducted and transcribed on
Zoom. Participants indicated that the standards-based grading system positively impacted their
engagement, improved their understanding of learning objectives, promoted self-regulation, and
preferred the system over points-based grading systems. Most respondents enjoyed and were
motivated by the gamified elements. The major recommendation of this study is that educators
should explore and implement constructivist learning strategies, including gamification and
standards-based grading in secondary education.
Keywords: standards-based grading, gamification, mathematics, engagement

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family who has unconditionally loved and supported me
in my educational endeavors. To my wife Mary, I thank you for picking up all the slack and
stepping up to take care of things while I spent time writing, researching, and pursuing my
education. To my children Samson, Autumn, and Landree, I thank each of you for giving up part
of your childhood while I sought to improve myself – my prayer is this time has made me into a
better father and husband by appreciating all the things you have done for me. To my parents,
Bus and Tammy, and my in-laws, Kenny and Nancy, for always believing in me, encouraging
me, and supporting me. This work is dedicated to all of you who mean the most to me in this
world, and to Jesus Christ, whom I serve daily.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. McKay for her tireless support and express my deepest
appreciation for her guidance and willingness to discuss things even when it was outside of
working hours – your mentorship has been invaluable along the way. I would like to thank Dr.
Esmail for his direct and precise feedback on my work. I would like to thank Dr. James for all
her input and hard work during the edits of my writing. Finally, I would like to thank every
person who repeatedly told me “no” along my professional growth journey – you inspired me to
overcome obstacles using creativity and ingenuity, giving me motivation to better myself for my
students.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 11
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 12
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................. 13
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 14
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 14
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 15
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 16
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 16
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................... 17
Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 18
Scope and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 19
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 21
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 23
Literature Search Strategy................................................................................................. 24
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 25
Constructivism ...................................................................................................... 26
Game Theory ........................................................................................................ 28
Research Literature Review .............................................................................................. 29

Mathematics Engagement ..................................................................................... 30
Grading Mathematics ............................................................................................ 34
Gamifying Mathematics........................................................................................ 40
Student Perceptions in Related Research .............................................................. 44
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 46
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 49
Research Methodology, Design, and Rationale ................................................................ 50
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 51
Research Design.................................................................................................... 51
Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 53
Research Procedures ......................................................................................................... 54
Population and Sample Selection.......................................................................... 54
Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 55
Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 58
Field Testing ......................................................................................................... 60
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 61
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 63
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 64
Ethical Procedures ............................................................................................................ 66
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 68

Chapter 4: Research Findings and Data Analysis Results ............................................................ 69
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 69
Data Analysis and Results ................................................................................................ 72
Theme 1 - Positive experience and understanding in the standards-based grading
system ................................................................................................................... 75
Theme 2 - Standards-Based Grading Impacts Education and Views ................... 77
Theme 3 - Self-Regulation and Self-Pacing Promoted by Standards-Based
Grading ................................................................................................................. 79
Theme 4 - Criticism of Non-Gamified Points-Based Grading ............................. 81
Theme 5 - Positive Views of Gamification........................................................... 83
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 85
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 87
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................................ 88
Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions ....................................................................... 88
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 91
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 94
Implications for Leadership .............................................................................................. 96
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 97
References ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter ................................................................................................ 108

Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 109
Appendix C: Research Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 112
Appendix D: Follow-up Interview Protocol ............................................................................... 120
Appendix E: S.M.E. 1 Field Test ................................................................................................ 121
Appendix F: S.M.E. 2 Field Test ................................................................................................ 123
Appendix G: S.M.E. 3 Field Test ............................................................................................... 127
Appendix H: IRB Approval Letter ............................................................................................. 129

List of Tables
Table
1. Research Question Alignment to Questionnaire Questions ................................................. 57
2. Research Question Alignment to Follow-Up Interview Protocol ........................................ 59
3. Participant Response Rates and Time Frames ..................................................................... 70
4. Codes, Quotations, and Emergent Themes .......................................................................... 74

Chapter 1: Introduction
Mathematics education has long been a topic of concern among educators, parents, and
researchers, as low levels of student engagement and achievement in mathematics have serious
consequences for students and their academic futures (Boaler, 2022). In a global context,
educational metrics often use mathematics as the baseline for the comparison of education
systems among nations (Naughton, 2022). In the United States, gamification and standards-based
grading in mathematics classrooms have gained attention as potential strategies for increasing
student engagement and motivation (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). Many studies and dissertations
have been published about the efficacy of standards-based grading related to standardized test
scores. Others have explored the impacts of gamification on student engagement. This study
deviated from those by gathering former students’ perceptions about combining these ideas and
their impacts on mathematical engagement.
Participants of this study had been out of the public secondary education system for at
least one academic year, enabling participants to offer a unique perspective about their
experiences in their mathematics courses. Their perspectives contributed to the body of
knowledge surrounding mathematics education by offering first-hand qualitative perceptions
from the viewpoint of someone who experienced gamification and standards-based grading in
their high school math class. Chapter 1 explores the background of the problem, the statement of
the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the research question, the
theoretical framework, and definitions of the key terms. After that, a discussion of the
assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and a summary leads into Chapter 2.
Background of the Problem
Student engagement with mathematics is a problem that has been of concern to educators,
academics, and researchers for many years (Boaler, 2022). Recent literature reveals that over the
past few decades, student engagement levels with mathematics have decreased (Cevikbas &
Kaiser, 2022; Wang et al., 2020). Some studies indicated that as many as 40% to 60% of students
disengage with mathematics during the transition years from primary to secondary school
(Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022). Collie et al. (2019) suggested that this problem is increasing in many
countries, including the United States, France, and Australia. Many factors contribute to low
student engagement in mathematics, including a lack of relevance or interest in the material,
teaching and grading methods, and a general lack of student motivation (Boaler, 2022; Guskey &
Brookhart, 2019).
The problem of low student engagement with mathematics is serious in the current era of
education reform, as the emphasis on standardized testing and school funding models has put
pressure on schools and teachers to improve student achievement in mathematics (Naughton,
2022). Keller (1987) proposed that satisfaction and relevance are important factors in the
learning experience. Identifying effective strategies for increasing student engagement with
mathematics is important to improve student achievement and satisfaction.
Kohn and Blum (2020) discussed the impacts points-based grading systems have on
students, describing such systems as self-defeating and demoralizing. Student motivation in
points-based (traditional) grading systems is often defined by the extrinsic motivation of earning
enough points to maintain an associated letter grade (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). Mathematical
engagement decreases while students learn how to game the points system.
Statement of the Problem
The problem was poor student engagement with classroom activities in secondary
mathematics. Boaler (2022) asserted that students struggle to engage in mathematical contexts,
while Cevikbas and Kaiser (2022) discussed the worsening problem of mathematical
disengagement. Although mathematical engagement has been decreasing, recent studies have
suggested that standards-based grading and gamification strategies improve both achievement
and engagement (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Yamani, 2021). Many studies have quantitatively
compared these strategies with student performance data, and many qualitative studies have
sought teacher and administrator perceptions about standards-based grades (Belton, 2022;
Bromley, 2019; Reeves, 2021). Few studies have sought to understand student perceptions of
gamification and standards-based grades (Guskey et al., 2020). This study sought to fill the gap
in the literature involving former students’ perceptions about their engagement with mathematics
due to the strategies of gamification and standards-based grading.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore former students’ perceptions
regarding the student engagement in teaching and learning activities they experienced with
secondary mathematics content in the gamified, standards-based grading system at a rural high
school in a midwestern state. This basic qualitative research explores the experiences and
perspectives of former advanced mathematics students regarding their engagement with
mathematics. These former students experienced mathematics content through a gamified,
standards-based grading system when they were seniors in high school.
The rationale for conducting this study was to give these former students a voice and
share their thoughts and perceptions about the gamification and standards-based grading used in
the advanced math class. Consequently, a basic qualitative research design was chosen to fit this
purpose and explore former students’ perceptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2020; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). Two instruments were used to collect participant perceptions: a questionnaire and
a follow-up interview. This study sought to explore a deeper understanding of the impact of this
pedagogy and grade-reporting approach on student engagement in mathematics within the
context of a high school setting in a midwestern state.
Significance of the Study
Student engagement with mathematics is a documented problem (Boaler, 2022).
Gamification and standards-based grading are strategies that may be used to improve student
engagement with mathematics (Chmiel, 2021; Guskey et al., 2020). The significance of this
study was insights into the thoughts of students who experienced the gamified, standards-based
grading system. This study was significant because most recent studies either study adult
opinions about standards-based grades or report quantitative relationships using standardized test
scores. Of the top 40 recent dissertations on ProQuest about standards-based grading, only two
discussed student perceptions. In contrast to measures of student performance, these former
students will share their opinions and note differences between their experience and other types
of grading systems. Keller (1987) argued that learner satisfaction and confidence are important
parts of the learning process. Therefore, gathering opinions directly from those who experienced
the gamified standards-based grading system was important.
Bridging the gap in the literature was another significance this study achieved by
collecting experiences after the students had been out of the high school system for an academic
year. The participants had time to reflect on the longer-term impacts of the standards-based
grading and gamification they experienced. Their responses may have been more contemplative
since they experienced the transition into college and can offer perspectives about that transition
in light of the gamified, standards-based grading system (Guskey et al., 2020). One set of
benefactors of this study are the teachers and administrators who read and contemplate the
perceptions shared by these former students. The results of this study can influence policy and
promote professional changes to how mathematics courses are conducted and graded.
Consequently, the primary benefactors of this study are future students who experience improved
math courses and have increased mathematical engagement due to the results of this study.
Research Question
Alignment between the problem and purpose of this study narrows in on a single research
question. This question provides the foundation for chosen data instrumentation and data
analysis. Relevant literature related to this research question revealed the thematic elements of
gamification, standards-based grading, and student perceptions.
Research Question 1: What are former students’ perceptions regarding the student
engagement in teaching and learning activities they experienced with secondary mathematics
content in the gamified, standards-based grading system at a rural high school in a midwestern
state?
Theoretical Framework
Constructivism was the theory that grounds this study. Qualitative studies are often used
to explore the perceptions that participants experience during an event (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015); therefore, constructivist learning theory is a staple of qualitative research. Vygotsky
(1978) is widely credited as the seminal theorist in constructivism for his work on sociocultural
theory. The central premise of constructivism is that knowledge is constructed through
experience and interaction with others (Westover et al., 2021). Language was the primary area in
which Vygotsky studied human learning. He observed that small children learn language by
listening and interacting with their more experienced parents (Vygotsky, 1978).
The present study was closely linked to the constructivist framework in two significant
ways. First, the study aims to explore the perceptions of former students regarding a past
learning experience. The research question was grounded in constructivist theory and sought to
gather former students' perspectives on their engagement with mathematics. Second, qualitative
research studies typically align with constructivist principles (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) as they
aim to comprehend the experiences and perceptions of research participants. In this regard, the
current study was qualitative, and the problem, purpose, and research question were all
underpinned by the constructivist framework. A more detailed analysis of constructivism and the
foundations of this study are presented in the literature review.
The data instruments that were utilized in this study were created based on the
constructivist framework. The questionnaire used open-ended questions, allowing participants to
share their perceptions rather than rate using a numeric scale. Each question asked participants to
share their thoughts about particular aspects they experienced in the gamified, standards-based
grading system. The follow-up interviews were conducted in such a way that they also gathered
open-ended data and increased the internal validity of the data analysis.
Definitions of Terms
Specific educational terminology was used in this research study. Definitions are
provided to decrease confusion and increase understanding of the data, results, and discussions.
Describing each term provides a clear and consistent understanding of the concepts discussed in
this study.
Gamification is defined as the use of game design elements to engage students in learning
to improve both motivation and achievement (Barber, 2021; Oliveira et al., 2022).
Mathematical engagement is defined as excitement about experiencing mathematics and
creativity that comes from curiosity about mathematical topics (Boaler, 2022).
Standards-based grading is defined as an approach to assessment and progress reporting
that emphasizes student mastery of specific learning objectives (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019;
Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).
Assumptions
Terrell (2022) described assumptions as non-verifiable things that are believed to be true
about a study. There were two major assumptions in this study. The primary assumption was that
participants responded truthfully to the data collection instruments. The second assumption was
that participants accurately remembered their past experiences.
The first critical assumption this study made was that former students answered open-
ended questions honestly and accurately (Terrell, 2022). Since this study was intentionally done
after research participants had graduated and moved to collegiate or post-secondary studies, this
study assumed that no power or authority relationship influenced responses. Chapter 3 discusses
participant recruitment (see Appendix A), confidentiality measures, and consent (see Appendix
B) in further detail. Participant identity and confidentiality in this study were protected by using
an identification number, and data were safeguarded. These protections led to the assumption
that participants answered truthfully (Terrell, 2022).
The second assumption this study made was that participants remembered their
experience with a gamified standards-based grading system and provided detailed perceptions
about their engagement with mathematics in the system. One reason this study took place after
participants had moved into post-secondary life was so that participants had a frame of reference
to compare their experience with. This study assumed former students would recall their
experience and offer comparisons with other grading systems. The study assumptions were that
participants give honest, descriptive responses and that the data collection and interpretations
were impartially conducted and reported (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). One unavoidable
circumstance was that some research participants may not have answered truthfully or may not
have remembered their experiences and thus responded inaccurately to the data collection
instruments (Terrell, 2022).
Scope and Delimitations
Yin (2015) explained that scope is the entirety of the problem, purpose, and research
questions of a study. Yin asserted that the scope of a study should be narrow enough that the data
can be managed and reported succinctly. The scope of this study was limited to former students
from a midwestern state that experienced a gamified standards-based grading system. Data items
such as teacher observations, student performance data, and test scores were all outside the scope
of this study. Terrell (2022) argued that the scope of the research questions must be manageable.
Since the scope was limited to a small set of 15 to 25 former students, this scope was
manageable.
Terrell (2022) defined delimitations as boundaries and limitations placed on a study to
focus the data collection and center the study around the problem. Since the research design of
this study was a basic qualitative design, some delimitations about the scope of the research
exist. The boundaries for this study were delimited to only those students who experienced the
gamified, standards-based grading system in the past and chose to respond. Students who did not
experience the system were outside the scope of this study, as were students who did not move
into post-secondary education after high school.
Research participants were former students who completed an advanced math course in
the 2021-2022 school year, then graduated and moved on to post-secondary studies. This study
took place during the calendar year 2023. Ruel (2019) suggested that the use of questionnaires
and interviews are common instruments for the collection of qualitative data and perceptions.
This study used a questionnaire administered online via Google Forms to ask open-ended
questions related to the research question (see Appendix C). Follow-up interviews were
conducted virtually on Zoom to enable the recording and transcription features of the
conferencing software (see Appendix D). These factors eliminated the need for site localization
and broke down the time and place barriers for research participants (Terrell, 2022).
Due to the delimitations of the sample size, the transferability of the results of this study
were limited to only advanced mathematics courses utilizing gamified, standards-based grading.
The results have implications for the system as former students offer their opinions about various
aspects they remember from the past. Transferring these results to other classes, like a language
arts class or even a non-advanced math class, was not in the scope of this study. With such
narrow delimitations, this study adds to the body of knowledge related to gamification and
standards-based grading, but transferability was very specific. These delimitations were made to
ensure that all research participants experienced the same system, in the same course, during the
same time period, and participants were able to offer a perspective about their engagement with
mathematics.
Limitations
Constraints outside the control of the study are considered limitations (Terrell, 2022).
There were two main limitations of this study. First, participants only experienced the gamified
standards-based grading in their math classes and not in any other subject areas. Second,
participants experienced that math class one year in the past.
This study does not expand into other core subject areas and only applies to an advanced
mathematics course. While this does not prevent replicability, the precision with which
replication could occur was limited. Participants only experienced the gamified standards-based
grading system in a mathematics class and not across other core classes such as language arts or
social studies. These factors somewhat limit the transferability and dependability of the study or
the consistency of the results over time, as described by Billups (2021). To address issues with
dependability, this study was conducted with former students who have had time to move out of
the gamified, standards-based grading system and will offer longer-term perspectives about their
engagement with mathematics in that system and compare that with other systems.
Although the nature of the study taking place a year after students have graduated was
counted as a benefit, by allowing respondents time to reflect and experience more after their
secondary education, this time delay was also a limitation of the study. The study results were
only reliable if the respondents remembered their experiences (Terrell, 2022) and the ways they
engaged with mathematics in their secondary mathematics course. Results could have been
impacted by the duration of time passed between participant experience and their participation in
this study. This limitation is addressed in the data collection instruments by prompting
respondents about their memory regarding the gamified, standards-based grading system.
Ruel (2019) argued that researcher bias is found in all types of qualitative research, as
researchers are often part of the phenomenon being studied. Ruel asserted that instrumentation
should be designed in such a way as to eliminate that bias and prevent leading questions. This
study reduced researcher bias by field testing the instruments with subject matter experts and
following questionnaire design strategies suggested by Billups (2021) and Ruel (2019), also
mentioned in Chapter 3.
Chapter Summary
Mathematics education faces the problem of low student engagement with and
motivation in mathematics. This study explored former students' perceptions of the impact of a
gamified, standards-based grading system on their engagement with secondary mathematics
content. The theoretical framework of this study was constructivism, which was used during the
analysis of the data collected from the participants. By studying qualitative insights into former
students' perceptions and experiences of gamification and standards-based grading strategies in a
high school setting, this study contributes to the literature gap. Chapter 2 presents a review of
relevant literature, theoretical framework, and three thematic elements that emerged related to
the research question: mathematical engagement, grading systems, and gamification strategies.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Students engage with mathematics in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons
(Boaler, 2022). In most secondary schools, mathematics courses are compulsory until a student
completes a certain amount of math classes. The compulsory nature of math classes has many
impacts, including large class sizes and pressure for all students to complete with a “passing
grade” (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Student motivation in math decreased over the past two
decades (Miller et al., 2021).
The problem was poor student engagement with classroom activities in secondary
mathematics. The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore former students’
perceptions regarding the student engagement in teaching and learning activities they
experienced with secondary mathematics content in the gamified, standards-based grading
system at a rural high school in a midwestern state.
Traditional grading systems often encourage students to strive for points and heighten
their grade point average rather than seeking to learn and interact with the content (Guskey &
Brookhart, 2019). Standards-based grades attempt to remove the behaviorist underpinnings of
the points in traditional grades but accurately report what students know about the content
(Lewis, 2022). Standards-based grades have been growing in popularity since the 1990s but have
yet to be widely adopted. Many methods of translating standards-based grades to traditional
letter grades have been tried; some attempts were successful, and others failed (Guskey, 2021).
Many quantitative studies have sought to measure the efficacy of standards-based grades (Lewis,
2022; Song et al., 2022). Some studies seek to track student perceptions regarding standards-
based grades as students transition to post-secondary education (Erbes et al., 2021; Guskey et al.,
2020).
A gap in the literature exists regarding student perceptions of secondary mathematics
engagement in a standards-based grading system and the alternative use of gamification within a
standards-based grading system (Hershberger, 2021). Gamification is frequently employed in
primary school settings to boost student engagement with content (Yaşar et al., 2020). In
secondary school, gamification of content occurs through competition-based technology tools.
These tools excel at depth-of-knowledge (DOK) level 1 activities like memorization of facts
(Pham, 2022). Literature exists about these phenomena and applications of gamification.
Gamification provides a method of motivation, while standards-based grading provides an
experiential structure for learners (Chmiel, 2021; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). The following
sections detail the literature search strategy, the foundational theories for this study, and a
synthesis of common themes found in research related to the problem, purpose, and research
question of this study.
Literature Search Strategy
This study employed database searches through the American College of Education
Library. Initially, date or peer review did not limit search parameters. This strategy yielded large
numbers of articles. Some of the results were relevant, some irrelevant. Different keywords were
tested for this research, and filters were added to the search for peer-reviewed selections dated
within the last five years.
In the review of relevant literature, this study utilized search terms including standards-
based, mathematics, gamification, and motivation in the title and keyword fields. Combinations
of these terms helped narrow down search results to more relevant results. Combinations
included standards-based gamification, standards-based mathematics, standards-based
mathematics, gamification secondary mathematics, mathematics motivation, and standards-

based grades motivation. Each of these search combinations provided results related to the
problem and purpose of this study.
Another source of relevant literature was the ProQuest Global Theses and Dissertations
database. Several dissertations were located similar to this one, but none posed similar research
questions. A final source of literature related to the problem and purpose was from the local
library and inter-library loan. Several recent books about grading and the impacts of grading
were borrowed, read, and analyzed, including Guskey and Brookhart’s (2019) What We Know
About Grading: What Works, What Doesn't, and What's Next and Kohn and Blum’s (2020)
Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead).
Theoretical Framework
The problem of poor engagement with mathematical content is grounded in theory about
how people learn (Boaler, 2022). Since the late 1800s, psychologists have sought to formalize
theory about learning. Skinner and Pavlov worked to incorporate operant conditioning and laid
the foundations for behaviorism (Pavlov, 1941; Skinner, n.d.), asserting that human behavior can
be controlled by a series of inputs (Westover et al., 2021). First proposed by Lev Vygotsky
(1978), constructivist theory juxtaposes behaviorist theory, stating that learning is an active
process and humans learn by experience (Westover et al., 2021). Constructivist theory was the
framework for this study. The grading system discussed in other sections was founded on the
constructivist theory of learning by experience, Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, and his
Zone of Proximal Development. In this study, students reported on their learning experiences
and engagement with mathematics in a system gamified through the use of digital achievements.
Since respondents reported engagement with gamified elements, game theory and gamification
in education were part of the theoretical foundation of this study. John von Neumann first wrote
about game theory in his 1928 article “Theory of Parlor Games,” his later partnership with Oskar
Morgenstern helped further develop game theory (Leonard, 1995). Games have been used in
learning for a long time (Barber, 2021), but recently, technology has enabled a greater degree of
gamification of curriculum and learning objectives.
Constructivism
Constructivism is the theory that people learn best by constructing new knowledge
through experience (Westover et al., 2021). While behaviorists in the early 1900s were operating
on the supposition that learning occurs through stimulus and systems of reward or punishment,
Lev Vygotsky observed how novice language learners accumulated greater vocabulary and skills
by interacting with those who had already mastered the language (Mahn, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978).
Even though some question the legitimacy of his early works (Lantolf & Xi, 2019), Lev
Vygotsky (1978) is considered the founding father of constructivism through his sociocultural
theory (Lantolf & Xi, 2019).
Vygotsky’s presupposition that people learn by experience (Mahn, 1999; Vygotsky,
1978) is fundamentally different from the stimulus input of behaviorists (Skinner, n.d.).
Vygotsky hypothesized that development and learning are social and that humans are capable of
reaching higher when supported through scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978). Although Vygotsky did
not fully develop his ideas around scaffolding, he formulated the concept of the zone of proximal
development (Mahn, 1999). The zone of proximal development has two levels: one which a
learner can independently achieve and the presumably higher level of achievement possible with
support from experts (Mahn, 1999). The current study was framed around constructivist theory
as students reported shared experiences in their gamified standards-based math courses.
Constructivism and behaviorism juxtapose (Westover et al., 2021) in the same way that
standards-based grades and traditional grades do. Traditional, average-based grading and its
behaviorist mechanisms must be explored to describe this juxtaposition.
In the traditionally graded class, the teacher uses points to reward or punish specific
behaviors (Cain et al., 2022). Math classrooms exhibit behaviorism by awarding points for
turning in homework, subtracting points for non-academic reasons, and giving bonus points for
various reasons (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). The gain and loss of points is a mechanism for
altering behaviors and encouraging student compliance in tasks such as completing homework or
participating in class (Kohn & Blum, 2020). Traditional grades are a tool of behaviorism, like
standards-based grades are a tool of constructivism.
Standards-based grades report student progress and current levels of proficiency on
course objectives or standards (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). Standards-based grades change over
time to reflect the learning process and are not permanent the way point-subtraction is in
traditional grades (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Reporting standards-based grades often looks
very different than the average-based report card. Instead of showing a percentage that represents
the average of all points, learners see proficiency indicators on a breakdown of the major course
objectives (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). The focus of the standards-based class is on mastery of
learning objectives. For students, this means they spend their time focused on mastery of
objectives rather than being focused on points (Cain et al., 2022).
Constructivism was the theory that guided this study. The constructivist theory provides
the framework for observations, data collection, and interpretation. The purpose of this study was
to explore the perceptions of students about their experiences engaging with mathematics in a
gamified standards-based grading system, and constructivist learning theory was the foundation
of the study. Many students learn to “game the system” in behaviorist education models (Erbes et
al., 2021). This study incorporated a different type of game into the system, one that students
participate in and earn different achievement levels. Since the course was partially gamified,
game theory and the subsets of gamification and game-based learning were partially applicable
to the foundation of the study.
Game Theory
This study asked for student perceptions about their experience in a gamified standards-
based graded math course. As such, the concepts of game-based learning and gamification were
partly applicable to the theoretical framework of this study. Game theory was not formalized
until the early 1900s when the theorist John von Neumann brought mathematical analyses into
the game world. In his seminal paper “Theory of Parlor Games,” von Neumann described the
mathematical theory behind a two-player zero-sum game as the first recorded work for game
theory (Leonard, 1995). One subset of game theory is gamification.
Several major game theories exist primarily related to economics (Leonard, 1995), but
gamification in education and game-based learning have been a topic of interest for decades
(Chmiel, 2021). Gamification incorporates objective-based competition into a course to merge
students’ interests, digital society, and academia (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021). Gamification
utilizes the elements of games and technology to motivate learners (Barber, 2021). Chmiel
(2021) asserted that through the lens of sociocultural theory, games have the potential to engage
and motivate learners in a meaningful context.
There are many definitions and applications associated with the word “gamification”
(Barber, 2021). Barber (2021) asserted that there are two categories of gamification theories: one
that focuses on behavior modification or attitude modification and one that focuses on the
mechanics of game design. This study incorporated both categories, focusing on using
achievements to promote student engagement with and mastery of mathematics content. Barber
(2021) referenced Keller’s (1987) behavioral model as one primary influence on game design,
concluding that games incorporate attention-getting devices and build player confidence, leading
to satisfaction with the game.
Gamification moves the learner from passive learning (receiver of knowledge) to active
learning (seeker of knowledge) and increases the commitment of the learner (Murillo-Zamorano
et al., 2021). Recent research supports these factors as important concepts of game-based
learning: the combination of rich content tasks, easy-to-use gamification interface elements, and
instructors as facilitators (Barber, 2021; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021). Learners immersed in
gamified courses must put more effort into the process of meaning-making through gamified
achievements (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2021). Gamification offers methods to modify the
behaviors or attitudes of participants toward the topic of the course (Chmiel, 2021).
The theory of gamification relates partially to the purpose of this study through student
perceptions. Participants of this study reported on experiences of content gamified through the
use of technology and digital achievements representing mastery levels of specific competencies.
This study fits both of Barber’s (2021) models of gamification theory, involving the mechanics
of gamification and the modification of behavior and attitudes.
Research Literature Review
A thematic review of literature relevant to the problem, purpose, and research questions
of this study reveals many themes and findings researchers have explored. Mathematics
engagement is a common problem cited by researchers studying grading reform, performance,
and standardized testing (Boaler, 2022; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). Grading mathematics is
controversial at best, with the core of the controversy surrounding the question: “What should a
grade communicate?” (Kohn & Blum, 2020; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Advocates of
traditional grading argue for behavioral factors to be incorporated into a grade, while standards-
based proponents support a purely academic communicator (Cain et al., 2022).
Gamification in secondary school offers students a framework for visualizing mastery of
learning objectives. Student motivation is altered by gamification (Groening & Binnewies,
2021). Instead of struggling against the teacher to earn points, learners struggle with the teacher’s
support to master the content. Many recent studies sought to relate standards-based grading to
standardized test scores quantitatively, but few have qualitatively explored former student
perceptions.
Mathematics Engagement
Student engagement levels with mathematics have been decreasing over the past few
decades (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022; Wang et al., 2020). Boaler (2022) acknowledged that fear of
mathematics is a common issue facing students in schools today, explaining that students face
challenges with mathematics in areas of self-doubt, test anxiety, fear of failure, and fixed
mindsets. Teachers suffer many of the same challenges but add preconceived notions about how
math should be taught and varying degrees of belief in the importance of math.
Mathematics is no new subject, but debate exists about the importance of mathematics,
with some opponents arguing that courses past the geometry level are irrelevant for most of
society (Boaler, 2022). Framing of student opinions about mathematics begins in primary school
when the mathematical mindsets of primary school teachers shape the experiences, perceptions,
and attitudes of students (Jeong & González-Gómez, 2022). This study focused on secondary
education and the problem of poor mathematical engagement, but factors outside of this study
may indicate larger issues. In literature relevant to the purpose of this study, perceptions of
teachers are frequently measured, but perceptions of the student participants are less measured.
Teacher Perceptions
Wang et al. (2020) argued that secondary mathematics classrooms tend to drift toward a
teacher-centered class structure. The teacher-centered approach is lecture-based, where students
become passive learners instead of active participants. This traditional approach to teaching
mathematics leads to disengagement and poor retention of learning outcomes (Jeong &
González-Gómez, 2022).
Some secondary teachers are pushing toward a flipped classroom model of instruction to
increase student engagement with mathematics (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022; Jeong & González-
Gómez, 2022). In the flipped model, the locations of the main activities in the classroom are
reversed: content accumulation happens outside the class, while practice happens in the class.
The primary benefit of the flipped classroom is direct access to peers and the instructor during
practice time, along with the ability to self-pace instruction. The flipped classroom solves a
platonic problem of access to scaffolding from the content expert but does not solve the
underlying problem of motivation to engage. Students in a flipped classroom with total-points
average grades engage with content to earn points rather than to learn the material (Guskey &
Brookhart, 2019).
Teacher perceptions of student motivation are based on individual mindsets. Boaler
(2022) argued that teachers with fixed mindsets believe some students can learn mathematics and
others cannot. Among teachers, fixed mindsets lead to the belief that there is one “right” method
of approaching mathematical problems and one “right” method of instruction. Growth mindset
teachers believe in the capability of all students to learn and in multiple avenues through which
students can make meaning (Boaler, 2022). Fixed mindset teachers believe students are
motivated through behavior modification tools (Boaler, 2022), such as bonus point rewards and
grade subtraction punishments for negative behaviors like incomplete homework (Guskey et al.,
2020).
In a study regarding educator perceptions of student engagement with content in a flipped
classroom, Alebrahim and Ku (2020) reported that most students were disengaged in traditional
lecture-based classes. This study found that the flipped classroom model increased student
engagement with each other, the instructor, and the content. Cevikbas and Kaiser (2022) echoed
similar observations about increased engagement when utilizing a flipped classroom
intervention. Student attendance and participation also increased (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022).
Aside from reporting teacher perceptions about student engagement, literature also reveals
student perceptions about engagement with content.
Student Perceptions
Students perceive engagement with mathematics and coursework differently than
teachers. Cevikbas and Kaiser (2022) discussed student comments about engagement with
mathematics in terms of grades and test scores. Students commented about the results of the
flipped classroom intervention, leading to increased test scores. In the same study, students
discuss enjoying the move away from a traditional passive-learning model into the active-
learning approach of the flipped classroom.
In the undergrad study of student engagement, Alebrahim and Ku (2020) found that
students report engaging more with in-class activities rather than lectures. Students tended to
engage more with the professor and peers when the learning activities, videos, and readings were
assigned independently and in-class time was dedicated to completing tasks. Students reported
feeling more comfortable asking questions when they had already engaged with the course
instructor (Alebrahim & Ku, 2020).
Boaler (2022) discussed problems with self-perception related to mathematics content.
Some students believe they have a math deficiency because of an event or topic in mathematics
that was marked low for them. Confusion in mathematics can lead to self-doubt and a belief that
certain mathematical topics cannot be learned. Boaler (2022) argued that this self-perception is
both false and antithetical to the learner’s growth. Brain activity is elastic, and neural pathways
can expand for any learner without a severe disability (Boaler, 2022).
Student perceptions of mathematics and engagement can be directly shaped by teacher
attitudes toward math (Smith et al., 2022). When teachers exhibit negative attitudes about
mathematics, students are more prone to adopt those attitudes and engage less with the content.
Self-belief is an important aspect of the growth mindset and an indicator of future success
(Boaler, 2022; Jeong & González-Gómez, 2022).
In their study of student perceptions of mathematics, Smith et al. (2022) found that
teacher credential levels did not significantly impact student attitudes toward mathematics. The
researchers suggested that student attitudes may not show malleability related to credentials in
the timespan of a year they studied the high school seniors in advanced math. Smith et al.
asserted that the sample of students from the advanced math classes varies from other samples
where credentials matter more. Another assertion by this study is that teacher experience levels
also have no significant impact on student attitudes. Smith et al. (2022) argued that this
contradicts some studies related to student attitude indicators and suggested that may be due to
the uniqueness of advanced mathematics content.

Grading Mathematics
The percentage grade, as known today, developed in response to the need for rapid
student progress reporting (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). In the United States, compulsory high
school education dramatically increased the number of students in the education system, thereby
creating a need for more formalized and efficient assessment and reporting modalities. Early
researchers questioned the validity of the percentage-based grade by asking geometry teachers to
grade the same student test (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019). Researchers found large deviations in
test scoring, ranging from 28 percent to 95 percent. Even though the legitimacy of the
percentage-based grade has been questioned for over a century, the practice of summarizing
grades with a single number or letter is still widely used today.
Two modes of grading were compared in this study. The percentage-based (traditional)
grade was juxtaposed with standards-based grading. Proponents of standards-based grades argue
that performance and progress indicators of student learning should be directly based on specific
learning objectives or standards (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011;
Wilcox & Townsley, 2022). A discussion of traditional and standards-based grading and a
synthesis of relevant literature follows.
Traditional Grading
The percentage grade (traditional grade) is calculated based on an average (Erbes et al.,
2021; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Kohn & Blum, 2020). A student’s final grade is determined
by how many points the student has lost during the semester, subtracted from the total points
possible, and then divided by the total points possible to create a percentage (Cain et al., 2022).
Many variations of the letter grade scale occur. Still, common ones include an “A” for scores in
the 90% to 100% range, a “B” for averages between 80% and 90%, a “C” for averages between
70% and 80%, a “D” for averages between 60% and 70%, and an “F” for averages lower than
60%. Scales like this are typical, but summarizations of student progress based on this scale are
subjective (Cain et al., 2022).
Marzano and Heflebower (2011) argued that grades should reflect a student’s knowledge.
In their discussion of traditional grades, Marzano and Heflebower (2011) distinguished
percentage-based grades as an “omnibus grade,” incorporating academic and non-academic
factors. Average-based grades frequently incorporate behavioral components such as credit
scores for homework, participation points, and other non-academic factors (Guskey & Brookhart,
2019). Proponents of traditional grades argue that traditional grades reflect real life by reflecting
the consequences of poor choices (Cain et al., 2022; Wilcox & Townsley, 2022).
In the traditional-based grading system, poor behavior practices, such as turning in
homework late or failing to turn in homework at all, result in a subtraction of points from the
total (Wilcox & Townsley, 2022). Extra credit points add back to the numerator but do not alter
the denominator, thereby inflating the percentage when calculating the average grade. In their
discussion about grading, Wilcox and Townsley (2022) asserted that real-life comparisons of
behavior are a primary reason for teachers to advocate against a switch to standards-based
grades.
A second reason proponents argue for traditional grades is the belief that the percentage-
based grading system promotes rigor in the coursework (Wilcox & Townsley, 2022). According
to their discussion, rigor can have multiple definitions. In the case of traditional grading, Wilcox
and Townsley (2022) argued that rigor is defined as remembering as many facts as possible the
first time they are presented. When held by educators, this definition leads to a belief that
standards-based grades will decrease rigor, but traditional-based grades uphold rigor (Wilcox &
Townsley, 2022).
Townsley and Buckmiller (2020) discussed collegiate acceptance and transfer from
secondary school as another reason proponents favor the percentage-based grade. Colleges
accept and are familiar with the 4.0 grade-point-average scale associated with the A, B, C, D,
and F letter grades prominent in secondary school, and percentage-based grades provide an easy
way of making that transfer. Parents are also accustomed to the accumulation of points in a grade
book (Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). In their discussion, Townsley and Buckmiller (2020)
asserted that older generations of teachers with lots of sweat equity in their grading systems
defended traditional grading practices with more veracity.
In their study of 13 students beginning a private college, Guskey et al. (2020) reported
that two students appeared to support the mechanics of traditional-based grades due to college
classes not allowing retakes and requiring homework to be submitted for points. The students
believed non-traditional grading practices had led to an unpreparedness for traditionally graded
college classes. Lewis (2022) confirmed that many higher-education institutions are slow to
embrace any grading system outside of average-based grades. In a discussion of traditional-based
grades, Cain et al. (2022) argued that traditional grading systems allow instructors to use points
and grades as motivation systems for behavior modification. Points can be used to motivate
students to attend class, participate in class activities, or engage in other class-related behaviors
(Cain et al., 2022; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Instructors
utilizing these behavior modifiers may resist any change that removes the incentives for students
(Guskey, 2020).
In a recent journal article about professional development and effective growth strategies
in education, Guskey (2020) argued that changing the attitudes and beliefs of educators is often
very difficult. When presented with evidence or ideas that challenge long-held beliefs, educators
feel attacked and tend to marginalize the new information rather than receive new information
constructively (Guskey, 2020). Proponents of traditional grading believe they are doing the right
thing for students, and challenges to that idea are perceived as attacks.
In a study of 13 Tennessee schools piloting competency-based education, Harrington et
al. (2019) found professional development efforts to alter teachers’ classroom behaviors and
practices to be unproductive. Traditional percentage-based grades are a deeply entrenched part of
the educational system in the United States (Cain et al., 2022; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019).
Despite the entrenched traditional grading systems, standards-based grades are becoming more
adopted in secondary institutions (Lewis, 2022). Standards-based grades offer an alternative to
traditional percentage-based grades.
Standards-Based Grading
Standards-based grades report student mastery levels regarding specific learning targets
or standards (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Standards-based
grades juxtapose traditional grades by removing the subtraction of points and the averaging of
scores to calculate a percentage. Wilcox and Townsley (2022) discussed three key components
of standards-based grading: the grade book reports learning goals instead of accumulated points
for various tasks, assessments provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate their
learning, homework and formative assessments become ungraded and are considered as practice.
Standards-based grades lead to a major change in the role of the classroom teacher. Kohn
and Blum (2020) argued that traditional grading pits the teacher against the student as the arbiter
of points and judge of point losses. In moving away from traditional grading and toward
standards-based grading, teachers shift their role from judge to guide (Cain et al., 2022). The role
of the teacher is to work with the students to learn, demonstrate, and report mastery of standards
(Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). Harrington et al. (2019) discussed the role change of teachers in
a mastery-based system, describing the classrooms as student-centric instead of teacher-centered.
Opponents of standards-based grading point out that standards-based grades do not model
real-life measures of performance. Wilcox and Townsley (2022) addressed these objections with
the counter-argument that real-life performance indicators do not normally interweave
competency and behavior measures into a single report. Academic measures do not mix with
non-academic measures like participation scores and extra credit in a standards-based grading
system (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019).
In a study tracking the impacts of standards-based grades on students transitioning to
college, Guskey et al. (2020) addressed the major concerns of parents and educators. Their
mixed-method case study followed 13 students who met the minimum of two properties of
standards-based grading as they transitioned to college. Researchers created profiles of the high
schools that these students transitioned from to rate their fidelity to standards-based grading and
asked respondents about their transition to college. Their findings indicated that standards-based
grades are not detrimental to the learning or procedures of collegiate education (Guskey et al.,
2020). In their discussion of findings, respondents cited difficulties in transitioning to college
with things unrelated to standards-based grading.
In the same study, Guskey et al. (2020) argued that fidelity to implementing standards-
based grading is low in high schools and cited the student’s ratings as evidence for sporadic
implementation of the principles of standards-based grades. Standards-based grading is still in its

infancy in secondary education, with only partial fidelity (Guskey et al., 2020; Lewis, 2022).
Academically, the participants in the study were performing at or above the average performance
of collegiate peers who were not immersed in standards-based grading systems.
Guskey et al. (2020) also addressed collegiate admissions, stating that college admission
is frequently based on more factors than grades alone. College admission officers recognize that
grades are frequently made up of non-academic factors and are unreliable as a predictor of
student aptitude. The researchers suggested that standards-based grading report cards separating
non-cognitive factors from academic achievement grades provided collegiate admissions
officials with more meaningful information about a student’s aptitude (Guskey et al., 2020).
In a quantitative study of collegiate-level mathematics, Lewis (2022) sought to determine
if standards-based grades impacted math test anxiety. The sample was a set of 74 students who
completed questionnaires across two semesters about using standards-based grades in their
collegiate math courses. Lewis (2022) found that standards-based grades significantly reduce
math test anxiety by an effect size of r=0.27. In his discussion, Lewis (2022) warned that his
findings are indicators for mathematics courses but suggested further research for other content
areas.
Harney et al. (2022) researched standards-based grading from the music instructor’s
perspective. There were 306 instructors surveyed for the mixed method study about the impact of
standards-based grading on daily instruction. Music instructors view standards-based grading
differently than math instructors, with most reporting that they do not base daily instruction on
learning standards (Harney et al., 2022). Respondents for this survey indicated that their
standards were constructed so that these types of competencies were developed over time,
naturally, by best practices of music instruction. Music objectives are performance-based
(Harney et al., 2022), while math objectives are knowledge and skill-based (Lewis, 2022).
A shift away from average-based grades is advocated by many scholars (Cain et al.,
2022; Kohn & Blum, 2020). Guskey and Brookhart (2019) dedicated two chapters of their book
to education leaders on the best ways to transition to standards-based grades in schools. School
leaders must begin by raising awareness of the true purpose of a grade: communicating student
learning progress (Guskey, 2020; Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). Part of the purpose of the
current study was to gather former students’ perceptions regarding standards-based grades, but
that experience was also gamified.
Gamifying Mathematics
Game theory partially aligns with the purpose of this study. Students described elements
of game theory as they discussed their perceptions of a gamified standards-based grading system
in secondary mathematics. Education has incorporated games into learning experiences for a
long time, with learners developing skills such as color recognition, teamwork, and many other
skills (Barber, 2021). A discussion of the history of game theory precludes the ideas of
gamification in education.
In the early 1900s, John von Neumann studied a two-player zero-sum game in which the
winner must necessarily take from the loser (Leonard, 1995). John von Neuman wrote about his
observations and theory in a 1920s article about this “parlor game” (Leonard, 1995). This early
work became the spark for the field of game theory, which Neumann dove much further into as
he studied games related to economics. John von Neuman partnered alongside Oskar
Morgenstern to shape the first literature about game theory in 1944 (Leonard, 1995; Schmidt,
2002). Schmidt (2002) called game theory an umbrella theory under which many fields fall.
Gamification in education is one field where students will report experiences in the current
study.
Gamification closely aligns with mathematics instruction and coursework (Zeybek &
Saygı, 2021). Several core elements comprise gamification: objectives, struggle to meet the
objectives, rewards, feedback, revision, and motivation (Barber, 2021). With these core
elements, gamification is a good fit for mastery-based mathematical instruction (Zeybek &
Saygı, 2021). Instructional designers incorporating elements of gamification into a course can
utilize all of these components or may only incorporate one, but must build the designs into the
structure of the course, choosing appropriate gamification elements to fit the needs of the target
audience and content objectives (Zeybek & Saygı, 2021).
Instructional designers should follow an iterative approach, first analyzing the needs of
the target learners and designing gamification components to fit their needs (Yamani, 2021).
Mathematics learning standards are goal-oriented and easily fit Yamani’s (2021) definition of
goal-based gamification. Yamani (2021) proposed tracking student progress using the learning
platform and offering rewards such as digital badges for achievements and progress toward the
course goals. Badges should be easily accessible and intuitive for students to understand as they
progress through the goals and objectives (Kübra & Selay, 2022). If instructional designers over-
complicate the layout of the badging and rewards system, Kübra and Selay (2022) argued that
the meaning and utility of the badges are lost.
Park and Kim (2021) conducted a quantitative study on the impacts gamification had on
student learning for a science course using a gamification platform. The researchers found that
gamification benefitted students in several key ways. Gamification positively affects motivation,
self-efficacy, self-determination, grade motivation, and several other key factors (Park & Kim,
2021). In this study, 55 middle-grade students participated in online gamified science courses.
Park and Kim (2021) discussed the limitations of this study as pertaining to a specific tool
designed for specific content and was limited in the grade levels of participants. Despite these
limitations, the researchers called for more gamification of education at every level of
instruction.
Student Motivation
As previously noted, poor student motivation levels and poor engagement in mathematics
was the problem this study sought to address (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022; Wang et al., 2020).
Yamani (2021) asserted that gamified content motivates students, particularly in subjects where
motivational problems are already well-known. Gamification of the content has the potential to
impact student motivation in mathematics by creating an experience that Yamani (2021) argued
is “enjoyable.”
Competition and rewards are some of the key elements of gamification that create
enjoyable learning experiences (Yamani, 2021). In his study of instructional design models
incorporating gamification concepts, Yamani (2021) noted the following game-specific elements
employed to boost motivation: points, levels, challenges, honor (rank) lists, virtual goods (or
tokens), and feedback. Goal-based activities, reward mechanisms, and progress tracking are the
cornerstones of gamification that instructional designers should use to improve course
motivation.
In a systemic literature analysis, Kübra and Selay (2022) found that the competition
element of gamification was of concern to some students. Some students do not wish to compete
publicly in their learning activities (Kübra & Selay, 2022). This point contradicts Yamani’s
(2021) assertion that honor lists improve student motivation. Instead of leaderboards, Kübra and
Selay (2022) suggested using progress bars, dashboards, and badges.
Kübra and Selay (2022) also discussed findings suggesting that some learners need
increasingly difficult tasks and should be rewarded for higher-level performance. This
gamification concept draws theoretical foundations from Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal
development. As students master objectives, they should be presented with the next higher-order
difficulty task to keep building their knowledge (Kübra & Selay, 2022). These ideas fit well with
the scaffolded approach of learning mathematics, in which concepts build upon each other and
tie together to form subsequent mathematical concepts (Boaler, 2022). Most students are not
motivated purely by the mathematical concepts they are learning (Wang et al., 2020), but they
may be motivated by the gamification of the system (Yamani, 2021).
A recent study by Groening and Binnewies (2021) established a statistically significant
correlation between the number of gamified elements and learner motivation. Researchers
subjected participants N=130 to differing levels of gamified content and measured both time-on-
task and self-reported motivation levels for each course. At some points, Groening and
Binnewies (2021) removed gamified elements to test for changes in motivation. Their results
showed a clear correlation between the amount of gamification and motivation but did not show
a correlation between the amount of gamification and performance (Groening & Binnewies,
2021).
In a 2022 synthesis of the literature, Navarro-Espinosa et al. (2022) argued that
gamification is a path for higher education institutions to improve the motivation of learners. The
researchers noted that since the pandemic in 2020, research articles related to gamification had
declined in frequency, while other areas related to emergency teaching had increased. Navarro-
Espinosa et al. (2022) claimed that the gamification of education still requires much research
before it grows into a well-established field. This study contributes to the gap in the literature
about student perceptions of gamification in education.
Student Perceptions in Related Research
Since 2011, many studies, dissertations, and research articles have been written
measuring student performance (Belton, 2022; Bromley, 2019; Reeves, 2021). Indeed, student
performance indicators are one definition of the success of an intervention, but performance is
not the only measure of success in education (Milman & Wessmiller, 2020). Keller (1987)
proposed a course design model focused on gathering student attention, establishing relevance,
building confidence, and ensuring satisfaction. This model emphasized the importance of non-
performance-related measures of success – a student’s satisfaction and confidence levels in their
learning experience are important alongside their performance on tests (Milman & Wessmiller,
2020).
A search for “standards-based grades” in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses from 2020
or later returns over 1600 results. Of the top 40 dissertations (sorted by relevance), 23 were based
on educator perceptions of standards-based grading. Thirteen attempted to establish a correlation
between some performance measures and standards-based grading models. Two results were
unrelated to standards-based grading, and two reported student perceptions. In one of the
dissertations about student perceptions, the sample size was only seven, although the study was
mixed-method in nature (Hershberger, 2021).
Facca et al. (2020) explored the literature on research on minors. Research subjects
classified as minors become extremely sensitive (Facca et al., 2020). Informed consent practices
must also include parental information and consent. Facca et al. (2020) also asserted that digital
presence online makes data safeguards and identity protection increasingly more urgent,
especially data collected from minor research participants. The sensitivity of minor research may
be why most researchers measure adult stakeholders’ perceptions or instead choose quantitative
data to search for correlations regarding performance. The current study will gather perceptions
of students who have transitioned to collegiate studies and are no longer classified as minors.
Related Dissertations and Studies about Standards-Based Grades
Teachers’ beliefs and opinions about standards-based grading are well documented in
current dissertations and research studies (West, 2022). Guskey (2020) argued that teachers’
mindsets are based on their experiences and beliefs. The mindsets teachers have can help frame
their opinions of grading styles different from their own and grading reform initiatives. Grading
reform initiatives can fail if communication about the purpose of the reform is poor or unclear
(Guskey, 2021). A small sampling of the numerous works about educator perceptions follows.
The abundance of literature regarding teacher perceptions of standards-based grades
reveals conflicting results (Huey et al., 2022; West, 2022). Some educators believe that
standards-based grading is detrimental to student learning and are opposed to grading reform
(Guskey, 2021; Huey et al., 2022). Other educators believe that standards-based grading is a
better communicator of student competence (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Huey et al., 2022;
West, 2022). There is no clear consensus among research studies showing educator beliefs tend
in a certain direction, but researchers have a consensus that educator beliefs are certain to
conflict (Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). One well-researched area of standards-based grading is
educator perceptions, and the second is the quantitative relationship between standards-based
initiatives and performance indicators.

A review of the quantitative dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
revealed studies in which researchers analyzed datasets from available standards-based grades
and sought to research correlations with some performance assessment, usually a standardized
test (Belton, 2022; Reeves, 2021). Results from these have been non-conclusive (Hershberger,
2021), with most authors usually pointing to extenuating circumstances when results do not show
a statistically significant result. Indeed, Guskey et al. (2020) discussed the lack of fidelity to
implementation as a major reason student performance metrics are unreliable indicators for the
efficacy of standards-based grading. Researchers call for further research to clarify their results,
confirm their results, or point out limitations in their studies (Belton, 2022; Reeves, 2021).
Reeves (2021) even cautioned researchers against using “reductive” hypothesis testing when
studying the complexities of human learning. Research exists for the two related areas of teacher
perceptions and student performance, but a gap exists in student perceptions.
The two dissertations in the top 40 results from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were
secondary studies, one in an English class (Hershberger, 2021) and another in biology class
(Barry, 2022). No student perceptions about standards-based grading results were found in any
databases, including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The current study contributes to the gap
in the literature about student perceptions of engagement in a secondary mathematics course
using a gamified standards-based grading system.
Chapter Summary
Further research is needed on student perceptions of mathematical engagement in a
standards-based grading system (Hershberger, 2021). The theoretical framework of this study
was constructivism. Constructivism is the belief that learning happens through experience and
interaction with experts (Mahn, 1999). Vygotsky (1978) was the founding father of
constructivism, with his early work studying how children learned to speak language through
experience by interacting with adults. Game theory was the second theory supporting this study.
Gamification is when elements of games are applied to non-gaming applications (Barber, 2021).
Students will discuss their experiences in gamified mathematics courses in this study. Details of
the gamification are described in detail in Chapter 3. A review of current literature about
constructivism, game theory, mathematical engagement, standards-based grades, and
gamification was conducted in preparation for this study. A review of relevant literature revealed
several overarching themes and implications.
The first theme relevant to this study was mathematical engagement. Boaler (2022)
asserted that students engage with mathematics differently with varying motivations. Secondary
math teachers tend to rely heavily on passive learning methods of lectures and note-taking
(Wang et al., 2020). Those pedagogical methods move teacher-centered classrooms well into the
realm of behaviorism through stimuli and conditioned responses (Westover et al., 2021). In a
constructivist classroom, learners must interact with others, including peers and the instructor, to
construct meaning socially (Westover et al., 2021).
Grades are the second theme discovered in the search for relevant literature. Grades serve
the primary function of reporting student progress in learning but have become inundated with
other non-academic measures (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Some educators have spent
considerable amounts of time building and refining traditional average-based grading systems
(Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). Average-based grades are often used as behavior-modification
tools by rewarding or punishing students for compliance with behavioral expectations (Kohn &
Blum, 2020). This study asked students to discuss their perceptions in a gamified standards-
based grading system, moving from a behaviorist to a constructivist model of classroom

pedagogy. Standards-based grades offer feedback on student progress regarding specific learning
goals called standards (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019).
The third theme from recent literature is gamification in education. Gamification
elements improve learner motivation and engagement levels in academic courses (Groening &
Binnewies, 2021). Zeybek and Saygı (2021) asserted that instructional designers would improve
engagement levels by applying gamification elements to courses. Literature suggests that using
gamification elements in a non-game setting, such as academics, motivates learners to engage
with the content and increases the learner’s satisfaction with the experience. This study asked
participants to discuss the gamification elements they experienced during mathematics courses in
high school, adding to the body of literature about gamification in education and game-based
learning.
A qualitative methodology was used to gather former students’ perceptions in accordance
with Creswell and Creswell (2020). This study synthesized opinions and themes related to the
thoughts of students about their experiences. The methodology of this qualitative study is
discussed in-depth in the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Methodology
school in a midwestern state. Traditionally, mathematics grades have been calculated as an
average of the points earned from various assignments, quizzes, projects, and tests. This
approach incorporates deductions due to non-academic issues, which can be demotivating to
students (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Additionally, some teachers weaponize grades as a
threat to coerce students into participation or compliance (Kohn & Blum, 2020). Standards-based
grades and gamification are alternative strategies that challenge the status quo and power
structure in the classroom. These strategies formed the background of this study, along with
research participants who were former students who experienced this non-traditional system of
grade reporting. These former students experienced a gamified system that reported progress on
specific learning objectives and have since graduated, moved into post-secondary activities, and
comprised the proposed sample of this study. By gathering their perceptions, this study sought to
understand how they experienced mathematical engagement in a gamified, standards-based
grading system.
Constructivist learning theory was the theoretical framework underpinning this study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The problem was poor student engagement with classroom activities
in secondary mathematics. Many have recently studied the quantitative effects of gamification
and standards-based grading on student achievement. The purpose of this basic qualitative study
was to explore former students’ perceptions regarding the student engagement in teaching and
learning activities they experienced with secondary mathematics content in the gamified,
standards-based grading system at a rural high school in a midwestern state.
With the specified problem and purpose of this study, there was only one research
question: What are former students’ perceptions about engagement with secondary mathematics
content in a gamified standards-based grading system at a rural school in a midwestern state?
A qualitative methodology was chosen to explore this research question. Qualitative
methodology gathers the thoughts, perceptions, and experiences of participants (Creswell &
Creswell, 2020). In contrast with qualitative research, quantitative studies gather numeric data
and seek to establish correlations between variables. A basic qualitative research design was
selected to study perceptions rather than determine a correlation between variables.
To fully understand this study, the role of the researcher is identified, research procedures
explored, and discussions of the population and sample, instrumentation, and data collection will
follow. Data analysis occurred after the data collection and was defined to ensure reliability and
validity. Throughout this study, the ethical considerations of the research participants were
upheld as described.
Research Methodology, Design, and Rationale
Many recent studies sought to establish quantitative relationships involving
implementations of standards-based grading. This study gathered qualitative data – perceptions
of former students about their experiences in a gamified, standards-based grading system.
Participants have since graduated, moved on with their lives, and offered unique perspectives on
the long-term impacts of the standards-based grading system. Rather than follow quantitative
data comparison by examining student scores on standardized tests, this study reported the
thoughts and ideas of participants.

Methodology
Qualitative methodology was chosen for this study to report on non-quantifiable elements
such as satisfaction and opinions of former students (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Researchers
gather data by using qualitative instruments, including interviews, questionnaires, and focus
groups, to provide insight into participants’ thoughts, feelings, and meanings (Creswell &
Creswell, 2020). Textual, non-numeric data was particularly relevant to this study, striving to
understand complex phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Percy et al., 2015), such as the
motivation problem in secondary mathematics.
Quantitative methodology, which collects and analyzes quantifiable numeric data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2020), was not the best choice for this study measuring former student
perceptions (Percy et al., 2015). Perceptions are subjective and vary widely from person to
person. While it is possible to collect numeric data about standards-based grading systems like
student achievement levels and test scores, these data do not capture a picture of the complex and
nuanced ways students may perceive their experience in the gamified standards-based grading
system. High-performing students may not always hold a positive view of their experience, and
low-performing students may not always hold a negative view. To explore student perceptions
about their experience in this gamified standards-based grading system, qualitative methodology
and instrumentation best captured subjective student experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) and
explored their thoughts about the problem and purpose of this study.
Research Design
Qualitative research explores participants’ thoughts and opinions related to the problem
of the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Terrell, 2022). In the context of this study, the basic
qualitative research design allowed for the collection of intricate subjective data from
participants to investigate former student motivation inside a gamified standards-based grading
system. Creswell and Poth (2018) asserted that qualitative research often uses multiple modes of
data collection to report descriptions and themes. Constructivism often provides the
underpinnings of a basic qualitative research study as researchers seek to understand the meaning
of a phenomenon from people who have experienced the phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015; Percy et al., 2015). Two basic qualitative research design challenges are reducing
researcher bias and eliminating power dynamics between the researcher and participants.
To efficiently gather the necessary data for this study, a basic qualitative research design
was chosen. A basic qualitative design allows for a more streamlined data collection and analysis
process, which was necessary given the resource constraints of the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). This approach was less in-depth than a case-study design, which would require
significantly more time, resources, and intensive data collection (Percy et al., 2015). Hence, the
basic qualitative research design was the best option for this research study.
Ethnography was a second research design that would be well-suited to answer research
questions similar to the ones this study posed (Terrell, 2022). As described by Creswell and Poth
(2018), ethnography studies a shared culture by a larger group of individuals over time by
immersing the researcher in the culture. Ethnography was not the best choice for this study
because observations would need to be made about the culture over an extended period (Terrell,
2022), and the primary form of data collection is observation (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This
study did not include current students in a gamified standards-based system but gathered
perceptions of former students about their past experiences. For this reason and the specific
constraints, basic qualitative research was the best design to explore data related to the research
question guiding this study. Other qualitative methodologies were not chosen due to the nature of
the research question taking place after the participants had already experienced the gamified,
standards-based grading system.
Role of the Researcher
In qualitative research, the role of the researcher is to immerse inside the study and is
considered a data collection agent for the study (Terrell, 2022). The term emic perspective (as an
insider) applies to qualitative research since the role of the researcher varies from quantitative
studies (Terrell, 2022). This study was meant to capture students’ perspectives about a
phenomenon they experienced in advanced mathematics class during their senior year of high
school and was conducted by the teacher who facilitated that class.
My current position is a mathematics teacher and academy leader at a public school in a
midwestern state. I have taught mathematics for 12 years and have implemented gamified,
standards-based grading in the design of advanced mathematics courses. For this study, I was the
former instructor of the research participants. Researcher and participant biases were minimized
due to the passage of time. Participants had graduated, and the researcher no longer had any
power structure or authority over the participants. The researcher had only maintained contact
with one of the participants in a non-research-related venue. The questionnaire questions were
written as open-ended, encouraging non-biased responses from participants to reduce the biases
of the researcher. The questions asked for perceptions about engagement with mathematics in
both traditionally graded mathematics classes and gamified, standards-based graded mathematics
classes (See Appendix C). The data and coding process was verified through member checking
to ensure no responses were misrepresented by the researcher.

Research Procedures
The research used an open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interviews (Billups, 2021).
Confidentiality was established using a numeric identification (ID) number for each participant
to protect their identity. Responses were coded using qualitative data coding software and
triangulated by multiple data collection forms. Participants submitted an online questionnaire and
participated in a voluntary response follow-up interview, in which textual data was generated
(Billups, 2021). The following sections detail the instrumentation, data collection, and
procedures related to conducting research.
Population and Sample Selection
The population of the study included former students enrolled in senior advanced
mathematics at a midwestern state in the United States. The population size varies from year to
year, but for the 2021-2022 school year, the population was 46 students. This study was designed
to explore the perceptions of students who experienced a particular course design in the past, so a
purposive sampling method was chosen to ensure that participants were alumni who completed
the advanced mathematics course. Purposive sampling is often used in basic qualitative research
designs to understand perceptions of a particular phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
For this study, participants were 34 students who had a gamified, standards-based math
class while in high school. They have since graduated and enrolled in a higher education
institution. Before leaving, the students provided the instructor with an email address.
Participants were recruited using these email addresses.
The sample consisted of 15-25 graduates who completed the advanced mathematics class
with plans to continue their post-secondary education at various institutions. The recruitment
process accommodated additional participants through snowball sampling. Participants were

recruited via email (see Appendix A) and received informed consent forms to complete and
return through DocuSign (see Appendix B), explaining the voluntary nature of the research and
confidentiality measures taken to ensure compliance with ethical human subject research
guidelines. After consenting to participate in the research, the participants received an online
questionnaire and an invitation to a virtual follow-up interview. The first questions on the
questionnaire were profile questions asking participants their names and presenting participants
with reminders about the nature of the content they experienced in the gamified, standards-based
graded math course.
If less than 15 participants volunteered for the survey, snowball sampling was to be
employed to recruit other participants who experienced the same gamified, standards-based
grading in their high school math class. This method was chosen so that participants could help
identify contact information of other potential participants that they personally knew and had the
potential to increase the pool of participants to 73. The process for this included one question at
the end of the questionnaire asking participants to identify the names and contact information of
people who also experienced the gamified, standards-based grading system. These participants
would have been recruited using the recruitment email (see Appendix A).
Questionnaire
Billups (2021) stated that open-ended questionnaires are one way to collect experiential
qualitative data, and internet questionnaires ensure the exportability of data (Ruel, 2019). The
purpose of this open-ended questionnaire aligned directly with the research question for
gathering data about student perceptions. A Google Form was used to disseminate the
questionnaire online (see Appendix C). There were two primary sections to the questionnaire: a
profile section and open-ended responses collecting data about the research question (Billups,
2021). Profile questions were asked, including full name and current collegiate mathematics
enrollment. Participants who had completed or were currently enrolled in a collegiate math class
were able to compare and contrast their experiences in high school math with collegiate math.
The final profile question asked participants if they were ready to proceed and if they
remembered utilizing the gamified standards-based grading system.
The research-related questions included prompts gathering perceptions and opinions
about their engagement with mathematics and various aspects of the system they experienced
(see Appendix C). Questions were designed to align with the research question of the study (see
Table 1). Each question targeted a different aspect of the system: gamification, standards-based
grading, engagement, mathematics, and student experience. The final questions asked students to
compare and contrast the gamified, standards-based grading system with non-gamified point-
based systems and share their perspectives about the net results of experiencing the system.
Table 1
Research Question Alignment to Questionnaire Questions
Research Question Questionnaire Questions Rationale for Questions

What are former 1. What are your perceptions of the Participants can share
students’ standards-based grading system you perceptions about the grading
perceptions about experienced in high-school system distinct from the overall
engagement with mathematics? experience.
secondary 2. What are your perceptions of the Participants can share
mathematics gamified elements of the mathematics perceptions about the
content in a courses you experienced in high gamification elements distinct
gamified school? from the overall experience.
standards-based 3. How did you engage with Participants can share their
grading system at mathematics in a non-gamified, beliefs about their engagement
a rural school in a points-based grading system? in mathematics courses not
midwestern state? utilizing the system.
4. How did you engage with Participants can share their
mathematics in the gamified, beliefs about their engagement
standards-based grading system? in the mathematics course
utilizing the system.
5. How did the gamified, standards- Participants can share their
based grading system affect your perceptions about how the
engagement with mathematics in high gamified course affected their
school? engagement.
6. How would you describe the long- Participants can share their
term results of switching from non- perceptions about the transition
gamified points-based grading to from points-based to standards-
gamified standards-based grading? based grades.
7. What long-term impacts has the Participants can share their
gamified, standards-based grading perceptions about longer-term
system had on the way you engage impacts of their experience as
with mathematics? they moved into collegiate
math.
8. What long-term impacts has the Participants can share their
gamified standards-based grading perceptions about longer-term
system had on your education in impacts of their experience as
general? they moved into college
education other than math.
This instrument was designed using strategies from Creswell and Poth (2018) and Ruel
(2019). The reliability of this questionnaire was addressed by triangulation within the questions
and from multiple data sources. The questionnaire itself asked similar questions to determine if
respondents answered related questions in a like manner. The validity of this questionnaire was
established through feedback from subject matter experts and was addressed by the follow-up
interviews. Creswell and Poth (2018) discussed validity in qualitative research as related to the
accuracy of the interpreted results. The questionnaire was estimated to take 15 minutes to
complete. If participants had not completed the questionnaire, reminder emails were sent five
days after the first email, with a second reminder in five more days. By triangulation with the
questionnaire, the follow-up interview was a method to ensure the accuracy of interpreted
results.
Interview Protocol
Open-ended questions in the follow-up interview are shown in the follow-up interview
protocol in Appendix D. The purpose of the follow-up interview was to improve the validity of
the study (Terrell, 2022). It was estimated that each interview would take approximately 20 to 25
minutes to complete. Recordings were stored and locked and will be held for a period of three
years before destruction. Specifically, the open-ended interview questions were designed to
allow participants to freely discuss and respond to prompts similar to the questionnaire question.
The follow-up interview questions were field-tested with subject-matter experts and designed to
prompt respondents for further discussion regarding the research question. Since the follow-up
interviews were more time intensive, voluntary response sampling was used in conjunction with
purposive sampling to schedule follow-up interviews. Not all participants engaged in the follow-
up interview; only those who indicated so on the questionnaire were scheduled for interviews.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom to eliminate location and time
boundaries (Terrell, 2022). A Zoom Pro account was used to conduct the interviews, allowing
for local storage of the recording, transcription of dialogue, and secure downloads of both the
interview and transcript. These transcripts were coded using Atlas.ti coding software. Rather
than a conversational interview, these interviews were semi-structured and utilized a set of pre-
written questions to help reduce bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Terrell, 2022). Respondents
were free to discuss any aspects they wished to share, but the questions did not lead or deviate
from the protocol in Appendix D.
Table 2
Research Question Alignment to Follow-Up Interview Protocol
Rationale for
Research Question Interview Questions Questions
What are former 1. Will you describe the gamified standards- Validates
students’ based grading system you experienced in high questionnaire
perceptions about school math? questions 1 and 2.
engagement with
2. How did you engage with mathematics while Validates
secondary
in the gamified standards-based grading system? questionnaire
mathematics
questions 3, 4, and 5.
content in a
gamified 3. What perceptions do you have about the Validates
standards-based gamified elements of the courses you questionnaire
grading system at experienced in high school? question 2.
a rural school in a 4. What perceptions do you have about the Validates
midwestern state? standards-based grading system you experienced questionnaire
in high school mathematics? question 1.
5. How would you describe the impacts of the Validates
gamified standards-based grading system in questionnaire
contrast with non-gamified points-based grading questions 6, 7, and 8.
systems?
After data from interviews and questionnaires were coded, summaries of the themes and
codes were emailed to participants. The email asked participants to verify the accuracy of the
conclusions and recommend any changes. This process is known as member checking and helps
increase the reliability of the results. These instruments were designed to increase the
trustworthiness of the study, but Billups (2021) asserted that every instrument should be field
tested to improve the validity of data collection.
Field Testing
Both instruments were created based on the rationale of triangulation and gathering
students’ perceptions related to the research question. The questionnaire asked participants open-
ended questions about different aspects of the system, including gamification, standards-based
grading, and engagement with mathematics. The questions for both instruments also asked
participants to compare and contrast their experiences to non-gamified, points-based grading
systems and to reflect on the longer-term effects of their experiences. Three subject matter
experts (S.M.E.s) were consulted for feedback to validate the questions created for these
instruments. Two of the S.M.E.s are active researchers and standards-based grading consultants;
one is a practicing collegiate mathematics professor who has published articles about standards-
based grading.
The first S.M.E. holds a PhD and is an author, researcher, and education consultant
working to assist teachers and administration with improving the public education system. This
S.M.E. provided several points of feedback based on the questionnaire and interview questions
(see Appendix E). One improvement was to clearly define the term “gamified” in the
questionnaire as the word “gamified” could create ambiguity in responses without the definition.
This S.M.E. also suggested field testing the instruments on colleagues to test the delivery of the
questionnaire and interviews. S.M.E. 1 suggested establishing a precise time expectation so
participants knew how much was being asked of them.

The second S.M.E. holds an EdD and is a school leader, author, presenter, and researcher
promoting the development of educational best practices in schools across the globe. Like the
first S.M.E., this one suggested field-testing the instruments on non-participants. Field tests may
reveal confusion about the meaning of words and phrases in the questions. This S.M.E.
encouraged clarity in the instructions for the questionnaire, discussing confidentiality, how the
data will be used, and who the survey is for (see Appendix F). One of their final critiques, similar
to the first S.M.E., was to include the estimated time for the instruments.
The third S.M.E. is a professor of mathematics at the University of South Alabama, a
researcher, and a publisher of research articles about alternative grading in the mathematics
classroom. Feedback provided by this S.M.E. suggested that the participants may not remember
or understand the definition of standards-based grading (see Appendix G). In response to this
feedback, screenshots of the course objective and a reminder text were included in the
questionnaire.
Another suggestion offered by this S.M.E. was to focus the follow-up interview questions
on a specific topic rather than broadening the open-ended questions. It was critical that these
questions not lead participants to respond in any way since the follow-up interviews were
primarily intended for validation purposes (Terrell, 2022). This suggestion was not taken but
would be very useful in future studies with more specific research questions.
Data Collection
Before any collection of data from participants began, this study was approved and
rigorously checked by the institutional review board (I.R.B.). After I.R.B. approval was met, the
research participants were contacted by email. After completion of the advanced mathematics
course, the population of students offered their personal contact email addresses if they were
willing to participate in future research. The first step in data collection was distributing and
collecting informed consent (see Appendix B). Research participants received an email from a
university email address with informed consent attached as a DocuSign document. DocuSign
collected and protected the informed consent documents, and a secure export was used to
download these files directly onto a single-user PC with password encryption. Once participants
consented, the questionnaire was sent to their email address to begin data collection related to the
research question.
Data were collected for this study using a web-based Google Form (see Appendix C) to
present the questionnaire. Ruel (2019) asserted that web-based forms are good for delivering
complicated questionnaires that are accessible to those with internet access. This Google Form
was distributed as a link in an email to participants only after informed consent had been signed
and returned. Before proceeding to the open-ended questions in the Google Form, the
questionnaire reminded the participants that their participation was voluntary. Aside from the
profile questions at the beginning of the questionnaire, all questions were open-ended, allowing
participants to discuss as much as they wanted in their answers to the questions (Ruel, 2019).
Responses from this form were collected into a spreadsheet and saved for coding later. The
questionnaire ended with a question that asked the participants if they agreed to conduct a
follow-up interview. It was estimated that the questionnaire should take only 15 minutes to
complete. Participants were free to complete this questionnaire at any location or time, but the
follow-up interviews were scheduled based on availability. In the event that a questionnaire was
not returned within five days after informed consent was returned, participants were sent a
reminder email prompting for completion again, and a final reminder was sent after five more
days.
Follow-up interviews were conducted on Zoom with recording and transcription enabled.
A time was scheduled when the participants could dedicate 20 to 25 minutes to the interviews.
An interview protocol (see Appendix D) was read verbally and sent via chat to the participant.
The questions were read, and only verbal responses were provided when prompted by the
participant (Creswell & Creswell, 2020). After the Zoom interview, a downloadable video and
transcript was available. The transcript and video were secured, and transcription errors were
corrected. Files were transformed into appropriate file types for importing into Atlas.ti
qualitative coding software and secured in the same folder. This data was uploaded to and stored
in Atlas.ti for data analysis. Participants who completed the interview consisted only of those
participants who opted in during the questionnaire and comprised the voluntary response
sampling for the follow-up interviews.
After completion of the study, research participants were thanked for their time and asked
verbally about member checking. A follow-up email was sent to participants no less than 24
hours after their exit from the study. This email expressed gratitude for their time and completion
of the study. Participants were informed about member checking and were asked to verify the
validity of the codes and results from the researcher in an email after the researcher had coded
the questionnaire and interview data. Participants were again thanked for their input in a final
email.
Data Analysis
Creswell and Poth (2018) described a qualitative data analysis model as a spiral including
the following steps: data organization, memoing emergent ideas, coding into themes, interpreting
results, and displaying results. As the stages progress, the circumference of the spiral narrows
into the final target of reporting findings. This study conformed to the model suggested by
Creswell and Poth (2018) and used the Atlas.ti software to assist with the organization of the
data and coding process. This platform allowed the saving and correction of auto-generated
transcripts from the video interviews and provided tools for thematic coding, sorting,
summarizing, and analyzing data collection. Both questionnaire responses and interview data
were stored in Atlas.ti and linked to research participants by an identification number.
After collecting the questionnaire and interview data, the participant’s identifying
information was replaced with the identification number to preserve confidentiality. The first
step in the analysis process was rapid reading and memoing. This process provided the basis for
determining codes to use in the coding process. After memoing was completed on the entire
database, coding began. Coding involves chunking the data into portions, organizing data into
categories, creating a description of the ideas in that category (Creswell & Poth, 2018), and
utilizing the Atlas.ti software enabled the data to be sorted and selected by code and for thematic
analysis within each code.
The penultimate stage of the data analysis was the creation of themes from the codes.
Themes represent the overarching picture of the findings in the qualitative study. The themes of
this study were constructed using a hierarchical approach, as memos lead into codes, which lead
to categorical themes. Finally, Creswell and Poth (2018) suggested using multiple forms of
visualization, including a chart of codes and tables of excerpts of qualitative data supporting the
categories. Summary statements of the findings were drafted in terms of the thematic ideas
revealed by participant responses through these visualizations.
Reliability and Validity
Billups (2021) described credibility (truth) and dependability (consistency) as elements of
trustworthiness in a qualitative study. The credibility and dependability of data interpretations

were established through the triangulation of data sources and member checking (Billups, 2021).
Bias was addressed in this study by purposefully sampling participants who no longer have an
authoritative relationship with the teacher who facilitated the gamified, standards-based grading
system in their high school math. The study used member checks to reduce bias in the results by
allowing participants to review and provide feedback on the findings.
Triangulation is a method mentioned by multiple qualitative research experts to increase
the validity of the data interpretation (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Triangulation occurred from two sets of data from the participants. Data were generated as
participants completed the online questionnaire. Transcriptions of the follow-up interviews
generated the second data set. Since multiple sources generated data, validity is enhanced
through the strategy of triangulation. To increase transferability, Merriam and Tisdell (2015)
suggested utilizing the strategy of rich, thick descriptions to contextualize the study. A thick
description established the research context of this study to increase the transferability.
Billups (2021) asserted that member checking is a common way to establish
trustworthiness in a qualitative study but must be carefully applied since member checking is
sometimes controversial. Trustworthiness was established in this study through the use of
member checking and the passage of time. Participants no longer had any relationship with the
teacher and were free to provide unbiased feedback about the results. Coded and thematic data
were shared with participants after the analysis stages, and participants were asked to offer
feedback about the codes. Participants either confirmed or offered amendments to the results
described.
Ethical Procedures
According to 45 C.F.R. § 46, research on human subjects must be undertaken with
extreme care and forethought (Protection of Human Subjects, 2023). This study was committed
to upholding the regulations outlined in 45 C.F.R. § 46 and the principles outlined in the
Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research, 1979). Specifically, this study ensured the protection of human subjects by
obtaining informed consent, assessing potential risks and benefits, and implementing measures to
ensure beneficence.
Respect for persons was established by recognizing that participants are individuals and
autonomous agents (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research, 1979). Research participants were able to withdraw from the study at
any time and were notified of this autonomy in the informed consent document. Before
conducting this study and contacting any research participants, this study underwent institutional
review board (I.R.B.) proposal, review, and approval. The I.R.B. reviewed the recruitment email
(see Appendix A), the informed consent document (see Appendix B), the questionnaire (see
Appendix C), and the follow-up interview protocol (see Appendix D). These documents were
ones that participants were directly in contact with and needed thorough vetting during the
proposal stage (Terrell, 2022). I.R.B. approval was achieved in letter form before the research
process began (see Appendix H)
This study respected participants’ autonomy and strove to promote justice by ensuring
that the population being studied was not overburdened by the research (National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). No
particular group of students unduly bore the burden of this research since the sampling method
was purposive and voluntary. The burden was distributed amongst those former students who
provided their contact information. The safety and well-being of the former students
participating in the study were of the utmost priority throughout the research. All identifying
information regarding research participants was redacted and replaced with participant ID
numbers. These ID numbers were assigned when importing into Atlas.ti software to ensure the
coding process did not preserve any information that could lead to a breach of confidentiality.
The time passage before this study mitigated ethical issues arising from the former
teacher having power over the research participants. Since the population of students has
graduated and entered post-secondary life, the former power structure no longer exists. These
participants were contacted for recruitment (see Appendix A) using their email addresses
provided before graduation. After this, informed consent (see Appendix B) was sent via
DocuSign to the participants. Informed consent helped mitigate ethical issues by notifying
participants of their rights.
A final ethical concern was data storage and destruction (Ruel, 2019). Participant
confidentiality must be safeguarded along with data and responses to the questions (Billups,
2021). Data collected from research participants was downloaded via spreadsheet and stored in a
secure folder on a single-user PC. Ruel (2019) asserted that online data collection tools assist
with preparing data for import into coding software. All data that was imported into Atlas.ti was
also secured via password protection and encryption. This data will be stored for three years and
then destroyed. Data from the Zoom transcription source were downloaded from Zoom and
secured locally on the single-user PC. The Zoom data source was destroyed after the download
was completed.
Chapter Summary
Qualitative studies seek to understand the perceptions of people experiencing a
phenomenon. Based on the research question of this study, a basic qualitative research design
was selected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Participants in this study were former high school math
students who shared their perceptions about engagement with mathematics in a gamified,
standards-based grading system they had experienced in high school. After obtaining informed
consent, research participants received a web-based questionnaire and invitation to follow-up
interviews, increasing the reliability and validity of the results of this study. Both instruments
were coded using the qualitative data software Atlas.ti, and the findings are presented in the next
chapter. The strategies of triangulation and member checking were utilized to increase the
reliability and validity of this study. Ethical procedures were followed to ensure respect for
persons, beneficence, and justice by including informed consent and the ability of research
participants to withdraw at any time. This study was grounded in constructivist learning theory,
and the findings add to the body of knowledge about gamification and standards-based grading
in secondary mathematics classes.

Chapter 4: Research Findings and Data Analysis Results
Mathematics is a field in which secondary school students find increasingly more
difficult to engage (Boaler, 2022; Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022). Students have learned to game the
points-based grading schemes commonly utilized in mathematics courses rather than truly
experiencing mathematics (Erbes et al., 2021). The problem was poor student engagement with
classroom activities in secondary mathematics. The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to
explore former students’ perceptions regarding the student engagement in teaching and learning
activities they experienced with secondary mathematics content in the gamified, standards-based
grading system at a rural high school in a midwestern state.
The upcoming sections present a comprehensive examination of the data collection,
analysis and results, and reliability and validity of this study. Data collection processes include
informed consent, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews. The data analysis techniques
utilized to extract insights from participant responses, including coding, thematic analysis, and
the answer to the research question, are presented second. Finally, the reliability and validity of
the findings are detailed, including credibility, dependability, transferability, consistency, and
trustworthiness.
Data Collection
The process for data collection began on June 7th, 2023, after this study was approved by
the American College of Education Institutional Review Board. Twenty-five participants were
recruited via email (Appendix A) and sent informed consent documentation (Appendix B)
through DocuSign. After completing informed consent, participants were emailed a link to the
questionnaire (Appendix C), and those who volunteered to complete a follow-up interview were
subsequently contacted via email to schedule an interview time. Interviews took place on Zoom
(Appendix D), were transcribed, and downloaded to a single-user password-protected PC.
Transcripts were thoroughly reviewed and corrected before data analysis and coding. Finally,
participants were sent a PDF printout of all parts they participated in along with the codes
applied to verify the accuracy of the interpretation of their responses via member checking.
At the beginning of recruitment, 25 individuals received the recruitment letter to their
personal email addresses. Then, they received an automated email from DocuSign with the
informed consent document to digitally sign on June 7th, 2023, which lasted for 15 days. Twenty-
one participants signed the informed consent documentation online by June 22nd, 2023 (Table 3).
Reminder emails were sent twice, once every five days, in accordance with the proposal in
Chapter 3, to assist with recruitment.
Table 3
Participant Response Rates and Time Frames
Data Collection
Phase Time Frame Number of Responses
Recruitment Email June 7 , 2023 – June 17th, 2023
th
25
Informed Consent June 7th, 2023 – June 22nd, 2023 21
Questionnaire June 7th, 2023 – June 23rd, 2023 17
Follow-up June 14th, 2023 – June 23rd, 2023 15
Interview
Member Checking June 19th, 2023 – June 26th, 2023 17
As soon as participants had completed informed consent, they were sent an email
thanking them for their willingness to participate and given the link for the research
questionnaire Google Form (Appendix C). The collection of the questionnaire responses began
on June 7th, 2023. The frequency of responses to the questionnaire is between the proposal
estimated 15-25 participants. All but one participant answered each of the eight questions from
the research questionnaire (Appendix C). One participant skipped the first question, and another
participant duplicated their answer to two of the questions.
Follow-up interviews began with one interview on June 14th, 2023, and ended on June
23rd, 2023. Two participants declined to participate in the follow-up interviews, so 15 interviews
were conducted at times ranging from 11:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. based on participant availability.
There were 15 interviews, which fell between the proposed 15-25 participant response rate. The
frequency varied between one per day and four per day. The duration of the interviews ranged
between a minimum of 6.5 minutes and a maximum of 15 minutes, with an average duration of
10 minutes. This duration deviates from the anticipated 20-25-minute duration in the proposal.
This deviation was due to the freedom of the participants to discuss each question to the depth
they believed adequately answered the questions. In accordance with the interview protocol, no
prompts were given to participants to extend their time, and the data collected from the
interviews served the intended purpose of validating questionnaire responses (Table 2).
Member checking began on June 19th, 2023, and continued through June 25th, 2023.
Participants were sent a PDF of their responses to the instruments they completed, along with
codes applied to each response. Every participant was asked to verify the accuracy of the
transcript corrections, responses, and the application of codes within three days of receiving the
email, or it would be assumed that no corrections were needed. Six participants responded that
no corrections were needed, and one participant responded that it was okay but also sent a
summary of opinions. No other participants responded to the member checking email, so it was
assumed no corrections were needed, as stated in the email.
One unusual circumstance was that during the final interview, a poor internet connection
caused a disconnect from the Zoom conference, which took approximately 60 seconds to
reconnect. During this time, the participant waited patiently. This disconnect happened at the end
of the interview and did not interfere with the participant’s answers to the interview protocol. No
other discrepancies occurred during data collection. Data analysis began after a meeting with the
dissertation chair on June 16th, 2023, and confirmed that data analysis could begin before all data
collection had ended.
Data Analysis and Results
Data files were secured in a folder on a password-protected single-user computer. From
there, the data were imported into Atlas.ti for analysis purposes. Atlas.ti imports results from
surveys as a text-based document and organizes the results by respondent rather than as a
spreadsheet.
Creswell and Poth (2018) described a qualitative data analysis model as a spiral
beginning with the organization of data, continuing with memoing of emergent ideas, coding and
narrowing into themes, developing interpretations, and culminating with visual displays of
findings. This system of data analysis was applied in this study in the method of what Saldaña
(2021) called holistic coding. This approach to coding considers entire pieces of evidence first,
and then codes are developed to match what the respondent is saying. Saldaña asserted that
holistic coding is good for use in cases where documents are specifically designed for research
purposes.
The first part of data analysis was the organization of data. Inside Atlas.ti, data were
initially organized by the respondent so that the responses, video interview, and transcript were
all together. Reading through the data from the questionnaire and the transcript was the next step
(Byrne, 2022). The process of correcting the transcripts required intensive listening and reading
to find and fix discrepancies. Responses were tagged with their corresponding question number
(Table 1 and Table 2). The second process of data analysis was memoing emergent ideas.
Another readthrough of all the responses for each question revealed three emergent ideas that
participants spoke about: gamification, standards-based grading, and points-based grading.
The third step of data analysis was coding the data and developing themes (Saldaña,
2021). During this readthrough, the data were organized by question, and each response was
coded with codes interpreted from the text. Most responses received multiple codes based on the
distinction of ideas the participants were conveying (Saldaña, 2021). As these codes were
applied, relationships between the codes began to emerge.
The penultimate step of data analysis was interpreting the coding results and
distinguishing the codes’ relationships (Saldaña, 2021). Relationships were created using Atlas.ti
relationship manager to link codes together and construct a network visualization for each
category. Many codes were related to more than one other code. For example, the “gamification
motivated class” code can be related to the “gamification incentive” code. A mapping of code
relationships for both standards-based grading and points-based grading was created to identify
relationships and discover emergent themes.
These five themes emerged from the relationships between codes and participant
responses. Theme 1 is that participants perceived standards-based grading positively with
improved understanding. Theme 2 is that standards-based grading impacted participants’
education and their views of education. Theme 3 is that participants enjoyed the ability to self-
regulate and self-pace in standards-based grading. Theme 4, points-based grading, was perceived
critically by most participants. Theme 5 is that participants held positive views of gamification—
table 4 details how codes were developed into themes with supporting quotes from participants.
Table 4
Codes, Quotations, and Emergent Themes
Codes Quotations Themes

SBG Positive "It was the most effective way for me to Positive experience
learn." and understanding in
standards-based
SBG Better "It was more about learning the overarching grading
Understanding ideas of math as opposed to memorizing ways
to answer questions."
SBG Major Impact "I think the change greatly impacted the way I Standards-based
worked as a student, as well as the way I grading impacts
approached learning and continue to do so." education and views
SBG Helps with "I was able to develop very effective study
college studying skills and study habits."
Self-Regulation "It taught me how to recognize my strengths Self-regulation and

and cater my time towards focusing on my self-pacing in
weaknesses." standards-based
grading
Self-Pacing "It helped me go more at my own pace while
still being able to track with the class."
PBG Negative “I personally despise points-based grading.” Criticisms of points-

based grading
PBG Not Learning "I feel like in points based grading, my
friends and I could progress through math
more easily without actually knowing the
content."
PBG Memorization "I would simply memorize how and when to

use certain methods."
Gamification "For the first time in my life I realized how Positive view of
Positive fun math was." gamification
Gamification "The gamified elements it made me want to

Incentive get all the badges because it was simply fun!"
Theme 1 - Positive experience and understanding in the standards-based grading system
Many participants' opinions about the standards-based grading system offered a positive
view and comments about improved understanding. Most participants asserted a preference for
gamified standards-based grading over non-gamified points-based grading and referenced a
belief that their experience was focused more on learning or mastery instead of memorization
and replication. One participant made contradictory remarks, stating that they understood better
the points-based grading system and held negative views of the gamified standards-based
grading. Participant 6 offered a passionate response supporting this theme as follows:
I thought that for me, It [sic] was the most effective way for me to learn. It helped me go
more at my own pace while still being able to track with the class. I can say with 100%
certainty that the work I did in the standards-based grading I can remember far more than
I do from any other course [sic].
In this response, Participant 6 positively described standards-based grading, commenting
on improved retention. The participant compared standards-based graded mathematics to all
other courses they have taken and expressed a strong positive perception. In the quote, perceived
success and effective learning were attributed to standards-based grading.
Participant 11 referenced deeper understanding of mathematics and the overall benefit
that the standards-based grading system had on their education as follows:
I really enjoyed the standards-based system because it tested understanding rather than
accuracy, which was the opposite of how I had learned in the past. The standards-based
system proved to be extremely beneficial for my learning because it was a method of
understanding concepts that could guide me to a correct answer for difficult questions,
and the performance task element proved to be one of the best and most effective
learning experiences that I have had in my entire education.
While referencing accuracy in the first part of this response, Participant 11 discussed past
math courses as memorizing a series of algorithms to be repeated for accuracy on a test. The
performance task element discussed here was a deeper-level assessment than the algorithmic test,
and this participant asserted that the standards-based grading system deeply impacted their
learning. The implication provided evidence for the emergence of the first theme.
In their follow-up interview, Participant 13 discussed their viewpoints of mathematical
engagement inside the gamified standards-based grading system as more about learning:
I think I engaged with mathematics more deeply in the standards-based grading system
because in the class, we went more in-depth with the lessons. It was more about learning
the overarching ideas of math as opposed to memorizing ways to answer questions and
then repeating that on tests.
This quote supports theme one in several ways. Participant 13 asserted that they switched from
rote memorization to a deeper understanding of mathematical topics in the standards-based
grading system. Many participants shared similar thoughts about a deeper understanding in the
system instead of procedural memorization. Theme 1 is supported by the participants' viewpoints
of deeper understanding and positive experiences in the standards-based grading system.
One participant was non-conforming to theme 1, explaining that they found it harder to
learn. Participant 3 stated in the questionnaire, “I noticed that not as many people were able to
firmly grasp what they had learned and that it was harder for me to apply what I learned to my
assignments.” In this quote, the participant argued that a majority of people had a worse
understanding in the standards-based grading system. This assertion was not supported by a
majority of other participants, but it does not invalidate the struggle of Participant 3. No
elaboration on this statement was available since Participant 3 declined a follow-up interview.
Theme 2 - Standards-Based Grading Impacts Education and Views
In theme 2, participants discussed how standards-based grading had a major impact on
their education or their views of education. They noted deeper level assessments, better
engagement, improved retention, and enhanced college experiences due to this grading system.
Participant 7 spoke of retention of knowledge and how that impacted the college experience:
I retain much more of my learning because the performance tasks encouraged me to learn
about the concepts fully and to understand the material instead of using memorization.
Learning in that way has taught me to make sure I understand concepts rather than study
to get a good grade on a test. I now group my studying into topics that I can understand
the ‘why’ first and then practice in context second.
Participant 7 asserted that the performance task assessment strategy used in the standards-
based grading led to a shift in how they approach education. Before experiencing the gamified
standards-based grading system, this participant viewed education as a set of things to
temporarily memorize in order to replicate on a test. They have since shifted to conceptual
understanding and use the learning-objective groupings to restructure their learning style.
Some participants repeated the same course in college and discussed having great success
from their experience in the gamified, standards-based math course. Participant 11 specifically
mentioned increased retention.
But the gamified standards, [sic] it like greatly improved my memory retention because
. . . I took calculus again, and everything like was like fresh in my mind like, [sic] super
easy to just pull out of there. Like it, like I remember it very well. And like, [sic] I was
able to succeed super well in my course just because of it.
This participant perceived and attributed their retention of topics to the gamified standards-based
grading system. As they repeated the course in college, they noted retaining the knowledge
learned in the gamified standards-based grading system. Several other participants mentioned
similar experiences. Others compared different repeated courses that did not use the gamified,
standards-based grading system, stating they did not remember much from those courses.
In their follow-up interview, Participant 15 asserted that standards-based grading impacted
the way they approach current classes and learning;
But I, since having the standard standards-based grading system, I try to apply that to
some of my classes. Focus on just like mastery in one topic before I move on to the next.
Even if I'm getting a little behind in the class, just to help me better [sic] because I don't
learn when everything is thrown at me all at once.
Participant 15 perceived that the standard-based grading system helped them change how they
approach education. They were able to identify the main topics and work toward mastery of the
topics inside the standards-based grading system and have applied those strategies in college.
Although most participants indicated a significant impact on their education and views of
education from their experience with standards-based grading, a couple of participants indicated
they observed no impacts. In the follow-up interview, Participant 9 indicated that since none of
their other courses used standards-based grading, there were no perceived impacts:
I really don't think it has all that much, just like, [sic] because all other math classes and
other classes I took both in high school, and then now in college, they all follow a much
more traditional base [sic] . I think it'd be very different if more classes followed like the
structure that you've had. Like, yes, I feel like it'd be a lot more beneficial then. But
whenever everybody else is doing a very traditional-based learning system. Then I, I [sic]
don't know . . . I wouldn't say it's a detriment, I just don't think it was a benefit
necessarily.
Many participants echoed Participant 9’s assertion that college courses were points-based
grading, but the non-nonconforming portion was the impact of the standards-based grading
system. Participant 9 did not observe any impacts of the system, stating it did not hurt their
education but did not help them either. This neutral position opposes the theme derived from the
majority of perceptions offered by participants.
One other non-conforming perception was from Participant 3. “It made it seem like math
was more of something I had to do, not something that I got to learn. I have completely forgotten
what I had learned in my classes that had the new system.” Participant 3 is the same participant
who held a negative viewpoint of standards-based grading. Here, the participant asserted a
negative impact of the grading system, driving them away from mathematics and leading to poor
retention. This case is contradictory to theme 2, which is formed from the majority of participant
responses that indicated deeper understanding, improved retention, and better engagement in the
standards-based grading system.
Theme 3 - Self-Regulation and Self-Pacing Promoted by Standards-Based Grading
The third theme was based on self-regulation and self-pacing in standards-based grading.
In this theme, participants highlighted how standards-based grading aided self-regulation and
allowed for self-pacing. Participants also explained the flexibility and controlled it offered in
their learning process. Participant 1 spoke about their perceptions of time and learning when
asked how the standards-based grading affected their engagement with mathematics, stating,
“The standards-based grading felt like it allowed me to work at my own pace. This flexibility
made me feel like I could learn the content much more efficiently. It was also just less stressful
in general.” This quote was tangentially related to the constructivist learning theory assertion that
knowledge is built over time. This participant expressed that the freedom from time constraints
imposed by the points-based grading system gave them less stress and improved their efficiency.
Self-regulation was promoted as Participant 1 tracked their progress and learned at their own
pace.
Participant 4 also commented about stress and self-regulation, mentioning recognition of
their progress.
I loved being able to retake quizzes and assignments as needed and felt like there was a
very comfortable push for mastery of topics. It definitely lent itself to a more relaxed and
low-stress learning environment . . . It taught me how to recognize my strengths and cater
my time towards focusing on my weaknesses.
A perceived benefit of the standards-based grading system was that the participants could
explicitly identify what skills they were proficient with and what skills they needed to improve.
Participant 4 mentioned managing their time and focusing on improving weak areas. This thread
was present in most participants as they described that standards-based grading reports their
knowledge level instead of point accumulation.
Although a majority of participants commented on the flexibility of the gamified,
standards-based grading system and reported positive traits of self-regulation and self-pacing,
Participant 3 again offered a contradictory viewpoint. Participant 3 implied that the system did
not provide enough accountability. “It was easier for me to slack off, and harder for me to grasp
the lesson . . . It has made me realize that I need a solid and simple system to understand content
and apply it to assignments.” This non-conforming viewpoint highlights that Participant 3
desired the behaviorist rewards of the points-based grading system to help them regulate
behaviors such as homework completion and engagement. This participant perceived standards-
based grading as the reason they were not learning and not applying themselves to the course
content.
Theme 4 - Criticism of Non-Gamified Points-Based Grading
The fourth main theme emerged around the network of codes and comments related to
non-gamified, points-based grading systems. A majority of participants expressed negative
viewpoints of points-based grading, describing being motivated by test-taking, earning points,
and a grade. Participants asserted that points-based grading was not about learning and discussed
high-stress levels, poor retention, and low-level understanding associated with points-based
grading systems.
Participant 7 discussed simply memorizing mathematical content in the points-based
grading system, something that quite a few responses also indicated. “In point-based systems,
[sic] I would approach math as different types of problems that I had to memorize for each test,
rather than understanding the material in a more in-depth manner.” This quote exemplifies what
most other participants asserted, that the points-based grading system leads students to modify
their behaviors to complete the system rather than actually learn. Participant 6 echoed this
sentiment in the following language “Education has killed every sliver of drive, passion,
curiosity, and the want to learn.” These participants believe that the points-based grading system
negatively impacted their experiences and formed the foundation for theme 4.
Participant 11 also discussed memorization, adding that points-based grading felt robotic.
“I would complete work in an almost robotic manner, working strictly for the correct answer as
opposed to understanding the foundations of the work itself. Overall, my main goal in these
courses was accuracy over understanding.” This quote demonstrates the perception held by most
participants that the goal of education in a points-based system is simply to earn a letter grade by
the easiest means possible. Criticisms of points-based grading in this manner were present
throughout participant responses.
The sentiment from Participant 1 was similar to Participant 11. When commenting about
how they engaged with math in the points-based system, Participant 1 also indicated confusion:
As little as possible. Points-graded math just feels like a chore. Every points-graded math
or stem class I've taken either leaves me confused and stressed about falling behind, or
I’m just bored and have to force myself to do the work because it’s all a part of the grade.
This participant expressed boredom and a struggle with motivation in the points-based grading
system and was coded as having negative views. Comments like this form the basis for theme 4,
as participants viewed points-based grading critically.
Several participants mentioned memorization, only learning for a test, and then forgetting
information. Participant 14 was passionate about criticism of points-based grading, stating, “I
personally despise points-based grading.” Participant 14 asserted that points-based grading
created confusion and led students to burnout. These ideas and perceptions shared by participants
contributed to theme 4, but two participants indicated a neutral position, and one stated a positive
view of the points-based grading system.
Participant 9 and Participant 16 offered a neutral position on points-based grading
systems. A non-conforming view was asserted by Participant 3 on question 3 about engagement

with mathematics in a non-gamified, points-based system: “I noticed that I studied more, and that
made me understand the content more.” Participant 3 perceived that the system of points
improved their engagement with mathematical content and assisted in their comprehension,
while the standards-based grading system did not. This view is in direct contradiction with theme
4.
Theme 5 - Positive Views of Gamification
The fifth theme that emerged from this study was a positive view of the gamified
elements. Participants described gamification elements in a positive light, perceiving them as
incentivizing, motivating, enjoyable, and fun. The presence of badges, competition, and the
leaderboard were all mentioned as enhancing the experience, although four participants felt that
gamification did not motivate them personally. No participants offered negative responses about
the gamified elements. The four that offered neutral perspectives stated that it was not personally
motivating but also indicated that it was not negative and observed others motivated by it.
Participant 2 discussed enjoying and being incentivized by the gamified elements of the
course:
For me (a student who loves competition), it made me want to do even better because I
like the competition (gamified) aspect . . . I believe it was a way to make people want to
actually try in the math class. Since we only had to get a certain number of p-tasks, once
people got that amount, they still had some incentive to keep working hard (the badges
and leaderboard).
This participant is commenting about the minimum required performance tasks (p-tasks) to earn
the A letter grade and how the badges and leaderboard incentivized them to keep trying after
they met the minimum requirements. The badges were earned by demonstrating mastery levels,
and the leaderboard tracked how many each individual had (anonymously). Many students
reported engaging competitively with the gamified elements, describing it as healthy
competition.
Participant 11 asserted they did not engage with the gamified elements competitively but
were still incentivized by the gamified elements for other reasons:
From my experience, gamified elements served as big motivators for me to do my best
because the reward for me personally was self-satisfaction and the feeling of
accomplishment, not the physical prizes or potential bonus points. I never really used
gamified elements for the competition element.
This participant reflected a positive view of the gamified elements even though they did not
engage competitively with the other students. The gratification of earning a badge and
recognition was something this participant described as a positive effect of the gamified
elements. Aside from extrinsic motivation, this quote highlights intrinsic motivation experienced
by some.
In their follow-up interview, Participant 13 shared they weren’t personally motivated by
the gamified elements but noted observing others who were motivated by the gamification they
experienced:
Personally, they didn't motivate me to do anything more in the class . . . I did observe
other students in the class being very motivated by things like the leaderboard or the
mastery quizzes having timers and a leaderboard, for who could do the mastery quizzes
the fastest. That did motivate other students . . . there's a certain amount of excitement
that comes with receiving a badge because you're getting acknowledged for the hard
work that you do. So, I liked that.

Participant 13 described not engaging with the gamified elements but perceiving the motivation
experienced by others. Similar to Participant 11, this quote echoed self-satisfaction for receiving
badges and acknowledgment of achievements. This quote exemplifies the idea that even
participants who did not engage with the gamified elements held positive views about
gamification.
Even Participant 3, who was frequently non-conforming to the majority of other
participants, discussed incentivization through gamification: “I liked the badge system, and it
made it seem like I had an incentive to work harder besides getting a good grade.” This quote is
evidence that even a participant who viewed standards-based grading negatively disassociated
the gamified elements from that negative view. All these quotes and perceptions justify the
formation of theme 5 as participants expressed positive views of the gamified elements they
experienced.
The answer to the research question is that the findings from former students’ perceptions
indicated that the gamified, standards-based grading system positively impacted their
engagement in teaching and learning activities. Participants in the study reported that the
gamified, standards-based grading system improved their understanding of learning objectives,
promoted self-pacing and self-regulation, and generally preferred standards-based grading over
points-based grading. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the implications of
gamified, standards-based grading in secondary mathematics.
Reliability and Validity
This study utilized a variety of methods to improve reliability and validity. Credibility
and dependability were bolstered through triangulation and member checking. This study used
triangulation of data through two different instruments to increase credibility. Member checking
was employed to improve dependability so that participants confirmed the accuracy of the
interpretation of their perceptions.
The researcher practiced reflexivity by acknowledging researcher and participant biases,
and they were addressed using various strategies. Researcher bias in the instrumentation was
minimized through field testing by subject matter experts. Only former students who graduated
over a year before the study were sampled to minimize participant bias. Saturation was reached
when codes were repeated by participants and no new insights were collected as 17 of the 34
potential participants responded and participated.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, this study has limited transferability due to the nature of the
advanced math course participants experienced the gamified, standards-based grading system.
This study employed thick descriptions by including direct participant quotations from the
questionnaire and interview, along with specific descriptions of the context of those quotes to
increase transferability.
Consistency in this study was established through a meticulous approach, as outlined in
Chapter 3, encompassing a detailed methodology and the use of an interview protocol. Interview
consistency was achieved by implementing a scripted interview protocol, carefully adhered to
during data collection and verified by transcription through Zoom. Throughout the study, the
consistency strategies remained unchanged. A standardized approach was maintained, and data
were collected consistently across all instrumentation.
Trustworthiness in this study was increased through member checking and previously
mentioned bias reduction strategies. Participants were asked to correct the record if they found
any inaccuracy in the interpretation of their results. No participants found corrections, which
supports the trustworthiness of this study. The passage of time is another key strategy employed
to increase trustworthiness. Participants had time to leave the system, experience one year of
college, and then reflect on their experiences in the system. Had participants been asked to
reflect on the impacts of the system immediately after experiencing it, their answers may have
been more biased. Participants needed time to experience collegiate systems before reflecting.
The participants no longer had an authoritative relationship with the researcher and had no
contact since they graduated, but they did have a relationship with the researcher in the past. The
relationship could have influenced participant responses. Most participants gave nuanced,
consistent responses as verified by triangulation, and some even gave non-conforming responses,
which supports the idea that the prior relationship minimally impacted answers.
Chapter Summary
The answer to the research question is that the standards-based grading system positively
impacted participants’ engagement, improved their understanding of learning objectives,
promoted self-regulation, and was preferred over points-based grading systems. Participants
enjoyed and were motivated by the gamified elements of the courses. Insights from this study
have implications for educational practice that may benefit educators, administrators, and future
students.
By relating the findings presented in this chapter to constructivist learning theory,
Chapter 5 will discuss implications for future research stemming from the limitations of this
study. The research moves beyond the description of participant perceptions and toward
expanded discourse about potential pedagogical implications by exploring the implications of the
findings in relation to constructivist principles. Through this exploration, this study sought to
advance understanding and dialog regarding the applications of constructivist approaches in
education.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions
school in a midwestern state. The answer to the research question is that the former students’
perceptions indicated that the gamified, standards-based grading system positively impacted their
engagement in teaching and learning activities. Participants in the study reported that the
gamified, standards-based grading system improved their understanding of learning objectives,
promoted self-pacing and self-regulation, and generally preferred standards-based grading over
points-based grading. After this, a discussion of the findings, interpretations, conclusions,
limitations, recommendations, and implications for leadership implications is presented.
Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions
Peer-reviewed literature has demonstrated the efficacy of standards-based grading on
student achievement (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019), but the current study was focused on student
perceptions of a gamified, standards-based grading system. Interpreting the findings of this study
involves connecting the analyzed data with existing literature and real-world applications. From
the data in the previous chapter and the literature, standards-based grading and gamification are
educational strategies that can improve students’ educational experiences.
The five themes this study found connect to various literature about gamification and
standards-based grading. Theme one is positive experience and understanding in the standards-
based grading system. Theme two is how standards-based grading impacts education and views.
Theme three is self-regulation and self-pacing promoted by standards-based grading. These three
themes connect with literature about the standards-based grading system (Guskey & Brookhart,
2019; Lewis, 2022). Discussions about mathematical mindsets (Boaler, 2022) and Lewis’
discussion about the impact of standards-based grades on those mindsets are evident in the
themes from this study. With regard to standards-based grading, existing studies have
demonstrated its effectiveness in improving assessment scores of learning objectives (Bromley,
2019; Erbes et al., 2021). This study validates student perceptions of deeper understanding and
enhanced ownership of the learning process. The findings of this study reinforce student focus on
mastery rather than point accumulation and lead students to perceive more meaningful learning
experiences.
The fourth and fifth themes connect to different works of literature. Theme four is
criticism of non-gamified points-based grading. This connects to existing literature about the
efficacy of traditional points-based grades (Cain et al., 2022). This theme extends the literature
by reporting viewpoints of former students related to their experience with points-based grading
systems. Townsley and Buckmiller (2020) also made the case that traditional grades are not a
necessity for transition to college, which is supported by the findings of this study.
Theme five is the positive views of gamification. These views support related literature
by Yamani (2021) and Kübra and Selay (2022) and provide support for recommendations by
Navarro-Espinosa et al. (2022). The findings of this study connect with these recent works of
literature and add to the literature by reporting opinions of people who experienced gamification
in an advanced mathematics course in secondary education.
Gamification research has highlighted its potential to enhance motivation and
engagement among students by incorporating gamified elements into educational courses
(Groening & Binnewies, 2021). The reported positive impact on mathematical engagement
aligns with the outcomes observed in other literature about educational gamification. The
findings of this study about self-regulation and self-pacing further affirm the idea that
gamification can empower learners to take an active role in their education.
This study combined the principles of standards-based grading with gamification
elements and contributed to the extended knowledge of educational practices. It demonstrates the
compatibility of the two approaches and shows how they complement each other to create an
engaging and effective learning environment. As educators seek innovative ways to enhance
their practices and classrooms, this study offers insights into one approach and students’
perceptions of their engagement within that system.
In the context of constructivist learning theory, the findings of this study indicate that
implementing a gamified, standards-based grading system positively impacted the views of
former students about their engagement with mathematics. Constructivist theory holds that
learners actively construct their understanding of knowledge through interactions in the learning
environment. The gamified, standards-based grading system used in this study facilitated an
interactive and immersive learning experience that encouraged student agency in the learning
process.
Participants reported an improved understanding of mathematics in the gamified,
standards-based grading system, suggesting that their active engagement allowed them to
integrate new knowledge with an existing schema. The self-regulation and self-pacing reported
by participants align with constructivist principles, as learners are encouraged to regulate their
learning progress based on their needs. The autonomy reported by these participants builds a
sense of responsibility and empowers students to direct their learning effectively.
The reported preference for standards-based grading over points-based grading further
reinforces the contrast between constructivist and behaviorist assertions (Cain et al., 2022).
Standards-based grading emphasizes mastery of learning objectives in which students focus on
comprehension rather than accumulating points. Participants reported a focus on personal growth
and understanding, which aligns with the constructivist belief that knowledge is actively
constructed within the learner.
This study’s findings highlight how the gamified, standards-based grading system
directly impacted the perceptions of former students, aligning with the principles of
constructivist learning theory. Active engagement, self-regulation, and a focus on comprehension
are all reinforced by the findings. By embracing these constructivist learning principles,
educators and administrators can create rich, interactive learning environments that promote
student agency and meaningful learning experiences.
The interpretations, inferences, and conclusions of this study remained focused on
student perceptions of the gamified, standards-based grading system and did not exceed the
scope of this study. The research question of this study asked about student perceptions of their
engagement in a gamified, standards-based grading system. This study maintained fidelity to
answering that question with qualitative instrumentation that gathered perceptions and then
analyzed thematic findings from participants’ views. Interpretations, inferences, and conclusions
of this study do not deviate from the original research question and do not extend beyond the
scope of this study.
Limitations
There are some specific limitations of this study regarding transferability, credibility,
dependability, and confirmability. These limitations are due to the nature of the course students
participated in and the confidentiality protections of the study. Each category of limitations is
addressed here and explained in the context of this sample group and the course in which they
participated.
Transferability is limited in this study for two main reasons. The sample group of
students experienced the gamified, standards-based grading system in an advanced mathematics
course. Participants of this study chose to take a senior-level, non-compulsory, Advanced
Placement math class and are not representative of the entire population of the school district.
The purposive sampling method used in this study implies that the findings of the study can be
transferred to advanced mathematics courses but may not transfer to general math courses or
even math classes in earlier grades. This limitation does not imply that the study cannot be
replicated in general or earlier math courses, only that the transferability of this study needs
further research.
The second limitation related to transferability was the subject of the course in which
participants experienced the gamified, standards-based grading system. In mathematics, clear,
skill-based learning objectives are well-defined. Other subject areas, such as language arts or
social studies, are not necessarily supported by the findings in this study. The lack of
transferability to other subjects does not imply that the study cannot be replicated in the other
subject areas but implies that further research is needed. Furthermore, this course was conducted
at a rural high school in the Midwest. The study’s findings may transfer well to similar schools,
but transferability to distinctly different schools with varying geographic locations and
demographic characteristics is unknown.
Measures were taken to mitigate the limitations of credibility and dependability, but
certain limitations still exist. The primary limitation concerning this study’s credibility is the
prior relationship that existed since the teacher who facilitated their math course was the same
individual conducting the interviews and communicating with the former students. Each
participant had a minimum of one year’s time between last interacting with that teacher and
beginning the study and was no longer under that teacher’s guidance. While no ongoing
communication was maintained between graduation and the start of the study, it is plausible that
the pre-existing relationship could have influenced the credibility by potentially affecting the
participant’s responses.
The main limitation of the dependability of the findings is derived from the interpretation
of the results. Saldaña (2021) described multiple ways researchers can code and interpret the
same dataset differently. The findings and implications of this study may have been interpreted
differently by a researcher in a different context. In the context of this study, the facilitator
became the researcher investigating perceptions about different grading and engagement
strategies used in a class they facilitated.
The confirmability of this study is limited by the confidential nature of the data collected
and privacy measures taken to ensure that the participant’s identifiable information is not
revealed. Although strategies to enhance confirmability were incorporated, minor factors limiting
the confirmability and trustworthiness of the interpretations remain. Participants of the study did
not provide any suggestions for revision during member checking, and the interpretations are
supported by literature and constructivist theory.
The findings of this study may be applicable in other subject areas and grade levels, but
those are beyond the scope of these findings. A gamified, standards-based grading system might
evoke similar perceptions when implemented in a science course; however, this study does not
provide evidence to support that assertion. Further research would be needed to investigate the
systems across other subjects and grade levels. Other factors may also influence student
perceptions about the system. It is possible that a course utilizing the same curriculum and
gamified standards-based grading system could have different outcomes solely based on the
different practices of each teacher. Guskey et al. (2020) argued that poor teacher fidelity to
standards-based grading practices sometimes correlates with negative views of standards-based
grading.
Recommendations
From a global perspective, the findings of this study indicate increased student
satisfaction through constructivist learning strategies such as gamification and standards-based
grading. As education evolves and grows, implementing theory-grounded strategies such as these
should improve the experience that learners have in their academic growth. Many participants
reported that these strategies shifted their mindsets toward true understanding and
comprehension of the topics rather than memorization. As technology develops, especially in the
exponential artificial intelligence growth age, measures of true comprehension will need to be
evaluated.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and databases of online knowledge have challenged the core
of the educational experience. Since most – if not all – knowledge that learners are expected to
develop in secondary education can be found online, the role of teachers and the mechanisms by
which they instruct, assess, and report mastery must evolve. The findings of this study imply that
by disrupting normally established expectations of the education system, learners increase their
satisfaction and belief that they have truly experienced learning. Finding relevance, confidence,
and satisfaction are key pillars of Keller’s (1987) model of instruction and should be built into
the process of designing educational experiences.

At the time of this study, artificial intelligence systems were growing exponentially
through the rise of large language models (LLMs) and various other tools. The impacts of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the education system and classroom are unknown, but there is
potential for significant disruption. As more becomes known about AI and its capabilities and
limitations, teachers and instructional designers should explore how students interact with
content and make meaning. This study provides evidence that educators should move beyond
rote memorization and seek to build learning experiences that immerse learners in contextualized
learning and provide agency for learners to regulate their learning.
Further research is needed about the specific strategies used in this study. Gamification
and standards-based grading showed a net positive impact on perceptions of advanced
mathematics course students. It is recommended that these same strategies be tested in general,
compulsory math classes across varying grade levels and remedial math classes. Such testing
would check the transferability of research findings to other math classes with varying learner
styles and motivations. A second area of further research is to transfer the specific strategies to
content areas other than mathematics to test the impacts of the strategies on engagement with
other content types.
While this study supports the specific strategies of gamification and standards-based
grading, it cannot be generalized that these strategies are the best choice for every instructional
setting and student population. Literature suggests that the efficacy of any strategy is heavily
based on the teacher-student relationship (Guskey, 2020). While all educators should seek to
build positive relationships with their students, the findings of this study have some implications
for educational practices.

Mathematics educators should explore gamification as a strategy to improve student
engagement. The findings of this study and current literature suggest that gamified elements
provide a way for learners to interact with the course in engaging ways. Mathematics educators
should use standards-based grading to increase learner self-regulation and agency. Literature
suggests that standards-based grading improves communication of mastery, and this study found
that learners report increased ownership of their education.
Implications for Leadership
The findings of this study have potential impacts for positive institutional change in the
field of education. Educators who adopt gamification and standards-based grading can transform
how learners experience secondary and post-secondary education. Systemic utilization of such
systems would create a portfolio of student competency in learning objectives rather than simply
a percentage grade for each class (Cain et al., 2022). Systemic changes should also benefit
learners on the individual level.
The findings of this study indicate that learners increase self-regulation and ownership of
their learning experiences. Greater ownership of learning on an individual level should improve
the quality of the experience for both learner and instructor. In a society where instantaneous
feedback is a desire, gamification can provide immediate gratification while aiding in self-
regulation (Barber, 2021). The implications of a reformed education system in which learners
extensively take ownership of their learning are unexplored.
Educational leadership should consider exploring the utilization of standards-based
grading and gamification in classroom settings. Stakeholders for change in the education system
should investigate these strategies and other constructivist strategies to meet the needs of the next
generation of learners. Learning management system leadership should also consider

implementing gamified elements such as badges, leaderboards, and achievements in their core
software design. Student information system designers should research methods to improve
standards-reporting measures and mastery indicators. Stakeholders in the education process have
the ability to dramatically shape the future both experientially and logistically for teachers and
students.
Conclusion
In conclusion, former students’ perceptions indicated that the gamified, standards-based
grading system positively impacted their engagement in teaching and learning activities.
Participants in the study reported that the gamified, standards-based grading system improved
their understanding of learning objectives, promoted self-pacing and self-regulation, and
generally preferred standards-based grading over points-based grading. Participants believed the
gamified elements had a positive impact on their experience. This study offered new knowledge
about student perceptions of standards-based grading and gamification after entering collegiate
studies. Most participants indicated a positive change in their learning styles, with some
indicating no impact, implying that further iterations of these strategies may be needed to test
student perceptions at a wider level.
The results of this study demonstrated that the combined approach of gamification and
standards-based grading positively influenced students’ perceptions of engagement,
understanding, self-regulation, and autonomy, aligning with constructivist principles. This study
emphasized compatibility of gamification and standards-based grading, providing insights into
enhancing educational practice. This research maintained a focus on student perceptions,
highlighting how the combined approach promotes interactive and meaningful learning
experiences as reported by the learners after transitioning to collegiate studies. Continuing the
ongoing study of educational practice and further refining the systems that shape generations’
learning experiences remains paramount, and this study enriches the current body of literature on
these methodologies.
References
Alebrahim, F., & Ku, H.-Y. (2020). Perceptions of student engagement in the flipped classroom:
A case study. Educational Media International, 57(2), 128–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1786776
Barber, C. S. (2021). When students are players: Toward a theory of student-centric edu-
gamification systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 32(1), 53–64. JISE -
V32 - N1 - When Students Are Players: Toward a Theory of Student-Centric Edu-
Gamification Systems
Barry, L. (2022). Students' perceptions of standards based grading in a high school biology
classroom (Publication No. 29392851). [Doctoral dissertation, Trinity Christian College].
Proquest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/students-perceptions-standards-based-grading-high/docview/2719115883/se-2
Belton, T. R. (2022). The impact of grading systems on middle school students’ summative
mathematics achievement test scores (Publication No. 29068288). [Doctoral dissertation,
Regent University]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses.
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/impact-grading-systems-on-middle-
school-students/docview/2656857767/se-2
Billups, F. (2021). Using the research question to guide qualitative data collection tool design.
SAGE Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781071878699
Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative
mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching, (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bromley, J. M. (2019). The effects of standards-based grading in a secondary mathematics
classroom (Publication No. 13879265). [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University].
Proquest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/effects-standards-based-grading-secondary/docview/2275956857/se-2
Byrne, D. (2022). How do I analyze and interpret qualitative data?. Project Planner.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526408570
Cain, J., Medina, M., Romanelli, F., & Persky, A. (2022). Deficiencies of traditional grading
systems and recommendations for the future. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 86(7), 908–915. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8850
Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Student engagement in a flipped secondary mathematics
classroom. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1455–
1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10213-x
Chmiel, M. (2021). Game-Based Learning (GBL). Salem Press Encyclopedia.
https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9b98fcf5-2ec5-3c98-a82e-
a422313ba3eb
Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Bobis, J., Way, J., & Anderson, J. (2019). How students switch on
and switch off in mathematics: Exploring patterns and predictors of (dis)engagement
across middle school and high school. Educational Psychology, 39(4), 489–509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1537480
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2020). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

Erbes, S., Wizner, M., & Powlis, J. (2021). Understanding the role of traditional & proficiency-
based grading systems upon student learning and college admissions. Journal of Higher
Education Theory & Practice, 21(10), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i10.4625
Facca, D., Smith, M. J., Shelley, J., Lizotte, D., & Donelle, L. (2020). Exploring the ethical
issues in research using digital data collection strategies with minors: A scoping review.
PloS One, 15(8), e0237875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237875
Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2021). The more, the merrier? - How adding and removing game
design elements impact motivation and performance in a gamification environment.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(12), 1130–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1870828
Guskey, T. R. (2020). Flip the script on change: Experience shapes teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs. Learning Professional, 41(2), 18–22.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=edp_facpub
Guskey, T. R. (2021). Learning from failures: Lessons from unsuccessful grading reform
initiatives. NASSP Bulletin, 105(3), 192–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211029375
Guskey, T. R., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). What we know about grading: What works, what
doesn't, and what's next. ASCD.
Guskey, T. R., Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. M. (2020). The impact of standards-based
learning: Tracking high school students’ transition to the university. NASSP
Bulletin, 104(4), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636520975862

Harney, K., Greene, J. L. R., Katz-Cote, H., Mulcahy, K., & Stanley, L. M. (2022). A view from
the inside: Ensemble directors’ perspectives on standards-based instruction. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294221126681
Harrington, A., Henry, R., Milligan, R., Morel, N., & Osteen, J. (2019). Students take ownership
of learning: Tennessee program develops agency through competency-based
education. Learning Professional, 40(4), 44–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230552
Hershberger, T. J. (2021). “A better learning environment”: Student perceptions of standards-
based grading in a high school English class. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/better-learning-environment-student-perceptions/docview/2671923267/se-2
Huey, M. E., Silvey, P. R., Vaughan, A. G., & Fisher, A. L. (2022). Assessing the impact of
standards-based grading policy changes on student performance and practice work
completion in secondary mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101211
Jeong, J. S., & González-Gómez, D. (2022). Mathematics self-belief comparison and
examination of pre-service teacher (PST) through a flipped-open calculation based on
numbers (ABN) learning method. Heliyon, 8(7).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09806
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal
of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780
Kohn, A., & Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and
what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.

Kübra, E., & Selay, A. (2022). Gamification design to increase motivation in online learning
environments: A systematic review. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age,
7(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1020044
Lantolf, J. P., & Xi, J. (2019). Let’s not get tied into knots: a response to Newman, (2018)—
Vygotsky, Wittgenstein, and sociocultural theory. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 49(3), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12210
Leonard, R. J. (1995). From parlor games to social science: Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the
creation of Game Theory 1928-1944. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(2), 730–761.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729025
Lewis, D. (2022). Impacts of standards-based grading on students’ mindset and test anxiety.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 22(2), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v22i2.31308
Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky's methodological contribution to sociocultural theory. Remedial and
Special Education, 20(6), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259902000607
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational
Leadership, 69(3), 34-39. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/grades-that-
show-what-students-know/docview/1018479774/se-2
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research : A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Miller, C. J., Perera, H. N., & Maghsoudlou, A. (2021). Students’ multidimensional profiles of
math engagement: Predictors and outcomes from a self‐system motivational
perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 261–285.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12358
Milman, N. B., & Wessmiller, J. (2020). Motivating the online learner using Keller’s ARCS
model. Distance Learning, 17(4), 33–37.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/cc9521dac16a0618c33784a4435a2127/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=29704
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., Sanchez, J. A. L., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., & Munoz, C. B. (2021).
Gamification and active learning in higher education: Is it possible to match digital
society, academia, and students’ interests? International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00249-
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-
belmont-report/index.html
Naughton, J. (2022). Testocracy: The undemocratic system of standardized testing in the United
States. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31(2), 263–296.
https://lawjournal.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/5_Naughton_Final_v31_I2.pdf
Navarro-Espinosa, J., Vaquero-Abellán, M., Perea-Moreno, A., Pedrós-Pérez, G., Martínez-
Jiménez, M., & Aparicio-Martínez, P. (2022). Gamification as a promoting tool of
motivation for creating sustainable higher education institutions. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052599
Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Shi, L., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., & Isotani, S.
(2022). Tailored gamification in education: A literature review and future
agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11122-4
Park, S., & Kim, S. (2021). Is sustainable online learning possible with gamification?—The
effect of gamified online learning on student learning. Sustainability, 13(8), 4267.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084267
Pavlov, I. (1941). Lectures on conditioned reflexes. Vol. II. Conditioned reflexes and psychiatry.
Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic Qualitative Research in
Psychology. Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2015.2097
Pham, A. T. (2022). University students’ perceptions on the use of Quizlet in learning
vocabulary. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(7), 54–63.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i07.29073
Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2023). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46
Reeves, K. D. (2021). Predictivity of standards-based report card models for standardized test
scores: A taxonomic mixed methods study. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/predictivity-standards-based-report-card-models/docview/2617318405/se-2
Ruel, E. (2019). 100 Questions (and answers) about survey research. SAGE Publications, Inc.,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506348803
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Schmidt, C. (2002). Chapter 6: Do Von Neumann and Morgenstern have heterodox followers?
Game Theory & Economic Analysis. 114–134.
Skinner, B. F. (n.d.). A brief survey of operant behavior. The B.F. Skinner Foundation:
https://www.bfskinner.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/A brief survey of operant behavior.pdf
Smith, T. J., Walker, D. A., Hsu, W.-Y., Lu, Y.-Y., Hong, Z.-R., & McKenna, C. M. (2022).
Teacher characteristics as predictors of mathematics attitude and perceptions of engaged
teaching among 12th grade advanced mathematics students in the U.S. Education
Inquiry, 13(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1883910
Song, M., Garet, M. S., Yang, R., & Atchison, D. (2022). Did states’ adoption of more rigorous
standards lead to improved student achievement? Evidence from a comparative
interrupted time series study of standards-based reform. American Educational Research
Journal, 59(3), 610–647. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211058460
Terrell, S. R. (2022). Writing a proposal for your dissertation: Guidelines and examples.
Guilford Publications.
Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. (2020). Losing As and Fs: What works for schools
implementing standards-based grading? Educational Considerations, 46(1).
https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2204
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wang, M.-T., Hofkens, T., & Ye, F. (2020). Classroom quality and adolescent student
engagement and performance in mathematics: A multi-method and multi-informant

approach. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 49(10), 1987–2002.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01195-0
West, S. M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions regarding standards-based grading (Publication No.
2652911042). [Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Baptist University]. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/teachers-perceptions-regarding-
standards-based/docview/2652911042/se-2
Westover, J. P., Westover, J. H., & Andrade, M. (2021). Foundational learning theories and
student motivation for developmental education. International Journal of Pedagogy &
Curriculum, 28(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v28i02/137-148
Wilcox, J., & Townsley, M. (2022). Debunking myths of standards-based grading: Addressing
the concerns and providing some strategies for implementing alternative grading
practices. Science Teacher, 90(1), 29–33. https://www.nsta.org/science-teacher/science-
teacher-septemberoctober-2022/debunking-myths-standards-based-grading
Yamani, H. A. (2021). A conceptual framework for integrating gamification in eLearning
systems based on instructional design model. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 16(4), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i04.15693
Yaşar, H., Kıyıcı, M., & Karataş, A. (2020). The views and adoption levels of primary school
teachers on gamification, problems and possible solutions. Participatory Educational
Research, 7(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.46.7.3
Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford publications.
Zeybek, N., & Saygı, E. (2021). Gamified lesson design model proposal for mathematics
instruction. Kastamonu Education Journal, 29(5), 823–837.
https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.764350
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
Recruitment Letter
Date:
Dear Research Participant

I am a doctoral student at American College of Education. I am writing to let you know about
an opportunity to participate in a dissertation research study.
Brief description of the study: This study is gathering

perceptions of former students about their engagement with
mathematics in a gamified, standards-based grading system.
Description of criteria for participation: You were enrolled in a gamified mathematics

course using standards-based grading, have been out of high school for more than half of
a year, and continued into post-secondary education.
Your participation in the study will be voluntary. If you wish to withdraw from the research at
any time, you may do so by contacting me using the information below.
I may publish the results of this study; however, I will not use your name nor share
identifiable data you provided. Your information will remain confidential. If you would
like additional information about the study, please contact the following
Candidate Contact Information: Albert Bryant
Chair Contact Information: Cathy McKay CathyMcKay@ace.edu

If you meet the criteria above, are interested in participating in the study, and would like to be
included in the potential participant pool, please reply to this message and confirm your
interest, a DocuSign informed consent document will be emailed for you to sign.
Thank you again for considering this dissertation research opportunity.

Albert Bryant
Appendix B: Informed Consent
Prospective Research Participant: Read this consent form carefully and ask as many questions
as you like before you decide whether you want to participate in this research study. You are free
to ask questions at any time before, during, or after your participation in this research.
Project Information
Project Title: Student Perceptions of Engagement with Secondary Mathematics in a Gamified,
Researcher: Albert Bryant
Organization: American College of Education

Email: Telephone:
Date of I.R.B.
Approval:
Please note that this research study has been approved by the American College of Education
Institutional Review Board. The I.R.B. approved this study on ______(insert date on ACE
I.R.B. approval letter). A copy of the approval letter will be provided upon request.
Researcher’s Dissertation Chair: Cathy McKay
Organization and position: American College of Education Professional Educational Studies
Email: Cathy.McKay@ace.edu
Introduction
I am Albert Bryant, and I am a doctoral candidate student at American College of Education. I
am doing research under the guidance and supervision of my Chair, Dr. Cathy McKay. I will
give you some information about the project and invite you to be part of this research. Before
you decide, you can talk to anyone you feel comfortable with about the research. If you have
questions, ask me to stop as we go through the information, and I will explain. If you have
questions later, feel free to ask me then.
Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this basic qualitative study is to explore former students’ perceptions regarding
the student engagement in teaching and learning activities they experienced with secondary
mathematics content in the gamified, standards-based grading system at a rural high school in a
midwestern state. You are being asked to participate in a research study which will assist with
understanding student perceptions of mathematical engagement within the system. Conducting
this qualitative study will provide evidence about the system from the student perspective.
Research Design and Procedures

The study will use a qualitative methodology and basic qualitative research design.
Questionnaires will be disseminated to specific participants whom have completed math courses
using the gamified, standards-based grading system. The study will comprise of 15-25
participants who will participate in open-ended questionnaires. The study will involve virtual
follow-up interviews to be conducted via Zoom for participants. Participants will be selected to
offer perspectives and opinions specific to the gamified, standards-based grading system they
experienced in at least one of their high school mathematics courses.
Participant selection
You are being invited to take part in this research because of your experience as a former
mathematics student who can contribute much to the body of knowledge, which meets the
criteria for this study. Participant selection criteria:
1. Graduated high school within the last two years.
2. Active in post-secondary education.
3. Experienced the gamified, standards-based grading system in a mathematics course at
Ozark High school.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. It is your choice whether to participate.
If you choose not to participate, there will be no punitive repercussions.
Right to Refuse or Withdraw

Participation is voluntary. At any time you wish to end your participation in the research study,
you may do so by sending me an email explaining you are opting out of the study. There will be
no repercussions for leaving the study.
Procedures
We are inviting you to participate in this research study. If you agree, you will be asked to
complete a questionnaire, and a follow-up virtual interview. The type of questions asked will
range from a demographical perspective to direct inquiries about the topic of mathematical
engagement within a standards-based grading system. Data will be collected in textual form from
the questionnaire and the interviews will be conducted on Zoom with recording and transcription
enabled.
Duration
The questionnaire portion of the research study will require approximately 15 minutes to
complete. If you are chosen for a follow-up interview, the time allotted for the interviews will be
20 to 25 minutes conducted via Zoom for the participant. Prior to an interview, you will be asked
to provide permission to have the interview recorded for the sake of having accurate transcripts
for data.
Risks
The researcher will ask you to share personal and confidential information, and you may feel
uncomfortable talking about some of the topics. You do not have to answer any question or take
part in the interview if you don't wish to do so. You do not have to give any reason for not
responding to any question.
Benefits
While there will be no direct financial benefit to you, your participation is likely to help us find
out more about student perceptions and longer-term implications of gamified, standards-based
grading. The potential benefits of this study will aid the planning and implementation of
mathematical course design at the high school level.
Confidentiality
I will not share information about you or anything you say to anyone outside of the researcher.
During the defense of the doctoral dissertation, data collected will be presented to the dissertation
committee. The data collected will be kept in a locked file cabinet or encrypted computer file.
Any information about you will be coded and will not have a direct correlation, which directly
identifies you as the participant. Only I will know what your participant number is, and I will
secure your information on a single-user computer with password protection and encrypted hard-
drive.
Sharing the Results
At the end of the research study, the results will be available for each participant. It is
anticipated to publish the results so other interested people may learn from the research.
Questions About the Study

If you have any questions, you can ask them now or later. If you wish to ask questions later, you
may contact Albert Bryant at
This research plan has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of
American College of Education. This is a committee whose role is to make sure research
participants are protected from harm. If you wish to ask questions of this group, email
I.R.B.@ace.edu.
Certificate of Consent
© 2021 American College of Education
I have read the information about this study, or it has been read to me. I acknowledge why I have
been asked to be a participant in the research study. I have been provided the opportunity to ask
questions about the study, and any questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I certify I
am at least 18 years of age. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.
Print or Type Name of Participant: _____________________________________
Signature of Participant: _____________________________________________
Date: ___________________
I confirm that the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all
the questions asked by the participant have been answered to the best of my ability. I confirm
that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent, and the consent has been given
freely and voluntarily. A copy of this Consent Form has been provided to the participant.
Print or Type Name of Lead Researcher: ________________________________
Signature of Participant: _____________________________________________
Date: ___________________
PLEASE KEEP THIS INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR YOUR RECORDS.
Appendix D: Follow-up Interview Protocol
Interviews Scheduled via Zoom Pro account, set to be recorded and auto-transcribed. After the
interviewer and participant both join the Zoom meeting, the recording will begin, and the
following script will be read. The interviewer will not ask any leading questions and will give
each respondent time to speak freely about their responses.
Script: Thank you for agreeing to this interview. In this interview, I will ask you to elaborate on
your answers to the questionnaire. I will ask you a set of pre-defined questions and listen to your
answers. This interview is being recorded, and I will use the transcripts as a second source of
data to improve the validity of my research findings. Your responses will be kept confidential
and identifiable only to me. Do you agree to proceed?
1. Will you describe the gamified standards-based grading system you experienced in high
school math?
2. How did you engage with mathematics while in the gamified standards-based grading
system?
3. What perceptions do you have about the gamified elements of the courses you
experienced in high school?
4. What perceptions do you have about the standards-based grading system you experienced
in high school mathematics?
5. How would you describe the impacts of the gamified standards-based grading system in
contrast with non-gamified points-based grading systems?
Thank you for answering these questions. Do you have any other thoughts you’d like to share
regarding the research question?
Once I have completed the data analysis, I will reach out to you via email to present the themes
and ideas I took away from both the questionnaire and the interview. The purpose of this is to
verify the accuracy of the interpretation of your responses. At that time, if you have corrections
that need to be made or inaccuracies please share those thoughts to correct the record.
Thank you for your time and willingness to share your thoughts and opinions. Have a good rest
of your day.
Appendix H: IRB Approval Letter

ProQuest Number: 30993220
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2024 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

Student Perceptions of Engagement With Secondary Mathematics in A Gamified, Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Perceptions of Engagement With Secondary Mathematics in A Gamified, Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAMIFIED STANDARDS-BASED ENGAGEMENT 1

Student Perceptions of Engagement with Secondary Mathematics in a Gamified,

Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study

Dissertation Submitted to the Doctoral Program

of the American College of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Instructional Technology

Student Perceptions of Engagement with Secondary Mathematics in a Gamified,

Standards-Based Grading System: A Basic Qualitative Study

Dissertation Chair: Cathy McKay, EdD

Committee Member: Ashraf Esmail, PhD

investigating former student perceptions of their engagement with mathematics. Grounded in

engagement, improved their understanding of learning objectives, promoted self-regulation, and

standards-based grading in secondary education.

Keywords: standards-based grading, gamification, mathematics, engagement

world, and to Jesus Christ, whom I serve daily.

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 12

Background of the Problem .............................................................................................. 13

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 14

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 14

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 15

Research Question ............................................................................................................ 16

Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 16

Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................... 17

Scope and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 19

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 22

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 23

Literature Search Strategy................................................................................................. 24

Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 25

Game Theory ........................................................................................................ 28

Research Literature Review .............................................................................................. 29

Mathematics Engagement ..................................................................................... 30

Grading Mathematics ............................................................................................ 34

Student Perceptions in Related Research .............................................................. 44

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 46

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 49

Research Methodology, Design, and Rationale ................................................................ 50

Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 53

Research Procedures ......................................................................................................... 54

Population and Sample Selection.......................................................................... 54

Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 58

Field Testing ......................................................................................................... 60

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 61

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 63

Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 64

Ethical Procedures ............................................................................................................ 66

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 68

Chapter 4: Research Findings and Data Analysis Results ............................................................ 69

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 69

Data Analysis and Results ................................................................................................ 72

Theme 1 - Positive experience and understanding in the standards-based grading

Theme 2 - Standards-Based Grading Impacts Education and Views ................... 77

Theme 3 - Self-Regulation and Self-Pacing Promoted by Standards-Based

Theme 4 - Criticism of Non-Gamified Points-Based Grading ............................. 81

Theme 5 - Positive Views of Gamification........................................................... 83

Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 85

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 87

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................................ 88

Findings, Interpretations, and Conclusions ....................................................................... 88

Implications for Leadership .............................................................................................. 96

Appendix A: Recruitment Letter ................................................................................................ 108

Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 109