Connecting Peer Reviews with Students’ Motivation - Onboarding, Motivation and Blended Learning

Kay Berkling


This paper evaluates the onboarding phase for students who are exposed to a blended and open learning environment for the first time, where self-directed learning is key to success. The study was undertaken in a very restricted environment, where the primary motivation of students is the achievement of good grades in the most efficient manner due to extreme time constraints. In past research, we have shown that students have difficulty to move from the traditional setting of frontal lecture and final exam to an open learning environment that focuses more on self-directed learning and peer created content than grades. This work builds on findings that blended learning environment should be adaptive to learner types and gamification features need to be implicit. Adaptivity is not guaranteed through a single platform but instead by involving students in constructing their learning environment. This paper reports on the final set up of the course and the student evaluation thereof. We show that the current environment with student involvement leads to mostly positive attitudes towards most aspects of the course across virtually all students. Forums are perceived as a barrier as are individual contributions to the class content and are not appropriate features for onboarding. In contrast and despite being difficult, effective use of peer reviews can be shown to match student motivation across all learners. Their use is understood as a means to obtaining a good grade and learning.


  1. Carlos, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Carlos Delgado-Kloos, Mario Muñoz-Organero, and Antonio Rodríguez-de-las-Heras. "Analysing the impact of built-in and external social tools in a MOOC on educational technologies." In Scaling up learning for sustained impact, pp. 5-18. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
  2. Aydin, Selami. "A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment." Educational Technology research and development 60, no. 6 (2012): 1093- 1106.
  3. Bartle, Richard. "Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs." Journal of MUD research 1, no. 1 (1996): 19.
  4. Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and Satisfaction in Internet-Supported Learning Environments: A Review. Educational Technology and Society, 13 (2), 116-127.
  5. Berkling, K. and Thomas, Ch., Looking for Usage Patterns in e-Learning Platforms - a step towards adaptive environments, CSEDU 2014, 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, SciTePress, 2014.
  6. Berkling, K. and Zundel, A., Understanding the Challenges of Introducing Self-driven Blended Learning in a Restrictive Ecosystem - Step 1 for Change Management: Understanding Student Motivation, CSEDU 2013, 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, SciTePress, 2013.
  7. Berkling, K. and Thomas, Ch., Gamification of a Software Engineering Course -- and a detailed analysis of the factors that lead to it's failure. ICL 2013, 16th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning and 42 International Conference on Engineering Pedagogy, 2013.
  8. Bjork, Robert A., John Dunlosky, and Nate Kornell. "Selfregulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions." Annual Review of Psychology 64 (2013): 417-444.
  9. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2012). Overview of selfdetermination theory. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, 85.
  10. Derntl, M. and Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130.
  11. Falchikov, Nancy. Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. Routledge, 2013.
  12. Fuhrmann, B. Schneider and A. F. Grasha. A practical handbook for college teachers. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983.
  13. Gagné, M. and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
  14. Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.
  15. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, pdf.
  16. Hall, S. R., Waitz, I., Brodeur, D. R., Soderholm, D. H., and Nasr, R. (2002). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. In Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual (Vol. 1, pp. T2A-9). IEEE.
  17. Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
  18. Kim, A.J. Designing the player journey., 2010.
  19. Lynch, R. and Dembo, M. (2004). The Relationship Between Self-Regulation and Online Learning in a Blended Learning Context. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from 9/271.
  20. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
  21. Mohammad, S. and Job, M. A. (2012). ConfidenceMotivation-Satisfaction-Performance (CMSP) Analysis of Blended Learning System in the Arab Open University Bahrain.
  22. Nelson, Melissa M., and Christian D. Schunn. "The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance." Instructional Science 37, no. 4 (2009): 375-401.
  23. Nilson, Linda B. "Helping students help each other: Making peer feedback more valuable." Essays in Teaching Excellence 14, no. 8 (2002): 1-2.
  24. Piech, Chris, Jonathan Huang, Zhenghao Chen, Chuong Do, Andrew Ng, and Daphne Koller. "Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs." arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579 (2013).
  25. Pink, D. H. (2010). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Canongate.
  26. Pujo, F. A., José Luis Sánchez, José García, Higinio Mora, and Antonio Jimeno. "Blogs: A learning tool proposal for an Audiovisual Engineering Course." In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2011 IEEE, pp. 871-874. IEEE, 2011.
  27. Rebitzer, J. B. and Taylor, L. J. (2011). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motives: Standard and behavioral approaches to agency and labor markets. Handbook of Labor Economics, 4, 701-772.
  28. Riechmann, Sheryl Wetter, and Anthony F. Grasha. "A rational approach to developing and assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument." The Journal of Psychology 87, no. 2 (1974): 213-223.
  29. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions." Contemporary educational psychology 25, no. 1 (2000): 54-67.
  30. Santo, Susan A. "Relationships between learning styles and online learning." Performance Improvement Quarterly 19.3, 2006, pp. 73-88.
  31. Schober, A. and Keller, L. (2012). Impact factors for learner motivation in Blended Learning environments. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (IJET), 7(S2). Retrieved December 7, 2012, from
  32. Schumann, Siegfried (2012): Repräsentative Umfrage. Praxisorientierte Einführung in empirische Methoden und statistische Analyseverfahren. 6., aktualisierte Aufl. München: Oldenbourg (Sozialwissenschaften 10-2012).
  33. Scott Rigby, C., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C. and Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165-185.
  34. Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
  35. Tagg, John. The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA, USA: Anker Publishing Company, 2003.
  36. Thomas, Ch., and Berkling, K.. Redesign of a Gamified Software Engineering Course. Step 2 Scaffolding: Bridging the Motivation Gap. ICL 2013, 16th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning. IEEE, to appear 2013.
  37. Thomas, Herbert. "Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis 'placement'of learning." British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 3 (2010): 502-511.
  38. Tinmaz, Hasan. "Social networking websites as an innovative framework for connectivism." Contemporary Educational Technology 3, no. 3 (2012): 234-245.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Berkling K. (2015). Connecting Peer Reviews with Students’ Motivation - Onboarding, Motivation and Blended Learning . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-108-3, pages 24-33. DOI: 10.5220/0005410200240033

in Bibtex Style

author={Kay Berkling},
title={Connecting Peer Reviews with Students’ Motivation - Onboarding, Motivation and Blended Learning},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Connecting Peer Reviews with Students’ Motivation - Onboarding, Motivation and Blended Learning
SN - 978-989-758-108-3
AU - Berkling K.
PY - 2015
SP - 24
EP - 33
DO - 10.5220/0005410200240033