Skip to content

Configuring peer reviews

Peer reviews are a powerful learning method: learners assess each other's work and learn twice in the process — while writing their own answer and while attentively reading others' answers. This page shows how to set up peer review in a course.

When peer review makes sense

Peer review fits well for:

  • Reflection tasks — one's own experiences, personal application of the learning material
  • Practical examples — learners should submit their own example or project
  • Soft skills (communication, argumentation) — where there's no "right/wrong"
  • Larger classes — where individual trainer grading doesn't scale

For pure knowledge tests, classic multiple choice or AI free-text grading is more efficient.

Activating peer review on a lesson

Peer review is not a separate lesson type, but a switch on any lesson:

  1. In your course, create or open the lesson the submission should be attached to.
  2. In the lesson form, turn on the switch Activate peer review.
  3. Set the number of reviewers per submission (1-10, default: 2).
  4. Optionally add assessment criteria — per criterion a name, description, and maximum points (see the next section).
  5. Save. You write the task itself in the lesson content.

Peer-review configuration with reviewer count and criteria

How the assessment works

The assessment itself is deliberately kept lean:

  • Overall rating — 1 to 5 stars
  • Free-text feedback — mandatory field; for the submitting person, often the most valuable part

Your assessment criteria are shown to reviewers in the assessment form as guidance — they say what to look out for while reading (e.g. "clarity of argumentation", "completeness", "own contribution"). The criteria are not rated individually; they structure the free-text feedback.

The submission always consists of a free text (mandatory), optionally plus a file attachment (PDF, Word, text, image, or ZIP, max. 10 MB).

Anonymity

Peer reviews are anonymous: submitters see the assessments they receive without the identity of the reviewers. There is no setting for this — it's the platform's fixed behavior.

Reviewer assignment

  • The system assigns reviewers automatically as soon as a person submits a piece of work.
  • Eligible are learners who have already completed the same lesson — the submitting person themselves is excluded.
  • If the pool isn't (yet) big enough, review slots stay open for the time being and are filled automatically as more learners complete the lesson.

You don't need to do any manual assignment as a trainer. In very small classes it accordingly takes a while until all submissions have enough reviewers.

Workflow for learners

Two phases run per learner:

  1. Submit: type your own answer (optionally attach a file)
  2. Assess: read the assigned work of others, give stars, and write feedback

Learners see their assessment tasks under Peer reviews in the main navigation. Detailed user guide: for learners: peer reviews.

Your role as a trainer

There is currently no dedicated trainer overview of submissions and review statuses — once activated, the peer-review process runs on its own. If you learn of unfair or offensive feedback (e.g. because a person reaches out), talk to the reviewer in question directly; removing individual assessments is possible for content managers or admins via the platform team.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a deadline for submissions or reviews? No — peer reviews have no deadline feature of their own. If the course needs to be finished by a cutoff date, assign it as a mandatory assignment with a due date.

Can I assign reviewers manually? No, assignment is automatic. If a particular pairing doesn't work, you can additionally give the submitting person personal feedback yourself.

How many reviewers per submission make sense? - Two (default) is often enough, gives two perspectives - Three smooths out outliers (a very strict or very lenient assessment is balanced out) - Four or more is hardly worth it, the effort per learner gets too large

Do I see which reviews received which ratings — as an assessment of the reviewers? There are no "reviews of the reviews". If good review practice matters to you, address it in the course itself — e.g. with a short lesson "How to write good peer feedback".

Learners feel unfairly assessed — what should I do? Talk to the person and look at the submission together. For repeated fairness discussions: perhaps your criteria set isn't clear enough — making the assessment criteria more precise helps reviewers judge consistently.