Background and Motivation
The Exphil pilot was driven by a genuine interest among the course teachers in using peer review as a pedagogical tool for developing students' ability to give and receive constructive academic feedback. Unlike IN1020, which focused on technical exploration of the platform's data capabilities, Exphil focused on workflow and usability — how does Feedback Fruits function for students, teachers, and administrative staff in a real seminar setting?
Setup and Group Structure
The pilot involved 107 students across three main seminar groups. Each main group was subdivided into 8 smaller peer review groups of 3–6 students. Peer reviewing took place within these subgroups, with each student receiving feedback from 2 fellow students.
The peer review sessions were conducted live in the classroom — a deliberate and demanding choice. Each session lasted 2 hours, with one session per seminar group (3 sessions total). Sessions were supervised by the course teacher and two members of the project group.
Prior to the sessions, two planning meetings were held with the course teacher and the IFIKK faculty administration to set up the technical structure in Canvas and Feedback Fruits.
Technical Setup
Three separate assignments were created in Canvas — one per main group. Students had previously signed up for subgroups within their main group. These Canvas subgroups, including all student data, were imported directly into Feedback Fruits when the assignments were configured. All students and the course teacher could access the peer review through their Canvas room.
Clear step-by-step instructions were embedded as the first screen students saw when entering Feedback Fruits:
- Upload the same mandatory assignment you submitted in Canvas last week.
- Once you and your fellow students have done this, you will automatically be assigned each other's submissions.
- Read the first submission and give feedback within the defined criteria. Then do the same for the second.
- You have now also received feedback on your own text — use it in your final submission.
Execution
All three live sessions were completed without technical problems that significantly affected the pilot. Last-minute changes were required — some students who had signed up did not show up, and others arrived unannounced. The project group had to add students and rearrange Canvas groups in the minutes before sessions began. Feedback Fruits responded immediately to these changes, with groups updating in real time as Canvas was edited.
Student Feedback
54 out of 59 attending students completed a short survey (Nettskjema) at the end of their session. Results were strongly positive:
- 95% of students rated Feedback Fruits as "completely intuitive," "very intuitive," or "intuitive" — remarkable given they had no prior experience with the tool.
- 83% gave the peer review session a score of 4, 5, or 6 out of 6 on academic benefit.
Given that the sessions were conducted live without prior training, these figures are considered highly encouraging by the project group.
Teacher Experience
Course teacher Kari Sletnes needed some assistance navigating the teacher workflow view — though the project group notes this may reflect the inherent complexity of live peer review as an assessment form, rather than any flaw in the platform itself. Following the pilot, Sletnes expressed strong interest in continuing to use peer review through Feedback Fruits and emphasised the need for a sufficient digital peer review system at UiO.
Conclusion
The Exphil pilot demonstrated that Feedback Fruits can be deployed effectively even under demanding live conditions, with minimal preparation time for students. The high usability scores and positive learning experience reported by students suggest that peer review through Feedback Fruits is a viable and valuable addition to seminar-based teaching. The live format also stress-tested the platform's responsiveness — and it passed.