This article covers
The Knowledge Base has more information about grades and reviewing in Peerceptiv.
Note: None of the data represented in the examples and screenshots come from real students. All of the student and course information has been created in order to illustrate how to understand and improve your review grade.
Viewing Your Grades
When you first view your grades in Peerceptiv, you will see a table with the review grade, writing grade, and task grade. The top row shows these grades out of 100. The second row shows the weighted grade, calculated according to the percentages set by your instructor. The bottom, overall, grade is the weighted total out of 100 points. Note that, as in the case below, the overall grade may be rounded to the nearest whole number.
Click on either double arrow icon to see the grade breakdown. This chart breaks the review grade into two components: accuracy and helpfulness. The task grade is divided into the number of tasks required, so there could be as few as one (review only) or as many as three (review, back evaluate, self-evaluation), depending on how your instructor set up the assignment. This detailed chart also includes any late penalties you may have received for submitting late work.
Understanding Your Accuracy and Helpfulness Grades
To understand your accuracy and helpfulness grades, click on either question mark to see more information.
At the top of the screen, you can see your helpfulness. There are up to five stars listed per review, based on how helpful the document author considered your feedback to be. If, as in this case, one or more of the document authors did not complete a back-evaluation, your helpfulness is the average of the reviews which were back-evaluated. You can always click on the View Reviews by You and Others buttons to see how your peers reviewed the same document.
At the bottom of the screen is the information about how your accuracy grade is calculated. There is one graph for each rating in the rubric. The paragraph above the graphs explains that the documents you reviewed are listed within each dimension in order from the average lowest rating to the average highest rating.
If your ratings form a line that is similar to (as parallel as possible to) that of the average ratings, your accuracy will be higher. If your ratings are form a line that is perpendicular to the lined formed by the average ratings, then your accuracy grade will be lower. For example, this student’s accuracy in the Introduction rating prompt is poor, and we can see that because the two rating lines cross. This student gave a rating of 7 to two documents with an average rating of 4.0 (dylan-red-60) and 4.5 (carter-blue-78). Then, while the average rating for the Introduction by gavin-red-38 is a 6.0, this student gave it a 3.0. This student must not have understood the rubric criteria for Introductions, not have known what content the instructor expected to be included in the rubric, and/or not have spent enough time to review the documents carefully.
However, for the Conclusion criteria, this reviewer was more accurate. For the carter-blue-78 document, his rating aligned with the average ratings for that document. Although his scores for the other documents were lower, he rated dylan-red-60 as the lowest of the three documents and gavin-red-38 as the highest of the three documents. This means his line “matches” that of the average ratings in terms of ranking the documents in the same order. This shows a higher degree of accuracy in his rating.
Ideally, your accuracy graphs will only consist of parallel or near parallel lines, showing high accuracy across the ratings. This student’s grade would be higher with better accuracy in all aspects of rating, not just in the conclusion and key eras dimensions.
Improving Your Review Grades
Improve your helpfulness scores by providing more specific and constructive comments.
- Read the back-evaluations you received for your peers' suggestions about what would have made your comments more helpful.
- Read some of the other reviewers' comments on the same documents to see the comments your peers made.
- Give yourself more time to complete the reviewing task.
- Read the commenting prompt carefully and respond to what is being asked.
- Be as specific and constructive as possible in your comments.
Improve your accuracy scores by looking at your accuracy graphs from your most recent Peerceptiv individual assignment. Do most of your graphs resemble those of the Conclusion and Key Eras from the graphs above? If so, your accuracy is generally good. Do most of your graphs resemble those of the Introduction and Body in the graphs above? If so, your accuracy is low. In both cases, there are steps you can take to improve your accuracy.
- Give yourself sufficient time to review the documents thoughtfully. The necessary amount of time will vary depending on the length of the assignment, the number of rating prompts, and the number of required reviews. Students who procrastinate on the reviewing task often end up choosing ratings at random and leaving basic comments that are not helpful, affecting their accuracy and helpfulness grades.
- Read the rubric carefully and think about each rating prompt. Do you understand what each dimension is assessing? Do you recognize the difference between the rating levels? If possible, look at the rubric before you submit your document and use it to inform your own submission. If you have questions about the rubric or rating prompts, please ask your instructor before submitting your first review.
- Try to rate like your instructor. Your instructor is objectively assigning the rating which most closely describes that aspect of the document. Instructors generally do not try to give all students A’s or F’s. Approach reviewing like your instructor to try to rate the document as objectively as possible, based on the rating descriptors at each level.
- Notice if you tend to rate high or low. Compare your ratings to the average ratings for multiple dimensions and/or across multiple assignments. Do you consistently tend to rate higher or lower than the average? If so, go back to the rubric and descriptions and try to use those to more carefully inform your ratings. Giving a document all high ratings if it does not deserve them will not mean that the person who submitted it will get an “A.” However, giving a document all high ratings if it does not deserve them will mean that your accuracy score is lowered, resulting in a lower review grade.
Final Notes on Accuracy
If you have a zero (0) accuracy grade, it is because you gave the same rating to all dimensions of all documents that you were reviewing. This is a trigger to the algorithms behind Peerceptiv that you were not reviewing the documents carefully and instead just assigning a number to all of the dimensions without thought. If you receive a 0 accuracy grade and you do not think it is correct, please contact your instructor and Peerceptiv at email@example.com for further analysis.
The research behind Peerceptiv has shown that students who go through the assignment process carefully and thoughtfully improve in their writing (or document content) skills and their critical thinking. The reviewing process is designed to help you think about the content of your course and the delivery (writing, speaking, project) of that content in a more constructively critical way. Taking steps to improve your accuracy grade will help you think more critically, improve the way you express your knowledge of the class material, and improve your Peerceptiv assignment review grade.
If you have questions about your accuracy or other aspects of a Peerceptiv assignment, you can always reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org.