peer graded assignment peer review assignment

Canvas at Penn

Penn's Source for Courseware Innovation & News

Peer Review Assignment Best Practices for Instructors

Canvas has a built-in Peer Review tool that allows instructors to assign student submissions to each other for feedback. This feature can be enabled for groups and can be set up to be anonymous. 

If the built-in tool in Canvas doesn’t meet your needs, there may be other options . 

Before You Start

We strongly recommend working with your LSP if you want to create a peer review assignment in Canvas to create the best experience for you and your students.

• Consider providing clear instructions or a rubric in your assignment for students on what a peer review is in Canvas , how they will grade, and how they can view their feedback .
• We recommend reiterating to students that it is important that they submit on time so they don’t hold the assignment up for others in the course.
• Students who haven’t submitted an assignment can no longer be invited to review others’ work. If students don’t submit, they can’t participate. 

How to Create a Peer Review Assignment in Canvas

• If this will be a group assignment, you will see an additional option to “Allow intra-group peer reviews”. Select this if you would like Canvas to select a member of the same group for that student to review.

Note – Canvas assigns peer reviews to individuals, EVEN if it’s a Group Project assignment. The only project member who will see feedback is the one the peer reviewer was assigned to. It will not be visible to other project members.

• If you select assign reviews manually , instructors will need to go in and pair up the students after students have finished submitting their assignments.
• Instructors should provide a buffer for students to allow for late submissions and not use the same time as the due date of the assignment.
• Once all additional settings have been configured, save and publish the assignment.
• Students will receive an email and a to do list item once they have been assigned a peer to review. Students will not receive a peer to review until they submit the assignment.

Keep in Mind

• We recommend using the Manually Assign Peer Reviews option (see screenshot below) to assign peer reviews later if they need to be done at a specific time. 

• “ If a student has not submitted the assignment or submits the assignment after the due date, the student will not automatically be assigned a peer review and you must manually assign one. ”
• For assignments with Turnitin enabled, only the original student can see the originality score, not the assigned reviewer. Reviewers won’t be able to assess this information, since it isn’t visible to them.

Known Issues 

The manual drag and drop option to assign peer reviews has not been reliable . For the best experience, we recommend using the “assign peer reviews now” option for this need instead.

• Automatic (randomly assigned) peer reviews may take up to an hour to be assigned to students. We recommend letting your students know that there may be a delay before submissions are available to them to review.
• Clear your cache on a PC  
• Clear your cache on a Mac  

Please try the instructions linked above for your preferred browser and then open a new window and try logging in again. 

Clearing the browser cache can also sometimes solve issues students are having with peer reviews, and the above instructions may be helpful to share with them as well.

Other Peer Review Options

• Wharton instructors – contact the Wharton Courseware team ( [email protected] ) for a full list of your options for peer review assignments. 
• If you’re already using Perusall in your course, consider using Perusall’s peer review functions . 
• For group assignments: consider creating a Canvas discussion board or using Ed Discussion to allow students to share feedback with the entire group.

Please contact [email protected] or your Local Service Provider for assistance. 

Last Updated: 31 Oct 2023

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.79(8); 2015 Oct 25

Assessment of a Revised Method for Evaluating Peer-graded Assignments in a Skills-based Course Sequence

Objective. To evaluate the modified peer-grading process incorporated into the SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, plan) note sessions in a skills-based pharmacy course sequence.

Design. Students assessed a de-identified peer’s SOAP note in a faculty-led peer-grading session followed by an optional grade challenge opportunity. Using paired t tests, final session grades (peer-graded with challenge opportunity) were compared with the retrospective faculty-assigned grades. Additionally, students responded to a survey using 4-point Likert scale and open-answer items to assess their perceptions of the process.

Assessment. No significant difference was found between mean scores assigned by faculty members vs those made by student peers after participation in 3 SOAP note sessions, which included a SOAP note-writing workshop, a peer-grading workshop, and a grade challenge opportunity. The survey data indicated that students generally were satisfied with the process.

Conclusion. This study provides insight into the peer-grading process used to evaluate SOAP notes. The findings support the continued use of this assessment format in a skills-based course.

INTRODUCTION

The formulation and documentation of patient care plans is a skill central to the provision of patient-centered care, supported by the Center for Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) 2013 Educational Outcomes. 1 To teach and evaluate this skill, Midwestern University College of Pharmacy – Glendale (MWU-CPG) incorporated a series of active-learning experiences relevant to pharmacy practice using the “subjective, objective, assessment, plan” (SOAP) written documentation format. Supplementing each SOAP note-writing workshop, students assessed and scored an anonymous peer’s written SOAP assignment using a faculty-developed rubric in a required faculty-led workshop, followed by a self-reflection opportunity.

This assessment method was designed to meet the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Draft Standards 2016 recommendation that schools and colleges should “utilize teaching/learning methods that facilitate achievement of learning outcomes, actively engage learners, promote self-directed learning, and foster collaborative learning”. 2 In addition, this method helps address Domain 4 of the CAPE 2013 Outcomes, which focuses on educating future pharmacists to be self-aware by providing a structured opportunity to develop the skills of peer- and self-assessment. 1

Peer assessment not only serves as a grading procedure, but a method to practice self-evaluation skills. Peer assessment is a valuable form of assessment in higher education for a variety of assignments, and students generally perceive it as beneficial. 3 Peer assessment is used in pharmacy education for student case presentations, laboratory courses, medication management assignments, patient interviews, and advanced practice experiences. 4-9

A proposed benefit of the peer assessment strategy is providing an enhanced learning environment for students in which a high order of thinking is utilized and guided by evaluation. Other benefits include self-reflection, peer interaction, and a decreased faculty workload. 4 Finally, peer assessment can help to foster higher levels of responsibility among students by requiring them to be fair and accurate with the feedback and evaluations they make of their peers. 3 Limitations identified in previous research include a lack of student understanding of the purpose of the peer-grading session, lack of student experience in grading, and lack of confidentiality. In these studies, peer grades were generally higher than faculty grades for the assignments. 4-9

A previous study comparing student and faculty scores for 3 peer-graded assignments at the college resulted in the students assigning significantly lower scores than faculty members to student peers, which was inconsistent with other research. 10 One goal of using peer grading was to replace the need for traditional faculty SOAP note grading, so several changes were made to improve the consistency of faculty and peer-assigned scores. A standardized format, titled the Comprehensive Medication Management Plan (CMMP), was adopted for guiding SOAP-note writing, which detailed the expectations for each section and served as the basis for the grading checklists used in the peer-grading sessions. This approach attempted to provide the students clear and consistent expectations among different faculty members when formulating their written SOAP note.

Additionally, a “challenge” opportunity was implemented to allow each student the chance to self-evaluate their peer-graded note prior to the final grade assignment and submit a grade challenge if appropriate. 10 Outcomes of a “challenge” strategy, including the accuracy of final grades after this opportunity, has not been formally evaluated in the literature. The intent of these changes was to improve the scoring process so the peer-assigned scores would be similar to those assigned by a faculty grader, thus validating the peer-grading process used for the SOAP notes sessions as a stand-alone assessment.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the modified peer-grading process incorporated into the SOAP note sessions. The specific aims were to compare the final recorded student grade (given after the SOAP note session and “challenge” opportunity) with a retrospective traditional faculty-assigned grade, and to gather the student’s perceptions about the process.

Professional Skills Development (PSD) is a required 8-quarter, workshop-based course sequence in a 3-year didactic curriculum (PSD 1-8). In the second year of the sequence in 2012-2013, there are 3 SOAP note sessions. Each session consists of 3 parts: a writing workshop, a peer-grading workshop, and a challenge opportunity that build on the foundational knowledge taught in the therapeutic course sequence (PSD 5, 6, and 8). The final score received after the 3 sessions is considered a summative assessment of this knowledge.

This study involved a single cohort of students completing the second year of their PSD sequence. All students enrolled in PSD were required to participate in the 3 SOAP note sessions. The case content for each session corresponded to the material taught by the subject matter expert in the concurrent therapeutics course during each of the 3 quarters (hyperlipidemia, psychiatry, and cardiovascular). The subject matter expert also designed the case and grading checklist, led the peer-grading workshop, was present at the challenge opportunity, and graded the challenge submissions.

Organization of Sessions

For each SOAP note writing workshop, students were given a template prior to writing their SOAP note, which included a list of medical problems students were required to address for the patient case. Given the subjective and objective data, students were asked to individually write the assessment and plan for the patient. The first SOAP note-writing workshop was completed outside of class and submitted via Safe Assign, a program found in the Blackboard learning system (Blackboard Inc., Washington, DC), to check for plagiarism. The other 2 SOAP note-writing workshops were completed within a 2-hour time block in the university’s testing center. The subject matter expert was not present at the writing workshop. To aid in developing their assessment and plan, students were given a CMMP grid ( Appendix I ). Completion of the CMMP was optional during the SOAP note-writing workshops, although highly encouraged, as the grading checklists for each note were based on the same categories.

Peer-grading workshops occurred during class time within one week of completing the writing workshop. Each of the 3 peer-grading workshops were held in 2 sections (2 hours each) on the same day to accommodate one-half of the class at a time. This ensured that students who wrote the SOAP notes being evaluated were not present in that particular section of the peer-grading workshop. In an effort to hold the students accountable for attending the session, for grading the SOAP note to the best of their ability, and for providing quality feedback to their peers, students wrote their names on the cover sheet of the evaluation form. The course coordinator kept track of who graded each SOAP note, but students and the subject matter expert were blinded throughout the entire process. The grading checklist was distributed first, prior to the cases to be graded. The subject matter expert directed the students to review the grading checklist point by point. This was an opportunity for students to reflect on what they had individually written on their own note and ask questions for clarification, prior to being held responsible for grading a peer’s note. Peer notes then were distributed, and students were given approximately 20 minutes to read through their assigned note and grade based off of the supplied grading checklist. Once students had completed grading, they again reviewed the rubric. At this time, students could request whether an alternative written response not included within the grading checklist be considered for points by the subject matter expert facilitating the session. Once the grading was complete, students were instructed to provide anonymous constructive written feedback to their peers.

A 1-hour challenge opportunity was offered within 24 hours after each peer-grading workshop for students to review their peer-graded note and to challenge their peer-assigned grade. Only students who attended the challenge opportunity had the ability to submit a challenge form. If students wanted to proceed with a challenge, they completed a preprinted form specifying which point(s) they wanted to challenge and providing justification for each. The subject matter expert was present at the challenge opportunity to answer additional student questions regarding the case or their responses. After the challenge opportunity, the subject matter expert reviewed the challenge forms and addressed only the inaccuracies noted by the student. However, the subject matter expert reserved the right to regrade the assignment if necessary. Grade challenges were not accepted after this session was completed.

Evaluation of Sessions

To evaluate the scores assigned during each of the 3 SOAP note sessions, the subject matter expert retrospectively graded each assignment using the standard grading checklist used in the peer-grading workshop which modeled the traditional grading method used at the college. This traditional method did not include a peer-grading workshop or challenge opportunity and resulted only in a scored rubric with written comments. The subject matter expert was blinded to the student names and all results of the peer-grading workshop and/or challenge opportunity.

The final session grades (peer-graded with challenge opportunity) were compared to the retrospective faculty-assigned grades for each session. Evaluations were made using paired t tests with a p value of ≤0.05 being considered significant. An anonymous survey was also administered to all students enrolled in the final quarter of the PSD course sequence. The survey was voluntarily completed during a course period after the last of the three SOAP note sessions. The survey assessed the students’ opinions of the SOAP note sessions utilizing 4-point Likert scale statements, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the findings of the survey. Approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Midwestern University.

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

Scores for 453 peer-graded assignments (151 for session 1, 152 for session 2, and 150 for session 3) were analyzed. No difference was found between the mean scores for final recorded grades and retrospective faculty assigned grades ( Table 1 ). Differences between the mean scores for each of the 3 individual sessions were 0.8, 0.9, and 1.3, respectively. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the final recorded grades and the retrospective faculty-assigned grades based on participation in the challenge opportunity ( Table 2 ).

Final Recorded Grades Using Peer-Grading Method vs Retrospective, Traditional Faculty Grades for 3 Sessions

Final Recorded Grades Using Peer-Grading Method vs Retrospective, Traditional Faculty Grades for 3 Sessions Based on Participation in the Challenge Opportunity

We found that for all 3 sessions combined, 158 students (35%) challenged their peer-graded SOAP note for faculty review (93% of which resulted in a score change), 243 (54%) reviewed their peer-graded note but did not challenge for faculty review, and 52 (11%) did not review their assignment. No difference was found if the student reviewed their submission and either opted to challenge or not to challenge. However, there was a significantly lower score assigned for students who did not review their assignments in the challenge opportunity.

One hundred twenty students (80%) participated in the survey assessing their perspectives on the SOAP note sessions. ( Table 3 ) Responses from 2 surveys were not included because the respondents did not meet the criteria of having attended at least two challenge opportunities. Regarding the SOAP note-writing workshop and subsequent peer-grading workshop, the majority of students either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the CMMP helped them structure their SOAP notes (89%), the instructions for participating in the sessions were clear (96%), the grading checklists were easy to follow (95%), the peer grading sessions enhanced learning (70%), and faculty guidance during the peer-grading workshops allowed them to effectively grade a peer’s note (90%). Regarding the challenge opportunity, the majority of students either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the challenge opportunity allowed them to self-reflect on their work (73%), that the challenge sessions are necessary to receive a fair score on peer-graded assignments (89%), and that faculty members awarded points fairly after the grade challenge opportunity (77%). The lowest score was in response to whether peer-provided comments were constructive and useful in improving SOAP note skills. However, 54% of the students“agreed” or “strongly” agreed with this statement as well.

Students’ Opinions Regarding SOAP Note Sessions in the Professional Skills Development Course Sequence

The open-ended questions asked what the students liked most and least about the SOAP note sessions and suggestions for improvement. ( Table 4 ) Students most commonly stated that their learning was enhanced by exposure to the various ways their peers approached the case. Other commonly reported responses included enhancement of disease state knowledge through immediate faculty feedback, fairness in grading, and improvement of general SOAP note-writing skills.

Student Comments Regarding Peer Grading Process in the Professional Skills Development Course Sequence

The majority of the responses regarding what students liked least included the process taking too long or classmates asking too many questions. Other common responses included inconsistency in points awarded by peer graders, rubrics being too strict, and reviewing the rubric prior to starting taking too much time or being too repetitive. The most frequent responses for how to improve the process included structuring the sessions to take less time and/or limiting the number of questions asked by other students. Other suggestions included revising the rubrics to be less stringent, holding the graders accountable for inaccuracy in grading, and allowing the notes to be typed instead of handwritten.

The revised peer-grading process for SOAP note sessions in the PSD course sequence resulted in the same overall score when compared to traditional faculty grading. This contrasts to a previous study, which showed higher traditional faculty-assigned scores than student peer-assigned scores. 8 This result strengthens our confidence in the use of the process in place of traditional faculty grading. The most likely contributor to this result was the institution of the challenge opportunity; allowing students to self-assess their work, review peer comments, and submit a challenge form if inaccuracies were noted. In the subgroup analysis, we noted a difference in the final recorded grade vs the traditional faculty-assigned grades for those students who did not participate in the challenge session.

The use of the CMMP document was another possible contributor to the equalized scores, since it served as a structure by which all grading checklists were formatted. This may have streamlined the grading process by improving the clarity of the grading checklists used in the peer grading sessions.

Advantages and disadvantages of the peer-grading process from student and faculty perspectives were noted. Student noted that learning from their peers’ approach to the case, obtaining immediate faculty feedback that enhanced disease state knowledge, and fair grading were advantages. From the faculty perspective, an advantage to this process was the reduced faculty grading workload. Scoring student-submitted challenge forms (n=158) took a total of approximately 3 hours for the subject matter experts to complete. In contrast, scoring each submission separately (n=453) for the purposes of this research approximated 10 minutes per submission.

This process is not without disadvantages. Some students said the peer-grading workshop took too long because other students asked too many questions even though the workshop was limited to 2 hours and was conducted during normal course time. Some also indicated an inconsistency among peer graders and may have viewed the challenge as an opportunity to double-check their peers rather than an opportunity for self-reflection. Finally, some students indicated a lack of constructive feedback from peers despite receiving examples from instructors of appropriate vs inappropriate feedback. One disadvantage from a faculty perspective was the negative connotation implied by the terms “peer-grading” and “challenge opportunity.” Despite an formal orientation on the benefits of peer and self-assessment, some students perceived this process as a way for faculty members to decrease their workload and transfer the burden to students.

There are several limitations to this research. The 3 SOAP note sessions were each designed, conducted, and graded by 3 different subject matter experts and focused on a wide array of therapeutic topics. Given this, the students’ perceptions about the process could be influenced by the therapeutic topic or faculty member. Additionally, the SOAP note sessions were conducted in the fall, winter, and summer quarters, while the survey was administered at the end of the final session, possibly reflecting the students’ opinions of the most recent session. Finally, this study is reflective of a specific cohort of pharmacy students enrolled in a workshop-based course sequence that may not be applicable to other schools or other disciplines.

The SOAP note sessions in PSD have continued with subsequent student cohorts, without the use of traditional faculty grading. Several adjustments have been instituted based on the findings of this study. For example, in addition to the formal orientation, a more formal method for providing peer feedback has been instituted. After the peer-grading workshop, students are asked to state 3 things the author did well and 3 areas for improvement. Additionally, the procedure during the peer-grading workshop has been streamlined to allow students to grade peers’ submissions at the beginning of each session in pencil, eliminating the initial faculty review of the rubric with the class. Once all individual grading is complete, the subject matter expert reviews the rubric and entertains student questions and feedback. This change was based on feedback that students found it redundant to review the rubric twice and that it lengthened the overall session time. Finally, the description and name of this process has changed from “peer grading” to “peer assessment” to further convey the positive academic intent of the process. In addition, the term “challenge” opportunity was changed to “self-reflection and review workshop” to promote the individual benefits of participating in the process.

This study provides insight into the peer-grading process used in the PSD course sequence at the college. Our findings indicated no difference between grades assigned to students using the peer-grading process and traditional faculty grades for all 3 sessions. Additionally, students perceived that the process was beneficial to their learning, supporting the continued use of this assessment format in our curriculum. We feel the process has the potential to be successfully used in other professional programs as well.

Appendix 1.

Comprehensive Medication Management Plan (CMMP)

How to Create a Peer Review Assignment Using FeedbackFruits in Canvas

Home » Support » How to Create a Peer Review Assignment Using FeedbackFruits in Canvas

SKIP AHEAD TO

At a Glance

The Group Member Evaluation tool in FeedbackFruits streamlines the way students assess their peers’ collaboration skills. As the instructor, you specify the criteria your students will use to evaluate their peers’ contribution to group work. Groups are automatically synced from the People tool in Canvas to FeedbackFruits.

Additionally, you can require that students add comments to the feedback they have provided to their peers, thereby combining quantitative and qualitative feedback.

In this guide, you’ll learn how to create a peer review assignment using FeedbackFruits in your Canvas course.

Create Groups

If you’d like students to provide peer feedback to some or all of their group members, first you need to create your groups in your Canvas course:

• How do I add a group set in a course?
• How do I manually create groups in a group set?
• How do I manually assign students to groups?

Create a Peer Review Assignment

• Type the assignment title in the Assignment Name field [1]. If you created your assignment as an assignment shell, this field will be populated for you, but you can change it if necessary.

• Note: If you leave this field blank, you will not be able to publish/save the assignment. You can add a voice note or an attachment to the instruction if needed.
• Individually
• Individually: Students will individually get assigned to anyone.
• Note: This option is disabled if ‘as a group’ is chosen.
• Note: This option is disabled if ‘individually’ is chosen.

• Groups selected to participate (select the Group Set you’ve already created).

• To learn how to set up criteria, refer to Setting up feedback criteria (rubrics, scale ratings and comment criteria) .

• Reviewers will not be able to view or edit their reviews after this deadline passes.
• Leave the deadline blank to allow reviewers to view and/or edit their feedback indefinitely.

• If you want students to review all their group members, we recommend selecting All .

• Reviewer anonymity: Enabling this option will make reviewers anonymous. Reviewers will still see the name of the peer they are reviewing. Instructors can also see the name of the reviewer.
• New user interface design: Students use the new design for reviewing and reading feedback. This option is enabled by default and is recommended.
• Optional – Rate Reviewers: You can choose if you’d like students to rate their reviewers or reflect on it [1].

Related Resources

• How to Create an Assessment of Skills Assignment using…
• FAQ: Non-Standard Canvas Sites
• How to Manage Your Course Sessions in Canvas
• Privacy Statement

Live Trainings

• Canvas Essentials
• Digital Whiteboarding
• Poll Everywhere
• View All Live Trainings

Request Forms

• General Support Request
• Course Copy Request
• Consultation Request
• View All Request Forms

Self-Paced Courses

• Build a Gold Standard Canvas Course
• Create a Virtual Exam
• Flip Your Class
• View All Self-Paced Courses

Quick Start Guides

• Membership Tool
• Term Start Checklist
• Teaching Spaces
• Teaching Studio
• Reserve a Space
• Classroom Technologies
• Equipment Recommendations

Recent Blog Posts

You're signed out

Sign in to ask questions, follow content, and engage with the Community

• Canvas Instructor
• Instructor Guide

How do I create a peer review assignment?

• Subscribe to RSS Feed
• Printer Friendly Page
• Report Inappropriate Content

in Instructor Guide

Note: You can only embed guides in Canvas courses. Embedding on other sites is not supported.

Community Help

View our top guides and resources:.

To participate in the Instructurer Community, you need to sign up or log in:

Community Support (Archived) — Ye Yint Zaw asked a question.

I submitted my final peer review assignment of “Essential Design Principle for Tableau”. I feel someone has reviewed my assignment but I got no grade or notification related to grade of my assignment. 

Can someone please explain that can’t I get any notification if my assignment is unqualify? Or is there any other problem with reviewing assignment? 

And I hope someone in here can help me reviewing my assignment if we are doing same assignment. Please kindly check my assignment in below link.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/dataviz-design/peer/fctld/designing-a-visualization-for-your-manager/review/gU2cLjlhEeu5yArOyhRmAQ

• Learner Support

​Hello @Ye Yint Zaw.

If you submit a Peer-Graded Assignment early, there may not be enough classmates around to review your work yet.

You can post your assignment’s shareable link in the course discussion forums to request reviews as well. You can find information about that in this article .

You should receive reviews when you are closer to your deadline, and you can check the deadlines for your assignments by going to your Grades tab in your Course dashboard.

After you get at least one review and the review due date has passed, you'll be able to see your grade. 

If your deadline was more than 10 days ago, you can contact support for further assistance with this.

Ye Yint Zaw

​Hello @Ye Yint Zaw.

Hello Jose, 

I am pretty clear right now. And I’ve got my peers’ review grades for the course. Thank you for your kind help and clarification. It is really helpful. :-)

Hey everyone, I am still unable to get my assignment get reviewed after following above steps please help, Also I got info that someone has reviewed one of my other assignment but it is not reflecting, please help so that I can complete the course and buy another one.

Hi @nmklop I’m sorry to hear about this.

I suggest that you contact support for help.

To do so, enter the Help Center and log in from the top right corner. Then, look for the option to contact “Contact us” at the bottom of this article .​

[I’m closing this thread since it is more than 4 months old. Feel free to create a new topic in the Community Help & Questions forum in case you still need help.]

Related Questions

© 2021 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.

Niyander Tech

Learn with fun

• All Coursera Quiz Answers

Peer-graded Assignment: Peer review: Build a calculator app Solution

In this article i am gone to share React Basics by Meta Week 4 | Peer-graded Assignment: Peer review: Build a calculator app Solution with you..

How to create and submit your assignment

• Your calculator has to be a React app. You can develop this app in any lab environment that you have used earlier in this course. Alternatively, you can use VS Code on your local machine. The reading
• Setting up a React project in VS Code
• provides the steps on how to set up VS Code on your computer if you choose to do so.
• If you plan on using a lab environment that you have used previously, your work will only be available during that session.

Note: Make sure that you download your files before exiting the lab environment. To work on your project again later, you can open the React app on your local machine and copy and paste the code into the template files in the lab again. Remember to download the edited versions again at the end of the session.

To submit your project you need to download your files to your local machine by right-clicking on them in the Explorer panel and selecting “Download”.

• You will be required to submit your React app by uploading a zipped project folder that contains your app’s code.
• To learn more about how to zip and unzip folders visit the Mac or Windows support page.

Project Look Like

Important note: Before uploading your solution, make sure to delete the node_modules folder from your project. This will save about 500Mb on the upload which will ensure that you can upload the file.

Download this Zip File and then Extract it or test it | Make Some Changes if you want and just upload it..

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• GDPR Privacy Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

Greetings, Hey i am Niyander, and I hail from India, we strive to impart knowledge and offer assistance to those in need.