WashU: Boosting Peer Review With Time-Tagged Discussion

Peer review is one of the most powerful ways for students to learn, but it often falls flat when feedback stays vague. "Nice work, maybe tighten the intro" tells a classmate very little. At Washington University in St. Louis, an instructor teaching with student-produced video wanted critique that pointed to the exact moment being discussed, not a general impression written after the fact. We worked with them to make that happen inside the tools they already used.

The Situation

Students were submitting recorded work: presentations, practice pitches, and demonstrations uploaded through the course. Reviewers watched each video and then wrote comments in a separate text box. By the time a reviewer finished watching and started typing, the specifics had blurred. Feedback drifted toward the generic, and the students receiving it struggled to know which fifteen seconds actually needed rework.

What They Did With Annoto

The instructor added Annoto on top of the existing videos through a one-click LTI 1.3 connection, so peer review happened right where students were already watching. Instead of a detached comment field, reviewers left time-tagged notes anchored to the exact second of the video they were reacting to. A comment about pacing landed on the slow moment. A question about a claim sat next to the claim itself.

That small shift changed the shape of the feedback. Reviewers could:

• Pin praise and critique to a precise timestamp, making every note concrete
• Reply to one another in threads, turning one-way review into genuine discussion
• Point to specific evidence rather than summarizing a whole video from memory
• Return to a classmate's exact moment later to check whether a revision addressed it

The author of the video, meanwhile, received feedback they could act on immediately, because each note already told them where to look.

The Outcome

Reviewers wrote more specific, better-situated comments, and the back-and-forth in the threads read more like a studio critique than a checklist. Because the conversation lived inside the video, the instructor could see engagement directly, which students were reviewing carefully, where discussion clustered, and where a video sparked real debate, all through Annoto's analytics rather than by chasing scattered documents.

When feedback is anchored to the moment, students stop critiquing in the abstract and start responding to what they actually see and hear.

Time-tagged discussion did not add a new assignment or a new platform to learn. It took an activity the instructor already valued and made it sharper, turning passive viewing into an active, collaborative exchange. For any course where students learn by reviewing each other's work, that precision is the difference between feedback that gets filed away and feedback that gets used. If peer review is central to how you teach, we would love to show you how it works in your LMS.