0
Peer review guide for student-to-student feedback that isn't just niceties
I want students to give each other genuinely useful peer feedback on assignment_type, but left unguided, they either write 'good job!' or get needlessly harsh. Build me a structured peer review guide.
What the assignment was and what's being assessed: assignment_context
Grade level: grade_level
Do this:
1. Give students 3-4 specific, answerable questions to guide their feedback (not 'what did you think?' but specific enough that answering requires actually engaging with the work, e.g. 'find the sentence that best states the author's main argument, and quote it').
2. Structure it so students identify strengths with the same specificity as areas to improve, not generic praise, name what actually worked and why, using the same evidence-based approach.
3. Include a sentence-starter or template for delivering the 'needs improvement' feedback in a way that's honest but not harsh, appropriate for peer-to-peer dynamics at this age level, not corporate-feedback-sandwich cliche, something that actually sounds like a real student would say it.
4. Add one guideline for the RECEIVING student: what to do with feedback that seems wrong or that they disagree with (not just accept everything uncritically, but also not dismiss it defensively).
5. Include a quick self-check the reviewing student can use before submitting their feedback: would this comment actually help the writer make a specific change, or is it too vague to act on?