Peer Feedback Form

Reviewer name:         Name of student being reviewed:

        Link to paper being reviewed:

First, read through your assigned peer’s paper and think about overall communication of ideas. Then, make a copy of this google document and answer the questions below on your second reading to make sure that the writer has fully met the paper requirements.

  1. In the Problem Statement, the author must explain the problem in their own words so that the reader will understand without knowing any background information as well as identify important connections. On a scale of 0 to 3, how well did the author did this? If the score is below a 3, what can they improve?

  1. In the Process part, the author must describe their process in detail, including math work, annotations of their math work and explanations of what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and any reflections on their work. Their work should include diagrams/charts/other representations, when useful. Do you understand what they did and why it made sense to them? Do you think they explored the mathematical space fully? On a scale of 0 to 3, how well did the author do these things? Give an example of something they did well and an idea for growth.

  1. In the Solutions part, the author should state what they were able to find out and how they know that it is correct. Are you convinced by their explanation, solution(s), and/or findings? Is the underlying mathematics explained and justified in depth? Are important connections to math/interdisciplinary topics explored? On a scale of 0 to 3, how well did the author do these things? If the score is below a 3, what can they improve?

  1. In the Applications/Extensions part, the author should create several interesting extensions or variations on the problem. Do they demonstrate creativity and go beyond the original topic in a deep and interesting way? On a scale of 0 to 3, how well did the author do this? Give an example of something they did well and an idea for growth.

  1. The paper should be cohesive, organized, and connected as a whole. Give an example of something the author did really well towards this goal. Give an idea for how the paper might reach this goal more effectively.

  1. Give one essential question that you have for the author (questions that are unanswerable with finality (see my feedback on your narrative)).

  1. What’s something that you noticed or wondered about in the paper that was not captured in previous questions?