Use the form to separate an observed contribution, a proposed next step, and work you could not observe. The example includes feedback for two teammates on one project, with the supplied records beside each entry.
Agree what the feedback is about
This form concerns collaboration during a group project. It is not a rating of the completed guide, a personality assessment, or an automatic division of the group grade.
Carnegie Mellon University's group-assessment guidance distinguishes the product, the group process, and individual contributions. It discusses peer and self-evaluation and the need to consider peer reports alongside other evidence. Decide which contribution behaviors your assignment asks students to discuss.
Before distributing a real form, explain who will read it, whether feedback is identifiable, when it will be used, and how it relates to assessment. Keep those decisions in the instructor's actual policy. Do not imply anonymity or a grade effect simply because a template contains a private-looking form.
Give the reviewer specific records to work with
The original fictional project is an open-house welcome guide. Rae is the reviewer; Jo and Kim are teammates. These are authored practice records, not observed student work:
| Record | Supplied practice detail |
|---|---|
| E1 | The team agreed that Jo would return the assigned guide section with source references at the review checkpoint. |
| E2 | Jo returned that section with the references at the agreed checkpoint. |
| E3 | Kim's draft used the heading “More information.” Rae asked for a heading that named what a visitor would find. Kim changed it to “Where to collect your welcome packet” and explained the change in a review note. |
| E4 | Rae did not attend Kim's work-planning check-in and has no record of what was agreed there. |
| E5 | Rae has no supplied instance showing Jo responding to a teammate's revision request. |
The same reviewer can have a clear instance for one behavior and limited visibility into another. A form should preserve that difference without filling every box with a positive or negative rating.
Read the completed entries
| Teammate and focus | Observation status | Instance and proposed next step |
|---|---|---|
| Jo · Follow-through on an agreed contribution | Observed in this record | E1–E2: Jo returned the assigned section with references at the checkpoint. Proposed next step: keep the section's source references attached during the next revision. |
| Jo · Responding to revision requests | Cannot observe from supplied material | E5 supplies no instance. Do not convert this into “Jo ignores feedback.” Ask about this behavior through the instructor's review process if needed. |
| Kim · Responding to revision requests | Observed in this record | E3: Kim replaced a vague heading and explained the change. Proposed next step: keep a short explanation beside further wording changes. |
| Kim · Follow-through on a check-in agreement | Cannot observe from supplied material | E4: Rae missed that check-in and has no agreement record. Ask for the relevant project record before judging follow-through. |
Select Kim in the example to inspect the wording change beside the feedback. The evidence concerns responding to a specific request. It does not establish how much of the whole guide Kim wrote or whether every deadline was met.
For Jo, the checkpoint entry is evidence of one agreed contribution. A broader claim such as “Jo always meets deadlines” would need a different basis. Keep the scope of the statement close to the event you can describe.
Write the next action without deciding someone's character
A useful entry names the behavior, the instance, and why it matters to the work. Then propose something the team can do next. “Keep the source references attached during revision” follows the contribution Jo supplied. “Explain each wording change briefly” follows Kim's review note.
When there is a problem, describe the agreed task and what you observed before proposing a repair. Avoid replacing missing specifics with “lazy,” “difficult,” or “a natural leader.” A quiet speaker may contribute through preparation or written revision that a meeting observer does not see.
The example's Compare observation limits view keeps E4 and E5 beside the Cannot observe entries. That status describes the reviewer's evidence. It is not the lowest grade or a statement that the teammate did no work.
Leave room for a response or instructor follow-up. A proposed next step becomes an agreement only after the relevant people actually agree it. Keep the completed peer feedback and any assessment decision in the course's required system.
Copy a prompt for the complete form
Create one complete HTML peer-contribution feedback form and
worked teaching example.
Project and period being reviewed: [PASTE]
Instructor's collaboration criteria and feedback purpose: [PASTE]
Visibility/anonymity, assessment use and submission policy: [PASTE]
Reviewer's actual permitted observations with IDs: [PASTE]
Teammates, proposed next steps and response process: [PASTE]
Ask for teammate, behavior focus, observation status, specific instance,
proposed next step, and optional response/follow-up. Use only supplied
evidence; distinguish observation from interpretation. Cannot observe
must be separate from a negative judgment. Do not invent teamwork,
motives, grades, anonymous handling or agreed follow-up.
Include this original fictional welcome-guide project:
Reviewer Rae; teammates Jo and Kim. No actual student work represented.
E1: Team agreed Jo returns assigned section with source references
at the review checkpoint.
E2: Jo returned it with references at that checkpoint.
E3: Kim's heading More information was vague. Rae asked for a
heading naming what visitors find. Kim changed it to Where to
collect your welcome packet and explained the change in a review note.
E4: Rae missed Kim's work-planning check-in and has no agreement record.
E5: Rae has no supplied instance of Jo responding to revision requests.
Worked Jo entries:
Follow-through: Observed, E1–E2, returned section/references at checkpoint.
Proposed next step: keep references attached through next revision.
Revision response: Cannot observe, E5; no invented ignores-feedback claim.
Worked Kim entries:
Revision response: Observed, E3, vague-to-specific heading and explanation.
Proposed next step: keep brief explanations beside later wording changes.
Check-in follow-through: Cannot observe, E4; get relevant agreement
record before judging. These are proposals, not actual agreements.
Provide Jo/Kim selection with exact evidence-linked entries and
Compare observation limits displaying E4/E5 beside the relevant status.
Add a separate blank feedback form for practice with explicit
Observed/Cannot observe choices and fields for instance, next step,
response. Require an instance before building an Observed review
copy; Cannot observe must retain its reason without inventing a
behavior. Edits clear stale generated review text. Preserve typing
across worked views and confirm reset. Use literal safe text output.
No automatic grade, ranking, submission, student collection or anonymity
claim. At least 16px text, native labeled controls, visible focus,
stacked records at 360px without overflow. Inline CSS/JavaScript,
no external assets, network or storage. State typing is temporary.
Return full HTML; actual feedback stays in the course-required system.
Check the generated form with both an observed instance and a Cannot observe entry. Neither should produce a personality label, a fabricated event, or a numeric score. Read the review copy to see whether the next step follows the instance described.
Make the instructions clear before students use the form
An HTML teaching copy can put the completed entries beside their evidence. Put it in your NOS workspace when a teaching colleague needs to check whether the instructions distinguish a contribution from a guess.
If “Rate your teammate” encourages unsupported overall judgments, revise the static instruction to “Describe one contribution you observed and one useful next step” in visual editing mode. Save it so your colleague can reopen the existing link and read the clarification. Keep the actual assessment criteria and privacy arrangements in the instructor's policy.
Use the reviewed instructions with the course's real submission process. Ask learners to check each entry's instance and observation limits before handing it in.