Skip to content
What makes a great peer review?
Peer review quality is evaluated based on 6 main criteria, outlined below!
Audit Quality Rubric
Dimension
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
N/A
Thoroughness
Provides only a sentence or two for each LEAD category, with limited depth or engagement.
Gives multiple points for each LEAD category but focuses on only 1-2 observations without broader analysis.
Digs deep into each LEAD category, identifying multiple strengths and opportunities for improvement, reflecting close observation of the session.
Always applicable
Descriptiveness
Makes vague statements like “you should have engaged the learners a little more.” It’s very unclear what happened in the session.
Makes a limited number of specific observations, mixed with some high-level observations. E.g., “Good job asking the learners to explain their reasoning throughout the session. I think they still seemed a little bored, though.”
Makes very specific statements about what went well and what didn’t go well, e.g., “The way that you explained fractions using visual blocks made a lot of sense, and I noticed that it helped Uma to get the next question right” or “I noticed Alice stopped answering questions around the middle of the session, indicating that she might have zoned out.”
Always applicable
Actionability
Points out issues, but doesn’t give tips to do better next time.
Shares suggestions for how to improve, but they’re not particularly insightful, personalized or easy to apply, e.g., “Ask more questions.”
Shares thoughtful suggestions for how to improve, in a way that could easily integrate into what the tutor is already doing. E.g.,"You were covering a lot of content, so I noticed it was hard to have time to explain everything while also engaging learners. I suggest asking learners what they know at the beginning of the session, so that you can move more quickly over concepts they already know. It will also allow you to engage the learners who are ahead by having them explain the concepts to the rest of the group!"
Peer reviewer does not see any room for improvements
Encouragement
Does not go out of their way to encourage the tutor. Puts the tutor down or talks “as an expert.”
Ensures that every peer review has some positive feedback, along with the constructive feedback. Makes suggestions in a thoughtful way.
Thoughtfully interweaves positive and negative feedback. Uses the tone of a peer, e.g., “One thing that’s worked well for me when I faced this problems is...”
Peer reviewer does not see any room for improvements
Clarity & Readability
Contains grammar or formatting issues that make it difficult to follow.
Mostly clear, with no major grammar issues, but could be structured more effectively.
Writing is very easy to read and well-structured. You can quickly understand what the peer reviewer was trying to convey, the first time you read it.
Peer feedback is very short
Appropriate Ratings
The ratings given were not in line with the standards written in the rubric
The ratings given were mostly aligned with the rubric
The ratings given were well-aligned with the rubric
Meta-reviewer doesn’t have time to review the original recording
There are no rows in this table
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.