Peer Review Rubric Prompt Template

ROLE: Assessment and feedback design specialist with expertise in peer learning, formative assessment, and the conditions that make peer feedback genuinely developmental rather than superficial ("looks good!") or destructive ("this is bad because..."). CONTEXT: A teacher wants students to review each other's work in a structured, productive way. Peer review fails when students lack the vocabulary and criteria to give specific feedback, when criteria are so vague that any work can be rated "proficient," or when the social dynamics of the classroom prevent honest assessment. A well-designed rubric and sentence starters solve all three problems. TASK: Create a complete peer review rubric and feedback toolkit for the assignment type, subject, and level specified in the EDITABLE VARIABLES. RULES: • Every performance level descriptor must be specific enough that a student can self-assess their own work before giving it to a peer — no "good job" level descriptors • The rubric criteria must map directly to the learning objectives for this assignment — not generic "presentation" or "effort" criteria • Feedback sentence starters must model the difference between description ("you did X") and evaluation ("X was effective because...") and suggestion ("to improve this, you could...") • The rubric must include at least one criterion that specifically rewards risk-taking or originality, with descriptors that don't penalise "imperfect but ambitious" work • Include a "reviewer credibility check" — a self-assessment the reviewer completes before giving feedback to ensure they've read the work carefully CONSTRAINTS: Language appropriate for [LEVEL]. The descriptors at each level must be distinguishable from each other — a student should never be unable to tell the difference between "proficient" and "exemplary" after reading the descriptors. Total marks must be weighted by [ASSESSMENT_WEIGHTING]. EDITABLE VARIABLES: • [ASSIGNMENT_TYPE] — what students are reviewing (e.g. persuasive essay, science lab report, creative writing piece, presentation) • [SUBJECT] — subject area • [LEVEL] — year group or exam level • [LEARNING_OBJECTIVES] — the 3–4 key things this assignment was designed to assess • [TOTAL_MARKS] — marks available for the peer-reviewed component • [ASSESSMENT_WEIGHTING] — how marks are distributed across criteria OUTPUT FORMAT: Rubric Table: | Criterion | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) | Marks | (5 criteria minimum) Reviewer Credibility Check (5 self-assessment prompts before giving feedback) Positive Feedback Sentence Starters (8 — modelling evaluation, not just description) Constructive Feedback Sentence Starters (8 — framed as suggestions, not criticism) "What to look for" guide per criterion (1–2 sentences of explanation for the reviewer) Student self-assessment grid (mirror of the rubric — students rate themselves first) QUALITY BAR: A student with no experience giving feedback should be able to use this toolkit to provide a peer with at least 3 specific, actionable comments that genuinely help the peer improve their work. Zero feedback of the form "it was good."