Free printable classroom resource
Help students test whether a recommendation is supported before they polish the presentation. Review the comparison, numbers, reasoning, responsibility, and next revision—not who earned the highest simulated profit.
Direct answer
Students should first restate the author's decision question and main claim. They then inspect whether the baseline and comparison changed only one important factor, verify the units and one key calculation, trace the claim to recorded evidence, and look for a missing tradeoff, stakeholder, constraint, or model limitation. The review ends with one precise strength, one question, and one feasible next action.
This protocol separates feedback from grading. A peer does not rewrite the recommendation or assign a score. The author decides what to accept, records why, and owns every correction. That makes feedback useful evidence of revision while preserving individual accountability.
If a team cannot show comparable records, pause the review. Use the evidence portfolio to reconstruct settings and results, or run a cleaner comparison. Peers cannot evaluate a causal claim from memory, an unlabeled screenshot, or a final score alone.
Remove student surnames, account details, private messages, or other personal information before exchanging work. The simulations require no student account.
Teacher-ready timing
Best for: catching evidence problems before a report or slide deck is built.
Best for: comparing several approaches without turning the activity into a profit leaderboard.
Is the decision narrow, answerable, and connected to a controllable input?
Are the scenario, horizon, and other important settings held constant?
Can a reader trace inputs, units, formulas, arithmetic, and rounding?
Does the claim match the direction and size of the recorded change?
Are tradeoffs, affected people, constraints, and safeguards addressed?
Does the wording stay within what a simplified simulation can support?
Write a code beside a specific sentence, table cell, or calculation. “E: This profit claim matches the recorded $240 increase” is actionable; “good job” is not. “N: Recheck whether monthly rent belongs in per-unit variable cost” identifies a test without doing the author's work.
Printable page 1
Decision question, restated by the reviewer:
Main claim, restated without changing its meaning:
| Review check | Clear | Recheck | Evidence or question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q: The question names one main decision and outcome. | |||
| C: Baseline and changed run are comparable. | |||
| N: Measures, units, formula, and arithmetic can be traced. | |||
| E: The claim fits the recorded direction and size of change. | |||
| R: A material tradeoff, stakeholder, or constraint is addressed. | |||
| L: The wording acknowledges uncertainty and model limits. |
Calculation spot-check: Input(s) __________ × / ÷ / + / − __________ = __________ Unit: __________
One evidence-based strength:
One question the author must answer:
One feasible next test or revision:
Printable page 2
Feedback item selected:
Reason for this decision: Refer to the evidence, assignment goal, or responsible constraint—not the reviewer's identity.
Exact change I will make:
How I will verify the change: ☐ rerun comparison ☐ recalculate ☐ relabel evidence ☐ narrow claim ☐ add tradeoff/safeguard ☐ other __________
| Before | After | Evidence that supports the revision |
|---|---|---|
Individual accountability check: Explain one choice independently.
My strongest evidence is __________ because __________.
The most important limitation or responsible boundary is __________ because __________.
Author initials: __________ Reviewer initials: __________ Teacher checkpoint, if required: __________
Show one vague comment and revise it aloud into a code, location, reason, and action. Require reviewers to point to an artifact rather than judging effort, ability, or personality.
Rotate author, evidence checker, calculation checker, and responsibility challenger. Permit written, spoken, or teacher-scribed feedback. Give students private processing time before a team response.
Ask which evidence or requirement would settle the question. If disagreement concerns law, safety, privacy, accessibility, or another high-impact issue, pause the recommendation and use an authoritative source or qualified review.
Review the decision question, comparability of runs, accuracy of calculations, connection between claim and evidence, important tradeoffs, responsible constraints, model limitations, and the proposed revision.
A checkpoint review can take about 12 minutes. A fuller gallery review with written feedback and revision planning takes about 25 minutes.
Usually no. Peers should identify evidence strengths, ask specific questions, and suggest a testable next action. The teacher remains responsible for grading.
The reviewer should name the input, unit, formula, or arithmetic step to recheck without silently replacing the author's work. The author verifies and documents the correction.
Yes. Teams can exchange printed claim-and-evidence records, rotate paper stations, or have a reader present results aloud while a recorder captures feedback.
Follow the complete assessment and feedback sequence, starting with the copy-ready assignment or three-session project. Organize comparable artifacts in the evidence portfolio, collect individual thinking in the reflection journal, and use the teacher observation and conference toolkit during investigation. Use this protocol before the final presentation, then apply the 16-point rubric after students revise. Find every teacher and student activity in the complete resource index.