Download the templates
Three free files: a blank CSV feedback log, a worked CSV decision log and a TXT worksheet with the entire fictional scenario, draft, comments, dialogue and revision. Edit these in your own notes or spreadsheet; CSV and TXT do not preserve a designed page layout. No account required.
- Blank reader feedback and author decision logCSV · 346 bytes
- Worked comment-to-revision decision logCSV · 3 KB
- Complete peer review exercise and blank promptsTXT · 9 KB
Use a blank record for your own work. Keep examples separate from your evidence and follow the instructions below.
On this page
Agree on the task and the kind of feedback
An essay peer review worksheet records two different jobs: the reader explains their experience of a draft, and the writer decides what to do about it. It is useful when a comment can be traced to a passage, a purpose and a later decision. A completed form is not a grade or proof that every comment is sound.
Check the course rules before exchanging work. Waterloo notes that some assignments require independent work. If collaboration is permitted, share the task, draft version and a focus question. UNC recommends asking for the kind of feedback needed at the current writing stage. A question about the line of reasoning gives the reader a clearer job than asking whether the essay is good.
Agree what can be shared and with whom. An invitation to read a draft is not permission to publish it or upload it to a service. Use the actual rubric if one is supplied, but leave the instructor’s grade judgment with the instructor. The worksheet below supplies a record, not new assignment requirements.
Read the complete fictional task and scenario
Original fictional practice material. The brief, draft, reader comments, author replies and revision below are constructed examples, not real student work, survey findings or captured AI output.
Practice task — Recommend a format for a campus club project showcase. Explain a benefit, address an access concern and identify missing information. Use only the scenario below; do not invent survey results.
S1 — The fictional club wants members to present projects and receive questions about their work. Its current showcase includes live audience questions in a room at a set time. The alternative under discussion is a collection of recorded presentations.
S2 — The club has not collected information about members’ internet access, available devices or preferred times. Campus computers exist in this scenario, but their opening hours and availability are not supplied.
S3 — No delivery platform, cost estimate or process for responding to questions has been selected. No comparison between the two formats has been conducted.
The writer asks a reader: “Can you follow my recommendation, and does the access concern affect it?” S1–S3 identify statements inside this exercise. They are not sources to cite as evidence about a real campus. The university links at the end support the review method, not the fictional club proposal.
A short draft to review before seeing the comments
Read all three paragraphs once for the position and its reasons. On a second pass, mark one concrete strength and one place where the reader needs more explanation. This is a complete short practice draft, not a model-length essay or an actual student submission.
D1 — The club should replace all live showcases with recorded presentations. Recordings are the best option for everyone because members can watch whenever they want. Moving online solves the access problem.
D2 — A recording can be paused and revisited, which could help a viewer inspect a project explanation. In a live session, audience members can ask a presenter to clarify a point. That belongs to a different debate: playback control is enough to make recordings the better format.
D3 — Some members may not have reliable internet access. They could use a campus computer, so there is no need to check opening hours. The club should make a permanent switch now.
Try writing your own comment before opening the checks. Point to wording rather than describe the writer’s ability. Separate a question about missing information from a claim that the opposite conclusion has already been proved.
Which wording in D1 reaches beyond the scenario?
“Everyone” and “solves” assert universal access that S2 leaves unknown. A useful comment identifies those words and asks the writer to explain a narrower claim. It does not invent evidence that every member prefers live sessions.
What can a reader preserve in D2?
The pause-and-revisit point supplies a concrete possible benefit. Keeping it does not require accepting the claim that playback control answers the club’s separate aim of receiving questions.
Does D3 resolve the access objection?
No. S2 says campus computers exist but supplies no opening hours or availability. The draft assumes that a possible access route is sufficient without checking whether members could use it.
Specific peer review feedback examples
Berkeley recommends showing what clear, specific and constructive feedback looks like. The original comments below connect a location to an observation or question. C1 identifies a useful feature to preserve; C2–C4 describe gaps. C5 is included as an unsupported suggestion that the author should inspect rather than automatically accept.
Start with argument and organization before surface corrections, as Waterloo advises. A grammar-only pass would miss the unsupported access claim and the unanswered purpose in this draft. A reader can describe confusion without taking over the writer’s position.
| Comment and location | Reader response | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| C1 · D2, sentence 1 | The pause-and-revisit point gives me a concrete possible benefit. I can see what playback control might offer; please keep that explanation. | Specific strength to preserve |
| C2 · D1, sentences 2–3 | I read “everyone” and “solves” as claims about every member. S2 leaves access unknown. Could you explain the benefit without saying that the access problem is already resolved? | Scope and missing information |
| C3 · D2, sentences 2–3 | I lost the connection to the club’s aim of receiving questions (S1). What would replace the live opportunity to ask for clarification? Please explain rather than set that aim aside. | Purpose and reasoning |
| C4 · D3, sentence 2 | If computers are the access alternative, I need to know when members could use them. S2 does not supply opening hours. Could this stay a question to resolve before a decision? | Access concern and next check |
| C5 · D1, sentence 2 | Add “most members prefer recordings” to make the recommendation more persuasive. | Suggestion that needs an evidence check |
The revised draft, with remaining questions visible
R1 — The club should retain a live showcase for now while investigating recordings as an additional option. A recording can be paused and revisited, which could help viewers inspect a project explanation. This is a possible benefit, not a finding that recordings work better for every member.
R2 — The format must also serve the club’s aim of receiving questions about projects (S1). One option would be to let viewers send questions for presenters to answer, but the scenario supplies no platform or response process (S3). The club would need to check whether this arrangement is feasible and provides the clarification members need; it is not already an established substitute for live discussion.
R3 — Access remains unresolved because members’ devices, internet access and available times have not been checked (S2). Campus computers cannot be assumed to solve that problem without knowing when they are available. Because the live format already includes audience questions (S1) and the alternative’s access and question process are unresolved, I recommend retaining the live format while checking those gaps. This is a provisional choice, not proof that the current format is accessible to everyone; the access check should cover both options.
Recheck C1–C5 against the revised wording. R1 preserves a concrete possible benefit while recommending the live format for now. R2 reconnects the format to the club’s purpose without inventing a tested solution. R3 explains that provisional choice and keeps access questions open for both formats. No preference survey has appeared. These observations explain the revision; they do not establish a grade or prove that recordings are the best policy.
Use the worksheet with your own draft
Keep the old version, the received comments and the new version identifiable. The blank CSV gives each comment a location, a clarification field, a decision, a reason and a revision locator. Use additional rows when one comment raises several issues. Leave a question unresolved when the evidence or assignment rule is still missing.
Writer: assignment and course collaboration rules; draft version; intended reader; focus question.
Reader: locate a passage, describe what you understood or could not follow, and explain why it matters to the task.
Writer: ask for clarification if the comment is ambiguous. Record accept, adapt, reject or unresolved with a reason.
Writer: record the wording actually changed and its new location, or state explicitly that no change was made.
Both: reread the revision against the original concern. Record what remains unanswered.
If two readers disagree, return to the assignment, intended audience and actual evidence. Ask what each reader understood and which passage led there. You can adapt a suggestion or retain a justified choice. Explain the decision rather than combine incompatible advice simply to satisfy both readers.
After the substantive revision, a permitted editing tool may help with sentence clarity. It cannot establish the missing scenario facts or decide the instructor’s rules. The original comments here can be used without any AI account. If AI feedback is permitted for your actual assignment, check each suggestion and document the assistance actually used.
Questions about this topic
What should an essay peer review worksheet include?
The assignment and focus, draft version, reader comments with locations, clarification, author decisions with reasons, actual changes and a recheck. Use any instructor-supplied requirements; this record is not a universal grading rubric.
How is peer review different from proofreading?
Peer review can address purpose, argument, evidence and structure. Proofreading focuses on surface errors. Agree the scope with the writer and address consequential content questions before polishing sentences.
Does the writer have to accept every comment?
No. Check the suggestion against the task and evidence. Accept, adapt or reject it with a reason, or keep it unresolved. In the fictional example, a claim about member preferences is rejected because no survey findings are supplied.
Are these comments from real students or an AI tool?
Neither. The scenario, draft, comments, dialogue and revision are original constructed teaching examples. They are not a student study, a captured AI response or evidence of a measured learning outcome.
Can I use the worksheet without an account?
Yes. The page, answer checks and CSV/TXT downloads are free to use without an account. Check your course collaboration rules before sharing your own draft; access to a worksheet does not grant permission for peer or AI assistance.
Sources and editorial notes
The supporting reading below informs our editorial guidance. Exercises and scenarios illustrate a method; they do not report a completed product test or measured learning outcome. Read our editorial policy or send a correction with a supporting source to info@ai-essay.com.