Peer Feedback
Goal
Peer feedback helps you test whether a scientific message is clear, grounded, and honest before it reaches the final presentation or portfolio.
In Week 9, feedback is not about personal preference. It is about whether the audience can see the claim, evidence, limitation, and source.
How and When to Exchange Feedback
Use the in-studio partner review as the pre-submission feedback source for A8. The Canvas Discussion exchange closes Monday after the Week 9 class at 4:00 PM, the same deadline as A8, and can support later presentation-deck or portfolio revision.
Use both channels:
- In-studio partner review (during the Week 9 class): show your draft to a partner, complete the feedback table, and make at least one documented A8 revision before submitting.
- Canvas Discussion (by the standard deadline above): post your plain-language summary and rendered slides or outline, then complete the feedback table for at least one classmate. Feedback arriving at the deadline is for later revision, not the required pre-submission A8 change.
You do not need to give classmates access to your repository. To share an in-progress deck, show your screen in studio, or download the rendered slides.html from the Explorer (right-click the file, then Download) and attach it to your Canvas Discussion post.
Feedback you receive can also inform revisions to this work for the final portfolio.
Three-Slide Structure
Use this structure for a revealjs deck or slide outline:
- Question and audience: who needs this finding, and why?
- Evidence: show one plot, table, or dashboard output and state the descriptive pattern.
- Limitation and action: name what the data can and cannot support, then state the next decision or question.
Use starter-slides.qmd if you want a renderable revealjs scaffold.
Plain-Language Check
For each slide, ask:
- What is the one sentence the audience should remember?
- Which word or phrase would confuse someone outside the course?
- What limitation must remain visible to avoid overclaiming?
- Does the source note match the evidence shown?
Peer Feedback Form
Copy this table into your A8 peer-feedback.md.
| Prompt | Peer note |
|---|---|
| Main message in one sentence | |
| Intended audience | |
| Evidence shown | |
| Limitation or caution shown | |
| Source note or citation shown | |
| Wording that needs plain-language revision | |
| Accessibility issue, if any | |
| One concrete improvement before submission |
Citation and Accessibility Checklist
- Data source is named.
- Figure or table has a clear title.
- Axes, units, and group labels are readable.
- Color choices work without relying on color alone.
- Slide text is brief enough to read during a talk.
- Limitation is visible.
- AI-assisted wording has been checked against the evidence.
Good Feedback Sounds Like
Helpful:
The main claim is clear, but the limitation is only in speaker notes. Put the unweighted/descriptive caution under the figure.
Less helpful:
Looks good.
Student Output
Submit the rendered slide deck or slide outline, completed peer feedback form, plain-language summary, source note, and AI-use note required by Assignment 8.