I’ve been taking an online workshop to learn more about practical ways we can implement problem-based lessons in our math classrooms called Empowered Problem Solving by Robert Kaplinsky (#mathhero #teachercrush). In one of the workshop modules we troubleshoot various issues that may arise throughout the process of teaching a problem based lesson, for instance:

- What happens if students don’t ask for information that they need to solve the problem?
- What do you do if a student shares a strategy that you don’t understand or did not anticipate?
- What do you do when students submit low quality or low effort work?

That last question really had me thinking a lot about assessment. When students submit low quality work it is often because they don’t know what the expectations are. Something I do quite often in my classes is share student work samples after an assignment or test to address common errors or mathematical practices. Here’s a brief overview of my journey in providing feedback for my students:

*“What Should My Answer Look Like” Posters from MathEqualsLove*,

Examples are from my class đź™‚

I don’t make enough time for level 3 work, and I should. Within a single semester, my goal is to give students at least two opportunities to do meaningful peer assessment. Of course, I anticipate this to be a gradual process, and it might take some time to get to a point where students can comfortably and confidently do peer assessment.

Assessment is difficult; even with a simplified assessment scheme one two teachers may assess the same student work slightly differently depending on their interpretation of what is “correct” or what qualifies as “sufficient reasoning.” Unfortunately these discrepancies will arise no matter what, but I think there is a lot of value in putting the students in our shoes and giving them opportunities to assess each other’s work.

Inspired by the Empowered Problem Solving Workshop, I’ve created a Mathematical Peer Editing Checklist and Feedback Form with practices I value and that I think is general enough to be used with most and/or all problem-based lessons. I’ve also incorporated an “overall feedback” section in the form based on Kaplinsky’s Levels of Convincing (originally inspired by Jo Boaler #mathhero #teachercrush) that asks students to rate each other’s mathematical writing based on how convincing they think their argument/work is.

- Do you think this framework would work with your students?
- How would you modify it to make it better?
- Anyone have suggestions for a more concise title, as opposed to “Mathematical Peer Editing Checklist and Feedback Form”?
- Thoughts on my use of the word “writer” to describe the student who’s work is being critiqued?
- Other thoughts?