Proposal Peer-Feedback Survey

Proposal Peer-Feedback Survey#

Link to Survey here: https://forms.gle/iLWDV6Lh753ZfNM47

This page shows exactly what the peer-feedback survey will ask, so you know what to listen for during each presentation and what your classmates will be asked about yours. The survey itself is administered as a Google Form; the notes below about form setup are for the instructor’s reference.

Copy-paste into Google Forms. One form for the whole quarter: students submit one response per presenting group. Settings to enable: “Allow response editing” (so they can submit in class and polish afterward), and do NOT enable “Limit to 1 response” (they submit once per presenting group).

The point of this survey is to help the presenters, not to grade them. It does two things: it shows presenters whether their message actually landed, and it tells them whether classmates would really use what they’re building. Push for specifics — “it’s useful” is not a helpful answer.

Form title: FINM 32900 — Proposal Presentation Peer Feedback

Form description: Submit one response for each presenting group. Your written feedback is shared with the presenters anonymously — your name is collected only for attendance and participation credit and is never shown to the presenters. If you check the “get in touch” box at the end, I will pass your name and email to the group separately, so it is never linked to your feedback. Answer the “in your own words” questions based only on what you understood from the talk — don’t look anything up. That’s the whole point: it tells the presenters whether their message came across.

Section 1 — About this response#

  1. Your name (short answer, required)

  2. Which group are you giving feedback on? (dropdown, required)

    • Fernando + Bangjie

    • Michael + David

    • Andrew + Chandler

    • Anthony + Stefano

    • Riley + Marija

    • Brian + Clara

    • Arnold + Cameron

    • Bobby + George

    • Ashish + Omar

    • Ahmad + Jeffrey

    • Iris + Zhicheng

Section 2 — Did the message land? (the paper)#

Answer both of these from memory, based only on what you heard in the talk.

  1. In your own words, what is the core exercise of the paper this group is replicating? (paragraph, required) Helper: Don’t look anything up. This tells the presenters whether the core of their paper actually came across.

  2. What is the significance of this paper — why does it matter, and who should care? (paragraph, required) Helper: Again, just from what you heard in the presentation.

Section 3 — The replication code (their first product)#

  1. Would you find this group’s replication code useful? If yes, be specific: what exactly would you use it for, and how? If no, say why not. (paragraph, required) Helper: “It’s useful” is not an answer. Tell us the actual use you have in mind — the specific dataset, table, or workflow you’d apply it to.

  2. How clearly did the group explain what they’re replicating and what data they use? (linear scale 1–5; 1 = not clear, 5 = very clear, required)

Section 4 — The extension / new product (their pitch)#

  1. In your own words, what is the main extension or new product this group is pitching — their new table/figure, cleaned dataset, or tool? (paragraph, required)

  2. Would you use that extension/product? If yes, be specific about how you’d use it. If no, why not? (paragraph, required) Helper: Same as before — give us the concrete use, not just a yes.

  3. How clearly did the group explain their extension and why it’s interesting or useful? (linear scale 1–5; 1 = not clear, 5 = very clear, required)

Section 5 — Optional#

  1. One concrete suggestion to make either product more useful or more ambitious. (paragraph, optional)

  2. (checkbox) “I’m interested in this project — please share my name and email with this group so we can get in touch.” Helper text: I’ll send your contact info to the group separately, so it is never linked to the feedback you gave above.

Contents