Describe the case, reviewers, and decision. Makeform creates an evaluation form with criteria, evidence prompts, ratings, and comments for instructors, marketers, or panels.
Send completed evaluations to Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a prompt, adapt its criteria, or send it to the Makeform builder. Edit every example before publishing.
Audience
Instructors grading student case analyses
Format
Rubric with ratings, evidence, and feedback
Prompt size
314 chars
Example form structure
Rubric with ratings, evidence, and feedback
Student and case study
Problem definition and evidence
Stakeholder analysis
Recommendation feasibility
Strengths and next steps
Suggested routing tags
Ready for discussion
Needs clarification
Priority follow-up
Ask reviewers to cite a page, quote, chart, or result beside every major score. Evidence makes ratings easier to compare and discuss.
Step 1
Define
criteria, scale, weights, and evidence
Step 2
Review
one structured response per reviewer
Step 3
Compare
scores beside reasons and comments
Step 4
Act
grade, revise, approve, or follow up
Better evaluation
Loose comments produce uneven reviews. Give every reviewer the same criteria, scale definitions, and evidence prompts.
Define strong, adequate, and weak performance for analysis, evidence, recommendations, or story quality.
Pair ratings with rationales or source references so a panel can examine different conclusions.
Keep scores, comments, revisions, and recommendations in consistent fields for comparison.
Two review contexts
Academic and marketing teams examine different things, but both need criteria, evidence, and actionable feedback.
Assess framing, course concepts, evidence, stakeholder tradeoffs, and recommendation logic.
Collect independent ratings and preserve comments for moderation or discussion.
Review whether the challenge, solution, proof, quotes, and outcomes support the narrative.
Route a draft to approve, revise, fact-check, request permission, or archive.
Evaluation workflow
Start with the decision you need, then make every field earn its place in that decision.
Specify whether reviewers are grading analysis, judging a competition, approving a story, or selecting library content.
Replace generic ratings with specific anchors. Add weights only when certain dimensions matter more.
Give reviewers the same form, case identifier, instructions, scale, and deadline.
Compare totals and rationales, discuss differences, record the decision, and return next steps.
Structured vs unstructured review
Use consistent questions while preserving room for evidence and expert explanation.
Field guide
Use these six sections as a practical rubric outline, then adjust the language and weights to match your course, campaign, or review panel.
Context
Use identifiers that match every response to the correct case, version, author, and reviewer.
Criteria
Break quality into criteria such as problem framing, evidence, insight, feasibility, clarity, and audience relevance.
Scale
Define the endpoints and midpoint so reviewers can distinguish missing, adequate, and exceptional work.
Evidence
Ask for the quote, page, chart, example, or observation behind important scores.
Feedback
Separate strengths from improvements, then ask for the highest-priority change.
Decision
Close with a disposition and owner so reviewers know what happens next.
Related tools
Use a focused form for peer review, course feedback, proposal scoring, customer stories, or broader product evaluation.
Collect structured peer ratings and comments from classmates, teammates, or panel members.
Open toolGather student feedback about course content, teaching, assignments, and learning experience.
Open toolCompare proposals against defined requirements, scoring criteria, and reviewer recommendations.
Open toolCapture customer observations that can inform a story, product decision, or follow-up interview.
Open toolAssess product usefulness, quality, fit, and issues with a consistent evaluation structure.
Open toolGuide reviewers through a draft with targeted critique, evidence notes, and revision suggestions.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for instructors, marketers, judges, and reviewers designing a consistent evaluation.
It is a structured scorecard for reviewing a case study or an analysis. Every reviewer gets the same criteria and scale, provides evidence, and records feedback and a recommendation.
Academic criteria often cover problem definition, concepts, evidence, stakeholders, recommendations, feasibility, and communication. Marketing criteria often cover audience relevance, narrative, proof, outcomes, quotes, brand alignment, permissions, and fact-check status.
Use both. Ratings enable comparison; comments explain the judgment and needed changes. Pair important scores with a rationale and request sources when evidence is central.
Use numeric ratings and criterion weights, then calculated fields or a connected spreadsheet for the total. Show reviewers the weights and retain rationales beside the result.
Define criteria, label scale points, show acceptable evidence, and give everyone the same case version. Calibrating on one sample can reveal differing interpretations early.
Yes. Each reviewer selects the same case ID and submits independently. Compare scores beside rationales, then record the moderated outcome in a decision field.
Yes. Makeform offers unlimited free forms and responses, so you can generate, edit, publish, and collect evaluations without a response cap. The paid tier removes the Makeform badge.
Return criterion ratings, evidence notes, the strongest element, and prioritized next steps. Keep private panel notes separate from comments intended for students, customers, or authors.
Make every review easier to compare and act on.
