A double-blind peer review process is embedded in the implementation of model-eliciting activities - a type of open-ended problem used in a large first-year engineering course. Students conduct the peer review along three dimensions: mathematical model, re-usability & modifiability, and audience (share-ability). Classmates bring to bear both their own solution development experience as well as their own educational and personal backgrounds when providing feedback to their peers. In this paper, we examine the results of a reflection instrument used to investigate how students felt about their ability to provide reviews along the three rubric dimensions across three MEAs implemented in a single semester. Further we exam the results of a second instrument that is used by student teams to provide feedback to their reviewers on the quality of the reviews received.
