In the Autobiography, Franklin describes forming a club of friends in Philadelphia around 1727. They met on Friday evenings to discuss questions of morals, politics, and natural philosophy, and each member was expected to contribute essays now and then. Franklin called it the Junto. It was, in effect, a peer review group, and its design offers useful lessons for teachers.

Peer review in classrooms has a mixed reputation. Students give vague praise, avoid honest criticism, or nitpick surface errors. Some feel uncomfortable reading each other's work. Teachers often do it anyway because they believe in the idea, and then wonder whether it helped.

The Junto suggests an alternative. Its members agreed to debate in a spirit of inquiry and to avoid the goal of winning. Members were expected to speak with modesty and to receive criticism without taking offense. Those norms are worth borrowing.

This post shows how to build a peer workshop on those foundations.

What the Junto actually was

The Junto was small, regular, and purposeful. Members came prepared with questions and work to share, and the group had shared expectations for conduct. It was not a casual chat. That structure is what gave it value, and it is the piece that classroom peer review most often lacks.

• Groups of four or five students meet on a predictable schedule.
• Each writer brings a specific question about their draft, such as whether the thesis is clear.
• Reviewers respond to that question first and add other comments second.
• Feedback is phrased as observations and questions, not verdicts.
• Every member writes a brief note on what they will change after the session.

A peer review protocol modeled on it

Start with a ten-minute silent read of the draft. The writer then states their question aloud, and reviewers take turns responding. After every reviewer has spoken, the writer summarizes what they heard and says what they plan to do. The session ends with a written note to the teacher, which gives you a record without requiring you to attend every group.

Rotate roles so students practice both giving and receiving feedback. One student might focus on evidence, another on organization. Assigned roles help reviewers stay on task and reduce the urge to correct commas.

Keeping peer comments useful

Give students the rubric and ask them to review against it. Comments tied to criteria are more specific than general impressions. A reviewer who says "your evidence in paragraph two does not connect to your claim" is doing real work.

Model the tone you want. Franklin, in his own account, learned to use phrases like "I conceive" and "it appears to me," and students can practice similar language. It makes criticism easier to hear and easier to give.

Where teacher and AI feedback fit alongside peers

Peer feedback is not a replacement for teacher feedback. It is a complement, and it works best early in the writing process, before the paper is final. Students who have already revised based on peer comments give you better drafts to grade.

Some teachers add a rubric-based AI feedback step between peer review and final submission, so students receive a quick check on the criteria before turning in the paper. That layers three kinds of feedback without adding to your grading pile. Each layer answers a different question, and students learn to tell them apart.