Most struggling Peer Gynt essays share a single root problem, which is a thesis that does not argue anything. Students write sentences such as "Peer Gynt is a play about a man who goes on many adventures" and then spend five paragraphs proving something no one would dispute. Teachers can spot the problem immediately but often find it difficult to explain it in a way that actually helps the student fix it.

The play makes the problem more likely than most. Its plot is so eventful, with trolls, a madhouse, and a shipwreck, that summarizing it feels like an achievement in itself. Students who have just finished untangling Ibsen's unusual structure may sincerely believe that explaining what happens is the same as analyzing the play.

Feedback on theses therefore needs to do two jobs. It has to name what is missing, and it has to show the student a concrete path to a better version. Comments that only say "too broad" or "needs more argument" leave students guessing, and the next draft often contains the same flaw in a slightly different form.

Diagnose the Type of Weak Thesis

Weak theses fall into recognizable categories, and naming the category helps students learn. A summary thesis describes events, a topic thesis names a theme without a claim, and a truism thesis states something nobody would argue. When you tell a student that their sentence is a topic thesis because it mentions self-deception without saying what Ibsen does with it, they gain a vocabulary for diagnosing their own drafts.

• Summary thesis: "In Peer Gynt, Peer travels from Norway to Egypt and back."
• Topic thesis: "Peer Gynt explores the theme of identity."
• Truism thesis: "Peer makes many mistakes in his life."
• Overreach thesis: "Peer Gynt proves that everyone is selfish."
• Arguable thesis: "Ibsen uses the onion to suggest that selfhood comes from commitment, not from accumulated roles."

Show the Revision, Not Just the Problem

The most effective comments model a revision. If a student writes that Peer is a selfish character, you might suggest that they ask why Ibsen makes selfishness look so charming in the first act, and what that charm hides by Act V. That follow-up question converts a flat label into a claim that can be supported with scenes and quotations.

Offering one or two sample sentence frames can also help without handing over the answer. A frame such as "Although Peer appears to ___, Ibsen's treatment of the ___ scene suggests ___" pushes students toward complexity while leaving the content to them. Students then learn that a thesis is built through a question about the text, not pulled from thin air.

Timing and Delivery of Feedback

Thesis feedback is most valuable before the full draft is written. A short checkpoint, in which students submit only a thesis and a rough outline, lets you catch problems when they are still cheap to fix. It also spares you the discouraging experience of grading eighteen essays built on a foundation that could not carry them.

AI feedback tools are well suited to this checkpoint because the task is narrow and the criteria are clear. A tool can read thirty theses, identify the type of weakness in each, and suggest a guiding question, all within minutes. Teachers can review the results, adjust comments that miss the mark, and return them in time for students to use them.

Building a Habit of Strong Claims

Over a unit, students should see thesis writing as a skill they are developing rather than a hurdle they either clear or fail. Short warm-ups in which they turn a plot summary into a claim about the Boyg, or a theme into an argument about the Button Moulder, build the habit gradually. Keeping a class bank of strong and weak theses, with the reasons spelled out, gives them a reference point.

As the habit grows, grading becomes more rewarding. Essays that begin with a genuine claim are easier to read, easier to score, and more fun to discuss. The effort invested in thesis feedback pays back across every later paper students write, in this course and beyond.