Peer review has a mixed reputation in many classrooms. Done poorly, it produces comments like "good essay" and small proofreading fixes that miss the real problems. Done well, it helps students see their own drafts through a reader's eyes and gives them practice in evaluating arguments.

The Overcoat is well suited to peer review because students have read the same short text and can check each other's claims against it. A classmate can quickly tell whether a quoted phrase actually supports the point being made. That shared knowledge makes feedback more concrete than in units where each student reads a different book.

Adding AI feedback to the process gives students a second, independent reading of their draft. The tool can apply the rubric consistently and flag issues the peer might miss, while the peer offers a human reaction the tool cannot. Combining both produces more thorough feedback than either alone.

Structuring the Peer Review Session

Give reviewers a short, focused checklist rather than open-ended instructions. Ask them to underline the thesis, mark each piece of evidence, and write one question about the argument. Limiting the task keeps reviews specific and prevents students from drifting into proofreading.

• Underline the thesis and rewrite it in your own words
• Mark each quotation and note whether it is explained
• Identify the paragraph that feels least connected to the claim
• Write one question the essay does not yet answer
• Name one strength the writer should keep in revision

Where AI Feedback Fits

Students can run their draft through an AI feedback tool before or after peer review. Before review, it helps writers fix obvious issues so the peer can focus on deeper questions. After review, it offers a check on whether the peer's comments align with the rubric.

Teachers should decide how much the tool's output is shared and how it is framed. Presenting it as a reader that highlights patterns, rather than a judge that assigns grades, keeps the emphasis on learning. This framing also reduces the temptation to treat suggestions as commands.

Teaching Students to Evaluate Feedback

Not every comment deserves to be followed. Students need to learn how to decide which suggestions improve their argument and which do not. Ask them to record what they changed, what they kept, and why.

This reflection turns feedback into a thinking exercise instead of a to-do list. Students begin to develop ownership of their writing and trust in their own judgment. The habit helps them beyond this assignment.

Using Revision Data to Teach

Comparing first drafts to final versions shows what kinds of changes students actually make. You may find that most focus on grammar rather than argument, which suggests a need for more targeted teaching. Adjusting the checklist or mini-lessons can shift attention to deeper revision.

Over multiple units, students become better reviewers and better revisers. They learn to see writing as a process rather than a single performance. That shift is one of the most important outcomes of a well-run writing classroom.