Peer review is a long-standing writing practice, but it has a reputation for uneven results. Students are often reluctant to criticize classmates, and they may lack the vocabulary to explain what is wrong with a draft. On a text as demanding as The Castle, where even the teacher might disagree about interpretation, peer feedback can slide into vague compliments or misplaced corrections. Structure and support make the difference.

AI feedback can serve as a useful companion to peer review rather than a replacement for it. A student receives an automated read of the draft against the class rubric, which highlights obvious gaps such as a missing thesis or unsupported claims. Peer reviewers can then focus on higher-level questions, like whether the argument is persuasive and whether the interpretation of the surveyor's choices holds together. Each source of feedback does a different job.

The sequence matters. Having students revise based on automated feedback first means peers receive a stronger draft, and their comments can be more thoughtful. Reversing the order tends to waste peer attention on surface problems that a tool could have flagged immediately. A simple three-step process works well: self-check against the rubric, automated feedback, then peer review with a focused set of questions.

Giving peer reviewers a clear job

Open instructions like "give feedback" rarely produce useful responses. Provide reviewers with specific tasks, such as identifying the thesis, underlining the strongest piece of evidence, and noting one place where the explanation is unclear. These tasks are concrete enough that students can complete them confidently, and they generate information that the writer can act on. Reviewers also learn from performing the analysis themselves.

• Ask the reviewer to restate the thesis in their own words to test whether it is clear
• Have them mark the quotation that best supports the claim and the one that least does
• Request one question the reviewer still has about the argument
• Ask whether the essay accounts for the novel's ambiguity or ignores it
• Encourage the reviewer to suggest one change that would most improve the draft

Training students to give constructive comments

Before the first review session, model what useful feedback looks like. Show a sample paragraph about the village's treatment of the surveyor and demonstrate how to comment on it, contrasting vague remarks with specific ones. A comment like "I got lost in the middle" is less helpful than "the third sentence shifts from the mayor to the landlady without explaining the connection." Practicing this distinction improves the quality of reviews immediately.

Establish norms for tone as well. Students should phrase suggestions as observations and questions, not judgments, and they should always name at least one strength. This framing keeps the exchange respectful and encourages writers to engage with the feedback instead of becoming defensive. When students learn that review is about improving the work together, the classroom atmosphere often becomes more collaborative and more focused on ideas.

Keeping the teacher in control

Teachers should monitor the process without managing every detail. Circulate during peer review sessions, listen to conversations, and step in when a discussion drifts or when a student receives inaccurate advice about the novel. Reading a sample of peer comments afterward helps you spot misconceptions that need to be addressed in class. This light oversight keeps the process productive without turning it into another grading burden.

Remember that automated feedback, like peer feedback, can be wrong. A tool may overlook a clever interpretation or misjudge the strength of an argument. Encourage students to treat all feedback as input to weigh, not instructions to obey. Teaching them to evaluate suggestions critically builds the kind of independent judgment that makes them better writers and more discerning readers of complex books like Kafka's.

Seeing the payoff at grading time

When peer review and automated feedback precede submission, the essays that arrive for grading are typically stronger. Common problems have already been addressed, so your comments can concentrate on deeper issues of interpretation and style. Many teachers find that this shift makes grading more interesting, since they spend less time repeating basic corrections and more time engaging with students' ideas about the novel.

Ask students to submit a brief note describing what feedback they received and how they used it. This reflection adds accountability and gives you insight into the revision process. Over several assignments, students become more skilled at both giving and receiving feedback, which strengthens the writing community in your classroom and improves the outcomes of every unit that involves a substantial essay.