Peer review has a mixed reputation. Done well, it helps students see their own writing more clearly, and done badly, it produces a page of "good job" comments and a lot of wasted class time. The difference is structure.

For a unit on The Glass Menagerie, peer review works best after students have a full draft and a rubric in hand. Reviewers need something concrete to look for. Without criteria, they default to fixing commas and complimenting handwriting.

Start with a narrow focus. Ask reviewers to evaluate only the thesis and the evidence, for example, and to answer specific questions in writing. A focused task produces more useful comments than a general request for feedback.

Model the process first. Show a sample paragraph on the play, ask the class to review it together, and discuss which comments would actually help the writer. Students learn what useful feedback sounds like by seeing it.

A simple protocol for the classroom

Pair students and give each a short checklist tied to the rubric. Reviewers read the draft twice, once for understanding and once for the checklist. They then write two strengths and one suggestion, and the pair discusses the comments face to face.

• Reviewer restates the writer's thesis in their own words to test clarity
• Reviewer marks the strongest piece of evidence and explains why it works
• Reviewer points to one place where analysis is thin or missing
• Writer responds with one change they plan to make
• Both students record the revision plan before returning to their drafts

Where AI feedback fits

AI feedback can serve as a third voice in the process. Before or after peer review, students can see rubric-aligned comments on their drafts and compare them with what a classmate said. Where the two agree, the priority is clear, and where they differ, the writer has something to think about.

Teachers should decide how much of this is visible to students and when. Some prefer to use AI feedback only on final drafts, and others run it early to encourage revision. Either approach works as long as students understand the purpose.

Keeping the teacher in charge

Peer and AI feedback are supplements, not replacements for your own reading. Look at a sample of drafts yourself, especially those where reviewers gave conflicting advice. Your judgment on the play and the writing is what students ultimately trust.

When the process works, the essays you receive are stronger and more focused. That makes grading faster, and the time you spend on each paper can go toward higher-level comments. The early effort pays back at the end of the unit.