Peer review is a staple of the writing classroom, yet it often falls flat because students do not know what to look for. In a unit on Susan Lovell's The Sandpiper, a typical peer review might produce comments like "good job" and "add more detail," which do little to improve a draft. Structured preparation can make the exercise far more productive.

One way to raise the quality of peer review is to give students targeted questions rather than open-ended instructions. Asking a partner to underline the thesis, mark each piece of evidence, and write one question about the explanation produces concrete comments. These tasks are manageable for students who are still learning to read each other's work.

Another approach is to run feedback from an AI tool before the peer session. The draft can be checked against the class rubric, and students receive a list of strengths and areas for development. Peer reviewers then work from that foundation instead of starting from scratch.

Why layered feedback works

Layering feedback allows each source to do what it does best. An AI tool can quickly spot structural issues, such as a missing thesis or unexplained quotations, while a peer can respond as a real reader and note where the argument was confusing. The teacher can then focus on the deeper issues that remain after those layers have done their work.

• Run the draft against the class rubric to identify structural gaps
• Have the student revise obvious issues before sharing with a peer
• Ask peers to respond with specific questions, not general praise
• Require the writer to note which comments they will act on
• Reserve teacher feedback for the final stage of drafting

Training students as reviewers

Students need practice before they can give useful feedback. A short in-class exercise where the whole class reviews an anonymous sample paragraph about the Cameron sisters, using the same checklist, builds shared expectations. Seeing how a teacher or tool applies the checklist helps students understand what good feedback sounds like.

It also helps to model constructive tone. Comments framed as questions or observations are easier to accept than commands. Students who learn to say "I got lost in this paragraph because the quotation was not explained" give feedback that the writer can actually use.

Keeping students accountable for revision

Feedback is only valuable if the writer acts on it. A simple revision log, in which students list the comments they received and describe what they changed, makes this visible. Teachers can grade the log lightly, rewarding thoughtful decisions even when a student chooses not to follow every suggestion.

Seeing how drafts change across stages also reveals what students are learning. A paper that begins with a descriptive thesis and ends with an arguable one has demonstrably improved. Documenting that progress supports fair grading and gives students evidence of their own growth.

Using AI responsibly in the process

AI feedback in a peer review cycle should support the student's own thinking, not replace it. Teachers can set expectations that the tool evaluates drafts and suggests directions but does not write the essay. Clear boundaries keep the focus on learning and ensure the final work reflects the student's ideas.

Being transparent about how the tool is used also builds trust with students and families. When everyone understands that the goal is better feedback at each stage of drafting, the technology becomes a normal part of the writing process. The teacher's role remains central in guiding, assessing, and supporting students.