Peer review has a mixed reputation. Done poorly, it becomes a round of "looks good to me" and a wasted class period. Done well, it teaches students to read critically and revise with purpose.

A Maus II essay is a good candidate for peer review because the analysis is layered. Students can help each other check whether a claim is supported, whether panels are described clearly, and whether the argument holds together. But they need structure to do it well.

Give reviewers specific questions instead of an open invitation to comment. "Does the thesis make an argument about the book?" is easier to answer than "What do you think?" Concrete prompts produce concrete feedback.

Pair students thoughtfully. Mixing strong and developing writers can help both, provided the stronger student is guided to explain rather than fix. Random pairing is fine when the checklist is clear.

Build a simple review protocol

A one-page peer review form keeps the session on track. It should follow your rubric so students learn the same criteria you will use to grade. Ask them to underline, circle, and comment on the paper itself.

• Underline the thesis and write one sentence describing the argument in your own words
• Circle one piece of evidence that is well explained and one that needs more explanation
• Note where a panel or image is mentioned and whether its meaning is clear
• Point out one spot where the paragraph structure could be stronger
• Write one specific suggestion the author can use in revision

Teach students how to give feedback

Model good and bad comments before the session starts. Show a vague comment like "needs more detail" next to a specific one such as "Explain how this panel shows Vladek's fear." Students quickly see the difference.

Set norms for tone, especially on this text. Comments should focus on the writing, be respectful, and avoid judgment about the author's views. A short reminder helps keep the session productive.

Use peer review to reduce your workload

Papers that have been through peer review usually arrive with fewer basic problems. Thesis statements are clearer, evidence is better explained, and simple errors get caught. That means you can spend more time on higher-level feedback.

AI feedback tools can complement peer review by providing a second view aligned to your rubric. Students can compare peer comments with automated suggestions and decide what to act on. You still evaluate the final draft.

Follow up on the process

Ask students to submit a short note describing what they changed based on feedback. It shows you whether peer review is working and encourages reflection. It also helps you spot students who ignored good advice.

Over time, students get better at giving and using feedback. That skill will serve them long after the unit is over. It is one of the quiet benefits of a well-run peer review.