Peer review has long been a staple of writing instruction, but it has a reputation for being uneven. Students may give vague praise, miss important problems, or feel uncomfortable criticizing classmates. Pairing it with rubric-based AI feedback can improve the quality of both, particularly for essays on a topic like Agatha Christie, where structure and evidence are central.

The key is to give each source of feedback a distinct job. AI feedback is good at consistent, criterion-based comments on structure, evidence, and clarity. Peers are better at reporting how the essay reads to a real audience, such as where they got confused or what they found persuasive.

Prepare students for both kinds of feedback before the draft is due. Show examples of useful and unhelpful peer comments, and discuss how to evaluate automated suggestions critically. Students who understand the purpose of each source are more likely to use it well.

Structuring the Peer Review Session

Narrow tasks produce better peer feedback than open ones. Instead of asking classmates to "give feedback," assign specific questions, such as identifying the thesis, finding the strongest piece of evidence, and noting one place where the explanation is unclear. These tasks require close reading and give the writer concrete information.

• Ask the reviewer to restate the thesis in their own words
• Have the reviewer mark one quotation that is not explained well enough
• Request one question the reviewer still has after reading the essay
• Require at least one specific compliment tied to a particular sentence
• Limit comments to three priorities so the writer is not overwhelmed

Using AI Feedback as a Second Layer

After peer review, students can run the revised draft through a rubric-aligned feedback tool to check for gaps they and their classmates missed. The tool might flag a thesis that lacks a clear claim or a paragraph with no explanation of evidence. Students then decide which suggestions to accept, a process that develops judgment rather than passive reliance.

Require students to document their revisions in a brief reflection. They should note which comments they used, which they rejected, and why. This step discourages blind acceptance and shows you how well students understand the criteria.

Maintaining Teacher Oversight

Neither peers nor tools replace teacher judgment, and students should know that the final grade remains yours. Review a sample of the feedback students receive to ensure that it is accurate and aligned with your expectations. If you notice repeated misunderstandings, address them in a mini-lesson.

When the system works well, the teacher's time shifts from correcting surface issues to coaching deeper thinking. Students arrive at final submission with stronger drafts, and your grading becomes more about evaluating ideas than repeating basic corrections. This is the practical payoff of layered feedback.