Peer review can be one of the most effective ways to improve student writing, but it can also fall flat when students do not know what to look for. Comments like "it was good" help no one and waste class time. A structured approach, supported by clear rubrics and optional AI suggestions, makes the process far more productive for essays on a novel such as Callum McBride.

Before the first peer session, teach students how to give feedback. Model a review of a sample paragraph on the board, showing how to identify a strength, ask a question, and make one suggestion. Students need to see what useful feedback looks like before they can produce it.

Focus each session on one or two skills rather than the entire essay. In one round, reviewers might check only whether the thesis is arguable and the evidence is relevant. Narrow focus makes feedback more specific and helps reviewers feel capable.

Structuring the review protocol

A protocol gives students a roadmap. Provide a short checklist tied to the rubric and ask reviewers to mark evidence of each item with a highlighter. This approach keeps feedback anchored in the text of the essay and prevents vague opinions.

• Highlight the thesis and decide whether it makes an arguable claim about the novel
• Underline each quotation and circle the sentence that explains it
• Write one question the writer should answer in revision
• Name the strongest sentence in the draft and say why it works
• Suggest one concrete change and explain how it would improve the essay

Where AI suggestions fit

AI feedback can serve as a second reader before or after the peer session. A writer might run a draft through a tool to get rubric-based suggestions, then compare them with a classmate's comments. Differences between the two sources prompt useful discussion about which feedback to act on.

Teach students to evaluate AI suggestions critically. A tool may flag a missing explanation but misread the writer's intent, so the student must decide what makes sense. This critical stance reinforces that the writer is responsible for the final piece.

Setting expectations and norms

Establish norms for kindness and honesty. Students should understand that critiquing a draft is not the same as criticizing the writer. Using sentence starters like "I wonder if" or "One thing that confused me" keeps comments constructive.

Be clear about academic integrity. Reviewers should suggest and explain but not rewrite a classmate's sentences, and AI tools should not generate the final essay for the student. Stating these boundaries in advance prevents confusion and protects the authenticity of the work.

Evaluating the process

Collect a brief reflection after each peer review asking what feedback was most useful and what the writer plans to change. These reflections show whether the process is helping and give you an assessment artifact. They also encourage students to take ownership of revision.

Spot-check the review comments themselves, because the quality of feedback is a skill worth grading lightly. A short credit for thoughtful peer feedback signals that it matters. Over time, students become better reviewers, which improves their own writing as well.