Peer review is a staple of writing instruction, but its results are uneven. Students often give vague praise, miss structural problems, or hesitate to be critical of friends. AI-generated feedback offers a consistent second perspective, and when the two are combined thoughtfully, students receive richer guidance than either provides alone.

The Great Divorce is a good text for this because essays about it often hinge on interpretation, which benefits from multiple readers. A classmate can tell a writer whether an interpretation of the bishop's scene feels convincing, while a rubric-based tool can check whether the essay actually supports it. Together they give the writer both a human reaction and a structured evaluation.

The key is to define distinct roles. Peers respond as readers, describing what they understood and where they were confused. The tool evaluates the essay against criteria such as claim, evidence, and organization, and the teacher oversees the process.

Structure the Peer Review Session

Give peer reviewers specific tasks instead of asking for general opinions. A reviewer might underline the thesis, mark where evidence is introduced without explanation, and write one question the essay left unanswered. Concrete tasks produce more useful feedback than "what did you think?"

• Underline the thesis and rate its clarity on a simple scale
• Mark one paragraph where a quote appears without explanation
• Write one question the essay raised but did not answer
• Identify the strongest sentence in the draft and explain why
• Suggest one change that would most improve the essay

Sequence the Two Kinds of Feedback

One effective sequence is to have students first receive AI feedback on structure and evidence, revise, and then exchange papers for peer review. This lets peers focus on the ideas and clarity instead of basic problems. It also means the writer arrives at peer review with a stronger draft.

Alternatively, use peer review first to test whether the argument is understood, then use the tool to check rubric alignment. Whichever order you choose, be consistent so students know what to expect. Explain the purpose of each step so that neither feels redundant.

Teach Students to Evaluate Feedback

Students should learn that not all feedback is equally useful, and that they are the final decision makers about their writing. Ask them to sort comments into those they will act on, those they will consider, and those they will decline, with brief reasons. This builds critical thinking about their own work.

Watch for over-reliance on automated suggestions. A student who accepts every tool comment without thinking may end up with an essay that meets the rubric but lacks a distinct voice. Emphasize that feedback informs revision, it does not dictate it.

Grade the Revision Process

Include a reflection in which students explain what feedback they received, what they changed, and why. Grading this reflection rewards thoughtful use of feedback and gives you insight into how students think. It also discourages superficial revision.

Over time, look at whether students' first drafts improve as they internalize the feedback. That is the ultimate goal of any feedback system. Stronger initial drafts mean less remedial work for you and more time to challenge students with deeper interpretation.