Peer review has a mixed reputation among teachers, mostly because unstructured sessions tend to produce comments like "good job" and "fix your grammar." When students write about a layered novel like Prokleta avlija, they need more specific guidance to help each other. A well-designed protocol turns peer review into a short, productive activity that improves drafts before you ever see them. It can also reduce the grading burden by catching basic problems early.

The key is to give reviewers a narrow task. Instead of asking students to evaluate the whole essay, ask them to find the thesis and rate how arguable it is, or to underline each quotation and check whether the writer explains it. Focused tasks are easier for novice reviewers and produce comments the writer can actually use.

Pairing matters too. Students tend to give better feedback when they have read the same text carefully, so make sure partners have finished the novel. Mixing strengths can help, but avoid pairing a very weak writer with a very strong one in a way that leaves one student doing all the work. Rotating partners across assignments keeps the dynamic fresh.

A Simple Protocol

A forty-minute session can work well if it follows a clear sequence. Students swap drafts, read silently, complete a short form, and then discuss in pairs. A final few minutes for writers to plan revisions ensures that the feedback leads to action rather than being filed away.

• Reviewers highlight the thesis and write one sentence on whether it takes a clear position.
• Reviewers mark each quotation and note whether the writer explains its significance.
• Reviewers identify one place where the argument is clearest and one where it is confusing.
• Partners discuss comments aloud for five minutes, with the writer taking notes.
• Writers list two specific revisions they will make before submitting.

Training Reviewers

Before the first session, model the process with a sample paragraph. Read it aloud, show how you would respond using the review form, and explain why certain comments are more helpful than others. Students learn quickly from seeing what a good comment looks like.

Teach a few sentence starters that encourage specificity, such as "I got lost when" or "your strongest evidence was." These phrases keep comments grounded in the text and discourage vague praise. Over time, students develop their own habits of useful feedback.

Connecting Peer Review to Grading

Consider awarding a small portion of the grade for participation in peer review, evaluated by the completed review form and the revision plan. This signals that the process matters without turning it into a high-stakes activity. It also gives you a snapshot of how each student engaged with the task.

When you receive final drafts, ask students to attach their review forms and a brief note describing what they changed. Reading these notes helps you see the effect of the process and adjust your own comments to avoid repeating advice students have already received.

Adding Tool-Based Feedback

Peer review pairs well with automated feedback. Students can receive rubric-based comments from an AI tool on their own draft, then discuss both sets of feedback with a partner. This gives them multiple perspectives and teaches them to evaluate advice critically.

Because the tool and the peer may disagree, students must decide what to accept, which is itself a valuable skill. By the time the essay reaches you, it has been through several rounds of improvement, and your own feedback can focus on the higher-level aspects of interpretation in Prokleta avlija.