Peer review is a valuable part of the writing process, but many teachers have seen it fall flat. Students often give vague praise like "good job" or fix small errors without engaging with the ideas. When the topic is a full novel such as Good Night, Mr. Tom, the quality of peer feedback depends on how well students understand the analytical task. AI-generated feedback can serve as a scaffold that raises the level of the conversation.

One approach is to have each student receive automated feedback on their draft first and then bring it to a peer conference. The automated comments give both writers a shared vocabulary and a list of specific issues to discuss. Rather than starting from a blank page, the reviewer can ask the author how they plan to respond to a comment about unexplained evidence. This makes the conversation more focused and productive.

A second approach reverses the order. Students first review each other's essays using a structured protocol, and then compare their comments to the automated feedback. Discrepancies become learning moments, as students discuss why they noticed something the tool missed or vice versa. This teaches critical thinking about feedback itself, which is a valuable skill beyond the ELA classroom.

Structuring the Peer Review Session

Structure is essential for peer review to work. Provide a short checklist tied to the rubric, assign specific roles, and set a time limit for each stage. For example, the reviewer might first identify the thesis and paraphrase it, then locate two pieces of evidence and rate their explanation. These concrete tasks are easier for students than being asked for general opinions.

• Reviewer restates the thesis in their own words to check clarity
• Reviewer marks two pieces of evidence and says whether each is explained
• Author reads the automated feedback aloud and picks one comment to discuss
• Both students agree on one specific revision to make before the next draft
• Teacher circulates and listens for feedback that is vague or unhelpful

Teaching Students to Use Feedback Responsibly

Students need to learn that automated feedback is a suggestion, not a command. Practice evaluating a sample comment together: is it accurate, is it helpful, and does it fit the writer's intention? Some comments will be spot-on, while others may miss a nuance of the student's argument. Teaching this evaluation builds independence and prevents students from following advice blindly.

Emphasize also that the ideas must remain the student's own. Feedback can point out a gap in explanation, but the student should be the one to fill it with their own thinking. Make expectations for original work explicit and check drafts across versions to see genuine development. This protects academic honesty while allowing students to benefit from the tool.

Measuring the Impact on Writing

To assess whether the approach works, compare draft and final essays and look for evidence that peer conversations led to meaningful changes. Ask students to submit a brief reflection describing what they changed and why. These reflections reveal whether students are thinking critically about feedback and give you material for individual conferences. Over time, you will see which protocols produce the most improvement.

Keep the process light enough to fit into a normal class period. A twenty-minute peer conference followed by ten minutes of revision is often sufficient. If the routine is too heavy, students and teachers will abandon it. With a manageable structure and thoughtful support from automated feedback, peer review becomes a regular habit rather than an occasional exercise.