Peer review is one of the most talked-about and least reliably successful strategies in writing instruction. Students often lack the confidence or the vocabulary to give useful comments, so they fall back on phrases like "good job" or "fix your grammar." When the topic is something as tricky as the ghosts in The Turn of the Screw, the problem gets worse, because peers may not feel qualified to challenge an argument.

Structure is the solution. Students give better feedback when they are asked specific questions about a draft instead of a vague request to critique. A reviewer who is asked whether the thesis takes a clear side, and whether each quotation is followed by analysis, can respond meaningfully even without expert knowledge.

AI feedback can complement this process by providing a baseline that students can use to calibrate their own judgments. When a writer receives both a peer response and an AI-generated rubric check, they can compare the two and notice where they agree. That comparison teaches students how to weigh feedback rather than simply accept it.

A Workflow That Uses Both Sources of Feedback

A practical sequence begins with students submitting a full draft to an AI tool that checks it against the class rubric. The writer reads that feedback first and revises anything obviously weak, such as a missing thesis or unsupported claim. Then they exchange the improved draft with a peer who responds to a short list of targeted questions.

• Writer submits a full draft and reviews rubric-based AI feedback
• Writer makes a first round of revisions before peer exchange
• Peer answers five specific questions about thesis, evidence, and analysis
• Writer compares peer and AI feedback and notes where they differ
• Writer submits a final draft with a brief reflection on what changed and why

Teaching Students to Give Useful Peer Comments

It helps to model what a good peer comment looks like before students start. A teacher might show a weak comment, such as "add more evidence," beside a strong one, such as "your claim about the governess's certainty would be stronger if you used the scene at the window." Seeing the contrast makes the standard clear.

Sentence starters can also help, such as asking the reviewer to name the strongest sentence and the place where they got lost. These prompts keep comments focused and respectful. Over time, students internalize the habits and need less scaffolding.

Keeping the Teacher's Role Clear

Even with peer and AI feedback, the teacher remains the final evaluator. The earlier feedback stages improve the drafts that reach the teacher, which makes grading faster and more enjoyable. Teachers can spend their time on the higher-level questions about interpretation and style.

The reflection at the end of the process also gives teachers insight into how students use feedback. A student who can explain why they accepted one suggestion and rejected another shows real understanding of the writing process. That insight is valuable and often more revealing than the essay itself.