Peer review can be one of the most valuable parts of a writing unit, but only when students know how to give useful comments. Left to their own devices, fifth and sixth graders often write things like "good job" or fix spelling errors while ignoring larger issues. A Shiloh writing workshop offers a chance to teach real feedback skills using a shared text that everyone knows well. Adding AI-generated suggestions to the mix can provide a model for what specific feedback looks like.

Begin the workshop by modeling feedback with a sample paragraph about Marty. Read the paragraph aloud, then demonstrate how to identify one strength and one suggestion tied to the rubric. Narrating your thought process, such as noticing that a claim lacks supporting evidence, shows students how experienced readers approach a draft. This modeling is essential, since students cannot imitate a process they have never seen.

Structure the peer review with a small number of focused questions rather than an open invitation to comment. Questions like "Where does the writer explain how the quote proves the claim?" or "Which paragraph would you like to know more about?" direct attention to meaningful issues. Limiting reviewers to two or three comments keeps the process manageable. It also prevents the flood of minor corrections that can overwhelm a young writer.

Use AI feedback as a model, not a replacement

Showing students an example of AI-generated feedback on an anonymous sample essay can clarify what specific, useful comments look like. Ask the class to evaluate the feedback themselves, deciding which suggestions are helpful and which miss the mark. This builds critical thinking about feedback and helps students avoid treating any single source as an authority. It also demystifies the technology and sets healthy expectations for its use.

• Reviewers read the draft once for meaning before commenting
• Each reviewer names one strength tied to the rubric
• Each reviewer asks one question that points to a possible revision
• Writers respond in writing to at least one piece of feedback
• The teacher checks a sample of comments for accuracy and tone

Structure the workflow to protect class time

A realistic workshop might begin with a short mini-lesson, followed by drafting, then a fifteen-minute peer review, and finally a brief revision period. Having writers receive both peer comments and teacher-approved AI suggestions in the same session gives them multiple perspectives. The teacher moves between pairs, listening for common problems and clarifying rubric language. Keeping each stage short maintains momentum and prevents the session from dragging.

Before the workshop, the teacher can run drafts through a feedback tool aligned with the class rubric and review the output. Approved comments can then be shared with students as a supplement to peer reviews. This step ensures that the AI feedback is accurate and appropriate for the audience. It also means the teacher has an overview of where the class stands before the session begins.

Teach students to respond to feedback

Receiving feedback is a skill of its own, and many students take comments personally or ignore them entirely. Asking writers to respond to each comment with a note such as "I will change this" or "I disagree because" builds a habit of thoughtful engagement. These responses also give you insight into how students are thinking about their work. Students who justify a decision to ignore a suggestion often show real understanding of their own writing goals.

Revision goals can be recorded on a short planning sheet that lists two changes the writer will make before submitting the final draft. This makes revision concrete and gives the teacher a quick way to check that feedback led to action. A brief conference can address any student who lists no changes. Over time, students learn to see feedback as a resource rather than a judgment.

Address issues of fairness and tone

Peer review can go wrong when students are harsh or overly generous. Establishing norms for respectful language, such as using "I noticed" and "I wondered" instead of "you should" or "this is bad," helps maintain a supportive environment. Pairing students thoughtfully, and rotating pairs over the unit, prevents dynamics from becoming stuck. The teacher should also be ready to step in when a comment crosses a line.

When peer review and AI feedback work together, students receive more perspectives than a single teacher could provide, and the teacher spends more time coaching and less time repeating basic comments. The goal is not to automate feedback but to enrich it. A classroom where feedback flows in several directions builds stronger writers and a stronger writing community. That is a worthwhile outcome for a unit built around a novel about compassion.