By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by ChatGPT and Perplexity)
Editor
Summary: The article examines how AI is transforming peer review in online composition courses. Advanced AI systems now manage key aspects of the peer-review process: automated assignment and matching of peer reviewers, guided and scaffolded feedback prompts tailored to each draft’s needs, and real-time assistance to maintain clarity and constructiveness in comments. Drafts are shared seamlessly via integrated cloud-based platforms, supporting version control and flexible anonymity options. Reviewers use interactive, AI-enhanced interfaces for inline comments and complete adaptive rubrics generated by AI. All feedback undergoes quality assessment via AI, tracking specificity, tone, and usefulness, which is then logged and displayed on student and instructor dashboards. Human-centered initiatives like UC Davis’s PAIRR project blend traditional and AI review, fostering reflection and equity. Ultimately, the article presents a near future where hybrid human–AI peer review improves writing quality, engagement, and learning equity. (Perplexity)
In this post, I’m sharing the results I received from the free version of ChatGPT on 25 June 2025. I posed two questions: (1) In completely online college composition courses in 2025, what are the best practices for peer feedback in the writing process? (2) Specific examples of completely online college composition courses in 2025 applying best practices for peer feedback in the writing process?
The results are meant to serve as a starting point for extended/expanded AI chats, discussions, and further research. Please share your thoughts and suggestions in the comments section appended to this post.
Question 1: In completely online college composition courses in 2025, what are the best practices for peer feedback in the writing process?
In completely online college composition courses in 2025, the best practices for peer feedback reflect a blend of current pedagogical research, platform affordances (like LMS tools), and the unique social dynamics of online learning. Here’s a breakdown of what works best now:
✅ Best Practices for Peer Feedback in Online Composition (2025)
🔧 1. Structure the Peer Feedback Process Intentionally
- Use clear scaffolding:
- Provide step-by-step instructions and due dates for each stage (e.g., submit draft → give feedback → reflect on feedback → revise).
- Offer rubrics, sentence starters, or checklists to guide peer reviewers (e.g., “Identify the thesis and explain whether it’s clear and debatable.”)
- Target higher-order concerns first:
Focus peer review on content, argumentation, organization, and clarity—not just grammar or typos. - Use role-based prompts:
Ask students to read “as a skeptical reader” or “as a supporter of the argument” to promote deeper engagement.
🖥️ 2. Leverage Online Tools Effectively
- Use LMS-integrated review systems:
- Platforms like Canvas, Peerceptiv, Eli Review, and Turnitin PeerMark streamline the workflow and allow anonymity, ratings, and structured questions.
- Offer video or audio feedback options:
Some students respond more openly to spoken feedback, which helps humanize the process and create social presence in an online course. - Encourage multimodal feedback:
Students can annotate PDFs, use screen-recording comments (Loom, Screencast-O-Matic), or leave voice notes—especially helpful for visual and auditory learners.
🤝 3. Foster Community and Trust
- Begin with low-stakes sharing:
Early in the semester, use informal writing (journals, intro posts, drafts) to build comfort with giving and receiving feedback. - Create stable review groups:
Small, consistent peer groups build rapport, responsibility, and trust over time, reducing fear and improving the quality of peer engagement. - Use asynchronous discussion boards or forums:
This gives students flexibility and time to give thoughtful feedback, especially across time zones.
📈 4. Teach Feedback Literacy
- Model quality feedback:
Provide examples of good vs. vague feedback. Have students evaluate sample reviews using a simple rubric (“Did this feedback address the prompt? Was it specific?”). - Make peer review part of assessment:
Give points not only for submitting feedback but for the quality of the peer response (accuracy, helpfulness, specificity). - Use reflection prompts:
After receiving feedback, ask students to reflect on:- What feedback they found most useful
- What changes they plan to make
- What they learned from giving feedback to others
📊 5. Support Revision & Follow-Through
- Require revision plans:
After peer review, students submit a plan outlining how they’ll revise based on the feedback they received. - Sequence assignments:
Use recursive writing assignments (draft → peer review → revision → final reflection) instead of one-off essay submissions. - Provide instructor commentary on feedback itself:
Occasionally evaluate student feedback to highlight good comments and gently correct unhelpful ones.
🔄 6. Balance Anonymity and Accountability
- Anonymous feedback may increase honesty and reduce social friction—especially for diverse or multilingual classrooms.
- But non-anonymous formats build social presence and help students form academic relationships—important in fully online courses.
📌 Best practice: Use anonymous feedback early in the term, then transition to open discussion as trust develops.
✨ Summary Table
| Element | Best Practice |
| Structure | Use prompts, rubrics, and multi-stage review processes |
| Tools | Use LMS features, video/audio tools, or specialized platforms like Peerceptiv |
| Community | Build small stable groups; begin with low-stakes peer engagement |
| Feedback Literacy | Teach how to give effective feedback; reward quality |
| Revision | Require revision plans and reflective follow-up |
| Anonymity/Presence | Start with anonymity, move toward open exchange as comfort grows |
🧠 Why It Matters
“Peer review works when it is taught—not assumed.”
– Eli Review Project, 2024
In 2025, research emphasizes that peer feedback is most effective when instructors:
- Treat it as a skill to be developed
- Build it into the writing process
- Support it with tools, guidance, and community-building
Question 2: Specific examples of completely online college composition courses in 2025 applying best practices for peer feedback in the writing process?
Here are specific examples of completely online college composition programs in 2025 that are actively applying research-backed best practices for peer feedback:
🎓 1. John Carroll University – “Best Practices for Teaching Writing Online” Guide
JCU’s online writing courses use multi-stage peer review via Google Docs and Zoom breakout rooms. Students submit a draft, provide structured feedback, reflect (1–2 page meta-reflection), and then revise based on peer input. All peers reflect on both content and feedback quality (jcu.edu).
🏛️ 2. The Ohio State University – CarmenCanvas Peer Review in Composition
Ohio State Online embeds peer feedback throughout second-year writing. Students review multiple drafts using guiding questions in Canvas’ peer-review forums. They also reflect on both giving and receiving feedback, building metacognitive awareness .
📘 3. Maricopa Community Colleges – English 101 & 102 via Peergrade/Eli Review
At Maricopa, fully online English 101–102 integrate specialized platforms:
- Peergrade (linked with Blackboard) and Eli Review are used for iterative paragraph/thesis feedback and essay drafts.
- Students begin with a self-reflective survey about their peer review experience.
- Instructors provide tutorials and calibration materials.
- Feedback is scaffolded: students use rubrics, instructor-modelled examples, and prompts before reviewing peers (open.maricopa.edu, community.macmillanlearning.com, teaching.resources.osu.edu).
🧠 4. UC Davis (PAIRR Pilot in Composition & STEM)
UC Davis’s 2024–25 PAIRR (Peer & AI Review + Reflection) pilot spans 12+ fully online writing‐intensive courses, including first-year composition. Students receive both AI and peer feedback framed by structured reflection prompts, which research shows enhances rhetorical awareness and writer agency (iwac.colostate.edu).
🧪 5. Springer Study: Supported Peer Feedback Modules
A 2023 study tested online peer-feedback modules tailored to argumentative essay structure across bachelor’s and master’s programs. Results show that supported, criteria-based feedback significantly boosts essay quality—even when scaled across domains (link.springer.com).
📝 Why These Are Exemplars
| Program / Institution | What They Do Well |
| JCU | Emphasizes draft-feedback-reflect loops using collaborative tools |
| Ohio State | Uses guiding questions and audio/textual peer reflections |
| Maricopa | Implements scaffolded platforms with calibration and iteration |
| UC Davis PAIRR | Blends peer + AI feedback with structured reflections |
| Springer Study Module | Applies domain-agnostic, criteria-based peer feedback at scale |
✨ Key Takeaways for Online Composition
- Scaffold heavily: Train students on giving good feedback with models and rubrics.
- Use tech platforms: Canvas, Peergrade, Eli Review, and Zoom each support structured, trackable feedback.
- Diversify modalities: Textual, audio, and AI-enhanced feedback diversify peer response.
- Embed reflection: Require students to reflect on feedback and plan revisions to internalize the process.
- Combine AI & human review: Pair AI suggestions with peer reflections for deeper metacognitive gains.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Leave a comment