Pairing peer review with AI feedback in an L2 English writing course

Sophia Minnillo

PhD Candidate in Linguistics

smminnillo@ucdavis.edu

About the class

Course: L2 English Developmental Writing

Context: Students have written a first draft of a paper.

• They elicit feedback from ChatGPT according to the grading criteria (rubric).
• They’ll also receive peer feedback and compare them in a short reflection.
• Then, students will revise the first draft based on this feedback and submit a second draft for teacher feedback.

Relevant to composition / upper division writing-heavy courses

Essential elements of the prompt

1. Describe the rhetorical situation to AI.
1. Who are you, who is your audience, and what is your relationship with them?
2. What is the genre that you’re writing in, and what are some of its conventions (if necessary)?
3. What is your purpose for writing?
2. Describe the assignment and its grading criteria.
• Use the assignment sheet and rubric for this.
3. Elicit feedback on specific aspects of the grading criteria that you feel that you need the most help with. I would recommend asking about approximately 3.

Example prompt

• I am an undergraduate student writing a paper directed toward other students and to my course instructor. The genre is an academic essay of approximately 800 words. My purpose is to inform readers who are interested in what scholars are currently researching and learning about college writing.
• In order to succeed in this assignment, I need to accomplish the following: [paste rubric here]
• Do not rewrite my draft. Please give me feedback in response to the following questions:
• How can I expand on my argument more?
• What do you think about how I synthesize sources? Is there anything I can improve on regarding synthesis?
• How can I transition better between sentences and paragraphs?
• Here is my draft: [paste draft here]

ChatGPT said….

“

ChatGPT said….

“

ChatGPT said….

“

And students can ask follow-up questions!

“

Bard said…

Strengths:

• Clear thesis statement: You clearly define "bad writing" and your overall argument is easy to understand.
• Solid source integration: You effectively introduce and cite your sources throughout the essay.
• Engaging voice: Your conversational tone makes the essay relatable for the targeted audience.

Areas for improvement:

Expanding your argument:

• Specificity: While you identify key elements of "bad writing," delving deeper into specific examples from your sources would strengthen your argument. For instance, instead of simply stating "a bad writer doesn't follow a plan," provide concrete examples from the readings of how this manifests in writing.
• Analysis: Go beyond summarizing your sources. Analyze how their ideas connect, contradict, or build upon each other. Show your reader how these different perspectives contribute to your understanding of "bad writing."
• Stakeholder perspective: Consider connecting your argument to the specific challenges college students face with writing. How does understanding "bad writing" benefit them in their academic journey?

​

Bard said…

Synthesis of sources:

• Transitions: While you cite your sources, transitions between them can be smoother. Use transition words and phrases to explicitly connect your analysis of one source to the next, ensuring a logical flow.
• Focus on key points: Rather than summarizing every aspect of each source, focus on the specific points that directly support your argument. This will help maintain a clear focus and avoid redundancy.
• Varying source contributions: Give each source its due weight in your analysis. Don't rely too heavily on one source or rephrase their ideas without adding your own insights.

Transitioning between sentences and paragraphs:

• Sentence variety: Experiment with sentence structure to avoid monotony. Use a mix of sentence lengths and types (simple, complex, compound) to create a more engaging rhythm.
• Connective words and phrases: Use transition words and phrases like "moreover," "however," "in contrast," or "furthermore" to signal the relationship between sentences and paragraphs.
• Topic coherence: Ensure each paragraph stays focused on a single point that contributes to the overall development of your argument.

Additional suggestions:

• Counter-arguments: Briefly acknowledge potential opposing viewpoints on "bad writing" and address them in your analysis. This demonstrates a well-rounded understanding of the topic.
• Conclusion: Sum up your key points and reiterate the significance of your argument for college writers. You could also suggest future research directions related to "bad writing."

​

I compared this with my feedback

ChatGPT and I were similar in that we both identified the lack of a clear introduction, thesis, and conclusion as the main areas for improvement of the essay. Bard, on the other hand, commended the student for a clear thesis statement.

​

One thing I included that the AI tools didn’t: guidelines on citation styles

I do like how Bard provided examples of how to enact transitions: “Connective words and phrases: Use transition words and phrases like "moreover," "however," "in contrast," or "furthermore" to signal the relationship between sentences and paragraphs.”

Bard did also provide recommendations for improving the conclusion and the overall coherence of the essay, which was similar to my feedback.

Reflections

• Overall, AI was able to provide more feedback than I could in a short period of time.
• Timeliness is important!
• When used critically, AI feedback can offer a useful first round of feedback for early revisions before the teacher can work more closely with the student on their revision plan.
• Students benefit from critically comparing AI feedback with that from peers
• Critical digital literacies; become better peer reviewers