Business Writing students valued AI feedback for higher-order and sentence-level comments but found it sometimes too general, while appreciating peers' contextual knowledge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-15 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students described AI feedback as valuable for both higher-order and sentence-level comments, but sometimes found it too general or surface-level. → MacArthur M 2025 q2 i? Students appreciated peers' contextual and situational knowledge, e.g., that a peer looked at a job application from the employer's perspective while the chatbot matched the job listing to the writing. → MacArthur M 2025

Evidence¶

MacArthur M 2025¶

MacArthur M, Minnillo S, Sperber L, Whithaus C and Stillman N (2025) GIFT-AI: teaching the game and leveling the field: Peer and AI Review + Reflection in a business writing course. Front. Commun. 10:1615752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1615752

q2 · i? · design · r2

Trends and comments from the Job or Graduate/Professional School Application assignment in the Business Writing course, from 34 students (of 46 enrolled in two sections, with ten opting out of PAIRR). Students also began to recognize the distinct skills needed for prompting a chatbot versus collaborating with peers.

"Overall, students described AI feedback as valuable for both high-order and sentence-level comments, but sometimes found it too general or "surface-level. " They also appreciated peers' contextual and situational knowledge."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Three multilingual international students critically evaluated AI feedback, recognized peer-AI agreement, and maintained their voices while revising — related
• EFL students perceive AI-generated writing feedback as a competent source that improves vocabulary, grammar, structure, coherence, and values its immediacy — related
• K-12 students across five schools valued CyberScholar's detailed, specific, rubric-aligned feedback as helpful for identifying areas to revise — related
• After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone — related
• ChatGPT-3.5 feedback on EAP argumentative essays aligns closely with human instructor scoring and identifies surface-level issues, but is less effective on rhetorical structure and contextual nuance — related
• First-year EAP students prefer a hybrid feedback model combining AI-generated comments with instructor feedback over either source alone — related
• Students perceived peer group feedback as contextually rich but sometimes subjective, and ChatGPT-4o feedback as more objective and well structured but occasionally lacking contextual sensitivity — related
• AI and peer feedback differed in complementary ways: AI gave general, rubric-driven, actionable feedback while peers gave more specific, contextual feedback — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• LLM-generated feedback is more comprehensive in volume than human feedback but is sometimes too generic, abstract, or misaligned with the assigned grade — related
• Students report awareness of feedback-acting strategies but experience difficulty carrying them out — related
• Students reported recognizing writing improvements after revising in response to AI feedback, with observed rubric-score gains on resubmission — related
• Student perceptions of GenAI feedback functionalities diverged, with some finding them redundant when feedback was perceived as clear — related
• Students bound their reliance on AI feedback and advocate a hybrid model assigning AI broad language concerns and instructors individualized relational guidance — related
• Students producing high-quality revisions spent more time addressing higher order comments — related