Three multilingual international students critically evaluated AI feedback, recognized peer-AI agreement, and maintained their voices while revising¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? All three focal multilingual international students critically evaluated AI feedback, e.g., criticizing ChatGPT's feasibility-study feedback as too general and disagreeing with suggested memo additions. → MacArthur M 2025 q1 i? The students often recognized agreement between peer and ChatGPT feedback and appreciated sentence-level feedback on verb tense, word choice, concision, and sentence order, reflecting on comments before making changes. → 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

q1 · i? · qualitative · r2

Case-study analysis of three multilingual international students (Pengxi, Haoyu, Thuy) in the Business Writing course, drawing on their reflections and the instructor's observations. The authors state this pattern of agreement is consistent with their larger sample and see evidence the model can encourage students to maintain their voice.

"Reassuringly, all three critically evaluated AI feedback. For example, Haoyu disagreed with ChatGPT's suggestion to add more reasons and solutions to his internal memo, justified why he did not adopt that suggestion, and commented that "the peer review will be more helpful than the chat. ""

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Business Writing students valued AI feedback for higher-order and sentence-level comments but found it sometimes too general, while appreciating peers' contextual knowledge — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — related
• Overreliance on AWE may lower learners' critical thinking and creativity — related
• Students did not consistently detect scientific errors in ChatGPT responses, and students with stronger prior knowledge evaluated AI responses more critically — related
• After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone — related
• Synchronous AI suggestions shape subsequent writing, offering new ideas but risking influence over the writer's voice and argument — related
• Students encountered usability obstacles: text-recognition errors, feedback-generation delays, and overly complex vocabulary — related
• AI and peer feedback differed in complementary ways: AI gave general, rubric-driven, actionable feedback while peers gave more specific, contextual feedback — related
• One focal student exhibited a critical-pragmatic humanistic AI literacy, conceptualizing AI as a manipulable tool and evaluating it by rhetorical efficiency — a narrower finding that bears on this claim