After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In the 2024 multi-course study, 57.6% of students preferred peer and AI feedback together, 35.7% preferred peer review alone, and 6.7% preferred AI feedback alone. → 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
The authors' initial 2024 study of PAIRR in 10 courses with 654 students, including small professional writing and 3 large writing-intensive STEM courses, reports these preference percentages. The article interprets this as suggesting the model "builds confidence in the utility of AI" while affirming the centrality of human feedback.
"After participating, the majority of students (57.6%) preferred peer and AI feedback together. A smaller proportion (35.7%) preferred peer review alone, and just 6.7% preferred AI feedback alone."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Thematic coding of student reflections shows peers seen as understanding context and AI feedback seen as actionable, with one quarter of reflections expressing skepticism of AI — related
- Three multilingual international students critically evaluated AI feedback, recognized peer-AI agreement, and maintained their voices while revising — related
- 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
- First-year EAP students prefer a hybrid feedback model combining AI-generated comments with instructor feedback over either source alone — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Students found AI feedback helpful and actionable more often than not across a semester of reflective writing — related
- Most students preferred combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone, and rated peer and ChatGPT feedback as similarly useful — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Frequency of AI use predicts AI feedback preference, while comfort with technology and frequency of human feedback predict relative preference for AI over human grading
- AI and peer feedback differed in complementary ways: AI gave general, rubric-driven, actionable feedback while peers gave more specific, contextual feedback — related
- Students who continued feedback conversations with ChatGPT perceived more utility in AI feedback than one-shot users — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
pairr-builds-confidence-in-ai-while-affirming-human-feedback |
title |
After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone |
description |
After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — macarthur-m-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.