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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students perceived peers to better understand assignment and course context, while they perceived AI feedback as constructive and actionable. → MacArthur M 2025 q2 i? One quarter of coded reflections expressed skepticism about or noted inaccuracies in AI feedback, which the authors read as a sign of developing AI literacy. → 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? · qualitative · r2

Thematic coding of a representative sample of 131 student reflections on peer and AI feedback (of 654 total), conducted in MaxQDA following Saldaña (2021). The larger study also found that when peers and AI offered similar feedback students found this reassuring, and when feedback differed each source often provided complementary advice.

"Students perceived peers to better understand assignment and course context, while they perceived AI feedback as constructive and actionable. One quarter of coded reflections expressed skepticism about or noted inaccuracies in AI feedback, a sign of developing AI literacy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• After PAIRR, most students prefer combined peer and AI feedback over either source alone — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — related
• Students hold generally positive attitudes toward Gen AI-assisted problem posing, with a minority mixed or negative — related
• Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — related
• Expressed helpfulness of AI feedback showed no association with next essay reflection depth — related
• Students found AI feedback helpful and actionable more often than not across a semester of reflective writing — related
• Post-interaction reflections reveal four preference themes: AI as formative learning aid, preference for human authority, conditional acceptance, and skepticism about educational impact — 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)
• Similarity between AI and peer feedback reassured students and increased their confidence in peer response — related
• Students who preferred AI feedback cited clarity, understandability, consistency, specificity, and 24/7 availability — related
• Students rate human-generated feedback as superior to AI-generated feedback in quality, helpfulness, and clarity, and as more likely to be acted upon — related
• Assessing AI feedback within PAIRR helped students develop AI literacy and writerly agency, with very few showing overconfidence in AI — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Students hold cautious trust in the course-specific RAG system, expressing some level of trust but not treating it as an authoritative source and indicating they would verify important information — related