Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921

Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus

{"title":"Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment","authors":"Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cycles of drafting and revising are crucial for student writers' growth, and formative assessment plays an important role. However, many teachers lack the time or resources to provide feedback on drafts. While research suggests that AI feedback is high enough quality to be used for draft feedback, especially when assignment-specific criteria are used (Steiss et al., 2024), it must be used in a human-centered process. AI has the potential to reduce educational equity gaps in writing support (Warschauer et al., 2023), but when narrowly implemented, technologies can deepen divides (Stornaiuolo, et al., 2023). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) combines peer review best practices with AI review in an approach that emphasizes student agency and reflection. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examined student perceptions of AI utility in the context of peer review. Results indicate that AI tools offer useful feedback when combined with peer review. Students found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, while also valuing their complementary perspectives. Moreover, by evaluating AI outputs, students developed AI literacy, gaining familiarity with AI feedback's affordances and limitations while learning ethical ways to use AI in their writing processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102921"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Composition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461525000088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cycles of drafting and revising are crucial for student writers' growth, and formative assessment plays an important role. However, many teachers lack the time or resources to provide feedback on drafts. While research suggests that AI feedback is high enough quality to be used for draft feedback, especially when assignment-specific criteria are used (Steiss et al., 2024), it must be used in a human-centered process. AI has the potential to reduce educational equity gaps in writing support (Warschauer et al., 2023), but when narrowly implemented, technologies can deepen divides (Stornaiuolo, et al., 2023). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) combines peer review best practices with AI review in an approach that emphasizes student agency and reflection. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examined student perceptions of AI utility in the context of peer review. Results indicate that AI tools offer useful feedback when combined with peer review. Students found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, while also valuing their complementary perspectives. Moreover, by evaluating AI outputs, students developed AI literacy, gaining familiarity with AI feedback's affordances and limitations while learning ethical ways to use AI in their writing processes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

同伴和人工智能审查+反思（PAIRR）：以人为中心的形成性评估方法

写作和修改的周期对学生作家的成长至关重要，形成性评价起着重要的作用。然而，许多教师缺乏时间或资源来对草稿提供反馈。虽然研究表明，人工智能反馈的质量足够高，可以用于草案反馈，特别是当使用特定任务的标准时（Steiss等人，2024），但它必须用于以人为中心的流程。人工智能有可能减少写作支持方面的教育公平差距（Warschauer等人，2023），但当狭隘地实施时，技术会加深鸿沟（Stornaiuolo等人，2023）。同行和人工智能审查+反思（PAIRR）将同行审查的最佳实践与人工智能审查结合起来，强调学生的代理和反思。本研究采用混合方法，考察了学生在同行评议背景下对人工智能效用的看法。结果表明，人工智能工具在与同行评审相结合时提供了有用的反馈。学生们发现人工智能和同伴反馈之间的相似性令人放心，同时也重视他们的互补观点。此外，通过评估人工智能输出，学生们培养了人工智能素养，熟悉了人工智能反馈的优点和局限性，同时学习了在写作过程中使用人工智能的道德方式。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Computers and Composition Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

25 days

期刊介绍： Computers and Composition: An International Journal is devoted to exploring the use of computers in writing classes, writing programs, and writing research. It provides a forum for discussing issues connected with writing and computer use. It also offers information about integrating computers into writing programs on the basis of sound theoretical and pedagogical decisions, and empirical evidence. It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the Editors that may be of interest to readers, including descriptions of computer-aided writing and/or reading instruction, discussions of topics related to computer use of software development; explorations of controversial ethical, legal, or social issues related to the use of computers in writing programs.