GIFT-AI: Teaching the Game and Leveling the Field: Peer and AI Review + Reflection in a Business Writing Course

Synthesis: MacArthur et al. (2025) present the GIFT-AI approach — "teaching the game and leveling the field" — applying the Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) model specifically to an upper-division Business Writing course (34 participating students at UC Davis in 2024). The model scaffolds major assignments so students receive peer review, then criteria-based chatbot feedback on the same draft, reflect on and critically assess both, and revise. The article shows how PAIRR builds AI literacy and writerly agency while leveling the playing field for students with differing preparation — particularly multilingual international students — and offers detailed implementation guidance for professional writing courses.

Key Findings

The PAIRR model guides students in limited, guided use of chatbot feedback on drafts, requiring them to critically assess and reflect on both peer and AI feedback before revising — combining human-centered peer review with AI feedback in a way that protects writerly agency and builds AI Literacy.

Students valued AI feedback for both higher-order and sentence-level comments but sometimes found it too general or "surface-level"; they appreciated peers' contextual and situational knowledge — e.g., "my peers looked at it from the employer's perspective… ChatGPT did not do that as much."

Students did not simply trust AI's fluent prose: one quarter of coded reflections in the larger study expressed skepticism about or noted inaccuracies in AI feedback, a sign of developing AI literacy.

For multilingual international students, the model addresses challenges of linguistic inadequacy, pressure to conform to standard language norms, and unfamiliarity with U.S. source-use norms — positioning AI as "an additional, supportive perspective" rather than a tool to "correct" deficient writing or a get-out-of-writing-free card.

Three student profiles (Pengxi, high self-efficacy; Haoyu, low self-efficacy who initially over-relied on AI; Thuy, high-achieving first-generation student) illustrate how PAIRR encourages critical evaluation of AI feedback, recognition of peer-AI agreement, and preservation of students' own voices.

Study Design & Method

This is a Brief Research Report presenting the PAIRR model applied to a face-to-face and hybrid upper-division Business Writing course over a 10-week term at a public R1 university in the western U.S. The course (enrollment capped at 25) serves students majoring in management, economics, communications, and related fields. In 2024, 57% of students identified as Asian or Pacific Islander and 69% as multilingual; six were international students, 26% first-generation, 48% on financial aid. Students completed five major assignments (Job/Grad School Application, Internal Memo, Feasibility Study, Proposal, and a 5-minute Proposal Pitch), each requiring a draft, audience analysis, formal peer review by 2–3 peers, and revision. Data and findings draw on the larger PAIRR study (Sperber et al., 2025; N=654) and course-specific reflections, analyzed thematically following Saldaña in MaxQDA, with a focus on the Business Writing course and three multilingual international student profiles.

Implications for AI in Education

The article offers a tested, evidence-based curricular model for integrating AI into professional writing instruction — directly relevant to Peer Review and Formative Assessment. It addresses workforce demands (employers rank written communication and problem-solving highly; AI literacy is now a required "technical skill") by building students' AI Literacy and communication skills in tandem. For educational equity, it argues that underprepared students are less likely to use AI and more likely to misuse it, and that guided AI literacy instruction can "level the playing field" while "teaching the game" of appropriate AI collaboration. It positions AI as a machine tutor (not a teacher replacement), re-centering human-in-the-loop writing instruction and human relationships, consistent with findings on Over Reliance risk, and connects to multilingual writing, linguistic justice, and Academic Integrity in the AI era.

Limitations

As a Brief Research Report focused on one course, the study's findings are largely descriptive and course-specific, and the article draws on the larger PAIRR study for broader claims. The Business Writing course sample is small (34 participating students of 46 enrolled). The authors note AI policies vary substantially across institutions and courses, and the applicability of the model across different writing courses and contexts is discussed as future work rather than empirically demonstrated here.

Connected Concepts

Self Regulated Learning

Metacognition

Academic Integrity

Language Learning

Connected Articles

Pairr AI Peer Review 2025 — Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A Human-Centered Approach

AI Peer Feedback Systems — AI Peer Feedback Systems

GenAI Teacher Feedback Comparison — Comparing Generative AI and Teacher Feedback

Posthumanist AI Literacy 2025 — A Posthumanist Approach to AI Literacy

Student Rationalization AI Writing — "It's OK Because...": The Wild West of Student Rationalization

Learner Centered Feedback AI — Enhancing Learner-Centered Feedback With AI

GenAI Linguistic Diversity Academic Writing — Generative AI and Linguistic Diversity in Academic Writing

Citation

MacArthur, M., Minnillo, S., Sperber, L., Whithaus, C., & Stillman, N. (2025). GIFT-AI: Teaching the game and leveling the field: Peer and AI Review + Reflection in a business writing course.