Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A Human-Centered Approach to Formative Assessment

Synthesis: Sperber et al. (2025) present the Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) model, a human-centered approach to formative assessment that combines peer review best practices with AI review while emphasizing student agency and reflection. In the largest study of college students' use of AI feedback to date (N = 654 across 10 writing courses and three writing-intensive STEM courses at UC Davis), they found that AI feedback is most useful when combined with peer review: the majority of students preferred combined feedback, found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, valued their complementary perspectives, and developed AI literacy by critically assessing AI outputs.

Key Findings

The majority of students (58%) preferred to receive feedback from both ChatGPT and peers, while 36% preferred peer feedback alone and only 6% preferred AI feedback alone — AI utility was experienced in the context of human feedback.

AI and peer feedback were often similar and mutually reinforcing: 75% of students reported similarities between peer and ChatGPT feedback, which they described as confirming and strengthening each other, increasing confidence in peer response.

When AI and peer feedback differed, they were complementary: AI feedback was often described as "overly general" (31%) but provided actionable revision strategies and rubric-driven feedback on organization, focus, and structure, while peer feedback was more specific and detailed (28%), drew on contextual knowledge of the course and assignment, and provided an authentic audience and emotional support.

By evaluating AI outputs rather than taking them at face value, students developed AI Literacy — including learning ethical ways to use AI — while many asserted writerly agency in deciding whether to accept or reject feedback (only 5.3% of students demonstrated overconfidence in AI feedback).

Continued feedback conversations increased perceived utility: 35% of students continued a ChatGPT conversation, and 71% of those preferred combined feedback (vs. 50% who did not). Self-efficacy did not predict continuation, and preferences did not differ statistically between small writing classes and large WI courses.

Study Design & Method

This mixed-methods study implemented PAIRR in 10 distinct writing courses plus three large writing-intensive (WI) courses at a large R1 public university in the western US during winter and spring 2024. The 654 participating students were diverse (37% first-generation, 13% international, 68% multilingual). The intervention sequence: students read and reflected on articles about AI; drafted, provided/received peer review, then prompted ChatGPT for rubric-driven feedback; critically assessed both kinds of feedback and made revision plans; and revised and reflected on the process. Data included pre-/post-surveys, interviews with 4 faculty and 11 students, focus groups with 8 TAs and 1 reader, and 654 students' reflections and feedback assessments. Survey data were analyzed with descriptive/inferential statistics (binary logistic regression and chi-squared test in R); qualitative data were thematically coded in MaxQDA using a stratified sub-sample of 131 students (20%) with open, axial, and selective coding and inter-rater reliability.

Implications for AI in Education

The study offers a research-informed, human-centered model for integrating AI into Formative Assessment in Writing Education. It directly addresses the concern that AI feedback might remove humans from the assessment loop, showing that AI feedback only gains full utility when considered alongside the contextual knowledge and human connection that peers bring. The PAIRR model demonstrates how students' critical assessment of AI outputs builds practical and critical AI Literacy while exercising writerly agency and discouraging overreliance. It positions AI as a complement to — not a replacement for — peer and instructor feedback, relevant to AI Feedback Quality, Self Regulated Learning, and efforts to bridge equity gaps in writing support. The authors recommend centering humans in AI-integrated feedback, emphasizing metacognitive reflection and agency, and cultivating critical AI literacies that highlight AI's limitations and biases.

Limitations

The study's focus was on student perceptions of AI feedback utility, so it did not directly evaluate AI outputs for bias or quality. Differences in course mode, writing support, instructor experience, rubrics, assignment prompts, and genre across courses may have affected perceptions; the large online PLA course was overrepresented, and its students received only one peer reviewer (vs. two elsewhere) yet got comprehensive TA feedback. ChatGPT 4.0 was released mid-study, and version access was variable. The authors did not distinguish one-shot vs. continued-conversation feedback in the main findings.

Connected Concepts

Self Regulated Learning

Metacognition

Academic Integrity

Peer Review

Connected Articles

AI Peer Feedback Systems — AI Peer Feedback Systems

GenAI Teacher Feedback Comparison — Comparing Generative AI and Teacher Feedback

Multimodal AI Feedback Learning — LLM-Based Multimodal AI Feedback Produces Equivalent Learning

Becerra Aicofe Feedback 2026 — AICoFE: AI-Powered Feedback System

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

AI Internal Feedback Evaluative Judgments — Unravelling Undergraduates' Development of Evaluative Judgments

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

AI Generated Feedback Higher Ed — AI-Generated Feedback in Higher Education

Citation

Sperber, L., MacArthur, M., Minnillo, S., Stillman, N., & Whithaus, C. (2025). Peer and AI review + reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment.