Make feedback a judgment task
Receiving comments is different from learning to evaluate and use them. A ten-week study assigned three intact university English classes to AI, peer or teacher feedback, with 126 students completing the analysis. AI and peer groups improved their reported writing-feedback literacy and scored above the teacher group after adjustment for baseline scores; AI and peer groups did not differ significantly. Interviews suggested that students engaged more actively in interpreting those two sources. This concerns how learners handle feedback, rather than proof of better writing or replacement of teachers. The same instructor taught all classes, and each feedback condition corresponded to a single class, leaving classroom differences difficult to disentangle.
Why it matters for leaders
Ask learners to compare two suggestions, accept or reject each with reasons, and show the resulting revision. Keep the teacher responsible for feedback quality. Score the revised writing separately from confidence or satisfaction with the feedback process.
The evidence
The 28-item literacy scale measured perceptions across five dimensions. The adjusted group effect was partial eta-squared .067; interviews added process accounts.
Who was studied
University English learners aged 17-20 in China; indirect K-12 evidence.
What the evidence cannot tell us
One university, short follow-up and self-report outcomes. Class and treatment are intertwined. This accepted early version remains subject to publisher editing.
Read the original sources
Summary and leadership analysis from the Week ending 2026-10-23 brief. The edition’s selection notes explain source access and evidence limitations.