AI making students less likely to participate in peer review processes

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into educational systems has significantly altered many aspects of student learning and engagement. One notable consequence of this technological advancement is its potential to reduce student participation in peer review processes. Peer review, a cornerstone of collaborative learning, has long been celebrated for fostering critical thinking, improving writing skills, and helping students develop a deeper understanding of the material. However, AI tools, which are increasingly being used in academic settings, have raised concerns about diminishing students’ motivation and willingness to engage in these essential peer review activities.

The Rise of AI in Education

AI tools, ranging from essay graders to plagiarism detectors, have become more prevalent in classrooms. These technologies are designed to help both students and educators by automating various tasks traditionally handled by humans. For instance, AI can now provide instant feedback on written assignments, assess grammar and structure, and even offer suggestions for improvement. Such technologies promise to save time for instructors and provide students with quick insights into their work.

However, while AI tools offer numerous benefits, they also introduce challenges that could undermine traditional educational practices, including peer review. The key issue is that AI can fulfill some of the functions traditionally handled by peers, which may reduce students’ incentive to participate in the peer review process.

AI and the Diminishment of Peer Review Engagement

1. Instant Feedback Reduces the Need for Peer Interaction

Traditionally, peer review allowed students to receive diverse perspectives on their work. Feedback from classmates could provide valuable insights that a teacher may not have time to give. However, AI tools are now capable of providing near-instant feedback, which students often perceive as more efficient than waiting for peer reviews. With AI, students can quickly identify grammatical errors, structural weaknesses, or even suggest alternative approaches, all without the need for peer involvement.

As a result, students may feel less inclined to engage in the peer review process. Instead of collaborating with classmates and offering constructive criticism, they may opt to rely solely on AI tools. This reliance reduces the sense of community and collaboration that peer review is supposed to foster.

2. Overreliance on Technology Diminishes Critical Thinking

Peer review not only allows students to receive feedback but also encourages them to critically assess the work of others. This process can be incredibly educational, as students develop the ability to analyze and critique various writing styles, arguments, and ideas. Engaging in this activity requires higher-order thinking skills, such as evaluation and synthesis, which are essential for academic and professional success.

However, when AI provides the bulk of feedback, students may lose the opportunity to practice these critical thinking skills. Instead of engaging with the work of their peers, students may passively accept the feedback provided by AI, which could lead to a reduction in the development of analytical skills. AI feedback, while often accurate and helpful, lacks the nuance and subjective judgment that human peers can provide. Peer reviews often involve discussions that help students refine their arguments and address weaknesses in ways AI tools may not be able to replicate.

3. Decreased Social Interaction and Collaboration

One of the primary benefits of peer review is the opportunity it provides for students to interact with one another and engage in collaborative learning. This social aspect is especially important for developing communication skills and fostering a sense of shared responsibility in the learning process. AI, however, cannot replicate the human connections that are formed during peer review sessions.

When students use AI to receive feedback on their work, they miss out on the chance to communicate with peers, exchange ideas, and learn from one another. These social interactions are essential not only for academic growth but also for personal development. Students who work together to review each other’s work develop empathy, improve their interpersonal skills, and gain insights from perspectives different from their own.

4. Impact on the Quality of Peer Feedback

AI tools are increasingly being designed to assess various aspects of writing, such as clarity, grammar, coherence, and argument structure. While these tools can provide valuable insights, they may not be able to evaluate more subjective elements of writing, such as the effectiveness of a persuasive argument or the originality of a creative piece. Peer reviewers, on the other hand, are often better equipped to provide feedback on these aspects, as they can understand the context, audience, and purpose behind a piece of writing.

Without peer review, students may miss out on valuable feedback regarding these subjective elements. The feedback provided by AI tools may focus too heavily on technical aspects of writing, such as spelling and grammar, while overlooking the broader, more subjective qualities that can significantly impact the quality of an academic or creative work. This imbalance can limit the depth and quality of feedback that students receive, ultimately hindering their growth as writers and thinkers.

5. The “Human Element” of Feedback

Feedback from AI is often seen as impersonal, lacking the “human element” that peer reviewers can provide. While AI can identify errors and suggest improvements, it cannot convey the same level of empathy, encouragement, or personalized advice that a peer might offer. A peer reviewer can take the time to understand the student’s work and provide specific, actionable feedback tailored to their unique strengths and weaknesses. AI, on the other hand, tends to provide more generalized feedback that may not take into account the individual student’s style, voice, or intent.

This lack of personal connection can be a significant barrier to meaningful engagement in the peer review process. Students may feel less motivated to participate if they perceive the feedback they receive as robotic or unhelpful. In contrast, peer review allows for a more humanized exchange of ideas, where students can learn not only from the content of the feedback but also from the process of engaging with their peers.

Addressing the Challenges

Despite the challenges posed by AI, there are ways to ensure that peer review remains an integral part of the learning process. One potential solution is to combine AI tools with traditional peer review, creating a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of both approaches. For example, AI could be used to provide initial feedback on technical aspects of writing, such as grammar and structure, while students could still engage in peer review for more subjective elements, such as argumentation and creativity.

Additionally, educators could emphasize the importance of peer review in developing critical thinking and interpersonal skills, highlighting the unique benefits that come from engaging with peers. By framing peer review as an opportunity for collaboration and learning rather than a mere task to complete, educators can encourage students to participate more actively in the process.

Conclusion

AI has undoubtedly transformed education, offering numerous benefits in terms of efficiency and personalized feedback. However, its growing presence in academic settings has the unintended consequence of reducing student engagement in traditional practices like peer review. While AI can assist in providing quick, technical feedback, it cannot replace the value of human interaction, critical thinking, and collaboration that peer review fosters. To maintain the benefits of peer review, it is essential to strike a balance between technology and human involvement, ensuring that students continue to participate in meaningful, collaborative learning experiences.