aiMOOC

E9 E - Compare human, peer and AI feedback

QR-Code

Einleitung

E9 E - Compare human, peer and AI feedback

Mini-Beschreibung: Compare different kinds of feedback on an English text. Decide with clear criteria which suggestions are useful, unnecessary or too advanced. Then revise the text without losing the writer's own voice.

Target group: Klasse 9, E-Niveau, Englisch als erste Fremdsprache, Baden-Württemberg.

English-first pathway: understand → respond → ask → hint → improve → use again. Du arbeitest überwiegend auf Englisch. Deutsche Hinweise helfen punktuell; es gibt keine Vollübersetzung.

Important distinction: Peer feedback is human feedback too. In this course, human feedback means feedback from a teacher or tutor; peer feedback means feedback from a classmate.

Curriculum fit: The course links listening/viewing, reading, speaking, writing, mediation, language awareness and text/media competence for English as a first foreign language in classes 7/8/9: Bildungsplan Baden-Württemberg.

Media entry: What makes feedback useful?

Look at the image first. Do not translate every word in your head. Think in English:

What can feedback change?
What should always stay with the writer?
When might a suggestion be correct but still not be useful?

Quick response: Finish this sentence in one or two lines: Useful feedback helps a writer ...

I-can goals

By the end, you can say:

I can compare teacher, peer and AI feedback using the same criteria.
I can explain why a suggestion is useful, unnecessary or too advanced.
I can ask for clarification instead of accepting unclear feedback.
I can revise an argumentative paragraph while keeping the writer's meaning and voice.
I can check claims, sources and AI suggestions before using them.
I can discuss feedback choices and answer spontaneous follow-up questions.

Vorwissen aktivieren

Think–pair–share in English:

What feedback helped you improve a text before?
Which is harder: correcting grammar or improving an argument? Why?
What can go wrong when you accept every suggestion?

Hint if needed: I found ... helpful because ... / I would question ... because ...

Listening and viewing: feedback in action

Watch the first video once for the main idea. On the second viewing, note two rules for helpful peer feedback and one question you still have.

Viewing task: Compare the video advice with your own idea of useful feedback. Use: Both focus on ... / One difference is ... / I would add ...

Now watch a short English-learning video about feedback on writing. Listen for language that comments on writing without attacking the writer.

For a second classroom perspective on peer feedback, use this university video. You do not need every detail; focus on what students do before revising.

Listening strategy: Main idea first, details second. Use visual clues, familiar words and repeated phrases. Do not stop for every unknown word.

Reading: the original student text

The following draft is fictional. No real profile, application or social-media data are used.

Task: Read for meaning first. Then underline the main claim, one supporting reason, one counterargument and the final proposal.

Draft by "Maya" – fictional:

Our school is thinking about one screen-free lunch break each week. I think this could be a good idea, but only if students can choose useful alternatives. Many of us spend lessons looking at digital devices, so a break from screens may help us talk to people face to face. It could also make the school grounds feel more active. However, a total ban would be too strict. Some students use their phones to contact family or check bus times. Instead of banning phones completely, the school could create screen-free zones and keep one area for necessary use. This solution is more flexible and respects different needs. In my opinion, the school should test the idea for four weeks and then ask students and teachers for feedback. A short trial would give us evidence before a final decision is made.

Keep the original. Revision means creating a new version, not deleting the first one.

Context vocabulary

Word or phrase	Meaning in this course	Use it
criterion	a standard for judging a suggestion	Does it meet the criterion of clarity?
relevant	directly connected to task and purpose	This comment is relevant because ...
actionable	clear enough to use in a revision	The advice is actionable: it tells me what to improve.
evidence	information that supports a claim	We need evidence for this point.
register	how formal or informal language sounds	This word is too formal for the register.
revision	a new version with purposeful changes	My revision is clearer than my first draft.

The criteria: use the same test for every source

Before you ask Who said it?, ask Does it help the text?

Accuracy: Is the language or content advice correct?
Relevance: Does it help this task, purpose or audience?
Clarity: Can the writer understand what to do?
Level fit: Is the language suitable for a strong Year 9 E-level text without artificial adult wording?
Evidence: Does a factual suggestion need checking or a source?
Voice and ownership: Does the change still sound like the writer and keep the intended meaning?
Impact: Will the change noticeably improve the text?

Three feedback sources

Read all comments before deciding. Each source can contain useful and weak suggestions.

A. Teacher/tutor feedback

Your position is clear. Add one concrete example or checked source for the claim about face-to-face communication.
Keep the counterargument; it makes the proposal more balanced.
Explain what you mean by necessary use.

B. Peer feedback

The ending is practical because you suggest a trial instead of a permanent rule.
Could you explain where students would use phones if they really need them?
Make the title more exciting.

C. AI-generated feedback sample

State your main claim more precisely near the beginning.
Add evidence for the claim about communication.
Replace good idea with beneficial intervention.
Replace talk to people face to face with facilitate interpersonal discourse.
Delete the counterargument so that your position sounds stronger.

AI check: AI feedback can be fluent and still be wrong, irrelevant, over-formal or based on an unsupported assumption. Check facts, criteria and sources. Do not treat confident wording as proof.

Your decision: useful, unnecessary or too advanced?

First decide independently. Then compare in a pair.

Feedback comment	Your category	Criterion and reason
Add checked evidence for the communication claim.
Explain what necessary use means.
Make the title more exciting.
Replace good idea with beneficial intervention.
Replace talk to people face to face with facilitate interpersonal discourse.
Delete the counterargument.

Possible discussion, not an automatic answer key: Adding checked evidence and clarifying necessary use are often useful because they improve support and clarity. A more exciting title may be optional if the task does not assess titles. Beneficial intervention and facilitate interpersonal discourse may be too formal for the intended Year 9 register and may weaken the writer's voice. Deleting the counterargument may reduce balance in an argumentative text. Context and task criteria still matter.

Ask before you accept

Useful spontaneous questions:

What exactly should I improve here?
Which criterion does this comment relate to?
Can you show me where the text becomes unclear?
Would this change the meaning?
Is this language natural for our task and level?
Do we need a source for this claim?

Respond, ask, then decide. You do not have to accept a suggestion just because it comes from a teacher, peer or AI system.

Pronunciation and fluency

Practise these chunks aloud at a natural pace:

I agree with this point because ...
I am not convinced by this suggestion because ...
Could you explain what you mean by ...?
This sounds more formal than the rest of the text.
I would keep the original sentence because ...

Focus on stressed content words and clear thought groups. Being easy to understand matters more than sounding accent-free. Record yourself only if you want to, keep recordings private and do not upload them without a clear classroom reason and consent.

Speaking: feedback conference

In groups of three, take the roles writer, reviewer and observer.

The reviewer gives two comments using criteria.
The writer asks at least one spontaneous follow-up question.
The writer accepts, adapts or rejects each suggestion with a reason.
The observer checks whether the discussion stays specific, respectful and text-focused.
Swap roles.

Challenge: Compare two different comments that point in opposite directions. Defend your final choice.

Functional grammar for feedback

Use grammar to make feedback precise, not vague.

Function	Useful pattern	Example
suggestion	could / might + verb	You could explain the example more clearly.
cautious evaluation	may / might	This word might sound too formal.
contrast	although / however / while	The sentence is correct; however, it is harder than necessary.
reason	because / so that	Keep the example because it supports your claim.
option	consider + -ing	Consider adding one checked source.

Micro-task: Rewrite This is bad as specific feedback with one criterion and one reason.

Writing: revise, but keep ownership

Create Version 2 of Maya's paragraph.

Accept only changes you can justify.
Keep the original claim unless you intentionally change it.
Improve at least one point in content or evidence and one point in language or clarity.
Add no invented statistic, quote or source.
After revising, mark three changes and explain the reason for each.

Revision note: I changed ... because ... . I rejected ... because ... .

Error analysis: not every change is an improvement

Decide what kind of problem each example shows:

More advanced vocabulary is always better. → Problem: level and register can become inappropriate.
The AI suggested a statistic, so I used it without checking. → Problem: unverified factual claim.
My peer did not like the sentence, so I deleted it. → Problem: no criterion or reason.
The teacher corrected one tense error, so I changed every verb tense. → Problem: overgeneralisation.
I accepted all comments and my text no longer sounds like me. → Problem: loss of voice and ownership.

Repair strategy: return to the original, identify the exact criterion, check the claim and revise only what improves the text.

Mediation: explain the decision, not every word

A German-speaking exchange partner asks what the group changed. Explain the key decisions in German in 60–90 seconds, but keep the English feedback phrases that matter. Do not translate the whole draft. Select what the listener needs: main claim, two accepted changes and one rejected suggestion with a reason.

Responsible use of AI and media

Use the fictional material in this course or texts your school has approved for feedback work.
Do not paste private social-media content, real application data or personal profiles into external AI systems.
External AI access is not required for this course. If your class uses an approved tool, follow school rules and check what data are sent.
Keep Version 1 before creating Version 2.
Check AI facts, quotations, sources and language advice independently.
Keep recordings voluntary and private unless you have a clear reason and permission to share them.
Use Commons media according to the licence information on each file page. The YouTube videos remain hosted by their providers.

Feedback on feedback

Give your reviewer one short meta-comment:

Your most useful comment was ... because ... . One comment I did not use was ... because ... . Next time, please ... .

This turns feedback into a two-way process.

Transfer: new text, same criteria

Write a 170–220 word English response to a new school-life question, for example: Should homework-free evenings be introduced once a week? Use a clear position, reasons, a counterargument and a conclusion.

Then collect feedback from two different sources available in class. Compare the comments using the same criteria. If AI feedback is not available or not approved, compare two human sources instead. The learning goal is the quality of your decision, not the number of tools.

Can-do check

Mark each statement: yes / partly / not yet.

I can separate a feedback source from the quality of its advice.
I can justify a revision with at least one criterion.
I can recognise feedback that is too formal or too demanding for the task.
I can ask a useful follow-up question.
I can check factual or source-based claims before using them.
I can revise without losing the writer's main meaning and voice.

Next course: E9 E - Revise and defend your final version

Short source and media check

For teachers and interested learners:

These sources show why criteria, reflection and revision matter. Research findings depend on context; no feedback source should be treated as automatically correct or automatically superior.

Interaktive Aufgaben

Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen

What should you check before accepting any feedback? (Whether it improves the text according to clear criteria) (!Whether the comment is the longest one) (!Whether it uses difficult vocabulary) (!Whether it comes from the newest tool)

Which comment is most actionable? (Add one checked example to support your claim) (!This paragraph is weird) (!Write better) (!I do not like it)

Why can a correct word still be a poor revision choice? (It may not fit the level, register or writer's voice) (!Correct words are never useful) (!A correct word always changes the topic) (!Correct words cannot appear in school texts)

What should you do with an AI-generated statistic? (Check it with a reliable source before using it) (!Use it if it sounds precise) (!Use it if the sentence is fluent) (!Replace it with a larger number)

What is a good reason to keep a counterargument? (It can make an argumentative text more balanced) (!It always makes the text shorter) (!It removes the need for evidence) (!It prevents follow-up questions)

Which phrase asks for useful clarification? (Which criterion does this comment relate to?) (!Can you just fix everything?) (!Is AI always right?) (!Can I ignore every comment?)

What does writer ownership mean? (The writer makes the final revision decisions) (!The reviewer rewrites the whole text) (!The newest feedback replaces the first draft) (!The writer must accept all corrections)

Which choice best protects the original draft? (Save Version 1 before creating Version 2) (!Overwrite the first draft immediately) (!Delete all rejected feedback) (!Keep only the final sentence)

What matters most in pronunciation work here? (Being clear enough to understand) (!Copying one accent perfectly) (!Speaking as fast as possible) (!Avoiding every pause)

What is the main goal of comparing feedback sources? (To make reasoned revision decisions) (!To prove that one source is always best) (!To collect as many comments as possible) (!To replace the writer's own judgement)

Memory

criterion	standard for judging a suggestion
actionable	clear enough to use in revision
evidence	support for a claim
register	level of formality in language
revision	new version with purposeful changes
ownership	writer keeps the final decision

Drag and Drop

Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.	Thema
Useful	Add a checked example that supports the claim.
Unnecessary	Change the title even though the task does not assess titles.
Too advanced	Replace a simple phrase with facilitate interpersonal discourse.
Needs checking	Add a statistic suggested by an AI system.
Writer decision	Accept or reject a comment after comparing it with the criteria.

Kreuzworträtsel

criterion	What is a standard used to judge a feedback comment?
revision	What do you call a new text version with purposeful changes?
clarity	Which quality means that a comment or text is easy to understand?
peer	What do you call a classmate who gives feedback?
evidence	What supports a claim with checked information?
register	What describes how formal or informal language sounds?

LearningApps

Lückentext

Offene Aufgaben

Leicht

Feedback phrases: Schreibe sechs kurze englische Satzstarter für hilfreiches Feedback und ordne sie den Funktionen suggestion, question oder reason zu.
Criterion cards: Gestalte sechs kleine Karten mit den Kriterien accuracy, relevance, clarity, level fit, evidence und voice.
Spot the problem: Nimm drei erfundene schlechte Feedback-Kommentare und verbessere sie so, dass sie konkret und respektvoll werden.
Mini conference: Führe ein zweiminütiges Feedback-Gespräch zu Mayas Text und stelle mindestens eine Rückfrage.

Standard

Peer review: Gib einem fiktiven oder schulisch freigegebenen Text kriterienorientiertes Feedback und begründe zwei Prioritäten.
Revision log: Erstelle Version 2 eines Textes und dokumentiere drei angenommene sowie eine abgelehnte Änderung mit Begründung.
Media check: Vergleiche Aussagen aus zwei der eingebetteten Videos und prüfe, welche Ratschläge sich auf denselben Grundgedanken beziehen.
Mediation: Erkläre einer deutschsprachigen Person die wichtigsten Revisionen adressatengerecht, ohne den englischen Ausgangstext vollständig zu übersetzen.

Schwer

Source comparison: Vergleiche drei Feedback-Sets zu demselben Text und entwickle eine begründete Reihenfolge der Revisionen nach Wirkung auf den Text, nicht nach Status der Quelle.
Evidence audit: Recherchiere für eine strittige Behauptung zwei verlässliche Quellen, prüfe Aktualität und Passung und formuliere dann eine vorsichtige englische Aussage.
Defend your revision: Präsentiere deine Revision drei Minuten lang und beantworte spontane Nachfragen dazu, warum du bestimmte Hinweise akzeptiert, angepasst oder verworfen hast.
AI feedback protocol: Entwickle ein schulgeeignetes Prüfprotokoll für KI-Feedback, das Datenschutz, Quellenprüfung, Sprachniveau, Stimme des Schreibenden und Versionssicherung abdeckt.

Lernkontrolle

Conflicting advice: Zwei Rückmeldungen widersprechen sich: Eine fordert mehr Details, die andere einen kürzeren Text. Entwickle anhand von Aufgabe, Zielgruppe und Kriterien eine begründete Entscheidung.
Register test: Ersetze drei künstlich formelle Formulierungen durch natürliches Englisch auf E9-E-Niveau und erkläre, was sich an Wirkung und Verständlichkeit ändert.
Evidence decision: Ein Feedback-Kommentar fordert eine Statistik. Entscheide, ob sie wirklich nötig ist, welche Quelle geeignet wäre und wie du vorgehen würdest, wenn keine belastbare Zahl auffindbar ist.
Follow-up questions: Formuliere vier spontane Rückfragen, mit denen du vages Feedback in handlungsfähige Hinweise verwandelst.
Revision defence: Vergleiche Version 1 und Version 2 eines kurzen Textes und beurteile, welche Änderung den größten inhaltlichen Gewinn bringt. Begründe mit mindestens zwei Kriterien.
Transfer: Übertrage das Kriterienraster auf Feedback zu einer kurzen Präsentation oder Audioaufnahme und erkläre, welche Kriterien gleich bleiben und welche angepasst werden müssen.

Lernnachweis

Für einen Lernnachweis zu diesem Thema ist wichtig:

Du vergleichst mindestens zwei Feedbackquellen mit denselben transparenten Kriterien.
Du unterscheidest nützliche, unnötige und sprachlich zu anspruchsvolle Vorschläge und begründest die Einordnung.
Du sicherst die Ausgangsversion und dokumentierst nachvollziehbar, welche Änderungen du übernimmst, anpasst oder verwirfst.
Du prüfst Fakten, Quellen und KI-Aussagen, bevor du sie in den eigenen Text einbaust.
Du formulierst eine kohärente überarbeitete englische Version mit angemessenem Wortschatz, Satzbau und Register.
Du kannst Entscheidungen mündlich erläutern und auf spontane Rückfragen reagieren.
Du nutzt Mediation zweck- und adressatengerecht, ohne Vollübersetzung.
Du schützt persönliche Daten und nutzt Aufnahmen nur freiwillig und privat.

OERs zum Thema

Verknüpfte Lernbereiche

Feedback beim Schreiben

aiMOOC-Projekte

Inhalte werden geladen ...

Mediathek wird aus dem Wiki geladen ...

Frag mich zum aktuellen Lerninhalt oder wähle eine kurze Hilfe.

Textmodus bereit

Sprache