# data[].attributes.body
First, thank you so much for all the work you invested in these quality resources. I am always seeking student interaction and technology-enhanced stategies. A colleague at Touro U in NYC shared your packet at today's Faculty Development Session on AI. I wonder about scaffolding the integration of these practices, perhaps beginning with small groups providing warm then cool feedback in person?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI systems are built on English – but not the kind most of the world speaks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI models too often produce a monolithic version of English that erases variation.

# data[].attributes.body
I actually adapted this for an assignment where students design their own project, process, and assessment rubric. I edited the prompt so that the bot asked for this information all up front. (There was a slight issue, because some students had trouble figuring out how to copy and paste their own rubrics into the chat.)

It worked well! Several students reported that the common ground between the AI assessment, their self-assessment, and peer assessment made them feel more confident that they were acting on good advice.

# data[].attributes.body
May not be relevant for this process-oriented "peer review," but you might want to think about the danger of sneaking positive prompts into essay text submitted for a grade.

# data[].attributes.body
As indicated by some students in my Intro to New Media course, an A+ paper will usually have no negatives from a professor, but chatbots can almost always find something to improve. This suggests AI may have an advantage in calibrating feedback to the level appropriate to the course or desired by the student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some related work on AI v. human essay feedback:

# data[].attributes.subject
Some related work on AI v. human essay feedback:

# data[].attributes.body
Assignment to compare AI and human feedback on a college essay:

https://umainenewmedia.net/nmd100/task-2/

Sample student analysis of the difference between AI and human feedback:

https://umainenewmedia.net/nmd100/task-2-exemplar

(This is from a course comparing student work with and without AI:

https://blog.still-water.net/ai-versus-old-school-creativity)

# data[].attributes.headline
PapyrusAI at the University of California Irvine has inspired a lot of the PAIRR work. They share a library of tested feedback prompts as well as assignments you can adapt.

# data[].attributes.subject
PapyrusAI at the University of California Irvine has inspired a lot of the PAIRR work. They share a library of tested feedback prompts as well as assignments you can adapt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PapyrusAI Guides ​ ​Learn how to navigate and make use of PapyrusAI!

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great resource for using AI with the SIFT technique.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Fact-Checking Toolset for Claude (now with search!)

# data[].attributes.body
I tried using the prompt (#1) with my own essay and the feedback was much better than I've seen with ChatGPT. Thanks for the resource!

# data[].attributes.body
I'm wondering if different rubrics produce very different feedback with the same prompt?