Session 11 — Write It Up & Peer Review

Duration: 75 min · Format: live online · Ages: 12–15

Session goal: by the end, students can write their project's story in a clear five-part report, run a structured "two stars and a wish" peer review, and revise their own report using what they heard.

Before class — prep (5 min)

• Have the peer-review diagram below ready to share on screen.
• Prepare breakout pairs in advance (or a plan for pairing) so the review round runs smoothly.
• Ask students to bring their polished project from Session 10 and open a doc to write in.

Agenda

0:00 · Hook (5 min)

Ask the class and take a few answers:

• "If you discovered something amazing but no one could follow your explanation, did it really count?"
• "Who checks a scientist's work before the whole world sees it?"

Let them answer, then land it: even a brilliant result is useless if no one can follow — or repeat — it. Great builders write so clearly a stranger could redo their work, and real scientists review each other before publishing. Both skills happen today.

0:05 · Teach — Your report tells the story (13 min)

Explain: use the same structure real papers use (students met it in Block 2). Write the five sections on your shared screen:

• Problem / Question — what you set out to solve.
• Method — exactly what you did (so it's repeatable).
• Results — what you found, with a chart or numbers.
• Conclusion — what it means, plus limitations.
• References — your sources, cited.

Key point to land: write plainly and honestly — short sentences win. Include what didn't work too; that's what makes a report trustworthy.

⚠ Watch for hiding the failures: students think a report should only show wins, so they delete the parts that went wrong. Correct it — honest limitations make the work more credible, and judges respect them.

Ask: "In one sentence, what problem did your project solve? Say it plainly." (Take 3–4 answers and tighten any that are vague.)

0:18 · Teach — Peer review makes it stronger (12 min)

Explain: scientists check each other's work before the world sees it — students will do the same, kindly and usefully.

Share this diagram:

Introduce the "Two stars and a wish" frame:

• Two stars — two things that genuinely work well.
• One wish — one specific, kind suggestion to improve.

Key point to land: good feedback is specific. Not "it's nice," but "your chart is clear — adding a title would make it even better."

Ask the class: "Someone tells you 'good job, I liked it.' Can you improve anything from that? What would make the feedback useful?" (Answer: no — it isn't specific; useful feedback names the exact thing and a concrete fix.)

0:30 · Activity — Write, then two stars and a wish (30 min)

Part 1 — Write the report (≈12 min). Have each student write (or finish) their report using the five sections. Circulate and check that every section is present and the method is repeatable.

Part 2 — Run the peer-review round (≈18 min). Here's how you facilitate it:

1. Pair students and send them to breakout rooms (or pair them in the main room).
2. Swap reports. Give everyone 3–4 minutes to read silently — no talking yet. Reading first stops reviewers from reacting off the top of their head.
3. Model one example yourself first: read a short sample aloud and give your own two stars and a wish so students hear the specific, kind tone before they try.
4. Reviewer A gives feedback to B, then B to A. Enforce the structure out loud: exactly two stars (name the specific thing that works) and one wish (one concrete, kind suggestion). Set a timer — about 3 minutes each direction.
5. Ban vague praise and "fix everything." If you hear "it's good," prompt: "Good how — point to the exact part." Keep it to one wish so it's actionable, not overwhelming.
6. Have each student write down the two stars and the wish they received before leaving the pair.

Circulate between pairs (or drop into breakout rooms) and coach the tone: specific, kind, and one clear improvement.

Debrief: ask 2–3 students to share the wish they received and what they'll change because of it. Point out that this is exactly how real science improves.

1:00 · Check for understanding (8 min)

Ask these aloud or drop them in the chat. Answer key (for you):

1. What are the main sections of a report? → Problem → Method → Results → Conclusion → References.
2. What is "two stars and a wish"? → Two things done well, plus one specific, kind suggestion to improve.
3. Should a report include what didn't work? → Yes — honest limitations make the work trustworthy, and judges respect it.

1:08 · Wrap-up + homework (7 min)

• Ask one student to name the single biggest improvement their partner's wish pointed to.
• Homework — Revise: revise your report using your partner's feedback and write one sentence naming the biggest change you made. That's the peer-review loop in action. Bring the revised report to the final showcase.

Teaching notes

• Correct this misconception: "A report should only show what worked." Reframe as honest limitations build trust.
• Fast finishers (extension): have them write a full research paper — Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References, and an honest Limitations section — cite every source in a consistent style, and summarise in their own words (never copy). As reviewers, ask them to be rigorous but respectful: check the method, question the evidence, suggest concrete fixes.
• Low-tech fallback: if breakout rooms aren't available, run the peer review as whole-class: one volunteer shares their report on screen and the class offers two stars and a wish, with you modelling the tone.

Vocabulary

Resources

• Google Docs — write and share your report; use comments for review.
• Purdue OWL — how to cite — simple citation help.
• Frontiers for Young Minds — see how real papers are written and reviewed.

Next session

Session 12 — Showtime!: the grand finale — students present their project to a panel, handle questions, and complete their portfolio.