Normalize discourse for expressing skepticism, questioning, disagreement, and argument: Recommend discussion* of what peer review involves, especially how we hold each other accountable for grounding our models in evidence and science principles AND why it is/could be useful to have peer review in science. Recommend revisiting class norms to make sure they work for peer review and consensus-­‐building. Recommend reviewing talk stems that could be used in peer review.

* You might lead into the discussion of peer review with a discussion of a quote that gets at science epistemology, such as “…I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.” Richard P Feynman, “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”

Pairing groups for peer review: You may want to group students by the kinds of models that you see emerging from the small groups. Pairing groups with very different models could be one useful way to spark conversations about the different forms models can take. Pairing groups with very similar models may support students in noticing what is “new” in their peer’s models. Either way, it may be helpful to glance over the emergent models, do a formative assessment of the components, relationships, and mechanisms that are present and absent, as a way to pair the student groups for peer review.