Modelo de programación neurolingüística de Bandler y Grinder

The learning gains of students who provide PF received less attention in PF research, although some studies showed that students writing improved by providing PF on lab reports in the domain of Physics (e.g., Cho & Cho, 2011; Cho & MacArthur, 2011). Additionally, training preservice teachers in PA skills was found to improve their PA skills (Sluijsmans et

al., 2004). What remains unclear; however, are cognitive processing and the individual characteristics underlying such gains from PF provision. In a survey with university students, Nicol, Thomson and Breslin (2014) reported that during PF provision students engage in critical evaluation of a peer’s solution and self-reflection, which makes them think critically about their own performance. However, as postulated by the M2IPA framework, different sub- process and processes are expected to be utilized differently depending on the nature of the PF activity and the individual characteristics of students such as domain knowledge, emotions, beliefs and perceptions.

1.7.1. Role of domain knowledge, emotions, beliefs about peer feedback

provision, and peer feedback providers’ perceptions in peer feedback provision

The experience of providing PF is likely to be shaped by the providers’ and the recipients’ individual characteristics. Among these factors are domain knowledge, emotions, and students’ beliefs (Narciss & Huth, 2004). Firstly, the review by Van Zundert et al. (2010) outlined domain knowledge as one of the influential factors on PA. Furthermore, the domain knowledge of the PF providers appears to be an important factor as two recent studies in the domain of academic writing revealed that the domain knowledge of the PF provider influenced the type of provided PF (Patchan & Schunn, 2015), and whether that PF was implemented by the recipient (Patchan, Hawk, Stevens, & Schunn, 2013). These findings highlight the importance of addressing the role of domain knowledge in PF research. Students’ domain knowledge can, also, be assumed to influence how the sub-process cognitive conflict is utilized by the students, because the degree to which students experience cognitive conflict and manage to resolve it is likely to depend on their domain knowledge. The role of domain knowledge is expected to be more salient with complex problem solving tasks, because providing PF on these tasks is cognitively more challenging than providing PF on simple tasks (Van Zundert, Sluijsmans, Könings, & Van Merriënboer, 2012).

Secondly, although the evaluative nature of PF is likely to induce several emotions, the role of emotions is presently not systematically addressed in PA literature including PF studies. Epistemic emotions (e.g., curiosity, confusion, frustration, anxiety, excitement, boredom) that are triggered by cognitive conflict are not investigated yet in PF research to our knowledge. Anxiety is frequently reported as experienced by the students when involved in PF or PA (e.g., Cartney, 2010; Cheng, Hou, & Wu, 2014), however, its relationship with PF products or outcomes in not tested. Other epistemic emotions which might be experienced due to cognitive conflict during the PF composition especially when dealing with complex problem solving tasks (e.g., curiosity, confusion) are yet to be explored.

Thirdly, according to the theory of planned behavior, beliefs and perceptions serve as indicators of behavior (Ajzen, 2005). Therefore, students’ beliefs about PF provision as a learning activity and their perceptions of their PF should be considered when involving students in such activities because these individual characteristics can serve as an indicator of how students approach the PF activity (e.g., their commitment, engagement, etc.). Investigating the beliefs of preservice teachers is particularly important because research showed that teachers’ beliefs predict their classroom practices (e.g., Brown, Harris, & Harnett, 2012; Rubie-Davies, Flint, & McDonald, 2012). We need to understand preservice teachers’ beliefs about PF in order to conduct teacher-training classes to help preservice teachers develop adaptive PF- related beliefs. Preservice teachers’ domain knowledge, their epistemic emotions, their beliefs about PF provision and their perceptions of their PF are taken into consideration in this dissertation, because – as assumed by M2IPA framework – these individual characteristics are likely to shape the processes and outcomes of PF provision. These individual characteristics will be addressed in detail in the empirical chapters of this dissertation (Chapters 2 and 3).

Combined, the reported findings highlight the importance of researching the PF provision process taking into account students’ individual characteristics likely to influence

this activity. Despite the growing number of PA and PF studies in mathematics education (e.g., Balan, 2012; Jones & Alcock, 2014; Lingefjärd & Holsquist, 2005; Lavy & Shiriki, 2014; Zerr & Zerr, 2011), quasiexperimental and experimental studies are still limited especially with preservice mathematics teachers.

1.7.2. Research about peer feedback in mathematics

Most of the findings about the impact of PA and PF in mathematics are based on qualitative studies. Several qualitative studies with school and university students claimed that using PA and PF can result in improved mathematics competencies (i.e., problem solving, mathematical modeling, mathematical reasoning) (e.g., Balan, 2012; Ernst, Hodge, & Schulz, 2015; Lingefjärd & Holsquist, 2005; Zerr & Zerr, 2011). The only quantitative study, we are aware of, compared PA scores of undergraduate mathematics students to teachers’ scores, revealing a Pearson correlation of .77 (Jones & Alcock, 2014). Furthermore, the centrality of assessment of the performance of complex mathematical tasks that involve scientific reasoning, such as proofs has motivated some researchers to investigate the impact of PF on preservice mathematics teachers’ assessment skills of these tasks (e.g., Lavy and Shiriki, 2014). This study, however, focused on qualitatively identifying what preservice mathematics teachers focus on when providing PF on peer solutions to geometry proofs. There is a need to further investigate PF provision by preservice mathematics teachers on such tasks because mathematics teachers are nowadays expected to be able to teach and assess mathematical argumentation in their classes (Selden & Selden, 2015b). Additionally, even students in schools are expected to be able to perform mathematical tasks that involve scientific reasoning and argumentation (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Scientific reasoning skills are described in the next section, before discussing the role of these skills in mathematics education and how PF can support the development of these skills.