Epistemic Emotions and Moves: Processing Peer Feedback in Science Learning

• In Event: Understanding and Supporting Feedback Uptake: Bridging Research and Practice in Educational Contexts

Abstract

1. Objectives
Peer feedback is critical for collaborative knowledge building (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2008). Prior research has examined factors influencing feedback uptake, including feedback quality, specific features, emotions, and students’ perceptions (e.g., Hornstein et al., 2025; Wu & Schunn, 2023). Yet, mechanisms of how learners process peer feedback in science education remain underexplored, especially for younger learners. Little is known about how epistemic emotions, emotions related to knowledge and knowing, influence feedback processing (Muis et al., 2018), and how these emotions interact with epistemic moves­––discourse and actions for evaluating and building knowledge. This study investigates how 6th graders manage epistemic emotions and enact epistemic moves as they respond to peer feedback during scientific modeling.

2. Theoretical framework
In peer feedback contexts, epistemic emotions such as curiosity and confusion often emerge when feedback aligns or conflicts with students’ existing beliefs or understandings (Muis et al., 2018). These emotions shape epistemic moves, but epistemic moves also affect emotions in return. We examine how epistemic emotions catalyze or constrain epistemic moves, and how comment structure influences emotional responses and uptake behaviors.

3. Method
This research was conducted over six sessions in an invasive species unit. Seventeen students (aged 11-12) in a rural Midwestern U.S. public school used a digital modeling tool– the Model and Evidence Mapping Environment (MEME; Danish et al., 2021) to construct, revise, and critique models. During gallery walks in sessions 4-6, students exchanged peer comments. We conducted qualitative analysis of small group interactions, examining how students interpreted and responded to feedback.

4. Data sources and analysis
Data sources included screen and audio recordings of group work, classroom videos, peer comments, and models. We transcribed and segmented screen recordings into 28 feedback uptake episodes, and coded uptake behaviors using a framework adapted from Noroozi et al. (2025): Accept, Elaborate, Modify, No Uptake (with subcodes: Defend/Ignore), or Acknowledge (Praise). We also identified epistemic moves and annotated epistemic emotions based on verbal expressions, tone, and interactions with MEME.

5. Results
Three major findings emerged: First, students actively engaged in various uptake behaviors, with No Uptake–Defend being most frequent (32%; Table 1). Defensiveness, while not often leading to immediate revisions, triggered productive epistemic moves such as checking evidence or elaborating justifications. Second, epistemic emotions and epistemic moves co-evolved over time. Emotions like confusion, curiosity, or defensiveness­ often sparked engagement when students reinterpreted comments, revisited evidence, or received teacher prompt or peer support. Third, weakness-focused comments influenced both emotional responses and uptake behaviors. Both specific and vague weakness-focused comments initially triggered defensiveness. However, specific comments prompted deeper reasoning and revisions, while vague ones often led to confusion or no uptake.

6. Significance
By revealing how students transform confusion and defensiveness into epistemic moves, even without revisions, our study illustrates the emotional and cognitive mechanisms through which peer feedback become “interactional resources” for collaborative knowledge building (Anker-Hansen & Andrée, 2019). Implications include helping students learn to leverage defensive emotions, allowing time for peer dialogue, and establishing norms that value feedback and promote epistemic moves.

Authors

• Jinzhi Zhou, Indiana University

• Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Indiana University

• Joshua Adam Danish, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• Aman Desai, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

• Qiuyu Lin, Rutgers University

• Ravit Golan Duncan, Rutgers University

• Clark A. Chinn, Rutgers University