Code about 15 to 20 episodes per group solution, if possible.
Examine the solution through the “Plan” portion of problem-solving strategy.
When a single-factor ANOVA was run on the number of lines per episode for
each of the 14 groups, a small significant difference was found (F = 1.94; p = .03, Fcrit =
1.76). I ran this test to check whether or not my episode definition may have changed in
time. While statistically significant, I decided this was not meaningful in terms of the
definition of episodes. It rather reflects the slight difference between “talkative” (e.g., 2A
and 5C, >1) and “untalkative” (e.g., 3A, 6B, 7A, < 1) groups. Thus looking at which
groups had a 1 convinced me that I had not significantly changed my episode
delineation during the several months in which I did this.
Summary
(^) The results of this initial analysis provided evidence that these groups are
engaging in argument co-construction. The criteria I stated for argument co-construction
were largely met in at least 13 of the 14 groups on a consistent basis.
Does this occur? Answer
Claims are supported by Grounds, Warrants, and Backings Grounds, Warrants, and Backings appear in repeating patterns YES YES
Group members listen to each other and discuss the same claim YES
Claim-making role shifts among group members YES
Table 3-15. Argument Co-Construction Criteria.
Moreover, the groups’ discussions are episodic, that is, statements are not isolated from
each other and there is a logical flow to the discussion. More compelling evidence for
co-construction became clear later as I looked at other aspects of these groups. Since