(^) observed is what I would call “social” dominance. That certainly was the case in Group
4C, where SV effectively dominated the group and frequently made sequential claims. In
this example from Group 4C, EW tries to make a claim, but JV and SV sidetrack the
discussion. This group is my example of an absence of co-construction. It may be that
the social interaction among the three students was a contributing factor to this.
(^) Dialog Code Comments
- EW OK, use Newton's second law... [writes this while JW and SV talk
and look at their own papers.]
C EW was the Recorder.- JV Don't we have to write down those things then?...umm, all the forces
of torque equal, what are these? What's that?
AC
RQClThis is a claim related to the strategy. They exhibit what is almost an obsession
with the details of the strategy. RQCl = Request for Clarification.
SV Tau? 66. SV Tau equals L times. MC Cl (^) Modifies the AC in 64.
JV Oh, yeah, moment arm times... W They use very few warrants.
SV What is the other one, tension? RQCl
JV The force, whatever force it is, right? MC This could relate to either 63 or 64. It is not clear if JV is thinking of EW’s
statement about the Second Law, or SV’s idea about torque. Since much of this
group’s conversation is between SV and JV, it probably is the latter.
SV So is it L times f? RQCl^
Table 3-28. Group 4C, Episodes 7&8, lines 63-70.
Summary
(^) The pattern of who makes the additional claims gave me a clearer insight into the
co-construction of the argument as well as the role of the Alternate Claim. Two findings
convinced me that these groups were co-constructing their solution: (1) The shifting of
claim-making among students, and (2) the contribution of the “quiet” students. The
Alternate Claim making is related to the original Claim. The Alternate Claim may result
from an idea that emerges due to the clarification process following an original incorrect
Claim. This may be the case in situations where the maker of the Alternate Claim is the