PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) not same as the original claimant. This alerted me to look at the relationship between
initial Claim correctness and Alternate Claims. I will discuss this further in the next
research question (Chapter 4). Another hypothesis is that the Alternate Claim is a
statement of an idea that was not expressed initially when someone else beat the
Alternate Claimant to secure the group’s attention. This would also be the case when the
maker of the Alternate Claimant is different from the original claimant.
SUMMARY^
The theme of this chapter has been the patterns of argument co-construction
within individual groups. I can now make four major claims related to the first two
research questions.
First, students discussed the problem in an episodic manner and episodes were
used as a unit of analysis. The group members’ statements are not isolated from each
other and there is a logical flow to the discussion.
Second, four criteria for argument co-construction were found in 13 of these 14
groups on a consistent basis, and in one group, 4C, only occasionally. These criteria are:

 Claims are supported by Grounds, Warrants, and Backings

 Grounds, Warrants, and Backings appear in repeating patterns

 Group members listen to each other and discuss the same claim

 Claim-making role shifts among group members
Statements of Support, Acknowledgment and Encouragement keep the conversation
moving forward and allow students to “transfer” the conversation to another student.
Third, these 14 problem-solving groups appear to adopt not only a group
“personality,” but a group dynamic that leads to predictable, or at least repeating, patterns