PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) QUESTION 3 C. DO THE GROUPS HAVE A PREFERENTIAL MEANS TO SUPPORT ARGUMENT
CONSTRUCTION?
The previous discussion of Question 3b on the Modified Claims and Alternate
Claims lead to the conclusion that these are a fundamental part of the argument co-
construction process. Yet, these types of statements are insufficient by themselves.
Argument co-construction also needs substance that connects the co-construction to the
statement of the problem as well as the laws and principles of physics. This is the
function of the Grounds, Warrants and Backings.
Figure 4-5 (page 171) shows the sorting the 16 argument co-construction patterns
into categories based upon the use of the basic Toulmin categories. Whether or not there
are additional claims, the groups preferred to use Grounds and Warrants to support their
claims. Of the 16 patterns, five predominantly exhibit Grounds and Warrants, and seven
show the use of Grounds, Warrants, and occasional Backings. And, Group 4C, of course,
tended to not have any further elaboration following the additional claims.
Overemphasis on the surface features of a problem could lead to a heavy use of
Grounds. The opposite of this, reliance mainly on Warrants and Backings, leads to an
interesting situation where the physics is not adequately described in the context of the
particular problem. Important bits of data are omitted and the solution becomes flawed.
For example, this is seen in Group 3A. This group attempted to model their solution after
other problems they have seen in the textbook, the professor has done in class, or
problems the Teaching Assistant has done in recitation. Compared to all 14 groups, they
had a much higher use of Backings (z = 2.12) and a much lower use of Grounds (z = -
1.12). Their physics description was initially weak because they did not have an