I will now make major “claims” related to the research questions. Just as these 14 groups
preferred, I will state the claim and then follow it with grounds, warrants and backings, and
modified claims. The theme of Chapter Three was the search for self-consistent the patterns of
argument co-construction within individual groups.
Claim 1. Thirteen of these fourteen problem-solving groups engaged in argument co-
construction as they completed a physics description of a problem. There are two findings that
support this. 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. Very few episodes contained statements that did not relate to
previous statements by other group members. Second, four criteria for argument co-construction
were found in 13 of these 14 groups on a consistent basis, and in the other group, 4C, only
occassionally. 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.
Claim 2. There are self consistent argument co-construction patterns within a group.
Two findings support this claim. First, these 14 problem-solving groups appear to adopt a group
dynamic that leads to predictable, or at least repeating, patterns of argument co-construction.
The differences in these patterns is evident in the manner the Groups further explain, elaborate
and defend their ideas. Twelve of the 14 groups had a single prototype pattern and two groups
had dual patterns.