PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
for representing the natural world and its makeup, functions and origins” (Toulmin,
Rieke, and Janik, 1984, p. 315, emphasis in original). This suggests scientific arguments
are systematic and have a structure. Finally, Toulmin’s structure readily allows for
diagraming an argument (Rieke and Sillars, 1975; Trent, 1968). All books and articles
that use Toulmin’s structure include diagrams to illustrate the argument’s flow and
progress. Because I am looking for patterns of argument co-construction in this research
on physics problem solving, it will be helpful to use Toulmin’s argument structure
because this systematic structure is readily described in constructivist language and lends
itself to being diagrammed. Ultimately, the choice of this argument structure is very
utilitarian: Toulmin works. This is like physics. Physicists use wave mechanics and the
Schrödinger Equation because, despite “uncertainties,” they work in many situations.
Hence, much of the validity of this study depends on the Toulmin structure of
argumentation. Despite its appeal, the structure has inherent limitations. People do not
strictly follow the Toulmin structure in normal, everyday speech, which is what is spoken
in a problem-solving group. Likewise, the groups are concerned with not only the
solution of the problem, but also the maintenance of the group, that is with the procedures
of the group. The distinction between procedures and content isn’t always clear. The
question arises, are the procedures a part of the co-construction of the argument? When
reading the transcripts of the groups, it is easy to notice statements that relate to content
(i.e., the physics) and are very analytic (“sum of the forces equals....”), those that relate to
group functioning (“we’ve got to watch the time”), and those that relate to the Problem-
Solving Strategy (“What’s our target variable?”). It would be possible to classify