ARGUMENT CO-CONSTRUCTION
A major hypothesis behind this study is that these fourteen groups are engaging in
argument co-construction. The superior product of the group’s solution over an
individual’s problem solution is in itself evidence that argument co-construction is
occurring. Yet, the solution could be primarily the work of one individual in the group.
Thus I asked myself, “What are the criteria for group argument co-construction? How
can it be recognized?” These are fundamental questions and there are two points to be
made in answering them.
First, the choice of the Toulmin argument structure presupposes there is an
argument. If there is an argument, then within a group’s transcript, there should be
Claims that are supported by Grounds, Warrants, and Backings. That is, the discussion
should contain recognizable, classifiable components of the Toulmin structure. Likewise,
these components, particularly Grounds, Warrants, and Backings, should appear in
repeating patterns. Brown and Palincsar recognized this as an important component of
the Toulmin structure: “Adults’ argument structure follows certain identifiable
sequences. For example, an argument is usually supported by data; these data are then
supported by warrants for their pertinence and credibility, and finally further backing is
provided in terms of recourse to general law (Brown and Palincsar, 1989; p. 404).” This
is the argument portion of argument co-construction.
Second, there is co-construction of the argument. the discourse should be
connected, that is, group members listen to each other and discuss the same claim. Claims
should not always be made and supported by the same group members, that is, claim-
making shifts among group members. When there is a disagreement, group members