PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) Group 4C, the “different” group, has a pattern in which their lack of co-
construction is evident. I found the best way to draw their prototype (Figure 3-9) was
with a line extending into nothing. This was typical of their discussion: Things seldom
went anywhere. Hence, this prototype, like the group it represents, is a “non-example” of
co-construction. Groups 4B and 5B each exhibited two patterns in how they elaborated
upon the initial claim. Both groups had one pattern in which the claim was relatively
unelaborated. For example, consider the two patterns for Group 4B. The major
difference is that in one pattern (Figure 3-10, page 121), there is no elaboration of the
claim with supporting statements. In the other (Figure 3-11, page 121) they use Grounds,
Warrants, and Backings to support their claim. Their prototype patterns also will be
discussed later.
CLAIM^1
MOCLADIFIED^2 IM
GROUNDS
4
SUPPORT
5
ALTECLARNATEIM
3
Figure 3-9. Group 4C, Prototype Episode.