PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) are there Modified Claims without Alternate Claims?” The answer appears to lie in the
quality, that is the degree of correctness, of the original claim.
Consider this scenario: A student makes a Claim. Two or more other students
hear that Claim. One or more of the hearers may interpret the Claim to be correct,
ambiguous or “fuzzy” in some aspect, or incorrect. Based on their interpretation, these
other students may propose a Modified Claim or an Alternate Claim. One could
hypothesize that the prompt for the Modified Claim or Alternate Claim resides in the
quality of the original Claim. There are four possibilities. First, original Claims that are
correct and completely clear should not need to be modified and they should be accepted
by the rest of the group and perhaps followed by Grounds, Warrants, and Backings.
Second, original Claims that are correct, but perhaps incomplete or ambiguous (“fuzzy”),
should be followed by a Modified Claim that brings clarity to the original Claim. Third,
original Claims that are very ambiguous should be followed by a Modified Claim, or in
an extreme case by and Alternate Claim. The Alternate Claim would follow in a case
where the original Claim is misunderstood by the hearer(s). Fourth, and finally, original
Claims that are totally incorrect should be followed by Alternate Claims that provide the
correction to the initial Claim. In all four cases Grounds, Warrants, and Backings should
also appear in the episode.
To test this hypothesis relating Claim correctness to the use of Modified Claims
and Alternate Claims, I re-analyzed the Claims, Modified Claims, and Alternate Claims
of all 14 groups. I rated the original Claims as essentially correct or slightly unclear (+1),
very ambiguous or “fuzzy” (0), or totally incorrect (-1). I also tabulated the type of
claim (Modified Claim or Alternate Claim) that follows the original claim. If a Claim