- Although groups engage in both types additional claims, they tend to have a typical
controversy pattern which uses either Alternate Claims or Modified Claims. This pattern is
related to the correctness of the original claim. The grounds for this finding are:
Direct challenges are rare.
13 of the 14 groups followed a Controversy Model of Decision Making. (Warrant:
Johnson Model, Table 4-10, p. 151)
9 of the 13 gdo use Modified Claims. 7 of these 9 groups following the Controversroups have a higy Model did not use Alternate Claims but her initial Claim quality.
Modified Claims are requested in these groups.
5 of the 13 groups following the Controversy Model use Alternate Claims. These 5
groups have a lower initial Clgroup. aim quality. Alternate Claims are never requested in any
At least one Modified Claim and one Alternate Claim are found in every group.
(Table 3-23, page 125)
Because all students are involved in the claim-making process, co-construction of the
argument is occurring. That is, the solution to the problem is a group solution and not the
product of the best individual in the group. This supports prior research (Heller, Keith, and
Anderson, 1992). The Modified Claim can be spontaneous or be offered in response to a request
for clarification. A lack of group cohesion and conflict avoidance may inhibit direct challenges.
Claim 3c. The groups have a preferential means to support claims made in argument
construction (e.g., Grounds, Warrants, Backings). Grounds, Warrants, Backings provide “color”
and base the problem on the stated parameters and the principles of physics. Most groups use
Grounds, Warrants, and occasional Backings to support their arguments. Lack of adequate
Grounds leads to an inadequately described problem, and a reliance on Backings for support.
Groups that use Backings tend to prefer the professor over the teaching assistant or textbook.