PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
claim. In this dissertation I will use the term grounds as opposed to data. In physics,
“data” often implies a quantitative feature. In the physics problems I will discuss here,
the “data” sometimes consist of a non-numerical, qualitative pictures or statements.
A warrant is a general rule connecting particular grounds to their implications.
The laws of physics or rules of mathematics are general warrants. The distinction
between the grounds, or data, and warrants is not always clear, especially in science. In
the simplest definition, “....data are appealed to explicitly, warrants implicitly” (Toulmin,
1990, p. 100). This lack of distinction between grounds and warrants will sometimes
make it difficult to classify statements in this study. A warrant requires support called a
backing. The appropriate backing for a warrant differs from field to field. In physics,
backings are typically the generally accepted validity of well-established laws and
principles such as Newton's Laws of Motion, or the citation of other authorities such as
the professor or textbook to support a warrant.
Brown and Palinscar cite studies in which elementary-school students who are
learning to read follow a Toulmin-like argument form (Brown and Palinscar, 1989, p.
404-405; citing Paley, 1981; and Pontecorvo, 1985). They note that “adults’ argument
structure follows certain identifiable sequences,” but that children follow the structure at
a “very simple level” (Brown and Palinscar, 1989; p.404). The cited examples reproduce
transcript excerpts and identify statements as providing “factual support” or “appeal to
general principle.” Statements are not explicitly identified as Claims, Grounds, Warrants,
or Backings. There is apparently no direct attempt to analyze systematically the
movement of the argument from statement to statement or from person to person. What