PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) resolve the disagreement in a reasonable manner. That is, they resolve conflicts of ideas
without arguing or criticizing the another person. In short, the conversation should
progress in an orderly manner and all group members should participate.
To summarize, these are the criteria for argument co-construction in the Toulmin
structure: (1) Claims are supported by Grounds, Warrants, and Backings, (2) Grounds,
Warrants, and Backings appear in repeating patterns, (3) Group members listen to each
other and discuss the same claim, (4) Claim-making role shifts among group members,
and (5) disagreements are resolved in a reasonable manner.
QUESTION 1. DO THESE FOURTEEN PROBLEM-SOLVING GROUPS ENGAGE IN ARGUMENT
CO-CONSTRUCTION AS THEY COMPLETE A PHYSICS DESCRIPTION?
When I first began looking at the transc^ ripts, I saw that students made Claims,
supported them with Grounds, Warrants, and Backings, and made the other types of
supporting statements that are identified in Table 2-5 (page 59). As an initial analysis, I
plotted the “flow” of the discussion from one student to another. The conversations were
like a tennis game with the ball moving from one player’s court to another. I noticed that
the groups seemed to discuss a single idea for a short period of time. Typically, there
was a Claim and supporting statements. In most of the groups, there was progression
from idea to idea. That is, the discussion was in “chunks.” The students were discussing
the problem and interacting with each other in an episodic fashion. This led me to see
their conversation in terms of episodes.