PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) is continually seeking support for what she is saying and writing. All of these "OK" or
"so then" or "what else" statements summarize and check for consensus even when they
are embedded within other statements:

81. MK. OK, so what elsDialog e? CodingRQC^ New EpisoCodemments. RQC = Request


82. Is that all the forces we need to draw? Cl This is anfor Claim. explicit statement of


83. RM. Yeah Sp Meanwhat ss we've drawhe said in 81. n all the


84. MR. We might want to, the total distance is 3 forces.
    meters G

WB WM

T

30 o

1.5m

3 m

1m

84b....I guess that's all we need to know. C This serves as a summary in

85. MK. OK, so then, what do we know first. C Nethe fw Eormpiso ofde a claim. Mean. s "Do


86. Let's just work down the questions [i.e., what we know first."


87. MR. Wknowns, unkno-b [MK wwns] we knorites ww. hile MR is talking] Cl C Restates 85.


88. MK. We know W-b, W-m...umm, C MK isclaim is bas the recorder, thed on that rolus her e.


89. tensi89B. We kon wnow e don't kno
    , what elsw. e? [Labels as she C
    talks.] C cf. thserves ase "what else" a summary. in 81. This
    Table 3-4. Group 4A, Lines 81-89B.

A key idea of this research is the co-construction of an argument. There are
several points at which Group 4A illustrate they are developing their argument as a group
and not individually. In the exchange in Table 3-5 (page 81), member MK completes
MR's sentences. In fact, the essence of this problem is the correct application of the
principle that in static equilibrium, the "Sum of the forces equals zero" and the "Sum of