Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparison of original ADI model and rADI model conclusion sessions

From: Developing scientific argumentation strategies using revised argument-driven inquiry (rADI) in science classrooms in Thailand

ADI instructional model (2010) (rADI) instructional model
Argumentation session
An argumentation session (Step 4) Engaging in argumentation as a class (Step 7)
 Original: The ADI model emphasizes critique amongst students to determine which claim is the most valid response to questions with previously known answers.
 Revisions: The rADI model uses SSI topics and encourages students to listen to different perspectives and consider why others may express such claims without a need to assume that certain answers must be better than others. Each group is free to update or change their original position as new evidence is presented and the teacher explains the elements of argumentation so that students can apply those elements toward a real-life situation.
Written reports
The creation of a written investigation report by individual students (Step 5) The creation of a written investigation report by groups of students (Step 8)
 Original: The ADI model takes an individualistic approach to this step, requiring students to produce their own individual reports and then correct or refine each other’s reports.
 Revisions: The rADI model switched to a group report format to promote democratic teamwork and asks students to collaborate with their own group to help prepare the group’s report and conclusions.
Peer review and revision report
A double-blind peer review (Step 6) Engaging in peer review and revising group reports (Step 9)
The revision of the report (Step 7)
 Original: The ADI model utilizes a double-blind peer review process, where each author submits his or her individual report for assessment without using identifiable personal information until each author get “good” or “excellent” scores.
 Revisions: The rADI model uses only a general peer review and controls for peer bias by having students evaluate other groups’ reports using an objective criteria sheet. This process requires only one revision instead of revision until mastery level.