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

Table 9 Mean levels of students’ pre-post test scientific argumentation skills (n = 155)

Instructional model		N (%)	\( \overline{X} \) (%)	SD	\( \overline{X} \) of argument elements (each scored out of 12 points)^b
Instructional model		N (%)	\( \overline{X} \) (%)	SD	C_W	E	CA	SA
Pretest sci. argumentation skills (48 scores)^a	rADI	72 (36.1%)	27.11 (56.25)	3.296	8.25	6.60	7.15	5.08
Pretest sci. argumentation skills (48 scores)^a	Traditional inquiry	83 (63.9%)	26.82 (55.88)	2.927	8.40	6.40	7.10	4.93
Posttest sci. argumentation skills (48 scores)^a	rADI	72 (36.1%)	31.76 (66.17)	2.651	9.56	7.58	8.26	6.36
Posttest sci. argumentation skills (48 scores)^a	Traditional inquiry	83 (63.9%)	27.69 (57.69)	2.841	8.69	6.57	7.39	5.05

Definitions: C_W Claim and warrant, E Evidence, CA Counter argument, SA Supportive argument, rADI Revised-Argument-Driven Inquiry instructional model, Traditional Traditional inquiry and discussion-based instructional model
^aThere were 3 socio-scientific scenarios in this study, giving a total of 3 × 16 points = 48 maximum possible points per student over the course of the study
^bEach element was up to 4 points per scenario; there were 3 scenarios, for 12 possible points per argumentation element over the course of the study