A similar system to many INDIE projects is Belvedere [Toth et al. 1997, Paolucci, Suthers, and Weiner 1996]. In Belvedere, students search through teacher-defined webpages that are filled with ``snippets,'' which are essentially the same as evidence points in INDIE. Students can copy snippets from teacher-prepared documents into their notebooks, and when they feel they are ready to make a case, they sort and arrange them, again like INDIE.
To build a case, however, students make their cases with ``inquiry
diagrams,'' which are directed graphs. Students have ``hypothesis,''
``data,'' or ``principle'' nodes which are connected with different
semantic links such as ``FOR'' or ``AGAINST.''
With these networks of theories and facts, then, students can express themselves more precisely than with INDIE's lists of points. Whenever a student asks for advice, the program suggests either new information or possible changes to the network they already have. Belvedere developers are considering adding links to relevant HTML documents when certain classes of mistakes come up.
The differences from this and INDIE come at least in part from the impetus given to the student--there is no explicit goal set out by the program, but rather teachers provide guidance to build these diagrams and share them. Also, there is no formal testing on a fictional scenario; students are discussing real-life evidence that is weighed against other possibly-questionable data. In this, it resembles best Is It a Rembrandt?, where students were discussing real paintings and assembling evidence made out of both test results (the tests are already completed before students start in Belvedere) and the opinions of experts in the field.
As discussed in the next section, too, the style and quality of critiquing is certainly different.