Arguing from sources: design and evaluation of a programme to improve written argumentation and its impact according to students’ writing beliefs / Argumentar a partir de fuentes: diseño y evaluación de un programa para mejorar la argumentación escrita y su impacto en función de las creencias acerca de la escritura académica que mantienen los estudiantes

This study has the aim of evaluating the efficacy of an intervention programme in secondary education designed to improve the writing of argumentative syntheses from reading texts that present opposing views on an issue. The programme is based on teaching self-regulation strategies. In order to test its efficacy, it was compared to another intervention in which the same processes were taught but in a rather traditional fashion. In addition, we take into account the students’ writing beliefs as a variable that could interact with the programme’s effectiveness. Results show that both interventions were effective, except in the integration of arguments and counterarguments, where only students in the programme based on teaching self-regulation strategies improved. In addition, we found a differential impact of the programmes according to the writing beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]