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
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2016
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.
CampsA. (1995). Aprender a escribir textos argumentativos: Características dialógicas de la argumentación escrita. Comunicación, Lenguaje y Educación, 7, 51–63. doi:10.1174/021470395321340439
CastellóM. (2000). Students’ conceptions on academic writing. In CampsA.MilianM. (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in writing (pp. 49–78). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
5.
CastellóM.MonereoC. (1996). Un estudio empírico sobre la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de estrategias para la composición escrita de textos argumentativos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 19, 39–55. doi:10.1174/021037096763000772
De la PazS.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
8.
Del LongoS.CisottoL. (2014). Writing to argue: Writing as a learning tool for oral and written argumentation. In RijlaarsdamG.KleinP. D.BoscoloP.KirpatrickL. C.GelatiG. (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol 28, Writing as a learning activity (pp. 15–43). Leiden: Brill.
9.
FerrettiR. P.LewisW. E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In McArthurS. G.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 113–140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
FerrettiR. P.LewisW. E.Andrews-WeckerlyS. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students ‘argumentative writing strategies?Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577–589. doi:10.1037/a0014702
11.
GárateM.MeleroM. Á.TejerinaI.EchevarríaE.GutiérrezR. (2007). Una intervención educativa integrada sobre las habilidades argumentativas escritas en estudiantes de 4° de la E.S.O. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 30, 589–602. doi:10.1174/021037007782334346
González-NietoL. (2002). El aprendizaje de la lengua. In MarchesiA.MartínE. (Eds.), Evaluación de la educación secundaria. Fotografía de una etapa polémica (pp. 179–196). Madrid: Ediciones SM.
14.
GrahamS.HarrisK. P. (1996). Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students who find writing and learning challenging. In LevyM. C.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
16.
HammanL. A.StevensR. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 731–756. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3
17.
KirkpatrickL. C.KleinP. D. (2009). Planning text structure as a way to improve students writing from sources in the compare-contrast genre. Learning and Instruction, 19, 309–321. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.001
18.
KuhnD. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KuhnD. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–46. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016
20.
KuhnD. (2005). Education and thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LavelleE.SmithJ.O’RyanL. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 399–418. doi:10.1348/000709902320634564
22.
LuJ.ZhangZ. (2013). Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: Integrating technology and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 69, 189–198. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.021
23.
MartínezI.MartínE.MateosM. (2011). Enseñar a leer y escribir para aprender en la Educación Primaria. Cultura y Educación, 23, 399–414. doi:10.1174/113564011797330306
24.
MateosM.MartínE.VillalónR.LunaM. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21, 675–697. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6
25.
MateosM.SoléI. (2012). Undergraduate students’ conceptions and beliefs about academic writing. In CastellóM.DonahueC. (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies. Studies in writing series (pp. 53–67). Leiden: Brill.
26.
PozoJ. I.ScheuerN.Pérez EchevarríaM. P.MateosM.MartínE.de la CruzM. (Eds.). (2006). Nuevas formas de entender el aprendizaje y la enseñanza. Concepciones de los profesores y alumnos. Barcelona: Grao.
27.
SantosC. M. M.SantosS. L. (1999). Good argument, content, and contextual dimensions. In RijlaarsdamG.EspéretE.AndriessenJ. E. B.CoirierP. (Vol. Eds), Studies in writing: Vol 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 75–95). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
28.
SpiveyN. N. (1997). Reading, writing and the making of meaning. The constructivist metaphor. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
VossJ. F.Van DykeJ. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32, 89–111. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593
31.
WalkerM. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable?Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379–394. doi:10.1080/02602930801895752
32.
WhiteM. J.BruningR. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 166–189. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002
33.
WingateU. (2010). The impact of formative feedback on the development of academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 519–533. doi:10.1080/02602930903512909
