Written Rebuttals, Selective Practice: A Toulmin-Based Dialogic Intervention with Chinese University Students

Argumentation instruction has been associated with structural improvements in students’ writing, but whether students carry these skills into public life has received less attention, particularly in Chinese higher education. This study used a single-group mixed methods intervention design to examine what structural changes occurred in written argumentation and how participants described their argumentative practice during a five-session Toulmin-based dialogic intervention at a Chinese university. Twenty self-selected participants from a cohort of 246 wrote pre- and post-intervention argumentative essays and took part in semi-structured interviews. Essays were rated on a five-level structural complexity scale, and interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. Structural complexity increased from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.005, r = 0.63), and the number of essays containing at least one rebuttal rose from 8 to 15 of 20. In interviews, participants framed the purpose of argumentation as reaching agreement rather than winning. They described using the Toulmin elements selectively, mainly in everyday negotiation and personal decision-making, and several saw online spaces as unsuitable for argument. Although the essays became more structured, participants reported arguing in only a narrow range of situations. Argumentation instruction should therefore also address when and why students choose to argue.