chinese argumentative essay format

Ms Chen's 2024 Model Chinese Compo Pack

Learn the best composition techniques, tips and samples from ms chen , help your child gain a headstart and an advantage in  chinese compositions.

The  Situation

Secondary School Composition Format 

​There are 3 types of composition questions for O Level Higher Chinese Language / Chinese Language Paper 1.

​Narrative (记叙文) - Covered in Sec 1 & 2

Argumentative (议论文) - Covered from Sec 2 onwards or Speech (演讲词) - Covered in Sec 4 and only for HCL

News-based (材料作文) - Covered from Sec 3 onwards

The Problem

The model composition books in the market are too ‘simple’ and do not cater to Higher Chinese students

Many schools encourage students to write Argumentative / News-based (材料作文）during exams

However, many students do not read the news or remember enough evidence (论据) to ace their composition

How you can inspire your child and help him / her improve their Chinese Compositions?

Ms Chen  is here to help

Ms Chen's Model Chinese Composition Pack

By subscribing to Ms Chen's Model Composition Pack, you get access to model compositions with topics that are geared towards the latest news and spotted topics for O Level and school exams.

Ms Chen’s past and current students have benefitted from these spotted essay topics.

All the composition topics are from past year top schools' exam papers and O Level exam topics.

Clear annotation and explanation in model compositions to highlight best practices and techniques.

Check-in with Ms Chen if you have any questions.

Model Chinese Compositions (Secondary)

Preview by clicking the buttons

Model Chinese Compositions (Primary)

Preview by clicking the buttons

" 我在考试之前想要复习范文却找不到，无意中发现了陈老师的范文配套。感谢陈老师的范文，涵盖了多方面的话题，包括在O水准的材料文话题，在我准备O水准会考的过程中提供大大的帮助。"

王丹莹，新加坡女子中学 (中四, 2020), the packages.

Ace your Compo

20 Model Compositions (Jan-Oct 2024)

2 Model Compositions sent every first Wednesday of the month (For 10 months) 

Narrative + Argumentative (Suitable for Sec 1 and Sec 2 HCL students)

Fee: Contact us to find out

40 Model Compositions (Jan-Oct 2024)

4 Model Compositions sent every first Wednesday of the month (For 10 months)

Narrative + Argumentative + Speech + News-based  (Suitable for Sec 3 and Sec 4 HCL/CL students, lower sec students who wish to have a head start in news-based composition)

Primary School Package

4 Model Compositions sent every last Wednesday of the month (For 10 months)

4 Compo Types - 看图作文, 命题作文 (普华), 情境作文, 完成文章 (高华).

Who is it suitable for? 

Primary School students taking PSLE

Secondary School students taking Higher Chinese Language

Secondary School students taking Chinese Language and would like to stretch your Composition skills and knowledge

Mode of payment for Ms Chen's Model Composition Pack is via bank / Paynow transfer.

1) Bank transfer (FAST): UOB 456-345-3375 OR

2) Paynow to Mobile: +65 91558311

By subscribing to Ms Chen's Model Composition Pack, you consent and agree to the  Terms and Conditions . 

Once you have made the bank / Paynow transfer, kindly drop a note to [email protected] or text 91558311 with the following details: 

Package Subscribed (Package A / Package B / Primary School)

Amount Transferred 

Date of Transfer

Email address to receive the Model Composition Pack

Your payment will be verified in the next 24 hours. Once verified, you will receive a successful enrolment notification.

If you subscribe in the middle of the year once the publications have started (e.g. May 2024), you will have access to all model compositions published from the start of the same calendar year, i.e. Jan to May 2024.

For enquiries, please reach out to Ms Chen using this form .

Subscribe Now

Chinese writing buddy.

If you need more guide and practice after reading Miss Chen's Model Compositions, but do not have the time to attend Ms Chen's classes, then the Chinese Writing Buddy Program is for you!

• Photo Stories

News & Events

• Announcements
• Pitch to Us
• International

Latest Magazine

Latest Videos

Latest Podcasts

The TWOC Gaokao Essay Guide

• June 15, 2017

Photo Credit:

Our tips for the most mind-boggling prompts from this year’s essay tests.

As anyone with standardized-testing experience knows, one of the most frustrating sections in any exam is the essay-writing segment. Unlike a multiple-choice questions, there’s as it’s impossible to just guess the right answer based on your favorite letter from A to D.

The gaokao is no different in this respect and, with the exam period finally over , we take a look at some of the essay prompts offered in various regions and what we think they mean.

[ Editor’s note: The examiners’ approach varies widely from city to city. For example, Beijing offers two essay topics along with a detailed summary of different requirements. Shanghai simply offers a single topic, and a suggested word count. Our own suggested safe answers are merely that—suggestions—based on what previous years’ examinees have answered and online commentary by test prep experts. ]

Shanghai Gaokao Language Exam

Fortunetelling. Life is full of variables. Some are very happy to have their fortune told, others are not. Please write an essay that discusses your thoughts.

Requirements: Come up with your own title and write at least 800 words.

Safe answer: Take a stance on whether people should listen to predictions and forecasts, both on micro and macro levels.

Beijing Gaokao Language Exam  

Write at least 700 words on one of the following two topics:

1) Regarding Bonds

This essay topic is more flexible, down to earth, can be related to family, society and ethnicity, ideas of a nation. There is much that can be written on this topic.

Bonds connect people and things. Public feeling requires the agglomeration of bonds, power requires bonds to act together. In today’s world, globalization, cultural exchange, historical inheritance, social stability, and harmonious campuses all require bonds. Please write an argumentative essay on the theme of “Regarding Bonds.”

Requirements: Take a clear position, make abundant use of evidence, arrive at reasonable argument.

2) My Country, I Take Photos for You

Our republic will celebrate its 100th birthday in 2049. Pretend that you will be tasked with taking pictures that demonstrate the great achievements in the revival of the Chinese civilization. What kind of images will you choose? Please be creative, and write a narrative essay on the theme of “My Country, I Take Photos for You.”

Requirements: Be plausible, have narrative and descriptive elements, can write about major themes or describe a small scene as metaphor for a larger theme.

Safe Answer: Regarding Bonds, emphasize the benefits of strong familial bonds, how this makes efficient members of society, and why this makes China great

Safe Answer: “My Country, I Take Photos for You” offers examples of China’s achievements, so discuss these. There are some moments that should not be illustrated and discussed, as they do not shine a positive light on China, even if they play an important role in the country’s history.

Tianjin Gaokao Language Exam

Please write an essay according to the following requirements:

We grow up surrounded by elders and think that we understand them. However, each elder is like a thick book. Once reopened, we discover their life truths, traditions, and the imprints of the generation. In turn, we find out more about ourselves, recognize their growth and maturity in our childhood, and realize our similarities and differences.

At the age of 18, we have grown up. When we reread [our elders] today, it is as adults that we converse with them and recognize their souls in rational encounter. Please combine analysis of your life experiences and write an essay around the theme of “Rereading the Book on Elders.”

Requirements: 1) Write from your own perspective, with your own title; 2) No style restrictions (except poems and songs), write in a distinctive style; 3) At least 800 words; 4) No plagiarism.

Safe Answer: Explain why listening and respecting elders is important, and how they have positively affected your growth. Examples of lessons learned and positive influences are a must.

Guangdong Gaokao Language Exam

Read the following passage and write the essay according to the requirements:

According to a survey of foreign students studying in China, the key words that they closely watching are: One Belt, One Road; pandas; square dancing; Chinese cuisine; the Great Wall; bike-sharing; Peking opera; air pollution; beautiful villages; food safety; high-speed rail; and mobile payments

Please choose two to three of the above key words that represent what you know about China, and write an essay to help young foreigners understand China. You are required to pick key words that are naturally connected. Pick an angle, write with a distinct style, choose your own title, and do not plagiarize. Must write more than 800 words.

Safe Answer: Please write a promotional piece to attract young foreigners to China by using key phrases that they know and would find appealing.

Sichuan Gaokao Language Paper

This year marks the 40th anniversary since gaokao was restored. In these years, gaokao has helped the country select its brightest minds, promote educational reform and social progress, and has had many other great achievements. These 40 years, the gaokao has inspired dreams, embodied the memories and emotions of many generations of students, and has seen countless families shed tears and sweat as well as their laughter and celebration.

Think back, the 1977 gaokao singled a turning point for a generation. Now today, you are together with millions of candidates, ready to take on the exam.

With either “My Views on Gaokao” or “My Gaokao” as your sub-heading, please write an essay. You are required to choose an angle and direction, write in a distinct style, and choose your own title. Do not plagiarize or write less than 800 words.

Safe Answer: Let us know how much you love the gaokao system, how it has shaped the great minds in the country, and why you were super excited for this exam period.

Try the gaokao English exam here .

Ethan Yun is a contributing writer at The World of Chinese.

Sponsored Ads

THE BEST OF THE WORLD OF CHINESE TO YOUR INBOX

We'll keep you updated with the latest and best content about chinese society, culture and travel., related articles.

Bottom of the Class: The Woes of China’s Liberal Arts Students

China’s liberal arts students still value their expertise in the face of poor employment prospects, low salaries, and societal pressure to switch to STEM subjects

30 Years of Choosing College Majors in China

How did Chinese students earn the right to choose their own majors, and how did the most popular choices evolve over time?

Last Lockdown: Why Are China’s Campuses Still Closed to the Public?

Months after “zero-Covid” policies disappeared around China, many colleges and universities still have yet to lift campus entry restrictions

How Did Ancient Chinese Scholars Prepare for Exams?

From cram academies to meeting celebrity scholars, preparation for ancient China’s civil service exams was both similar and different to test-prep today

Scan to follow us on WeChat

Or add: Theworldofchinese

How to Write a Chinese Essay

Dec 16, 2020 | Guest Blogs & Media

The more essays you write, the better you get at communicating with Chinese. To write a good essay, you first have to reach a high language mastery level.

Do you admire the students who write seamless Chinese essay? If you do, then you should know that you too can achieve this level of proficiency. In the meantime, don’t be afraid to pay for your essay if you cannot write it on your own. Online academic writers are a resource each student should take advantage of.

Here are tips to help you get better at writing essays in Chinese.

Learn New Chinese Words

The key to communicating in a new language is learning as many words as you can. Take it upon yourself to learn at least one Chinese word a day. Chinese words are to essay writing what bricks are to a building. The more words you have, the better you get at constructing meaningful sentences.

Case in point, if you’re going to write a Chinese sentence that constitutes ten words, but you don’t know the right way to spell three of those words, your sentence might end up not making sense.

During your Chinese learning experience, words are your arsenal and don’t forget to master the meaning of each word you learn.

Read Chinese Literature

Reading is the most effective way of learning a new language. Remember not to read for the sake of it; find out the meaning of each new word you encounter. When you are an avid reader of Chinese literature, nothing can stop you from writing fluent Chinese.

In the beginning, it might seem like you’re not making any progress, but after a while, you will notice how drastically your writing will change. Receiving information in Chinese helps your brain get accustomed to the language’s sentence patterns, and you can translate this to your essays.

Be extensive in your reading to ensure you get as much as possible out of each article. Remember that it’s not about how fast you finish an article, but rather, how much you gain from the exercise.

Translate Articles from your Native Language to Chinese

Have you ever thought about translating your favorite read to Chinese? This exercise might be tedious, but you will learn a lot from it. The art of translation allows you to seamlessly shift from one language’s sentence pattern into the other. The more you do this, the easier it will be for your brain to convert English sentences into Chinese phrases that people can comprehend.

You can always show your Chinese professor your translations for positive criticism. The more you get corrected, the better you will get at translation. Who knows, you might actually like being a translator once you graduate.

Final Thoughts

by Adrian Lomezzo

Adrian  Lomezzo is a freelance writer. Firstly, he has been developing as a content manager and working with different websites, and the main goal of his was to develop the content making it in the first place. Secondly,  Adrian  had a big desire to help students and adults in self-development in this field and teach them to improve their skills. As a lover of traveling, he did not want to be in one place, and became a writer who could be closer to everyone, and share precious information from the corners of the world.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Submit Comment

Other posts you might like

Congratulations That’s Mandarin Winter 2022 Graduates

Mar 31, 2022 | Beijing , News

We’re so excited and proud to see our students achieve goals and improve their Chinese skills at That’s Mandarin. We know how hardworking and diligent you are and we are happy to go through this incredible and at times difficult process of learning Chinese together...

News: NihaoKids Website Is Live!

Mar 3, 2022 | News , Online

A modern place for your children to learn Mandarin Chinese.

Mahjong Night Recap (Feb 23)

Feb 24, 2022 | Beijing , News , Shanghai

The best moments of Mahjong Night!

Get 2-week FREE Chinese Classes

Original Price:  ¥ 600

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Chinese People Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

6 samples of this type

Do you feel the need to check out some previously written Argumentative Essays on Chinese People before you get down to writing an own piece? In this free database of Chinese People Argumentative Essay examples, you are given a fascinating opportunity to explore meaningful topics, content structuring techniques, text flow, formatting styles, and other academically acclaimed writing practices. Exploiting them while composing your own Chinese People Argumentative Essay will surely allow you to finish the piece faster.

Presenting superb samples isn't the only way our free essays service can help students in their writing endeavors – our authors can also compose from point zero a fully customized Argumentative Essay on Chinese People that would make a solid basis for your own academic work.

The Art Market In China Argumentative Essay

Free argumentative essay on chinese politics - will china's rise to economic global dominance be peaceful, chinese politics - will china's rise to economic global dominance be peaceful, expertly written argumentative essay on nameteacherclassdate to follow, chinese health and the effects fast food has made over the last 20 years..

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

The Food Safety Issue In China Argumentative Essay Samples

[Subject/Course] [Submission Date]

Free Argumentative Essay On Qin Shi Huangdi: Was He A Good Or Bad Ruler

Qin shi huangdi: was he a good or bad ruler, argumentative essay on why does china allow hong kong to maintain its special status, why does china allow hong kong to maintain its special status.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Sections Sections Finance Business Tech Economy China World Editorial & Opinion Weekend Long Read Research & Analysis Lifestyle Books & Arts Blog Video Caixin Weekly Sneak Peek Topics Asia New Vision Forum War in Ukraine Evergrande Crisis ESG & Carbon Goals China-U.S. Rivalry Coronavirus Hobbled Huawei Digital Currency Fintech / Internet Finance Selected CX Daily Weekly Must-Read Energy Insider Economic Indexes Caixin Explains Reg Watch Subscriber Events ThinkChina The Wall Street Journal News Graphics
• Market Data
• Company Index

Weekend Long Read: What We Can Learn From This Year’s Gaokao Essay Topics

Weekend Long Read: ‘Lying Flat’ Is the New Resistance Movement to Materialism

Trending in China: Young Chinese Reject Rat Race, Embrace ‘Lying Flat’

We ‘ve added you to our subscriber list.

Participation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 5th Eastern Economic Forum Discussed in Moscow

Get exposure for your startup at RISE 2020

CreditEase’s Tang Ning: China’s Wealth Management Market is Undergoing Five Major Shifts

Meet 5 of the best startups selected to represent China at the largest technology event in Asia

Products & Services

Terms of Use

Media Partners

Copyright © 2021 Caixin Global Limited. All Rights Reserved.

• Remember me
• Forgot Password
• Don't have an account? Create one

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Improving chinese college students’ argumentative writing: a presentation-assimilation-discussion-exercise approach.

• 1 Department of Foreign Languages, Hainan Medical University, Haikou, China
• 2 Development and Reform Research Center, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, China

This study implemented the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise (PADE) model, a student-centered teaching model that originated in China, and examined its effect on college students’ argumentative writing. Quantitative method was used in this study following a teaching practice of 14 weeks. A total of 76 Chinese first-year university students of intermediate English level with 38 students in an experimental class and 38 students in a comparison class took part in the study. Students from the experimental class received the PADE model, and the comparison class received traditional teaching. Students from both classes were asked to compose two argumentative essays before and after the treatment. At the end of the treatment, students completed questionnaires on the PADE teaching model. Students’ writings were evaluated on aspects of linguistic quality and argumentative structure. The results indicated that students who learned in the PADE teaching environment outperformed students who followed traditional teaching method in the post-writing, and significant differences were shown in all aspects except organization and grammar. The questionnaire finding suggested that students from the experimental class held a welcoming attitude toward the PADE model and benefited from it from the perspectives of course design, teaching arrangement, and learning effect. The PADE teaching has implications for teaching writing in contexts that share many similarities.

Introduction

Writing plays a pivotal role in the learners’ foreign language development and meanwhile is commonly perceived as more difficult than the other three language skills, namely, listening, speaking, and reading. Argumentative writing is challenging since it requires students to have knowledge of the sentence structure, format, and content of the argument ( Pratiwi, 2016 ). A foreign language is more of an issue for student writers as they are obliged to remain sophisticated in language use and persuasive in the delivery of viewpoints. Individual’s understanding and application in argumentation were difficult to improve without sustained instructional focus and require multifaceted aspects of argumentation knowledge ( Ryu and Sandoval, 2012 ; Kuhn et al., 2013 ). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that many strategies have been proposed in the field of foreign language education in order to improve the foreign language learners’ argumentative writing skills, which, however, seem only a bit successful. This is because these strategies tend to pay much attention to the effect of instruction in argumentative writing ( VanDerHeide, 2018 ). Argumentation is also a social negotiation that involves knowledge construction and critique through negotiation ( Chen et al., 2016b ). Therefore, students need to understand an argument epistemologically with social negotiation to develop their argumentation. Social writing is important to refine and consolidate the new ideas ( Rivard and Straw, 2000 ). However, interaction during the writing process is, to a large degree, ignored by the instructors. In addition, though researchers realized the importance of knowledge construction in writing argumentation, only a few empirical studies adopted applicable teaching model in secondary education ( Andrews et al., 2006 ; Jeffers, 2018 ), let alone its implementations in tertiary education. Thus, argumentative writing intervention programs for tertiary education associating both knowledge construction plus social practice are needed.

For the purpose of introducing more interactions in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing teaching and promoting students’ argumentative writing competence, this study introduces the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise (PADE) model as an alternative way to improve the learners’ argumentative writing skills in tertiary education. This PADE model was based on Zhang’s (2014) Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) model, which had three main sessions originally. In comparison to the existing writing teaching strategies, the PADE model combines argumentative writing learning in association with knowledge construction at early stages and social interaction and writing skill practice at later stages. Each stage of the PADE paves the way for the next, and they compose a virtuous cycle of learning, self-studying, understanding, and mastering. To investigate the effectiveness of the PADE model in enhancing the college students’ argumentative writing, pre-writing and post-writing performance of an experimental class and a controlled class were compared and analyzed from the aspect of argumentative structure and overall writing quality. In addition, the experimental class students’ perception of the teaching model was collected by questionnaires. The findings of the study could offer new insights for teaching English to foreign language learners of varied English levels.

Literature Review

Argumentative writing.

Toulmin (1958) first proposed the concept of argumentation. Kuhn (1991) considered argumentation an essential thinking skill for idea formulation, problem-solving, and good judgment. In early literature, argumentation was defined as a genre to deal with a real or imagined difference of an opinion on a controversial issue ( Van Eemeren et al., 2019 ). As an important genre of writing, argumentation aims to persuade readers with clarified claims and adequate supporting evidence. Toulmin et al. (1990) created an argumentative model, including claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal, and it had been used widely on various subjects. Also, it was proved to be effective to improve argumentation skills, reflective thinking, and academic performance. For the purpose to construct a high-quality argumentation, on the one hand, in argumentation, writers have to use their knowledge of argumentative discourse, topic, and critical standards of evaluation to present and evaluate their writing ( Ferretti and De La Paz, 2011 ; Ferretti and Graham, 2019 ). On the other hand, various skills should be associated with the argumentative writing task, such as organizing skills, problem-solving, critical thinking, and knowledge construction. High requirements on writers’ grammatical competence and discourse competence also need to be met.

As a complex and advanced writing task, many native speakers find it not easy to construct a convincing argumentation. Hence, it poses a greater challenge for foreign language learners. Compared with the expert writers, novices are especially poor at possessing enough genre and topic knowledge, thus having great difficulty regulating their writing process ( Harris et al., 2011 ; McCutchen, 2011 ; Graham et al., 2013 ). The development of argumentation requires students’ understanding of the multifaceted aspects of argumentation ( Chen et al., 2016a ). Many students lack training, thus having great language difficulties, such as using cohesive devices and distinguishing oral and written language and correct use of tenses, articles, and preposition ( Liu and Braine, 2005 ; Fareed et al., 2016 ). In addition to the language problems, EFL learners have cultural barriers and different thinking patterns that may hinder their reasoning in argumentative writing and also have great difficulties in using scientific evidence to support justifications, analyzing and critiquing arguments, and making justified claims and recognizing opposing arguments ( Sadler, 2004 ). Arsyad (1999) found that Indonesian EFL college students usually did not use counterarguments in argumentation which may be deemed as impolite, especially for people of higher social ranks. Another reason for foreign language learners’ weakness in argumentation could be attributed to poor argumentative writing skills and structure ( Liu and Stapleton, 2014 ). For most Chinese college students, although they have always been good at listening and reading skills, they performed relatively weak in writing, especially in argumentative writing. Their main problems in argumentative writing include limited vocabulary, word repetition, wrong sentence structure, and grammar weakness ( Liu and Li, 2017 ).

Intervention Programs for Argumentative Writing

To solve EFL students’ struggles in argumentation writing, researchers have designed intervention programs for argumentative writing from the perspective of instructional strategies and argumentative structure ( Stern and Solomon, 2006 ). Explicit instruction and writing workshops were proved to be effective as pedagogy to improve students’ writing. With explicit instructions of the instructor, students were able to use more linguistic resources to analyze after the teaching practice ( Pessoa et al., 2019 ). Ong and Zhang (2010) increased the task complexity of EFL students and explored its effect on fluency and lexical complexity of argumentative writing. Lacum et al. (2014) asked students to read research papers with special attention to the rhetorical moves in the authors’ arguments. After the reading, students’ argumentation was more closely related to the topic with better choice of words and elaboration. Argumentative structure is another important element that helps to organize writing in a well-presented way. Effect of prior knowledge in improving students’ formulation of claims and reasons was examined ( Wolfe et al., 2009 ). A similar study conducted by Voss (2005) found that students learned from argumentative schemata to organize claims, reasons, warrants, and counterarguments in their argumentative writing. A second-order argument scaffold was proposed and practical guidelines were provided to ensure the acquisition and application of the argumentation skills with support of students’ internal argumentative script and other external computer-supported tools ( Noroozi et al., 2018 ). Computer-Supported Argumentative Writer (C-SAW), an online software, was employed in argumentative writing and proved to be effective in generating and elaborating arguments; its visual schema also helped students to integrate knowledge about argumentative writing components ( Benetos and Bétrancourt, 2020 ).

Argumentative writing is regarded as not only a simple writing process that requires explicit instruction and social interaction; communication also plays important role in further developing argumentative structure. Well-argued ideas, for example, arguments and debates bring people and their ideas into contact and make sense of new ideas and experience collaboratively in disagreement ( Newell et al., 2011 ). Through peer interactions and communication, students fostered and inspired their thinking, thus, their argumentation was more logical and organized. Researchers have exemplified the role of peer interaction in argumentative writing. Providing feedback proved to be essential to find out various problems in writing so as to correct students’ errors, and was helpful to improve students’ argumentation ( Ryandini, 2019 ). Lin et al. (2012) examined the effect of reflective asynchronous discussions on quality and complexity of college students’ argumentation. It revealed that the asynchronous online communication group outperformed its counterparts in all of the three argumentation topics. Specifically, the asynchronous online communication group created more rebuttals than the paper–pencil group. Blended learning, which is associated with offline and online collaborative argumentation tasks, was used to help students to deal with their language problems, as well as improved arguments ( Jin et al., 2020 ). Tavakoli and Rezazadeh (2014) explored the individuals and collaboratively planned conditions on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing performance, and the result indicated that the collaboratively planned condition improved more accurate argumentation. Zioga and Bikos (2020) adopted a collaborative writing program through the Google Docs writing tool and found that students improved significantly in nearly all the structural elements of argumentative discourse. The findings confirmed the effect of cooperative learning in argumentative writing. Alternative teaching methods of supportive reciprocal interactions ( Lunsford, 2002 ), classroom talk moves ( VanDerHeide, 2018 ), and patterns of talk and write ( Chen et al., 2016b ) were also employed to facilitate argument.

The Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model in Argumentative Writing

Although various teaching interventions were used to improve argumentative writing, most of the previous studies did not associate argumentative writing teaching with students’ interactions. In that case, learners could not reach a further stage to fully understand the knowledge and were able to apply and transfer them into argumentation. Therefore, empirical argumentative writing teaching program for the EFL context that associates both argumentative writing knowledge and skill input with sufficient interaction is needed.

Zhang (2014) in China first proposed the PAD teaching model based on cognitive psychology theory, which inspired students to participate actively in the learning process. Many Chinese researchers have introduced the PAD model in English teaching in tertiary education; however, most of them only focused on how to design the PAD model teaching scaffold for English class without further empirical practice ( Sun, 2016 ; Wang and Huang, 2016 ). Almost no PAD study focused on English writing in a specific genre.

Taking advantage of knowledge presentation, skills input, and peer interactions, this study modified the PAD model and designed a PADE teaching model. This study aimed to establish a learning circle that consolidated students’ writing performance step by step. Exercise (E) stage was added to the original PAD model to reinforce and practice students’ understanding of writing skills so as to improve students’ writing performance during the process. Argumentation is regarded as a series of language practices from the language perspective ( Klein, 2006 ). With sufficient writing practices, students’ writing skills as well as way of thinking are stimulated ( Kartawijaya, 2018 ). The teaching model referenced previous writing interventions and combined knowledge construction with large amounts of social practice. It enabled students to have sufficient knowledge input at presentation (P) and assimilation (A) stage to improve their grammar and linguistic competence. It is worth noticing that the discussion session (D) offered students the opportunity in class to develop concepts and solve their problems through peer interaction and improved their writing during the process of generating ideas, evaluating, and justifying ( Chen et al., 2013 ). In this study, the PADE argumentative writing teaching model was conducted among 76 non-English major college students and questionnaires were designed and sent in the experimental class. It aimed at exploring the impact of the PADE teaching model on college students’ argumentative essay and indicated whether it improved college students’ linguistic competence and argumentative structure in their argumentative writing. Comparisons and analysis were made to investigate the differences between two classes and their development in argumentation after receiving the PADE teaching and traditional treatment. The experimental class students’ perception of the PADE teaching model was collected by questionnaires. The specific research questions of this study are as follows:

1. Does the PADE model in college English improve students’ argumentative writing in terms of vocabulary, grammar, organization, content, argumentative structure, and overall quality?

2. What do students perceive about the PADE approach to English argumentative writing?

Materials and Methods

The main purpose of conducting this study was to explore the effect of the PADE model on college English argumentative writing. Quantitative data between experimental and comparison class students’ argumentative essays were collected and analyzed from the perspective of overall linguistic quality and argumentative structure. Students’ perceptions of the PADE model in college English argumentative writing were also gathered.

Participants

This study conducted teaching practices in an experimental class and a control class in a university in a medium-sized capital city in the southern province of China. A total of 76 first-year non-English major students in an experimental class and a comparison class with intermediate English level participated in the teaching practice. The students’ age ranged from 18 to 20. There were 38 students in the experimental class (14 females and 24 males) and 38 students in the comparison class (16 females and 22 males). Students in the experimental and comparison class were of similar intermediate English proficiency. Their final English performance in first semester of first year showed no significant differences. The two classes were taught by the same teacher to ensure the flow of teaching plan. In the second semester of the first year, the experimental class received the PADE treatment and the comparison class followed traditional way of English teaching. Before the teaching practice, both classes first received 2 weeks’ trial training of the PADE model and traditional model to ensure that they were familiar with the flow of the PADE model and traditional way of English teaching. After being acquainted with the teaching design of the PADE model and traditional teaching, the researchers began to conduct the teaching practice.

Experimental Design

The teaching practice was designed to answer the research questions. To respond to the first question, whether students in the experimental class followed the PADE model in college English argumentative writing outperformed students in the comparison class on perspective of vocabulary, grammar, organization, content, argumentative structure, and overall quality of argumentative essay, teacher assigned two argumentations of equal difficulties of National College English Test Band 4 (CET 4) following the direction of CET 4 before and after the treatment. Before the treatment, students from both classes were required to submit an argumentative essay on the topic – Should we take liberal arts courses? – on Pigai, 1 an automated writing evaluation website. Then, at the end of the teaching practice, students were asked to hand in another argumentative essay – Should we go shopping online? – on Pigai website. The online writing environment enabled students to submit their essays with instructional support and peer feedback, which facilitated higher writing quality ( Noroozi et al., 2011 ; Latifi et al., 2021 ). Students were required to write within the time limit of 60 min with no less than 120 words after the class.

To answer the second question, questionnaires on students’ perception of the PADE teaching model were designed and then distributed to the experimental class to learn students’ attitudes toward the PADE teaching model.

Instructional Procedures for Experimental Class

The PADE model in English argumentative teaching of each unit took 2 weeks. Each followed four phases of the PADE ( Figure 1 ). In the first week, teachers emphasized content of unit to construct linguistic knowledge for the experimental class. Text content, as well as linguistic focuses, was made clear by teachers during the presentation session. After the presentation, students in the experimental class reviewed the knowledge they learned and listed their problems by themselves after the class. In the discussion session, students in the experimental class discussed their problems in groups for the purpose of solving their puzzles as well as achieving a better understanding of the content through peer communication and sharing. At the end of the unit teaching, teachers assigned text-related exercises to students to finish and consolidate students’ knowledge of language and content.

Figure 1. The implementation of the PADE argumentative writing teaching practice.

The second week’s teaching focused on argumentative writing skills. Teachers first presented the basics of argumentative writing skills with evaluation rubric in the experimental class. After the class, students in the experimental class listed their problems in understanding their argumentative writing skills. In the discussion class, students in the experimental class discussed in groups to further understand the argumentative writing skills and their key elements. During the discussion, students gave and received feedback from each other, which was effective in the learning and writing process and outcomes. They learnt to evaluate peers’ argumentative essay objectively based on the writing rubric ( Huisman et al., 2018 ; Noroozi, 2018 ). At the end of the class, students were asked to practice their argumentative writing skills after the class ( Table 1 ).

Table 1. The implementation of the PADE and traditional teaching model for one unit.

Instructional Procedures for Controlled Class

For the comparison class, teaching basically is consisted of presentation and exercises every week. In the first class of the first week, teachers presented the content of unit in class with linguistic focuses and assigned the text exercises. In the second class, teachers checked the answers of the exercise in class. In the second week, argumentative writing skills, along with writing rubric, were presented by teachers with assignment. Students finished the writing skills tasks in the fourth class ( Table 1 ).

Instruments

Writing performance evaluation.

College English Test is a nationally standardized test that evaluates college students’ English competence objectively and accurately. This study assigned argumentative writing tasks with CET 4 difficulty, which is suitable for students with intermediate English level. Students from both classes were required to submit their argumentation of the required topics with similar CET 4 direction. Students were required to write individually on the writing website Pigai, which could automatically evaluate students’ essays with prompt feedback and was used widely in Chinese universities. Upon finishing the essay, Pigai graded students’ writing with a specific score based on CET 4 grading metric set by the researchers. Essays with high duplicate check rate were required to submit again. By researching main scoring rubrics for tests of ESL writing, vocabulary, grammar, content, and organization were set as the main indicators of argumentation quality combined with Pigai writing system rubrics. In addition, argumentative structures were judged by the most frequently used Osborne et al. (2004) rubric with the lowest level 1 to highest level 5.

The Learners’ Perception Questionnaire

Questionnaire was used to understand students’ perception of the PADE model on the argumentative teaching. It was composed of four parts in a total of 15 items, namely, the PADE course design (5 items), the PADE teaching effect (3 items), the PADE learning effects (5 items), and implication of the PADE teaching into other courses (2 items). Other survey addressed students’ engagement was used as supplement to the questionnaire ( Kühnen et al., 2012 ; Liao and Li, 2017 ). The whole research team and experienced professors in the English Department checked the questionnaire. Based on the experts’ feedback, the researcher modified the questionnaire. The questionnaires’ validity was high (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.809 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity value was 0.000). The Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire achieved 0.927, which verified the good reliability of the questionnaire. A 5-point Likert was used in the questionnaire (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Instructors explained the direction of questionnaires in detail at the beginning and then asked students to finish items according to their real situation in class within 20 min. Printed copies of questionnaires were sent to students a week before the end of the teaching practice to investigate students’ perceptions of the PADE model in English argumentative writing teaching.

Data Collection and Analysis

As this study focused on argumentative writing, researchers employed Osborne et al. (2004) argumentation rubric, along with Hedgcock and Lefkowitz’s (1992) writing rubric, to holistically grade students’ argumentation ( Appendix Tables A1 , A2 ). The essays’ overall linguistic quality was judged from the perspective of vocabulary, grammar, organization, and content with reference to Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) rubrics. Each part was composed of a 0–100 scale. Osborne et al. (2004) argumentation structural rubric that includes levels 1–5 was employed. Level 1 is the lowest level, which includes a simple claim or counterclaim without supporting details. Level 3 has claims with data, warrants, and backings. Level 5 ranks the highest, which incorporates more than one rebuttal in the argument.

To examine discrepancy between two classes, two researchers with equivalent teaching and research experience scored vocabulary, grammar, organization, content, argumentative structure, and overall quality of essays written before and after the teaching practice with reference to Pigai website’s automated assessment. Once two teachers had disagreement and had two score’s rating difference on linguistic quality and 1 level difference on argumentative level, an expert was invited to reevaluate the essay. The average score of the two teachers was taken as students’ final performance. The interrater reliability between the two scorers on linguistic quality and argumentative structure was 0.826 and 0.813, respectively.

Quantitative research method was adopted in this study. The social software SPSS 22.0 was used to analyze the data. Descriptive analysis was conducted first to show the holistic picture of two class performance. To answer question 1, paired-samples t -tests were used to present the argumentation development of the two classes during the intervention. ANCOVA was conducted to explore difference between the two classes’ post-writing after the teaching intervention. Assumption tests were conducted for the paired-samples t -test and ANCOVA. The skewness and kurtosis values showed that normality assumption was met for the paired-samples t -test and ANCOVA. The simple scatter plots were conducted and the patterns of lines were displayed, resembling the linearity of ANCOVA. In addition, the homogeneity assumption was run using Levene’s test. The result showed that the homogeneity met the requirement of ANCOVA.

The questionnaire was designed focused on students’ perception of the PADE treatment’s effect on students’ English writing. To answer question 2, descriptive data of each item in the questionnaire were shown to illustrate students’ perception toward the PADE teaching model. Percentages on each item were calculated. Mean score and standard deviation of each subscale were generated.

Students’ Argumentation Development

To get a general picture of the two classes’ essay performance, descriptive analysis was conducted first. The two classes achieved similar scores on item of vocabulary in their first essay; after the teaching practice, students of the experimental class improved their vocabulary performance by 5.91. However, students from the comparison class almost kept the same performance. Another noticeable improvement was in the aspect of content. Both classes had no significant differences on their first essay’s content performance. However, the experimental class students’ score on their second essay climbed to 93.02 while the comparison class students’ performance on content of their second essay only had a minor improvement of 0.47. The students from the experimental class maintained their advantage in grammar and organization. In general, the experimental class students and their counterparts performed equivalently in the first essay but the gap between them widened in the second essay on vocabulary, content, and overall quality, followed by slight advantages of organization and grammar. As for argumentative structure, students from the experimental class were above the midst of levels 3 and 4 after the training while students from the comparison class scored just above level 3 after the training.

The paired-samples t -tests showed that within the teaching intervention, the experimental class improved greatly on their vocabulary, organization, content, and argumentative structure except for grammar. Following the traditional writing teaching method, students from the controlled class also improved their writing quality and argumentative structure. However, their advancement was minor compared to the experimental class and had no significant development in the vocabulary, grammar, organization, and content ( Table 2 ).

Table 2. Descriptive and paired-samples t -test results of the two classes’ essay performance.

A one-way ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of the PADE teaching model on students’ argumentation. Students’ essays written before the teaching practice were taken as a covariate to find out their influence on the post-writing on aspect of vocabulary, grammar, organization, content, overall writing quality, as well as argumentative structure. The difference between the two classes’ post-writing was also examined. The post-writing performance was taken as a dependent variable. The experimental class and comparison class were taken as between-group factors while time performed as the within-subjects factor (pre-writing and post-writing).

A significant group difference was shown by one-way ANCOVA analysis in the post-writing between the two classes, and the Bonferroni test revealed that the experimental student performed significantly better on vocabulary than their counterparts [ F (1,73) = 9.033, p = 0.040, η p 2 = 0.110]. The difference between two classes’ writing in terms of grammar was not significant [ F (1,73 = 0.007), p = 0.932, η p 2 = 0.000]. Students from the experimental class performed significantly better on post-writing’s content [ F (1,73) = 65.251, p = 0.000, η p 2 = 0.472]. However, there was no significant difference in the post-writing’s organization [ F (1,73) = 0.852, p = 0.359, η p 2 = 0.012]. For the average performance, the between-group effect analysis revealed a significant difference and the students from the experimental class scored significantly higher than those from the controlled class [ F (1,73) = 18.684, p = 0.000, η p 2 = 0.204)]. To evaluate students’ argumentative structure specifically, the result showed that the experimental class significantly outperformed the controlled class on argumentative structure [ F (1,73) = 15.852, p = 0.000, η p 2 = 0.178] ( Table 3 ).

Table 3. One-way ANCOVA results of the two classes’ essay performance.

Students’ Perceptions of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model

The presentation-assimilation-discussion-exercise course design.

Students were well-accepting of the PADE model in general ( Figure 2 ). Concerning the teaching design and flow of the PADE teaching, 43% of students agreed with the new teaching model. Nearly 15.2% of students were strongly satisfied with the PADE teaching sessions featured with teaching contents with appropriate difficulty and clarified teaching sessions. Presentation helped students to understand the difficulties and laid a solid foundation for after-class understanding and further discussion session. Notably, 39.2% of students were satisfied with presentation session of the PADE model, and 34.2% of students were highly satisfied with it. About half of the students agreed with the core session of discussion. During the group discussion, students solved each other’s problems, thus facilitating individual’s understanding of the teaching content. Only about 5.1% of students disapproved of that item. About 75% of students were satisfied with the design of the PADE model and considered that it has created a better interactive learning environment that improved students’ English learning. The PADE course design urged and monitored each student to further study and understand the content in time; therefore, students learned the lesson step by step and solved their difficulties promptly. Also, 43% of students agreed with the item while 2.5% of students strongly disagreed with it. For the whole part, most students were satisfied with the design of the PADE model in college English argumentation teaching, with a high satisfaction rate ( M = 3.64, SD = 0.84).

Figure 2. Percentage of the PADE course design: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – neutral; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree.

The Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Teaching Effect

Over 72% of students viewed the PADE model as an effective teaching model to improve their general English argumentative writing competence ( Figure 3 ). In the traditional large-size teacher-centered class, teachers usually find it extremely hard to monitor each student’s study and solve their problems in time. In the PADE teaching, an overwhelming majority (78.5%) of students were satisfied with their learning for timely feedback and summary provided by teachers and peers. In the PADE class, teachers could monitor individual students’ English study progress with great efficiency. Most of the students were happy with the efficiency and flexibility of the PADE teaching, which also cultivated their English interest and self-discipline, and only 2.5% of students strongly disapproved of the great efficiency of the PADE model. In general, students were pleased with teachers’ teaching in the PADE model ( M = 3.83, SD = 0.91).

Figure 3. Percentage of the PADE teaching effect: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – neutral; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree.

Learning Effect of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model

The finding indicated that students were satisfied with their learning effect of the PADE model in argumentation writing ( Figure 4 ). Although a small number of students (6.3%) expressed that they learned little knowledge in the PADE model, 60.7% of students were satisfied with the PADE model in achieving a better understanding of the teaching content. Compared with traditional teaching, students were pushed to think critically about the contents that benefited their argumentative writing greatly. Nearly 80% of students were in favor of the teaching practice from the perspective of encouraging their active thinking. In the discussion session, students were required to communicate with group members in English to discuss their problems in English writing learning. Around 65% of students indicated that they improved their communication skill and transferred what they discussed into writing. Furthermore, in the PADE learning, students had to study by themselves after the class to better understand the content and found out their own problems, which fostered their self-regulation and ensure the smooth progress of discussion. After the discussion session, nearly 70% of students admitted that their problems had been solved. Only 3.8% of students indicated that they had no improvement in their self-study competence, but most of the students admitted that they had cultivated self-study ability during the PADE teaching practice, which also benefited other discipline. In summary, students were satisfied with their learning effect of the PADE model ( M = 3.19, SD = 0.82).

Figure 4. Percentage of the PADE learning effect: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – neutral; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree.

Application of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model to Other Courses

After the teaching practice of the PADE model, 60.7% of students were supportive of the use of the PADE model in learning English courses. Over half of the students (65.6%) were in favor of the implication of the PADE model to other courses ( Figure 5 ). The finding indicated that students were in well-acceptation of the PADE model ( M = 3.07, SD = 0.67).

Figure 5. Percentage of the PADE application: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – neutral; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree.

This study conducted the PADE and traditional ways of teaching in English argumentation on participants of intermediate English level in an experimental and a comparison class. It compared and analyzed argumentative writings of the two classes written before and after the argumentation teaching practice for the purpose of exploring the impact of the PADE teaching model on students’ argumentative essay quality and argumentative structure. Students’ perception of the PADE model was also analyzed. The students from the experimental class improved their argumentation within the treatment on all aspects except for grammar. The PADE teaching method significantly influenced both classes’ post-writing on all aspects but organization and grammar. The reason might be attributable to the lack of emphasize on grammar during the practice. In addition, the students of intermediate English level from both classes had difficulties to improve grammar within the period. This is also in line with Chang and Lu’s (2018) study, which used a three-step prewriting activity but found no significant difference in organization and argumentation between two groups’ students. The result proved the effect of the PADE treatment in teaching argumentation with empirical findings. The finding from the questionnaires indicated that students were well-accepted of the PADE teaching model in the aspect of course design, teaching effect and learning effect, and they were willing to apply it to other courses in the future.

The Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model’s Effects on Argumentation Quality

By observing the essays, students from the experimental class presented more specific and professional vocabulary in their writing. The reason might be attributed to the effect of group discussions on L2 reading comprehension ( Turnbull and Evans, 2017 ). With the help of group discussion session of the PADE treatment, students learnt to use specific words for communicative purpose, thus they expressed in a clear and logical way so that other group members could understand their claims, grounds, and backings clearly. During the process, they also learnt from others and enlarged their vocabulary. Thanks to more opportunity to express themselves in class, students from the experimental class became more adept in expressing their opinions well in the oral discussion and were able to transfer their thinking in argumentative writing. Apart from that, the PADE’s presentation session also offered students sufficient time to review the new words and expressions they learnt.

Additionally, the PADE model proved to be effective in improving students’ organization in writing. The reason might be the positive influence of preparation and presentation for discussion. To prepare for the discussion session, the experimental students were encouraged to think critically to find out their problems during language learning. Argumentation not only developed students’ epistemic knowledge, but also enhanced their critical thinking skills ( Chen et al., 2020 ). In discussion, students cultivated critical thinking, organized their thinking in logic, and then presented their ideas clearly later within groups. With the discussion and exercise sessions, students’ organization and overall writing quality were gradually enhanced. In contrast, teachers found out students’ common problems with language and argumentative structure within the session of discussion, thus, addressing them with prompt feedback efficiently. This is in alignment with Chen’s (2019) finding on collaborative writing that the experimental class performed significantly better on vocabulary and organization in immediate post-tests.

Significant difference in the content of the second argumentation was shown between the two classes. The PADE model first input substantial linguistic knowledge in presentation, the later discussion and exercise session further consolidated the knowledge student learnt through interactions and practices. Hence, students understood the writing skills better and were able to relate them in argumentative writing. As a high-demanding writing task, argumentative writing obliged students to produce complex ideas in well organization, and the peer feedback during the discussion session improved students’ content learning and writing performance ( Rahimi, 2019 ; Noroozi et al., 2020 ). The study indicated that students from the experimental class delivered essays with rich content closely correlated to the topic based on prior knowledge and writing skill construction.

Problem-based writing instruction was an effective strategy for teaching argumentative writing skill particularly. Compared with guided-writing instruction, problem-based writing instruction had a significant influence on organization, vocabulary, and grammar ( Jumariati and Sulistyo, 2017 ). However, in this study, students from the experimental class shared a slight advantage in grammar. Grammar of post-writing between the two classes did not show significant differences, which is consistent with a previous study that showed that students in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context performed higher than formal instruction on grammar in their writing but with no significant difference ( Vidal and Roquet, 2015 ). Although much time is spent on grammar instruction in writing teaching, EFL students do not make significant progress on grammar ( Huang and Zhang, 2019 ).

In terms of argumentative structure, the analysis found significant difference in the post-writing between the two classes. The results indicated that the PADE model, which included collaborative teaching activity and knowledge construction, was effective on students’ individually written text ( Wigglesworth and Storch, 2012 ). Teachers introduced six elements of argument and their relationship to each other proposed by Toulmin (1958) to offer students conceptual knowledge of argumentative structure. Osborne et al. (2004) argumentation assessment rubric was offered to the students to find out their problems in argumentation and further evaluate each other’s argumentative writing quality. During the collaboration of the PADE class, students learned to organize their ideas under the argumentative structure. Noticeably, people usually provide more reasons to support their own position in arguments for or against their own positions ( Stein and Bernas, 1999 ), but have difficulties in generating rebuttals. With the help of discussion and exercise session of the PADE model, students learnt to manage conflicts in their oral communication and transfer their critique into argumentative writing. In this study, the experimental class students’ argumentative structure of the second essay was above the middle of levels 3 and 4 after the PADE treatment, which meant that they had a better grasp of presenting claims with data, warrants, and backings in argumentation and some of them even included a claim with a clearly identifiable rebuttal in writing to make a more convincing argumentation, which was the weakest part in constructing argumentation. Students in the comparison class seldom used rebuttals in a persuasive essay with traditional English writing teaching.

Students’ Perception of the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Model

Questionnaires were essential to learn students’ attitudes toward the PADE teaching model. After the PADE treatment, students generally showed good acceptability of the PAD teaching in argumentation. For the scale of the PADE course design, students were mostly satisfied with presentation session. Besides, they agreed that the PADE teaching created a free and relaxed teaching environment that facilitated students’ interactive learning in class and after class. Group members exchanged and shared their ideas freely to promote their understanding and memorization of the content they learned. In general, students showed positive attitudes toward the PADE’s course design. As for the teaching effect of the PADE, timely feedback and summary were mostly in favor of, followed by writing competence improvement. Peer feedback works as an effective way to improve learning in L2 writing as a collaborative activity ( Yu and Lee, 2016 ). From students’ perspective, students were improved mostly by the active learning environment. The PADE teaching model had promoted students’ effective learning within groups and class, and fostered their interest to learn English. Most students admitted that they enhanced their problem-solving skills during the PADE learning. With the help of discussion, common problems among students were easily found and promptly solved. Students initiate more problems and are more aware of their weakness ( Li and Vandermensbrugghe, 2011 ). At the same time, students’ communication skill was gradually improved. In the PADE study, students learned to study by themselves, which was useful in their later study of other disciplines. After receiving the PADE teaching of English writing, nearly two-thirds of students were supportive of the PADE teaching model and were in favor of the use of the PADE teaching in other courses in the future. As a consequence, students were generally satisfied with the PADE teaching.

Conclusion and Limitations

In response to the call to reform the traditional way of English teaching, this study made references to the PAD model and redesigned the PADE model to adapt to the realities of English writing class. The finding of this study suggested that the PADE model had a significant effect on improving students’ vocabulary, content, argumentative structure, and overall quality in argumentative writing. By observing students’ writings, students from the experimental class chose more specific words, complex sentence patterns, and well-structured argumentation with clear argumentative structure. In addition, their argumentative structural level kept rising during the teaching practice. The reason was probably that the PADE class provided students more opportunities to express their opinions, share their understanding on the content and writing topic, and discuss their language and writing problems with group members. In this way, students not only consolidated what they learned, but also improved their English writing competence.

Though the research findings prove the effect of the PADE teaching practice in argumentative writing teaching for college students, it also has some limitations. First, only non-English major participants of intermediate English level took part in the teaching practice, and the research findings might not be definite. In this way, future researchers should include larger scale of participants of various English levels to indicate a more objective and massive map of effect of the PADE model on argumentative writing. Second, this study conducted 14 weeks of argumentative teaching to highlight the effectiveness of the PADE model concerning the requirements to finish the teaching plan and content in one semester. Longer period of writing teaching or teaching practices in English-majored classes might produce more detailed description of students’ writing performance development. In response to technology advancement in the information era, some studies attempted to develop students’ argumentative writing with the help of online tools ( Lu and Zhang, 2013 ). Technological methods could be used to monitor students’ writing progress during the teaching practice in the future. Moreover, this study focused on argumentative writing teaching specifically. Thus, the effect of the PADE model on other writing styles was not analyzed. Future studies could examine the PADE model’s teaching effect on various writing styles to show its influence on different writing styles. Research could also be done to study the impact of the PADE model teaching on college students’ listening, speaking, and reading learning, respectively, in various contexts.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Hainan Medical University. Written informed consent for participation was required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

ML designed the study and discussed with YL. ML and YL assessed the students’ essays. ML collected the data and wrote the manuscript draft. YL revised the manuscript. Both authors contributed to the manuscript and agreed on the submitted version.

This study was supported by the Education Department of Hainan Province (Project Nos. Hnjgzd2014-06 and Hnjg2017-36).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• ^ www.pigai.org

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Low, G., Mcguinn, N., and Robinson, A. (2006). Teaching argumentative non-fiction writing to 7–14 year olds: a systematic review of the evidence of successful practice. Camb. J. Educ. 39, 291–310. doi: 10.4324/9780429268960-25

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arsyad, S. (1999). The Indonesian and English argument structure: a cross-cultural rhetoric of argumentative texts. Aust. R. Applied Linguist. 22, 85–102. doi: 10.1075/aral.22.2.06ars

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benetos, K., and Bétrancourt, M. (2020). Digital authoring support for argumentative writing: what does it change? J. Writ. Res. 12, 263–290. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.09

Chang, B., and Lu, F. C. (2018). Social media facilitated English prewriting activity design and evaluation. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 27, 33–42. doi: 10.1007/s40299-017-0363-0

Chen, W. (2019). An exploratory study on the role of L2 collaborative writing on learners’ subsequent individually composed texts. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 28, 563–573.

Google Scholar

Chen, Y. C., Aguirre-Mendez, C., and Terada, T. (2020). Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 2842–2875. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1837990

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., and McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Sci. Educ. 97, 745–771. doi: 10.1002/sce.21067

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., and Park, S. (2016b). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argumentbased inquiry. Sci. Educ. 25, 277–320. doi: 10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

Chen, Y. C., Park, S., and Hand, B. (2016a). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cogn. Instruct. 34, 100–147. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120

Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., and Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: problems, factors and suggestions. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 4, 81–92. doi: 10.20547/jess0421604201

Ferretti, R. P., and De La Paz, S. (2011). “On the comprehension and production of written texts: instructional activities that support content-area literacy,” in Handbook of Reading Interventions , eds R. O’ Connor and P. Vadasy (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 326–355.

Ferretti, R. P., and Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction. Read. Writ. 32, 1345–1357. doi: 10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., and Mckeown, D. (2013). “The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux,” in The Handbook of Learning Disabilities , 2nd Edn, eds H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, and S. Graham (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 405–438.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., and Mason, L. H. (2011). “Self-regulated learning processes and children’s writing,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance , eds B. J. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (Milton Park: Routledge), 187–202. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461.3003.255

Hedgcock, J., and Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. J. Second Lang. writ. 1, 255–276. doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B

Huang, Y., and Zhang, L. J. (2019). Does a process-genre approach help improve students’argumentative writing in english as a foreign language? Findings from an intervention study. Read. Writ. Q. 36, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2019.1649223

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., and van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 955–968. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

Jeffers, L. (2018). Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English language arts classrooms. English J. 107, 72–73. doi: 10.4324/9781315780498

Jin, T., Su, Y., and Lei, J. (2020). Exploring the blended learning design for argumentative writing. Lang. Learn. Technol. 24, 23–34.

Jumariati, J., and Sulistyo, G. (2017). Problem-based writing instruction: its effect on students’. Skills in argumentative writing. Arab World English J. 8, 87–100. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol8no2.6

Kartawijaya, S. (2018). Improving students’ writing skill in writing paragraph through an outline technique. Curric. J. Teach. Learn. 3, 152–158. doi: 10.22216/jcc.2018.v3i3.3429

Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: from the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 143–178. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336627

Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., and Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentative competence. Cogn. Instruct. 31, 456–496. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.830618

Kühnen, U., Van Egmond, M. C., Haber, F., Kuschel, S., Özelsel, A., Rossi, A. L., et al. (2012). Challenge me! Communicating in multicultural classrooms. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 15, 59–76. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9169-8

Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M. A., and Goedhart, M. J. (2014). A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 253–264. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0110

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., and Biemans, H. J. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 58, 195–206. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005

Li, L. Y., and Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2011). Supporting the thesis writing process of international research students through an ongoing writing group. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 48, 195–205.

Liao, H., and Li, L. (2017). A mixed methods evaluation of college English writing: a case study in China. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 26, 383–396. doi: 10.1007/s40299-017-0357-y

Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., and Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Comput. Educ. 59, 378–384. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019

Liu, F., and Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System 45, 117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005

Liu, M., and Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System 33, 623–636. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002

Liu, Y. L., and Li, S. Q. (2017). Analysis of argument structure in Chinese EFL argumentative writing. J. Chin. Peoples Liberat. Army Univers. For. Lang. 40, 100–107+160.

Lu, J., and Zhang, Z. (2013). Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: integrating technology and pedagogy. Comput. Educ. 69, 189–198. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.021

Lunsford, K. J. (2002). Contextualizing toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: a case study. Writ. Commun. 19, 109–174. doi: 10.1177/074108830201900105

McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. J. Writ. Res. 3, 1–68.

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., VanDerHeide, J., Kuhn, D., and Andriessen, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: a review of research. Read. Res. Q. 46, 273–304. doi: 10.2307/41228654

Noroozi, O. (2018). Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 55, 357–365. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112

Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., and Chizari, M. (2011). Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 309–318. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.009

Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J., and Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: does gender matter? Interact. Learn. Environ. 28, 698–712. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200

Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., and Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: extending from first-to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 153–176. doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z

Ong, J., and Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. J. Second Lang. Writ. 19, 218–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035

Pessoa, S., Gomez-Laich, M. P., Liginlal, D., and Mitchell, T. D. (2019). Scaffolding case analysis writing: a collaboration between information systems and writing faculty. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 30, 42–56.

Pratiwi, K. D. (2016). Students’ difficulties in writing English (A study at the third semester students of English educationprogram at university of Bengkulu academic year 2011-2012). J. Linguist. Lang. Teach. 3, 1–17. doi: 10.29300/ling.v3i1.106

Rahimi, M. (2019). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on l2 argumentative writing. Lang. Teach. Res. 23, 633–654. doi: 10.1177/1362168818761465

Rivard, L. P., and Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Sci. Educ. 84, 566–593. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:53.0.CO;2-U

Ryandini, E. Y. (2019). Are peer feedback activity essential in online argumentative writing? ETERNAL 5:101. doi: 10.24252/Eternal.V51.2019.A9

Ryu, S., and Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding fromsustained argumentation. Sci. Educ. 96, 488–526. doi: 10.1002/sce.21006

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientifific issues: a critical review of research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009

Stein, N. L., and Bernas, R. (1999). “The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. Foundations of argumentative text processing,” in Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing , eds J. Andriessen and P. Coirier (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press).

Stern, L. A., and Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: the road less traveled. Assess. Writ. 11, 22–41. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.001

Sun, H. Y. (2016). Practicability analysis of PAD class on college English teaching. Theor. Observ. 4, 174–175.

Tavakoli, M., and Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. J. Teach. Lang. Skills 32, 85–110. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2014.1857

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., and Janik, A. (1990). An Introduction to Reasoning , 2nd Edn. London: Macmillan.

Turnbull, B., and Evans, M. S. (2017). The effects of L1 and L2 group discussions on L2 reading comprehension. Read. For. Lang. 29, 133–154. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01922

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Kruiger, T. (2019). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

VanDerHeide, J. (2018). Classroom talk as writing instruction for learning to make writing moves in literary arguments. Read. Res. Q. 53, 323–344. doi: 10.1002/rrq.196

Vidal, C. P., and Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: an analysis measuring relative gains. System 54, 80–90. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004

Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation 19, 321–329. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_20

Wang, S. G., and Huang, M. X. (2016). Potential applications of PAD class in teaching college chemistry. Guangzhou Chem. Ind. 44, 211–212.

Wigglesworth, G., and Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. J. Second Lang. Learn. 21, 364–374. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005

Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., and Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Writ. Commun. 26, 183–209. doi: 10.1177/0741088309333019

Yu, S., and Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System 58, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005

Zhang, X. X. (2014). PAD class: a new attempt in university teaching reform. Fudan Educ. Forum 12, 5–10.

Zioga, C., and Bikos, K. (2020). Collaborative writing using google docs in primary education: development of argumentative discourse. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 21, 133–142. doi: 10.17718/tojde.690372

Table A1. Modified argumentation rating rubric of Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) .

Table A2. Analytical framework for assessing the quality of argumentation by Osborne et al. (2004) .

Keywords : PADE model, argumentative writing, writing quality, argumentative structure, evaluation

Citation: Liao M and Liao Y (2022) Improving Chinese College Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Approach. Front. Psychol. 13:874531. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874531

Received: 17 February 2022; Accepted: 23 May 2022; Published: 29 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Liao and Liao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Menglin Liao, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

8 Effective Strategies to Write Argumentative Essays

In a bustling university town, there lived a student named Alex. Popular for creativity and wit, one challenge seemed insurmountable for Alex– the dreaded argumentative essay!

One gloomy afternoon, as the rain tapped against the window pane, Alex sat at his cluttered desk, staring at a blank document on the computer screen. The assignment loomed large: a 350-600-word argumentative essay on a topic of their choice . With a sigh, he decided to seek help of mentor, Professor Mitchell, who was known for his passion for writing.

Entering Professor Mitchell’s office was like stepping into a treasure of knowledge. Bookshelves lined every wall, faint aroma of old manuscripts in the air and sticky notes over the wall. Alex took a deep breath and knocked on his door.

“Ah, Alex,” Professor Mitchell greeted with a warm smile. “What brings you here today?”

Alex confessed his struggles with the argumentative essay. After hearing his concerns, Professor Mitchell said, “Ah, the argumentative essay! Don’t worry, Let’s take a look at it together.” As he guided Alex to the corner shelf, Alex asked,

Table of Contents

“What is an Argumentative Essay?”

The professor replied, “An argumentative essay is a type of academic writing that presents a clear argument or a firm position on a contentious issue. Unlike other forms of essays, such as descriptive or narrative essays, these essays require you to take a stance, present evidence, and convince your audience of the validity of your viewpoint with supporting evidence. A well-crafted argumentative essay relies on concrete facts and supporting evidence rather than merely expressing the author’s personal opinions . Furthermore, these essays demand comprehensive research on the chosen topic and typically follows a structured format consisting of three primary sections: an introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph.”

He continued, “Argumentative essays are written in a wide range of subject areas, reflecting their applicability across disciplines. They are written in different subject areas like literature and philosophy, history, science and technology, political science, psychology, economics and so on.

Alex asked,

“When is an Argumentative Essay Written?”

The professor answered, “Argumentative essays are often assigned in academic settings, but they can also be written for various other purposes, such as editorials, opinion pieces, or blog posts. Some situations to write argumentative essays include:

1. Academic assignments

In school or college, teachers may assign argumentative essays as part of coursework. It help students to develop critical thinking and persuasive writing skills .

2. Debates and discussions

Argumentative essays can serve as the basis for debates or discussions in academic or competitive settings. Moreover, they provide a structured way to present and defend your viewpoint.

3. Opinion pieces

Newspapers, magazines, and online publications often feature opinion pieces that present an argument on a current issue or topic to influence public opinion.

4. Policy proposals

In government and policy-related fields, argumentative essays are used to propose and defend specific policy changes or solutions to societal problems.

5. Persuasive speeches

Before delivering a persuasive speech, it’s common to prepare an argumentative essay as a foundation for your presentation.

Regardless of the context, an argumentative essay should present a clear thesis statement , provide evidence and reasoning to support your position, address counterarguments, and conclude with a compelling summary of your main points. The goal is to persuade readers or listeners to accept your viewpoint or at least consider it seriously.”

Handing over a book, the professor continued, “Take a look on the elements or structure of an argumentative essay.”

Elements of an Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay comprises five essential components:

Claim in argumentative writing is the central argument or viewpoint that the writer aims to establish and defend throughout the essay. A claim must assert your position on an issue and must be arguable. It can guide the entire argument.

2. Evidence

Evidence must consist of factual information, data, examples, or expert opinions that support the claim. Also, it lends credibility by strengthening the writer’s position.

3. Counterarguments

Presenting a counterclaim demonstrates fairness and awareness of alternative perspectives.

4. Rebuttal

After presenting the counterclaim, the writer refutes it by offering counterarguments or providing evidence that weakens the opposing viewpoint. It shows that the writer has considered multiple perspectives and is prepared to defend their position.

The format of an argumentative essay typically follows the structure to ensure clarity and effectiveness in presenting an argument.

How to Write An Argumentative Essay

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an argumentative essay:

1. Introduction

• Begin with a compelling sentence or question to grab the reader’s attention.
• Provide context for the issue, including relevant facts, statistics, or historical background.
• Provide a concise thesis statement to present your position on the topic.

2. Body Paragraphs (usually three or more)

• Start each paragraph with a clear and focused topic sentence that relates to your thesis statement.
• Furthermore, provide evidence and explain the facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and quotations from credible sources that supports your thesis.
• Use transition sentences to smoothly move from one point to the next.

3. Counterargument and Rebuttal

• Acknowledge opposing viewpoints or potential objections to your argument.
• Also, address these counterarguments with evidence and explain why they do not weaken your position.

4. Conclusion

• Restate your thesis statement and summarize the key points you’ve made in the body of the essay.
• Leave the reader with a final thought, call to action, or broader implication related to the topic.

5. Citations and References

• Properly cite all the sources you use in your essay using a consistent citation style.
• Also, include a bibliography or works cited at the end of your essay.

6. Formatting and Style

• Follow any specific formatting guidelines provided by your instructor or institution.
• Use a professional and academic tone in your writing and edit your essay to avoid content, spelling and grammar mistakes .

Remember that the specific requirements for formatting an argumentative essay may vary depending on your instructor’s guidelines or the citation style you’re using (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Always check the assignment instructions or style guide for any additional requirements or variations in formatting.

Did you understand what Prof. Mitchell explained Alex? Check it now!

Fill the Details to Check Your Score

Prof. Mitchell continued, “An argumentative essay can adopt various approaches when dealing with opposing perspectives. It may offer a balanced presentation of both sides, providing equal weight to each, or it may advocate more strongly for one side while still acknowledging the existence of opposing views.” As Alex listened carefully to the Professor’s thoughts, his eyes fell on a page with examples of argumentative essay.

Example of an Argumentative Essay

Alex picked the book and read the example. It helped him to understand the concept. Furthermore, he could now connect better to the elements and steps of the essay which Prof. Mitchell had mentioned earlier. Aren’t you keen to know how an argumentative essay should be like? Here is an example of a well-crafted argumentative essay , which was read by Alex. After Alex finished reading the example, the professor turned the page and continued, “Check this page to know the importance of writing an argumentative essay in developing skills of an individual.”

Importance of an Argumentative Essay

After understanding the benefits, Alex was convinced by the ability of the argumentative essays in advocating one’s beliefs and favor the author’s position. Alex asked,

“How are argumentative essays different from the other types?”

Prof. Mitchell answered, “Argumentative essays differ from other types of essays primarily in their purpose, structure, and approach in presenting information. Unlike expository essays, argumentative essays persuade the reader to adopt a particular point of view or take a specific action on a controversial issue. Furthermore, they differ from descriptive essays by not focusing vividly on describing a topic. Also, they are less engaging through storytelling as compared to the narrative essays.

Alex said, “Given the direct and persuasive nature of argumentative essays, can you suggest some strategies to write an effective argumentative essay?

Turning the pages of the book, Prof. Mitchell replied, “Sure! You can check this infographic to get some tips for writing an argumentative essay.”

Effective Strategies to Write an Argumentative Essay

As days turned into weeks, Alex diligently worked on his essay. He researched, gathered evidence, and refined his thesis. It was a long and challenging journey, filled with countless drafts and revisions.

Finally, the day arrived when Alex submitted their essay. As he clicked the “Submit” button, a sense of accomplishment washed over him. He realized that the argumentative essay, while challenging, had improved his critical thinking and transformed him into a more confident writer. Furthermore, Alex received feedback from his professor, a mix of praise and constructive criticism. It was a humbling experience, a reminder that every journey has its obstacles and opportunities for growth.

Frequently Asked Questions

An argumentative essay can be written as follows- 1. Choose a Topic 2. Research and Collect Evidences 3. Develop a Clear Thesis Statement 4. Outline Your Essay- Introduction, Body Paragraphs and Conclusion 5. Revise and Edit 6. Format and Cite Sources 7. Final Review

One must choose a clear, concise and specific statement as a claim. It must be debatable and establish your position. Avoid using ambiguous or unclear while making a claim. To strengthen your claim, address potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints. Additionally, use persuasive language and rhetoric to make your claim more compelling

Starting an argument essay effectively is crucial to engage your readers and establish the context for your argument. Here’s how you can start an argument essay are: 1. Begin With an Engaging Hook 2. Provide Background Information 3. Present Your Thesis Statement 4. Briefly Outline Your Main 5. Establish Your Credibility

The key features of an argumentative essay are: 1. Clear and Specific Thesis Statement 2. Credible Evidence 3. Counterarguments 4. Structured Body Paragraph 5. Logical Flow 6. Use of Persuasive Techniques 7. Formal Language

An argumentative essay typically consists of the following main parts or sections: 1. Introduction 2. Body Paragraphs 3. Counterargument and Rebuttal 4. Conclusion 5. References (if applicable)

The main purpose of an argumentative essay is to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a particular viewpoint or position on a controversial or debatable topic. In other words, the primary goal of an argumentative essay is to convince the audience that the author's argument or thesis statement is valid, logical, and well-supported by evidence and reasoning.

Great article! The topic is simplified well! Keep up the good work

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Industry News
• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Need for Diversifying Academic Curricula: Embracing missing voices and marginalized perspectives

In classrooms worldwide, a single narrative often dominates, leaving many students feeling lost. These stories,…

• Reporting Research

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

The pressure to “publish or perish” is a well-known reality for academics, striking fear into…

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

Using AI for Journal Selection — Simplifying your academic publishing journey in the smart way

Strategic journal selection plays a pivotal role in maximizing the impact of one’s scholarly work.…

• Career Corner

Recognizing the signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

As the sun set over the campus, casting long shadows through the library windows, Alex…

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without…

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Rhetorical structure analysis of prepared speeches and argumentative essays by Chinese advanced English learners

Yuemin Wang is a PhD Candidate at Renmin University of China, Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include discourse studies, second language writing and psycholinguistics.

Hongyun Wu is a Professor of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Renmin University of China. Her research interests include second language acquisition and applied linguistics. She has published extensively on Chinese students’ English writing in prestigious Chinese journals, and her latest publication appears in System . She also translated Herbert W. Seliger and Elana Shohamy’s Second Language Research Methods into Chinese.

Gang Cui is a Professor of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Tsinghua University, China. He is also the chair of academic committee of National Basic Foreign Language Teaching Research Centre. His research interests include psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and English language teaching. He is the author of more than 100 publications about language and linguistics.

This study focuses on the interrelationship between modes of argumentation and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ rhetorical strategies, by adopting the analytical framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to produce reliable analyses of rhetorical structures of two most frequently required tasks in the Chinese context. The sample texts consist of 20 prepared speeches and 20 argumentative essays, both written by Chinese advanced EFL learners. The findings reveal that: (1) the essays favor a more direct structure with central units at the beginning while the speeches favor a more indirect structure with central units near the end; (2) Background, Circumstance and Preparation relations appear more frequently at the beginning of the speeches, while the Summary relation appears more frequently at the end of the essays; (3) the two most typical top-level patterns of rhetorical structure in the essays resemble the two patterns in the speeches, but with systematic variation and in reversed orders. The results reflect the active role of rhetorical situation in constructing different modes of argumentation for advanced EFL learners. This study could enrich the scope of the application of RST, and provide pedagogical implications for writing in EFL contexts.

Funding statement: This work was supported by the Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province “A Study on the Teaching of College English Writing from the Perspective of Contrastive Rhetoric” (grant number: 2015SJB736), and Beijing Municipal Social Science Foundation (grant number: 17YYC020).

About the authors

Acknowledgements.

We are deeply grateful to Professor Srikant Sarangi and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and invaluable suggestions.

Abelen, Eric, Gisela Redeker & Sandra A. Thompson. 1993. The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text 13(3). 323–350. 10.1515/text.1.1993.13.3.323 Search in Google Scholar

Azar, Moshe. 1999. Argumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 13(1). 97–114. 10.1023/A:1007794409860 Search in Google Scholar

Berzlánovich, Ildikó & Gisela Redeker. 2012. Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 183–208. 10.1515/cllt-2012-0008 Search in Google Scholar

Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse tagging manual . CA: University of Southern California. Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy , 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Search in Google Scholar

Clyne, Michael. 1994. Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620799 Search in Google Scholar

Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524599 Search in Google Scholar

Connor, Ulla. 2011. Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.3488851 Search in Google Scholar

Crampton, Esme. 1980. Good words, well spoken . Toronto: The Norman Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cui, Songren. 1986. A comparison of English and Chinese expository rhetorical structures . Los Angeles: University of California MA thesis. Search in Google Scholar

den Ouden, Hanny. 2004. Prosodic realizations of text structure . Tilburg: University of Tilburg dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Green, Nancy L. 2010. Representation of argumentation in text with rhetorical structure theory. Argumentation 24(2). 181–196. 10.1007/s10503-009-9169-4 Search in Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discozrrse strategies . New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834 Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1). 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 Search in Google Scholar

Iruskieta, Mikel, Arantza Diaz de Ilarraza & Mikel Lersundi. 2014. The annotation of the central unit in rhetorical structure trees: A key step in annotating rhetorical relations. In Proceedings of COLING 2014 , the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics : Technical Papers , 466–475. Dublin, Ireland. Search in Google Scholar

Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16(1). 1–20. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x Search in Google Scholar

Kaplan, Robert B. 1987. Cultural thought patterns revisited. In Ulla Connor & Robert B. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text , 9–21. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Search in Google Scholar

Kong, Kenneth C. C. 1998. Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text 18(1). 103–141. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.1.103 Search in Google Scholar

Labrador, Belén, Noelia Ramón, Héctor Alaiz-Moretón & Hugo Sanjurjo-González. 2014. Rhetorical structure and persuasive language in the subgenre of online advertisements. English for Specific Purposes 34(1). 38–47. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.002 Search in Google Scholar

Leander, Kevin & Paul Prior. 2004. Speaking and writing: How talk and text interact in situated practices. In Charles Bazerman & Paul Prior (eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices , 201–237. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Miranda Y. P. 2003. Discourse structure and rhetoric of English narratives: Differences between native English and Chinese non-native English writers. Text 23(3). 347–368. 10.1515/text.2003.015 Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Xinghua & Clare Furneaux. 2014. A multidimensional comparison of discourse organization in English and Chinese university students’ argumentative writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(1). 74–96. 10.1111/ijal.12013 Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Xing. 2000. The influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on contemporary Chinese political communication and social relations. In D. Ray Heisey (ed.), Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication , 3–24. Stamford: Ablex. Search in Google Scholar

Lucas, Stephen. 2013. English public speaking and the cultivation of talents for Chinese College students. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 36(2). 163–182. 10.1515/cjal-2013-0011 Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. 2005. Rhetorical Structure Theory. http://www.sfu.ca/rst/ (accessed 16 November 2017). Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1991. Functions of language in two frameworks. Word 42(3). 231–249. 10.21236/ADA247226 Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 Search in Google Scholar

McKinley, Jim. 2013. Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal 44(2). 195–208. 10.1177/0033688213488386 Search in Google Scholar

McKinley, Jim. 2014. The impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches on learners of Japanese. Language Learning in Higher Education 4(2). 303–319. 10.1515/cercles-2014-0017 Search in Google Scholar

O’ Donnell, Michael. 2004. RSTTool—an RST Markup Tool. http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool (accessed 16 November 2017). Search in Google Scholar

Peng, Gracie. 2009. Using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees. Interpreting 11(2). 216–243. 10.1075/bct.29.07pen Search in Google Scholar

Ramsay, Guy. 2000. Linearity in rhetorical organisation: A comparative cross-cultural analysis of news text from the People’s Republic of China and Australia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2). 241–258. 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00150.x Search in Google Scholar

Selzer, Jack. 2004. Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In Charles Bazerman & Paul Prior (eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices , 279–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

Stede, Manfred. 2008. RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text , 33–57. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.98.03ste Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Taboada, Maite & William Mann. 2006a. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 423–459. 10.1177/1461445606061881 Search in Google Scholar

Taboada, Maite & William Mann. 2006b. Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies 8(4). 567–588. 10.1177/1461445606064836 Search in Google Scholar

Taft, Marcus, Denisse Kacanas, Winnie Huen & Ramony Chan. 2011. An empirical demonstration of contrastive rhetoric: Preference for rhetorical structure depends on one’s first language. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(4). 503–516. 10.1515/iprg.2011.023 Search in Google Scholar

Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja & Luise Lieflander-Koistinen. 1989. Argumentation in Finnish versus English and German editorials. In Martin Kusch & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Text, interpretation, argumentation , 173–181. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag. Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Albert T. Y. 2005. Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System 33(1). 29–47. 10.1016/j.system.2004.06.009 Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Hongyun. 2006. Investigating the effects of time restraint on EFL writing. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 38(1). 37–44. Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Mianjun, Huang Chenchen & You Xiaoye. 2016. Reasoning patterns of undergraduate theses in translation studies: An intercultural rhetoric study. English for Specific Purposes 41(1). 68–81. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.09.002 Search in Google Scholar

You, Xiaoye. 2008. Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China English. World Englishes 27(2). 233–249. 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2008.00554.x Search in Google Scholar

You, Xiaoye. 2010. Building empire through argumentation: Debating salt and iron in Western Han China. College English 72(4). 367–384. Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Hongxin & Haitao Liu. 2016a. Visualizing structural “inverted pyramids” in English news discourse across levels. Text & Talk 36(1). 89–110. 10.1515/text-2016-0005 Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Hongxin & Haitao Liu. 2016b. Rhetorical relations revisited across distinct levels of discourse unit granularity. Discourse Studies 18(4). 454–472. 10.1177/1461445616647891 Search in Google Scholar

Zheng, Cui. 2013. A structure analysis of English argumentative writings written by Chinese and Korean EFL learners. English Language Teaching 6(9). 67–73. 10.5539/elt.v6n9p67 Search in Google Scholar

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Tag: Essays

Essay: 《不死鸟》the immortal bird by sanmao.

• Post author By Kendra
• Post date March 25, 2023
• 4 Comments on Essay: 《不死鸟》The Immortal Bird by Sanmao

In this tear-jerker essay, famous Taiwanese authoress Sanmao ponders on the value of her own life. It was written as she grieved the drowning of her beloved Spanish husband in 1979, and is all the more tragic in light of her suicide 12 years later.

• Tags Essays

Essay:《爱》Love by Zhang Ailing (Eileen Chang)

• Post date June 12, 2020
• 5 Comments on Essay:《爱》Love by Zhang Ailing (Eileen Chang)

A tragic, dreamlike little essay from writer  Zhang Ailing  (张爱玲, English name Eileen Chang) about love and destiny. This is one of her more well-known works of micro-prose, written in 1944. HSK 5-6.

Essay:《打人》Hitting Someone by Zhang Ailing (Eileen Chang)

• Post date June 10, 2020
• 1 Comment on Essay:《打人》Hitting Someone by Zhang Ailing (Eileen Chang)

An essay from Chinese lit diva Zhang Ailing about a scene of police brutality she witnessed in Shanghai in the 1940s. HSK 6 and up.

Essay: 《感谢困难》Thanking Life’s Challenges by Lin Qingxuan

• Post date May 19, 2020
• 5 Comments on Essay: 《感谢困难》Thanking Life’s Challenges by Lin Qingxuan

You can skip your Instagram yoga gratitude break today, here’s another one from Taiwanese Buddhist essayist Lin Qingxuan (林清玄). HSK 4-5.

Essay: 《蝴蝶的种子》Seed of a Butterfly by Lin Qingxuan

• Post date May 7, 2020
• 2 Comments on Essay: 《蝴蝶的种子》Seed of a Butterfly by Lin Qingxuan

Taiwanese Buddhist essayist Lin Qingxuan marvels at the wonders of nature, time, space, and reincarnation. This piece is all about awe of the natural world, and you’ll learn some Discovery Channel vocab, like “pupa”, “mate”, “breed”, “spawn”, and lots of animal names.

• Tags Essays , Science

Letter: Ba Jin’s Correspondence with “Young Friends Searching for Ideals” – Part II

• Post date May 5, 2020
• 3 Comments on Letter: Ba Jin’s Correspondence with “Young Friends Searching for Ideals” – Part II

In Part II of this two-part series, we’ll read acclaimed author Ba Jin’s reply to the 10 elementary school students who wrote him a letter asking him for moral guidance in 1987. I’m not a super weepy person, but I legit cried reading this. This is a noble, elevating piece of writing, and reading it, I’m reminded that in all societies, there are those who struggle with the materialism that engulfs us.

Essay:《帮忙》 Helping Out

• Post date May 4, 2020
• 3 Comments on Essay:《帮忙》 Helping Out

In this one-paragraph read (HSK 2-3), Little Brother wants to help dad get ready to leave the house, but his contribution falls flat.

Essay: 《丑石》The Ugly Rock by Jia Pingwa

• Post date April 29, 2020
• No Comments on Essay: 《丑石》The Ugly Rock by Jia Pingwa

Jia Pingwa (贾平凹) is one of China’s modern literary greats, and in this short story, it shows. I don’t know how this guy crammed so many insights on the human condition into a few paragraphs about a rock, but he undeniably did.

Letter: Ba Jin’s Correspondence with “Young Friends Searching for Ideals” – Part I

• Post date April 27, 2020
• No Comments on Letter: Ba Jin’s Correspondence with “Young Friends Searching for Ideals” – Part I

In the first of a two-part post, we’ll look at a letter sent in 1987 from a group of elementary school students to the anarchist writer Ba Jin (most famous for his 1931 novel The Family) as they struggle to cope with China’s changing social values. In Part II, I’ll translate Ba Jin’s reply.

Essay: Desk-chairs of the Future

• Post date May 28, 2014
• 15 Comments on Essay: Desk-chairs of the Future

This kid was asked to imagine the perfect desk-chair of the future – what it would look like, and what it would do – and boy, does he ever. The chair turns into all kinds of utopian machinery. It flies, it helps you sleep, and it carries your books to school. Sentence structure is pretty […]

Essay: Catching Frogs

• Post date May 7, 2014
• 52 Comments on Essay: Catching Frogs

Though this post is beginner-level, it’s also very condensed. I’d say you’ll have to stop and remind yourself what something means every few words or so.

Essay: My First Telephone Call

• Post date June 11, 2013
• 24 Comments on Essay: My First Telephone Call

Though the conclusion of this essay might fall a bit flat for all of us who are very used to having a telephone, this is an interesting glimpse into what a monumental rite of passage it is for children in rural areas to have one or use one for the first time.

Essay: Papa, Please Don’t Smoke!

• Post date June 3, 2013
• 17 Comments on Essay: Papa, Please Don’t Smoke!

In this essay, a child desperately (and very angrily) pleads their father not to smoke. Though this is classified as “Intermediate”, beginners should definitely try this read, leaning heavily on the hover word-list. The difficult parts are the mid-level turns of phrase, which are all explained below.

Guest Post: The exam of life

• Post date May 6, 2013
• 26 Comments on Guest Post: The exam of life

Well well well, lookie here. A guest post! Today we’ll be reading Rebecca Chua’s (Chinese name: 蔡幸彤) translation of an essay from her textbook. The post is about the rewards of honesty. I remember my own textbook being full of these types of essays, so thank you, Rebecca, for the traditional read.

My Gluttonous Elder Brother

• Post date January 8, 2013
• 10 Comments on My Gluttonous Elder Brother

I set out to do a beginner post since I haven’t done one in a while, but no joy, I think I have to classify this as intermediate. Beginners are welcome to try this out, as most of the words are simple and the subject matter is a bit immature (so of course it totally […]

News: Snowstorm has caused 15 deaths and 2000 flight delays or cancellations

• Post date January 2, 2013
• 8 Comments on News: Snowstorm has caused 15 deaths and 2000 flight delays or cancellations

In the spirit of the holiday season, which is winding to a blissfully overweight close, I give you an article about something you may or may not have just struggled through if you flew home for the holidays (which I did).

Our Family’s Jump Rope Contest

• Post date October 2, 2012
• 17 Comments on Our Family’s Jump Rope Contest

A single-paragraph essay about the results of a family jump rope competition.

After I Got My New Years’ Money

• Post date September 10, 2012
• 20 Comments on After I Got My New Years’ Money

For those of you new to Chinese culture, one thing a Chinese child most looks forward to all year is the time during Spring Festival (Chinese New Year) when they get to go ask their neighbors and other adults for red envelopes containing some money – it’s a bit like trick-or-treating for cash. This essay […]

Essay: A Foolish Affair from my Childhood

• Post date August 29, 2012
• 20 Comments on Essay: A Foolish Affair from my Childhood

This essay is about a kid who takes his father’s advice a little too literally (with amusing results).

Dear Diary: Mama Please Believe Me

• Post date May 3, 2012
• 18 Comments on Dear Diary: Mama Please Believe Me

And now a break from all the intermediate and advanced exercises I’ve been posting lately. This one is a straightforward beginner Chinese diary-style essay about a student whose mother is displeased with his (or her, it’s never clarified) homework.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Let’s All Take a Deep Breath About China

By Rory Truex

Dr. Truex is an associate professor at Princeton University whose research focuses on Chinese authoritarianism.

The amygdala is a pair of neural clusters near the base of the brain that assesses danger and can help prompt a fight-or-flight response . A prolonged stress response may contribute to anxiety, which can cause people to perceive danger where there is none and obsess about worst-case scenarios.

America’s collective national body is suffering from a chronic case of China anxiety. Nearly anything with the word “Chinese” in front of it now triggers a fear response in our political system, muddling our ability to properly gauge and contextualize threats. This has led the U.S. government and American politicians to pursue policies grounded in repression and exclusion, mirroring the authoritarian system that they seek to combat.

Congress has moved to force the sale of TikTok , the Chinese-owned social media application; some states have sought restrictions on Chinese individuals or entities owning U.S. land and on Chinese researchers working in American universities ; and the federal government has barred certain Chinese technology firms from competing in our markets. These measures all have a national security rationale, and it is not my intention here to weigh the merits of every one. But collectively they are yielding a United States that is fundamentally more closed — and more like China in meaningful ways.

When you are constantly anxious, no threat is too small. In January, Rick Scott, a senator from Florida, introduced legislation that would ban imports of Chinese garlic, which he suggested could be a threat to U.S. national security , citing reports that it is fertilized with human sewage. In 2017, scientists at McGill University wrote there is no evidence that this is the case. Even if it was, it’s common practice to use human waste, known as “biosolids,” as fertilizer in many countries, including the United States.

More recently, Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Elise Stefanik introduced legislation that would bar the Department of Defense from contracting with Tutor.com, a U.S.-based tutoring company, on the grounds that it poses a threat to national security because it was purchased by Primavera Capital Group, an investment firm based in Hong Kong. Their argument is that this could give the Chinese government backdoor access to the tutoring sessions and personal information of American military personnel who use the firm’s service.

The legislation does not mention that Tutor.com’s student data is housed in the United States , that it volunteered for a security review by the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and that it created additional levels of data security protection in coordination with the U.S. government. The bill also does not specify how exactly the Chinese government would get access to Tutor.com’s data or what use it would actually have for information on the tutoring sessions of U.S. military personnel.

Last summer, several Republican lawmakers cried foul over the “Barbie” movie because a world map briefly shown in the background of one scene included a dashed line. They took this as a reference to China’s “nine-dashed line,” which Beijing uses to buttress its disputed territorial claims in the South China Sea. According to Representative Jim Banks, this is “endangering our national security.” The map in the movie is clearly fantastical, had only eight dashes and bore no resemblance to China’s line. Even the Philippine government, which has for years been embroiled in territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea, dismissed the controversy and approved the movie’s domestic release.

Of course, the United States should actively confront President Xi Jinping of China about his repression at home and aggression abroad. As a scholar of China’s political system, I worry about how Mr. Xi has made his country even more authoritarian; about increasing human rights abuses in China, particularly those directed at the Uyghur population in Xinjiang ; about Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong, its threats toward Taiwan, its increasingly cozy relationship with Russia and its support for the war in Ukraine . America must remain alert to legitimate concerns about well-documented Chinese activities such as espionage and cyberattacks.

But should our policymakers really be focusing on Tutor.com, Chinese garlic or “Barbie”? Or should they concentrate on the more serious threats posed by China’s authoritarian system, or the many other issues that meaningfully affect the day-to-day lives of Americans?

Perhaps the most worrisome effect is that China anxiety is slowly creeping toward discrimination against Chinese Americans, a new “yellow peril.” We’ve already seen how an initiative begun during the Trump administration to target Chinese espionage led to unfair scrutiny of Chinese researchers and even Asian American government employees, leading to the program being terminated in 2022. And we saw how xenophobia during the pandemic triggered threats and attacks against Asian Americans. There also have been numerous reports of law enforcement officials interrogating Chinese students and researchers traveling to and from China on the grounds that they may be agents of the Chinese state. Again, this treatment — being brought in for questioning by the police or government officials — is something foreign scholars experience in China , where it is euphemistically referred to as “being invited for tea.”

Last year, state legislators in Texas proposed a bill that initially sought to prevent Chinese (as well as Iranian, North Korean and Russian) citizens and entities from buying land, homes or other real estate, citing concerns about the security of the food supply. Putting aside the fact that Chinese citizens are not the Chinese government, the actual amount of American farmland owned by Chinese entities is negligible — never exceeding 1 percent of farmland in any given American state as of 2021. The bill ultimately failed , but only after substantial pushback from the Chinese American community.

This China panic, also stirred up by both liberal and conservative U.S. media, may be influencing how average people perceive their fellow Americans of Chinese heritage. Michael Cerny, a fellow China researcher, and I recently surveyed over 2,500 Americans on the question of whether Chinese Americans who were born in the United States should be allowed to serve in the U.S. intelligence community. Roughly 27 percent said Chinese Americans’ access to classified information should be more limited than for other U.S. citizens, and 14 percent said they should be allowed no access at all.

This is overt racism, and while not the majority opinion, it is concerning that so many Americans are blurring the line between the Chinese government and people of Chinese ethnicity, mirroring the language of our politicians.

China is a formidable geopolitical rival. But there is no world in which garlic, “Barbie” or a tutoring site poses meaningful threats to American national security. Labeling them as such reveals a certain lack of seriousness in our policy discourse.

If the United States is to properly compete with China, it’s going to require healthy, balanced policymaking that protects U.S. national security without compromising core American values.

Let’s take a deep breath.

Rory Truex (@rorytruex) is an associate professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, where he teaches courses on Chinese politics and authoritarian rule.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .