scholarly journals Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking Style: A Comparison of U. S. and Chinese Undergraduate Agricultural Students

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 49-62
Author(s):  
Peng Lu ◽  
Scott Burris ◽  
Matt Baker ◽  
Courtney Meyers ◽  
Glenn Cummins
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Information Seeking ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Agricultural Educators ◽  
Agricultural Students ◽  
Style Preferences

This study aimed to compare critical thinking styles between students studying agriculture in the U.S. and China. A survey of critical thinking styles was administered to two groups of students in U.S. (n = 104) and China (n = 103). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to determine if there were significant differences in critical thinking styles between the two groups. Results indicate that U.S. students tended to prefer an engaging critical thinking style, whereas Chinese students tended to prefer an information seeking critical thinking style. These differences between critical thinking style preferences may be explained by students’ cultural backgrounds. This study can help agricultural educators understand the differences in critical thinking style preferences among culturally-diverse students. Further, it provides empirical evidence to guide agricultural educators seeking to adopt effective pedagogical approaches to cultivate critical thinking among students from diverse cultural backgrounds. This study provides fresh insight into the individualism and collectivism theory by explaining the cross-cultural differences in critical thinking style between U.S. and Chinese agricultural students. Keywords: agricultural education, critical thinking style, international agricultural student, cross- cultural

scholarly journals Thinking style across cultures: an interview with Richard Nisbett

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun-Jung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Young Scientist ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cultural Management ◽  
Cross Cultural Management

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to gain some insights from a leading scholar of the cross-cultural cognitive social psychology field on how cultural differences are viewed, understood, and dealt with, and thus to contribute to enrich the way cultural differences are framed in cross-cultural management research. Design/methodology/approach The author conducts a formal, semi-structured interview with Richard Nisbett for a duration of 90 minutes. The author extracts the key message from the interview and re-structures the conversation in a meaningful manner. Findings From his cognitive social psychology lens, Richard Nisbett views that any cross-cultural contact between different thinking styles is advantageous because differences help address the limitations of one’s own thinking style. Research limitations/implications The insights from cross-cultural cognitive social psychology encourage cross-cultural management researchers to further investigate the positive consequences of cultural differences. Originality/value Richard Nisbett’s own journey from a young scientist who describes himself as an extreme universalist, to a mature intellectual who understands and appreciates different thinking style, is itself a concrete example of how differences can lead to the positive. The author summarizes three factors that are key to a positive outcome of cultural differences: curiosity and openness to cultural differences; habit of critical thinking; and intense interaction with culturally different others.

Cultural Differences in Spontaneous Trait and Situation Inferences

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 627-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hajin Lee ◽  
Yuki Shimizu ◽  
Takahiko Masuda ◽  
James S. Uleman
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Impression Formation ◽  
Social Orientation ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Spontaneous Trait Inferences ◽  
Trait Inferences

Previous findings indicated that when people observe someone’s behavior, they spontaneously infer the traits and situations that cause the target person’s behavior. These inference processes are called spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) and spontaneous situation inferences (SSIs). While both patterns of inferences have been observed, no research has examined the extent to which people from different cultural backgrounds produce these inferences when information affords both trait and situation inferences. Based on the theoretical frameworks of social orientations and thinking styles, we hypothesized that European Canadians would be more likely to produce STIs than SSIs because of the individualistic/independent social orientation and the analytic thinking style dominant in North America, whereas Japanese would produce both STIs and SSIs equally because of the collectivistic/interdependent social orientation and the holistic thinking style dominant in East Asia. Employing the savings-in-relearning paradigm, we presented information that affords both STIs and SSIs and examined cultural differences in the extent of both inferences. The results supported our hypotheses. The relationships between culturally dominant styles of thought and the inference processes in impression formation are discussed.

scholarly journals Communication of Genetic Modification Science: Consumers’ Critical Thinking Style, Perceived Transparency of Information, and Attitude

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-61
Author(s):  
Yu-Lun Wu ◽  
Joy Rumble ◽  
Alexa Lamm ◽  
Jason Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Extension Agents ◽  
Sampling Techniques ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Complicated Process ◽  
Science Information

Consumers’ attitude toward GM science is not only an important factor to determine the industry’s development, it is also a crucial topic across various countries. How people express their judgment of GM science, involves a highly complicated process. Because of this complexity, influence on attitude toward GM science has become a popular research topic and has been examined through various variables. This study sought to examine the effects of critical thinking styles and perceived transparency of GM science on attitude toward GM science. To fulfill the purpose of the research, an online survey was conducted. A total of 1,047 adults across the United States were recruited using non-probability sampling techniques. The results of the study found critical thinking style had a significant impact on the perceived transparency of GM science information and attitude toward GM science. However, consumers with higher perceived transparency of GM science information reported lower attitudes toward GM science than those who had lower perceived transparency. An interaction effect of critical thinking styles and perceived transparency of GM science on attitude toward GM science was found. Further research examining perceived transparency was recommended. In addition, it was recommended that extension agents or agricultural communicators could develop various communication strategies based on various attribution of consumers. Keywords: genetic modification science, critical thinking styles, perceived transparency, attitude

scholarly journals Critical Thinking in Medical Education Missions

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
J Dwight Phillips ◽  
Mary Hermiz ◽  
Laura Smelter ◽  
James D Smith
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Medical Conditions ◽  
Cultural Training ◽  
Structured Systems ◽  
Cross Cultural Training ◽  
Language Communication

Critical thinking, an essential skill for the transformation of medical knowledge into practice, should be a key component of medical education, even in cross-cultural training situations.  Critical thinking is the use of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference as well as the explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment was based.  Critical thinking is important because the healthcare workplace and the science on which healthcare is based continue to advance and evolve. Those who teach healthcare cross-culturally may experience challenges in teaching critical thinking to cross-cultural learners, challenges in the areas of language/communication, cultural differences, customary education approach, and educator factors. The challenges may be identified, addressed, and overcome.  Tangible means of implementing training in critical thinking include the use of questions and discussions during educational sessions as well as structured systems for reflecting on causes and treatment of medical conditions. 

Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak?

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 604-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian Miu-Chi Lun ◽  
Ronald Fischer ◽  
Colleen Ward
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Thinking Style

A cross-cultural analysis of the modes and effectiveness of collaborative production of knowledge on Quora

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yumeng Peng ◽  
Xiang Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cultural Difference ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Cultural Analysis ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cultural Elements ◽  
Production Of Knowledge

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to investigate how cross-cultural elements such as cultural difference and stereotype are integrated into collaborative modes and actions and to explore their corresponding effectiveness.Design/methodology/approachThe sample of the quantitative content analysis is drawn from the posts with the topic of China on Quora. A collaborative case, where two users have a question-and-answer interaction, is taken as the unit of analysis. The effectiveness of collaboration is operationalized as the extent to which a collaboratively produced answer is visited and favorably reviewed, using the feedback index (the number of upvotes*1,000/views). One of the sampled collaborative cases is further analyzed qualitatively to see how cultural differences, stereotypes and other factors are incorporated into users' interaction.FindingsThis content analysis reveals nine modes of collaborative production of knowledge on Quora: initial questioning, pointed answering, raising doubts, responding to others, agreeing with others, correcting mistakes, enriching content, further questioning and extending issues. Diversity of the cross-cultural acts of collaborative production, particularly two of often-used collaborative actions, correcting stereotypes and supplementing cultural differences, helps to enhance overall collaborative effectiveness.Practical implicationsThis paper offers new perspectives and ideas for strategies to change socially problematic stereotypes, e.g. to correct stereotypes where necessary and use more convincing resources such as reliable images as collaborative actions to bridge cultural differences. It also calls on social Q&A website developers to create more international users-friendly design by providing various channels for users with diverse cultural backgrounds to interact with each other.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first to investigate online collaborative knowledge production within a broader cross-cultural context. Specifically, cultural factors and cross-cultural collaborative actions have been innovatively integrated into this research, enriching the dimensions that can be used for collaboration classification. It is helpful for users from different countries to actively adopting different strategies to overcome cultural differences, preconceptions and other negative factors that are not conducive to communication and knowledge acquisition.

scholarly journals Cultural Differences in Face Recognition and Potential Underlying Mechanisms

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Blais ◽  
Karina J. Linnell ◽  
Serge Caparos ◽  
Amanda Estéphan
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Face Processing ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Visual Processes ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

The ability to recognize a face is crucial for the success of social interactions. Understanding the visual processes underlying this ability has been the focus of a long tradition of research. Recent advances in the field have revealed that individuals having different cultural backgrounds differ in the type of visual information they use for face processing. However, the mechanisms that underpin these differences remain unknown. Here, we revisit recent findings highlighting group differences in face processing. Then, we integrate these results in a model of visual categorization developed in the field of psychophysics: the RAP framework. On the basis of this framework, we discuss potential mechanisms, whether face-specific or not, that may underlie cross-cultural differences in face perception.

scholarly journals Cross Cultural Differences in Cognition: A Study on How Culture Affects the Way We Think

SIASAT ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
Sharon Campbell- Phillips ◽  
Deb Proshad Halder ◽  
Serlange Campbell ◽  
Daneil Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Tertiary Level ◽  
Mental Process ◽  
Double Dissociation ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Different Cultures ◽  
The Way

Communication is the exchanging of information through speaking, writing and signals. It plays an important to our development; it is the dissemination of ideas, and information to persons. Cognition is our mental process in which we acquire knowledge and understanding, and this is done through our thoughts, our experiences, and our senses. Cultural differences involve what people’ believe how they behave, the language they speak, and their practices based on their ethnicity. Cross-cultural differences in cognition can be very effective to certain operations conducted by persons; however, it can also limit us based on our perspective.  To gather information and to understand how culture affects cognition and the way we think, questionnaires, surveys and experiments were used. Questionnaires were administered to tertiary level students, surveys were administered to teachers and experiments were conducted among students from various culture and background. The experiments were centered on visualization, focus and critical thinking. The purpose of this study is to investigate if cultural differences affect the way we think, and this double-dissociation is discussed in terms of implications for different developmental trajectories, with different developmental sub-tasks in the different cultures.

Thinking Styles among Technical Students in TVET: Differences in Thinking Styles by Students’ Demographic

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuraffefa Hamdan ◽  
◽  
Yee Mei Heong ◽  
Tee Tze Kiong ◽  
Badaruddin Ibrahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Creative Thinking ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Mean Frequency ◽  
Technical Students ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spss Software

A thinking style is the way an individual acquires, processes and organises information, as well as forming ideas and views, solving problems, making decisions and articulating self-expression. Each individual has his or her own style of thinking in learning, solving problems, or even in designing products. The purpose of this study is to analyse the pattern of Chua thinking styles among technical students. A total of 351 technical students comprising of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering students at Sultan Abdul Halim Muad’zam Shah Polytechnic were randomly selected as the study sample. The design of this study was a form of survey study using a quantitative approach. The Yan Piaw Creative-Critical Styles Test, developed by Chua (2004), was used as the research instrument. Data were analysed using SPSS software and presented in the form of mean, frequency, and percentage. The findings show that the dominant thinking style is the balanced thinking style, with 166 respondents (47.3%). It is followed by the critical thinking style in 153 respondents (43.6%) and the creative thinking style in 32 respondents (9.1%). However, none of the students has a high creative thinking style and a high critical thinking style. The findings also show that there is no statistically significant difference in Chua thinking styles by gender, age, years of study and field of study. In general, it can be concluded that technical students are most inclined to a balanced thinking style, which is to have a balanced thinking in terms of creative and critical thinking styles. As such, an individual’s thinking style will have an impact on learning to solve problems in product design.

scholarly journals Students' Critical Thinking Process in Solving Jumping Task According to Gregorc's Thinking Style

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-31
Author(s):  
Hobri Hobri ◽  
Samsul Arifin ◽  
Randi Pratama Murtikusuma ◽  
Ervin Oktavianingtyas ◽  
Inge Wiliandani Setya Putri
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Incomplete Information ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Critical Thinking Skills ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Thinking Style ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Thinking Process ◽  
Thinking Processes

Indonesian students are lacking in critical thinking skills, however, studies analyzing critical thinking processes and their relation to thinking styles are limited. This study aimed to describe students’ critical thinking processes in solving jumping task problems according to Gregorc's thinking style. The subjects of this present qualitative research were eight Year 7 students. The instruments included a thinking style questionnaire, tests, and interview guidelines. The results showed that concrete sequential subjects tended to write the completion stages sequentially and analyzed them well. Abstract sequential subjects were inclined to solve the problems based on the known concepts without completing the work. Concrete random subjects tended to write information in their own way without completing their work. Meanwhile, abstract random subjects were inclined to write incomplete information and did not complete their work. Generally, based on the IDEALS model, the two sequential subjects were similar in the identity, define, and enumerate steps, while the two random subjects only had similarities in the identity step. This study results imply that jumping tasks can be used as an alternative in developing students’ critical thinking skills.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document