To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use?

Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use?夽 Emmanuel Manalo a,∗ , Takashi Kusumi b , Masuo Koyasu b , Yasushi Michita c , Yuko Tanaka d a b c d

Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan Research Organization of Information and Systems, Tokyo, Japan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 July 2012 Received in revised form 14 July 2013 Accepted 26 August 2013 Available online xxx Keywords: Critical thinking Cultural influences University students Self-construal Self-regulatory modes

a b s t r a c t This study sought to elucidate some aspects of the relationship between culture and critical thinking by examining whether a number of culture-related factors might relate to university students’ reported use of critical thinking. The participants were 363 undergraduate university students from Kyoto and Okinawa in Japan, and Auckland in New Zealand. They completed a questionnaire that assessed critical thinking use and the following factors: study self-efficacy, regulatory mode (assessment/locomotion), and selfconstrual (independence/interdependence). Critical thinking use was found to correlate with study self-efficacy, locomotion, assessment, and independent self-construal. The Auckland students scored higher than both Japanese student groups in those factors, except for assessment (in which the groups did not differ). In contrast, the Okinawa students scored higher than the other two groups in interdependent self-construal. No differences were found between the groups on reported critical thinking use. A model, which produced an acceptable fit to the data, is proposed in which self-construal influences regulatory mode and study self-efficacy, and these in turn influence critical thinking. Together, these findings suggest that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use, but that differences in those factors need not necessarily equate to locational group differences in critical thinking use. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Critical thinking can be defined as “skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and argumentation” (Fisher & Scriven, 1997, p. 21). There are simpler definitions: for example, Ennis (1962, p. 81) concisely put it as “correct assessing of statements.” But there are also more complicated aspects to explaining the concept: for example, Yanchar, Slife, and Warne (2008) argued that critical thinking is “inescapably perspectival” (p. 276), meaning that it cannot overlook the “identification and evaluation of implicit theoretical assumptions” (p. 265); and West, Toplak, and Stanovich (2008) emphasized that, when thinking critically, evidence and arguments need to be evaluated

夽 Data collection for this study was carried out when the first author was working at the University of Auckland. ∗ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Science and Engineering, Bldg 51 Rm 5-09B, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan. Tel.: +81 90 6672 2075. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Manalo). 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003

122

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

independent of prior beliefs and opinions that one may hold. Halpern (1998) also pointed out that critical thinking is “an attitude or disposition to recognize when a skill is needed and the willingness to apply it” (p. 452). Irrespective of the definition that is used, there appears to be general agreement that critical thinking is a desirable attribute in academic settings, and that its development ought to be facilitated in students. Halpern and Nummedal (1995, p. 82) observed that “assignments that develop critical thinking skills . . . have taken center stage in many of our classrooms.” There are clear indications that such developments have occurred across different subject disciplines: in medicine, for example, Scott and Markert (1994, p. 920) noted that “generally, it is held that medical education trains students to use critical thinking skills in active problem solving regarding patient care,” and in engineering, Siller (2001, p. 108) argued that the “development of students’ abilities to think critically about engineering problems and design projects is an important educational objective.” Educators and researchers generally agree that critical thinking as a skill can be developed in students (see, e.g., Halpern & Nummedal, 1995). However, generally accepted guidelines for the effective promotion of critical thinking skills development are lacking. One important reason for the absence of such guidelines is that there are many different factors believed to influence students’ critical thinking skills development and application. Without adequate understanding of how these various factors may influence critical thinking, it is difficult to confidently design programs for promoting critical thinking skills development that would address individual or shared needs of target groups of students. Culture and culture-related factors constitute one of the debated factors that may influence students’ capabilities in, and use of, critical thinking. Some authors have argued that critical thinking is more difficult for some cultural groups. For example, some Asian student groups (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) have been characterized as being more grouporiented, harmony-seeking, hierarchical, and non-critical thinking in comparison to students from Western cultures who are characterized as being more individualistic, adversarial, non-hierarchical, and critical thinking (e.g., Atkinson, 1997; Fox, 1994; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996). Other authors, however, have disagreed with such a view. Paton (2005), for example, referred to cases drawn from the history of science in China to illustrate the extent to which critical thinking is well embedded in traditional Chinese culture. Stapleton (2002) reported evidence that Japanese undergraduate students generally had a firm grasp of the requirements of critical thought and were capable of expressing opinions contrary to those held by authority figures. His findings were congruent with those of other researchers who have examined the quality of Japanese students’ writing and found that individual differences, rather than notions of sociocultural patterns, were more important determinants of “critical thought” and other measures of quality in students’ work (e.g., Kubota, 1998; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). 1.1. Independent and interdependent self-construals The question remains, however, as to whether there are certain cultural influences that affect not so much an individual’s understanding of critical thinking but his or her predisposition to apply it in different settings. One theory that has been quite influential in promoting the notion of psychological differences between Western and non-Western cultures is Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. The term “self-construal” pertains to people’s interpretation or view of their own self, including their understanding of themselves as being physically distinct from others (cf. Hallowell, 1955) and their perceptions of that self in relation to the physical environment (cf. Neisser, 1976). According to Markus and Kitayama, culture plays a crucial role in determining the content and structure of that notion of self, including how the self relates to others. Their theory proposes that people from Western cultures have more independent self-construals. In essence, this means that their behavior is “organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to [their] own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and actions, rather than by reference to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others” (p. 226). In contrast, people from many non-Western cultures have more interdependent self-construals. This basically means that they view themselves as part of “an encompassing social relationship” and recognize that their behavior is “determined, contingent on, and to a large extent organized” (p. 227) by what they perceive as the thoughts, feelings, and actions of significant others. An individual’s self-construal could conceivably have significant consequences for his or her cognition. Markus and Kitayama (1991) referred to authors like Bloom (1981, 1984) who have noted Chinese participants’ apparent difficulty in cognitive activities that require taking a counterfactual perspective. As Markus and Kitayama pointed out, however, it may not have been that the Chinese participants experienced difficulties in counterfactual reasoning per se but that, coming from a more interdependent orientation, they applied counterfactual thinking skills more selectively. In other words, they could have simply placed greater emphasis on the pragmatic implications of the situation they were in, considering questions about the expectations on themselves and the potential ramifications of answering in one way or another on their relationship with the test administrator. Critical thinking skills, or more specifically its application, could likewise be affected by an individual’s orientation toward independence or interdependence. Critical thinking, by necessity, requires making judgment calls about the quality of presented information, and in most situations such judgment calls cannot be entirely divorced from the social context. If Markus and Kitayama (1991) were correct in their views about interdependent individuals and cultures then it is likely that, similar to the other aspects of cognition they discussed, there will be consequences on the application of critical thought. The interdependent individual will at the very least need to consider the appropriateness of exercising critical thought in the situation they encounter, of voicing any judgments they make, or of even being called upon to make such judgments. Even if they possess the necessary understanding and skills for critical thinking, they would likely be selective when to exercise this

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

123

skill. Markus and Kitayama pointed out that, in an interdependent culture, “people are motivated to find a way to fit in with relevant others, . . . to become part of various interpersonal relationships” (p. 227) and “self-assertion is not viewed as being authentic, but instead as being immature” (p. 229). Hence various expressions of critical thought in such an environment could be interpreted negatively, making caution indispensable. 1.2. Assessment and locomotion regulatory modes Another culture-related factor that could have a bearing on people’s critical thinking use is “regulatory mode” (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Higgins, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2008; Kruglanski et al., 2000). According to the regulatory mode theory, people are pulled by two basic self-regulatory functions: assessment and locomotion. Assessment pertains to “the comparative aspect of self-regulation concerned with critically evaluating entities or states, such as goals and means, in relation to alternatives in order to judge relative quality,” while locomotion pertains to “the aspect of self-regulation concerned with movement from state to state and with committing the psychological resources that will initiate and maintain goal-related movement in a straightforward and direct manner” (Kruglanski et al., 2000, p. 794). Thus, individuals who are high in assessment mode tend to be concerned with weighing up alternatives, evaluating past performance, and critically evaluating different means to achieving desired goals. In contrast, those high in locomotion mode are more focused on taking expeditious action toward achieving the desired goals. Higgins (2008) and Higgins et al. (2008) proposed that culture impacts on the relative distribution of individuals tending toward either the assessment or locomotion modes, and these tendencies in turn impact on cultural leanings toward certain personality traits. For example, they pointed to evidence that in Japan individuals are more likely to be “predominant assessment” compared to the US where individuals are more likely to be “predominant locomotion,” If the regulatory mode theory is correct, and individuals possess varying degrees of tendency toward assessment and locomotion according to their cultural affiliation, there could be consequences not just for modal personality characteristics but also modal use of certain cognitive strategies such as critical thinking. Assessment involves evaluating and comparing, which are essential components of critical thinking. Individuals who are predominant assessment are characterized as deploying greater resources (i.e., time, effort) into evaluating alternatives and drawing on past experiences and knowledge in making decisions about courses of action to take: such qualities are congruent with common definitions of critical thinking. If, according to the assertions of Higgins (2008) and Higgins et al. (2008), there are greater proportions of assessment predominant individuals in some cultures, then this could imply that individuals belonging to those cultures would also be more prone toward critical thinking. According to Higgins et al., compared to other cultures, they found a significantly higher percentage of predominant assessment individuals in Japan. This would suggest that, as a group, the Japanese would demonstrate higher levels of critical thinking compared to other cultures. However, as noted earlier, other authors (e.g., Atkinson, 1997; Fox, 1994; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996) have argued that Japanese people are among those who are less predisposed toward critical thinking compared to people from Western cultures. Thus, there are important, seemingly incongruent, propositions here that need to be examined: Does a tendency toward assessment in self-regulation predispose individuals toward critical thinking use, or do other factors play a more influential role in determining such a predisposition? 1.3. Overview of the present study The main question addressed in this study was: To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use? Even though a few studies have already examined differences between cultural groups on critical thinking measures, participant language proficiency accounted for at least part of the observed differences in these earlier studies (e.g., Floyd, 2011; Lun, Fischer, & Ward, 2010). Furthermore, these previous studies did not focus on the specific aspects of culture that could bring about differences in students’ critical thinking use. Thus, in the present study, the possible relationships of both regulatory mode and independent-interdependent self-construals on critical thinking use were investigated. In addition, two other factors were examined for their possible links to critical thinking use: location, and study self-efficacy. A student’s location has implications on the degree to which he or she may be exposed to diversity experiences. Numerous authors have argued that diversity experiences are important to the development of critical thinking skills (e.g., Gurin, 2009; Hurtado, 1999; Pascarella, Palmer, Moye, & Pierson, 2001), although evidence has been reported that the benefits vary according to ethnic identity, with students of color not benefitting as directly from involvement in diversity experiences as white students (Pascarella et al., 2001). Thus, the present authors deemed it important to examine not only whether the location of students could impact on their critical thinking use, but also the extent to which “location” might interact with other factors in influencing critical thinking use. Another important issue about location relates to possible variations in the extent to which values associated with critical thinking might be promoted in educational settings. In Western tertiary institutions, the importance placed on the development of critical thinking as a skill is evident in official documents pertaining to educational aspirations, such as the Association of American Colleges and University’s “College learning for the new global century” (2007) and, in New Zealand, the University of Auckland’s (2003) “graduate profile” (i.e., the University’s list of personal qualities, skills, and attributes that its graduating students would be expected to have developed). In the former, critical thinking is referred to as one of the essential skills, alongside writing and math, that students need to develop; and in the latter, critical thinking is listed as one of the

124

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

“general intellectual skills and capacities” students would be expected to obtain by the end of their undergraduate degree. In some non-Western countries, however, critical thinking skills may be valued but they may not be designated as necessary for students to develop. In Japan, for example, the education system places equal value (as in other countries) on the development of students’ thinking skills. Critical thinking, however, is not specified as a skill that students need to develop. For example, the Central Council for Education of Japan’s MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), in its report entitled “Toward the enhancement of undergraduate education,” described the competencies that students ought to develop through a university bachelor’s degree. The competencies, based on generic skills (communication skills, logical thinking, and problem solving skills), knowledge/understanding, and comprehensive learning and its application (MEXT, 2009), did not specify critical thinking. Likewise, the Global Human Resource Development Committee of the IndustryAcademia Partnership for Human Resource Development of Japan’s METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) proposed a set of fundamental competencies that working persons should possess. The set of competencies includes thinking skills, basic social skills, and execution skills (METI, 2010) – but again, critical thinking was not specified. Thus, it is possible that, despite critical thinking skills development being apparently considered important worldwide, locational differences like these could still result in students forming different views about the kinds of thinking skills they really must develop through their studies. Although self-esteem is the factor that has often been examined in cross-cultural comparisons (e.g., both Higgins et al., 2008 and Markus & Kitayama, 1991, discuss self-esteem in relation to their theoretical proposals), when considering students’ use of critical thinking it would appear more appropriate to attempt to understand the extent to which a related construct, study self-efficacy, may have an influencing effect. Previous research studies on self-efficacy have indicated that students who believe in their own capabilities are more likely to use cognitive strategies (e.g., Schunk, 1985; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), and self-efficacy has been identified as one of the best predictors of student academic performance (e.g., Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). However, Eaton and Dembo (1997) found that for Asian American students fear of failure better explained achievement motivation than did self-efficacy beliefs – suggesting possible differences between cultural-ethnic groups in the effects that motivational beliefs elicit. Likewise, not only could there be cultural differences in the overall extent to which self-efficacy beliefs are manifested by students, but also in the ways in which such beliefs might relate to students’ critical thinking use.

2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants were 363 undergraduate university students who voluntarily completed the questionnaire used in this study. Their mean age was 19.2 years (SD = 2.4 years); 208 were males and 155 were females. The participants were studying at universities in Kyoto (n = 173; mean age = 18.9 years, SD = 1.4 years; females = 54, males = 119) and Okinawa (n = 103; mean age = 19.2, SD = 1.9 years; females = 41, males = 62) in Japan, and in Auckland (n = 87; mean age = 19.9 years, SD = 4.0 years; females = 60, males = 27) in New Zealand. The students from Auckland were of mixed ethnicity, comprising 52% European, 39% Asian, and 9% Polynesian (including Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand). However, the students from Kyoto and Okinawa were more homogenous in ethnic composition: all were of Japanese heritage and most, if not all, would have been born and raised in Japan (as would be typical of most Japanese students and the Japanese population in general). In both Japan and New Zealand, students do move to other cities for educational purposes (especially to pursue studies in specialist subject fields), but the majority of students tend to choose a university within their local area or closest major city. Thus, the majority of the students in the locational groupings of this study would likely have come from each of those respective cities and surrounding areas. Participation from Japanese and New Zealand students was solicited in the present study because students from these locations would be considered as operating in Eastern/Asian (non-Western) and Western cultures, which are the broad cultural groupings of interest in the study. Caution, however, needs to be taken in generalizing findings from previous studies to specific subgroups within these broad cultural groupings. For example, findings about self-efficacy beliefs among Asian American students (Eaton & Dembo, 1997) cannot simply be assumed to apply also to other Asian student groups, such as Japanese students. It is important to empirically verify the extent to which such findings might also apply to other groups. Considerable variation could also exist within such groups even on other culture-linked variables such as ethnicity. For example, in the present study, although New Zealand is considered as a Western country, Auckland is a culturally diverse city, as is now typical of many Western cosmopolitan cities like New York, London, and Sydney. Students in Auckland come not only from a European heritage but also Asian and Polynesian ethnic backgrounds, as indicated by the proportions belonging to these groups in the Auckland sample noted above. Consideration of possible culture-linked variations was in fact behind the decision to solicit participants from two locations in Japan as, although people in Kyoto and Okinawa would share many aspects of the Japanese culture, their environments are quite different. Kyoto is a bigger and in many ways more modern city, but at the same time is considered as one of the best traditionally preserved cities in Japan with many temples and shrines, and traditional gardens and architecture that have survived wars and other disasters over the years. In contrast, Okinawa comprises hundreds of the Ryukyu Islands in southern Japan with a population that is more ethnically diverse,

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

125

being geographically close to China and other East Asian countries. Since 1945, the US has also had prominent military bases in Okinawa. One of the basic ideas behind Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construal is that cultures that have a Confucian philosophical heritage tend to place greater emphasis on people’s interrelatedness – leading to their tendency toward interdependent self-construal. Confucianism, however, is more commonly associated with China, where it originated, rather than Japan. It is therefore useful to note here that, since its introduction to Japan in the mid-6th century, Confucianism has had a major influence on Japanese culture and society, from its language and education, to ethical beliefs and political thought (e.g., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012). Thus, examining self-construal and its possible link to critical thinking use among Japanese students was considered appropriate in the present study. 2.2. Instrument and procedure The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire. It was presented in the Japanese language to participants in Japan, and in English to participants in New Zealand. Double back translation was used in translating items to Japanese or English as required (i.e., for items from scales that had not previously been translated to Japanese or English). The cover page of the questionnaire booklet provided a brief description of the study and reassurance of confidentiality, and requested participants to supply demographic details. The remainder of the booklet contained the questionnaire items which all required responses on Likert-type scales. These items are briefly described below. Critical thinking scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) (5 items). This scale (from hereon referred to as CT-MSLQ) was included as one measure of critical thinking because of its brevity and alignment with generally accepted notions of critical thinking applications in academic settings. Hirayama and Kusumi’s (2004) critical thinking scale (18 items). This scale (from hereon referred to as CT-HK) consists of nine items drawn from the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI; Facione & Facione, 1992), eight items from the “Orientation toward critical thinking scale for Japanese undergraduates” devised by Hirooka, Motoyoshi, Ogawa, and Saito (2001), and one new item. Its items focus on assessing four components of critical thinking: the use of a logical or systematic approach, inquisitiveness, objectivity, and reliance on evidence. The Hirayama and Kusumi scale was included in the present study particularly because it had been developed to assess critical thinking use among Asian (Japanese) students – in contrast to other more widely used critical thinking scales that have been developed in Western academic contexts. As such, the scale to some extent reflects Asian cultural perspectives about critical thinking, while at the same time not deviating from generally accepted notions of what critical thinking use in academic environments entails. (As the Hirayama and Kusumi scale is not readily available in the English language, a list of its items is included in Appendix 1.) Self-efficacy for learning and performance scale of the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991) (8 items). This scale was included instead of other self-efficacy scales because of its brevity and direct relevance to academic settings. Locomotion and assessment scales (Kruglanski et al., 2000) (24 items). These items were used to assess participants’ regulatory mode tendencies. Assessment of independent and interdependent self-construals (Uchida, Park, & Kitayama, 2008) (20 items). These included seven items from Singelis’ (1994) scale for the measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. The other 13 items were drawn from the Takata, Omoto, and Seike (1996) scale, and concerned preferences and situations that may more effectively distinguish culturally-based leanings toward independence or interdependence for Japanese. This self-construal scale has previously been used in empirical research that includes consideration of possible independence-interdependence differences between cultural groups (e.g., Park & Kitayama, 2012). Items from two other scales were included in the questionnaire administered to participants. However, because Cronbach reliability coefficients obtained for these scales were very low (indicating that the items were not reliably measuring what they were intended to), and in the interest of brevity in writing this report, a decision was made to exclude details relating to these scales from this report. 3. Results 3.1. Correlational findings Table 1 shows the correlations between the measures of critical thinking and other factors examined in this study, including their Cronbach reliability coefficients. Based on the U.S. Department of Labor (1999) guidelines for testing and assessment (which states that reliability coefficients equal to or greater than .70 can be considered adequate), these reliability coefficients were deemed satisfactory. All ˛ values were above .70, except for interdependence (˛ = .694); however, this was considered sufficiently close to the stipulated ˛ value, and excluding interdependence from discussions of self-construal would not have been meaningful. The significant correlation between CT-MSLQ and CT-HK indicates congruence between the two measures used to assess critical thinking. Self-efficacy significantly correlated with both CT-MSLQ and CT-HK, suggesting a relationship between selfefficacy and critical thinking. Where the self-regulatory mode measures were concerned, both locomotion and assessment correlated with the two measures of critical thinking, suggesting that both forms of self-regulation relate to critical thinking.

126

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

Table 1 Summary of correlations between critical thinking and other measures taken, with the Cronbach ˛ value for each measure shown in brackets in the diagonal. Measures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. CT-MSLQ 2. CT-HK 3. Self-efficacy 4. Locomotion 5. Assessment 6. Independence 7. Interdependence

(.748) .508** .240** .303** .158** .345** −.116*

(.714) .238** .431** .144** .370** .017

(.941) .382* .025 .402** −.186**

(.741) .079 .469** −.007

(.724) .016 .183**

(.733) −.261

(.694)

N = 363. * p < .05. ** p < .01 Table 2 Differences in scores (means and standard deviations) in critical thinking and the other factors according to location. Measures

CT-MSLQ CT-HK Self-efficacy Assessment Locomotion Independence Interdependence * ** ***

Location

Bonferroni test results

Kyoto n = 173

Okinawa n = 103

Auckland n = 87

M SD M SD

4.46 1.08 3.59 .48

4.40 1.06 3.66 .47

4.61 1.19 3.91 .53

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

2.88 1.05 3.97 .61 3.49 .73 3.20 .59 3.58 .51

3.08 1.16 3.89 .69 3.48 .63 3.11 .59 3.87 .54

5.01 1.16 3.93 .73 4.03 .71 3.67 .53 3.47 .52

Auckland > Kyoto*** , Okinawa***

Auckland > Okinawa** , Kyoto** Auckland > Okinawa** , Kyoto* Okinawa > Auckland*** , Kyoto***

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Where independent and interdependent self-construals were concerned, independence was found to significantly correlate with the two measures of critical thinking, while interdependence only significantly negatively correlated with MSLQ-CT. These findings suggest a relationship between independent self-construal and critical thinking; but interdependent selfconstrual appears unrelated or even negatively related to critical thinking. 3.2. Comparisons of the student groups Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the measures of critical thinking and other factors examined in this study, for the Kyoto, Okinawa, and Auckland student groups. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to compare the scores of the three groups. Two variables, age and gender, were not focused on in this study, but they were considered as potential confounding variables (see, e.g., McMillan, 1987; Walsh & Hardy, 1999) and were therefore entered into the analyses as covariates. That way, their possible bias or confounding effects on the results could be eliminated (see, e.g., Field, 2013). The Bonferroni multiple range test was performed on all main effects to identify where the differences were between the groups; the results of this test are also indicated in the right-most column of Table 2. Where the critical thinking measures were concerned, no significant main effects were found: for CT-MSLQ, F(2, 355) = .40, p = .672; for CT-HK, F(2, 354) = 2.73, p = .067. The effect due to CT-HK was marginally significant (i.e., p < .10), and the Bonferroni test result showed that the Auckland students scored marginally higher on that scale compared to the Kyoto students, p = .082. Where the other factors measured were concerned, significant main effects were found for the following: self-efficacy, F(2, 354) = 42.27, p < .001; the locomotion self-regulatory mode, F(2, 353) = 6.19, p = .002; independent self-construal, F(2, 355) = 5.12, p = .006; and interdependent self-construal, F(2, 355) = 11.98, p < .001. M, SD, and the Bonferroni test results for these significant effects are shown in Table 2. No significant main effect was found for the assessment self-regulatory mode, F(2, 353) = .37, n.s. The significant differences indicate that students from Auckland scored higher in self-efficacy, locomotion self-regulation, and independent self-construal than students from both Kyoto and Okinawa. In contrast, students from Okinawa scored higher in interdependent self-construal compared to the students from Auckland and Kyoto.

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

127

Fig. 1. Standardized path coefficients of the model depicting the hypothesized relationships between critical thinking and the culture-related factors investigated.

3.3. Structural equation modeling Multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) was undertaken using AMOS (ver. 16) to examine possible relationships between critical thinking and the culture-related factors considered in this study. The variables shown are residuals in a regression analysis in which gender and age were used for controlling covariance. Fig. 1 displays the hypothesized relationships between the key measurements taken. For the sake of clarity, residual values for all exogenous variables have been omitted. The model embodies the following hypothesis. First, independence/interdependence in self-construal would be linked to regulatory mode and self-efficacy. These latter factors in turn would be linked directly or indirectly to a general critical thinking factor, which is a latent variable (cf. Bollen, 2002) estimated in the model from the two measures of critical thinking used in this study. The general critical thinking factor would then link to or predict performance on those two measures of critical thinking. The model shown in Fig. 1 produced an acceptable fit to the data, with CFI = .885, IFI = .903, Hoelter (.05) CN = 216, RMSEA = .066, and 2 (24) = 61.5, p < .01. The CFI value of .885 is actually just under the .90 or higher index value that Bentler (1995) considered as indicative of a good fit between data and hypothesized model, but both the IFI (>.90) and RMSEA (<.08) values can be considered as being indicative of at least an acceptable fit (cf. Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger, 1990). Although the Chi-square test produced a significant p value, suggesting the data did not fit the model well (cf. Schumaker & Lomax, 1996), the 2 /df ratio equalled 2.56, which is below 3 and is therefore indicative of an acceptable fit once sample size has been accounted for (see Kline, 2005). Furthermore, the Hoelter (.05) CN value (which exceeds 200) points to a good fit between data and hypothesized model (cf. Byrne, 2010). The standardized path coefficients for the participants from Kyoto, Okinawa, and Auckland are shown at the top, middle, and bottom of the coefficient clusters, respectively. Some of these coefficients indicate similarities between the three groups: for all three groups, independence appears moderately linked to locomotion, which in turn is also moderately linked to the general critical thinking factor. On the other hand, interdependence appears to have a weak to moderate link to assessment. Furthermore, the coefficients linking the general critical thinking factor to the two measures of critical thinking used (CTMSLQ and CT-HK) appear to be of similar high magnitude for all three groups. There are also some apparent differences, although most of these did not reach significant levels. The negative link between independence and interdependence is significantly different for the Kyoto and Okinawa groups, with the coefficient from the Kyoto students being of greater magnitude. Assessment appears to be more strongly linked to the general critical thinking factor for the Okinawa group compared to the other two groups. Furthermore, for the Auckland group, self-efficacy appears to mediate the link between locomotion and the general critical thinking factor more strongly compared to the other two groups. For the Auckland group, interdependence also appears to have a negligible link to self-efficacy, while the link is a weak, negative one for the Kyoto and Okinawa groups. 4. Discussion 4.1. Relationships between critical thinking factors and other factors measured The relationships found between self-efficacy and both the critical thinking measures used are congruent with previous claims that students’ confidence in their own capabilities is related to cognitive strategies use (e.g., Schunk, 1985; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). However, apart from Pintrich et al.’s (1991) report of a significant correlation between the self-efficacy and critical thinking scale of the MSLQ (confirmed by the findings of this research), no previous studies had reported evidence to link these two constructs. It would be important in future research to determine the exact nature of this relationship between self-efficacy and critical thinking: if a causal relationship between the two is confirmed, then it

128

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

would be useful to consider and evaluate possible ways of enhancing self-efficacy to promote critical thinking use – or vice versa. The finding that independent self-construal significantly correlated with both critical thinking measurements used lends support to Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) argument that self-construal affects not only social behavior but also the exercise of some cognitive skills and strategies. Likewise, the finding of significant correlations between both locomotion and assessment regulatory modes and the two measurements of critical thinking used supports Higgins and colleagues’ claim about the influence of self-regulatory modes on cognition and related actions (Higgins et al., 2003, 2008; Kruglanski et al., 2000). Together, these findings constitute new evidence of a link between culture-related constructs (i.e., self-construal, and selfregulatory modes) and students’ use of critical thinking. 4.2. Similarities in critical thinking use The results of this study suggest little or no difference between the three groups in their academic use of critical thinking. No differences were found in the CT-MSLQ, and only a marginal difference was found between the Auckland and Kyoto groups where the CT-HK was concerned. This finding supports some authors’ argument that cultural differences do not affect students’ understanding of or ability to use critical thinking (e.g., Paton, 2005; Stapleton, 2002). As noted earlier, critical thinking and its applications in academic work have increasingly become considered as central to a good education in most countries worldwide. It is therefore possible that critical thinking qualities such as those noted above have now become integral components of what a university education promotes – irrespective of the culture or location of that education provision, and despite some locational differences in the extent to which development of critical thinking skills in educational contexts is portrayed as being “necessary” (noted earlier). The effect of such promulgation of critical thinking values in academia may be reflected in the results obtained in the present study. Several factors that had previously been suggested as possible sources of observed differences in critical thinking skills performance between student groups (i.e., language, gender, age; cf. Floyd, 2011; Lun et al., 2010; McMillan, 1987; Walsh & Hardy, 1999) were controlled for in the present study. The questionnaire administered to students were in the native or dominant language used in each of the locations, making it less likely for language proficiency issues to have affected student performance in completing the scales. Both gender and age were factored in as covariates in the statistical analyses undertaken so that possible biases arising from them could be eliminated. What the results suggest is that, once language, gender, and age have been controlled for, little or no differences in critical thinking use could be observed according to locational or Western/non-Western groupings of students. Although examining possible ethnicity-based differences within multi-ethnic student groups (like the Auckland group in the present study) could conceivably be useful to pursue in future research, the present authors do not consider it likely that ethnicity in itself would be a major influencing factor in students’ use of thinking skills such as critical thinking. In the present study, for example, it would be untenable to attribute the lack of group differences in reported critical thinking use to the mixed ethnic composition of the Auckland student group. Even though that group comprised of students of European, Asian, and Polynesian ethnic extraction, the group as a whole manifested self-efficacy, self-construal, and regulatory mode profiles aligned with previous portrayals of Western (as opposed to non-Western) people – as one could expect given that the students in that group were all operating in a predominantly Western cultural environment. In those measures, the Auckland students differed significantly from both Japanese student groups; it was only in the critical thinking measures that they did not differ. Hence, rather than that lack of difference being attributable to the Auckland group being inadequately “Western” because of the group’s mixed ethnic composition, it is more likely that (a) there is in fact no difference between Western and non-Western student groups in critical thinking use once other extraneous factors like language and gender have been accounted for, or (b) the critical thinking skills measurements employed in the present study might not have been sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in actual use between the groups – as explained below. The critical thinking measurements used in this study were based on student self reports about how they think and what they do, rather than directly evaluating the extent to which the students manifest critical thinking qualities in academic work they produce. It is therefore conceivable, with the promulgation of critical thinking ideals in tertiary institutions worldwide noted above, that at least some of the students provided responses based on what they knew they ought to do or think – which may differ from what they would actually do or think when faced with actual tasks that require the application of critical thinking skills. It would therefore be useful in future investigations to seek verification of the present study’s findings by obtaining and comparing direct measurements of critical thinking skills application in students’ authentic classroom tasks. 4.3. Similarities and differences in the culture-related factors The results of this study indicate that the student groups according to their respective locations (Kyoto, Okinawa, and Auckland) differed in their scores on all the culture-related factors examined, except for the assessment self-regulation mode. The lack of significant difference between the groups on assessment self-regulation is contrary to Higgins (2008) and Higgins et al.’s (2008) reported observations of higher proportions of predominant assessment individuals in Japan. The present finding, however, may be due to the fact that the participants were all students and the predispositions associated with assessment (i.e., deployment of greater time and effort into evaluating alternatives, drawing on knowledge and past

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

129

experiences to make decisions) are exactly the kinds of predispositions that formal education typically cultivates in university students irrespective of where that education is provided. Hence, it may simply be that university students around the world score more or less equivalently on assessment self-regulation and as a group they may not necessarily reflect the tendencies in the wider population they belong to: this possibility warrants verification in future research. The findings that, compared to the students from the two Japanese cities, students from Auckland possessed higher study self-efficacy, were more predisposed toward locomotion self-regulation, and were higher in their independent selfconstrual, confirm other authors’ previous claims about thinking process/approach differences between people from Western and Eastern/Asian cultures (e.g., Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Higgins et al., 2008; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As noted earlier, previous research in cultural differences have focused more on the construct of self-esteem rather than self-efficacy – noting both differences in how self-esteem is conceptualized between Western and Eastern perspectives (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and the lower self-esteem scores of individuals in Japan compared to their counterparts in the US (Higgins et al., 2008). The finding in the present study that both Japanese groups scored lower than the New Zealand group in study self-efficacy suggests that a similar difference exists between Western and Eastern cultural groups in the extent to which this construct is manifested. The results regarding interdependent self-construal, with the students from Okinawa manifesting higher scores compared to the student groups from both Auckland and Kyoto, are incongruent with notions about differences between Western and Eastern cultures. Until further investigations are carried out, the present authors can only speculate as to the possible reasons. Environmental influences constitute one viable explanation. Although both Okinawa and Kyoto are in Japan, as noted earlier, the cities are quite different, including the more prominent American presence in Okinawa with the US military bases that are located there. This kind of foreign military presence is absent in both Kyoto and Auckland. These latter two cities are also comparable in size and bigger than cities in Okinawa. It is possible that environmental features like these could have contributed to the manifested differences between the student groups. For example, that people who live under military presence such as the one in Okinawa may become more sensitive to issues concerning interdependent relationships between peoples; or that those who live in larger, more urban communities may have comparatively limited opportunities to appreciate the potential benefits associated with the development of interdependent relationships.

4.4. Some theoretical and educational implications There is an apparent contradiction in the findings of the present study that needs to be reconciled. On the one hand, culture-related factors have been found to correlate with students’ critical thinking scores; furthermore, the students, according to their locational groupings, were found to differ in their scores on these factors. On the other hand, however, the student groups manifested little or no differences (only one marginal difference) in their critical thinking scores. The proposed model, shown in Fig. 1, provides one explanation that enables reconciliation of these seemingly incongruent findings. The model proposes that self-construal, regulatory mode, and self-efficacy all have an influence on students’ critical thinking use, but that the student groups differ in the relative extent to which those factors exert their influence. For example, the impetus for critical thinking appears to come mainly from locomotion self-regulation and self-efficacy for the Auckland students while, for the Okinawa students, it appears to come from both locomotion and interdependence-driven assessment self-regulation. The model further suggests that these differences in influencing factors do not lead to any differences in students’ ability to use critical thinking. In other words, the impetus for critical thinking could come from various combinations of these factors (and possibly others not included in the model), and a reduction in the exerting influence of one could possibly lead to a compensating increase in another. This model raises questions about what critical thinking might mean to different groups of students and the extent to which culture might influence such views. For example, Western students might exercise critical thinking primarily in pursuit of desired goals and as a manifestation of their self-efficacy. In contrast, Asian (and possibly other non-Western) students might use critical thinking more as a reflective tool to weigh up alternatives, to learn from past experiences, and to better manage relationships with significant others within their environments. Such differences and their possible theoretical and educational implications (e.g., on the quality of critical thinking outputs) would be important to elucidate in future research. A related and more practical question is how tertiary level instructors and institutional management and policy makers might view critical thinking, and the extent to which differences in such views might influence the ways in which students apply critical thinking to their academic work. It has already been noted in an earlier part of this paper that, unlike many Western countries, in Japan critical thinking is not specifically articulated as a skill that students need to develop in their studies. Differences in such kinds of requirements are, however, likely to be present also between instructors: some would expect their students to evidence critical thinking in the work they produce, while others would not – or at least would not articulate that as a requirement. Furthermore, for different instructors, what constitutes critical thinking and how it could be assessed in the work that students produce would vary. If critical thinking is really as important to develop through education as appears to be the case in tertiary level education worldwide, finding out instructors’ and institutional decision makers’ views about this skill/concept would be just as important as finding out the views that students hold. Instructors’ and decision makers’ views and expectations, and how those are conveyed to students, may hold the key to promoting effective development of critical thinking skills among students.

130

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

5. Conclusion The main purpose of the present study was to address the question: To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use? The findings indicate that the student groups examined, coming from Western and Asian cultural environments, did not differ in their reported use of critical thinking. This suggests two possible explanations that are not necessarily incongruent or independent of each other. The first is that culture does not in fact have a direct bearing on students’ use of critical thinking – in line with claims that have previously been made by some authors (e.g., Paton, 2005; Stapleton, 2002). The second is that perhaps the educational environment – and particularly the kinds of skills and values that are nurtured in such an environment – has a greater influence on students’ use of critical thinking. It would be important to more carefully examine in future research the nature of the relationship between cultural influences and environmental influences, not just where students’ use of critical thinking is concerned, but also their use of other cognitive skills and strategies. Especially in the increasingly globalized education environments where most teachers and students now operate, there are many academic values and expectations that are becoming common or shared across cultures/environments. It would be inappropriate to make untested assumptions about what skills and strategies students may possess, or may find difficult to develop, based on their cultural background. At the same time, educators need to develop strategies to more effectively promote the development and use of desired cognitive skills among students – strategies that would work in general, as well as possibly to address the specific needs of particular groups of students. In the present study, possible confounding effects from participants’ gender and age (cf. McMillan, 1987; Walsh & Hardy, 1999) were able to be controlled for so that biases that could have arisen from these variables were eliminated from the results. However, information relating to other variables (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES], subject majors) that could have had confounding effects on the results was not gathered (or not gathered in an adequately systematic manner) from participants and therefore not able to be controlled for in the analyses. As previous studies have shown that SES in particular can affect students’ intelligence test scores and other measures of school performance (e.g., Charters, 1963, chap. 14), it is conceivable it can likewise influence students’ use of critical thinking, as well as their self-efficacy, self-construal, and regulatory mode. Hence, the influence of such variables on critical thinking and the other culture-related factors ought to be considered – or controlled for – in future research. Critical thinking is an important educational construct and the present study contributes an initial step toward better understanding the relationships between this thinking approach and various culture-related factors that could influence its use. The findings, however, have also generated many new questions that would need to be addressed in future research. In addition to the questions that have already been noted, it would be useful to more carefully examine the possible influences on critical thinking of the variables that were controlled for in this study (i.e., language, gender, age). For example, the question of whether language structure or language proficiency might affect students’ use of critical thinking needs to be empirically and more systematically investigated in research. Culture has also been found to interact with gender in influencing other study-related processes (e.g., Henning et al., 2013), so it is conceivable for it to likewise influence critical thinking use. Addressing these and other related questions would contribute to better understanding the factors that affect students’ use of critical thinking and, consequently, how it may be possible to more efficaciously promote such use. Acknowledgements This research was supported by a grant-in-aid (23243071) received from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and by a grant from the University of Auckland’s Faculty of Education Research Development Fund. The authors would like to thank Howard Gilbert, Bliss Lee, Marcus Henning, Lyannie Tran, and Yuri Uesaka for their invaluable assistance during various stages of this study. Appendix A. English translation of the items from the Hirayama and Kusumi (2004) critical thinking scale I try to provide logical explanations so that everyone can understand and agree with what I mean. I try to develop orderly plans to address complex problems. I try to clarify the assumptions and definition of terms in arguments. I try to organize and clarify the thoughts that others have expressed by using my own words. When I have to deal with something really complex, I tend to panic. I want to meet different kinds of people, and to learn a lot from them. I think that it is important to learn about the thinking styles of people from other countries. I am interested in people with different ideas from me. I want to study about other cultures. Studying new things all my life would be wonderful. I try to think not only from a few perspectives but from a lot of different perspectives. When I decide something, I try to be objective. When thinking about something, I tend to consider it only from my own perspective. I always try to make unbiased judgements. It concerns me that I might have biases that I am not aware of.

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

131

When I judge something, I examine the relevant facts and evidence. I do not believe without casting at least some suspicion in every situation. When I conclude, I stick to the concrete evidence that has been presented. Note: Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement using a 1–5 scale where 1 = disagree, 2 = mildly disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly agree, and 5 = agree. References Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury final.pdf Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 9–37. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bloom, A. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bloom, A. (1984). Caution – the words you use may effect what you say: A response to Au. Cognition, 17, 281. Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 605–634. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Charters, W. W., Jr. (1963). The social background of teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433–440. Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32, 81–111. Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California critical thinking disposition inventory (CCTDI). Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage. Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Norwich, UK: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking. Floyd, C. B. (2011). Critical thinking in a second language. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 289–302. Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gurin, P. (2009). Expert report of Patricia Gurin: Theoretical foundations for the effect of diversity. Retrieved December 17, 2009 from: http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/theor.html Hallowell, A. I. (1955). Culture and experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455. Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 82–83. Henning, M. A., Krägeloh, C. U., Manalo, E., Doherty, I., Lamdin, R., & Hawken, S. J. (2013). Medical students in early clinical training and achievement motivation: Variations according to gender, enrolment status, and age. Medical Science Educator, 23, 6–15. Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 608–634. Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35) (pp. 293–344). New York: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Re-thinking culture and personality: How self-regulatory universals create cross-cultural differences. In R. M. Sorrentino, & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures (pp. 161–190). New York: Elsevier. Hirayama, R., & Kusumi, T. (2004). Effect of critical thinking disposition on interpretation of controversial issues: Evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 186–198. Hirooka, S., Motoyoshi, T., Ogawa, K., & Saito, K. (2001). An exploratory study of measurement of the orientation toward critical thinking (II). Bulletin of Integrated Center for Educational Research and Practice, Mie University, 20, 93–102. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Hurtado, S. (1999). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How the diversity of the faculty and the student body impacts the classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity challenged: Legal crisis and new evidence (pp. 158–176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., et al. (2000). To ‘do the right thing’ or to ‘just do it’: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 793–815. Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 14(4), 460–480. Lun, V. M. C., Fischer, R., & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 604–616. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 26, 3–29. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan. (2010). Developing global human resources through industry-academia-government collaboration. Retrieved February 7, 2013 from: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20100423 02.html Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan. (2009). Higher Education Bureau. Higher education in Japan. Retrieved February 7, 2013 from: http://www.mext.go.jp/englishlkoutou/detail/ icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/12/0311 287370 l l.pdf Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman. Park, J., & Kitayama, S. (2012). Interdependent selves show face-induced facilitation of error processing: Cultural neuroscience of self-threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,. Advanced online publication: doi:10.1093/scan/nss125. Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity experiences mediate the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development, 42, 257–271. Paton, M. (2005). Is critical analysis foreign to Chinese students? In E. Manalo, & G. Wong-Toi (Eds.), Communication skills in university education: The international dimension (pp. 1–11). Auckland: Pearson Education. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 21–34. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137–174. Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schunk, D. (1985). Self-efficacy and school learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 208–223.

132

E. Manalo et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 121–132

Scott, J. N., & Markert, R. J. (1994). Relationship between critical thinking skills and success in preclinical courses. Academic Medicine, 69, 920–924. Siller, T. J. (2001). Sustainability and critical thinking in civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 127, 104–108. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2012). Japanese Confucian philosophy. Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ japanese-confucian/ Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs. ELT Journal, 56(3), 250–257. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173–180. Takata, T., Omoto, M., & Seike, M. (1996). The development of independent and interdependent self-construals (revised version). Bulletin of Nara University, 24, 157–173. Uchida, Y., Park, J., & Kitayama, S. (2008). Explicit and implicit social orientations: Independence and interdependence in Japan and the U.S. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Albuquerque, New Mexico, US. University of Auckland. (2003). Graduate profile. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/for/current-students/cs-academicinformation/cs-regulations-policies-and-guidelines/cs-graduate-profile U.S. Department of Labor. (1999). Testing and assessment: An employer’s guide to good practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Walsh, C. M., & Hardy, R. C. (1999). Dispositional differences in critical thinking related to gender and academic major. Journal of Nursing Education, 38, 149–155. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930–941. Yanchar, S. C., Slife, B. D., & Warne, R. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of General Psychology, 12, 265–281. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.