Critical Thinking Instruction Incorporated in Cross-Cultural Communication Course Design: A Needs Analysis Report Based on Voices of Chinese International College Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking represents one of the most absolutely vital talents for every individual, both in the workplace and in their personal lives. Critical thinking has become a primary concern for all educational institution students in recent decades, particularly Chinese undergraduates. The intention of this study was to investigate the needs analysis of Chinese international college undergraduates’ perceptions of critical thinking skills incorporated into a cross-cultural communication course, as well as their expectations of critical thinking skills instructional coursework throughout the cross-cultural communication context. Throughout this mixed-methods investigation, 78 Chinese international college students volunteered to complete a critical thinking disposition inventory (CTDI) as the primary research instrument, in addition to a semi-structured interview. The research uncovered that Chinese international undergraduates exhibited unclear notions of critical thinking abilities. As a byproduct of China’s education system, the majority of Chinese international college undergraduates were flooded with dismissive attitudes toward critical thinking abilities. In order to control their academic advancement in a more critical and analytical fashion, Chinese students expressed a pressing need for critical thinking skills to be included in their cross-cultural communication course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".