The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Critical Thinking Education with Chinese Characteristics
Abstract
This chapter considers the development of critical thinking education in China. On the one hand, progress in critical thinking education in China has been made since the late 1990s, including textbooks, courses, articles, projects, conferences, etc. On the other hand, the development in reality is sluggish, difficult, and with undesirable “Chinese characteristics.” In our analysis, the most important factors underlying the problems are not traditional Chinese collectivism or difficulties in teaching Chinese students. We argue instead that the main resistance comes from the uncritical cognitive dispositions in the Chinese tradition and the materialistic values of modern Chinese society. Based on this understanding, we outline a strategy for achieving progress and steering critical thinking education to a better and faster track. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, many international students in the UK are from China or Taiwan, where Confucianism is still a strong cultural influence (Dong, 2015; Sun and Han, 2018), and 'truth and knowledge' cannot be critically questioned or challenged (Dong, 2015: 361).”
From ‘Why is this hard, to have critical thinking?’ Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students (2024) · cites this paper as Dong, 2015
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Aston, K. J. (2024) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874231168341 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Dong, Y.
- Corresponding author
- Dong, Yu
- Venue
- The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan
- Published
- 2015-01-01
- Pages
- 351-368
- OpenAlex
- W2339593028
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Palgrave Macmillan eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Critical and Liberation Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- critical thinking instruction, China, materialism, collectivism, curriculum development, Chinese students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
