A Qualitative Study and Future Research Agenda for Cultivating Critical Thinking in Culturally Diverse Postgraduate Students

Abstract

Critical thinking, based on Western cognitive models, is a commonly expected and desired skill in learners in Western academic institutions. This phenomenological study uses an interpretivist paradigm to explore culturally-influenced perceptions of critical thinking. It suggests ways through which marketing instructors and culturally diverse, postgraduate students can change their perspectives to enhance critical-thinking enactment and expression in culturally diverse marketing classrooms. The study expounds a clarified construct of critical thinking and presents a critical-thinking cultivation framework to empower culturally diverse, postgraduate, marketing students with the ability and self-authority to engage in critical thinking. In addition, a toolset of critical-thinking cultivation techniques is offered that marketing instructors can use in the classroom to enable them to achieve their course and university objectives.

Keywords

critical thinking multicultural education marketing education

Marketing graduates, especially those at the postgraduate (PG) level, should be critical thinkers (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Ventura et al., 2017). Competence in critical thinking (CT) is a common learning outcome for university marketing programs and a criterion for accreditation organizations like the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 2021) and the Association of MBAs (AMBA, 2022; Cavaliere & Mayer, 2012; Dahl et al., 2018; Moore, 2023).

Marketing education prioritizes CT capabilities. Klebba and Hamilton (2007) note “marketing decision-making is inextricably linked to the critical thinking process” (p. 132), a view supported by Petkus (2007). Marketing requires proactive CT approaches to predict, create, and manage marketing strategies (Celuch et al., 2010; Dahl et al., 2018; Hill & McGinnis, 2007). As such, industry demand for marketers capable of creating innovative strategies is high (Celuch et al., 2010; Dahl et al., 2018; Hill & McGinnis, 2007). Although marketing education values favorable environments and bespoke activities to cultivate CT (Dahl et al., 2018; Roy & Macchiette, 2005; Sashi, 2015), there is a gap in marketing education literature on how to create these environments and which types of CT activities are useful.

Achieving CT competence is an important skill for marketing students. However, undergraduate and PG students differ in terms of their prior education, work experience, age, and expectations (Durkin, 2008; Turner, 2006). Moreover, Loyalka et al. (2021) reported undergraduate students in China, India, and Russia showed no improvement in CT skills in their first 2 years of university study and found fourth-year Chinese students showed lower CT skills ability than U.S. students in their final year. While prior literature on CT experiences of undergraduate students is insightful (e.g., Abrami et al., 2015; Celuch et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2021; Phillips & Bond, 2004), there is a gap in our knowledge on PG students’ CT learning environments, and specifically, on how to cultivate CT in multinational classrooms. As demand for international PG degrees increases (Abubakar et al., 2010; Morgan, 2014; Wade, 2018), so does the need for marketing instructors to understand how to cultivate CT with students possessing different cultural affiliations, learning styles, and expectations.

CT research indicates the definition of, techniques to cultivate, and assessments for CT in Western institutions may be culturally biased toward Western epistemic beliefs and socially constructed enactments (Calma & Davies, 2021; Chan et al., 2011; Hongladarom, 2002; Manalo et al., 2015). Research also indicates Western marketing instructors may perceive non-Western students as unwilling or unable to engage in CT (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Tian & Low, 2011). However, CT is not purely a Western concept (Chirgwin & Huijser, 2015; Hongladarom, 2002, n.d.; Kim, 2003; Mali, 2015; Tan, 2017; Tian & Low, 2011). As such, marketing instructors in Western cultural settings strive to find synergistic, “middle-way” approaches to nurture desired CT skills in non-Western students (Chirgwin & Huijser, 2015; Dahl et al., 2018; Durkin, 2008; Lu et al., 2021). Increasing cultural diversity in marketing institutions (Lun et al., 2010; Turner, 2006) calls for culturally sensitive, if not culturally inclusive, CT understanding and instruction (Calma & Davies, 2021; Chiu, 2009; Crittenden et al., 2020; Dimitrov & Haque, 2016b).

To address the gaps in CT literature and understand why non-Western PG students appear to struggle to think critically in Western academic settings, we explore how to create favorable, pedagogically-sound, culturally informed, and industry-relevant environments that enhance CT competencies in multicultural, PG marketing classrooms. By using and evaluating CT interventions to help non-Western students express and enact skills and dispositions they already have in ways desired in a Western tertiary context, we also address the concern expressed by Berezan et al. (2023) on diversity being an afterthought or footnote in marketing curricula. We pose the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How can a construct of CT appropriate to higher-education marketing education be developed and presented to culturally diverse students?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What cultural paradigms affect the enactment and expression of CT in higher-education marketing classrooms?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): How is cultivation of CT best achieved in culturally diverse, postgraduate marketing classrooms?

Investigating the presence of CT in different cultures was not an initial goal of the project. Evidence of elements of CT in culturally diverse participants prompted reviews of additional literature that supported this discovery. This informed our investigation of the three RQs.

Our research contributes to marketing education theory and practice in three ways. First, we present a culturally considerate CT construct that enables diverse performative competencies of enactment and expression. Second, we develop a CT cultivation framework that accommodates and capitalizes on culturally-influenced understandings. Finally, we present activities that PG marketing instructors can implement to increase CT competency within culturally diverse classrooms.

The Key Considerations section synthesizes extant CT literature and proposes a CT construct. Aspects of CT are identified, and various cultural approaches to CT and Western and non-Western tendencies in CT are summarized. The Method section explains the research design, discusses data analysis, and provides examples of CT tools utilized. The Findings section summarizes student perceptions of their experiences, and the Discussion section links the significance of these findings back to the research questions to present a CT cultivation framework that addresses gaps in understanding enactment and expression of CT in culturally diverse marketing classrooms in Western academic tertiary settings. The Conclusion section highlights implications for marketing educators and researchers.

Key Considerations

Definitions

CT definitions are numerous and multifaceted. Seminal work by Ennis (1964) identifies the core concept of CT as the “correct assessing of statements” (p. 599). Ennis’s extensive exploration of CT illustrates the concept’s evolution and complexity (Ennis, 1964, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). Duron et al. (2006) consider CT to be “the ability to analyze and evaluate information” (p. 160). Dahl et al. (2018) support CT definition by Abrami et al. (2008) as “the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgment’ (p. 1102). Building from the literature reviewed, we adopt a culturally inclusive understanding of CT. We acknowledge the impact of worldviews regarding epistemic beliefs about CT on the ability and willingness of the thinker to apply their cognitive skills. We recognize the influence of cultural norms on the process of enacting CT and how they express and apply outcomes from their experience of CT.

Culture, as used in this study, refers to a combination of common values, beliefs, norms, and traditions held and practiced by a group of people in an identifiable, shared context (e.g., ethnic, national, geographic, and/or religious; Atkinson, 1997; Hall, 1976; Schein, 1990). Following CT literature convention, we use “Western” and “non-Western” culture as a classification between heterogeneous groups without assuming homogeneity within each group (Atkinson, 1997; Manalo et al., 2013).

Critical Thinking

Conceptions and Construct

Extensive literature has explored conceptions of CT. Figure 1 highlights and summarizes from the literature the academic abilities (cognitive skills and affective dispositions) and behavioral capabilities (normative conventions and performative competencies) associated with CT. Table 1 summarizes elements in the literature for each of the CT aspects in Figure 1. This provides a schema of the construct of CT for exploring the possible influence of culture on engagement in CT by international, postgraduate, marketing students.

Figure 1.

A Construct of Critical Thinking.

Table 1.

Elements of Critical Thinking.

Aspect	Elements	Sources
Cognitive skills	logically analyze, interpret, evaluate, infer, synthesize, conceptualize, justify, explain, apply	(Calma & Davies, 2021; Dahl et al., 2018; Durkin, 2008; Ennis, 2011a, 2011b; Facione, 1990; The Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2017; Lloyd, 1996; Roy & Macchiette, 2005; Tian & Low, 2011)
Affective dispositions	inquisitive, judicious, truth-seeking, confident, rational, open-minded, accepting, analytical, systematic, caring, conscientious	(Ennis, 1996, 2011a, 2011b; Facione, 1990, 2020; Facione et al., 2000; Paul & Elder, 2000; Rear, 2019)
Normative conventions	concept of knowledge, ways of knowing, personal epistemology, self-efficacy, self-identity, educational experience, societal norms	(Atkinson, 1997; Celuch et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2011; Dahl et al., 2018; Manalo et al., 2013; Tian & Low, 2011; Turner, 2006)
Performative competencies	adversarial discussion, debate, argument, language (oral and written), individual presentation, unique opinion	(Abrami et al., 2015; Dahl et al., 2018; Durkin, 2008; Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Ennis, 2013; Lun et al., 2010; Paton, 2005; Tan, 2017)

Cognitive Skills

Critical thinking in the Western academic tradition is founded upon the Greco-Roman classical thought of rhetoric, dialectic, and logic promoted by Jesuits in the Middle Ages and reinforced by philosophers during the Renaissance and Enlightenment Ages (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004). Prior research focuses on CT development and an individual’s ability to apply cognitive skills when exploring the meaning of information (Atkinson, 1997; Dahl et al., 2018; Petkus, 2007). However, culture may influence CT cognitive skills (Calma & Davies, 2021; Ventura et al., 2017).

Affective Dispositions

A concomitant focus in CT literature includes motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral qualities as indicators of the willingness to engage in CT processes (Ennis, 1996, 2011a; Facione, 1990, 2020). This CT aspect presents further points of exploration of culture’s influence on CT.

Normative Conventions

Western instructors’ perceptions of non-Western, international students’ CT ability are influenced by normative conventions (Chiu, 2009; Dimitrov et al., 2014; Manalo et al., 2013; Tian & Low, 2011). Atkinson (1997) argues CT is a “social practice” (p. 72) absorbed from birth through immersion in a cultural milieu with a strong influence on a person’s perceived efficacy and identity as a critical thinker (Celuch et al., 2010; Manalo et al., 2013). A sense of self-efficacy as a critical thinker contributes to the development of a self-identity as a critical thinker which affects CT competency (Celuch et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2011; Dahl et al., 2018; Manalo et al., 2013). Thus, culturally-influenced, personal epistemologies of knowledge and knowing may affect students’ and instructors’ beliefs about CT.

Performance Competencies

Students’ personal CT epistemologies affect perceptions of their ability in CT skills and their dispositions to express CT (Abrami et al., 2015). In addition, many non-Western, international students’ apparent disinclination to engage in the performative enactments of CT (Dahl et al., 2018) prompts Western instructors to mistakenly assume these students lack CT dispositions and skills (Atkinson, 1997; Durkin, 2008; Hongladarom, n.d.; Kim, 2003; Lun et al., 2010; Manalo et al., 2013; Tan, 2017; Tian & Low, 2011; Turner, 2006). Therefore, culture may affect performance competencies in CT.

Based on this understanding of the construct of CT, we argue that in a Western PG context, marketing instructors should recognize all aspects of the CT construct to enable culturally diverse students to cultivate CT competence (Figure 2). Figure 2 presents graphically a synthesis of models and theories of CT found in the literature reviewed to create a novel, conceptual, dynamic representation of CT. The four CT aspects in Figure 1 are shown in a dynamic, iterative, emergent relationship forming the foundation for our novel CT cultivation environment model (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Aspects of Critical Thinking to Cultivate.

Figure 3.

A Critical Thinking Cultivation Environment.

Critical Thinking in Different Cultural Traditions

The view that CT is an exclusively Western concept (e.g., Atkinson, 1997) has been challenged, with recent literature highlighting CT skills and dispositions possessed by non-Western students. Tian and Low (2011) and Chiu (2009) express the importance of recognizing non-Western students’ CT engagement ability as distinct from their capability to fluently articulate the results.

Table 2 presents CT elements from different cultural milieux. Many non-Western students identify with two broad philosophical cultural traditions, and some have specific national/ethnic cultural affiliations. First, numerous students come from East and Southeast Asia, which has a long and significant history of Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC). Second, many students from the Middle East, North Africa, and South and Southeast Asia grew up under the influence of Islamic thinking. Finally, numerous non-Western, international students represent national, ethnic, and indigenous cultures with distinct CT processes.

Table 2.

Evidence of Critical Thinking Elements in Different Cultural Traditions.

Cultural milieu		Indications of critical thinking elements
Confucian Heritage Culture (Kim, 2003; Lun et al., 2010; Tian & Low, 2011; Zhao, 2020)		Cognitive skills	observations of phenomena, accumulation of existing knowledge as catalysts for discovery; autonomous, reflective thinking on materials, assumptions, and self; assemblage of strong evidence to support reasoning; mastery of ideas; synthesis of ideas; contextualization; accommodation of paradox
		Affective dispositions	importance of lifelong learning; inseparability of learning and thinking; open-mindedness and fairness in reasoning; systemization of findings into a new understanding of knowledge; self-critical attitude; inquisitiveness; deep thinking
		Normative conventions	respect for the knowledge of both teacher and learner; mimesis; truth confers social status and wealth; truth maintains social continuity and harmony
		Performative competencies	critical examination of knowledge before transmission; questioning; presentation of counter arguments; dialogue; applicability to moral excellence in social, political, and personal affairs
Islamic scholarship (Mali, 2015)		Cognitive skills	scientific study; hermeneutic process; making contextual connections; using logic
		Affective dispositions	rationality
		Normative conventions	confirmation of belief
		Performative competencies	critical reflection; evaluating source credibility; examining multiple meanings; forming multiple, divergent, valid interpretations
National ethnic cultures	China (Hongladarom, n.d.; Paton, 2005; Tian & Low, 2011)	Mohist school	analysis; evaluation; deduction; induction; evidential support; reasoning; causality; extension; application
		Logician school	perception; paradoxical perspectives; logic; contradiction; contrast; comparison; synthesis
		Geology/geography texts	observation; contemplation; synthesis; causality; critical analysis; induction; deduction
	India (Hongladarom, n.d.)	Buddhist logicians	discussion; debate; proving and disproving; theoretical investigation; argument; validating
	India (Hongladarom, n.d.)	Vedic texts	syllogistic reasoning; proposing; contextualizing
	Indigenous (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016a, 2016b; Ennis, 1998; Norris, 1995)	circular reasoning; inductive/deductive logic; grounded exploration; communal opinion; holistic understanding; integrated worldview; oral storytelling; truth ensures survival

Our review of CT conceptions in different cultural traditions shows the construct of CT is neither “a cultural” nor “monocultural” but rather “pancultural” (Hongladarom, 2002; Manalo et al., 2015). Non-Western cultural traditions rely on relational logic that generates understanding of the connectedness of things and people to explain causality, while Western cultural traditions rely on analytical logic that categorizes and essentializes knowledge to justify opinions (Zhao, 2020). However, both logical methods are found historically and currently in all cultural conceptions of CT, and neither method is mutually exclusive. This challenges us to consider what hinders non-Western, PG marketing students from meeting expectations in Western classrooms for demonstrating CT and inspires us to explore how incorporating culturally different conceptions of CT might enhance engagement (Chirgwin & Huijser, 2015; Zhao, 2020).

Significance of Culture on CT Engagement

The Western approach to CT emphasizes a linear path in which the critical thinker moves from uncritical acceptance to a critically informed understanding of a particular set of information, resulting in an empirically justified answer (Lun et al., 2010). Scientific, empirical rules of analytical reasoning are applied to draw a democratically or consensus-based conclusion. This approach to CT contrasts with many non-Western cultures’ emphasis on analogous, circular reasoning CT pathways based on collectivist, holistic views of knowledge (Lloyd, 1996; Lun et al., 2010; Tian & Low, 2011) that produce multiple, socio-culturally justified answers.

Table 3 compares culturally distinct tendencies in the four aspects of CT. However, these tendencies are not mutually exclusive to each broad cultural milieu, and facets of all tendencies can appear in Western and non-Western cultures. Moreover, the tendencies do not reflect possible national, ethnic, and religious cultural differences within each cultural milieu and are based on the CT literature regarding culture.

Table 3.

Comparison of Culturally Distinct Tendencies in Critical Thinking.

Aspect	Elements	Western	Non-western	Sources
Cognitive skills	logicality	linear	circular	(Dimitrov & Haque, 2016b; Lloyd, 1996; Lun et al., 2010; Tian & Low, 2011)
	cognitive style	engaging	seeking	(Lu et al., 2021)
	justification	empirical	analogous	(Lun et al., 2010)
Affective dispositions	truth-seeking	analytical; new ways, abstract	holistic, right way; pragmatic	(Ennis, 1998; Lu et al., 2021; Lun et al., 2010; Norris, 1995; Tian & Low, 2011)
	open-mindedness	eclectic	selective	(Lu et al., 2021)
	acceptance	integrating, excluding	accommodating, including	(Chiu, 2009; Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Hongladarom, 2002; Mali, 2015)
	care	individual wellbeing	communal harmony	(Hongladarom, 2002)
Normative conventions	knowledge	relative, individual, discrete	absolute, communal, holistic	(Chirgwin & Huijser, 2015; Chiu, 2009; Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Hongladarom, 2002; Lloyd, 1996; Lun et al., 2010; Tan, 2017; Tian & Low, 2011; Turner, 2006)
	knowing	confident opinion, tentative truth	dutiful belief, definite truth
	truth	negotiated	approved
	societal norms	defense	deference
Performative competencies	discussing	adversarial	considerate	(Chiu, 2009)
Performative competencies	concluding	majority, consensus	determined, highest status actor	(Chiu, 2009)

Based on our literature review, we posit that CT is found in all cultures. However, conceptions of the CT construct are culturally mediated. The result is culturally determined engagement in CT, depending on the locus of the actor and the activity. Culturally affected factors influencing CT enactment and expression include conceptions of knowledge and ways of knowing, societal status and role, gender, age, and social cohesion (Dimitrov et al., 2014). These factors are influenced by collective or individualistic cultural traditions (Hofstede et al., 2010; Minkov, 2018; Wong et al., 2018) and low-context- or high-context-dependent traditions (Hall, 1976). Students from Western, individualistic, low-context cultural traditions are more likely to form and express individual opinions, whereas students from non-Western, collectivist, high-context cultural traditions are less likely to form and express opinions that might offend others and contravene societal expectations. This presents a challenge and an opportunity for instructors to find culturally appropriate ways to cultivate CT engagement in culturally diverse, PG marketing students.

Cultivating CT in Culturally Diverse Classrooms

The literature highlights the importance of cultivating CT cognitive skills, affective dispositions, normative conventions, and performative competencies. Also important is helping students develop alternative personal CT epistemologies (Chan et al., 2011) that increase their self-identity and self-efficacy (Celuch et al., 2010) to engage in CT without fear of failure (Manalo et al., 2013). Ennis (1996) argues sensitivity to the need for CT is a catalyst for spontaneous and stimulated engagement (Norris, 1992).

Foucault (1982) and Freire (2005) highlight the detrimental psychosocial, educational, physical, economic, and political effects of culturally determined education imposed by a dominant culture with power on those they have subjugated. Culturally sensitive instructors implementing learning experiences in culturally inclusive ways have been shown to increase international students’ performance in higher-education studies (Dimitrov & Haque, 2016b). Durkin (2008) argues a culturally safe environment for cultivating CT avoids academic ethnocentrism with often implicit cognitive imperialism and conceptual colonialism (Biggs, 1997) and promotes the acceptance of culturally diverse epistemic beliefs (Chan et al., 2011; Crittenden et al., 2020; Grier, 2020; Hongladarom, 2002). Instructors take a cultural humility posture (Guskin, 2015; Hook & Davis, 2017; Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998) by suspending cultural superiority (Green, 2017) in their conception of CT and allowing culturally diverse ways of engagement. This contributes to marketing programs’ aspirations to provide satisfying experiences to all students (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004).

The lack of understanding of subject-specific knowledge is reported as a source of anxiety for non-Western students seeking to participate meaningfully in CT enactment (Dimitrov, 2009; Tian & Low, 2011). Ventura et al. (2017) agree with Facione (1990) that while CT skills are generalizable, they “rely on subject-specific knowledge, conventions, and tools—intrinsic to a particular domain and discipline—for their expression” (Ventura et al., 2017, p. 9). In a review of Ennis’ (1989) generalist and McPeck’s (1990) specificist views on CT cultivation, Abrami et al. (2015) conclude generic CT skills, dispositions, conventions, and competencies need to be cultivated concomitantly with subject-specific knowledge. This necessitates intentional use of subject-specific CT activities in higher-education marketing courses if CT is to be cultivated effectively (Rear, 2019).

For many non-Western students, the language of instruction and learning in Western higher-education programs is their second, third, or fourth language, which may hinder their speaking and writing ability in “the English discourse of critical analysis” (Paton, 2005, p. 1). Language ability may impact their ability and willingness to enact and express CT (Durkin, 2008; Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Manalo et al., 2013; Paton, 2005; Tian & Low, 2011) and contribute to instructors’ perceptions that non-Western students are unwilling and unable to think critically. However, Manalo et al. (2013) find no difference in CT ability between native and non-native English speakers if the latter are tested using their first language. Therefore, CT cultivation in multicultural, PG marketing students should accommodate potential language challenges.

The normative and performative components of academic practice have been identified as a hindrance to international students’ engagement in PG learning activities (Dimitrov, 2009). Lun et al. (2010) highlight a lack of knowledge about academic conventions, such as producing literature reviews, critical reviews, essays, and research proposals, as barriers to East Asian students expressing CT effectively. A holistic approach to cultivating CT in East Asian students is advocated by Tian and Low (2011), and Chiu (2009) promotes a combination of meeting affective needs, providing cognitive modeling, giving student leadership opportunities, and encouraging silent students to have a voice as effective ways to cultivate CT. Other factors affecting many non-Western students’ capability to enact and express CT include prior educational experience (Atkinson, 1997; Dimitrov et al., 2014; Durkin, 2008; Manalo et al., 2015) that predisposes them to engage in CT in ways favored in their previous courses and programs.

In summary, culturally inclusive approaches require instructors to accept both linear and circular CT processes (Dimitrov et al., 2014). When instructors clearly explicate subject-specific CT skills, dispositions, conventions, and competencies expected of their students (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Manalo et al., 2013; Turner, 2006) and encourage students to deconstruct their previous learning approaches (Chiu, 2009), opportunities arise to increase CT engagement (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004). This approach can ameliorate education shock (Durkin, 2008), culture shock, expectation uncertainty, lack of subject-specific knowledge, and language anxiety (Tian & Low, 2011).

Method

This conceptual, qualitative research study uses a phenomenological method with an interpretivist paradigm. Using aspects for cultivating CT (Figure 2), we investigate non-Western PG marketing student experiences using CT quizzes, activities, focus group interviews, and observations. Ethics approval for the project was obtained through the university’s research committee with the proviso that participation was purely voluntary, and researchers uninvolved in the courses gathered and analyzed anonymized data.

Participants, Interventions, and Data-Collection Instruments

Based on classical learning practices focusing on knowledge application, analysis, and synthesis (Bloom et al., 1956), emerging learning models (Denz, 2020), “teach through questioning” techniques (Duron et al., 2006), and “5 why’s” (Serrat, 2017), we introduce a portfolio of CT interventions designed to engage multicultural, PG marketing students.

The participants were non-Western, international students beginning their first semester of a PG marketing program in New Zealand. The project was a response to a need, and PG students are the focus because of the unexpected (and often reported) phenomenon encountered by instructors of an apparent lack of CT ability and capability in PG international students. Two groups of students participated. Cohort A included 84 master’s students attending a national university, and Cohort B included 12 PG business diploma students at a private business school. Although academic qualifications for entrance into the university were higher, English fluency requirements were the same for both cohorts. Students’ undergraduate qualifications covered a variety of disciplines, and their work experience was equally diverse. Student nationalities included Brazil (1), China (42), Columbia (1), Egypt (2), India (29), Nepal (1), Philippines (6), Saudi Arabia (4), Singapore (1), and Sri Lanka (9).

CT activations followed two steps as summarized in Table 4. In Step 1, students were introduced to CT through quizzes and small-group activities. Due to the differences in class size and program design, different tools were used in this step. However, the premise was the same: to introduce CT in a culturally sensitive manner to cultivate CT through normative conventions, performative competencies, affective dispositions, and cognitive skills. Students were encouraged to use their native language for initial exploration and discussion, before using English for deeper discussion and presentation of findings.

Table 4

Participants, Interventions, and Data-Collection Instruments.

Critical thinking interventions		Cohort	No.
Step 1	Pre-course Quiz (Appendix A) Small Group Activity (Appendix B) (Duron et al., 2006; Serrat, 2017)	A	84
Step 1	SEAD Theoretical Model Small Group Activity (Appendix C) (Denz, 2020)	B	12
Step 2	Focus Group Discussion (Appendix D)	A B	10 12

SEAD = Start with what you know, Evaluate, Analyze, Develop.

In Step 1, Cohort A students participated in a designated CT workshop that begins with a short, introductory quiz (Appendix A). Students chose to participate on their own, in pairs, or in small groups. Implementing various inquiry approaches (Duron et al., 2006; Serrat, 2017), students discovered the CT enquiry process allowed for and even encouraged various answers. By creating a culturally inclusive and safe environment, students learned to freely respond without fear of losing face or marks. After the quiz, students participated in small-group activities (Appendix B). The first section in this activity challenged students to think critically about familiar, everyday objects through different modes of enquiry, including the “5-Why’s” learning approach (Serrat, 2017). The second section of the activity introduced CT by asking students to rank ideal or expected responses according to their previous educational experience. Students also explored the importance of going beyond describing connections between concepts to explaining relationships between them. The small-group activity concluded with students being challenged to question what they already knew about a common item and to creatively explore what was not known or “what it could be.” This encouraged students to apply what they had learned about CT and reinforced the “what, when, where, who, with whom, how, and why” questions discussed in the quiz and the first parts of the small-group activity.

In Step 1, Cohort B students were introduced to the Start with what you know, Evaluate, Analyze, Develop (SEAD) theoretical model (Denz, 2020; Appendix C) as part of their regular course work. Following this framework, students “start with what they know” already about a topic. Individually, in pairs, or small groups, students document what is known about the topic in a safe, accepting brainstorming activity. Students then tested the validity of their collective knowledge as part of the “evaluation” stage. Using “analysis” techniques, students explored the topics in greater depth and looked to see how abstract concepts were applied in practice. Finally, students were encouraged to “develop” their understanding of the topic by incorporating their own cultural context.

Step 2 of the CT activities occurred at the end of the students’ first semester of study. In this step, volunteers from each cohort participated in semi-structured interview focus group discussions (Appendix D). Students first completed individual online responses to focus questions and then participated in video-recorded group discussions about each question.

In both cohorts, students were permitted and enabled to try different ways of thinking critically. They were also encouraged and challenged to think creatively and critically in problem-solving. The CT activities were set in a culturally accepting environment with a focus on introducing the concept of CT and understanding the process of CT.

Analysis

We undertook thematic analysis of student responses and followed the version of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of analysis framework suggested by Nowell et al. (2017). This framework was adapted using Tracy’s (2020) iterative and emergent approach to interpretive thematic analysis. The framework by Nowell et al. (2017) incorporated Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria. By delaying thematic mapping to later in the process, we became fully immersed in the data and familiar with the perspectives of the participants (Green, 2023). Ascertaining repetition of words or phrases; recurrence of ideas or meanings; and forcefulness of expression of words, phrases, ideas, and meanings (Owen, 1984) was enhanced by including the factor of significance in meaning guided by the literature review (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We were interested in seeing participants’ perceptions and demonstrations of CT cognitive skills, affective dispositions, normative conventions, and performative competencies of CT enactment and expression.

Our thematic analysis generated items of interest and demonstrated participants’ academic abilities in CT skills and dispositions and behavioral capabilities in normative conventions and performative competencies. The analysis also revealed perceptions of the efficacy of the interventions in cultivating CT. The anonymized results of the analysis were reviewed by the teaching researchers for justifiability, credibility, and validity.

Findings

The data from all sources were analyzed using aspects of CT elements and cultural nuances ascertained from the CT literature (see, Tables 1 –3) and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. For consistency and clarity, the findings from the various interventions are summarized under CT aspects of cognitive skills, affective dispositions, normative conventions, and performative competencies. For exemplification, Tables 5 and 6 show student responses to the two marketing-specific quiz questions.

Table 5.

Quiz Question 2 Analysis and Responses.

QUESTION 2: A company selling ice cream in New Zealand has experienced falling sales over the past 12 months.

• Write three or four sentences giving as many reasons you can think for why this is happening.

• Write three or four sentences offering suggestions to the company to increase its sales.

Aspect	Elements	Student responses
Cognitive skills	logically analyze interpret, evaluate, infer, synthesize, conceptualize, justify, explain, apply	“less advertising”; “taste is not delicious”; “new competitive company”; “to protect their health [because] rate of obesity increasing” “because of falling, it must decrease for some reason” provided evidence from statistics and marketing theory “a topical discussion may attract more attention on the brand- media may repost”; “new style of ice cream for example zero sugar or fire flavor (eaten in winter)”; “allow customers to create their own flavors”; “public visiting day in factory”
Affective dispositions	inquisitive, judicious, truth-seeking, confident, rational, open-minded, accepting, analytical, systematic, caring, conscientious	“analyze habits of customers and design new flavor”; “compare what we know with what we don’t know” “research, plan good choice where they will sell” “generate multiple possibilities”
Normative conventions	concept of knowledge, ways of knowing, personal epistemology, self-efficacy, self-identity, educational experience, societal norms	No relevant responses
Performative competencies	adversarial discussion, debate, argument, language (oral and written), individual presentation, unique opinion	“building a hot issue to cause hot debate [on social media to increase brand awareness and sales]”; “focus on pregnant women”

Table 6.

Quiz Question 3 Analysis and Responses.

QUESTION 3: Your teacher states that Vegemite is a New Zealand brand while Wikipedia says it is Australian.

• What would you do to determine the correct country of origin for this brand? Describe your process in one or two connected sentences.

• How might the producer of Vegemite use this confusion about product origin as a marketing strategy? Explain your proposals in two or three connected sentences.

Aspect	Elements	Student responses
Cognitive skills	logically analyze interpret, evaluate, infer, synthesize, conceptualize, justify, explain, apply	“check if any ingredient is specific to New Zealand or Australia” “when consumers wonder about origin- they tend to buy these products” “organizing Q&A among consumers via social media”; “[creating] a legend that it comes from a mysterious country”
Affective dispositions	inquisitive, judicious, truth-seeking, confident, rational, open-minded, accepting, analytical, systematic, caring, conscientious	“social media can be wrong”; “find other sources except Wikipedia”; “decide which sources would be more reliable” “I believe Wiki is more trustworthy”; “Wikipedia has more accuracy” “analyze the original document”; “use multiple sources”; “check newspaper and internet”; “ask teacher”; “email Vegemite” “use multiple sources and cross-check”; “find academic book about Vegemite history”; “find primary source”
Normative conventions	concept of knowledge, ways of knowing, personal epistemology, self-efficacy, self-identity, educational experience, societal norms	No relevant responses
Performative competencies	adversarial discussion, debate, argument, language (oral and written), individual presentation, unique opinion	“ask my teacher how she states Vegemite as a NZ brand”; “ask my teacher the reason and reference” “make a TV show about Vegemite origin-funny”

Cognitive Skills

In the exploration of meaning, students use cognitive skills to analyze, interpret, and evaluate information. These skills also include the ability to infer, synthesize, and conceptualize information to justify, explain, and apply meaning to practice situations.

The variety of questions/activities presented in Step 1 of the interventions allowed students to demonstrate a range of cognitive skills, with some responses illustrating a high level of analysis and inference, while others exhibited only perfunctory skills. Question design allowed for students to hypothesize causes/solutions to various scenarios. Nevertheless, many students demonstrated limited analysis and superficial inferences. A few students presented synthesizing skills by linking evidence from scientific research, marketing theory, and statistics with conjectured question scenarios. Students expressed conceptualizing skills through their imaginative and innovative uses for paper clips (Quiz Question 1) including “shoelaces,” “buttons,” “forks,” and “compass needles.” Student responses with extended explanations illustrated justifying and explaining skills. Explaining reasons for variations in levels of elements in cognitive skills in some students was beyond the scope of this study and is a topic for future research.

Focus group responses endorsed the efficacy of the Step 1 CT interventions. They credited Step 1 with enhancing their abilities to “determine the importance and relevance of arguments,” “synthesize findings, go behind the observed phenomena to understand causes and implications,” and to “applying extensive research to practice.” Participants offered synonyms for CT such as “strategic thinking,” “analysis deeply,” “analytical and objective thinking,” and “ability to discern multiple elements in a topic.”

Affective Dispositions

We explore student motivation, attitude, and behavior toward engaging in CT as affective dispositions. Step 1 CT interventions were conducted early in the semester when student engagement and enthusiasm was high. The intervention design facilitated student participation and creativity through “brainstorming,” which helped to create a safe and encouraging environment (see Appendix A, Question 1; Appendix B, “what it isn’t” activity; and Appendix C, “start with what you know”). Step 1 responses associated with affective dispositions elements varied with some questions/activities simulating more expansive responses than others. In general, student responses starting with questions (e.g., “what if,” “who,” and “why”) exhibit inquisitiveness, whereas calls for reliable information sources (see Table 6) demonstrate judiciousness and statements like “we need to figure out . . .,” “analyze the original document,” and “use multiple sources” demonstrate truth-seeking dispositions. Confidence was demonstrated in some participants’ appeals to traditional, generic marketing principles such as the “4Ps,” but few went beyond this. Open-minded and accepting statements used “could,” “may,” “if . . . then,” “may or may not” phrases that showed a willingness to accept there is “not only one possibility.”

Step 2 responses, collected at the end of the semester, documented participants feeling more confident in their ability to engage in CT, after the earlier interventions. Students discussed how the CT interventions challenged them to “expand existing views,” “take a new perspective,” “engage in self-questioning,” “change our way of thinking,” and “to embrace different ways of thinking.”

Normative Conventions

Normative conventions are associated with knowledge and ways of knowing, personal epistemology, self-efficacy, and self-identity, which are derived from educational experiences and societal norms. Step 1 interventions explored normative conventions through evaluation of prior educational experiences (Appendix B, “Intro to CT” activity) and the SEAD evaluation and analysis stages (Appendix C). However, it was through the focus group discussion in Step 2 (Appendix D) that a clear picture of normative conventions emerged. Findings from both steps are presented below.

Prior to the CT interventions,knowledge appeared to be conceived primarily as what the instructor stated about a topic, for example: “teacher just give us the knowledge and we receive it and remember it” and “because I believe the teacher.” Students sought to “know information” which was achieved through assessment repetition, class activities, and instructor direction. After experiencing the CT interventions, students expressed the need to “change thinking model” and “give up old thinking model.” Comments showed greater awareness of different ways of knowing expressed in comments such as “we imagine in our minds” and “expand our views” through independent thinking instead of group thinking. Personal epistemology that valued theoretical thinking was rare (expressed as the value of “self-questioning”), whereas several students valued practical thinking (to achieve good marks and the “need to get a job”).

There was a noticeable change in responses after the CT interventions regarding self-efficacy with one student commenting: “you let us guess what is it and we think more about it, but the answer is amazing, so it gives me deep memory.” Students felt permitted to “take control of your thinking” and developing a “‘can do’ attitude” because “no matter what answer I give; the lecturers and classmates will encourage me to speak out my thoughts during discussion [and] discuss with them.” A few participants identified the “5-whys” technique as “most impressive” and “it’s very simple and I use it a lot, so I think now it’s mine.” This contributed to some participants appearing to have a CT self-identity in which they “feel very comfortable” knowing there is not one right answer leading them to not “care about the marks and result [in discussion activities] . . .. you can say and write anything” which “makes me feel confident.”

Findings related to prior educational experience at undergraduate level included “we just listen” and “followed the teacher step by step who told us what you should do” using “rote learning,” “memory,” and “memorize all things for a final exam” to provide expected responses based on model answers given in class. As a result of the Stage 1 CT interventions, students reported changes such as “taking part in debates, responding to questions asked by tutor [using] detailed research [and] real examples.” They noted the need to use CT in group discussions and “apply knowledge into academic practice” using theories derived from and understood through independent learning to explain and justify why they believe what they are presenting. Societal norms on CT perceptions were exhibited as “students from China are unwilling to interrupt teachers because of the tradition” and the “teacher knows best.” Participants reported improved confidence and ability to enact CT in an atmosphere in which students felt comfortable to express themselves freely.

Performative Competencies

The ability and willingness to participate in adversarial discussions, debates, and arguments, as well as exhibit oral and written language skills and present unique options are all elements of performative competencies associated with CT. Step 1 CT interventions facilitated some expression of performative competencies (see Tables 5 and 6); however, most of the findings related to this CT element were sourced from the focus group discussions in Step 2. Therefore, the findings from both steps are presented collectively below.

Findings related to competency in adversarial discussions, debates, and arguments were discussed with students stating it was “helpful for everyone to think outside the box” and to “recognize, build, and appraise arguments.” Aspirations to “share ideas with students and tutor” and participate in an “open environment where people can express themselves freely” to explore “both sides or maybe the variety of aspects” in an argument were expressed. Findings showed that language competency (both oral and written) impacted CT competency. Students with poor English competency struggled to write coherently, misunderstood the questions, and were less confident in expressing their opinions. Focus group comments highlighted this finding, with students expressing oral language frustrations such as: “I can’t understand what the teacher talking about” and “I feel bad because of English.” Students expressed the desire “to speak my thoughts out in another way . . . [that] the lecturer or classmates understand” and “I have lots of ideas.” Findings related to struggles with written language competencies include issues such as: “I have to write lots of report . . . is a big challenge,” “just keep writing, writing.” Students also reported academic reading challenges such as needing to “read lots of academic report [and] academic vocabulary was quite limited for me,” with some students mentioning reliance on online translation software. The ability to use their native language as part of a culturally inclusive CT environment and to work in small groups was appreciated. Findings related to individual presentations and unique opinions were limited although statements like “finally making my own determination” and the importance of “have my own thoughts” were shared in the focus group responses.

The findings from Quiz Questions 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 5 and 6. These tables show relevant data from student responses that demonstrate the presence or absence of ability and capability in elements of the four CT aspects.

Summary

The findings show that some students from all cultures in the sample demonstrated academic ability in CT cognitive skills and affective dispositions. Reasons for variations in CT academic ability were not able to be investigated, but personality and experience differences and selective compliance with cultural norms of expectations might explain these variations. Moreover, understanding of the behavioral capabilities of CT normative conventions and performative competencies and confidence and willingness in using these capabilities were noticeably higher in both cohorts by the end of both courses involving CT interventions. The findings of our study inform the answers to our three research questions and explain the proposed CT cultivation framework (Figure 3).

Discussion

At the university site, students took two core business courses (communication and current issues) and a core marketing course. The CT interventions were program-generic (i.e., not course specific) and were designed to prime learners for enacting and expressing CT. At the private business school, SEAD was a multi-course intervention used from the start of the program and applied to multiple courses through the first semester. The outcomes claimed are based on learners’ reported perceptions at the end of the semester of the effect of the interventions on their CT.

RQ1 challenged us to meet the need for developing a construct of CT appropriate to marketing education for culturally diverse, PG students. Clarifying academic abilities as distinct from behavioral capabilities, and skills, dispositions, norms, and performance as discrete but symbiotic aspects, each with distinct elements, facilitates instructors and learners in understanding, enacting, and expressing CT in culturally appropriate ways. Findings showed the presence of CT abilities and culturally modified understanding of CT capabilities that inhibited enactment and expression of CT in ways acceptable to instructors. This finding facilitates recognition of CT skills and dispositions in culturally diverse students and CT conventions and competencies as focal aspects for instructors and learners in enhancing CT enactment and expression (Figure 1). This helped identify aspects and elements in the construct (Table 1) most relevant for enabling culturally diverse, PG, marketing students to engage in CT (RQ1). This understanding aligns with existing literature suggesting CT skills and dispositions are relatively universal, but the enactment and expression of CT are culturally relative (Table 2). Furthermore, it facilitates the exploration of cultural paradigms that affect aspects and elements of CT (Table 3) and informs targeted cultivation of CT conventions and competencies in culturally diverse, PG, marketing classrooms (RQ2). This prioritizes including subject-specific CT interventions that explicate Western CT normative conventions and performative competencies while acknowledging the influence of cultural values, beliefs, and norms on these CT aspects (RQ3).

In response to Research Question 2, we explored a gap in the literature of explicit consideration of how cultural paradigms specifically affect the enactment and expression of CT in higher-education marketing classrooms. Learners’ reticence and apparent reluctance to enact and express CT were shown to be influenced by learners’ culturally-influenced academic and societal norms and uncertainty about and unfamiliarity with Western academic and societal norms desired by instructors in enactments and expressions as evidence of CT ability and capability. Our findings confirmed the literature arguing the academic ability in the CT cognitive skills and affective dispositions of our culturally diverse participants is comparable to that of the general PG student population. However, we found cultural values, beliefs, and norms affect the behavioral capabilities of students to enact and express CT with expected normative conventions and performative competencies. Previous educational experience and societal norms affected participants’ understanding of knowledge as relatively fixed and determined by recognized and reputable authorities. Ways of knowing encouraged students’ use of rote learning, memorization, and repetition of received information to show understanding of knowledge. Expectations in many non-Western cultures for maintaining social harmony through saving face (mine and others’), honoring roles, respecting status, and supporting societal hierarchies affect the comfort and confidence of non-Western, PG, marketing students to engage in Western-style enactments and expressions of CT.

Given the avowed emphasis on CT in universities worldwide, instructors might presume a non-Western, PG student’s undergraduate qualification has given them understanding and experience of behavioral capabilities similar to those of students from Western institutions of higher learning. Perhaps the paradigms that inform the understanding and presentation of CT are different to those informing Western academic approaches. While some non-Western students reported being taught in English at undergraduate level, this did not confer on them the capabilities to enact and express CT in a Western PG program. Thus, Western instructors might assume non-Western students are weak in CT cognitive skills and affective dispositions due to their culturally different understanding of CT normative conventions and performative competencies, as well as an apparent unwillingness and inability to enact and express CT as expected. However, our findings showed participants at both cohorts had the skills and dispositions to engage in CT. Moreover, most participants demonstrated a willingness to engage in the CT challenges in all interventions once they understood they were permitted to do so, enabled through appropriate interventions, encouraged by accessible and engaging CT activities, and challenged through regular opportunities to enact and express CT.

Using findings from RQ1 and RQ2 to answer RQ3 on cultivating CT in a culturally diverse, PG marketing classroom, presents a holistic approach not found in existing literature. Our findings address the lack of emphasis in existing literature of starting with acknowledgment and acceptance of existing, culturally appropriate, CT academic abilities of cognitive skills and affective dispositions in international students. This mitigates Western instructors’ frustration that non-Western students cannot think critically and gives students confidence and comfort to build on CT skills and dispositions they already have. Focusing on permitting and enabling non-Western students in the behavioral capabilities of normative conventions and performative competencies expected in their PG marketing program was effectual in getting students to enact and express CT. Including cultural perspectives from collectivist and individualistic, high-context and low-context cultures enhanced students’ understanding of different ways of engaging in CT and promoted culturally diverse ways of enacting and expressing CT while cultivating and nurturing ways expected in the Western context of their PG marketing program. Also important was instructors clarifying the construct of respect in the instructor/student relationship; explaining the degree of responsibility and control in instructor/student roles in the learning process; and acknowledging the different sources (family/society/personal/institutional) of pressure on the student for achievement. Appendix E summarizes explicit links between interventions and instructor actions and CT aspects.

Participants perceived the interventions were effective. This outcome was achieved through a holistic approach that intentionally addressed cognitive, affective, normative, and performative concerns of students through strategic interventions at all stages of their program. Instructors reported increased use of learning support services outside the program with clear evidence of independent CT enactment in class activities and assessments. Also, there was a noticeable movement beyond asking “what?,” “when?,” “where?,” and “who?” questions to analyzing “how?” and asking “why?” with students continuing to ask “why?” for each answer to deepen their understanding (Serrat, 2017). Instructors noticed enhanced CT enactment and expression.

The interventions used in this study support Tian and Low’s (2011) call for more explicit explanations, guidelines, and examples on how to be appropriately critical in the Western academic setting. These interventions also help to cultivate Western understanding of CT in non-Western students through a culturally transparent and honest approach called for by Manalo et al. (2015) and Egege and Kutieleh (2004), which acknowledges that CT is a culturally constructed concept. Our study supports accepting a narrative, consensus, inclusive, and causal approach to CT while cultivating an argumentative, adversarial, exclusive, justificatory approach. It moves the focus from cultural stereotyping of CT to acknowledging cultural bias in CT, celebrating cultural distinctiveness, and showing cultural sensitivity in cultivating CT in culturally diverse, PG, marketing classrooms.

Based on our findings, we propose a conceptual framework (Figure 3) through which marketing Western instructors with significant non-Western student cohorts can employ four dynamic, symbiotic actions to cultivate CT skills, dispositions, enactment, and expression. The framework addresses instructor frustrations with, and stereotyping of, non-Western international students as perceived uncritical thinkers (Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Kim, 2003; Tian & Low, 2011; Turner, 2006) and provides specific examples of how to cultivate CT in the classroom (see Appendices A, B, C, and E). Our framework builds upon the construct of CT in Figure 2 as it permits the use of diverse normative conventions, enables CT engagement through nurturing performative competencies, encourages the demonstration of affective dispositions, and challenges students to use cognitive skills.

This framework also addresses Bandyopadhyay and Szostek’s (2019) concern that CT skill development is weak in business students and answers the call from Hill and McGinnis (2007) to move away from simply teaching marketing knowledge to students and toward developing agile and CT skills. In addition, our framework enhances understanding of how CT can be taught in culturally diverse, PG marketing classrooms by including tools for marketing instructors to achieve their course and university objectives. Appendix E shows how interventions used in Appendices A–C (along with other examples of interventions) can be used as tools to implement the four instructor actions that cultivated the four CT aspects. We have provided a foundation on which instructors can build an environment, nurture conditions, and curate a culturally inclusive space in which learners understand and accept they are permitted, enable, encouraged, and challenged to enact and express CT in ways culturally appropriate to them and the Western tertiary context. Overall, the findings support our CT cultivation framework of permit, enable, encourage, and challenge to empower multicultural students with the ability and self-authority to transform their thinking processes (Chiu, 2009; Rear, 2019).

In addition, this framework embraces non-Western students’ ability to think critically and allows inclusion of all considerations raised in the literature reviewed above for cultivating CT in non-Western, PG marketing students. It answers the call by Durkin (2008) for instructors to develop a “middle way” (p. 24) that presents a “both ways” (Chirgwin & Huijser, 2015, p. 336), “pancultural” (Atkinson, 1997, p. 89) approach. Crittenden et al. (2020) asserted the importance of embracing diversity in marketing education, and Grier (2020) believes engaging with diversity in approaches to learning provides multiple perspectives that enhance CT in all students. Our framework seeks to capture the strengths of normative conventions of debate in Western cultures and dialogue in many non-Western cultures in the enactment of CT by permitting students to use either or both. The framework also enables students to engage in CT by explicating Western epistemologies on ways of knowing, modeling essential CT skills, and incorporating subject-specific elements in learning activities. By encouraging students to explore different ways of engaging in CT, the framework allows for diffidence in using English to demonstrate performative competencies of enactment and expression using native language for initial exploration. Finally, our framework challenges students to develop sensitivity to the need for CT and encourages them to think critically through frequent provocations in learning activities. Thus, our findings answer the need and offer a possibility for creating environments in culturally diverse, PG, marketing classrooms that foster CT using culturally sensitive and inclusive instructional strategies.

Conclusion

This study has investigated the phenomena of CT and relationships between culture and CT and interpreted these through the experiences of PG, non-Western students in a Western higher-education environment. We discovered sources of CT reticence, the presence of CT abilities in non-Western students, and a need for change in instructor perspectives on CT and presented a framework and tools to catalyze CT. Based on our findings, we propose

P1: CT is a pancultural concept, but its construct is culturally interpreted.

P2: Culturally appropriate engagement with the construct of CT is present in all cultures.

P3: Engaging in CT is an iterative, dynamic, emergent process involving skill and dispositional abilities, and normative and performative capabilities.

P4: Postgraduate marketing programs with culturally diverse students in Western tertiary institutions can enhance critical thinking engagement, enactment, and expression using an iterative, dynamic, emergent framework.

Theoretically, we have clarified a construct of CT to increase instructors’ understanding of CT in PG marketing programs and provide a basis for interventions to foster CT engagement by culturally diverse students. We have presented evidence that CT cognitive skills and affective dispositions are present in these students and identified normative conventions and performative competencies as the focus of interventions to mitigate culturally-influenced reticence to enact and express CT and enable and empower non-Western international students to demonstrate CT abilities and capabilities in PG marketing classrooms. Our framework incorporates insights on culturally distinct tendencies in CT (see Table 3) to integrate binary and quantum approaches to logic. The framework permits a more Western approach of “true or false; either/or” thinking to guide linear CT analysis, paths, and outcomes while permitting a more non-Western approach of “true and false; both/and” thinking to encourage circular CT analysis, experiences, and outcomes. Furthermore, it permits and encourages individual and collective enactment and expression of CT and the use of consensus/democratic and mandated/imposed decision-making for CT conclusions.

Practically, the interventions used in our study show the effectiveness of permitting, enabling, encouraging, and challenging non-Western students’ understanding to facilitate engagement in and expression of CT congruent with Western expectations. Beyond the data-gathering interventions, we used the framework to deliver problem-solving activities, assessment planning workshops, CT clinics, and a designated CT coach. In addition, our framework allows pedagogical approaches that incorporate individualistic and collectivist engagement in CT learning and assessment activities such as structured debates and collaborative group projects using culturally diverse perspectives and approaches.

Our theoretical framework contributes to marketing education practice in three ways. First, the framework and accompanying interventions equip marketing instructors with tools to cultivate CT skills in a multicultural classroom and thus facilitate institutional duty of care, accreditation quality standards, and industry demands. Second, the framework enhances non-Western international students’ outcomes in personal academic and career goals. Third, the teaching of marketing content is enhanced when the capability of students to analyze and interpret concepts and data is improved.

Limitations of this project include the relatively small number of participants. However, for a phenomenological qualitative study, the number generated sufficient data for analysis that supported the findings. Only PG students were included because the study was in response to a need in PG programs at the two research sites. Participants in the first interventions for both cohorts were a convenience sample of all students enrolled in a program at each research site. Participants in the focus group interviews at the private business school site were a convenience sample of all students enrolled in the program, whereas those at the university site were a self-select sample. This latter method might have attracted students who were more highly motivated to participate in the interview, as well as in their studies, which might have biased some of the perceptions that provided the data. Nevertheless, we considered motivated students might provide examples of involvement and engagement that will inform understanding of non-Western students’ possibilities for adapting to Western ways of engaging in CT. The potential bias in reported perceptions because of the use of convenience and self-select samples was mitigated by allowing the use of culturally diverse conventions and competencies in the first stage of interventions. Moreover, the principal analysts have considerable cross-cultural life and academic exposure/experience, and one is an intercultural communication academic/consultant. We took a cultural humility (Guskin, 2015; Hook & Davis, 2017; Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998), intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 2017), and cultural inclusivity (Green, 2023) posture to the project design, sample selection, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions.

To address the limitations of this study and investigate further the validity of our propositions and credibility of our framework, we encourage research into potential contributing personality and environmental factors, concept and construct relationships, and student and instructor experiences used in our study to create our conceptual framework. Table 7 presents possibilities for future research.

Table 7.

Future Research Opportunities on CT Cultivation.

Focus	Topic	Locus/Participants	Method
The medium- to long-term impact of our CT cultivation framework on international students’ engagement in CT	The impact of early program, CT interventions on students’ engagement in CT in subsequent courses and their careers	International students exposed to our CT cultivation framework in the same cohort and location	A longitudinal, mixed-methods study using our framework and validated measures of CT abilities and capabilities
CT abilities and capabilities in international students at the beginning and end of a degree program	The impact on international students CT abilities and capabilities of integrating CT in all courses in a degree program	International students being taught courses with a strong CT component by Western instructors in a non-Western tertiary institute	A quantitative study using validated measures of CT abilities and capabilities
The effectiveness of CT interventions by Western instructors on international students in different locations using our framework	A comparative study of the impact of CT interventions on international students’ CT abilities and capabilities in Western and non-Western tertiary institutions	International students exposed to intentional CT development interventions by Western instructors in a non-Western tertiary institute and Western instructors in a Western tertiary institute	Quantitative using measures of instructor teaching and student learning effectiveness (e.g. source credibility scale; McCroskey & Teven, 1999) and measures of CT abilities and capabilities
A comparison of CT abilities and capabilities in UG and PG international students	Levels of CT abilities and capabilities in first-year undergraduate and postgraduate international students	International students being taught courses with a strong CT component by Western instructors in a non-Western tertiary institute	Mixed methods using questionnaire and interview data and answers to tests of CT abilities and capabilities
Causes of variations in levels of CT abilities in international students	The effect of personality traits, educational experience, cultural norms, and acculturation experience on levels of CT skills and dispositions	International students being taught courses with a strong CT component by Western instructors in a Western tertiary institute	Quantitative using validated measures of CT skills and dispositions, personality traits, cultural norms, acculturation levels, and educational experience
A comparison of CT abilities and capabilities in host country and international PG students	Levels of CT abilities and capabilities in host country and international PG students	Culturally diverse students in the same program exposed to the same CT interventions by Western instructors Western tertiary institute	Mixed methods using questionnaire and interview data and answers to tests of CT abilities and capabilities

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Critical Thinking Activity.

ACTIVITY		QUESTIONS	ARTIFACT
What it isn’t	Part A	● What is it? ● What can it do? ● Who would use it? ● How would they use it? ● Where would they use it? ● When would they use it? ● Why would they use it? Why? Why? Why? Why?
	Part B
	Part C	● What is it?● How did you use it to do what in the past 24 hours?● Is it a phone?● What is it?
Intro to CT	Part A(students rank items at the start and re-rank after Part C)	● What is more important?	● Giving the right answer● Showing the right process● Revealing your thinking● Following a template● Making it look good● Showing off your knowledge● Originality● Impressing your professors with what you think they want
	Part B(students discuss each pair of items with teacher)		● Good process● Explanation● Questions● Best practice● Abstract thinking● Meaning/significance● Exploration	more than	● Right product● Description● Answers● Right facts● Concrete thinking● Function● Reproduction
	Part C(teacher explains each pair of items)		Characteristics	CONNECTIONS	RELATIONSHIPS
			Characteristics	● Ontological● Concrete● Mechanistic● Actual● Explicit	● Epistemological● Abstract● Organic● Possible● Implicit
			Processes	● Similarities● Contrasts● Differences● Complementing● Confirming	● Symbiotic● Tension● Contradicting● Clarifying● Enhancing
What it could be		● What is it?● What can it do?● Who would use it?● How would they use it?● Where would they use it?● When would they use it?● Why would they use it? Why? Why? Why? Why?	What if it isn’t a plastic toilet seat?

Appendix C

Start with what you know: Ask students to share their experiences of the topic. As in any brainstorming, there is no censoring or comment made at this point. The requirement is to capture the knowledge “owned” by the group, with each student/team presenting to the class. Quality of preparation is not relevant at this point. The aim is to make them aware how much they do know.

Evaluation: Evaluation develops the use of critical thinking. Students assess each point they have outlined previously to establish whether what they already know is correct. It is important to give the students time to go through their list to establish what may be genuinely correct, and what is nonsense. As the evaluation progresses, the gaps in their knowledge emerge and become self-evident. In the process, the student is learning critical analysis.

Analysis: This stage helps students understand the topics and theories under discussion. For some students, a theory in the abstract can be difficult to understand. However, if given context, the abstract becomes discernible. Using a gap analysis (Kim & Ji, 2018), students can fill the gap between the known information and the meaning in practice. Being able to implant experiential learning into an analysis of a problem enhances the students’ critical skills and increases understanding of how models are developed and used.

Development: Development is currently the final component of SEAD, and it emerged from work with indigenous students. Instead of imposing on these students knowledge constructed by the dominant culture, they were asked to select examples from their own culture. This approach supports Foucault’s (1982) co-constructivist approach that deconstructs the archeology and genealogy of imposed knowledge to reveal regimes of truth that can be reconstructed in the present and co-constructed into meaning by those who are experiencing it. International students understand that not all models are appropriate for all cultures, but they have yet to learn the need to develop their own models. The apex of the triangle of learning is the ability to develop new theory and ideas based on the world as it is today (Foucault, 1982).

Appendix D

Appendix E

Interventions Implementing the Critical Thinking Cultivation Framework.

Intervention			CT actions	CT aspects
Pre-course quiz (Appendix A)	Q1		Permit, encourage	Conventions, dispositions
	Q2	i	Enable, encourage	Competencies, dispositions
	Q2	ii	Enable, challenge	Competencies, skills
	Q3	i	Challenge, permit, enable	Skills, conventions, competencies
	Q3	ii	Challenge, encourage, enable	Skills, dispositions, competencies
	Q4	i & ii a	Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
	Q4	i & ii b	Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
What it isn’t (Appendix B)	Parts A & B		Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
What it isn’t (Appendix B)	Part C		Enable, encourage, challenge	Competencies, dispositions, skills
Intro to CT (Appendix B)	Part A		Permit	Conventions
	Part B		Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
	Part C		Enable, challenge	Competencies, skills
What it could be (Appendix B)			Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
SEAD (Appendix C)	Start		Permit, encourage	Conventions, dispositions
	Evaluate		Encourage, challenge	Dispositions, skills
	Analyze		Enable, encourage, challenge	Competencies, dispositions, skills
	Develop		Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills
Debates			Permit, enable, challenge	Conventions, competencies, skills
Presentations (individual and group)			Permit, enable	Conventions, competencies
Group projects			Permit, enable, encourage, challenge	Conventions, competencies, dispositions, skills

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Malcolm Green

Loren Stangl

References

Abrami

P. C.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Waddington

D. I.

Wade

C. A.

Persson

(2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Abrami

P. C.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Wade

Surkes

M. A.

Tamim

Zhang

(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084

Abubakar

Shanka

Muuka

(2010). Tertiary education: An investigation of location selection criteria and preferences by international students—The case of two Australian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241003788052

Association of MBAs. (2022). MBA accreditation criteria. https://www.associationofmbas.com/app/uploads/2022/11/AMBA_MBA-Criteria-June-2022_24pp_rev2.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2021). 2020 guiding principles and standards for business accreditation. https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/documents/accreditation/2020-aacsb-business-accreditation-standards-july-2021.pdf?rev=bd1ab46df9814e1d8e8bc67196606332

Atkinson

(1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587975

Bandyopadhyay

Szostek

(2019). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Assessing critical thinking of business students using multiple measures. Journal of Education for Business, 94(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1524355

Bennett

M. J.

(2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Kim

Y. Y.

McKay-Semmler

K. L.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0182

Berezan

Krishen

A. S.

Garcera

(2023). Back to the basics: Handwritten journaling, student engagement, and Bloom’s learning outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 45(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753221075557

10.

Biggs

(1997). Teaching across and within cultures: The issue of international students. In Murray-Harvey

Silins

H.C.

(Eds.), Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Advancing International Perspectives (pp. 293–308). Flinders Press.

11.

Bloom

B. S.

Engelhart

M. D.

Furst

Hill

W. H.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals—Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company Inc.

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

13.

Calma

Davies

(2021). Critical thinking in business education: Current outlook and future prospects. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2279–2295. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716324

14.

Cavaliere

Mayer

B. D.

(2012). Flooding the zone: A ten-point approach to assessing critical thinking as part of the AACSB accreditation process. Education, 133(2), 361–366.

15.

Celuch

Kozlenkova

Black

(2010). An exploration of self-efficacy as a mediator of skill beliefs and student self-identity as a critical thinker. Marketing Education Review, 20(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008200306

16.

Chan

I. T.

K. Y. L.

(2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 67–77.

17.

Chirgwin

S. K.

Huijser

(2015). Cultural variance, critical thinking, and indigenous knowledges: Exploring a both-ways approach. In Davies

Barnett

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 335–350). Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Chiu

Y. J.

(2009). Facilitating Asian students’ critical thinking in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 42–57.

19.

Crittenden

V. L.

Davis

Perren

(2020). Embracing diversity in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319897230

20.

Dahl

A. J.

Peltier

J. W.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

(2018). Critical thinking and reflective learning in the marketing education literature: A historical perspective and future research needs. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317752452

21.

Denz

(2020). SEAD: An alternative teaching model. Scholars’ Press.

22.

Dimitrov

(2009). Western guide to mentoring graduate students across cultures. The University of Western Ontario. https://www.uwo.ca/tsc/faculty_programs/pdf/PG_3_MentoringAcrossCultures.pdf

23.

Dimitrov

Dawson

D. L.

Olsen

K. C.

Meadows

K. N.

(2014). Developing the intercultural competence of graduate students. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v44i3.186040

24.

Dimitrov

Haque

(2016a). Intercultural teaching competence in the disciplines: Teaching strategies for intercultural learning. In Perez

G. M. C.

Rojas-Primus

(Eds.), Intercultural communication competencies in higher education (pp. 89–119). IGI Global.

25.

Dimitrov

Haque

(2016b). Intercultural teaching competence: A multi-disciplinary model for instructor reflection. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 437–456.

26.

Durkin

(2008). The adaptation of East Asian masters students to western norms of critical thinking and argumentation in the UK. Intercultural Education, 19(1), 15–27.

27.

Duron

Limbach

Waugh

(2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160–166. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ijtlhe-article-view.php?mid=55

28.

Egege

Kutieleh

(2004). Critical thinking: Teaching foreign notions to foreign students. International Education Journal, 4(4), 75–85.

29.

Ennis

R. H.

(1964). A definition of critical thinking. The Reading Teacher, 17(8), 599–612. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/stable/20197828

30.

Ennis

R. H.

(1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1174885

31.

Ennis

R. H.

(1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2378

32.

Ennis

R. H.

(1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15–33.

33.

Ennis

R. H.

(2011a). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part I. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613

34.

Ennis

R. H.

(2011b). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part II. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(2), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews201126215

35.

Ennis

R. H.

(2013). Critical thinking across the curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(2), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20132828

36.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical Thinking: A statement of expert consensus for the purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf

37.

Facione

P. A.

(2020). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts (Insight assessment, Issue: Advancing thinking worldwide). Measured Reasons LLC. https://www.insightassessment.com/wp-content/uploads/ia/pdf/whatwhy.pdf

38.

Facione

P. A.

Facione

N. C.

Giancarlo

C. A.

(2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.

39.

Foucault

(1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

40.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2017). Defining critical thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

41.

Freire

(2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed ( M. B.

Ramos

, Trans.). Continuum.

42.

Green

M. D.

(2017). Mentoring youth across cultures incorporating different worldviews: A zones of proximal exploration model. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work: Innovation in Theory, Research & Practice, 26(4), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2017.1344947

43.

Green

M. D.

(2023). Members’ perceptions of cultural inclusivity in organisational communication [Doctoral thesis, Massey University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10179/18225

44.

Grier

S. A.

(2020). Marketing inclusion: A social justice project for diversity education. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319878829

45.

Guskin

(2015). Cultural humility. In J. M.

Bennett

(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 162–164). Sage.

46.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Press.

47.

Hill

M. E.

McGinnis

(2007). The curiosity in marketing thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475306297385

48.

Hofstede

G. H.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: International cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.

49.

Hongladarom

(2002). Cross-cultural epistemic practices. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 83–92.

50.

Hongladarom

(n.d.). Asian philosophy and critical thinking: Divergence or convergence? http://pioneer.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/web/APPEND.html

51.

Hook

J. N.

Davis

D. E.

(2017). Cultural humility. In Kim

Y. Y.

McKay-Semmler

K. L.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0016

52.

Kim

H.-K.

(2003). Critical thinking, learning and Confucius: A positive assessment. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.3701005

53.

Kim

. (2018). Gap analysis. In Heath

R. L.

Johansen

. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0079

54.

Klebba

J. M.

Hamilton

J. G.

(2007). Structured case analysis: Developing critical thinking skills in a marketing case course. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), 132–139.

55.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

56.

Lloyd

G. E. R.

(1996). Adversaries and authorities: Investigations into ancient Greek and Chinese science. Cambridge University Press.

57.

Loyalka

Liu

O. L.

Kardanova

Chirikov

Guo

Beteille

Tognatta

Ling

Federiakin

Wang

Khanna

Bhuradia

Shi

. (2021). Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(7), 892–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01062-3

58.

Burris

Baker

Meyers

Cummins

(2021). Cultural differences in critical thinking style: A comparison of US and Chinese undergraduate agricultural students. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 28(4), 49–62.

59.

Lun

V. M.-C.

Fischer

Ward

(2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 604–616.

60.

Mali

(2015). Critical thinking through a multicultural lens: Cultural challenges of teaching critical thinking. In Davies

Barnett

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 317–334). Palgrave Macmillan.

61.

Manalo

Kusumi

Koyasu

Michita

Tanaka

(2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003

62.

Manalo

Kusumi

Koyasu

Michita

Tanaka

(2015). Do students from different cultures think differently about critical and other thinking skills? In Davies

Barnett

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 299–316). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_19

63.

McCroskey

J. C.

Teven

J. J.

(1999). Goodwill: A re-examination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

64.

McPeck

J. E.

(1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019004010

65.

Minkov

(2018). A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033

66.

Moore

(2023). Assessing critical thinking in the digital era. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2023/06/assessing-critical-thinking-in-the-digital-era

67.

Morgan

(2014). Patterns, drivers and challenges pertaining to postgraduate taught study: An international comparative analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1150–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.911258

68.

Norris

S. P.

(1992). Testing for the disposition to think critically. Informal Logic, 14(2), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v14i2.2538

69.

Norris

S. P.

(1995). Sustaining and responding to charges of bias in critical thinking. Educational Theory, 45(2), 199–211. https://doi-org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00199.x

70.

Nowell

White

Moules

Norris

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

71.

Owen

W. F.

(1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), 274–287.

72.

Paton

(2005). Is critical analysis foreign to Chinese students? In Manalo

Wong-Toi

(Eds.), Communication skills in university education: The international dimension (pp. 1–11). Pearson Education.

73.

Paul

R. W.

Elder

(2000). Critical thinking handbook: Basic theory and instructional structures. Foundation for Critical Thinking.

74.

Petkus

(2007). Enhancing the relevance and value of marketing curriculum outcomes to a liberal arts education. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475306297384

75.

Phillips

Bond

(2004). Undergraduates’ experiences of critical thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235409

76.

Rear

(2019). One size fits all? The limitations of standardised assessment in critical thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255

77.

Roy

Macchiette

(2005). Debating the issues: A tool for augmenting critical thinking skills of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 264–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305280533

78.

Sashi

C. M.

(2015). Active learning and critical thinking in marketing: Using “exercises” to better comprehend concepts and solve problems. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: E Marketing, 15(2), 1–9.

79.

Schein

E. H

. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

80.

Serrat

(2017). Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_32

81.

Tan

(2017). Teaching critical thinking: Cultural challenges and strategies in Singapore. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 988–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3295

82.

Tervalon

Murray-García

(1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.

83.

Tian

Low

(2011). Critical thinking and Chinese university students: A review of the evidence. Language Culture and Curriculum, 24(1), 61–76.

84.

Tracy

S. J.

(2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

85.

Turner

(2006). Students from mainland China and critical thinking in postgraduate business and management degrees: Teasing out tensions of culture, style and substance. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3794/ijme.51.131

86.

Ventura

Lai

DiCerbo

(2017). Skills for today: What we know about teaching and assessing critical thinking. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/efficacy-and-research/skills-for-today/Critical-Thinking-FullReport.pdf

87.

Wade

(2018). Degrees of risk: Inside Sydney’s extraordinary international student boom. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2018/international-student-boom/

88.

Wong

Y. J.

Wang

S.-Y.

Klann

E. M.

(2018). The emperor with no clothes: A critique of collectivism and individualism. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000059

89.

Zhao

(2020). Epistemological flashpoint in China’s classroom reform: (How) can a “Confucian do-after-me pedagogy” cultivate critical thinking? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1641844