This study examined the experiences of nine Chinese engineering students who won first prize in a national team-based competition. By analyzing critical incidents, the study investigated how these experiences shaped students’ understanding of collaborative problem-solving. The findings show that Guanxi, a cultural phenomenon rooted in Chinese society’s collectivist values and practices, influenced the content, focus, and timing of students’ reflections. Initially, students participated in the competition without engaging in reflection. As students progressed through different learning loops, the competition experiences improved their reflections on teamwork and problem-solving skills, resulting in a deeper understanding and a shift in perspective regarding their roles in teamwork. This study extends Mezirow’s transformative learning theory to a non-Western cultural context, demonstrating how cultural values and practices influence reflection and transformative learning outcomes. The findings support the global applicability of transformative learning theory and provide insights for designing culturally responsive training programs.
Abu BakarH.SheerV. C. (2013). The mediating role of perceived cooperative communication in the relationship between interpersonal exchange relationships and perceived group cohesion. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913492564
2.
AnandT. S.AnandS. V.WelchM.MarsickV. J.LangerA. (2020). Overview of transformative learning I: Theory and its evolution. Reflective Practice, 21(6), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1821942
3.
ArgyrisC.SchönD. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
4.
BedfordO. (2022). The relation between Guanxi and interpersonal trust in the workplace. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 56(2), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09658-0
5.
BloombergL. D. (2022). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end. Sage.
6.
BuiH.ChauV. S.Degl’InnocentiM.LeoneL.VicentiniF. (2019). The resilient organisation: A meta-analysis of the effect of communication on team diversity and team performance. Applied Psychology, 68(4), 621–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12203
7.
CasimirG.WaldmanD. A.BartramT.YangS. (2006). Trust and the relationship between leadership and follower performance: Opening the Black box in Australia and China. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190601200305
8.
ChouL. F.ChengB. S.HuangM. P.ChengH. Y. (2006). Guanxi networks and members’ effectiveness in Chinese work teams: Mediating effects of trust networks. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00185.x
9.
ChuaR. Y.MorrisM. W.IngramP. (2009). Guanxi vs networking: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based trust in the networks of Chinese vs American managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 490–508. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400422
10.
ColganA. L. (2023). “It felt like waking up from zombie nation”: Introducing early-years practitioners in higher education to issues of social justice for transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 21(4), 474–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221149206
11.
CoxA. B.FreskK. L.DennisC. A.SaundersE. J.WalkerK. L. (2022). The power of women learning together: Transcending the bounds of a transformative leadership development program. In NicolaidesA.EschenbacherS.BuergeltP. T.Gilpin-JacksonY.WelchM.MisawaM. (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of learning for transformation (pp. 363–379). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84694-7_20
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J.BallJ. T.MyersC.FriemanM. (2015). Synthetic teammate communication and coordination with humans. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 951–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591275
FrancisJ. J.JohnstonM.RobertsonC.GlidewellL.EntwistleV.EcclesM. P.GrimshawJ. M. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25(10), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015
16.
GadolaM.ChindamoD. (2019). Experiential learning in engineering education: The role of student design competitions and a case study. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 47(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419017749580
17.
GunnlaugsonO.Cueto de SouzaR.ZhaoS.YeeA.ScottC.BaiH. (2023). Revisiting the nature of transformative learning experiences in contemplative higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 21(1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446211067285
18.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J. (2004). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
19.
HongY. Y.ChiuC. Y. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cognition, 19(3), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.3.181.21471
20.
HuangY.-H.BedfordO.ZhangY. (2017). The relational orientation framework for examining culture in Chinese societies. Culture & Psychology, 24(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X17729362
21.
IllerisK. (2016). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge.
22.
KeganR.LaheyL. L. (2016). An everyone culture: Becoming a deliberately developmental organization. Harvard Business Press.
23.
KhabanyaneK.MaimaneJ.RamabenyaneM. (2014). A critical reflection on transformative learning as experienced by student-teachers during school-based learning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(27), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p452
24.
KitayamaS.MarkusH. R. (2014). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.98.2.224
25.
KwonC. K. (2022). A deliberately developmental organization: A new organizational space for inclusion. In NicolaidesA.EschenbacherS.BuergeltP. T.Gilpin-JacksonY.WelchM.MisawaM. (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of learning for transformation (pp. 347–362). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84694-7_19
26.
LeungT. K. P.HeungV.WongY. H. (2008). Cronyism: One possible consequence of guanxi for an insider: How to obtain and maintain it?European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810840899
27.
LynamA.FitchG.AndrosoffT.WoodJ. (2022). The interpenetration of individual and collective transformation: A framework for development, collective intelligence, and emergence. In NicolaidesA.EschenbacherS.BuergeltP. T.Gilpin-JacksonY.WelchM.MisawaM. (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of learning for transformation (pp. 677–696). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84694-7_38
28.
McCloryS.ReadM.LabibA. (2017). Conceptualising the lessons-learned process in project management: Towards a triple-loop learning framework. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1322–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.006
29.
MezirowJ. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
30.
NaderifarM.GoliH.GhaljaieF. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
31.
NairnS.ChambersD.ThompsonS.McGarryJ.ChambersK. (2012). Reflexivity and habitus: Opportunities and constraints on transformative learning. Nursing Philosophy: An International Journal for Healthcare Professionals, 13(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2011.00530.x
32.
Najdanovic-VisakV. (2017). Team-based learning for first-year engineering students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 18(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2016.09.001
33.
NamadaJ. (2018). Organizational learning and competitive advantage. In Handbook of research on knowledge management for contemporary business environments (pp. 86–104). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3725-0.ch006
34.
PengS. Q. (2001). The building of trust: The guanxi operation and legal institutions. In YangC. F. (Ed.), Interpersonal relationship, affection and trust of the Chinese: From an interactional perspective (pp. 330–370). Yuanliou Publication.
35.
SchönD. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
36.
ShermanG. L. (2021). Transformative learning and well-being for emerging adults in higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 19(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344620935623
37.
SongJ.SunG.CaiR. (2022). The effects of traditional concepts on personal values among university students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), Article 872768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872768
38.
TaylorE. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475
39.
WangS. W.LauA. S. (2015). Mutual and non-mutual social support: Cultural differences in the psychological, behavioral, and biological effects of support seeking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(7), 916–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115592967
40.
WangV. C. X.KingK. P. (2008). Transformative learning and ancient Asian educational perspectives. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208322760
41.
WengrafT. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.
42.
WuQ. (2015). Re-examining the “Chinese learner”: A case study of mainland Chinese students’ learning experiences at British universities. Higher Education, 70(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9865-y
