Intercultural rhetoric has been studied in the context of second language writing for many decades. This article looks at the topic from a new perspective and offers an experimental study of the effects of intercultural rhetoric on reading comprehension. The experiment was set in Hong Kong, China, and assessed the reading comprehension (using a rational cloze design and quantitative and qualitative recall protocols) of 490 school students who were presented with four rhetorically different texts. Results suggest that the rhetoric of the students' first language (Chinese) had clear effects on reading comprehension.
[Copyright of Reading Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710903054949]

Where courses have as an aim the promotion of reflective practice, it will enhance the achievement of the goal if the level of reflective thinking is assessed. To do this in a satisfactory way requires a reliable protocol for assessing the level of reflection in written work. This article presents a protocol that can be used to guide the allocation of work to four categories, namely: habitual action/non-reflection, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Intermediate categories can also be used. Detailed descriptors of each category to guide the process are provided. The protocol was tested by four assessors independently using it to grade a set of written work, and very good agreement was obtained.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293355]

This article presents the results of an investigation of the construct validity of J. B. Biggs's (1987) theory of learning approaches and of R. J. Sternberg's (1988) theory of thinking styles in two Chinese populations. The study is also an examination of the nature of the relations between the two theories. University students from Hong Kong (n = 854) and from Nanjing, mainland China (n = 215), completed the Study Process Questionnaire (J. B. Biggs, 1992) and the Thinking Styles Inventory (R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner, 1992). Results indicated that both inventories were reliable and valid for assessing the constructs underlying their respective theories among both Hong Kong and Nanjing university students. Results also showed that the learning approaches and thinking styles are related in the hypothesized ways: The surface approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with less complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the legislative, judicial, liberal, and hierarchical styles. The deep approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with more complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the executive, conservative, local, and monarchic styles. Implications of these relations are discussed.
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598230 ]

The relationships among adjustment problems, self-efficacy, and psychological distress were investigated in a sample of 207 Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. A mediation-effect model specifying that adjustment problems had an effect on psychological distress mediated by self-efficacy was hypothesized and tested using structural equation modeling procedures. For comparison, a direct-effect model and a direct-and-mediation-effect model were also fitted to the data. The results indicated that the direct-and-mediation-effect model provided the best and a reasonably adequate fit, suggesting that the effects of adjustment problems on psychological distress could be direct, but more importantly the effects could also be mediated by self-efficacy. Implications of the findings for enhancing the self-efficacy of students to promote their psychological well-being are discussed.
[Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554365 ]