Developmental idealism in China

This paper examines the intersection of developmental idealism with China. It discusses how developmental idealism has been widely disseminated within China and has had enormous effects on public policy and programs, on social institutions, and on the lives of individuals and their families. This dissemination of developmental idealism to China began in the 19(th) century, when China met with several military defeats that led many in the country to question the place of China in the world. By the beginning of the 20(th) century, substantial numbers of Chinese had reacted to the country’s defeats by exploring developmental idealism as a route to independence, international respect, and prosperity. Then, with important but brief aberrations, the country began to implement many of the elements of developmental idealism, a movement that became especially important following the assumption of power by the Communist Party of China in 1949. This movement has played a substantial role in politics, in the economy, and in family life. The beliefs and values of developmental idealism have also been directly disseminated to the grassroots in China, where substantial majorities of Chinese citizens have assimilated them. These ideas are both known and endorsed by very large numbers in China today

From adorable to worthless : implicit and self-report structure of highly evaluative personality descriptors

So-called highly ‘evaluative’ personality judgments (e.g. describing someone as exceptional, odd, or vile,) are an integral component of people's daily judgments of themselves and others. However, little is known about the conceptual structure, psychological function, and personality-relevance of these kinds of attribution. Two studies were conducted to explore the internal (i.e. implicit) and external (i.e. self-report) structure of highly evaluative terms. Factor analyses of semantic-similarity sortings and self-reports on several representative samples of highly evaluative personality adjectives yielded internal and external structures that were very similar. Both types of structure included five dimensions representing distinction, worthlessness, depravity, unconventionality, and stupidity. The robustness of the uncovered dimensions across the two studies suggests that typically excluded highly evaluative personality terms, far from being behaviorally ambiguous and psychologically uninformative, allude to meaningful dispositions that people both implicitly understand and possess to different degrees. These findings also suggest that highly evaluative personality judgments are organized around the basic domains of morality (i.e. depravity), power (distinction and worthlessness), peculiarity (unconventionality), and intelligence (stupidity). We discuss the implications of our findings for the study of self- and other-esteem processes, personality perception, and the Big Seven factor model of personality. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35012/1/431_ftp.pd

Does what we write matter? Determining the features of high- and low-quality summative written comments of students on the internal medicine clerkship using pile-sort and consensus analysis: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: Written comments by medical student supervisors provide written foundation for grade narratives and deans’ letters and play an important role in student’s professional development. Written comments are widely used but little has been published about the quality of written comments. We hypothesized that medical students share an understanding of qualities inherent to a high-quality and a low-quality narrative comment and we aimed to determine the features that define high- and low-quality comments. METHODS: Using the well-established anthropological pile-sort method, medical students sorted written comments into ‘helpful’ and ‘unhelpful’ piles, then were interviewed to determine how they evaluated comments. We used multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis to analyze data, revealing how written comments were sorted across student participants. We calculated the degree of shared knowledge to determine the level of internal validity in the data. We transcribed and coded data elicited during the structured interview to contextualize the student’s answers. Length of comment was compared using one-way analysis of variance; valence and frequency comments were thought of as helpful were analyzed by chi-square. RESULTS: Analysis of written comments revealed four distinct clusters. Cluster A comments reinforced good behaviors or gave constructive criticism for how changes could be made. Cluster B comments exhorted students to continue non-specific behaviors already exhibited. Cluster C comments used grading rubric terms without giving student-specific examples. Cluster D comments used sentence fragments lacking verbs and punctuation. Student data exhibited a strong fit to the consensus model, demonstrating that medical students share a robust model of attributes of helpful and unhelpful comments. There was no correlation between valence of comment and perceived helpfulness. CONCLUSIONS: Students find comments demonstrating knowledge of the student and providing specific examples of appropriate behavior to be reinforced or inappropriate behavior to be eliminated helpful, and comments that are non-actionable and non-specific to be least helpful. Our research and analysis allow us to make recommendations helpful for faculty development around written feedback