Approaches and Practices Journal of Business and

Technical Communication
Volume 22 Number 4
October 2008 474-489
When West Meets East © 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1050651908320423
http://jbt.sagepub.com
Teaching a Managerial hosted at
Communication Course in http://online.sagepub.com

Hong Kong
Elizabeth Roberts
Bond University, Australia
Elizabeth A. Tuleja
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Although considerable previous research has focused on Chinese students’

expectations and experiences while studying in English-speaking cultures,
little research to date has focused on how the instructor’s cultural background
affects the learning process within a managerial communication classroom.
Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, this exploratory case study
involves two U.S. instructors teaching a managerial communication course to
106 Chinese students in Hong Kong. The findings from this study provide
implications for managerial communication pedagogy and further research.

Keywords: managerial communication pedagogy; cross-cultural communication

O ne obvious impact of globalization within the university sector has been

the dramatic increase in international students, particularly native Chinese
speakers. In 1979, 50 Chinese students began their studies in the United States
as a result of its improved relations with China; by 2004, over 60,000 attended
(Kujawa, 2005). The influx of Chinese students has challenged U.S. instructors
to adapt their teaching approaches with varying degrees of success. Differences
between Chinese and U.S. learners have required U.S. instructors to modify
their expectations and approaches, which has caused considerable grumbling
across campuses (Goby, 1999; G. Wu, 1999; Zamel, 1995).
But what happens when the onus to adapt rests with Western instructors
teaching Chinese students in their environment? In short, we know little
about that. Previous research has identified some inherent challenges of
teaching managerial communication in Chinese-speaking contexts (Beamer,
1994; Du-Babcock, 2002; Du-Babcock & Babcock, 2000; Greenholtz,

474
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 475

2003; Holmes, 2004; Newell, 1999; Speece, 2002; Tweed & Lehman,
2002), but the appropriateness and effectiveness of imposing a U.S.-based
model within a Chinese context warrants further investigation. Thus, our aims
for this study are threefold: (a) to identify challenges faced by two U.S. instruc-
tors assigned to teach a managerial communication course in Hong Kong, (b)
to describe how the U.S. instructors modified their teaching practice in order to
best meet the needs of their Chinese students, and (c) to provide implications
for managerial communication pedagogy and further research. In the follow-
ing sections, we describe the context for our study, explain the six challenges
we identified, report student feedback on the course, and reveal the lessons that
we learned and their implications for pedagogy and future research.

The Context

In fall 2006, the business faculty at a leading research-driven Hong Kong

University launched a 2nd-year course in managerial communication. Four
instructors taught five sections of the course: two new recruits from the United
States, one Chinese instructor from Hong Kong, and one long-term resident of
Hong Kong from the United Kingdom. Given our previous managerial and
intercultural communication teaching, research, and consulting experience, we
were hired to develop, coordinate, and deliver the new course (Roberts, 1998;
Tuleja, 2005; Tuleja & Greenhalgh, 2008). We modeled the course content and
structure on a managerial communication course developed at the School of
Hotel Administration at Cornell University. The 106 students enrolled in the
five sections of the managerial communication course were all native Chinese
speakers. A small percentage of these students were from mainland China, but
most were Hong Kong natives. They were all 2nd- or 3rd-year business
students, enrolled in various programs throughout the Business School, such as
accounting, finance, insurance, hospitality and tourism, and global studies.
Over a 14-week period, students completed four writing assignments
and two oral presentations. The written assignments included employment
documents (application letter and résumé), an evaluation, a short analysis
report, and a group report based on a business case. The oral presentations
included an individual and a group presentation. We organized the course
to comprise a 2-hour lecture and 1-hour tutorial each week.

The Challenges

Given the inherent cultural challenges that we faced as native English-

speaking instructors teaching a course to students who are all native Chinese
476 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

speakers, we were excited but daunted by the task of introducing a manage-

rial communication course in a Chinese environment such as Hong Kong.
Slethaug (2007) noted the opportunity to teach abroad offers tremendous
professional and personal rewards; however, we found that cross-cultural
differences impeded our teaching effectiveness at times. Badley (2000)
argued that university teachers need to develop global competencies by tak-
ing on the role of “democratic global citizens” (p. 244). Although teaching
a managerial communication course in Hong Kong provided an excellent
opportunity for us to develop a global approach, perhaps, more important, it
forced us to reconsider our strongly entrenched beliefs related to best prac-
tices of teaching and learning. As a framework for this discussion, we have
identified six challenges that we experienced in teaching a managerial com-
munication course to Chinese students as opposed to U.S. students. These
challenges concerned learning-style differences, written and oral profi-
ciency, interpersonal communication, plagiarism and collaborative writing,
inductive versus deductive reasoning, and classroom management.

Learning-Style Differences
Considerable research concerning the ways in which Chinese students’ style
of learning differs from their Western counterparts (Bodycott & Walker, 2000;
Calloway-Thomas, Cooper, & Blake, 1999; Cheng, 2000; Holmes, 2004;
Jones, 1999; Mooney, 2006; Tani, 2005; Wallach & Metcalf, 1995) has
spawned the following generalizations about Chinese students: They do not
enjoy participating in class discussions because they are passive learners; they
prefer to learn through memorization and repetition; they value only the instruc-
tor’s opinion, not the opinion of peers; and they highly value group harmony.
Typically, in an Eastern-style (collectivistic) classroom, students actively
listen, showing their respect for the instructor. Displaying formal harmony
in class (e.g., maintaining a low profile in accordance to group norms) is the
utmost manner in which students respect both the instructor and their fellow
students. The educational process is instructor centered; as such, the instruc-
tor is viewed as the “wise sage” imparting knowledge to the students
(Slethaug, 2007). Alters and Nelson (2002) provided an apt description of
this traditional pedagogical approach: “The instructor solely determines, pri-
marily from tradition and disciplinary content, exactly what is to be taught
and how it should be taught—most often presenting content to students as if
it were capable of being merely transferred (or downloaded)” (p. 1893).
By contrast, in a Western-style (individualistic) classroom, students are
encouraged to show their individual accomplishments at acquiring language
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 477

and skills and will readily volunteer to answer the instructor’s questions
(Calloway-Thomas et al., 1999). In this manner, they demonstrate their crit-
ical thinking and ability to compete with the ideas of their classmates. They
are also comfortable in challenging the instructor’s notion of truth. The
Socratic method of teaching, from which students learn to reason by ques-
tioning, challenging, and analyzing given information in order to determine
whether it is fact or opinion, is important in the Western-style classroom so
that students can create logical arguments and therefore engage in logical
dialogues with the instructor and the other students (Greenholtz, 2003;
Tweed & Lehman, 2002).
When comparing Western and Eastern learning styles, insights into the
psychology of cognition and motivation reveal that the concept of identity
has a direct influence on how students participate in class (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Our cognitive patterns are not personally “hardwired” into
us (Nisbett, 2003); rather, how we process information as well as our notion
of self are deeply influenced by our cultural norms. For example, Nisbett’s
psychological study of Japanese and North American students at several
Eastern and Western universities found that their perceptions of pictures of
fish swimming underwater were different. The Japanese students focused on
the relationship of the fish within their underwater environment whereas the
North American students primarily focused on the fish themselves. This
finding is merely one reflection of how learning styles differ based on
students’ cultural identity.
Supporting those findings from the field of psychology are findings from
intercultural communication research into the nature of individualistic and
collectivistic cultures. This research suggests that the nature of individual-
ism and collectivism is a central force in helping us to understand cultural
values in general, whether in business or in education (Hofstede, 1986,
1991; Triandis, Brislin, & Hui, 1988). For example, a more individualistic
and independent (Western) concept of identity tends to encourage students
to give feedback and to readily participate in classroom discussion; a more
interdependent (Eastern) concept of identity encourages students to listen
and to not offer feedback (Hall, De Jong, & Steehouder, 2004).
Furthermore, collectivist cultures place a high value on harmony within the
group in order to save face and promote peace and balance within society.
Eastern cultures have been dominated by Confucian philosophy, which
holds as its main tenet the maintenance of “proper” human relationships
that are based on five virtues: filial piety, faithfulness, brotherhood, loyalty,
and sincerity. These virtues must be maintained through relationships
478 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

within a hierarchical society, such as hierarchical relationships between

father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, and ruler and
subject as well as the hierarchical relationship that can occur between
friends (Ding, 2006). Within these hierarchical relationships, both parties
know their specific role and adapt to it as expected by societal norms.
Our experience suggests that these generalizations cited earlier about the
considerable difference between Chinese and U.S. students’ styles of learn-
ing were accurate. For example, we found that getting the Chinese students
to engage in a discussion in class was difficult, especially initially. To help
students to take a more active role than they perhaps preferred, we often
broke the class into small groups and appointed one person from each group
to report the group’s activities to the class. We also found that Chinese
students (a) expected that all the course material would be available to them
electronically so that they would have the opportunity to go back and review
it, (b) viewed the instructor as the source of all wisdom, and (c) emphasized
the needs of the group rather than the individual. For example, our Chinese
students were very interested in knowing what the average score was on any
assignment; in contrast, our U.S. students tended to be much more interested
in knowing what the highest score was on an assignment.
Another relevant example that supported these generalizations was the
way in which our Chinese students handled the case studies in a business-
report assignment. Following the method of case analysis, we laid out the
parameters for identifying the problem, analyzing it, and formulating rec-
ommendations (O’Rourke, 2002). We quickly discovered that the students
were able to identify the problems and appropriately analyze them; how-
ever, they lacked the confidence to make recommendations. They simply
were not comfortable with formulating their own opinions on how to solve
the case problem. We had to adapt to this learning-style difference by hold-
ing class discussions and giving verbal feedback (e.g., approval) for
students’ ideas so that they would feel comfortable enough to put their rec-
ommendations into writing. Thus, these students were following their norm
of maintaining harmony in group relationships, a norm that dictates that
they be receivers of knowledge rather than creators of it.

Written and Oral Proficiency

Considerable research has addressed the particular challenges for Chinese
learners of the English language (Beamer, 1994; Chan, 1999; Watkins &
Biggs, 2001; Y. Wu, 2001). The English language is phonetically based; that
is, each letter (symbol) represents a specific sound. Although some element
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 479

of phonetics is involved in the Chinese language, it is only secondary. Rather,

Chinese language is pictographic; that is, all characters (symbols) carry the
meaning within the context of the character. At least two different characters
are combined to create meaning, and the meaning must be learned for each
character. For example, the word listening is made up of three separate char-
acters: the ears, the eyes, and the heart. Put together, these three separate char-
acters, each of which carries its own specific meaning, create a new meaning
that is specifically embedded in context—to listen, you must use not only
your ears but your eyes and heart as well. This combining of characters to
form the meaning of words demonstrates the importance of interrelations,
harmony, and context within the Chinese culture. Haw (2005) reported that
people must know at least 3,000 characters to be able to read a newspaper,
but they should know 6,000 characters to be considered literate. The 26-letter
English vocabulary looks simplistic in comparison.
Another challenge for Chinese learners of English is that they must learn
a series of different tenses and the corresponding rules for correct usage.
For example, the progressive tense in English helps distinguish between
what you are doing and what you have already done (e.g., “I have been
working on my business presentation” vs. “I worked on my business pre-
sentation”). In the Chinese language, tense is indicated within the context
and not necessarily within the verb. To express time, you must add addi-
tional words. So you could say, “Today I work on my business presenta-
tion,” or “Tomorrow I work on my business presentation.” Besides lacking
a specific tense, the Chinese language also does not indicate whether a
subject is plural or distinguish between cases. In contrast to the English lan-
guage (and other languages), the Chinese language does not need these syn-
tactical and semantic aspects of language specificity (Haw, 2005). This lack
of specificity is consistent with the high-context nature of the language—
meaning is derived from the context in which words are presented rather
than inherently from the words.
Although the students in our managerial communication course were
highly fluent in the English language (Hong Kong students begin to study
English as a foreign language in secondary school), we found definite error
patterns in their writing. Similar to the findings Kuiper (2007) identified,
our findings included misuse of articles and prepositions as well as more
complicated problems concerning proper use of tenses and expressions.
The type of errors native Chinese speakers make may in part be
explained by the way in which they are taught English. Y. Wu (2001) out-
lined the value the Chinese place on English language acquisition:
480 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Learning English in a Chinese language environment is a rather daunting

task. Millions of EFL learners take regular English courses, 4 class hours a
week, 18 weeks a term, for 12 terms in high school and 4-8 terms in
University. (p. 191)

But the assessment method they most typically use, language testing in the
form of large-scale exams based on multiple-choice questions, does not
measure students’ abilities to speak or write in English.
Surprisingly, we found little distinguishable difference between our
Chinese students’ oral and written proficiencies. Both were at a high level
considering that all the students were nonnative English speakers; however,
they are required to have a high level of written and oral proficiency in
order to be accepted into the business program. Although we both expected
to find a significant amount of second-language interference in the
students’ written work, we frequently observed that our Chinese students’
writing reflected the same type of grammatical errors as those of our U.S.
students (i.e., preposition errors, punctuation errors, syntactical errors).

Interpersonal Communication
We also found significant differences between the interpersonal commu-
nication of our U.S. students and that of our Chinese students relating to
power distance and listening comprehension. Similar to the findings iden-
tified in previous research (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004; Smith & Smith,
1999), we found a higher power distance between students and instructors
in the Chinese educational context than in the U.S. context. Hofstede
(1991) defined the term power distance as “the way that people handle the
fact that people are unequal” (p. 24). For example, our Chinese students
viewed openly criticizing or questioning an instructor as being too bold. We
also recognized that our Chinese students expected and were more comfort-
able maintaining a high level of formality. For example, our Chinese
students would never refer to us by our first names or ask us any questions
of a personal nature. In contrast, many U.S. students feel comfortable with
a high degree of familiarity given their tendency to be more egalitarian.
Power distance in China relates to the concepts of collectivism and har-
mony, which are based on the Confucian system of maintaining proper and
ethical relationships. Respect for someone of a higher rank, especially
within the family, is a critical function of this system in both traditional and
contemporary China. Confucius, the wise sage, encouraged all good citizens
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 481

to conform and to “structure interpersonal relationships into hierarchical

dualities” (Kirkbride & Tang, 1992, p. 56). In these dualities, individuals
exist not separately but rather as part of a unit with their family or group
associates. Although times have changed, history and traditions still have an
enormous impact on how Chinese, and in our discussion, students, manage
power based on their respect for a person’s rank.
Another way in which the interpersonal communication of our Chinese
students differed from that of our U.S. students concerned their ability to
listen effectively. Previous research has identified that American instruc-
tors’ use of English does affect Chinese students’ ability to actively engage
in academic listening (Huang, 2004, 2005). Despite our students’ high level
of fluency in both written and spoken English, we found that we needed to
moderate our speaking rate (slow down), enunciate clearly, speak more
concisely, avoid using colloquial language and slang, and provide clear def-
initions in order to enhance our students’ listening comprehension.

Plagiarism and Collaborative Writing

As identified in the literature (Rawwas, Al-Khatib, & Vitell, 2004;
Robinson & Kuin, 1999), Chinese students’ reasoning about plagiarism and
the way that reasoning affects their writing practice can be problematic for
Western instructors. One argument for why Chinese students seem less con-
cerned about this issue may be explained by their cultural focus on collec-
tivism that causes them to view “uniqueness and individual interpretations as
relatively unimportant” (Auyeung & Sands, 1996, p. 262). The Chinese are
known for their long-standing practice of borrowing ideas and using them—
after all, they work as a collective whole, so they function as a collective
whole. They simply do not perceive that borrowing ideas or information is
cheating; rather, they see it as working together to achieve a common goal.
This perspective is also known as field-dependent learning (Calloway-
Thomas et al., 1999).
Another explanation for Chinese students’ reasoning about plagiarism
relates to how they learn. According to the tradition of ancient Chinese cal-
ligraphy, students were taught to copy manuscripts carefully and artfully in
order to capture the master’s (Confucius’s) teachings rather than interpret it
(Beamer, 1994). Modern teaching still adheres to this practice and empha-
sizes how well students have committed to memory the important texts of
timeless wisdom. Whether this type of learning is simply rote memoriza-
tion of facts or a process to develop a deep understanding has been a topic
of much debate. Watkins (2000) and Watkins and Biggs (2001) revealed
482 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

that Chinese students use repetition not merely as a means of memorizing

but as a means of understanding through the process of memorizing.
Therefore, when these students borrow ideas, language, or structures from
other sources without citing them, they are actually reusing language as a
textual strategy in learning a foreign language.
One of our course requirements was that students had to work in groups for
their final assignment. Each group was assigned a case, and students were
required to collaborate with their group members in writing and giving an oral
presentation. After they began working in groups, we soon discovered that we
needed to spend additional time on documentation related to writing a group
report. As we read students’ drafts, we could clearly see that they did not under-
stand the conventions of referencing others’ work and that they were copying
large chunks of text from sources such as journal articles and the Internet. Not
surprisingly, we could easily distinguish those parts of the text that students
copied from such sources because the text would suddenly shift from awkward
writing that demonstrated problems with grammar, word choice, and expres-
sion to fluent writing that was concise and academic. We addressed this issue
by running a documentation workshop during our tutorials.

Inductive Versus Deductive Reasoning

Research has suggested that Chinese learners of English tend to prefer
indirect, or inductive, reasoning (Du-Babcock & Babcock, 1996, 2000).
Thus, they prefer to present the details first in order to establish the context,
relationships, and issues involved before they offer a polite recommenda-
tion. For example, in writing a bad-news memo, they may begin by prais-
ing the work that has already been done, then recount some of the details
leading up to a specific situation, and close with a polite recommendation.
This indirect approach is rooted in the Confucian teaching of saving face.
This approach contrasts to Western thought, which values a more linear,
or deductive, line of reasoning (Beamer, 1994). Thus, Westerners prefer to
state the main point or conclusion up front, then provide supporting details,
and conclude by making recommendations. For example, our students were
skeptical when we asked them to use deductive reasoning. Although we
pointed out that the deductive approach can be more effective for certain pur-
poses and audiences in certain cultural contexts, they were initially quite ret-
icent to clearly state their thesis in the introduction. Given the high degree of
efficiency in every other aspect of Chinese business practice, we found the
students’ resistance to using a deductive approach in writing most interesting.
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 483

Classroom Management
Our greatest challenge in teaching this course in Hong Kong was in
adapting our classroom management practices. We recognized that our pre-
conceived notions about how students should participate in class were not
necessarily relevant in a Hong Kong learning environment. Chinese students
have often been referred to as being “passive learners” or “receivers” rather
than active seekers of information (Chan, 1999). Not fully understanding
that the Chinese approach to education is more instructor focused (Alters &
Nelson, 2002; Chen, 1995), we attempted to impose our student-focused
approach on our Chinese students. Our attempt to engage our Chinese
students in class discussions was less than successful, especially initially,
despite the small size of the class (no more than 20 students). We were dis-
mayed when our students would simply look at us blankly when we asked
a general question of the class. Initially, we thought that they simply had
not understood the question, so naturally we reframed the question. Again,
we received blank stares. What really frustrated us, however, was that once
a student was directly asked a question, that student routinely responded
with the correct answer.
In contrast to the findings Tani (2005) reported concerning Chinese
students’ reticence to speak in class, we found that we simply could not
keep the students from talking privately to one another. The tactics that we
used to remedy this problem varied from stopping and reminding students
about their need to practice effective listening, asking students to physically
move to empty seats, using silence to gain the students’ attention, and,
finally, threatening to ask students to leave because of the level of disrup-
tion caused by their talking to one another.
Wanting to better understand this behavior, we asked individual students
during office hours why they constantly spoke to one another even after we
repeatedly asked them not to do so. Not surprisingly, they provided reasons
similar to those identified in previous studies, notably Jackson’s (2001)
study, which was also based on data elicited from students from the same
university. Their most frequent justification for this behavior was that they
were asking their peers a question in Chinese to clarify their understanding
of our English. Another reason that they gave was that their Chinese
instructors just ignored their talking and went on with their lecture oblivi-
ous to the students’ role in the process. The students’ most interesting
response was that in order to maintain group harmony, they felt obliged to
respond to a peer who initiated a conversation. Through consulting with our
484 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Chinese colleagues, we came to understand that the students were not being
intentionally difficult; they were simply not accustomed to our approach to
teaching and learning. The irony, of course, was that our student-centered
approach was not particularly effective, but neither was their teacher-
centered approach.

Based on our experience teaching this managerial communication

course to Chinese students in Hong Kong, we found that indeed many of
the generalizations about teaching Chinese students were true. For
example, we quickly learned that the humor that we tried to relate through
stories or anecdotes that our U.S. students would probably find humorous
did not necessarily translate to our Chinese students. Recognizing that the
onus to adapt was on us, we had to modify our teaching practice in order to
best meet the needs of our Chinese students.

Student Feedback on the Course

Although we both had been recognized as highly skilled teachers in the

United States, we were far less confident about the feedback we would
receive from our Chinese students. Using the university’s standardized
student evaluation reports, we elicited quantitative and qualitative feed-
back from the students. The students completed the 19-question survey
instrument, which was organized into six broad categories, during the last
week of class. The range across the six categories (4.90 to 5.10 out of 6.0,
with 1 meaning very poor and 6 meaning excellent) suggests that students
were relatively satisfied with the course. Their average overall satisfaction
rate was 5.25.
In addition, the qualitative feedback that students provided suggested
that they generally viewed their learning experience to be positive. Specific
issues that they viewed favorably included the structure of the course, the
course materials, and the relevancy of the course for their future careers.
Their suggestions for improvement ranged from eliminating the in-class
quizzes to including more oral presentations.
Given that this was the first time the course had been offered, we wel-
comed the opportunity to reflect on our teaching effectiveness. As highly
experienced instructors, we were accustomed to getting far more positive
feedback from our U.S. students; that said, we were pleased that students
reported a high level of satisfaction overall for the course.
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 485

Lessons We Learned and

Their Implications for Pedagogy

Accepting the limitations of our singular experiences and the need to

avoid making broad generalizations, we have identified several lessons that
we learned in the process of launching this course. The most fundamental les-
son we learned was that our preferred teaching style was not the most appro-
priate one for this particular learning environment. As highly experienced
Western teachers, we experienced considerable difficulty in shifting from a
student-centered approach to a teacher-centered one. Our adaptation process
itself was uncomfortable at times and caused us considerable consternation.
On reflection, we recognized that in order to make this shift in our approach,
we had taken the following steps that the literature has identified:

• We questioned our cultural assumptions and biases about how we thought

students should want to learn (Kember, 1996).
• We acknowledged that our teaching is not neutral (Beamer, 1994).
• We learned to value the Chinese educational approach that emphasizes long-
term learning rather than quick epiphanies (Chan, 1999; Devita, 2000).
• We came to understand that Chinese students expect rewards based on effort
rather than ability (Watkins, 2000).
• We learned to recognize that Chinese students are often motivated by their
desires to save face and live up to family expectations, values that are part of
their collective national culture (Hofstede, 1991).
• We moved from a “deficit” to a “difference” perspective (Holmes, 2004).
• We consciously adapted our teaching and learning practices in order to con-
struct learning environments that facilitated effective intercultural communi-
cation (Ulijn, O’Hair, Weggerman, Ledlow, & Hall, 2000; Vance & Fitzpatrick,
2007; Yee, 2001).

Shifting to a teacher-centered approach required us to modify our class-

room-management strategies. Our most significant change was to rely more
on lectures and formalized student activities that facilitated student participa-
tion. Specifically, we provided a clear structure for the lecture at the begin-
ning of class; posted lecture notes online prior to class; preselected groups for
tutorial activities, giving each group member a specific task to report on; used
small discussion groups whenever feasible, allowing students the opportunity
to ask questions in this format; and asked the class questions, giving them a
few minutes to write down their responses before we elicited answers from
individual students. We also identified ways to encourage students’ participa-
tion besides rewarding those who were assertive and verbal in class, mainly
by holding one-on-one individual conferences.
486 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

We also revised the way that we designed assignments by putting as

much information as possible in writing. We created a separate document,
in addition to our marking guide, that explicitly stated our expectations for
each assignment with regard to purpose, audience, length, genre, referenc-
ing, and such. We also required both group and individual oral presenta-
tions so that the students might become more confident in speaking on their
own in front of their peers and the instructor.
Similar to our practices in the United States, we provided additional
assistance to our Chinese students outside of class times by encouraging
them to visit us during our office hours or by referring them to on-campus
writing centers. We also created opportunities to get to know our Chinese
students outside of class through various university-wide social activities.
We found that our relationships with students improved considerably over
the semester as we spent more one-on-one time together.

Conclusion

Given the increasing number of Chinese students studying managerial

communication either in their native countries or abroad, we need further
evidence about their unique learning style. We also need to further investi-
gate the appropriateness of imposing Western-style teaching practices on
non-Western students.
In retrospect, we recognize that our national identity had a considerable
impact on the teaching and learning environment within this managerial
communication classroom. As Worley and Dyrud (2007) suggested, teach-
ing managerial communication in international contexts “challenges us to
make explicit our own cultural assumptions, invites us to explore new
teaching methods, and enriches both teaching and learning” (p. 34). The
lessons we learned forced us to question our assumptions regarding teach-
ing and learning pedagogy and practices and to adapt our practices accord-
ingly. The Zen proverb “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”
perhaps best captures the symbiotic learning and teaching process we expe-
rienced in tandem with our students.

References
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education.
Evolution, 56, 1891-1901.
Auyeung, P., & Sands, J. (1996). A cross-cultural study of the learning style of accounting
students. Accounting and Finance, 36, 261-274.
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 487

Badley, G. (2000). Developing globally competent university teachers. Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 37, 244-253.
Beamer, L. (1994). Teaching English business writing to Chinese-speaking students. Bulletin
of the Association for Business Communication, 57, 12-18.
Bodycott, P., & Walker, A. (2000). Teaching abroad: Lessons learned about intercultural
understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 79-94.
Calloway-Thomas, C., Cooper, P., & Blake, C. (1999). Intercultural communication: Roots
and routes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner: A question of style. Education + Training, 6, 294-304.
Chen, P. (1995). A comparison of the American and the Chinese educational systems.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435-446.
Devita, G. (2000). Inclusive approaches to effective communication and active participation in
the multicultural classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1, 168-180.
Ding, D. D. (2006). An indirect style in business communication. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 20, 87-100.
Du-Babcock, B. (2002). Teaching a large class in Hong Kong. Business Communication
Quarterly, 65, 80-88.
Du-Babcock, B., & Babcock, R. D. (1996). Patterns of expatriate–local personnel communi-
cation in multinational corporations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 141-164.
Du-Babcock, B., & Babcock, R. D. (2000). Adapting an American-based simulation to a Hong
Kong classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 9-40.
Goby, V. P. (1999). All business students need to know the same things! The non-culture-
specific nature of communication needs. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 13, 179-189.
Greenholtz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners: Examining the benefits and
pitfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3, 122-130.
Hall, M., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2004). Cultural differences and usability evalua-
tions: Individualistic and collectivistic participants compared. Technical Communication,
51, 490-503.
Haw, S. G. (2005). A traveller’s history of China. Phoenix, AZ: Windrush.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
International Relations, 10, 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2004). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd
ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication:
Ethnic Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Business Communication Quarterly,
67, 294-307.
Huang, J. (2004). Voices from Chinese students: Professors’ use of English affects academic
listening. College Student Journal, 38, 212-223.
Huang, J. (2005). Challenges of academic listening in English: Reports by Chinese students.
College Student Journal, 39, 553-569.
Jackson, J. (2001). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations.
System, 30, 65-84.
Jones, J. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students’ participation in acad-
emic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 243-259.
488 Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to
learning? Higher Education, 31, 58-74.
Kirkbride, P. S., & Tang, S. F. Y. (1992). Management development in the Nanyang Chinese
societies of Southeast Asia. Journal of Management Development, 11, 54-66.
Kuiper, A. (2007). English as the language of international business communication. Business
Communication Quarterly, 70, 59-62.
Kujawa, A. (2005). Door open for Chinese students in United States, officials say. Retrieved
May 10, 2007, from http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2005/Mar/30/121750.html
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emo-
tion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 89, 224-253.
Mooney, P. (2006). The long road ahead for China’s universities. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52, 42.
Newell, S. (1999). The transfer of management knowledge to China: Building learning com-
munities rather than translating Western textbooks? Education + Training, 41, 286-293.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently—
and why. New York: Free Press.
O’Rourke, J. (2002). The business communication casebook: A Notre Dame collection.
Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Al-Khatib, J. A. A., & Vitell, S. J. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A cross-
cultural comparison of U.S. and Chinese marketing students. Journal of Marketing
Education, 26, 89-100.
Roberts, E. H. (1998). The innocents abroad: Do students face international internships unpre-
pared? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 39, 64-69.
Robinson, V., & Kuin, L. M. (1999). The explanation of practice: Why Chinese students copy
assignments. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12, 193-210.
Slethaug, G. E. (2007). Teaching abroad: International education and the cross-cultural class-
room. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Smith, P. J., & Smith, S. N. S. (1999). Differences between Chinese and Australian students:
Some implications for distance educators. Distance Education, 20, 64-80.
Speece, M. (2002). Experiential learning methods in Asian cultures: A Singaporean case study.
Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 106-121.
Tani, M. (2005). Quiet, but only in class: Reviewing the in-class participation of Asian
students. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/non_
refereed/030.pdf
Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C. H. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and
collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 37, 41-133.
Tuleja, E. A. (2005). Intercultural communication for business. Mason, OH: Thomson South-
Western.
Tuleja, E. A., & Greenhalgh, A. M. (2008). Communication across the curriculum in an under-
graduate business program: Management 100—Leadership and communication in groups.
Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 27-43.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.
Ulijn, J., O’Hair, D., Weggerman, M., Ledlow, G., & Hall, H. T. (2000). Innovation, corporate
strategy, and cultural context: What is the mission for international business communica-
tion? Journal of Business Communication, 37, 217-293.
Vance, K., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2007). Teaching tips and assignment ideas for ESL students.
Business Communication Quarterly, 70, 63-68.
 Roberts, Tuleja / Managerial Communication Course in Hong Kong 489

Wallach, J., & Metcalf, G. (1995). Working with Americans: A practical guide for Asians on
how to succeed with U.S. managers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School Leadership
and Management, 20, 161-173.
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and ped-
agogical perspectives. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education
Research Centre.
Worley, R. B., & Dyrud, M. A. (2007). Business communication and ESL. Business
Communication Quarterly, 70, 34-79.
Wu, G. (1999). The learning experiences of Chinese students in American universities: A
cross-cultural perspective. CIEA Midwest Regional Conference, 14, 3-21.
Wu, Y. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly,
35, 191-194.
Yee, P. (2001). Competing contexts for developing personal and social education in Hong
Kong. Comparative Education, 37, 65-87.
Zamel, V. (1995). Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students across
the curriculum. College Composition and Communication, 46, 506-521.

Elizabeth Roberts is a professor and head of school at the School of Hotel, Resort, and
Tourism Management at Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. Prior to that, she taught in
New Zealand and at the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University.

Elizabeth A. Tuleja is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Business, School of Hotel and
Tourism Management, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Prior to that, she taught at
The Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.