Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: zz-x2580
WRIT1001 Critical Reflection SAMPLE
My writing is influenced by my social, cultural and educational background. In the week 2
‘My Journey’ statement I shared my background – I was born in Indonesia to an Irish father
and Malaysian mother (McAllister, 2021a). This crosscultural background, along with my
education in Malaysia, shapes the way I communicate. Everyone writes in a unique voice
that reflects personal values and experiences (Lavelle, 1997, p. 476). My critical reflection
leads me to agree more with Ulla Connor’s findings, that communication can be shaped
unconsciously by overlapping cultural influences (2011, p. 26), more than Holcomb and
Killingsworth’s argument that style is conscious performance of identity (2010, p. 3). My
upbringing in Malaysia, which is a diverse society with multicultural classrooms (Lee, 1996,
p. 74), helps me communicate with good intentions but did not prepare me for asymmetries
of power in Australian classrooms.
My week 12 post to the WRIT1001 Discussion Board aimed to help my peers understand
Ten Canoes (2006). I started with “To bring this discussion into context” before explaining
the film’s production background and plot (McAllister, 2021c). I learnt this style of writing at
school – outline context before stating an opinion. This indirect strategy avoids confusion
and builds empathy between communicators and is very useful online, where you do not
always know your audience. I noticed other students were direct in stating claims. Amy
Beach’s post began with ‘Ten Canoes is a powerful film that shows the importance of
respectful communication‘ (2021). While I agree with Amy’s point, I was shocked by the
outright claim to begin a conversation. Perhaps less emphasis on contextual narratio is a
feature of Australian academic conversation.
Student number 50012345
In week 11, I replied to a student, suggesting Milk’s rhetorical strategy of re-appropriating
derogatory language has been used by feminist activists such as the organisers of ‘SlutWalk’.
I wrote ‘These movements are informed by the same rhetorical moves’ (McAllister, 2021b). I
was excited because my friends replied enthusiastically, one mentioning that this
movement is not known in China. But our conversation ended when Barry Hoven wrote
‘Good points – censorship always destroys free speech in Asian countries’ (2021). Barry,
who grew up in Sydney, was trying to be supportive, but his comment confirmed a
stereotype that government control in Asian countries is absolute. Because he did not
mention how students like me and my friends can influence our own cultures (even large
cultures, in Connors terms, 2011, 32), we were not seen as having power. An unintended
consequence was we stopped posting. In reflection, I would have liked to say more but I was
silenced by the ‘language of the discipline’ (O’Brien, 59) – a way of speaking that excludes
non-Western students.
Even though I have described miscommunication, I don’t think the discussions were
unethical. Ethical communication is a rhetorical act that is often indirect and occurs in
situations of asymmetrical power relations (Barton, 2008, p. 599). This means that ethical
communication can include miscommunications due to cultural misunderstanding. My
classmates were sharing ideas and even supporting their Malaysian and Chinese peers. But
ethical communication can improve with better crosscultural understanding, particularly by
recognising the agency of international students in the classroom and their home countries.
