A Review & Critique of Post-Process Pedagogy

With so many movements surrounding literature, education, and the process of writing that emerge given historical and social context, each appears more abstract and revolutionary than the last. The "post-process" theory of teaching writing emphasizes discarding the step-by-step methods of writing in exchange for the development of dialogue and expression between members of a discourse community. Proponents of this belief argue that teaching writing as a quantifiable activity removes the contextual and content oriented value of a given piece of writing. It neglects the understanding that writing is an activity unique to the writer that depends upon the audience as well as the purpose behind it.

Overall composition is a process that involves more than just prewriting, writing, and revision as a means to an end. Plural processes exist within writing that make it malleable and variant to each author. Breuch describes the "post-process" movement as one not necessarily intended to generate a new form of pedagogy, but rather as a response to outdated methods that do not fully address modern approaches to education. While it may not be the availability of a reliable process that is the problem, depending on that process as a concrete set of steps required to produce a "good-quality" example of writing leads to the dissolve of creativity in the writing process.

Some post-process theorists suggest that it is impossible to teach a student how to write. According to Kent, "writing and reading- conceived broadly as processes or bodies of knowledge- cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach." Teachers may provide students with the rules regarding grammar, sentence structure, and essary cohesion. They cannot, however, ensure that an understanding of this knowledge will allow students to become effectively communicating individuals. This assertion is rather abstract, considering if teachers were to abandon the study and practice of writing in their classrooms, the ability of students to learn to communicate effectively would disappear. We MUST teach writing because it is a skill that we need but are not born with. It defines our status as humans. It defines our history and the basis of our ever-developing knowledge vault where we secure our intellectual outputs.

The most difficult understanding behind post-process theory is that even those who adhere to it express a belief that it does not provide any practical applications to back it up. So if we were to agree that writing is not necessarily a system, it is still a PROCESS. Regardless of whether a singular process exists that defines writing on a holistic level, it is still a group of steps set forth by the writer to achieve an end. In order to define writing that is unique to each of us, we must take into account that writing is a means to communication, even when the audience is the author. Therefore, post-process advocates insist that learning to write must be viewed as an interaction, a dialogue built upon learning, between student and teacher. Post-process theorists suggest that this benefits writing, but does not adequately address the issues of power within the classroom. This begs the question, who should have power in this setting? Should teachers relay information and be trusted as experienced experts? Should students feel comfortable enough in the classroom to offer progressive perspectives of process that allow them to develop their own methods? What is most effective? This is where we realize that even if we were to attempt to implement post-process pedagogies, we would be unable to predict the impacts upon the learning experience.

The most significant bit of theory I derived from this hefty and at times redundant/abstract essay is that writing is most effective when it exists in a two-way, communicative setting that fosters conversation and expression without adhering to concrete curriculum. Irene Ward describes "functional dialogism" as a process that emphasizes "internal dialogue between a self an an internalized audience, dialogue between teacher and student, dialogue between students and other larger social institutions, dialogues among students about the formal matters of the composition of the ideas or subject of the discourse, and composing using dialogic forms in order to understand an issue or group of issues from various points of view and gain insight into one's relationship to those ideas and into multiple perspectives represented by many voices that have already entered into public dialogue" (126). While one-on-one interactions between students and teachers are not practical in the classroom, the combination of these dialogues enlightens us to a learning concept that allows for multiple levels of understanding. Instead of a lecture setting which applies "approved" bits of knowledge, this post-process method gives students the opportunity to express their perspectives and apply them to one another's writing. I have seen this implemented in our WRTC 340 class as well as in classes that support interteaching, a method in which students discuss the reading in pairs or groups to gain further insight. This set of techniques is also beneficial to the writing-center tutoring equation, one I will be entering in the fall.

As I read this article, I am frustrated to find no discussion of how exactly one can become an efficient writer without being taught how to do so. And what is it that qualifies an individual to achieve the label of a "good writer"? Proficiency in writing comes from practice. Practice allows us to make errors that we, given experience, learn how to avoid. How do we recognize a linguistic mistake? Through the knowledge we acquired when learning the standards of quality writing. Yes, teachers must share with students basic grammatical understanding, but learning how to write well evolves from education. The tidbits of information that I actually encoded across over 15 years of education in the English language are unique to me. We are not all taught the same way nor are we all absorbing the same lessons. Post-process theory, just like all those that arrived before it, will not spew forth a generation of adequate writers. At least in elementary through high school education, we have become comfortable with the process approach. It is standardized and teaches students how to prepare an essay following the grammar lessons that came before. It is structured. It is easy to grade. In many circles, it is considered effective. In breaking away from a nationally-condoned expectation, we leave vulnerable a new generation of language producers. While this is frightening, it is a transitional process that will eventually allow new methods to blossom in the future given innovative techniques.

Post-process theorists also neglect the understanding that process-theory is not set in stone. Many professors express that the writing process subjective. Even though they believe in the inherent value of steps, they do not express some dictatorship of process where deviation in the formula is forbidden. How can teachers stand by the individual steps in writing without forcing students to adhere to a particular method that generates standard-quality writing?

It is worthwhile to note the value in the three basic assumptions of the post-process approach to writing.

First, writing is public. It exists as a product of communication between author and audience. From this arises triangulation, or the "connection between language users and the world... the source of objectivity is intersubjectivity: the triangle consists of two people and the world" (134). The most basic component of writing is dialogue, it is a discussion or argument surrounding a topic presented from one mind to another.

Second, writing is interpretive. It is not stable across peoples, contexts, or belief systems because it is subjective in content. How we derive meaning from text arises from individual experiences and education. Therefore, process-theory erases individual differences and attempts to approach writing as an overall set of steps which are applicable despite obvious lack of uniformity across peoples. While each of us may learn to interpret differently, we cannot remove past understandings in favor of a uniform process.

Finally, writing is situation. It is not standard across situations. Rather, it must correspond to naturally varying contexts. In following a standardized perspective of learning to write, we eliminate context variation and water-down writing to suit the broad-spectrum. "Situatedness, for postmodern scholars, regers to the ability to respond to specific situations rather than rely on foundational principles or rules" (138). In tying this essay with our understanding of rhetoric as a body of knowledge, I appreciate the definition given in this section. "Rhetoric is the study of personal, social, and historical elements in human discourse- how to recognize them, interpret them, and act on them, in terms both of situational context and of verbal style" (139). Writing must change given the situation in which it is applied.

In the conclusion of the essay, Breuch discusses the implications of post-process theory in regards to a tutorial interaction between students. I found this interesting given my job position next semester. Although the author finds it difficult to establish proper settings and methods to apply to post-process thory, it is a relief to know that at least one exists that is not an abstraction. Tutoring revolves around conversation and one-on-one interaction. The writing center is an arena in which a student may approach his or her writing in an evaluative, open-ended, and ambitious context that ties together the public, interpretive, and situated aspects of the theory at hand. This example makes me wonder whether education would be a more effective center if one-on-one instruction could be provided to students across the board. Eliminate the classroom and allow each student an individual tutor to guide them through the knowledge that will prepare them for a harmonious and intellectually-driven future.