Thursday, September 20, 2007

Breuch and Post-Process Pedagogy - What does that mean?

In Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch’s article Post-Process “Pedagogy”: A Philosophical Exercise, the author presents several scholars’ disagreement with the process theory for teaching writing. These “post-process” scholars, “suggest that the process paradigm has reduced the writing act to a series of codified phases that can be taught” she writes. For Breuch, post-process theory has little, if anything, to do with process. From the other readings we have done, I believe process is effective for writing. The prewriting, writing and rewriting stages that make up the process give writers a guide and sense for how to write effectively. For teachers, it helps them to teach students how to write and focuses much of the composition instruction on what is being said instead of how it is being said.
Frankly, I think that if Breuch paid more attention to the writing process, I may have understood her argument better. I am at this point very unclear about what the post-process theory actually means or implies for writing and writing instruction. Based on the work of Kent, Breuch describes assumptions post-process theory brings about writing, that it is public, interpretive and situated. The idea that writing is public is one I agree with. “The assumption that writing is public grows out of the post-process perspective that meaning making is a product of our communicative interaction with others rather than a product of an individual,” she writes. I understand this to mean that writing comes from conversation with others, not just from oneself. The theory also suggests writing is interpretive, suggesting meaning is not stable, an idea I also agree with. The suggestion that writing is situated, is one I do not understand, so therefore do not disagree or agree with.
I feel Breuch is clearer in her essay at the conclusion when she describes “letting go”. She says in the case of post-process theory, “letting go” means becoming teachers who know what their students needs, are willing to discuss ideas, listen and practice mutual understanding with students. This idea, seems logical and agreeable to me.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Yeah. It seems like post-process theories are a negative commentary on the process theory; its motive is agonistic, aligned against the idea that writing could be compartmentalized in process frames.

I don't know if I agree or disagree either, or whether or not it is even appropriate to impose the binary of agree/dissagree on this dialectic. I hardly even understand what the article is getting at; it seems to me more of a kaleidascope of views presented and then, at the end, a call to action--"letting go"--as you mentioned.

Ultimately, it seems like this article is a constituent of the dialogue between the two schools of theory, saying, "Hey, process theorists, writing is not so clear cut that you can disect and compartmentalize it; let go of the parts, step back, and you may gain a better insight into its intricacies, and a better vantage point from which to teach it."

Who really knows though.