Post-Process "Pedagogy"
Well let me first start off by saying that I found this article kind of difficult to read. I am not exactly sure if what I am going to say is really what the author intended, but hopefully I am not too off.
Breuch's article begins with saying how the process of composition which is prewriting, writing and rewriting is not sufficient when teaching the act of writing. Certain critics believe that this writing process is problematic because it is too general. They also believe that there is not one universal way to teach writing, but many ways. The author does not one post-process pedagogy that can be taught in the classrooms, but that the post -process theory offers insights to those who are teaching writing (pg 98). Breuch believes that the post-process theory makes people rethink of how they define writing as an activity but it is rather a body of knowledge. When it comes to post-process resistance the author states that Kent beleives that if "we consider writing as an indeterminate and interpretive activity...then writing and reading conceived broadly as process or bodies of knowledge-cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach" (pg 99).
Kent doesn't think that writing is a system or process so it can not be taught. He does not think that teaching writing is impossible, but that teaching writing as a process is impossible. Irene Ward expands on Kent's ideas "to articulate a functional dialogism for writing pedagogy" (pg 103). She thinks that the student should have internal dialogues, as well as dialogues with their teacher. They should talk to other students and larger institutions. The students should talk about the subject. Breuch will argue that writing should be seen as more than a body of knowledge to be mastered. Post -process theorists depict the process as mastery suggesting that writing is a thing that can be practiced and conquered. Breuch does not think go along with the process as a formula but she does think like Petragalia that the post process scholarship is a rejection of formulaic framework. Breuch also says that writing is public and so it puts an emphasis on communicative interaction. So writing is an activity and interaction, rather then something that needs to be mastered. I for the most part have been taught that there are good and bad writers and the good writers are the people who have been able to master the technique of writing. As my education progressed I have found that not everyone who writes well has a secret technique that they mastered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yeah. What I see is almost a struggle between process and post-process theories. It is almost like post-process is trying to return to "writing as a product" because when I hear "body of knowledge" I think of a thing that has to be mastered; a book; a database of facts and concepts that one must "master." Post-porcess seems to be returning to the very thing Murray was trying to flee from.
I think that post-process theorists are almost afraid of the fluidity, indefiniteness, and unpredictability of process theory--that they are trying to chain down something they fear they cannot control. But that is the beauty of writing; its fluidity and ever-changing nature--just like human language. It is not a solid body of knowledge that can be "mastered,"--I think--but a series of language activities (internal dialogue derrived from what we hear and even read reexternalized onto paper) that energetically moves through time.
Post process is kind of lame--I mean, look at the quote you gave from Kent: if "we consider writing as an indeterminate and interpretive activity...then writing and reading conceived broadly as process or bodies of knowledge-cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach" (pg 99).
Obviously he contradicts what we learned from Bruffee about the social construction of knowledge, that we do not have to be worried about "what to teach" even, because even saying "nothing exists to teach" shows that they view knowledge as something belonging only to a limited, superior group (teachers) that must be "handed down" to an inferior group (students). It insinuates that they are afraid of "constructing knowledge together" with students. They want to keep the traditional power structure going. My strong opinion is that the successful teaching of writing cannot exist in the traditional classroom structure. But you will say to me, "I learned to write in the traditional classroom structure," only to hear me reply, "What you learned was not writing' what you learned was mimicking a discourse that was never really yours..." --that is not writing...
Anyway, I appreciate your comment about your own experience. I think all of us have that experience with how we were taught writing; I too never thought of writing as a public, social, dynamic activity--not even as a LANGUAGE activity, until I started diving into this stuff...
Post a Comment