I wish we could get away from labeling things "post." It is so . . . oh, post-post post-modern. Labeling something with "post" doesn't make us seem smarter or even subversive. Instead, it demonstrates our lack of creativity. So let's just call things by what they are (and not by what they are not). Yes, Jacques Derrida is rolling in his grave right now.
So here's the thing about post process pedagogy. It isn't so much anti-process as it is pro-writing. The post process folk don't necessary dislike process, but they recognize that writing process in and of itself is not a static, universal thing. In other words, there is no The Writing Process. So to teach writing process as a single, linear system for students to master is short-sighted. It will not teach students to write better; it may not even teach students to write more efficiently. I could not agree more. The first time I encountered writing process was in high school. I was writing my first 20 page research paper and I was required to submit a thesis statement, followed a week later with notecards containing my research, then an outline, and then a paper (noticeably absent was the requirement that I submit a revised paper). I hated writing these papers. I had no voice in them and I was writing for my teacher (who hated me, as we've already established). I didn't learn anything about writing from this research project, which is a shame since I spent six weeks on it. I learned a bit about Ibsen's _A Doll's House_ but ask me now to recall even the plot of the play and I'm sure I'd get wrong a great many details.
The only thing the writing of the paper, the outline, and the notecards did for me, was make me not procrastinate. I guess this is a good thing, but I probably would have written the same paper had I written as I always had: the night before in a frenzy of adrenaline, worry, and caffeine. I am not a better writer today because I was forced to master The Writing Process.
So how do we teach students to write if, as the pp folk (and I) suggest, process is not the answer? (This is my question for organizing discussion) According to Kant and his cronies, we can't teach writing because writing is an activity, not a body of knowledge we can consumer, teach, master. And here is where I differ from the post process folk. While I agree that writing is an activity, and I buy into the idea that it is public, indeterminate, and situational, I actually do believe we can teach writing. How? Well, we first teach students how to interpret the rhetorical context/situation of every writing task. We teach them the skill of analysis (of audience, purpose, and occasion) and reflection (of their own decisions as writers), so that they stop writing in an academic vacuum, as I did in high school. And then, we allow them to write and write often. I find it odd that students do very little writing in writing classes. I find it equally odd that students read and discuss published works, but are never given opportunities to discuss their own writing in writing classes.
So to Kant and to Breuch, I say "yes we can!" We can teach the background (beyond grammar), we can teach students how to make good decisions as writers, and we can teach students how to assess those decisions when all is said and done. We can use student writing (and all the reflections on those decisions we made when writing) as the course content. And we do not have to abandon process entirely, but we give it to students as a tool. And we can allow them the freedom to work outside or beyond that tool when they are ready. And instead of calling what we're doing post process, let's call it "the fish feathers approach to writing" --which has about as much meaning as "post process."
14 years ago
