Post-Process "Pedagogy": A Philosophical Exercise (Kastman Breuch)

Gary Olson:

The problem with process theory, then, is not so much that scholars are attempting to theorize various aspects of composing as it is that they are endeavoring (consciously or not) to construct a model of the composing process, thereby constructing a Theory of Writing, a series of generalizations about writing that supposedly hold true for all or most of the time. (p. 97, Olson p. 8)

Because process is so often the topic of discussion in post-process scholarship, post-process has come to mean a critique of the process movement in composition studies. In response, I argue that post-process scholarship is shortchanged by the continued emphasis on process in that the broader implications of post-process theory have very little to do with process. Furthermore, I suggest that the only importance process has to post-process theory is in the form of an illustration--and a poor one at that. That is, "process" as it is cast by post-process scholarship is the scapegoat in an argument to forward postmodern and anti-foundationalist perspectives that are critical to post-process theory. In this article I attempt to clarify what I believe post-process theory can contribute to composition pedagogy [...] I suggest that there is no identifiable post-process pedagogy that we can concretely apply to writing classrooms; however, I believe post-process theory offers many insights for the profession of teaching that we all should consider. Specifically, I argue that post-process theory encourages us to reexamine

• our definition of writing as an activity rather than a body of knowledge, 
• our methods of teaching as indeterminate activities rather than exercises of mastery, and 
• our communicative interactions with students as dialogic rather than monologic. 

My mission to highlight these insights is driven by what I perceive to be a lack of clarity in post-process theory, fueled by a diversion into discussions of process and by arguments that seemingly resist pedagogical application (98).

"what"-centered vs. "how" centered pedagogy:

According to Lindemann, a what-centered writing course might emphasize subject matter such as literature, films, linguistic systems (grammar and sentence structure), or even modes of writing. In contrast, "how-centered" approaches emphasize activities that occur in a writing class (Lindemann includes process pedagogy here) such as prewriting, writing, and rewriting, in addition to activities such as listening to and discussing the writing of students in class (251, 252). She suggests that "what-centered" courses emphasize nouns (content), while "how-centered" courses emphasize verbs (activities). (105-106).

Lindemann notes (and I agree) that process pedagogy as it was originally introduced in composition research represents a how-centered approach because of its emphasis on the activities involved in process approaches to writing (prewriting, writing, rewriting). Indeed, process pedagogy and the research of Janet Emig, Ken Macrorie, and Peter Elbow in many ways encouraged a shift away from content-based approaches, such as current-traditional pedagogy, which emphasized grammatical structures.