It is all in the title for this reading by Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch's "Post-Process 'Pedagogy': A Philisophical Exercise" (Cross-Talk 97). There is reported controversy over post-process means the over throwing of process and those that support this are "largely influenced by postmodernist and anti-foundationalist perspectives" (97). Gary Olso speculates that process Theory "is problematic because it attempts to generalize the writing act" (97). Whereas, "Joseph Petraglia suggests that we should not abandon or reject process, but simply move past it...(in that) we have better question now, and the notion of process no longer counts as much of an insight" (98). However, LeeAnn staes that is a surface claim to post process theory (99).
Lee-Ann then presents Kent who sees the "post-process perspective - at least in the a paralogical sense-- means rejecting process as the ultimate explanation for writing act...(and) does not completely abandon the writing pedagogy...(but) distinguishes background knowledge--grammar systems and so forth--from the writing act...(and although they can be taught)acquisition of these skills never guarentees that a student will be able to communicate effectively...he (also) suggests that teaching writing as a system is impossible" (99-101). But it is McComiskey that fire's back and claims post-process can not occur until process has taken place because it gets the ball rolling for effective communication through writing that then sets the stage for post-process inquiry. However, the real arguement lays in that when accepting post-process it is not reject of process "but the rejection of mastery"(108).
What I like about post-process is it's idealism. That there are no absolutes in teaching writing. I would also extend that there are no absolutes in teaching in general. I also agree that students as a whole learn more effeectively when there is dialog branching concepts being taught. I also agree the interpretation of writing is the purpose of writing, which does make it continual. What is the point of writing if not to process an aspect of life or have meaningful interpretation of the readers perspective on what is written? I think post-process makes great claims for reasearch. In that research is done to put ideas out there, record observations, and stimulate new ideas when others research and reflect. I also like the post-process because I think it extends points for revision and it is exactly what we were talking about in class on Wednesday. In being that revision is not just grammar, but the clarity of concepts needs to take presidence prior to the fine tuning of grammar errors.
I here Bruffee echoing in Lee-Ann's work because the post-process accepts that it is the continuation of conversing about what is written that envokes learning. Although
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Meg, I agree with you about the idealistic qualities of post-process theory. I like post-process theory because it assumes that students are too unique to ever "learn" writing the same way. I agree that there are no absolutes in teaching writing and I think it is interesting how you paralleled this to your experience as an Art Ed major.
In general, I do not agree that coding writing behaviors can work for every single student- but at the same token there may be some students who find this very beneficial and they should still have this method available.
Post a Comment