Post-Process response

The article “Post-Process Pedagogy: A Philosophical Exercise” by Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch was about exactly what the title states. I had trouble fully understanding it so my summary may not be fully accurate but I will state what I did get from it. Breuch went into a discussion about how writing cannot be taught, what way writing can be preformed and what processes can enhance the writing process and then connects this all to teaching styles that educators should use. Her main emphasis throughout the article is on a philosopher, Kent; his ideas are the ones that Breuch uses to agree and elaborate on or disagree with.

The first item analyzed was Post Process Resistance and this helps with explaining the idea that writing is not something that can be taught. Kent was a believer of this idea and based it off of the fact that it rejects the process of writing that most were taught in primary grades. However, he does state that writing rules can be taught such as grammar but grammar does not equal to the act of writing. It is simply an aide for it. “Consequently, he does not suggest that teaching writing is impossible; he suggests that teaching writing as a system is impossible” (pg. 101). His idea to teach writing is then to change the teacher/student relationship to a reciprocal partnership that I based off communication and dialogue. This would be a form of cooperative learning’ as Brufee explains in his article.

Another element that was discussed in the article was Post- Process rejection of Mastery. Most theorists claim that the writing process is something that can be mastered because it is considered a body of knowledge and most can retain and use that. Kent and Breuch disagree with this statement and thinks that the process of writing is more than a body of knowledge, it’s content. This turned into a discussion on whether writing is a how-centered lesson or a what-centered lesson. Breuch relies on the fact that that writing as a process is a how-centered activity, “because of its emphasis on the activities involved in process to writing” (pg. 106). But all agree by the end of this section that writing is not something that can be mastered, due to its degree of change.

The main bulk of the essay remains on explaining how writing is a skill that cannot be mastered due to its many different forms and meanings. The way to explain this was by declaring an audience and having the audience understand the point that is trying to be made in a paper. It is a process of connecting language and words to the real world, to have the general public appreciate it. That is a hard task to accomplish at times but it is possible. A concept that kept reappearing throughout the article and in this section and more would be dialogue based on communication and this helps to explain the fact that writing is an activity that requires “language in use, communication interaction with others-rather then content to be mastered” (pg. 113).

The next element to explain how writing is an activity is to explain how it is an interpretive action. The point presented above about communication is an element of an interpretive action, “understanding interpretation as universal helps illuminate the third process assumption, that writing is situated” (pg. 115). Situated means just that one is able to act in certain situations unconsciously without a set of guidelines to follow. This concludes the ideas of writing being an activity, its public, interpretive and situated. It’s random and changes in various situations, that goes on to prove why it is something that cannot be mastered. Due to the spontaneity and the fact that it will never be organized or structured makes it hard to be something that can be retained. It is not impossible to try and teach but it would be useless because it is ever-changing. The teachers’ role in this is to be a mentor. Teaching has the same elements that writing does and it is a very challenging activity. The remainder of the article depicted how writing centers are a good tool for enhancing the activity of writing. “The union of post-process theory and writing center practice could potentially demonstrate how theory and practice could live in harmony” (pg. 121). They would work together to make sure all elements are taken care of.