Skip to content
- Kent argues that “no codifiable or generalizable writing process exists or could exist” (p. 1). Where does this leave us as teachers of writing?
- Kent says “Most post-process theorists hold three assumptions about the act of writing: (1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and (3) writing is situated” (p. 1). How should writing teachers adjust their pedagogy to address these ideas about writing?
- Breuch outlines a major problem with Post-Process Theory: “On the surface, post-process theory seems to resist pedagogical application because of post-process claims that writing cannot be taught, vague pedagogical agendas, and divergent depictions of post-process pedagogy. If one were to casually explore post-process theory, these three characterizations may leave the impression that teaching writing is a hopeless endeavor. I argue that the wrong arguments are highlighted in this scholarship–arguments that focus on the negatives of process pedagogy rather than on the possibilities of post-process theory” (p. 121). What possibilities do you see for teaching writing beyond a process approach?
- Fulkerson says post-process theorists “don’t ‘teach writing’ (in the sense of explaining various invention and revision tactics for students and directing the students to practice using them)…Instead the students and instructor read some texts together, usually texts on liberatory topics, often with all the writing being about a single theme for a semester. Then the students write about the readings and their own worlds” (p. 113). Discuss this benefits and disadvantages of this approach to teaching writing.
- Olson discusses the value of theory by critiquing an article from CCC written by Wendy Bishop in which Bishop critiqued the over theorizing of composition. What are your thoughts about theorizing the composing process given what Olson has said?