Comments on: post-process pedagogy http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2006/05/post-process-pedagogy/ rhetorics, compositions, technologies, literacies, sexualities Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Michael http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2006/05/post-process-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Michael Tue, 09 May 2006 14:29:38 +0000 http://oregonstate.edu/~farism/blog/?p=147#comment-81 Derek, great question. Breuch quotes Kent: "Writing and reading—conceived broadly as processes or bodies of knowledge—cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach" (qtd. on 105). I think this has been misunderstood to mean that you cannot teach writing, when in actuality (unless I am mistaken) Kent meant this to mean that you cannot teach writing as a <i>what</i>, as a body of knowledge. I think this definitely complicates the teaching of writing, which I think is good. However, I think you're right, and I think people <i>have</i> misunderstood this to mean you can't teach writing. I think that another concern we should have is those who read that there is "no <i>right</i> way" to teach writing to mean that you can teach writing "any way," especially when we understand that models for teaching get bastardized quite easily (Dobrin's "pedagogical imperative" comes in here). I wonder if, as Ede writes in <i>Situating Composition</i>, that just as many post-process advocates have reduced "the process movement" to less than what it is, that the next "waves of reform" will "encourage essentializing, totalizing readings" (65)of post-process. Meaning, I wonder if the danger doesn't come in the way we characterize "movements" in the field to "demonize" them: "Post-process claims that there is no/any way to teach writing! We must reform!" Derek, great question. Breuch quotes Kent: “Writing and reading—conceived broadly as processes or bodies of knowledge—cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach” (qtd. on 105). I think this has been misunderstood to mean that you cannot teach writing, when in actuality (unless I am mistaken) Kent meant this to mean that you cannot teach writing as a what, as a body of knowledge. I think this definitely complicates the teaching of writing, which I think is good. However, I think you’re right, and I think people have misunderstood this to mean you can’t teach writing.

I think that another concern we should have is those who read that there is “no right way” to teach writing to mean that you can teach writing “any way,” especially when we understand that models for teaching get bastardized quite easily (Dobrin’s “pedagogical imperative” comes in here). I wonder if, as Ede writes in Situating Composition, that just as many post-process advocates have reduced “the process movement” to less than what it is, that the next “waves of reform” will “encourage essentializing, totalizing readings” (65)of post-process. Meaning, I wonder if the danger doesn’t come in the way we characterize “movements” in the field to “demonize” them: “Post-process claims that there is no/any way to teach writing! We must reform!”

]]> By: Michael http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2006/05/post-process-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Michael Tue, 09 May 2006 13:51:26 +0000 http://oregonstate.edu/~farism/blog/?p=147#comment-84 We can only justify it by not respecting them, by not seeing them as whole people. If the system requires subordination, it is time to change the system. Now, how? We can only justify it by not respecting them, by not seeing them as whole people. If the system requires subordination, it is time to change the system.

Now, how?

]]> By: Derek http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2006/05/post-process-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Derek Tue, 09 May 2006 11:13:04 +0000 http://oregonstate.edu/~farism/blog/?p=147#comment-83 Terrific notes! Every time I hear post-process invoked, I get the sense that it's used so variously--from generally rejecting processual orthodoxies (or Flower & Hayes' schematic, specifically) to pushing away from explicit writing instruction (writing instruction that treats writing as an adaptable, transferable skill-set, that is). I wonder, still, whether there are limits to post-process as a theoretical choice for framing the teaching of writing. If pushed to an extreme position, does it follow that post-process pedagogy, keeping with "no *right* way" to teaching writing, could be (mis)understood as "no way" to teach writing? (I don't know whether this is answerable, or even the right question...just that it's what your notes got me thinking about). Terrific notes! Every time I hear post-process invoked, I get the sense that it’s used so variously–from generally rejecting processual orthodoxies (or Flower & Hayes’ schematic, specifically) to pushing away from explicit writing instruction (writing instruction that treats writing as an adaptable, transferable skill-set, that is). I wonder, still, whether there are limits to post-process as a theoretical choice for framing the teaching of writing. If pushed to an extreme position, does it follow that post-process pedagogy, keeping with “no *right* way” to teaching writing, could be (mis)understood as “no way” to teach writing? (I don’t know whether this is answerable, or even the right question…just that it’s what your notes got me thinking about).

]]> By: Marieke http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2006/05/post-process-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-82 Marieke Tue, 09 May 2006 05:07:48 +0000 http://oregonstate.edu/~farism/blog/?p=147#comment-82 If sixth graders are whole people, then how can we justify herding them around, monitoring their every action, indoctrinating their minds, disciplining, standardizing, and controlling them? The system requires subordination. If sixth graders are whole people, then how can we justify herding them around, monitoring their every action, indoctrinating their minds, disciplining, standardizing, and controlling them? The system requires subordination.

]]>