I'm somewhat surprised by myself. When John Trimbur announced the post-process movement in 1994, I remember I thought, well--here we are: we have to announce ourselves by announcing the death of our father, another turn in the never-ending series of "turns" in our field.
And now here I am in 2015, post-processing. My logic is not Trimbur's. But nevertheless, as I have written below, I back-pedal on invention and revision. I know in my own writing the value of invention and revision (in fact, I am inventing here for writing I am doing elsewhere), but I like to have my students write and write and write (with invention and revision here and there).
My logic is simple: I know students get bored by process, spending far too long on an "essay." I think there might be more value in having the students more frequently combine invention/writing, they are inventing (as I am doing here) as they go along. And maybe revise a little--like look back before you post, change some things here and there, but don't overly restrict the flow of writing, of writing as a conversation. I think my students get more out of inventing/writing a lot than being mired in the process of writing. I can imagine a metaphor for how we live.
Irv,
ReplyDeleteThe post-process turn is a myth--as is the process turn--at least as both are commonly misunderstood. While some may have understood process as a sequence of distinct steps, none of the major process theorists ever really described process pedagogy so simply. In fact, what you describe as post-process is in many important ways identical to process pedagogy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that focusing on frequent invention and revision could lead to greater student engagement.
ReplyDelete