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.
ReplyDelete