Thursday, September 20, 2007

Breuch Reading Response

"Post-process" theories of writing instruction have recently begun to question whether or not prewriting, writing, and rewriting are really a good explanation of composition. Many scholars have argued that the writing process has been reduced to a series of coded phases that can be taught. This is something we have seen in earlier readings, particularly from both Sommers and Perl.

Bruech believes that the process of coding can be problematic because it generalizes the writing act. She does not think it is possible for one post-process pedagogy to concretely apply to all writers. However, she believes that post-process theory does have the benefit of offering insights for teachers. It encourages teachers to rethink their definition of writings and their methods of teaching writing.

In Bruech's article, she reviews arguments made by post-process scholar Thomas Kent. Kent believes that writing is not a system or process and cannot be taught as such. While he believes that grammar and sentence structure can be coded, he feels that these systems should not be confused with the writing act, which is uncertain and indeterminate. It is important to clarify that he is NOT saying teaching writing is impossible, he is saying that teaching writing as a system is impossible. He believes that teachers should discuss the meaning of writing and focus on two-way communication with students.

Bruech finds that there are many different implications of this post-process pedagogy. The first implication is the recognition that writing is more than a body of knowledge to be mastered. Bruech states that whether or not we agree with the depiction of process as mastery, the post-process rejection of mastery is important. In moving away from writing as a "thing," we are encouraged to look at writing as an unpredictable activity. According to Kent, the shift from writing as content to writing as activity can be explained by three assumptions: (1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and (3) writing is situated. As Bruech explains it, these are evident in assertions that "writing should change with the situation, that students interact with the world through dialectical interaction, and that rhetoric involves interpretation of social and historical elements of human discourse" (p.116).

In her conclusion, Bruech reinforces her belief that post-process theory should not be taken at face value. She feels that teachers need to spend more time listening, discussing ideas, and becoming aware of the pedagogical needs of students. Overall, she thinks that post-process theory is an important tool that can provide all teachers with valuable philosophical exercise.

After reading this article, I thought it was interesting how it directly contrasted the views of Sommers and Perl. Obviously, Bruech does not like the concept of breaking writing down into "coded" behaviors. This is supported by other scholars, such as Thomas Kent. As I've said before, I would like the opportunity to engage in one of these coded writing practices. I still think that this could be a very helpful technique. I don't agree with Bruech when she finds that this ideal is unobtainable. I think that proponents of this strategy have put in a lot of time, effort, and research before determining that this method is effective.

2 comments:

Bridget O'Rourke said...

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Katie. Yes, it's true that post-process theories seem to resist the "coding" or systematizing of process. It's interesting, though, that Sommers article in particular actually supports and justifies the post-process theorists' claims that writing is public, interpretive, and situated.

Lindsay said...

I agree with Bruech believing "that the process of coding can be problematic because it generalizes the writing act." I had similar sentiments about coding because I feel like even in groups of unskilled and skilled writers, everyone is different. Everyone learns differently and everyone has their own process to writing. I also do not think Bruech needs to find one universal solution to the pedagogy and writing because of this. I think it is sort of ignorant of Kent to say "teaching writing as a system is impossible" because isn't that how writing has been taught forever? Has that not produced competent writers?