Process, Post-Process and Tradition

Elizabeth K. Haller
Content Editor: AE-Extra
Graduate teaching assistant and graduate student
English Language and Literature program
Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, Michigan
E-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com

Roughly three weeks into the first semester of my teaching career, I was asked if I adopted a traditional or a non-traditional style of teaching my English 101 courses. Because I had only been teaching for three weeks, not only did I have no idea what the person meant by "traditional" and "non-traditional," but even if I had, I didn't think I had been teaching long enough to make a fair assessment. I liked the sound of "non-traditional"; therefore, I answered: "I'm not quite sure, but I think I'm leaning more toward non-traditional."

Now that the semester is drawing to an end, and I know the meaning of the above terms, I believe I can label myself as possessing a traditional style of teaching--but somehow, that just sounds bad. It seems that saying I adopt a traditional style is the same as saying, "I do not remain open to other options and choose to cling to the past." However, I am beginning to change my view. After reading Gary Olson's article, "Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion," I finally have a clearer understanding of what is meant by process and post-process and believe they are linked to the ideas of traditional and non-traditional styles of teaching.

The "rhetoric of assertion" is most often associated with the traditional style of teaching composition, one in which students "take a position on a subject ... and construct a piece of discourse that then 'supports' the position. Passages in an essay that do not support the position are judged irrelevant, and the essay is evaluated accordingly" (Olson 9). To me, this is how it should be--it just makes sense. In terms of freshman composition, explaining to students that they need to have a "'strong,' 'clear' thesis statement, which is itself expressed in the form of an assertion," and the rest of the paper must follow through with that assertion seems a lot more realistic to their level of understanding (Olson 9). This "assertion" method is placed under process, which, as I see it, is closely related to whether or not a teacher is traditional or nontraditional in their style. The "traditional" way of teaching, in this sense, being a reliance on the tried and true. Conversely, teaching along the lines that "(1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and (3) writing is situated" just seems unrealistic to the comprehension of a student at the freshman level (Kent 1). The prior "assertion" method seems more helpful as a base unit of understanding, while moving through to post-process at a time when the students may be better able to understand that level of teaching--perhaps senior or graduate level.

While I agree more with the process theory than the post-process theory, I do not agree that statements can be made "about the process that would apply to all or most writing situations" (Olson 7). It seems logical that when grading a student's work instructors should take into consideration not only the finished product but also "the efforts the student has invested in the process of crafting the product" (Olson 7). However, by the very mention of the "effort of the student" each student would need to be looked at on an individual basis; therefore, one blanket process statement would not apply to all students. Some students work better leaving a thesis until they are finished with the paper, while some prefer to work from the thesis down; some students prefer to form an outline prior to starting the paper, while some do not. Either way, a process is under way--the student's individual process of writing. As a result of this individuality, the theory of process as constructing "a Theory of Writing, a series of generalizations about writing that supposedly hold true all or most of the time" may effectively be dispelled (Olson 8). Therefore, rather than a choice between process and post-process, I would like to add a new choice entitled "modified process"--adopting the process of writing on a case by case basis rather than generalizing it.

While the "process movement in composition served us well," so has the traditional style of teaching (Olson 7). As a result, I will stick to my traditional style (at least at this point in my teaching career) and hold strong to my "modified process" theory. Perhaps at a later date I will emphasize a post-process theory; however, while I remain open to the concepts of post-process theory, at this point I believe that if it's confusing for me as to "why mess with what I find to be a good thing," it will be equally as confusing for my first-year students.

Works Cited

Kent, Thomas ed. Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Illinois: SIUP, 1999.

Olson, Gary. "Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion." Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Illinois: SIUP, 1999. 7-15.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 27 May 2003 / Updated: --