Thinking on the how-centered approach versus the what-centered approach as presented in the essay “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’” by Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch.
To teach writing is decidedly a complex endeavor, and codifying it as an anything-centered approach is problematic beyond the binary established by the how v. what dichotomy—even the essay submits that process pedagogy is both what-centered, content based, and how-leaning, as it “in many ways encouraged a shift away from content-based approaches”—so how, then, do I define what I do in my composition classroom if even the broadest terms of categorization leave room for a defense of the antithesis?
I don’t want to emphasize process as content, but I also don’t want to lose good writing as a model for learning. To explain what I mean I look to the schedule on my syllabus, an exact replica of the template provided by my teaching assistantship program, to yesterday’s events.
NOV 5
PEER RESPONSE DUE
Sample Work
Sample work. An example of the type of writing expected of a composition student in my classroom, or an example of the exact opposite. Content, either way, what-centered, but content used and presented to facilitate activity, how-centered, not an attempt at the “mastery of writing techniques,” but an act of writing toward clarity, toward discovery and meaning, not toward some perfectly cut puzzle piece that could fit into the “mater narrative” of the writing process, whatever that is, but the opportunity for writing to occur and recur.
Does content force my students into a box with however many other pieces of the puzzle—the jumbled image of what “good writing” looks like—or is content simply the opportunity for writers to sit down at the table to take a look at what’s there? Maybe, if I put some of the pieces out, some of the ones that I see working best, maybe then they’ll craft a piece of their own. Maybe their picture will look better than the one I had in mind.