After class last week on Post-Process theory, I have to admit I am still completely lost as to what Post-Process really means, or what it would look like in the classroom. In my opinion, it seems like a terrible idea for composition scholars to propose a theory that effectively eliminates the need for their careers. But hey, what do I know? Perhaps, if someone provided a literal and descriptive explanation of what post-process pedagogy would look like in the classroom, it could gain more ground. Matthew Heard emphasizes the need for experimentation with post-process pedagogies, and I would agree…so why doesn’t he take the lead?
Beyond my initial complaints of the lack of uniformity and practical application of this theory, it seems that there is an overall concern or emphasis on dialogue as the primary process of writing. Breuch brought up Irene Ward, who emphasize the functionality of dialogue between different mediums, including the teacher, the self, the classmates, and the audience of the paper. In addition, Heard claims that post-process involves a turn toward the social and cites Kent’s claims that writing is public, interpretive, and situated within a context. I see some of these ideas showing up within the writing program and course offerings here at FAU. In particular, there is an emphasis towards social contexts, readings that can be discussed in class, group communication and group activities, and the philosophy that writing can only be learned through writing. In addition, there have been classes offered in the past (that I have heard about) and some potential upcoming classes that involve writing for the community and writing within social contexts. These seem like indications of the ideas of post-process, which is interesting because it suggests that there may in fact be a potential for pedagogical application.