Heard wrote that, “stated succinctly, what is truly postprocess is the idea that communication is paralogic—unpredictable and uncodifiable—and that composition must find ways to reflect this idea in theory and practice.”
Postprocess theory seems intentionally convoluted at times; the problem is that writing has been theorized and practiced and challenged and judged. These patterns cycle, creating a problem where we cannot know how to judge or understand composition as an act which can be graded. What Heard is theorizing is that there is no real or right definition of communication, yet composition must somehow be able to reflect its patterns.
How do we then take this into the classroom, where we are trying to teach codes and logic for writing that we will then judge when the student turns in their assignment?
I think the answer to this, as far as I can surmise, is we must take time in the classroom to understand where our students are coming from. I have learned so much about the ways my students communicate both through in-class conversation as well as their writing assignments.
Davidson also discusses postprocess theory, claiming that writing must be public, interpretive, and situated. So, if our students can take that public classroom conversation, interpret it into an idea on paper, and situate their idea into their perspective as well as the perspectives of the authors they are analyzing, then they might become more successful writers, and we might in turn become more successful teachers, judgers, and graders.