Insofar as post-process classroom application is concerned, Breuch concludes that its main use rests in “remind[ing] us to think carefully about our teaching practices, and to become more aware of our interactions with students in the classroom,” (122) that, despite pan-subject application, its power rests in understanding that “teaching does not equal mastery of content but rather how teachers and students can interact with one another.” (122) In class we discussed if student-driven essay writing was an effective vehicle to achieve college-level papers, and, if memory serves, consensus was largely skeptical for the same reasons post-process dwindled not long after conception. An issue summed by Matthew Heard: “[A] wholesale adoption of postprocess theory is not realistically possible in most universities since the idealism of the theory clashes at times with the exigencies of student’s needs. (283)” And this is an issue particularly relevant for intro composition courses–can we trust the blank slate to achieve all it needs to arrive at the ‘college-level?’ In terms of potential effectiveness, it’s an encapsulation of the theoretical: “Postprocess…[claims] that the very nature of written communication has been misunderstood until now as a ‘closed’ system that might eventually be captured with enough training, practice, and rules. (Heard 284)” If the system is stagnating and the rules becoming too rigid, the move is understandable as”writing ‘cannot be taught,’ since writing, like speaking cannot be mastered like a skill but must be exercised by ‘entering into specific dialogue. (Heard 284)” If this is granted, then a class based on ‘exercise to greatness’ should be the right move. But in the same way a weight-lifting coach wouldn’t ask a newbie to bench their body weight on the first visit, a teacher shouldn’t toss the first essay to fortune and whim.
