POSt -PROCESS POSTING


Are we really at a transition to proclaim that we are in post-process era in composition pedagogy? Paul K. Matsuda (2003) in his essay Process and post-process: A discursive history has categorically stated that the phrase post-process “is a misnomer, for it presupposes a certain conception of process and proclaims its end-after all, it literally means ‘after process’ (p.78). Having said that, Matsuda has cautioned not to ban the term either despite the fact that post- process movement is inadequate to capture the complexities of composition studies. It’s not, as he would claim, a complete pedagogical approach in and by itself to composition studies in that it is an extension on and dependent upon process movement to stimulate new ideas and approaches to composition studies. Mastuda has been able to present the history of the post-process movement in composition studies along with defining the term, mentioning some of the proponents of this movement. Throughout the essay, Matsuda has been also consistent in mentioning the impacts and implications of the post-process movement both in L1 and L2 settings. However, Massuda has not mentioned any empirical studies to point out that post-process movement in L2 settings is responsible for reduced learning outcome.
On the other hand, Dwight Atkinson (2003) in his essay L2 writing in post-process era: Introduction has defined the term rigorously along with bringing to the fore some of the shortcomings of process so as to validate the emergence and the incorporation of the post-process movement in composition studies. Atkinson claims that the term post-process first appears in John Trimber’s (1994) review essay Taking the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-process. Atkinson has explained the four fundamental tenets of post-process as they were originally mentioned by Trimber. One of the tenets of post-process pedagogy which I would think is a leap in composition studies is to consider composition as cultural activity. This tenet singularly explains and distinguishes the post-process movement from process movement. Process movement in composition studies emphasizes the production and the enhancement knowledge constructed by the learners where teachers work as collaborators or facilitators. It’s a very indirect and inductive process of knowledge construction which ultimately aims at self discovery. Drawing on Trimber, Atkinson has claimed that there’s a social turn to composition studies which factors the production of written artifacts by the students. As such, it is of utmost importance that composition pedagogy also considers seriously the social settings, cultural orientation, political affiliation, religious beliefs of students as they produce written artifacts. This is how writing becomes a social cognitive approach which is in fact post-process in composition studies. I would wonder how rational it is to validate post-process as reliable pedagogical approach to teach composition when social realities learners are to required reflect in their writings is often shaped and endorsed by corporate, sinister politicians, and fake ideologues.