Writing is, much like anything else, definitely a process; however, processes can change over time. I was a product of the 1980's paradigm shift into the five paragraph essay. Organization was much more important than content and that has been the belief for many years. Traditional process writing focused more on grammar and conventions and penmanship. But that changed when technology changed and the focus turned to organizaiton. I see a shift now into expressivism; express what you are thinking in a clear and concise manner and remember to support what you say. Be creative (the multi-genre era). Really, this has all been a process throughout time. I think of writing as cooking. You can follow a recipe (a prescribed process) and pretty much garantee a perfect dish, or you could put a little bit of this and a little bit of that and hope it turns out delicious. Either way, once you eat the dish, you realize what you may want to change next time. It doesn't matter the process a writer follows, as long as they are satisfied with the product.
It seems to me that the whole point of this article by Matsuda is that writing is a process. Whether it is a process or post-process, it is a process nonetheless. The idea that our language causes such an uproar with words like pedagogy and theory and paradigm is amazing. Isn't that a process in itself? Discovering the best way to say something and to describe it? The way we use language is amazing. The denotation of post is after - so logically we should consider the definition of post-process to mean after the process; that is what Matsuda states toward the end of the article. However, the connotation of post-process in this article refers to the practices we explore as educators of writing since the introduction of the formal writing process. We have learned so many different processes for learning and teaching writing that it is now time to develop a process that best fits individual writers. I think that is the post-process Matsuda is addressing. One process is not the right process, but the culmination of many processes might be the best process.
I understand what Matsuda is saying about the L2 students and their writing. The focus for those students has been oration and writing has taken a back seat. The idea being that once you master speaking the language, your writing will be that much better. I think writing, reading, and speaking go hand-in-hand-in-hand, no matter the language. The more you read, the better you will write; and the more you write, the better you will speak (theoretically). Combining all processes for writing will only benefit the writer; the choices are available and one may work for now, but tomorrow may be a different process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shaynee,
ReplyDeleteI loved your comparison of writing with cooking, both being experimental processes which utilize a rudimentary formula as their base and incorporate spices of originality to engender something unique and interesting. More importantly, though, I found your reading of Matsuda’s article, that the history of composition studies in nothing more than a process, intriguing. In fact, I had never looked at the picture in such a grand scope. Over the past two weeks, we have read about how pedagogies, theories, and paradigms have continuously shifted over time, many of which contradicting each other and causing uproars. However, almost all of the authors we have read have not mentioned how the continued evolution and debate over the writing process in nothing more than a process itself. Indeed, I have not noticed it until reading your own analysis (and I’m ashamed to say that I hadn’t noticed it until then). That being said, though, I agree entirely with you about the history of teaching composition being a process, with its continued development, be it mostly experimental, working toward the outcome of creating a sound means to instruct students on how to write well. Thank you for such a fundamental enlightenment!
Thomas