Paul Kei Matsuda's "Process and Post-Process: A Discursive History"

Basically, this article looks at the name game of composition theory, especially regarding the process and post-process methods and how these terms, and the variety of ideas represented by them, apply to the field of L2 writing. Matsuda gives a solid review of the different approaches to grammar and composition theory in regard to L2 writing in the last 40 to 50 years. The current-traditional approach is well contrasted against the foundational ideas of the process movement. However, various scholars have challenged the labels given to certain ideas and have created new ones, attempting to redefine the boundaries of these approaches. For example, Faigley, Bizzell, and Berlin all, more or less, saw three philosophies represented in the process movement: expressive, cognitive, and social (72). The problem came when people like Trimbur decided that the social aspect should constitute its own movement, which he dubbed post-process (73). For me personally, I don’t see the big deal, and I feel Matsuda is leaning the same way. It doesn’t matter what you label it; the focus should be on the effectiveness of these practices and whether or not they are truly helping students become better writers. Matsuda’s ultimate purpose when discussing the post-process is “to show how such a term could mask the complexity of ideas to which it refers, and to caution against defining post-process as the complete rejection of all tenets of process pedagogy or theories” (78). Because Trimbur does not propose any new strategies, nor does he say anything really relevant, I see this as a moot point. Matsuda says “the post-process movement does not represent a unified theoretical front” (73). The main issue seems to be that different scholars rank the three process ideas in various degrees of importance, but these scholars are all still looking at the same ideas and simply putting brackets around the min different places.

There are critics like Kent who “construed ‘process’ as an attempt to develop ‘a generalized process or Big Theory’” (74). The author implies that Kent is misguided in this assertion, and rehashes the point that process writing is full of a “multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies” (65). I personally think the process approach has a great deal to offer in writing instruction. Acknowledging that students have something to say, helping them find their voice, encouraging creativity, reinforcing the revision process, and using student writing as a crucial text are all great ideas that can go a long way in improving students’ writing and potentially even their attitudes about writing.