Professional Documents
Culture Documents
12 (2003) 3–15
Abstract
In this introduction to the special issue, I attempt to lay out a coherent if still-heuristic
notion of ‘‘post-process.’’ I do so by first investigating four components of Trimbur’s
(1994) definition of ‘‘post-process’’: the social; the post-cognitivist; literacy as an ideo-
logical arena; and composition as a cultural activity. Next, I review studies in first and
especially second language writing/literacy research which have attempted to move beyond
process pedagogy and theory, and which for me, at least, provide a sound conceptual basis
for further developments in that direction. I then conclude by stating my own summative
definition of post-process, and briefly introducing the main contributions to this special
issue.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
enact[ed] what has come to be called the ‘‘social turn’’ . . ., a post-process, post-
cognitivist theory and pedagogy that represent literacy as an ideological arena
and composition as a cultural activity by which writers position and reposition
themselves in relation to their own and others’ subjectivities, discourses,
practices, and institutions. (p. 109)
*
Tel.: þ81-3-5441-9851; fax: 81-3-5441-9822.
E-mail address: dwightatki@aol.com (D. Atkinson).
1060-3743/03/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6
4 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
The influence of the process approaches, especially of cognitive views, upon modern ESL
classrooms cannot be exaggerated. In most classrooms, ESL teachers prepare students to
write through invention and other prewriting activities . . ., encourage several drafts of a
paper, require paper revision at the macro levels, generally through group work . . ., and
delay the student fixation with and correction of sentence-level errors until the final editing
stage.
Likewise, more recent accounts of the development and current state of the field of L2 writing
foreground the importance and pervasiveness of the process movement in the last quarter of the 20th
century. Thus, Grabe and Kaplan (1996, p. 84) state that ‘‘[M]uch current research on writing in a L2 is
based directly on theoretical and instructional trends in writing-as-a-process theory.’’ Likewise, Ferris
and Hedgcock (1998, pp. 5–6) open the section of their first chapter entitled ‘‘The Emergence of L2
Writing as a Subdiscipline: Issues and Methods’’ with the statement:
D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15 5
Although Ferris and Hedgcock’s is primarily a historical account at this point, it is clearly meant to
suggest that process pedagogy still has enormous influence in the current ‘‘state of the art’’ in L2
writing. This fact can also be seen in both of these scholars’ other work in the field, which concentrates
largely on issues of process — e.g., student and teacher feedback (Ferris, 1995a, 1997; Ferris, Pezone,
Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Hedgcock & Leftkowitz, 1992, 1994, 1996) and self-editing (Ferris, 1995b).
2
To give two examples of areas in which socially oriented theories of L2 writing could go
substantially further in the directions charted by ‘‘social turn’’ theorists:
1. The notion of ‘‘coherence’’ — which still seems to operate in at least some L2 writing
research (e.g., Connor, 1996) — is to me at least as unfortunate for what it hides or subsumes
about the relations between texts and the world as for what it allows or reveals. In fact, another
way of looking at what I am calling the ‘‘post-process’’ era in L2 writing would be to think of
it as an unpacking and reconceptualization of the ‘‘coherence’’ concept — in attempting to
answer the question: How exactly does a particular text (or set of texts, or set of text-producing
writing practices, or text-producing author(s), etc.) connect up with the rest of the world?
2. A second area in which progress might be made in socially oriented L2 writing is in
reconceptualizing the social/cognitive binary that seems to have inhibited basically all thought
on language and its development since the advent of cognitive psychology in the 1960s (and
no doubt behaviorism before that). Although this subject is beyond the scope of the present
essay, I treat it more fully elsewhere (Atkinson, 2002; cf., Leki, 2002).
6 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
3
Consider, for instance, the important place recently given ‘‘critical thinking’’ in national second
language education policy in places like Malaysia and Hong Kong (e.g., Hashim & Abas, 2000).
D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15 7
see it. Let me now return to Trimbur’s own explication of the ‘‘post-process’’
notion, followed by a brief review of related literature in the field.
Conceptual background
For Trimbur and the scholars whose work he reviewed, then, problems with
process pedagogy revolved around its ultimate failure to deal with questions of
power in the classroom: The bad old ways basically continued.
While Trimbur was (for me at least) the first to put a name to it, by the mid-
1990s a critique of process pedagogy was in the air, its seeds having been sown by
teachers and researchers such as Delpit (1988) and Inghilleri (1989) in the
preceding decade.4 These two scholars had pointed out that process pedagogy
4
In his article in this issue, Paul Matsuda traces a somewhat different evolutionary path for the
‘‘post-process’’ movement — one that is centered more fully in the field of L1 composition itself.
8 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
was problematic for African American and immigrant ESL students, respectively,
because the indirect, inductive approach taken by process-oriented teachers
seemed to assume forms of socialization these students had neither had in their
home environments nor were likely to get in the classroom. As with Trimbur, their
criticisms therefore revolved ultimately around such questions as ‘‘Whose
power?’’ and ‘‘Who benefits?’’ in the process-oriented classroom.5
By the 1990s, a growing number of researchers and teachers were beginning to
point out the mismatch between L1-oriented process pedagogy and the life
experiences of various kinds of students. Scollon (1991; see also Ho, 1998; Li,
1996; Shen, 1989), for example, described his attempt to implement Elbow’s
version of process writing (e.g., Elbow, 1981) in a class of Taiwanese university
students, with strikingly poor results. He located the problem in clashing expecta-
tions regarding what sociocultural action student writers saw themselves as
engaged in, including how to position themselves vis-à-vis the larger society
and its fund of received knowledge. Somewhat similarly, Holliday (1994) argued
that, without considerable sensitivity and modification, process-oriented, group-
based, student-centered approaches to second language teaching in general were
inappropriately applied in parts of the world they were not originally designed for.
Allaei & Connor (1990), Carson and Nelson (1996), Delpit (1995), Gee (1990,
1996), and Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996), among others, also indicated ways in
which non-mainstream writers might be disadvantaged by an L1-oriented process
writing approach. Unlike Trimbur or Scollon, however, some of these latter
scholars focused more on mundane classroom realities — specific classroom
practices that did not seem to work as expected — than on abstract (but no less real)
issues of culture and power.
In an important historical account of school-based literacy education in ‘‘the
west,’’ Kalantzis and Cope (1993) described the dominant influence of ‘‘pro-
gressivism’’ on modern educational contexts. Progressivism by their account
originated in response to traditional pedagogical approaches which emphasized
the inculcation of received knowledge — typically manifested in a culture-centric
and invariant canon of ‘‘classical’’ works to be fixed in the student’s mind. In
attempting to overturn such approaches, the originator of progressivism, John
Dewey, advocated a ‘‘pedagogy of experience’’ in which students’ individuality
and autonomy were developed by giving them the opportunity to learn according
to their own needs and interests. It is out of this tradition that student-centered,
process-oriented, and discovery-based curricular innovations such as process
writing and whole language emerged, according to Kalantzis and Cope.
More specifically, Kalantzis and Cope delineated two types of progressivism: one
based directly on the ideas of Dewey, which came to influence curriculum especially
in the US from the 1960s onward; and one which has increasingly combined parts of
Deweyan progressivism with post-modernist and non-foundational accounts of
5
These two questions were first given their exact forms of expression for me by Lars Molloy, who
attributed them to V. I. Lenin.
D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15 9
schooling and power (e.g., Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). Regarding both post-
modernist progressivism (as its most recent manifestation) and progressivism in
general, Kalantzis and Cope raised a number of critical questions:
1. Does post-modernist progressivism, with its apparent radical openness to
individuality and difference, really value all cultural points of view
equally (e.g., those which ‘‘revere textual authority or which elevate
teachers as the sources of educational knowledge’’ (pp. 56–57))?
2. Is a ‘‘student-centered’’ approach not in reality a cultural artifact, and one
which obscures rather than clarifies the continued control of education/
knowledge by the teacher and the school?
3. Does the ‘‘cultural bias’’ of progressivist pedagogy favor certain socio-
cultural groups at the expense of others, that is, those whose school-like
literacy socialization began at birth versus those who come from very
different traditions of literacy and language use (e.g., Heath, 1983)?
4. Related to Point 3, does the ‘‘assumption that all students will intuitively
discover things for themselves’’ (p. 57) unfairly reproduce a system in
which those who receive the tools to do so in early socialization are
advantaged over those who don’t?
In sum, Kalantzis and Cope were concerned in their historical account with the
cultural assumptions underlying progressivism, and the disabling effects such
assumptions could have on non-mainstream students. The solution they offer to
these problems — and the main focus of the book in which their essay appears —
is the originally Australian ‘‘genre approach’’ to teaching writing, represented in
this special issue by Hyland’s article (see below).
I have now covered a range of different historical objections to process
approaches to writing. For the sake of convenience, these can be classified as
follows:
1. Concerns about the production and reproduction of unequal power
relationships in and beyond the classroom, based largely on the non-
transparent nature of pedagogies which seek to provide alternatives to top-
down, teacher-centered approaches.
2. Concerns about cultural mismatches — and their ultimate effects (as in
Point 1 just above) — having to do with the highly specific cultural basis
of process pedagogies.
3. More microscopic concerns having to do with techniques and procedures
connected with process writing (e.g., peer review), and their possible lack
of utility in the process-writing classroom.
Historical concerns about process pedagogy, however, need not bind us to any
particular interpretation of the term ‘‘post-process.’’ In the long run, its value may
10 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
lie more in its prospective and heuristic power — its ability to take us beyond a
focus on writing simply as a process, or more specifically as a highly cognitive,
individualist, largely asocial process. Seen through a different lens, writing is a
human activity which reaches into all other areas of human endeavor — expansive
in a way that casts doubt on conventional boundaries between individual and
society, language and action, the cognitive and the social. I therefore view the
notion of ‘‘post-process’’ as an appropriate basis on which to investigate the
complex activity of L2 writing in its full range of sociocognitive situatedness,
dynamism, diversity, and implications.
For the purposes of this special issue, then, I would like to define ‘‘post-
process’’ as including everything that follows, historically speaking, the period of
L2 writing instruction and research that focused primarily on writing as a
cognitive or internal, multi-staged process, and in which by far the major dynamic
of learning was through doing, with the teacher taking (in some — sometimes
imagined — senses) a background role. However, let me immediately consider
two kinds of potential problems with this definition.
First, it might justifiably be objected that the version of process pedagogy
assumed here bears little resemblance to those commonly employed in L2 writing
classrooms. Certainly, in my own experience as an L2 writing teacher, I have
played a substantial, interventionist role in students’ writing processes, offering
comments and encouragement designed to mold students’ writings in definite
ways (for more on this approach, see Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995). Likewise,
in most of the process-oriented writing classes I have taught, students addressed
particular assignments, there being little in the way of free choice of essay topics
(as a result, I should add, largely of the specific curriculum being followed).
Similarly, I have rarely encouraged self-discovery as the primary purpose of
writing assignments; quite to the contrary, these assignments typically asked
students to write ‘‘about something’’ — some social issue or concern beyond their
purely personal, individual lives. In these regards, I believe my experience reflects
those of many teachers of L2 writing.
And yet it seems equally apparent that process-oriented L2 writing instruction
does continue traditions that are part and parcel of the process pedagogy critiqued
by Trimbur, Scollon, Kalantzis, Cope, and the other scholars mentioned so far. In
fact, the greater number of these scholars have focused specifically on pedago-
gical concepts and practices current in L2 writing, including peer review, voice,
audience, and expression of self. To cite just one further example, the recent JSLW
special issue on voice (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001) included three articles featuring
what are to me, at any rate, notions of voice in L2 writing that are to some degree
at least individualistic and ‘‘originary’’ — notions which have been deconstructed
both in the same issue (Atkinson, 2001) and elsewhere (e.g., Bowden, 1999;
Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999).
Second, by advocating a ‘‘post-process’’ approach to L2 writing, I do not intend
to suggest that process pedagogy should necessarily be replaced in any wholesale
way in the L2 writing classroom. The usefulness and power of process writing has
D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15 11
been revealed time and again; and if I were suddenly transported into and put in
charge of an L2 writing classroom, pre-writing, drafting, feedback, and revising
would almost certainly be important classroom activities. As an approach to
teaching different kinds of writing at the university level, I personally hold
process writing in high regard — it is, in fact, difficult for me to conceptualize the
effective teaching of writing without it. My own interest in the concept of ‘‘post-
process’’ is, therefore, not in terms of a basic ‘‘paradigm shift,’’ but rather in
expanding and broadening the domain of L2 writing — in research as much as in
teaching.
Let me turn now to the articles in this special issue. Of the authors whose work
is featured here, Ryuko Kubota, Christine Casanave, Ilona Leki, and myself were
participants in a colloquium entitled ‘‘Second Language Writing in the Post-
Process Era,’’ held at the 35th annual TESOL convention in St. Louis, Missouri in
March 2001. Ken Hyland and Paul Kei Matsuda were attendees at that collo-
quium, and raised issues related to those they write about here. Each of the six
authors clearly has their own thoughts on the place of process pedagogy in L2
writing research and teaching — perspectives that differ more or less widely from
the one I adopt in this introduction.
In his article, Ken Hyland describes the conceptual basis of the main insti-
tutionalized alternative to process pedagogy currently on offer: the ‘‘genre
approach’’ advocated principally by a group of scholars in Australia (e.g., Cope
& Kalantzis, 1993), but which is now spreading in influence beyond that context.
Hyland shows how this approach both opposes process pedagogy as he con-
ceptualizes it, and goes beyond it.
Ryuko Kubota delineates many of the connections that need to be made
between L2 writing and issues of race, class, and gender. Generally speaking,
Kubota advocates a non-essentialist approach to understanding these social
categories which highlights issues of power and discourse. This is a very different
perspective on L2 writing than the (superficially) non-political one that has
dominated the field historically, and it has already led to new and profound
understandings. Here, once again, L2 writing is being examined in its myriad
connections to the rest of the world, as opposed to being isolated in a narrow and
pragmatically conceived context.
Chris Casanave provides a review of case studies of second language writers,
arguing that they are especially useful in revealing the social and political
processes at work in such writing in the academic world. Although by no means
rejecting process pedagogy, Casanave sees writing processes as expansive and
closely interconnected to the rest of human activity.
In my own contribution to this special issue, I attempt to sketch out ways of
thinking about culture in L2 writing that deviate substantially from those
traditionally available in the field. In particular, I focus on recent attempts in
anthropology and cultural studies to examine culture reflexively — to investigate
how the analyst’s own unexamined perceptions color the viewing lens, including
what it means to think of writing instruction as a highly cultural activity.
12 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
The English teacher can cooperate in her own marginalization by seeing herself
as a ‘‘language teacher’’ [and, I would add, more specifically ‘‘as a writing
teacher’’ — editor’s note] with no connection to . . . social and political issues. Or
she can . . . accept her role as one who socializes students into a world view that,
given its power [in the U.S.] and abroad, must be viewed critically, compara-
tively, and with a constant sense of the possibilities for change. Like it or not, the
English teacher stands at the very heart of the most crucial educational, cultural,
and political issues of our time.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Paul Kei Matsuda for helpful comments and criticisms on
an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing
classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19–28.
D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15 13
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Atkinson, D. (1991). Discourse analysis and written discourse conventions. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 11, 57–76.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
71–94.
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654.
Atkinson, D. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10, 107–124.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern
Language Journal, 86, 525–545.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and
L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539–568.
Belcher, D. (1997). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist
critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6,
1–21.
Belcher, D. (2001). Does L2 writing have gender? In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second
language writing (pp. 59–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Special issue on voice in L2 writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 1–2.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor.
Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/
text, 3, 211–245.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645–668.
Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carson, J. C., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group
interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching
writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children.
Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples’ children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New
Press.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors.
TESOL Journal, 4, 18–22.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 315–339.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing:
Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365–387.
14 D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15
Ohmann, R. (1982). Reflections on class and language. College Composition and Communication,
44, 1–17.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL
Quarterly, 30, 201–230.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prior, P. A. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition
and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current composition textbooks:
Implications for L2 student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21–34.
Rowe, J. C. (1995). Structure. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary
study (2nd ed., pp. 23–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scollon, R. (1991). Eight legs and an Elbow: Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions.
In Launching the literacy decade: Awareness into action. Proceedings of the Second North
American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy: Multiculturalism and Citizenship (pp. 1–
14). Toronto: International Reading Association.
Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society,
24, 1–28.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English
composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 459–466.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case
study. Written Communication, 14, 3–62.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philosophie et d’Histoire, 71,
687–698.
Tobin, L. (Ed.). (1994). Taking stock: The writing process movement in the ’90s. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composition and
Communication, 45, 108–118.
Vandrick, S. (1995). Privileged ESL university students. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 375–380.