Main Article Content
Theories and approaches in the discipline of composition can be classified into three major groups: current-traditional, process, and post-process. Current-traditional rhetoric, emphasizing correctness and form, has dominated writing instruction for over a hundred of years, and is blamed for its suppressive philosophy. The process approach, stressing student autonomy and rhetorical situations, values the cognitive faculty and divides the writing act into stages, such as pre-writing, writing, and post-writing. This approach is attacked for trying to universalize the writing act, which is by nature situated, interpretative, and indeterminate. The post-process approach, instead, views writing as containing not one process but many processes, and also many realities. The present paper suggests that the post-process approach, which adopts tenets of postmodern and anti-foundationalist perspectives, is useful in designing a teaching method in the Thai EFL writing classroom.
The authors retain the copyright to their article but the Journal of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University reserves the exclusive rights to first publication.
Berlin, J. A. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bressler, C. E. (2003). Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching. A course in second language acquisition. (6thed.). New York: Pearson.
Bruffee, K. A. (1997). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” In Victor Villanueva (ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 393-414). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Culler, J. (1997). Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Free Press.
Dueraman, B. (2012). Teaching EFL writing: Understanding and rethinking the Thai experience. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 4(1), 255-275.
Eagleton, T. (2001). Literary theory: An introduction. (2nd ed.). Minnesota: Blackwell Publishers.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English 18(6): 527-39.
_____. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1997). A cognitive process theory of writing. In Victor Villanueva (ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 251-275). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English..
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Khun and the revolution of teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.
Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An inquiry of the origins of cultural change. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaewnuch, S. (2012). Balancing structuralism and postmodernism in EFL writing instruction and assessment. Journal of Liberal Arts Prince of Songkla University “Multicultural Lifestyle and Language,” 4(1), 39-57.
______. (2014a). Conflicts in rubrics, pedagogy, and EFL writing. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Uttaradit Rajabhat University, 1(2), 15-30.
______. (2014b). The modern subject, the postmodern subject, and the reconstruction of the EFL student writer. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Mahasarakham University, 33(6), 386-397.
Kastman Breuch, L. M. (2002). Post-process “pedagogy”: A philosophical exercise. jac, 22(1), 119-150.
Kennedy, M. L. (1998). (Ed.). Theorizing composition: A critical sourcebook of theory and scholarship in contemporary composition studies. The United States: Library of Congress Cataloging.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of second language writing, 12(2003), 65-83.
McComiskey, B. (2000). Teaching composition as a social process. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Mu, C. (2005). A taxonomy of ESL writing strategies. In Proceedings Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice. 1-10. Accessed from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/secure/00000064/01/congjun-mu_paper.doc.
Murray, D. M. (1997). Teaching writing as a process not product. In Victor Villanueva (ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 3-6). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nieto, S. (1999). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plain, New York: Longman.
Olson G. A. (2002). Toward a post-process composition. In Geraldine DeLuca, Len Fox, Mark-Ameen Johnson, and Myra Kogen. (Eds.). Dialogue on Writing: Rethinking ESL, Basic Writing, and First-Year Composition (pp. 233-41). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Polio, C. (2014). The acquisition of second language writing. In S. M. Gass and A. Mackey. The Routledge handbook of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. In MLA, Profession 91 (pp. 33-40). New York: MLA.
Puengpipatrakul, W. (2013). Assessment of Thai EFL undergraduates’ writing competence through integrated feedback. Journal of Institutional Research in South East Asia, 11(1), 16-27.
Rustipa, K. (2016). The structure and adequate development of English as a foreign language learners’ paragraphs: A case study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(2), 133-139.
Spring, J. (2002). American education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Varnum, R. (1992). The history of composition: Reclaiming our lost generations. Journal of Advanced Writing, 12(1), 39-55.
Xiao, Y. (2007). Applying metacognition in EFL writing instruction in China. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 6(1), 19-33.