Process writing is a well-established example of authentic literacy pedagogy that emerged prominently in the 1970s and 1980s as a direct challenge to the transmission-based, product-focused models that dominated classrooms before it. Rather than treating writing as a set of rules to be memorised and then demonstrated in a single, marked piece, process writing treats composing as a recursive, meaning-making activity. The approach is rooted in the belief that writers ,including young or developing ones ,learn best by doing what real writers do, generating ideas, drafting, receiving feedback, revising, and reflecting. It is authentic because it mirrors genuine literate practice rather than a simplified, decontextualised school version of it.

The approach typically unfolds through several overlapping stages i.e. prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing ,and crucially, these are not treated as a neat linear sequence but as a cycle that writers move through fluidly. The teacher's role shifts from knowledge-transmitter to writing coach: conducting writing conferences with individual learners, facilitating peer feedback sessions, and modelling the writing process by composing aloud in front of the class. Learners are given real choice over topics, genres, and audiences, which positions them as authors rather than task-completers. In the South African context, this approach has been embedded in the CAPS frameworks, particularly in the emphasis on drafting and editing across the writing curriculum.

The strengths of process writing are significant. It develops genuine authorial agency, encourages metacognitive awareness of one's own writing, and produces learners who understand that good writing is rewritten. It is inclusive of diverse voices and experiences, which in multilingual, multicultural classrooms like those in South Africa is particularly valuable. However, its weaknesses are equally real. The approach is resource- and time-intensive, demanding small class sizes, confident teacher facilitation, and learners who already possess sufficient foundational literacy to engage meaningfully with drafting and revision. In overcrowded South African classrooms — where the legacy of Bantu Education left many teachers without deep literacy training themselves ,process writing can become superficial, reduced to a checkbox exercise of "write a draft, then a final copy," without the genuine conferencing and revision that gives the method its power.

The contrast with didactic literacy pedagogy is fundamental. Where didactic approaches transmit pre-determined knowledge about language ,grammar rules, spelling lists, comprehension questions with correct answers ,process writing begins with the learner's own meaning and builds outward. Didactic pedagogy positions the teacher as the sole authority and the text as the endpoint; authentic literacy pedagogy positions the learner as a meaning-maker and the text as a starting point for thinking. In didactic models, all learners produce the same task in the same way; in process writing, diversity of response is not a problem to manage but a resource to celebrate.

Ultimately, process writing reminds us that literacy is not a set of skills to be installed in learners, but a practice to be lived and that distinction shapes everything about how a teacher stands in relation to their class

Process writing as an authentic literacy pedagogy