In the Process Pedagogy chapter in the Tate reading, I was confused as to why all the rifts began pertaining to process pedagogy. Lad Tobin reiterates through his own words, and the words of other scholars, that process pedagogy involves treating the students as if they are writers, allowing them free roam to explore themselves through writing, and find their own unique authorial voice. If this is truely the overriding concept that process pedagogy derrives from, then why did this teaching style begin to fizzle and fade for failure to account for differences in race, gender, and class? If you focus on the individual student, then wouldn't the differences in race, class, and gender be brought to the lime light through writing about their own personal experiences and observations. The knocks that process pedagogy fails to recognize context and doesn't teach basic skills and conventions at least seem to hold some weight in an aurgument, though in my mind they can simply be reduced by incorporating context and conventions while still focusing on the experiences of the students; however, I don't understand the knock for failure to notice the multiple differences in race, class or gender. Maybe it's because the 'process style' became very prominent, dilluting the rebelious and anti-authoritarian image in lue of gained power and prominence as a teaching method. It seems that most movements ultimately end by stepping into the shoes of the movement it replaced, falling back into the regimine of tradition.