With respect to the writing process in particular, a now well-established body of research demonstrates that process-oriented writing instruction benefits student achievement in writing. Process-oriented terms and concepts have entered the material environment of America's schools, in textbooks and curricula even where the theoretical bases underlying those materials might appear to conflict with it, such as materials in which priority is placed on rhetorical modes, form, or grammatical correctness. Even in settings where no one would explicitly claim to embrace a "process pedagogy," classrooms exhibit some of its markers: students and teachers use words like "drafts," "prewriting," and "revision" in commonplace speech. Yet, though it is now difficult to imagine any language arts teacher at any grade level not knowing about "the writing process," many of the teaching practices employed in classrooms in the name of "the writing process" suggest that teachers may have different understandings about what the writing process entails as a model of writing and learning to write, conceptually or epistemologically. What "prewriting" means in classrooms, for example, may differ. Most teachers know about different strategies for pre-writing, but differences appear in how teachers and school programs construct their own understanding of what pre-writing means. This article presents and discusses case studies of two teachers, drawn from a larger study, who represent different ways of envisioning and enacting a process-influenced pedagogy, one who worked with the South Coast Writing Project in an inquiry-oriented inservice program and one who did not. These two teachers work in similar school settings with similar kinds of students and similar (in some instances identical) district-provided writing curricula, yet their differing approaches to the "same" classroom strategies suggest how National Writing Project (NWP)-influenced professional development might continue to influence even basic practice in the teaching of writing. (Contains 2 tables, 1 figure, and 1 footnote.)