What is considered writing, how it is taught, the activities conducted and how they are assessed are all shaped by different theoretical dispositions. Commentary on the topic of students’ writing, and teaching and assessment of writing is also reflected in the theoretical dispositions taken up by researchers. Key theories which guide research and pedagogy on the nature of writing either as a paper-based activity, or as a technology-based activity, are the cognitive and sociocultural approaches.

The cognitive approach, shaped by the work of Flower and Hayes (1981), views writing as an individual ‘skills’ activity where a writer transitions through particular pre-sequenced developmental stages in learning to structure their writing, and learning to spell. This perspective privileges the behavioral aspects of writing (grammar, spelling and staging format) during the process of creating text (e.g. planning and revising) as well as a writer’s mental capabilities (e.g., memory). Considering writing from a cognitive perspective alone disregards the reality that writers come with their own histories, are active participants in their own socially contextualised worlds (Obitz-Bukartek, 2018). The sociocultural view of writing argues that writing, particularly in school contexts, is essentially both an individual performance, as well as a social practice (see Deane, 2018). A sociocultural view of writing is framed on an understanding that students knowingly and unknowingly bring their own histories which are shaped by their experiences in their extended families and local communities.

The ‘Australian Curriculum: English’ (ACARA, 2020) understands writing as an amalgam of cognition and sociocultural views. As such the ‘Australian Curriculum: English’ intentionally balances and sequences content across both approaches.

Renowned theorist, Shulman (1986, 1987) emphasized the relationship between teachers’ content knowledge and teachers’ pedagogical practice, coining the term pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK is the amalgam of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. It is the knowledge base upon which teachers draw as they transform their content knowledge into content of instruction. Shulman (1986) described PCK as the knowledge base that teachers draw upon to ‘decide what to teach, how to represent it, how to question students about it and how to deal with problems of misunderstanding’ (p. 8). Shulman (1987) emphasised that PCK was neither acquired nor enacted separately. Thus if teachers of writers need content knowledge, they need to acquire the experience of being a writer that give priority to the creative and communicative function of written text. Kitt (2019) recounts the narratives of eight Year 12 English teachers from a range of sectors to explore the importance of teachers working more closely to develop the artistry and practice of creative writing. Kitt (2019) suggests that middle year teachers and Year 12 teachers need to work together more collaboratively to establish a creative writing culture where students are able to explore their place, space and identity in an increasingly global village, one where there is a focus on embedding creative writing in meaningful ways.

A team at Griffith University (Exley, Stinson, Kitson, Lennon & Penn-Edwards) is currently putting a research base behind these ideas. Teachers from the early years, primary years and secondary years are participating in ‘Teachers as Writers’ workshops. They are exploring their own creative writing potential and then we are asking them to think about what this might mean for them as a writing teacher. Our preliminary data analysis shows a good deal of promise for repositioning the writing teacher as a professional decision maker and shifting teachers’ pedagogical identity to a ‘teacher who writes’.