Building a Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy: Working with Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs about Writing
Saved in:
| Title: | Building a Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy: Working with Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs about Writing |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Clare Dowdall (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(1). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 26 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Writing (Composition), Writing Instruction, Teaching Methods, Literacy Education, Writing Teachers, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Writing Attitudes, Inclusion, Social Justice |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70083 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | In various settings internationally, and in England in particular, writing pedagogy and associated practice is reported as being enacted in contexts of high-stakes accountability. These contexts contribute to a prevailing social imaginary for literacy education that can frame and constrain the possibilities for teachers and learners, meaning that opportunities to develop writing pedagogy and practice that are inclusive, expansive, responsive to change, and socially just, are restricted. In this paper, in the light of contextual information, the social imaginary for literacy education is described and conceptualized in relation to teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing. Next, a scoping style review of relevant research and theoretical literature from the last 20 years that reports insights into teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy is presented. Nine themes and associated claims are constructed as a result of the insights derived and are presented collectively to provoke research-informed critical reflection about the nature of teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy in relation to the social imaginary and its effects. To conclude, an alternate imaginary is presented as an ideal: The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy. This imaginary brings teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education into relation with teacher professional knowledge, to promote pedagogies and practices for writing that are inclusive, expansive, responsive, and socially just. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1494529 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF38Ivjs12XJjhH4riUyNGFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMXADrdctufcSjbwNgIBEICBm_-_Wixn5MKW5QSln1sm5DoEOt6q8m2KLE7n6DRWyHVKW-Bj-q5W1rhbzJGVXSTnyDq5D6iJYCc2REK3IjCTZ-wKGrx68UIr2DWmC0LU4ASlyIJJXD3yAS4skXSyQG61hvFzr3pC5B4COdIJdNT7F_QYo0pTkCbomtPmM06q1l249NB55G-3jbGOI2BxuN_UlqVZ3KFDf48MaUFm Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0191105823;[nrnu]01jan.26;2026Jan28.02:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191105823-1">Building a Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy: Working With Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs About Writing </title> <p>In various settings internationally, and in England in particular, writing pedagogy and associated practice is reported as being enacted in contexts of high‐stakes accountability. These contexts contribute to a prevailing social imaginary for literacy education that can frame and constrain the possibilities for teachers and learners, meaning that opportunities to develop writing pedagogy and practice that are inclusive, expansive, responsive to change, and socially just, are restricted. In this paper, in the light of contextual information, the social imaginary for literacy education is described and conceptualized in relation to teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing. Next, a scoping style review of relevant research and theoretical literature from the last 20 years that reports insights into teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy is presented. Nine themes and associated claims are constructed as a result of the insights derived and are presented collectively to provoke research‐informed critical reflection about the nature of teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy in relation to the social imaginary and its effects. To conclude, an alternate imaginary is presented as an ideal: The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy. This imaginary brings teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education into relation with teacher professional knowledge, to promote pedagogies and practices for writing that are inclusive, expansive, responsive, and socially just.</p> <p>Keywords: knowledge and beliefs about writing; literacy; literacy education; pedagogic content knowledge; pedagogy; practice; professional imaginary of writing pedagogy; social imaginary; teacher beliefs; teacher knowledge</p> <p>In this paper, The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy is presented as an ideal. This imaginary brings teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education into relation with teacher professional knowledge and beliefs about writing, to promote pedagogies and practices for writing that are inclusive, expansive, responsive and socially just.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70083-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70083-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105823-3">Introduction</hd> <p>In this conceptual paper, I seek to construct a professional imaginary of writing pedagogy: a research‐informed ideal to offer challenge to the social imaginary for literacy education that has been associated with the high‐stakes accountability framing that prevails in relation to mandated literacy education in England (Barrs [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref2">81</reflink>]) and a range of international contexts (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref3">32</reflink>]; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]). Challenge to the social imaginary for literacy education by teachers of writing in international high‐stakes accountability contexts may in turn provide opportunities for the development of inclusive, equitable, and responsive pedagogies that seek to address the reported inequitable and reductive context invoked by the effects of the social imaginary.</p> <p>In England, the high‐stakes accountability context and its effects have been described previously using the British philosopher Charles Taylor's term "social imaginary" (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref5">81</reflink>]; Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref6">63</reflink>]). Taylor defines the "social imaginary" in modern terms as the populace's implicit grasp of social space that stands in contrast with more theoretical understandings that are the preserve of the "few" or even the "elite" (Taylor [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref7">118</reflink>], 24). In the case of literacy education, the social imaginary can be understood as the "implicit grasp" of the populace (in this case, teachers, learners, caregivers, and involved others) about, for example, how writing should be taught, and what learning to write involves. The "implicit grasp" of social space is realized in the beliefs, knowledge, and practices of this group and the discourses that they occupy and contribute to. The social imaginary as it relates to literacy education is therefore not merely a set of ideas that describe the populace's reality or context; rather it is a productive force, with real effects (Taylor [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref8">118</reflink>], 2).</p> <p>Moss ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref9">81</reflink>]), has explained how the social imaginary for literacy education (in England in particular) is inflected by policy that sits within a pervasive high‐stakes accountability culture, which has been reported as narrowing the curriculum for writing, and restricting possibilities for teachers and learners (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]; Simpson and Cremin [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref11">110</reflink>]; Bearne [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]). This observation has been made of the US and Australia too, where, for example, local and national high‐stakes accountability contexts have been reported as having the potential to reduce the teaching of writing to primarily skills‐based instruction (Brosseuk [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>]; Frawley and McLean Davies [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref14">55</reflink>]). In terms of the social imaginary for literacy education, therefore, high‐stakes accountability contexts act to limit what can be imagined for writing, and what is possible in practice for writing pedagogy. This has real effects for literacy educators and learners in terms of equity and social justice; involving the narrowing of the curriculum for some, and tension for teachers whose knowledge and beliefs pertaining to literacy education may stand at odds with the assessment and attainment measures implicit in their contexts and that drive curricula and practice (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref15">81</reflink>]). In England currently, children's enjoyment in writing is recorded to be at an unprecedented low, following 10 years of decline, with "concerning long‐term implications for literacy and learning" (National Literacy Trust [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref16">91</reflink>]). In their review of international research literature on reading and writing for pleasure, Cremin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]) have recently observed that narrow notions of writing as proficiency persist in many curricula, alongside narrow assessment frames, meaning that experiences for writers and their teachers are likely to remain constrained (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>], 7).</p> <p>Researchers and literacy scholars internationally have long sought to tackle the reductive effect of high‐stakes accountability framings, arguing instead for the development of inclusive and equitable practice involving variously: recommendations for educational leaders to commit to culturally relevant pedagogy and antiracist assessment approaches for writing (NCTE [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref19">90</reflink>]); the promotion of institutional belonging and the promotion of inclusive pedagogies for young writers (Dyson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref20">50</reflink>]); implementation of rich and expansive writing pedagogy that foregrounds content and quality over form (Barrs [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]); conceptualizations of writing that are multidimensional and attend to writer autonomy and agency (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]); and the development of pedagogies that can build children's identities as writers and positive engagement with the writing process (Gardner [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref23">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>A separate body of research considers the wholesale shifts in the very nature of the writing process, triggered by the ubiquity of digital communication in everyday life (Burnett and Merchant [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]), and more expansive theoretical framings using ecological, relational, and sociomaterial perspectives (Lacković et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref25">71</reflink>]; Rowsell [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref26">103</reflink>]), involving understanding the embeddedness of rapidly evolving digital resources in learners' everyday lives (Burnett and Merchant [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]; Burnett and Merchant [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]); and recognition of new possibilities for communication in online contexts (NCTE [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref29">90</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref30">89</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref31">88</reflink>]). In relation to this, but as a separate and more specific issue, the uptake of generative AI amongst children and their teachers has been noted in the literature as having the potential to impact literacy pedagogy and writing in particular (Fang et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]; Lowien and Thomas [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref33">76</reflink>]). Clearly, for educators concerned with the development of inclusive and equitable practice and responsive pedagogies for writing and literacy education more generally, critical awareness of the constraining force of the social imaginary as it functions in high‐stakes accountability contexts, along with the changing understandings and concerns about the very nature of writing and what it may mean to be a writer, is of significance.</p> <p>It is therefore my intention in this paper to conceptualize the social imaginary and its reported effects, particularly in relation to writing pedagogy in high‐stakes accountability contexts. I will build out from this conceptualization, in the light of a scoping study on teacher beliefs and knowledge about writing, to present challenge to the constraining effect of the social imaginary in the form of an ideal: the Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy. In so doing, I hope to promote the development of inclusive and equitable practice and pedagogy for writing that serves teachers and learners in contexts that are subject to constraint yet evolving in relation to new possibilities for communication (Bhatt and Gourlay [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>]; Lacković et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref35">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-4">Aims</hd> <p>To achieve this overarching intention, this paper is structured in four parts. First, I establish the context for this paper. I will outline my positionality and define key terms relating to the context. The issues of attainment and high‐stakes accountability in relation to literacy and writing in particular, in English and international contexts, will be presented.</p> <p>Second, I will conceptualize the social imaginary for literacy education in relation to teacher beliefs, knowledge and practice in contexts of high‐stakes accountability; and in particular, in relation to teacher knowledge as it relates to practice and pedagogy for writing (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, I will present a scoping study (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]) of relevant research literature that seeks to understand teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing as they are reported. Guided by the research question: <emph>What does recent research literature tell us about teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy?</emph> this scoping study will identify the major themes that can be constructed in response, to uncover insights from research that might therefore support challenge to the social imaginary for writing that persists in high‐stakes accountability contexts.</p> <p>Finally, these themes will be operationalized as a series of claims for use by teachers in the form of the Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy—an ideal to challenge the social imaginary for literacy education, and that can support educators to develop critical, sensitive, inclusive, equitable, meaningful, and responsive writing pedagogy in the presence of high‐stakes accountability policy contexts.</p> <p>My overall aim therefore is to harness the concept of the social imaginary as it can be related to literacy education and writing pedagogy, and expose how in a context of high‐stakes accountability it can act to constrain pedagogy. As an outcome, I propose an alternative concept: the Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy as a tool that validates the role of critique and challenge for the development of teacher knowledge, especially when positioned within a context of high‐stakes accountability.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-5">Part One: Establishing the Context and Research Challenge</hd> <p>I bring particular literacy researcher "positionality" to this study (Clough and Nutbrown [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]), as my experiences have been significantly framed by the pervasive high‐stakes accountability context for mandated primary and secondary literacy education in England (for children aged 5–16), that is the legacy of the Education Reform Act, 1988 (The National Archives, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref39">119</reflink>]), involving the inception of the English National Curriculum for schools and associated statutory national testing and assessment arrangements for reading and writing in 1989; and the tranche of initiatives and policy developments to raise attainment in literacy, as measured by statutory tests and teacher assessment, that followed (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref40">81</reflink>]). These have included the National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching (DfEE [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]); the revised national curriculum/assessment arrangements in 2013 (DfE [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]); and the establishment of The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (Ofsted, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref43">94</reflink>]) in 1992 with its intention, through inspection, to contribute to raising standards and improving the quality of educational experience and provision (Bassey [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]). In all these policy‐driven initiatives, the requirement to raise attainment in children's reading and writing (literacy) has been formative.</p> <p>The term "attainment" is subject to interpretation depending on the historical and geographical context being described (Moss [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref45">80</reflink>]). It can be understood in England specifically in relation to reading and writing, using current policy documentation (DfE [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]; DfE [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>], 3), where, under the heading "Attainment Targets," it is described as a measure of knowledge, application and understanding of specified skills and processes (DfE [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref48">43</reflink>], 6). Attainment targets are presented in statutory programs of study (PoS) for Writing for children at ages 5–6 and 6–7 (Key Stage One), and ages 7–9 and 9–11 (Key Stage Two) (DfE [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref49">43</reflink>]). For "Writing," they include requirements for transcription (spelling and handwriting); composition; and vocabulary, grammar and punctuation in a range of established genres (DfE [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref50">43</reflink>]). To help teachers arrive at secure‐fit judgments of attainment, tests for Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar (SPaG) (see Standards and Testing Agency [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref51">114</reflink>]), along with the use of statutory Teacher Assessment Frameworks and associated exemplification materials for writing (see Standards and Testing Agency [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref52">113</reflink>]) in year 6 (ages 10–11), are mandated.</p> <p>In terms of modality, writing attainment is measured through the medium of alphabetic print on page, in what can be recognized as an autonomous and pedagogized model of literacy (Street [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref53">116</reflink>]) that has long been argued to reduce literacy to a neutral set of reading and writing skills to be taught by those in authority to impose power (Larson [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref54">72</reflink>], 440). Conceptualized as such, "attainment" in the English policy context can be regarded as a key tool of accountability for literacy educators that directly feeds and frames the high‐stakes accountability discourse and realization of curriculum and pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-6">The High‐Stakes Accountability Context in England</hd> <p>In England, the discourse around the impact of high‐stakes accountability has been subject to critique for nearly 20 years, raising issues for inclusivity and equality in literacy education. In the most recent English literacy policy initiative published for schools "The Writing Framework" (DfE [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref55">46</reflink>], 92), it is observed that the statutory testing and assessment of writing can limit the development of skills and knowledge and stifle pupils' creativity and wider writing development. This is not elaborated in the Framework, but can be attributed variously. In its submission to the Government's Independent Review of Key Stage Two testing, assessment and accountability (GOV.UK [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref56">60</reflink>]), and in its final report, the Cambridge Primary Review Trust claimed that English children were subject to exceptional levels of external statutory testing, with repercussions for the narrowing of their curriculum (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>]; Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]). Cremin and Myhill ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]), in response to the claim that skills‐focused conceptualizations have impacted teacher professional understandings about writing and led to a prioritization on accountability measures, have long aimed to engage teachers in reflection about teaching writing and themselves as writers. Hutchings ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref60">67</reflink>]) in her survey and case study research for the English National Union of Teachers, to explore the impact on children of a range of high‐stakes accountability measures (involving inspection and the measures reported in performance tables), noted 18 key issues including: increased time given to test preparation to raise attainment; the introduction of greater pressure on "disadvantaged" children; the reduction of attention on specific groups of children, for example, those with special educational needs; the narrowing of the wider curriculum to support a focus on literacy and mathematics; the standardization of lessons and a reduction in time spent on creative teaching; and increased workload and stress for teachers. Bearne ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]) has articulated the dilemma for teachers in England as they struggle to bring creative and skills‐based approaches to pedagogy into balance, advocating the implementation of a framework for equity, in response to the high‐stakes accountability context. Barrs ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]) echoes all of these issues in her critique of approaches to teaching and assessing writing in English schools, noting the impact of Government initiatives to raise standards leading to a curriculum that emphasizes skill over content, and pedagogies that lean to the success criteria stated in documentation—including a focus on prescriptive grammar and vocabulary development. These issues all have implications for writing pedagogy in terms of social justice and equality of opportunity, and are reflected in the findings of Bradbury et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]) mixed methods study, where survey and interviews with headteachers found that the enactment of the Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG) test in particular has led adversely to "practices of division," where children are organized and categorized as part of preparation for statutory national testing.</p> <p>The role of high‐stakes assessment seems set for the foreseeable future, despite the fact that the national curriculum and assessment system is currently under independent review. In its interim report of findings (March 2025), the Department for Education (DfE) commended the current system of assessment for children aged 5–11, and restated its commitment to high‐stakes statutory assessment as crucial to raising standards, and as "an important tool in holding schools to account for the progress and attainment of their pupils" (DfE [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref64">45</reflink>], 38).</p> <p>The constraining impact of the high‐stakes accountability context described here, while being particular to England, is not exclusive. In other particular international contexts similar observations have been made.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-7">International Contexts of High‐Stakes Accountability</hd> <p>The global commodification of education (Biesta [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]) is evidenced internationally in relation to literacy by the increased uptake and impact of international tests of reading that have served to create an attainment hierarchy of participating countries (Shiel and Eivers [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref66">108</reflink>]). The OECD Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref67">98</reflink>]) has seen participation rise from 24 to 57 education systems between 2001 and 2021 (Lindorff et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref68">74</reflink>]). While the PIRLS data present an overall trajectory of improvement in attainment during this period, criticisms of its wider effects echo those made of English assessment arrangements, in that it (and its counterpart for older students, the Programme for International Student Assessment) are reported as adversely impacting literacy education and teacher practice. While concerned with reading specifically, these tests contribute to an international context of high‐stakes accountability for both reading and writing (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref69">32</reflink>], 80), and in particular, are cited as supporting the development of "narrow, predominantly skills‐based programmes, designed to address attainment gaps", which in turn serve to de‐professionalize education in general terms, and "constrain and commodify literacy through the use of skills‐based programmes to bolster outcomes" (Simpson and Cremin [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref70">110</reflink>]). From a social justice perspective, PIRLS is argued to have caused repercussions on a global scale relating to equality of opportunity for learners, as these contexts of high accountability can promote the deficit positioning of some literacy learners by their teachers (Simpson and Cremin [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref71">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's writing has not been subject to the same level of international scrutiny as reading (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref72">32</reflink>]); however, Cuff ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]) has reported that high‐stakes accountability contexts have permeated approaches to writing pedagogy and practice in a range of international jurisdictions. Particular examples taken from the US and Australia provide evidence for the generalized argument that teachers working in high‐stakes accountability contexts are impacted by the quest to raise attainment, which has repercussions for their practice and beliefs about writing pedagogy, leading particularly to issues of social injustice and inequity for some learners.</p> <p>In the US, since 2011, students have participated in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Writing Assessments, from Kindergarten to Year 12 (National Center for Education Statistics [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref74">87</reflink>]). In addition, many students are subject to assessments of writing evolved from the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (originally adopted by 46 States). Nagrotsky and Franjul Grullon ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref75">85</reflink>]), in a response to Tampio ([<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref76">117</reflink>])'s argument that the CCSS serves to promote undemocratic pedagogy for writing, draw from their experiences as teachers and as a former student to present a damning critique of the impact of the use of standardized tests in the English Language Arts classroom on multilingual children and children of color, noting how metric‐informed goal setting has led to targeted interventions with negative outcomes for all students—but particularly those from marginalized communities. Counsell and Wright ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]) have similarly noted a continuum of moral and ethical dilemmas for the teachers working to raise attainment in different contexts, and how in a low‐income/high‐poverty school in particular, a culture of fear for the teachers was created, effectively making the school subservient to the high‐stakes accountability context. Based on their reflections, they note that where there is the strongest sense of learner deficit, the response to the attainment context is greatest, resulting in un‐enthusing "skill‐drill instruction," leading to moral and ethical concern for educators, and overriding issues of social (in)justice (Counsell and Wright [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>], 193).</p> <p>In Australia, the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) has tested students' reading, writing and spelling, grammar and punctuation since 2008, every 2 years, for children from Year 3 onwards (NAP National Assessment Programme [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref79">86</reflink>]). The impact of the initiative has been challenged by the Australian Education Research Organization (AERO [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]), who note a particular decline in high‐school students' assessed writing skills between 2011 and 2018. Research into the effect of NAPLAN has found that it restricts how writing is taught (Gannon [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref81">57</reflink>]); challenges the enactment of rich assessment approaches for creative writing (Carey et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref82">24</reflink>]); and has become normalized, routine and invisible (echoing observations about the impact of attainment tools in English contexts), with the effect of narrowing curricula and impacting staffing choices and leadership practice (Daliri‐Ngametua et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref83">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effects of NAPLAN as a driver of a context for literacy education that foregrounds attainment and skill development, and that in turn constrains practice—and causes tension for teachers—has been described vividly by Frawley and McLean Davies ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref84">55</reflink>]). In reflections from their own experiences, they illustrate the pervasiveness of high‐stakes assessment of writing, and how it has introduced conflict for themselves, their colleagues, and their students, as they wrestle with the need to "appropriate the dominant political concerns", involving skills‐based, genre‐driven preparation for the writing test, while their "core beliefs" about the very nature of writing as an "open‐ended and imaginative" act are challenged (Frawley and McLean Davies [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>], 84–85).</p> <p>Drawing from these particular examples from the US and Australia, it is evident that the effects in some (but by all means not all—See Walls and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref86">122</reflink>]) international contexts appear to reflect those reported for the English context. Overall, this contextualization articulates the challenge to educators concerned with the development of equitable, inclusive and responsive pedagogies; where the assets that learners bring can be valued, and where the possibilities for children's writing in a context subject to evolving material and technological possibilities for writing, involving the widest range of resources, can be embraced.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-8">Part Two: The Social Imaginary for Literacy Education</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105823-9">Conceptualizing the Social Imaginary in Relation to Literacy Education</hd> <p>The social imaginary, as defined in modern terms by Charles Taylor, is the populace's implicit grasp of social space that stands in contrast with more theoretical understandings that are the preserve of the "few" or even the "elite." Modern social imaginaries make sense to the populace in a given context. They involve beliefs that are implicit in practice and contribute to the wider understanding of society's "moral order" (Taylor [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref87">118</reflink>], 26–28). This account sets the theoretical understandings of the few/elite against the grasp of social space held by the populace, who occupy the social space. In terms of literacy education, the populace can be understood as those who function in the presence of and with the "theoretical understandings" of the few/elite—meaning the educators, learners, caregivers and those involved, who are subject to mandated policy derived from selected research and ideologies; as opposed to those who form what can be regarded as theoretical understandings and who, in a high‐stakes policy context, are afforded the power to impose them through policy initiatives.</p> <p>Moss, writing about English and literacy curricula in England, adopts Taylor's concept of the social imaginary to account for the impact of assessment, accountability and curriculum on literacy education since 1997. Here, she draws on Rizvi ([<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref88">101</reflink>]) to propose that literacy education is part of a social imaginary that permeates understandings of educators and the populace about how children become literate. In her view, the social imaginary can be regarded as the conjunction of four factors: literacy policy tools; discourses involving literacy education; actors (literacy educators and those involved/invested in literacy education); and the courses of action they bring into being (their practices). These factors combine in a given context to create a plausible narrative that sustains patterns of action and the configuration of resources "to bring into being that which is in the process of being collectively imagined" (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref89">81</reflink>], 56). For Moss, the social imaginary is a pluralistic concept that can be applied to the way literacy education is realized in terms of policy and practice in a given context, which as a result can gain and lose traction. As such it is distinct from ideological beliefs.</p> <p>Moss argues that the effect of the social imaginary as it relates to literacy policy work is to "stabilise the everyday, providing the necessary parameters to actions by rendering them meaningful" (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref90">81</reflink>], 57). The social imaginary therefore supports the conditions for participation (e.g., how to practice as a teacher of writing) in a given policy context and functions quite particularly to simplify the complex context of literacy education for literacy educators while also excluding from the context anything that cannot be accounted for (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref91">81</reflink>], 57). Moss illustrates the potency of the social imaginary by arguing that as a result of it, the numbers‐driven improvement trajectory associated with high‐stakes accountability contexts has become normalized amongst literacy educators since the introduction of the first statutory National Curriculum in England in 1989 (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref92">81</reflink>]). Moss's concept of the social imaginary as it relates to literacy education is conceptualized in Figure 1, to illustrate the factors that combine to form the plausible narrative described (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref93">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Stone ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref94">115</reflink>]), in a qualitative case study of one student teacher in the US, illustrates the potency of the social imaginary. While her paper predates current federal policy, the issues raised remain relevant. In this account, the social imaginary for reading instruction is presented in terms of a "whole language" versus "basic skills" binary that exists in the public imagination and that serves to exclude more complex (and theoretically diverse) understandings about how children become readers. Stone analyses how, for one student teacher, the two discourses come to stand for rather than refer to literacy education, and as a result reduce possibilities for pedagogy. She argues that student teachers come to inhabit this particular social imaginary, and on this basis she draws two implications: first, that the social imaginary should be made explicit and drawn upon in teacher education settings; and second, that it must be critiqued as a basis for promoting more complex understandings in relation to the multiple needs of literacy learners.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70083-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70083-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The social imaginary for literacy education (adapted from Moss [81])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Hamilton ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref95">63</reflink>]), in a theoretical account of the modern social imaginary, has noted that the narratives developed as part of it "help to organise and control" the diverse and changing landscape of literacy education, and as a result require critique (Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref96">63</reflink>], 4). However, she notes that due to the apparent familiarity of such narratives in the policy context, they may defy critique and argues that this can result in a constrained view of literacy, where it is seen as a set of individual cognitive skills to be acquired, and where failure to do so by learners results in the construction of deficit framings for these learners that impact their literacy education.</p> <p>These examples from particular historically and geographically diverse contexts illustrate how the social imaginary acts as a generative but constraining force, with the potential to foreground particular forms of knowledge and practice over others. In addition, it operates to apparently simplify and even exclude complex understandings of, for example, teacher knowledge about writing, and as a result reduce possibilities for inclusive approaches to literacy pedagogy. This can result in conflict for the teacher, as their more critical and broad‐based beliefs, knowledge, and understandings about, for example, writing and writing pedagogy, developed in professional training and practice, may compete with the understandings implicit in the social imaginary.</p> <p>A key challenge therefore is to understand how to make the social imaginary explicit and subject to critique by teachers of writing, in order to promote the development of critical, sensitive, inclusive, equitable, meaningful, and responsive writing pedagogy, in the presence of high‐stakes accountability policy contexts. To achieve this, the social imaginary as a concept for literacy education needs to be brought into relation with what teachers know, believe, and understand about writing and writing pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-11">Conceptualizing the Social Imaginary in Relation to Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs</hd> <p>Theoretically, the relationship between teacher knowledge, beliefs and practice is understood as complex (Dickerson et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref97">48</reflink>]), multidimensional (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref98">109</reflink>]), and various (Fernandez [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]; Verloop et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref100">121</reflink>]). Discrete fields of research about teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge, and their relation to practice, can be located in the literature (Charalambous [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref101">26</reflink>]; Hoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref102">66</reflink>]); however, elsewhere, the terms are conflated to allow comprehensive and inclusive understandings to be developed. To align with the intention of this paper, it is to these comprehensive understandings that this paper turns.</p> <p>Verloop et al. ([<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref103">121</reflink>]) draw from scholars in the field of teacher cognition to present a singular catch‐all definition of teacher knowledge as "the total knowledge that a teacher has at his or her disposal at a particular moment which, by definition, underlies his or her actions." They note how it houses components of "knowledge, beliefs, conceptions and unreflected intuitions" that in the mind of the teacher are inextricably intertwined (Verloop et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref104">121</reflink>], 446). Working in the same field, Borg, in his review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do, also conflates the understandings that intersect as teachers enact their practice, stating they draw on "complex, practically‐oriented, personalised, and context‐sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs" to make choices (Borg [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>], 81), and are mutually constitutive, relating holistically to the teaching context, experience and history, policy framings, and sense of the teaching "self" (Borg [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref106">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>To conceptualize the relationship of what teachers know, believe, and understand about writing and writing pedagogy in relation to their practice and the social imaginary, these inclusive views that blend teacher beliefs and knowledge into the multifaceted whole that is described by Verloop et al. ([<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref107">121</reflink>]) as "total knowledge" are adopted from this point forward and will be referred to simply as "teacher knowledge" or "teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing." Accordingly, teacher knowledge can be considered as the understandings of educators who practice in relation to and contribute to the social imaginary, and beyond this, the more total, broad‐based, and critical knowledge and understandings that they could (and may do) practice in relation to, if unconstrained by particular policy framings, or to challenge mandated practice. Considered in this way, the potential for teacher knowledge as it relates to practice can be set against the knowledge realized in relation to the social imaginary. To develop this idea, the work of Cochran‐Smith and Lytle ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]), and Shulman ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref109">109</reflink>]), is particularly helpful for this.</p> <p>The term 'teacher knowledge' has been articulated as it relates to teacher learning and practice by Cochran‐Smith and Lytle ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]), using three interplaying conceptions: Knowledge‐for‐practice; Knowledge‐in‐practice; and Knowledge‐of‐practice.</p> <p>Knowledge‐for‐practice is the formal, theoretical knowledge that is given to (or even imposed on) teachers, as they develop professionally and practice their profession (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref111">29</reflink>], 253). In general terms, this could include theories and ideas included in teacher education and professional scholarship. In relation to the social imaginary for literacy education in a given context, it can be regarded as the form of knowledge conceived by "the elite" (derived from selected research and/or expert opinion) and mandated by those with power. These forms of knowledge‐for‐practice may compete in the light of what is mandated to teachers (as part of the populace) and imposed via policy and curricula. For example, the knowledge‐for‐practice in high‐stakes accountability contexts (which could be comprehensive and formed of various theoretical and practical positions) may be constrained by the social imaginary: when certain mandated forms (e.g., curriculum content, pedagogies, and assessment routines selectively derived from privileged research findings or policy) are prioritized over others to dominate mainstream practice and become part of the everyday understandings about literacy education.</p> <p>Cochran‐Smith and Lytle's second conception, Knowledge‐in‐practice, is the teacher's contextualized knowledge that is embedded in individual teacher practice. It can be regarded in terms of the craft of teaching, and the teacher's reflections and narratives about it (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref112">29</reflink>], 262). This form of knowledge has been described as "teacher practical knowledge" (Verloop et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref113">121</reflink>], 446): the realization of knowledge in the moment, both grounded in professional experience and contextually situated. While not described by Cochran‐Smith and Lytle in this way, it can be typified using Shulman's ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref114">109</reflink>]) seven knowledge bases, involving, for example, the teacher's comprehensive knowledge about curriculum, learners, specific Pedagogic Content Knowledge for literacy (PCK), and the overarching aims of the policies in place needed, for example, to question learners sensitively in the moment, in order to scaffold their sentence construction as part of the development of grammatical understanding for assessment purposes.</p> <p>Knowledge‐in‐practice clearly interplays with knowledge‐for‐practice in the light of the prevailing policy, privileged research, and media discourses, and popular understandings, which collectively comprise the social imaginary. In a high‐stakes accountability context, the social imaginary can shape knowledge‐in‐practice (constrain it) in order to achieve compliance with mandate, to achieve the results required, despite teachers being in possession of more broad‐based knowledge. Equally, knowledge‐in‐practice has the potential to give challenge to and shape the social imaginary if teacher narratives about it (constructed reflexively as knowledge‐of‐practice) are valued and given voice.</p> <p>Cochran‐Smith and Lytle's Knowledge‐of‐practice is based on the idea that some forms of teacher knowledge are "constructed collectively within local and broader communities" and can bring teacher knowledge‐for‐practice and knowledge‐in‐practice into concert with the larger political and social agendas at play (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref115">29</reflink>], 274). In practical terms, if privileged, the collective knowledge‐of‐practice could—via the mobilization of more broad‐based theoretical and practical knowledge for practice—allow critical challenge and reflexivity to be brought to the social imaginary for literacy education, and how it might be constraining or enabling teachers to practice as teachers of writing in certain ways. As Cochran‐Smith and Lytle ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>], 273): "implicit in the idea of knowledge‐of‐practice is the assumption that, through inquiry, teachers across the professional life span—from very new to very experienced—make problematic their own knowledge and practice as well as the knowledge and practice of others and thus stand in a different relationship to knowledge."</p> <p>This 'making problematic' can be understood in terms of writing and writing pedagogy in particular, using Ivanic ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref117">68</reflink>]), who has championed the idea that teachers should critique their own practice with knowledge of the widest range of "views of writing" and their associated pedagogies, as well as a reflexive understanding about their own positionality as writing teachers, as a way of developing a fully rounded, comprehensive writing pedagogy (Ivanic [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref118">68</reflink>], 241–242). Ivanic has theorized the broad‐based beliefs and knowledge of teachers about writing, to offer a framework that proposes six distinct and competing Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write, including discourses of skills, creativity, process, genre, social practices, and sociopolitics (Ivanic [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref119">68</reflink>], 225).</p> <p>The use of theoretical frameworks such as this can be brought to a consideration of teacher knowledge‐in‐practice, to promote reflexive knowledge‐of practice involving critical thinking that evaluates multiple perspectives and leads to action in the classroom (Lunn Brownlee et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref120">77</reflink>], 242), and as a result bring challenge to the constraining effects of the social imaginary to mobilize practice. Therefore, I propose that Cochran‐Smith and Lytle ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref121">29</reflink>]) if brought into relation with The social imaginary for literacy education can promote reflexive understanding (Feucht et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>]), as to how it might act to constrain practice and pedagogy. This relationship will in turn enable a consideration of how teacher knowledge might be harnessed to challenge these constraining effects. This relationship is conceptualized in Figure 2: Conceptualizing the social imaginary in relation to teacher knowledge and practice.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70083-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70083-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Conceptualizing the social imaginary for literacy education in relation to teacher knowledge and practice." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Figure 2 illustrates that the social imaginary, as it functions in high‐stakes accountability contexts, has the potential to impact teacher knowledge and practice, foregrounding particular forms of pedagogy. Equally, I propose that teachers, through reflexive consideration of their knowledge in the light of expansive framings, and with explicit awareness of the pervasive effect of the social imaginary, can bring challenge to the social imaginary to remediate practice and pedagogy, enabling inclusive and ethical approaches—still given the constraints of the policy context in which teachers are working.</p> <p>However, for reflexive consideration to be afforded and realized, the social imaginary needs to be rendered visible for critique by educators and positioned so that professional challenge is valued and even made possible. To facilitate this, a tool to promote teacher knowledge‐of‐practice—a research‐informed account of the factors that can complement theoretical accounts such as that proposed by Ivanic ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref123">68</reflink>]), to impact what teachers know and believe about writing and writing pedagogy—will be proposed.</p> <p>To develop this tool, in Section 3, a scoping study approach (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>]) will be used to review research literature concerned with teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing. This scoping study will inform the development of a tool that can be used to promote reflexivity and critical awareness of mandated pedagogy and policy for teaching writing, and to expose how high‐stakes accountability contexts might work through the force of the social imaginary to constrain possibilities for young writers and even lead to inequitable practice.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-13">Part Three: Scoping Study</hd> <p>A scoping study can be thought of as a research method in its own right, with various aims, including to review and describe the research in a particular area for policy makers and practitioners (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref125">4</reflink>], 21). The extent of the review to be conducted is dictated by its purpose, which in this case was to locate insights from research that might support challenge to the social imaginary for writing that persists in high‐stakes accountability contexts.</p> <p>It has been claimed that there is a paucity of research in this area (König et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref126">70</reflink>]; Myhill et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref127">82</reflink>]) with Reutzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref128">99</reflink>], 18) arguing that defining and describing teacher knowledge about reading and writing has provided significant challenge to researchers. Teacher content and pedagogic knowledge about writing in particular is described as under‐researched when compared to reading (Parr and Limbrick [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref129">96</reflink>]; Cremin and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref130">37</reflink>]). In the Australian context, Mantei and Kervin ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref131">78</reflink>]) have argued that the reported decline in writing performance in national and international assessments (such as NAPLAN) necessitates the development of current writing pedagogies' research. More generally, researchers have argued that knowledge about writing should be a focus for investigation in order to develop teacher PCK and confidence (Alatalo [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>]; Mantei and Kervin [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref133">78</reflink>]); and understanding about student difficulties in this area (Limbrick et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref134">73</reflink>], 900).</p> <p>With this critique as its justification, this scoping study sought to locate and "chart" the widest range of research and research‐informed literature in the field that might promote teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy and support challenge to the social imaginary for writing that persists in high‐stakes accountability contexts.</p> <p>Arksey and O'Malley propose 5 stages for the scoping study (2005, 22):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Stage 1: identifying the research question</item> <p></p> <item> Stage 2: identifying relevant studies</item> <p></p> <item> Stage 3: selecting studies</item> <p></p> <item> Stage 4: charting the data</item> <p></p> <item> Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the conceptualization of teacher knowledge in relation to the social imaginary, a research question was developed to guide the literature search and analysis: <emph>What does peer‐reviewed research literature tell us about teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy?</emph></p> <p>To identify relevant sources, an iterative two‐phased search process using electronic databases was conducted between August 2023–May 2024 (British Education Index/Education Research Complete/Education Resources Information Center). The initial search phase was formative, to check search terms and operators/limiters; and to build theoretical and empirical sensitivity. The second phase, conducted 9 months later, sought to develop the search sensitivity and reach, to validate the results from the initial phase, and to bring the review up to date.</p> <p>This two‐phase process resulted in the identification and selection of 40 items across the period 2000–2024 for charting (see Appendix 1: Data Charting Summary and study details).</p> <p> <emph>Phase 1:</emph> Keywords derived from the research question were searched to establish the extent of the field for possible review, and to support the development of search terms and limiters; given the complexity of the field:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Search 1: "Teacher knowledge" OR "Teacher beliefs" AND writing</item> <p></p> <item> Search 2: Teacher OR educator AND "Pedagogic* content knowledge" AND writing</item> </ulist> <p>At this initial stage, the term 'pedagogic* content knowledge was utilized, based on Shulman's account of this particular knowledge base, with its focus on "that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding" (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref135">109</reflink>]: 8), in order to include papers concerned with teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy in particular.</p> <p>Based on the development and uptake of, for example, PIRLS from 2001, searches were limited to titles and abstracts for research articles published in peer‐reviewed journals between 2000 and 2023. This led to the identification of 142 papers (Search 1) and 130 papers (Search 2).</p> <p>Duplicate papers were removed, then titles and abstracts were manually trawled to check "fit" to the research question, applying exclusion criteria devised iteratively (guided by the research question) to exclude papers with a second language acquisition focus, or where there was a disciplinary focus other than writing or literacy. The remaining papers were read and retained if their research orientation or findings particularly focused on teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing, including the development of teacher knowledge about writing. 18 papers were retained (Appendix 2).</p> <p> <emph>Phase 2:</emph> In this phase, a staged search of titles and abstracts, across a slightly longer timescale (2000–2024), for the same electronic databases as used for the preliminary searches was utilized. Updated keywords/phrases/operators and exclusion criteria were refined and developed <emph>post hoc</emph> and applied for this second phase, based on developing familiarity with the literature and process in the initial phase (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref136">4</reflink>]). As a result of this refinement, the phrase "PCK" was omitted, and the following search terms were utilized:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Teacher beliefs" and writing</item> <p></p> <item> "Teacher knowledge" and writing</item> </ulist> <p>This staged search resulted in the identification of 245 papers, to which the following exclusion criteria and limiters were applied (based on insights derived from Phase 1):</p> <p></p> <p>• Not EFL</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Not Second Language</item> <p></p> <item> Not Math*</item> <p></p> <item> Not Science</item> <p></p> <item> Peer‐reviewed (limiter)</item> </ulist> <p>One hundred nine papers were retained and screened for relevance, as for the initial phase, leaving 32 papers for consideration. These papers were then read to identify those with a research orientation or findings that focused on teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy. Twenty‐two additional papers were identified for inclusion in the review (Appendix 3).</p> <p>Charting the 40 papers involved compiling the key features and insights from each study in such a way that they were contextualized and synthesized for interpretation. For Arksey and O'Malley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref137">4</reflink>], 26), this stage is descriptive and analytical, involving making decisions about what information should be recorded from each paper, along with study details—seeking to contextualize and make understandable the key insights through the filter of the framing research question. A data charting form to capture the features of each reported study and its key focus was constructed, including (for studies with an empirical basis) the author(s), year, site, population, methods and data sources, and focus (Appendix 1).</p> <p>Each paper was reviewed in the light of the research question, to compile insights relating to teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing (conceptual and pedagogical). Insights were drawn from the studies' theoretical framings and findings (empirical and those drawn from systematic review) to achieve the aims of the review. Insights were constructed as a narrative for each paper, to be used in conjunction with the data charting form. These insights together formed the basis for thematic analysis.</p> <p>A scoping study "seeks to present an overview of all material reviewed", introducing challenge when multiple studies are being considered (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref138">4</reflink>], 27). The insights from the narratives were grouped and organized thematically in response to the research question, rather than according to intervention type (as is conventional for Arksey and O'Malley). This was because, while the majority of the papers reviewed reported qualitative findings with small and purposive samples, other papers drew from larger studies that utilized mixed‐methods or survey data, and a further subset included papers reporting extant literature. This eclectic range of papers served the purpose of this scoping study: to uncover comprehensive insights from research to inform an account of what teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy might involve, to promote challenge to the social imaginary for writing that persists in high‐stakes accountability contexts; and therefore, the organization of papers primarily by themes and insights proved more useful from the outset.</p> <p>The collation of results was an iterative process that sought to make manageable the insights with the purpose of constructing a device that could promote criticality and ultimately, teacher reflexivity for practice when teaching writing, when brought into relationship with the social imaginary for literacy education. The grouping of insights supported the construction of nine themes to house the insights relating to the research question in a meaningful and manageable format. They are next presented in turn, and discussed in relation to the social imaginary for literacy education. At the end of each thematic account, a claim that seeks to challenge the impact of the social imaginary in high‐stakes accountability contexts is offered. Appendix 1 provides details of each study's site, methods, populations, level of schooling, and focus.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-14">Scoping Study Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105823-15">Theme 1: The Complexity and Speciality of Knowledge Needed to Teach Writing</hd> <p>The complex and specialized nature of PCK for writing is made evident in a range of international literature. In their study of exemplary teaching in the US, Reutzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref139">99</reflink>]) synthesize a review of accounts of efficacious evidence‐based practices in reading and writing to construct a comprehensive taxonomy of 20 categories of teacher knowledge[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref140">1</reflink>] (Reutzel et al. [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref141">99</reflink>], 188–191). The categories are observed to be complex and broad‐based. They are orientated to pedagogy and practice, and involve the text, learner, process, skills, motivation and resources, as well as orientations involving philosophy, diversity, and wider social influences. Despite the detail uncovered by their review, the authors conclude that there is no consensus to be found regarding what a teacher of (reading and) writing has to know.</p> <p>In a study, exploring teacher misconceptions and genre in relation to PCK for writing, Bentley ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref142">11</reflink>]) describes 4 components of knowledge, conveying its complex and specialized nature:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> knowledge and beliefs about teaching the (unfamiliar) genre;</item> <p></p> <item> knowledge regarding students' conceptions/misconceptions regarding the genre;</item> <p></p> <item> knowledge of instructional strategies;</item> <p></p> <item> and knowledge of curricular resources.</item> </ulist> <p>Working over the course of a year with 5 practizing high school teachers, Michelsen Wahleithner ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref143">79</reflink>]) illustrates the complexity of content knowledge needed, arguing that alongside knowledge of genre, process and student, an understanding of text in terms of micro and macro level cohesion, linguistic features and rhetorical purpose is required. Complexity is also noted as reflected for early years educators. Working in Germany, König et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref144">70</reflink>]) argue that the knowledge teachers need to support the development of reading and writing at the beginning of primary school education is multidimensional by nature and should be specialized accordingly.</p> <p>Myhill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref145">82</reflink>]) in recent work with classroom‐based teachers as writers provide another lens. They propose "craft knowledge" as a specialized term to help teachers understand what is involved in writing and writing pedagogy and present a framework of five "text–oriented" and "writer‐oriented" themes through which to conceptualize craft knowledge based on what professional writers bring to their own writing (Myhill et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref146">82</reflink>], 407):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>knowledge about the writing process</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>knowledge about structural and text‐level features and their effects; genre</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>knowledge about language choices and their effects</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>knowledge about personal resources</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>knowledge about the intentions that authors bring to their writing</emph> </item> </ulist> <p>Taken together, these insights illustrate that teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy is, and needs to be, complex and specialized, suggesting that this should be addressed in teacher education to impact pedagogy profitably; however, Myhill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref147">83</reflink>]), in their study of how teachers' grammatical content knowledge mediates practice, problematize this, observing that the development of teachers' declarative knowledge does not automatically convert to pedagogical knowledge or translate into effective practice. Woodard ([<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref148">126</reflink>], 243) concurs, finding that while practical writing experiences can impact teachers' applied knowledge about writing, they do not necessarily translate into their pedagogic practice, particularly where strong accountability measures separate the formal teaching of writing from the composition opportunities afforded in a makerspace.</p> <p>Therefore, while the complex and specialized nature of the knowledge needed to teach writing (and how this may be constrained in contexts of high accountability, where certain approaches and pedagogies are foregrounded) should be made explicit, of equal importance is the recognition that just knowing that teacher knowledge about writing is complex and specialized might not be enough to impact practice.</p> <p>By bringing the complexity of teacher knowledge about writing into relationship with the ocial imaginary for literacy esducation, teachers can observe how policy, research, discourses involving literacy education, and the understandings of those involved impact their complex and specialized knowledge base. This will enable critical reflection on mandated knowledge‐for practice and challenge to the knowledge‐in‐practice that is afforded as a result to support the reflexive development of knowledge about writing.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 1: Teachers need to know that the knowledge needed to teach writing is complex and specialized, and that what and how they are mandated to teach writing in contexts of high‐stakes accountability may impact opportunities to reflect on and enact this complex and specialized knowledge</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-16">Theme 2: Orientations to Writing Pedagogy and Assessment</hd> <p>Alongside insights about the complex and specialized nature of teacher knowledge about writing, insights about particular theoretical and practical orientations to writing pedagogy and assessment practices, and how these present as teacher knowledge are reported in the literature.</p> <p>Graham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref149">61</reflink>]) devised the Teacher Writing Orientation Scale (TWOS) to measure primary teachers' implicit theoretical orientations to teaching to write. Three orientations were reported: a natural learning process view, and two distinct skills‐based views—one involving corrective writing and the other involving explicit instruction (Graham et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref150">61</reflink>], 157–158). Of note was that the role of explicit instruction and natural process approaches were regarded largely positively, with few teachers believing that writing should be taught from the perspective of "correctness."</p> <p>Seoane et al. ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref151">107</reflink>], 618) sought to understand the implicit views of over 500 pre‐service teachers' (PSTs) about learning to write. Using a framework of six theoretical orientations to learning (behaviorist, constructivist, psycholinguistic, maturation, socio‐cultural, nativist), derived from the TWOS, they found that while all 6 theories could be attributed to the PSTs' beliefs to influence practice, behaviorist and nativist views were most represented in their analysis of teaching episodes, while socio‐cultural and maturational theories were most likely to be attributed by them, signaling that there may be a mismatch between views held (orientations) to pedagogy and how they translate in practical terms.</p> <p>Wiebe Berry ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref152">124</reflink>]) noted two approaches to supporting students to become writers in a classroom with a focus on inclusive practice: a <emph>structural approach</emph> targeting individuals in a skills‐oriented instructional process; and a <emph>relational approach</emph>, where students are supported in communities of writers, with an emphasis on student choice and interpersonal communication. In this study, the teachers' implicit beliefs were also found to vary and could be used to explain the use of different instructional approaches within the same context.</p> <p>By bringing these insights into relationship with the Social iImaginary for literacy education, teachers can become critical of how orientations are developed and taken up to impact practice, in turn allowing or constraining the construction and adoption of inclusive and responsive pedagogies in the presence of learners.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 2: Teachers need to be aware of the comprehensive theoretical and practical orientations that inform mandated knowledge‐for‐practice, and how particular theoretical and practical orientations to writing pedagogy and practice may be foregrounded in a context that is impacted by high‐stakes accountability</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-17">Theme 3: The Extent of Teacher Knowledge, Confidence, and Certainty</hd> <p>A set of mainly qualitative and highly contextualized insights can be drawn from research to construct a theme that reports on the teacher confidence and (un)certainty about how to teach writing.</p> <p>Parr and Hawe ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref153">95</reflink>]), tracked 11 teacher pairs in a practice‐research collaboration to develop teacher knowledge about writing. They found that teachers confirmed the ongoing need to build their content and pedagogical knowledge for writing. Similarly, Dix ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref154">49</reflink>], 50), in a single case study of participatory scaffolding in writing, reported the teacher questioning "what is effective writing practice?" as they attempted to develop contingent and responsive teaching approaches. In a survey of 299 early childhood teachers, Håland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref155">62</reflink>]), likewise claimed teacher uncertainty in PCK for writing, noting teacher prioritization of reading, at writing development's expense, based on the teachers' belief that reading is developed first.</p> <p>Wijekumar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref156">125</reflink>]) argue that uncertainty for writing pedagogy is rooted in pre‐service teacher preparation, with teacher participants reporting insufficient evidence‐based pre‐service preparation to teach writing and the belief that they are not employing evidence‐based approaches, impacting their potential to develop critical and reflexive practice.</p> <p>Behizadeh ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref157">10</reflink>]), in a small‐scale qualitative case study of the factors influencing the discourses of writing (based on Ivanic [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref158">68</reflink>]) being taught in a "high‐performing" school, concludes that while multidiscourse writing instruction was enacted by two teachers, there was minimal evidence of a sociopolitical discourse, based on a lack of orientation toward social justice, and that teacher Professional Development (PD) to enable teachers to layer the available discourses and to promote a more critical pedagogy is needed.</p> <p>In Australia, Ng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref159">93</reflink>]) found that teachers of students with low socioeconomic status reported a lack of preparation and support for teaching writing that was compounded by their deficit beliefs about their students' attributes—namely motivation and cognitive ability for writing—to constrain the curriculum to basic rather than advanced skills curriculum.</p> <p>Finally, in their evaluation of an author/illustrator led PD program, Southern et al. ([<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref160">112</reflink>]) noted that the teachers reported and demonstrated a lack of confidence in creative writing pedagogies; but positively, that there was potential for shared creative pedagogies to be built, using "third space" as an opportunity for professional learning.</p> <p>In understanding these insights about the extent of teacher knowledge and certainty, as they apply to practice, Cremin and Oliver's ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref161">37</reflink>]) systematic review of research evidence that interrogates teacher attitudes to writing, and the potential impact on teacher pedagogy, is helpful (Teachers as writers, 1990–2015). They found overall that narrow conceptualizations of writing exclude everyday practices to focus more on "academic" writing, with little regard for digital literacies and new media (Cremin and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref162">37</reflink>], 284). While they observe that the evidence base is limited and inconclusive, they suggest that for many teachers, teaching writing is experienced as problematic, and conclude their review by noting that "the relations amongst teachers' beliefs, attitudes and concepts, their writing experience and their pedagogy are complex and often uncomfortable" (Cremin and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref163">37</reflink>], 290).</p> <p>It seems that a greater emphasis on writing and pedagogies for writing may be helpful as part of teacher pre‐service and ongoing PD to build confidence and certainty in choices about writing pedagogy. Equally, opportunities to reflect on choices made in practice and validation of uncertainty in the light of the complex and specialized nature of teacher knowledge of writing are needed. This requires that issues of confidence and (un)certainty about writing pedagogy be made explicit in professional communities in the light of the social imaginary to bring the knowledge in practice into relation with knowledge of and for practice, in an iterative cycle of contextualized PD that can be built to promote inclusive and equitable practice.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 3: Teachers need awareness of the extent of their knowledge, confidence and (un)certainty about how to teach writing, and to understand how the social imaginary in a high‐stakes accountability context may act to impose certainty, which in turn should be subject to critique</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-18">Theme 4: The Role of Collaborative Professional Development (PD)</hd> <p>Alongside observations about complexity, orientations and teacher certainty, the role of collaborative teacher PD to promote teacher knowledge can be constructed as a theme. Cato and Walker ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref164">25</reflink>]) have found that personal experience as a writer, professional learning, and peer and mentor relationships/collaborative practices inform teacher knowledge about writing. In their conclusion they note that professional learning communities and mentorship, such as that afforded by initiatives like the National Writing Project ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref165">92</reflink>]), particularly influence teachers' decision making, knowledge, and accuracy about how to assess writing (Cato and Walker [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref166">25</reflink>], 5).</p> <p>Collet and Greiner ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref167">30</reflink>]) have investigated how collaborative teacher PD in grammar promotes knowledge and understanding. Likewise, they found that collaboration and opportunities for joint reflection encouraged teacher learning and movement away from the use of worksheets to a more contextual, meaning‐directed approach. Predating these studies, Gillentine ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref168">59</reflink>]) working with early childhood in‐service educators, found that the production of descriptive and reflective teacher narratives led to the development of a collaborative learning community to promote understanding about beliefs about early literacy development. Dialogue amongt participants was seen as a key feature promoting a sense of their validation as experts in early literacy education.</p> <p>However, Parr and Hawe ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref169">95</reflink>]) have found that collaboration without clear focus is not of itself sufficient to build knowledge about practice in writing classrooms; instead, "specifically supported analysis and discussion of practice within a concerted whole school focus on raising achievement in writing, in terms of changed practices and enhanced learning about writing by teachers and their students" is required (Parr and Hawe [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref170">95</reflink>], 725).</p> <p>Building from Themes 1, 2, and 3, it is evident that collaborative professional contexts that emphasize the development of PCK for writing can provide time and space to bring mandated knowledge‐for‐practice, into relation with the potentially constraining effects of the social imaginary in high‐stakes accountability contexts, illuminating how this might impact knowledge‐in and ‐of practice. Collaborative PD can recognize teacher uncertainty about pedagogies for writing, with the development of reflexive practice as an aim, recognizing that the social imaginary, unless made explicit and challenged, might be sustained further. However, decolonial perspectives have identified that professionals entering Communities of Practice (CoPs) can be sustaining of dominant and exclusive ideologies (Hannington and Govender [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref171">64</reflink>]), such as those promoted by the social imaginary. Collaborative PD can therefore serve as a vehicle for the development of PCK and for understanding uncertainty, but more generally as a vehicle for the development of criticality in relation to the development of inclusive and just approaches to promoting learning and being a teacher of writing.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 4: Teachers need opportunities to participate in collaborative teacher PD to build powerful and reflexive teacher knowledge and understanding, with awareness of the potential for key discourses to maintain dominance unless exposed and challenged to promote the development of socially just pedagogy and practice.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0191105823-19">Theme 5: Teacher‐Writer Identity and Experience</hd> <p>Several recent research papers have considered the impact of teacher writer identity on teacher beliefs, knowledge, practice, and learner attainment. However, the relationship between these concepts is neither proven nor straightforward. Parr and Timperley ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref172">97</reflink>]) have argued that without a confident writer identity, teachers may struggle to model writing behaviors and build the considerable PCK needed to provide effective assessment feedback. They contend that a confident teacher–writer identity forms from the guild knowledge that can be developed in collaboration and through collegial practice (Parr and Timperley [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref173">97</reflink>], 80).</p> <p>Cremin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref174">33</reflink>]) have made teacher–writer identity and its effects on pedagogy a key focus. In the introduction to their empirical account of professional writer identities and insights related to the development of young writers, they draw on earlier research (e.g., Bourne [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref175">17</reflink>]) to suggest that teachers' conceptions of writing and pedagogical practices frame and shape the identity positions made possible for the young writers in school. Summarizing studies in this area, Cremin and Lock ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref176">34</reflink>], xvii) concur, arguing that learner‐writer identity is shaped by the way that teachers identify as writers and "model" and behave as writers in the classroom. However, in a systematic review of research evidence on teachers as writers, Cremin and Oliver ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref177">37</reflink>]), challenge this notion, highlighting that evidence for the claim that teacher–writer identity impacts learner outcomes is limited and inconclusive (Cremin and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref178">37</reflink>], 291).</p> <p>Reporting more recently, Cremin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref179">36</reflink>]) draw from studies informing their work (as part of the systematic review involved) to indicate that the teachers who are aware of their writing identities are able to reflect upon the complexities involved in teaching writing and writing itself, and have a greater capacity to respond flexibly to the demands of policy and constrained skills‐based pedagogic models (Cremin et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref180">36</reflink>], 50). Findings from their mixed‐methods study further support the idea that the development of teacher‐writer identity can promote knowledge about writing that might in turn be translated into more positive classroom experiences for learners.</p> <p>These insights can be used to promote reflexive consideration of how teacher knowledge ‐for, ‐in, and ‐of practice might be impacted by teacher‐writer identity, to inflect pedagogy for writing and practice more generally. Furthermore, by positioning this awareness in relation to explicit understanding about how the social imaginary for literacy education can work in a high‐stakes accountability context to constrain practice, teachers can critically consider how their teacher‐writer identity is impacted by policy tools, discourses and understandings to affect their practice and courses of action. In this way, opportunities to surface and reflect on personal and professional experiences as a writer and their associated teacher‐writer identity can inflect teacher pedagogies and practice to bring challenge to received knowledge‐for‐practice.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 5: Teachers need opportunities to surface and reflect on their teacher‐writer identities and experiences as writers to understand how these can inflect their pedagogy and practice in contexts framed by high‐stakes accountability</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-20">Theme 6: Teacher Knowledge and Learner Attainment in Writing</hd> <p>Studies from a range of international settings have sought to understand the relationship between teacher knowledge about writing, effective classroom practice, and learner outcomes. Wearmouth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref181">123</reflink>]) have attributed children's positive attainment to their teacher's high degree of subject and pedagogical knowledge; awareness of children's individual needs; and commitment to the role of peer to peer and teacher to student relationships. Daffern ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref182">39</reflink>]) has similarly noted a positive relationship, finding that teachers who have and can model use of metalanguage (for spelling) support student confidence and autonomy as writers. While causality is not claimed, the influence of the teacher in this study is clearly articulated.</p> <p>Myhill et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref183">84</reflink>]) national mixed‐method study of the impact of contextualized and embedded grammar teaching on secondary school students' writing and metalinguistic understanding clearly identifies through regression modeling that teacher linguistic subject knowledge is a significant mediating factor in the intervention's success, where the most able writers experienced a significant positive effect. Limbrick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref184">73</reflink>]) in a teacher‐led inquiry studied the impact on 20 teachers of a teacher knowledge and inquiry model of PD. They found that, as measured by standardized testing, children's writing achievement improved, and that teacher pedagogic and content knowledge improved. Significantly, they found that teachers who worked together on the assessment and moderation of writing developed their confidence and knowledge, their metalanguage, and their awareness about how resources could be used, impacting children's writing attainment positively. Conversely, they identified that a paucity of pedagogical knowledge about writing was a factor in student difficulties (Limbrick et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref185">73</reflink>], 900). Of note, the researchers found that, as a result of teacher‐led PD, teachers began to attribute student underachievement not to student deficiencies but to teaching approaches (Limbrick et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref186">73</reflink>], 918), shifting the focus from the learner's needs to the teacher's proficiency.</p> <p>Gadd and Parr's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref187">56</reflink>]) study of "expert" literacy teachers (identified using student gains data) noted that when, due to high levels of teacher expertise, there is a focus on meaningful, goal‐driven, and appropriately challenging writing tasks, the achievement of writers is improved. In their study, children's success was attributed particularly to the purposefulness, open‐endedness and relevance of the writing task to student lives that their knowledgeable teachers utilized. Based on their case study of two "devoted" teachers, Love et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref188">75</reflink>]), similarly found that teachers with strong knowledge, who can identify, describe and explain patterns of meaning in English texts, are more likely to have a positive influence on their students' writing; and that these experienced and "devoted" teachers have a role to play in the development of language‐informed pedagogy that make a sustained impact on student learning (Love et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref189">75</reflink>], 54). Finally, Frawley and McLean Davies ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref190">55</reflink>]) have reported that skilful writing instruction can be associated with students' writing achievements, but in their analysis, also argue that the relationship between instruction and achievement is complex, and must be understood as part of a wider context for accountability.</p> <p>Based on these insights, it can be argued that the development of comprehensive teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy is key to children's attainment. By bringing insights about teacher knowledge and its effect on attainment into relation with the factors that influence what is mandated and valued as attainment, in the form of the social imaginary, teachers can challenge what is valued as attainment and why, and manage their own practice and pedagogy responsively, and with awareness of the widest needs of their learners, and versions of attainment that may exceed those framed by accountability.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 6: Teachers need to be supported to build comprehensive teacher knowledge about writing to promote learner attainment, and to understand how attainment is framed in contexts of high‐stakes accountability, in order that inclusive pedagogies and practice can be rationalized</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-21">Theme 7: Teacher Knowledge About Writing and Pedagogical Choices</hd> <p>A set of studies offers particular insights about how teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing can affect pedagogy. Mantei and Kervin ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref191">78</reflink>], 227) have sought to understand the relationship between teacher knowledge and the writing pedagogy of two writing teachers self‐identifying as "accomplished." They note how these teachers shape "the pedagogical interactions, the time structures, use of space and of resources in the writing lessons" to impact student learning, which in the study are characterized by "high levels of 'control'" (Mantei and Kervin [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref192">78</reflink>], 232). Furthermore, they note that a lack of opportunity to develop critical understanding constrains the enactment of content knowledge and contingent pedagogic approaches. Similarly, Rietdijk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref193">100</reflink>]) notes how teacher beliefs are positively related to their writing classroom practices and how a lack of "know‐how" may constrain practice. They suggest that any innovation in pedagogy must take teacher belief systems into account to be successful and sustainable.</p> <p>Damber ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref194">41</reflink>]) draws from two discrete studies, involving writing with and without computers, to argue that the nature of the classroom practice in each setting is strongly linked to the teachers' perceptions of literacy and learning, with this knowledge impacting pedagogical choices. Although now somewhat dated in relation to classroom technology use, of interest is the observation teachers' knowledge and conceptions of literacy influenced the processes used to promote writing, more than the available technologies (pencil and paper versus tablets).</p> <p>Teacher beliefs about the factors affecting children's writing achievement, and how these intersect have been investigated by Wyatt‐Smith and Castleton ([<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref195">127</reflink>]). Three sets of beliefs were identified: beliefs about the child; beliefs about text; and a set pertaining to teacher beliefs about pedagogy, involving assessment, teacher attributes, teaching context, and content. Wyatt‐Smith and Castleton conclude that these beliefs are combined in different ways by different teachers, and that to develop writing pedagogy, teachers' beliefs about writing need to be made explicit. In addition, they argue that more needs to be known by teachers about how their policy context impacts beliefs about pedagogy and assessment.</p> <p>Therefore, teachers can be enabled to reflect on how they make pedagogical choices in the light of mandated knowledge‐for‐practice and the social imaginary for literacy education, and how their pedagogies are realized as they teach in the moment. In particular, the interplay between the social imaginary and teacher knowledge‐for‐practice should be considered for how it impacts and sustains certain pedagogical approaches and contributes to the development of teacher knowledge‐in‐practice. Planned opportunities to critique the choices made about pedagogy should therefore be part of teacher PD activity—and as indicated in Themes 3 and 4, can be undertaken collaboratively and explicitly to build confidence and certainty, to understand uncertainty, and to bring challenge to the policy context that may be constraining the approaches and pedagogies adopted.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 7: Teachers need to know that knowledge‐in‐practice may be constrained by the social imaginary, to foreground types of pedagogies that value certain types of attainment, support deficit framing framings, and restrict what is possible for certain groups of learners.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0191105823-22">Theme 8: The Impact of Policy on Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs About Writing</hd> <p>The impact of policy directives on teachers' practices is reported in two studies in the US context, where researchers have noted that teachers and preservice teachers may not be sufficiently prepared or enabled to take a critical position about mandated disciplinary knowledge. Ballock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref196">6</reflink>]), writing in relation to the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards for Language Arts (introduced in 2010—but still impacting current practice in many States), note that while they contain(ed) ambitious writing goals that "provide a blueprint for writing instruction across grade levels," teachers reported minimal preparation for them (Ballock et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref197">6</reflink>], 56). These findings echo an earlier survey of teacher beliefs and attitudes about the Common Core Writing and Language Standards (Troia and Graham [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref198">120</reflink>]), where teachers believed that PD efforts and their preparation to use this policy‐driven "knowledge" about writing were insufficient to achieve successful implementation. While teachers reported that the adopted standards are more rigorous than prior standards, provide clear expectations, and had supported them to prioritize the teaching of writing, many identified shortcomings, for example, that the standards are too lengthy, omit key aspects of writing development, and are inappropriate for struggling writers.</p> <p>By bringing the awareness of the social imaginary for literacy education into relation with mandated policy for literacy, understandings about how the social imaginary works to reinforce particular professional and nonprofessional understandings, for example—in the light of media discourse that builds from attainment data to position caregivers as consumers who select the "best" school as judged by inspection and attainment data, can be explored.</p> <p>This exploration will enable teachers to critique how certain forms of research and "knowledge" become valued over others, as privileged forms of evidence (namely evidence deemed as efficacious, derived from randomized control trials—see, for example, Education Endowment Fund [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref199">51</reflink>] for examples); to consider how the research that informs mandated policy is generated; the possible shortcomings and bias inherent in this; and the impact on the knowledge‐for‐practice that is imparted to them to impact the learners in their care. In turn, critical reflection in the light of this understanding may support a challenge to dominant pedagogic approaches, and allow more expansive approaches to be considered, to build writers who are enthused and purposeful communicators.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 8: Teachers need to know that what is valued as teacher knowledge about writing is dictated by policy and research that can be subject to challenge to promote inclusive pedagogies.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0191105823-23">Theme 9: Reimagining Conceptions of Writing</hd> <p>The final theme built from the scoping study writing provides insights into teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing in relation to the possibilities afforded by the contemporary communication landscape. In this theme, teachers' beliefs about writing are conceptualized expansively, beyond the framing offered by the social imaginary for literacy education, to include communication that is encoded in ways that exceed the medium of alphabetic print on page.</p> <p>Woodard ([<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref200">126</reflink>]) illustrates how educators and researchers can reconceptualize writing as composing or design, to signal, for example, writing using alphabetic script and print format as just one of many possible communicative modes that contribute to meaning making, and that involve common features (Woodard [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref201">126</reflink>], 236). However, Woodard observes that for the focus teacher in this study, what counts as writing in formal settings is restricted to print‐based text and associated pedagogies, noting that policy for writing can constrain practice in contexts of high accountability.</p> <p>Smith ([<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref202">111</reflink>]), working with six early years educators as practitioner researchers, has noted how reductive, policy‐driven notions of what writing is challenged when teachers observe play‐based approaches, and in so doing develop a more compassionate concept of <emph>"</emph>playful writing" involving multimodality and various social and material possibilities for the production of meaning. Drawing from Burnett and Merchant's sociomaterial relational argument for "literacy‐as‐event" (2020), Smith describes how teacher knowledge becomes more focused on affect, arguing that a teacher's expertise in observing children closely must be harnessed to develop teacher knowledge and to reflect the sociomaterial turn in literacy "to counter the privilege given to certain textual forms afforded in educational contexts" (Smith [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref203">111</reflink>], 3).</p> <p>Finally, Schmier ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref204">106</reflink>]) presents an account of two pre‐service teachers using multimodal digital storymaking and telling with low‐attaining readers to develop strategies for using digital storytelling as part of their literacy pedagogy. While not focusing exclusively on the act of writing, Schmier notes how collaboration between students and their teachers, with a focus on meaning making and the amplification of the marginalized student voice to challenge deficit framings (described originally by Kamler and Comber ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref205">69</reflink>]) as "turn‐around pedagogies"), expands teacher understanding of writing and story making, with implications for understanding students' identities as readers and writers.</p> <p>This final theme is constructed from the very particular examples that the scoping study process identified; however, these examples invoke the substantial and longstanding field of scholarship that argues for literacy to be conceived in expansive terms, as a contextualized and meaning‐making endeavor, involving relations of human and material resources to promote inclusive and responsive pedagogies (Burnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref206">23</reflink>]; Rowsell and McLean [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref207">104</reflink>]; Rowsell and Pahl [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref208">105</reflink>]).</p> <p>Opportunities for teachers to reflect on the nature of writing in the light of alternate research and theoretical insights that move beyond the alphabetic and skills‐orientated framings offered by current curricula and policy can, in turn, promote challenge to the knowledge‐for‐practice that is mandated and knowledge‐in‐practice that is valued in high‐stakes accountability contexts. This final theme suggests that teachers may be enabled to imagine beyond the social imaginary and beyond the forces of policy, discourse and established professional and non‐professional understandings to ask "what if we conceive of writing as making of story in multiple formats". In turn this may enable new, inclusive and expansive possibilities for writing and writers, giving opportunities for "writers" to find agency. The opportunity to reimagine writing and writing pedagogy from recent theoretical lenses that have been applied to literacy education, for example, sociomaterial and postdigital perspectives (Burnett and Merchant [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref209">22</reflink>]; Lacković et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref210">71</reflink>]; Rowsell [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref211">103</reflink>]), can enable teachers to challenge the knowledge‐for‐practice that is mandated and engage with the task of developing knowledge‐of‐practice that responds in a timely way to alternate conceptions of writing and meaning making.</p> <p> <emph>Claim 9: Teachers need to know that what counts as teacher knowledge about writing can be reimagined expansively, in relation to the widest possibilities for communication, and beyond the framing offered by what is mandated.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0191105823-24">Part Four: The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy</hd> <p>The aim of this scoping study was to identify insights about teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy, in order to construct a thematic response that might promote challenge to the social imaginary for literacy education, reported in some contexts of high‐stakes accountability as shaping and constraining pedagogies and practice (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref212">27</reflink>]; Frawley and McLean Davies [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref213">55</reflink>]; Gardner [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref214">58</reflink>]). In response to the guiding question: <emph>What does the research literature tell us about teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy?</emph> nine themes and associated claims have been constructed in order to achieve this. Table 1 summarizes the nine research‐based themes and claims for use in teacher preparation or PD to stimulate active reflection by teachers on their own knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy to promote critical reflexive practice.</p> <p>1 TABLE Themes and claims to bring challenge to the social imaginary for literacy education.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;The complexity and speciality of knowledge needed to teach writing:Teachers need to know thatthe knowledge needed to teach writing is complex and specialized,and that what and how they are mandated to teach writing, in contexts of high&amp;#8208;stakes accountability, may impact opportunities to reflect on and enact this complex and specialized knowledge.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Orientations to writing pedagogy and assessment:Teachers need to be aware of the comprehensive theoretical and practical orientations that inform mandated knowledge&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;practice, and how particular theoretical and practical orientations to writing pedagogy and practice may be foregrounded in a context that is impacted by high&amp;#8208;stakes accountability.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;The development and extent of teacher knowledge, confidence and certainty:Teachers need awareness of the extent of their knowledge, confidence and (un)certainty about how to teach writing, and to understand how the social imaginary in a high&amp;#8208;stakes accountability context, may act to impose certainty, which in turn should be subject to critique.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;The role of collaborative professional development:Teachers need opportunities to participate in collaborative teacher PD that can build powerful and reflexive teacher knowledge and understanding, with awareness of the potential for key discourses to maintain dominance unless exposed and challenged to promote the development of socially just pedagogy and practice.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Teacher&amp;#8208;writer identity and experience:Teachers need opportunities to surface and reflect on their teacher&amp;#8208;writer identities and experiences as writers, to understand how these can inflect their pedagogy and practice in contexts framed by high&amp;#8208;stakes accountability.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Teacher knowledge and learner attainment in writing:Teachers need to be supported to build comprehensive teacher knowledge about writing to promote learner attainment, and to understand how attainment is framed in contexts of high&amp;#8208;stakes accountability, in order that inclusive pedagogies and practice can be rationalized.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Teacher knowledge about pedagogical choices for writing:Teachers need to know that knowledge&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;practice may be constrained by the social imaginary, to foreground types of pedagogies that value certain types of attainment, support deficit framing framings, and restrict what is possible for certain groups of learners.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;The impact of policy on teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing:Teachers need to know that what is valued as teacher knowledge about writing is dictated by policy and research that can be subject to challenge to promote inclusive pedagogies.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;9&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Reimagining conceptions of writing:Teachers need to know that what counts as teacher knowledge about writing can be reimagined expansively, in relation to the widest possibilities for communication, and beyond the framing offered by what is mandated.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>It can of course be argued that this scoping study—and therefore the themes and claims constructed from it—cannot be fully comprehensive, shaped as it is by my own positionality and the positionality of the various research studies that inform it. However, with this caveat acknowledged, I propose the nine themes and claims to work as a tool to provoke research‐informed critical reflection about the nature of teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy; about how this knowledge is developed, framed and operationalized; about how this knowledge impacts practice; and about how these ideas can be reimagined to include more inclusive and expansive pedagogies and practices.</p> <p>The nine themes and claims work collectively and iteratively, with the potential to achieve influence over knowledge ‐for, ‐in, and ‐of ‐practice, to varying degrees, in varying contexts. The claims can therefore be regarded as generative, with the potential to impact practice for pre‐ and in‐service educators, and serve to promote inclusive, equitable and responsive writing pedagogy. They make explicit what is known and believed, and can initiate challenge to the familiar, everyday practices and pedagogies that the social imaginary "renders meaningful" (Moss [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref215">81</reflink>], 157) and promote critical PD and reflection that may in turn lead to the facilitation of reflexive practice. As a result, an evolved ideal imaginary can be aspired to in relation to what is known about teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing.</p> <p>The nine themes and associated claims presented in Table 1 facilitate this consideration. They support the generation of teacher knowledge about professional knowledge (−for, −in, and ‐of practice), relating to writing and writing pedagogy, as well as the generation of teacher knowledge about the factors impacting the social imaginary (what is "known" by the populace, including themselves). In this way, they function as a tool for the construction of an ideal for use in the development of pedagogy: The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy.</p> <p>The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy conceptualizes teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education in relation to teacher professional knowledge. The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy operates at one remove from the social imaginary, as a heuristic for teachers, a time when pedagogies for writing can be made subject to challenge. I therefore propose The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy (Figure 3), as an evolution of the conceptualization of the social imaginary in relation to teacher knowledge and practice, presented previously in Figure 2.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70083-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70083-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The Professional Imaginary of Writing pedagogy as an ideal seeks to promote two levels of challenge: individual and collective. At an individual level, it can support the development of expansive and inclusive personal pedagogies for writing, to challenge constraining factors that position some populations of learners from a deficit perspective. At a collective level, the Professional Imaginary works across more dispersed networks of professional practice that may be subject to high‐stakes accountability to promote collaborative critique of the genesis of mandated writing pedagogy and policy to challenge systemic approaches that may run counter to intuitions, experiences and theoretically informed understandings that stand outside and beyond mandated policy.</p> <p>Collective professional challenge meets the claim that the social imaginary is a collective endeavor, accounting for the implicit beliefs of large cultural groups (in this case, teachers of writing) and operating as a form of collective thinking that makes "everyday practices possible, giving them sense and legitimacy" (Rizvi [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref216">102</reflink>], 228). Rizvi likens the collective thinking in a social imaginary to Bourdieu's account of habitus as "an acquired system of generative schemes objectively adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted" (Bourdieu [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref217">16</reflink>], 95). Frawley and McLean Davies ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref218">55</reflink>]), while not writing theoretically about the effect of the social imaginary, draw on Bourdieu's account of habitus as a generative system to argue that teachers of writing collectively form a set of educational ideals (ideal text, ideal writing teacher, and ideal student writer) in relationship to the policies within their professional settings (Frawley and McLean Davies [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref219">55</reflink>], 87). Their example illustrates how certain collectively constructed "ideals" about teaching and assessing writing are reified while others are positioned as subordinate, meaning that certain approaches to writing and engagement with certain text types can become "marginalized or even become illegitimate" as an outcome of the symbolic violence that has been enabled (2015, 92). For Frawley and McClean Davies, the challenge for teachers is to recognize the process of reification and challenge it, using creativity and subversion around compliance to the tests. The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy, as an ideal, seeks to provide this challenge and, in a context of high‐stakes accountability, rebalance the role of the various elements impacting knowledge and practice so that policy contexts that privilege, for example, predominantly skills‐based approaches and certain types of learner over others, resulting in deficit framings for some, can be remediated with the aim of generating more equitable, inclusive and responsive pedagogies for writing.</p> <p>Clearly The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy is a partial and positional concept, dependent on its foundational research and theoretical thinking. However, as an ideal, the model can be used to promote and support the critical sensitivities needed in order for teachers of writing and literacy to embrace new possibilities for writing that may otherwise be masked by policy and high‐stakes accountability framing. To counter the social imaginary for literacy education that is promoted by the dominant accountability and policy discourse, The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy could therefore serve as a counter‐point and offer a challenge.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-26">Concluding Statement</hd> <p>In this largely conceptual paper, I have articulated how a social imaginary for literacy education can act in a high‐stakes accountability context to constrain pedagogy and practice. I have applied this conceptualization to the more specific fields of teacher knowledge in relation to practice and pedagogy for writing, and through a scoping review that seeks insights into what is known about teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy, I have proposed nine themes to answer the research question: <emph>What does the research literature tell us about teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge about writing and writing pedagogy?</emph> These nine themes are framed using Cochran‐Smith and Lytle's articulation of teacher knowledge as: knowledge‐for‐practice, knowledge‐in‐practice, and knowledge‐of‐practice (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref220">29</reflink>]) to additionally propose nine associated claims. These claims have the aim of provoking critique of the knowledge that is mandated for‐practice and the knowledge that is enacted in‐practice through the development of reflexive knowledge‐of‐practice. These claims are made coherent in the conceptual model of The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy, where teacher professional knowledge about writing is brought into relation with teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education as an ideal.</p> <p>This means that the plausible discourses and narratives that teachers inhabit and contribute to become subject to critique, in order to strengthen, challenge and unsettle ingrained ways of knowing, thinking and believing about the teaching of writing and the writing process itself, based on the prevailing context of high‐stakes accountability, to serve three functions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>To expose the social imaginary</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>To challenge the social imaginary</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>To remediate the social imaginary</emph> </item> </ulist> <p>The operationalization of an ideal Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy among preservice and in‐service teachers can therefore challenge teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy, in the light of pervasive mandated policy, but also with awareness of writing as an evolving construct in the light of new technologies and sociomaterial understandings (Burnett and Daniels [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref221">20</reflink>]), to initiate and identify responsive and expansive pedagogies for teaching (Hawley [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref222">65</reflink>]). This operationalization will in turn contribute to the development of inclusive, responsive and socially just policy, pedagogy, and curricula needed to engage young writers, promote their attainment and enthusiasm for writing, and challenge constrained understandings of the writing process.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-27">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>I would like to acknowledge Dr George Tarling and Professor Emerita Jill McClay for their time reading and commenting on the final draft versions of this paper. I also acknowledge the generous and generative feedback from the anonymous reviewers, whose comments supported the development of this paper to its accepted form.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-28">Funding</hd> <p>The author has nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-29">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>No ethics approval statement from the University of Exeter has been required for this study's scoping review; however, in addition to working to the University of Exeter's Research Ethics, Governance and Compliance requirements (see https://<ulink href="http://www.exeter.ac.uk/departments/research/researchethics/),">www.exeter.ac.uk/departments/research/researchethics/),</ulink> this paper has been developed based on the guidelines set out in BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024), and in particular, the section "Responsibilities to the community of educational researchers" has been adhered to. https://<ulink href="http://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical&amp;#8208;guidelines&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;educational&amp;#8208;research&amp;#8208;fifth&amp;#8208;edition&amp;#8208;2024&amp;#8208;online#fundamentals">www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical&amp;#8208;guidelines&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;educational&amp;#8208;research&amp;#8208;fifth&amp;#8208;edition&amp;#8208;2024&amp;#8208;online#fundamentals</ulink>.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-30">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-31">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-32">1 Appendix Data Charting Summary</hd> <p>Forty items were identified for charting. These items comprised papers mainly reporting data from qualitative and mixed method studies, with some conceptual and literature‐based studies/papers in addition. The studies focused or reported on aspects of teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing in relation to practice and originated from international contexts, including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Turkey, Spain (Canary Islands), and the United Kingdom. The subjects of the studies mainly comprised teachers and preservice teachers or teacher educators, working in relation to learners aged 4–16; however, in order to make the search as comprehensive as possible (to meet the intention of the study) these "inclusion criteria" were not stipulated, and each study was considered first and foremost for the relevance of the insight that it offered to make the overall search as comprehensive as possible.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Author&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Year&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Site&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Population&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Methods and data sources&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Focus&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alatalo, T.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2016&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sweden&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;26 teachers (Foundation&amp;#8208;year 9)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher knowledge survey&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content knowledge of literacy for proficient reading and writing instruction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ballock, E. et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2018&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;45 pre&amp;#8208;service teachers (Elementary)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher noticing;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Multiple correspondence analyses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Professional knowledge needed for reading and responding to student's writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Behizadeh, N.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2021&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 teachers (Middle School)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Case Study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beliefs and practices about teaching writing (based on Ivanic's Discourses)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bentley, E.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2013&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 teachers (Middle Grade and Secondary)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Case study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teaching unfamiliar genres to develop insider knowledge as writers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cato, H. &amp; Walker, K.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2022&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6 teachers (Grades 4,7,9)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Qualitative: open&amp;#8208;ended survey, interview, think&amp;#8208;aloud protocol&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher decision making in assessment of writing; what do teachers bring to assessment of writing?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Collet, V. S. &amp; Greiner, A. C.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2019&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;US&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 High School teachers (Grades 9,11,12)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lesson Study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher Professional Development for grammar pedagogy; what promotes teacher knowledge?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cremin, T. &amp; Oliver, L.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2016&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Systematic review based on empirical work, 1990&amp;#8211;2015&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Systematic review of 22 papers subject to in&amp;#8208;depth analysis&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Examining "Teachers must be writers" claim from NWP; Teachers as writers and identities as writers; pedagogical consequences of this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cremin, T. et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2020&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;UK&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;32 teachers and students from 26 schools in SW of England; Professional writers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;RCT; Workshops; audio capture; Teacher interviews; Student focus groups;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writer interviews;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Classroom observations;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co&amp;#8208;mentoring datasets&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The effect of a writing residential intervention on teachers' writing identities and implications for pedagogy; learner dispositions to writing; learner attainment as a result of intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Daffern, T.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2017&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 teacher/student&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Year 4&amp;#8211;9&amp;#8201;years)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Case Study from large mixed methods study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher content and PCK for teaching spelling; impact of pedagogy on learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Damber, U.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2013&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sweden&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 settings&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Comparison of previous studies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Resources for teaching and how they impact practice&amp;#8212;computers and traditional resources&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dix, S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2016&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 teacher and Year 2&amp;#8211;3 children in class&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Case study; video observation; teacher interviews; tracking of 4 children&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How teacher scaffolds writing in relation to PCK and knowledge about learners&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Frawley, E. &amp; McLean Davies, L.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2015&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Researchers (teacher as researcher; teacher educator as researcher)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Document analysis of researcher reflective vignettes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How assessment materials legitimize kinds of writers and writing in the light of NAPLAN using Bourdieu&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gadd, M. &amp; Parr, J.M.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2017&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9 Teachers and Focus students (Upper Primary/Middle school)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learner gains data; Observations, Teacher interviews; Focus student interviews; Content analysis&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Effective teachers' practices: Do more proficient teachers' students make more progress; How is this operationalized?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gillentine, J.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2006&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10 early childhood educators&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Narrative analysis of teacher writing (descriptions and reflections)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Impact of collaborative PD on beliefs, values, practice, and sense of professionalism in relation to early literacy development&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Graham, S., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2002&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;153 teachers (Grades 1&amp;#8211;3 random selection)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Survey&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;H&amp;#229;land, A., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2019&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Norway&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;299 teachers (Grade 1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mixed methods, sequential survey study (self&amp;#8208;reporting)&amp;#8212;part of larger study RCT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How writing practices are enacted at the outset of Grade 1; Teacher prioritization of writing; types of writing and writing practices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;K&amp;#246;nig, J., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2022&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Germany&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;386 preservice teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Survey&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is teacher professional knowledge for early literacy homogenous or multidimensional? How teachers acquire knowledge; How teacher knowledge influences quality of practice&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Limbrick, L., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2010&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Auckland&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20 teachers (from 6 primary schools)/6 literacy leaders/4 University researchers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Professional learning circles/interschool meetings/student attainment data/practitioner inquiry/self&amp;#8208;report teacher records/researcher field notes/focus groups&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Impact of teachers taking a research lens to their practice on students' writing achievement&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Love, K., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2014&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 'committed language teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Year 6&amp;#8211;7 &amp;#8211; transition)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Descriptive case study&amp;#8212;workshops and interviews, taken from larger 3&amp;#8201;year study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Professional knowledge building in devoted teachers and how this translates from declarative to procedural knowledge in practice (for grammar)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mantei, J. &amp; Kervin, L.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2020&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Year 2 and 3) and the children in their classes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;pre&amp;#8208;post observation and analysis of writing time; interviews across 2&amp;#8201;years (drawn from a larger multi&amp;#8208;methods study)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Analysis of pedagogical approaches and subsequent impact on student learning; The writing demands made evident in teacher interactions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michelsen Wahleithner, J.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2018&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5 High School English teachers + survey participants (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;171)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Qualitative case studies, beginning and end of year interviews, observations. Constant comparison method, Survey to illustrate findings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interplay of preparation to teach writing, instructional policies teachers, navigate, and writing development of learners&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Myhill, D., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2012&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;744 students/31 schools&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mixed&amp;#8208;methods (RCT/text analysis/interviews and observations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can contextualized grammar teaching linked to teaching of writing improve student outcomes and metalinguistic understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Myhill, D., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2013&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;32 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grammar knowledge test data, lesson observation, teacher interviews, student interviews&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Role of teachers' grammar knowledge in mediating learning about writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Myhill, D., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2023&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9 professional writers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writer conversations (interviews/tutorials/reflections)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understanding how writers communicate understanding of writing as craft/Writing as craft knowledge&amp;#8212;to support teachers of writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ng, C., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2024&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;187 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mailed survey&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beliefs about preparation to teach low SES students to write&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Parr, J. M. &amp; Hawe, E.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2017&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11 teacher pairs&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Observation and conversation cycles; Professional learning conversation; post&amp;#8208;feedback discussion questionnaires; written responses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Development of content and pedagogical knowledge for writing; Professional learning development to enhance knowledge and practice (in pairs). Peer observation and feedback to enhance knowledge of practice in writing instruction, using a collaboratively designed observation guide.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Parr, J.M. &amp; Timperley, H.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2010&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;30 teachers from 6 school (Years 1&amp;#8211;8)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Analysis of scenario review by teachers; analysis of feedback to writing samples; analysis of use of criterion&amp;#8208;referenced assessment tool&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Quality of teacher feedback to writing sample in imagined scenario&amp;#8212;based on teacher PCK/Use of asTTle to score children's writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rietdijk, S., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2018&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Netherlands&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;61 teachers from 45 Primary schools&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher questionnaires; stimulated recall interviews; lesson observations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher beliefs toward writing and writing instruction; Teacher self&amp;#8208;monitoring of writing lessons; Skill for assessing students' texts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reutzel, D. R., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2011&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Utah&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;N/A&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evaluation of system designed to test teacher knowledge about reading and writing (via multiple choice test and observation of practice)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vexing issues relating to how to assess teacher knowledge for reading and writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Schmier, S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2021&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Two preservice teachers and primary students (8&amp;#8211;9&amp;#8201;years)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Two case Studies (taken from 21) describing digital story&amp;#8208;telling collaborations (writing) to capture experiences of becoming a reader&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Digital Storytelling as a Turn&amp;#8208;Around Pedagogy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;31&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seoane, R. C., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2019&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canary Islands, Spain&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;550 Preservice teachers (University students)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Critical episodes/questionnaires&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preservice Teachers' implicit theories of learning to write; which theories are represented in their accounts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Smith, K.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2021&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6 Reception class teachers (children age 4&amp;#8211;5&amp;#8201;years)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Practitioner enquiry: teachers gathered photographs, video, multimodal observations of learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How multimodal mark&amp;#8208;making and writing occur as part of play&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;33&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Southern, A., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2020&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wales, England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Data from 2 studies: Year 2 and Year 4 pupils/teachers/parents in 3 schools in Wales; CPDL involving creative practitioners and teachers, pupils at 5 Primary schools in England&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Secondary analysis of data collected from two studies using focus groups/observations/interviews/thick description&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Creative writing pedagogy development and challenges for this&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;34&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Troia, G. &amp; Graham, S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2016&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;482 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Grades 3&amp;#8211;8)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Survey&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perceptions about Common Core writing and language statements (as adopted state&amp;#8208;wide)/and state&amp;#8208;level assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Walls, H &amp; Johnston, M.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2023&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;626 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Primary)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Survey and subsample of 19 respondents' students' writing over time to measure progress in relation to survey findings&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The effect of teachers' beliefs and practices about writing pedagogy on students' progress&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;36&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wearmouth, J., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2011&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Zealand&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 "Excellent" teacher/28 students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher interviews/student interviews/observations/photograph analysis (classroom environment)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The development of low and high&amp;#8208;achieving student writer identities in relation to teacher identified as having excellent practice's support&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;37&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wiebe Berry, R. A.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2006&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5 teachers who co&amp;#8208;teach in inclusion classrooms with 44 "general ed" students and 23 "special ed" students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Case Studies including teacher interviews/observations/photographic data/field notes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Links between pedagogic beliefs and practice in relation to process writing instruction: implicit theories&amp;#8212;how and why differences in instruction exist despite similar teaching contexts and curricula&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;38&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wijekumar, K., et&amp;#160;al.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2019&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;United States&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;32 teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Upper elementary grade levels)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Structured interview data from 32 teachers plus data from five data sources as part of larger study (surveys/focus groups/observation/school administrator interviews/artifact collection)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;To understand etiology of teacher knowledge about and factors that influence implementation of evidence&amp;#8208;based interventions for writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;39&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Woodard, R.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2019&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not stated &amp;#8211; NWP Summer Institute (United States)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 English teacher&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Secondary&amp;#8212;ages 11&amp;#8211;16)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Illustrative qualitative case study (from larger study). Observations at NWP institute/in teacher's English classroom/interviews/artifact collection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;In what ways did one teacher's participation in making inform her understandings of writing and her teaching of it? How writing teachers can engage in making to learn about writing pedagogy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wyatt&amp;#8208;Smith, C. &amp; Castleton, G.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2004&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Australia&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;37 teachers of Year 5 students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teacher concept maps showing beliefs about factors influencing student writing achievement/Follow&amp;#8208;up "think&amp;#8208;alouds" while marking writing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;How teachers judge student writing and value of making beliefs explicit for pedagogy and assessment practice&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191105823-33">2 Appendix Papers Resulting From Initial Literature Search 1 (n = 18)</hd> <p>Behizadeh, N. 2021. "Missing the Sociopolitical: Examining Discourses of Writing in a US High Performing, Urban Middle School." English Teaching: Practice &amp; Critique (Emerald Group Publishing Limited) 20, no. 1: 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-12-2019-0166.</p> <p>Cremin, T., D. Myhill, I. Eyres, T. Nash, A. Wilson, and L. Oliver. 2020. "Teachers as Writers: Learning Together With Others." Literacy 54, no. 2: 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12201.</p> <p>Dix, S. 2016. "Teaching Writing: A Multilayered Participatory Scaffolding Practice." Literacy 50, no. 1: 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12068.</p> <p>Gadd, M., and J. M. Parr. 2017. "Practices of Effective Writing Teachers." Reading and Writing 30: 1551–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9737-1.</p> <p>Graham, S., K. R. Harris, C. MacArthur, and B. Fink. 2002. "Primary Grade Teachers' Theoretical Orientations Concerning Writing Instruction: Construct Validation and a Nationwide Survey." Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, no. 2: 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1085.</p> <p>König, J., P. Hanke, N. Glutsch, et al. 2022. "Teachers' Professional Knowledge for Teaching Early Literacy: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Validation." Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 34, no. 4: 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-022-09393-z.</p> <p>Mantei, J., and L. Kervin. 2020. "Teacher Knowledge and Student Learning: An Examination of Teacher Pedagogies for the Same Writing Topic Across Two Consecutive Grades." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 43, no. 3: 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652058.</p> <p>Michelsen Wahleithner, J. 2018. "Five Portraits of Teachers' Experiences Teaching Writing: Negotiating Knowledge, Student Need, and Policy." Teachers College Record 120, no. 1: 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000103.</p> <p>Myhill, D. A., S. M. Jones, H. Lines, and A. Watson. 2012. "Re‐Thinking Grammar: The Impact of Embedded Grammar Teaching on Students' Writing and Students' Metalinguistic Understanding." Research Papers in Education 27, no. 2: 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640.</p> <p>Parr, J. M., and E. Hawe. 2017. "Facilitating Real‐Time Observation of and Peer Discussion and Feedback About, Practice in Writing Classrooms." Professional Development in Education 43, no. 5: 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1241818.</p> <p>Reutzel, D. R., J. A. Dole, S. Read, et al. 2011. "Conceptually and Methodologically Vexing Issues in Teacher Knowledge Assessment." Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly 27, no. 3: 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2011.560098.</p> <p>Rietdijk, S., D. van Weijen, T. Janssen, H. van den Bergh, and G. Rijlaarsdam. 2018. "Teaching Writing in Primary Education: Classroom Practice, Time, Teachers' Beliefs and Skills." Journal of Educational Psychology 110, no. 5: 640–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000237.</p> <p>Smith, K. 2021. "The Playful Writing Project: Exploring the Synergy Between Young Children's Play and Writing With Reception Class Teachers." Literacy 55, no. 3: 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12256.</p> <p>Troia, G., and S. Graham. 2016. "Common core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State Assessments: a National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes." Reading and Writing 29, no. 9: 1719–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9650-z.</p> <p>Wiebe Berry, R. A. 2006. "Beyond Strategies: Teacher Beliefs and Writing Instruction in Two Primary Inclusion Classrooms." Journal of Learning Disabilities 39, no. 1: 11–24.</p> <p>Wijekumar, K., A. L. Beerwinkle, K. R. Harris, and S. Graham. 2019. "Etiology of Teacher Knowledge and Instructional Skills for Literacy at the Upper Elementary Grades." Annals of Dyslexia 69, no. 1: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-00170-6.</p> <p>Woodard, R. 2019. "Teacher–Writer–Crafter–Maker: An Exploration of How Making Mattered for One Writing Teacher." Literacy 53: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12179.</p> <p>Wyatt‐Smith, C., G. Castleton, C. Wyatt‐Smith, and G. Castleton. 2004. "Factors Affecting Writing Achievement: Mapping Teacher Beliefs." English in Education 38, no. 1: 39–63.</p> <hd id="AN0191105823-34">3 Appendix Papers Resulting From the Second Literature Search 2 (n = 22)</hd> <p>Alatalo, T. 2016. "Professional Content Knowledge of Grades One–Three Teachers in Sweden for Reading and Writing Instruction: Language Structures, Code Concepts, and Spelling Rules." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 60, no. 5: 477–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1024734.</p> <p>Ballock, E., V. McQuitty, and S. McNary. 2018. "An Exploration of Professional Knowledge Needed for Reading and Responding to Student Writing." Journal of Teacher Education 69, no. 1: 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702576.</p> <p>Bentley, E. 2013. "Supernovas and Superheroes: Examining Unfamiliar Genres and Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge." English Education 45, no. 3: 218–246.</p> <p>Cato, H., and K. Walker. 2022. "The Influences of Teacher Knowledge on Qualitative Writing Assessment." Journal of Language &amp; Literacy Education 18, no. 2: 1–21.</p> <p>Collet, V. S., and A. C. Greiner. 2019. "Revisioning Grammar Instruction Through Collaborative Lesson Study: A New Apprenticeship of Observation." Literacy Research &amp; Instruction 59, no. 2: 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1709927.</p> <p>Cremin, T., and L. Oliver. 2016. "Teachers as Writers: A Systematic Review." Research Papers in Education 32, no. 3: 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1187664.</p> <p>Daffern, T. 2017. "What Happens When a Teacher uses Metalanguage to Teach Spelling?" Reading Teacher 70, no. 4: 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1528.</p> <p>Damber, U. 2013. "Write to Read in Two Different Practices: Literacy Versus Technology in Focus." Journal of Education and Learning 2, no. 2: 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v2n2p96.</p> <p>Frawley, E., and L. McLean Davies. 2015. "Assessing the field." English Teaching: Practice &amp; Critique (Emerald Group Publishing Limited) 14, no. 2: 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-01-2015-0001.</p> <p>Gillentine, J. 2006. "Understanding Early Literacy Development: The Impact of Narrative and Reflection as Tools within a Collaborative Professional Development Setting." Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 27, no. 4: 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020600996034.</p> <p>Håland, A., T. F. Hoem, and E. M. McTigue. 2019. "Writing in First Grade: The Quantity and Quality of Practices in Norwegian Classrooms." Early Childhood Education Journal 47, no. 1: 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0908-8.</p> <p>Limbrick, L., P. Buchanan, M. Goodwin, and H. Schwarcz. 2010. "Doing Things Differently: The Outcomes of Teachers Researching Their Own Practice in Teaching Writing." Canadian Journal of Education 33, no. 4: 897–924.</p> <p>Love, K., C. Sandiford, M. Macken‐Horarik, and L. Unsworth. 2014. "From "Bored Witless" to "Rhetorical Nous": Teacher Orientation to Knowledge about Language and Strengthening Student Persuasive Writing." English in Australia 49, no. 3: 43–56.</p> <p>Myhill, D., T. Cremin, and L. Oliver. 2023. "Writing as a Craft: Re‐Considering Teacher Subject Content Knowledge for Teaching Writing." Research Papers in Education 38, no. 3: 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1977376.</p> <p>Myhill, D., S. Jones, and A. Watson. 2013. "Grammar Matters: How Teachers' Grammatical Knowledge Impacts on the Teaching of Writing." Teaching and Teacher Education 36: 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005.</p> <p>Ng, C., S. Graham, P. Renshaw, A. Cheung, and B. Mak. 2024. "Australian Grades 4 to 6 Teachers' Beliefs and Practices About Teaching Writing to Low SES Students." International Journal of Educational Research 124: 102–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102304.</p> <p>Parr, J. M., and H. Timperley. 2010. "Feedback to Writing, Assessment for Teaching and Learning and Student Progress." Assessing Writing 15, no. 2: 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004.</p> <p>Schmier, S. A. 2021. "Using Digital Storytelling as a Turn‐Around Pedagogy." Literacy 55, no. 3: 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12250.</p> <p>Seoane, R. C., J. E. Jiménez, and N. Gutiérrez. 2019. "Pre‐Service Teachers' Implicit Theories of Learning to Write." European Journal of Teacher Education 43, no. 2: 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1681964.</p> <p>Southern, A., J. Elliott, and C. Morley. 2020. "Third Space Creative Pedagogies: Developing a Model of Shared CPDL for Teachers and Artists to Support Reading and Writing in the Primary Curricula of England and Wales." International Journal of Education &amp; Literacy Studies 8, no. 1: 24–31.</p> <p>Walls, H., and M. Johnston. 2023. "Teachers' Beliefs and Practices for the Teaching of Writing in the New Zealand Elementary School: Influences on Student Progress." Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 28, no. 1: 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2023.2208145.</p> <p>Wearmouth, J., Berryman, M., and Whittle, L. (2011). ""Shoot for the Moon!" Students' Identities as Writers in the Context of the Classroom." British Journal of Special Education 38, no. 2: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00502.x.</p> <ref id="AN0191105823-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref132" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Learning, Teaching Theory, and Models; Learning and Teaching Philosophies; Classroom Environment; General Writing Instructional Practices; Writing Instructional Materials, Standards, and Programs; Rhetoric and Texts; Stages of Writing Development; Concepts About Writing; Modes and Characteristics of Effective Writing Instruction; Writing Process; Spelling; Handwriting; Grammar; Composition; Diversity and Writing; Writing Motivation/Engagement; Technology and Writing; Writing Assessment; Family–School Connections; Teacher Self‐Awareness.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191105823-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alatalo, T. 2016. " Professional Content Knowledge of Grades One‐Three Teachers in Sweden for Reading and Writing Instruction: Language Structures, Code Concepts, and Spelling Rules." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 60, no. 5 : 477 – 499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1024734.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref58" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, R., M. Armstrong, J. Flutter, et al. 2010. Children, Their World, Their Education Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref57" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, R., A. Peacock, and W. Harlen. 2011. "Key Stage 2 Testing and Accountability Review." https://cprtrust.org.uk/about_cprt/cprt‐publications/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arksey, H., and L. O'Malley. 2005. " Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, no. 1 : 19 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref80" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). 2022. Writing Development: What Does a Decade of NAPLAN Data Reveal? AERO. https://<ulink href="http://www.edresearch.edu.au/research/research&amp;#8208;reports/writing&amp;#8208;development&amp;#8208;decade&amp;#8208;naplan&amp;#8208;data&amp;#8208;report">www.edresearch.edu.au/research/research&amp;#8208;reports/writing&amp;#8208;development&amp;#8208;decade&amp;#8208;naplan&amp;#8208;data&amp;#8208;report</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref196" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ballock, E., V. McQuitty, and S. McNary. 2018. " An Exploration of Professional Knowledge Needed for Reading and Responding to Student Writing." Journal of Teacher Education 69, no. 1 : 56 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702576.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barrs, M. 2019. " Teaching Bad Writing." English in Education 53, no. 1 : 18 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2018.1557858.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bassey, M. 2010. "The Role and Performance of Ofsted." <ulink href="http://www.parliament.co.uk">www.parliament.co.uk</ulink>. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/writev/ofsted/28.htm.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bearne, E. 2017. " Assessing Children's Written Texts: A Framework for Equity." Literacy 51, no. 2 : 74 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Behizadeh, N. 2021. " Missing the Sociopolitical: Examining Discourses of Writing in a US High‐Performing, Urban Middle School." English Teaching: Practice and Critique 20, no. 1 : 33 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC‐12‐2019‐0166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentley, E. 2013. " Supernovas and Superheroes: Examining Unfamiliar Genres and Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge." English Education 45, no. 3 : 218 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bhatt, I., and L. Gourlay. 2024. " Postdigital/More‐Than‐Digital Meaning‐Making." Postdigital Science and Education 6 : 735 – 742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438‐024‐00512‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biesta, G. 2009. " Good Education in an Age of Measurement: On the Need to Reconnect With the Question of Purpose in Education." Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21, no. 1 : 33 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092‐008‐9064‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borg, S. 2003. " Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do." Language Teaching 36, no. 2 : 81 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borg, S. 2018. " Teachers' Beliefs and Classroom Practices." In The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness, edited by P. Garrett and J. M. Cots, 75 – 91. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourne, J. 2002. " 'Oh, What Will Miss Say!': Constructing Texts and Identities in the Discursive Processes of Classroom Writing." Language and Education 16, no. 4 : 241 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradbury, A., A. Braun, and L. Quick. 2021. " Intervention Culture, Grouping and Triage: High‐Stakes Tests and Practices of Division in English Primary Schools." British Journal of Sociology of Education 42, no. 2 : 147 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1878873.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brosseuk, D. 2024. " Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests." Early Childhood Education Journal 53 : 1925 – 1937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐024‐01726‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, C., and K. Daniels. 2019. " Spaces, Places, Bodies and Things: Sociomaterial Perspectives on Young Children's Literacy Practices." In Literacies in Early Childhood: Foundations for Equitable, Quality Pedagogy, edited by A. Woods and B. Exley. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, C., and G. Merchant. 2018. New Media in the Classroom: Rethinking Primary Literacy. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, C., and G. Merchant. 2020. Undoing the Digital: Sociomaterialism and Literacy Education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, C., G. Merchant, and M. M. Neumann. 2019. " The Appearance of Literacy in New Communicative Practices: Interrogating the Politics of Noticing." Cambridge Journal of Education 50, no. 2 : 167 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1654978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey, M. D., S. Davidow, and P. Williams. 2022. " Re‐Imagining Narrative Writing and Assessment: A Post‐NAPLAN Craft‐Based Rubric for Creative Writing." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 45 : 33 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020‐022‐00004‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cato, H., and K. Walker. 2022. " The Influences of Teacher Knowledge on Qualitative Writing Assessment." Journal of Language &amp; Literacy Education 18, no. 2 : 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charalambous, C. Y. 2015. " Working at the Intersection of Teacher Knowledge, Teacher Beliefs, and Teaching Practice: A Multiple‐Case Study." Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 18 : 427 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857‐015‐9318‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, H., D. Myhill, and H. Lewis. 2020. Developing Writers Across the Primary and Secondary Years: Growing Into Writing. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clough, P., and C. Nutbrown. 2012. A Student's Guide to Methodology. Third ed. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran‐Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1999. " Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities." Review of Research in Education 24, no. 1 : 249 – 305. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collet, V. S., and A. C. Greiner. 2019. " Revisioning Grammar Instruction Through Collaborative Lesson Study: A New Apprenticeship of Observation." Literacy Research &amp; Instruction 59, no. 2 : 95 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1709927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Counsell, S., and B. Wright. 2018. " High‐Stakes Accountability Systems: Creating Cultures of Fear." Global Education Review 5, no. 2 : 189 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., H. Hendry, L. Chamberlain, and S. Hulston. 2025. Reading and Writing for Pleasure: An Evidence‐Informed‐Framework for Practice. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., T. Lillis, D. Myhill, and I. Eyres. 2016. " Professional Writers Identities." In Writer Identity: The Teaching and Learning of Writing, edited by T. Cremin and T. Locke, 19 – 36. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., and T. Lock. 2016. Writer Identity: The Teaching and Learning of Writing. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., and D. Myhill. 2012. Writing Voices: Creating Communities of Writers. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., D. Myhill, I. Eyres, T. Nash, A. Wilson, and L. Oliver. 2020. " Teachers as Writers: Learning Together With Others." Literacy 54, no. 2 : 49 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin, T., and L. Oliver. 2016. " Teachers as Writers: A Systematic Review." Research Papers in Education 32, no. 3 : 269 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1187664.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuff, B. 2019. " A Review of Approaches to Assessing Writing at the End of Primary Education Drawing Upon Historical and International Practices of Equal Research and Analysis." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9cdfd0e5274a5278f2755d/International_primary_writing_review_‐_FINAL_28.03.2019.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daffern, T. 2017. " What Happens When a Teacher Uses Metalanguage to Teach Spelling? " Reading Teacher 70, no. 4 : 423 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daliri‐Ngametua, R., S. Wescott, and A. McKay. 2023. " On the Uses and Use of NAPLAN: The Hidden Effects of Test‐Based Data‐Centric Accountabilities." Journal of Education Policy 39, no. 6 : 843 – 860. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2273499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damber, U. 2013. " Write to Read in Two Different Practices: Literacy Versus Technology in Focus." Journal of Education and Learning 2, no. 2 : 96 – 107. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v2n2p96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2013a. "National Curriculum in England: Primary Curriculum." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;primary&amp;#8208;curriculum">www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;primary&amp;#8208;curriculum</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2013b. "National Curriculum in England: English Programmes of Study." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;programmes&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;study">www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;programmes&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;study</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2019. "Attainment in Primary Schools Quality and Methodology Information." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d6e82c0ed915d53adcf51f4/KS2_provisional_2019_qualityandmethodology.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2025a. Independent Report Curriculum and Assessment: Interim Report. GOV.UK. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;interim&amp;#8208;report">www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;interim&amp;#8208;report</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2025b. The Writing Framework. GOV.UK. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the&amp;#8208;writing&amp;#8208;framework">www.gov.uk/government/publications/the&amp;#8208;writing&amp;#8208;framework</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Employment. 1998. The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching. DfEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickerson, C., R. Levy, J. Jarvis, and K. R. Thomas. 2022. " Using a Teacher Knowledge Framework to Connect Teaching Practice With Theory." Practice 4, no. 3 : 191 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2022.2115942.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dix, S. 2016. " Teaching Writing: A Multilayered Participatory Scaffolding Practice." Literacy 50, no. 1 : 23 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12068.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, A. H. 2018. " A Sense of Belonging: Writing (Righting) Inclusion and Equity in a Child's Transition to School." Research in the Teaching of English 52, no. 3 : 236 – 261. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44821302">http://www.jstor.org/stable/44821302</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Endowment Fund n.d. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about‐us/how‐we‐work.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fang, X., D. T. K. Ng, S. Chu, and J. K. L. Leung. 2023. " A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Technologies Used for Story Writing." Education and Information Technologies 28 : 14361 – 14397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐023‐11741‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez, C. 2014. " Knowledge Base for Teaching and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Some Useful Models and Implications for Teachers' Training." Problems of Education in the 21st Century 60 : 79 – 100. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/14.60.79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feucht, F. C., J. Lunn Brownlee, and G. Schraw. 2017. " Moving Beyond Reflection: Reflexivity and Epistemic Cognition in Teaching and Teacher Education." Educational Psychologist 52, no. 4 : 234 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1350180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frawley, E., and L. McLean Davies. 2015. " Assessing the Field." English Teaching: Practice and Critique 14, no. 2 : 83 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC‐01‐2015‐0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadd, M., and J. M. Parr. 2017. " Practices of Effective Writing Teachers." Reading and Writing 30 : 1551 – 1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐017‐9737‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gannon, S. 2019. " Teaching Writing in the NAPLAN Era: The Experiences of Secondary English Teachers." English in Australia 54, no. 2 : 43 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, P. 2018. " Writing and Writer Identity: The Poor Relation and the Search for Voice in 'Personal Literacy'." Literacy 52, no. 1 : 11 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillentine, J. 2006. " Understanding Early Literacy Development: The Impact of Narrative and Reflection as Tools Within a Collaborative Professional Development Setting." Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 27, no. 4 : 343 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020600996034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> GOV.UK. 2011. " Independent Report: Review of Key Stage 2 Testing, Assessment and Accountability." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2&amp;#8208;testing&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;accountability&amp;#8208;final&amp;#8208;report">www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2&amp;#8208;testing&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;accountability&amp;#8208;final&amp;#8208;report</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., K. R. Harris, C. MacArthur, and B. Fink. 2002. " Primary Grade Teachers' Theoretical Orientations Concerning Writing Instruction: Construct Validation and a Nationwide Survey." Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, no. 2 : 147 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1085.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Håland, A., T. F. Hoem, and E. M. McTigue. 2019. " Writing in First Grade: The Quantity and Quality of Practices in Norwegian Classrooms." Early Childhood Education Journal 47, no. 1 : 63 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐018‐0908‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, M. 2016. " Imagining Literacy: A Sociomaterial Approach." In Beyond Economic Interests: Critical Perspectives on Adult Literacy and Numeracy in a Globalised World, edited by K. Yasukawa and S. Black, 3 – 17. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐6300‐444‐2_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannington, M., and L. Govender. 2024. " Communities of Practice: A Decolonial Critique." Clinical Teacher 21, no. 3 : e13699. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13699.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawley, S. 2021. " Doing Sociomaterial Studies: The Circuit of Agency." Learning, Media and Technology 47, no. 4 : 413 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1986064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoy, A. W., H. Davis, and S. J. Pape. 2006. " Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs." In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne, 715 – 737. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchings, M. 2015. Exam Factories? The Impact of Accountability Measures on Children and Young People. Research Commissioned by the National Union of Teachers. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2015/07/Exam‐factories.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivanic, R. 2004. " Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write." Language and Education 18, no. 3 : 220 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamler, B., and B. Comber. 2005. " Turn‐Around Pedagogies: Improving the Education of At‐Risk Students." Improving Schools 8, no. 2 : 121 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480205057702. (Original work published 2005).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> König, J., P. Hanke, N. Glutsch, et al. 2022. " Teachers' Professional Knowledge for Teaching Early Literacy: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Validation." Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 34, no. 4 : 483 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092‐022‐09393‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacković, N., A. Olteanu, and C. Campbell. 2024. " Postdigital Literacies in Everyday Life and Pedagogic Practices." Postdigital Science and Education 6 : 796 – 820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438‐024‐00500‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, J. 1996. " Challenging Autonomous Models of Literacy: Street's Call to Action." Linguistics and Education 8, no. 4 : 439 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898‐5898(96)90020‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limbrick, L., P. Buchanan, M. Goodwin, and H. Schwarcz. 2010. " Doing Things Differently: The Outcomes of Teachers Researching Their Own Practice in Teaching Writing." Canadian Journal of Education 33, no. 4 : 897 – 924. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje‐rce/article/view/2191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindorff, A., J. Stiff, and H. Kayton. 2024. "PIRLS 2021: National Report for England." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pirls&amp;#8208;2021&amp;#8208;reading&amp;#8208;literacy&amp;#8208;performance&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england">www.gov.uk/government/publications/pirls&amp;#8208;2021&amp;#8208;reading&amp;#8208;literacy&amp;#8208;performance&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love, K., C. Sandiford, M. Macken‐Horarik, and L. Unsworth. 2014. " From "Bored Witless" to "Rhetorical Nous": Teacher Orientation to Knowledge about Language and Strengthening Student Persuasive Writing." English in Australia 49, no. 3 : 43 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowien, N., and D. Thomas. 2023. " Generative AI Writing Tools and the Australian Curriculum: English." Practical Literacy: The Early and Primary Years 28, no. 3 : 26 – 28. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.335158533238685.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunn Brownlee, J., L. E. Ferguson, and M. Ryan. 2017. " Changing Teachers' Epistemic Cognition: A New Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Reflexivity." Educational Psychologist 52, no. 4 : 242 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1333430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mantei, J., and L. Kervin. 2020. " Teacher Knowledge and Student Learning: An Examination of Teacher Pedagogies for the Same Writing Topic Across Two Consecutive Grades." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 43 : 224 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652058.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michelsen Wahleithner, J. 2018. " Five Portraits of Teachers' Experiences Teaching Writing: Negotiating Knowledge, Student Need, and Policy." Teachers College Record 120, no. 1 : 1 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, G. 2014. " Putting Literacy Attainment Data in Context: Examining the Past in Search of the Present." Comparative Education 50, no. 3 : 357 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2014.921369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, G. 2017. " Assessment, Accountability and the Literacy Curriculum: Reimagining the Future in the Light of the Past." Literacy 51, no. 2 : 56 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill, D., T. Cremin, and L. Oliver. 2023. " Writing as a Craft: Re‐Considering Teacher Subject Content Knowledge for Teaching Writing." Research Papers in Education 38, no. 3 : 403 – 425. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1977376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill, D., S. Jones, and A. Watson. 2013. " Grammar Matters: How Teachers' Grammatical Knowledge Impacts on the Teaching of Writing." Teaching and Teacher Education 36, no. 1 : 77 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill, D. A., S. M. Jones, H. Lines, and A. Watson. 2012. " Re‐Thinking Grammar: The Impact of Embedded Grammar Teaching on Students' Writing and Students' Metalinguistic Understanding." Research Papers in Education 27, no. 2 : 139 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagrotsky, K., and A. Franjul Grullon. 2020. " Writing That Counts: Grounding a Critique of the Common Core English Language Arts Standards in Classroom Memories." Democracy &amp; Education 28, no. 2 : 9. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol28/iss2/9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NAP National Assessment Programme. 2025. " NAPLAN." https://<ulink href="http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan">www.nap.edu.au/naplan</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. 2025. " National Assessment of Educational Progress: Writing, The Institute of Education Sciences." https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of teachers of English (NCTE). 2016. " Professional Knowledge for the Teaching of Writing." https://ncte.org/statement/teaching‐writing/print/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of teachers of English (NCTE). 2018. " Understanding and Teaching Writing: Guiding Principles." https://ncte.org/statement/teachingcomposition/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of teachers of English (NCTE). 2022. " Position Statement on Writing Instruction in School." https://ncte.org/statement/statement‐on‐writing‐instruction‐in‐school/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Literacy Trust. 2025. " Children and Young People's Writing in 2025." https://literacytrust.org.uk/research‐services/research‐reports/children‐and‐young‐peoples‐writing‐in‐2025/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Writing Project (NWP). 2025. https://<ulink href="http://www.nwp.org/">www.nwp.org/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, C., S. Graham, P. Renshaw, A. Cheung, and B. Mak. 2024. " Australian Grades 4 to 6 Teachers' Beliefs and Practices About Teaching Writing to Low SES Students." International Journal of Educational Research 124 : 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. n.d. "GOV.UK." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted">www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, J. M., and E. Hawe. 2017. " Facilitating Real‐Time Observation of, and Peer Discussion and Feedback About, Practice in Writing Classrooms." Professional Development in Education 43, no. 5 : 709 – 728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1241818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, J. M., and L. Limbrick. 2010. " Contextualising Practice: Hallmarks of Effective Teachers of Writing." Teaching and Teacher Education 26, no. 3 : 583 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, J. M., and H. Timperley. 2010. " Feedback to Writing, Assessment for Teaching and Learning and Student Progress." Assessing Writing 15, no. 2 : 68 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> PIRLS. 2021. https://pirls2021.org/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reutzel, D. R., J. A. Dole, S. Read, et al. 2011. " Conceptually and Methodologically Vexing Issues in Teacher Knowledge Assessment." Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly 27, no. 3 : 183 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2011.560098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rietdijk, S., D. van Weijen, T. Janssen, H. van den Bergh, and G. Rijlaarsdam. 2018. " Teaching Writing in Primary Education: Classroom Practice, Time, Teachers' Beliefs and Skills." Journal of Educational Psychology 110, no. 5 : 640 – 663. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizvi, F. 2006. " Imagination and the Globalisation of Educational Policy Research." Globalisation, Societies and Education 4, no. 2 : 193 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600752551.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizvi, F. 2011. " Beyond the Social Imaginary of 'Clash of Civilizations'? " Educational Philosophy and Theory 43, no. 3 : 225 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐5812.2009.00593.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowsell, J. 2025. The Comfort of Screens: Literacy in Postdigital Times. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowsell, J., and C. McLean. 2020. Maker Literacies and Maker Identities in the Digital Age: Learning and Playing Through Modes and Media. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowsell, J., and K. Pahl. 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmier, S. A. 2021. " Using Digital Storytelling as a Turn‐Around Pedagogy." Literacy 55, no. 3 : 172 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seoane, R. C., J. E. Jiménez, and N. Gutiérrez. 2019. " Pre‐Service Teachers' Implicit Theories of Learning to Write." European Journal of Teacher Education 43, no. 2 : 165 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1681964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shiel, G., and E. Eivers. 2009. " International Comparisons of Reading Literacy: What Can They Tell Us? " Cambridge Journal of Education 39, no. 3 : 345 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903103736.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. S. 1987. " Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57, no. 1 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, A., and T. M. Cremin. 2022. " Responsible Reading: Children's Literature and Social Justice." Education in Science 12, no. 4 : 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. 2021. " The Playful Writing Project: Exploring the Synergy Between Young Children's Play and Writing With Reception Class Teachers." Literacy 55, no. 3 : 149 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southern, A., J. Elliott, and C. Morley. 2020. " Third Space Creative Pedagogies: Developing a Model of Shared CPDL for Teachers and Artists to Support Reading and Writing in the Primary Curricula of England and Wales." International Journal of Education &amp; Literacy Studies 8, no. 1 : 24 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Standards and Testing Agency. 2017. Statutory Guidance Teacher Assessment Frameworks at the End of Key Stage 2. GOV.UK. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teacher&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;frameworks&amp;#8208;at&amp;#8208;the&amp;#8208;end&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2">www.gov.uk/government/publications/teacher&amp;#8208;assessment&amp;#8208;frameworks&amp;#8208;at&amp;#8208;the&amp;#8208;end&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Standards and Testing Agency. 2025. Guidance Key Stage 2 Tests: 2025 English Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling Test Materials. GOV.UK. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2&amp;#8208;tests&amp;#8208;2025&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;grammar&amp;#8208;punctuation&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;spelling&amp;#8208;test&amp;#8208;materials">www.gov.uk/government/publications/key&amp;#8208;stage&amp;#8208;2&amp;#8208;tests&amp;#8208;2025&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;grammar&amp;#8208;punctuation&amp;#8208;and&amp;#8208;spelling&amp;#8208;test&amp;#8208;materials</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, J. 2003. " Unpacking the Social Imaginary of Literacy Education: A Case Study." English Education 36, no. 1 : 35 – 55. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee20032795.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Street, B. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tampio, N. 2018. " A Democratic Critique of the Common Core English Language Arts (ELA) Standards." Democracy &amp; Education 26, no. 1 : 4. https://doi.org/10.65214/2164‐7992.1351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, C. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The National Archives. n.d. Education Reform Act 1988. https://<ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/contents">www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/contents</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troia, G., and S. Graham. 2016. " Common Core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State Assessments: A National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes." Reading and Writing 29, no. 9 : 1719 – 1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9650‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verloop, N., J. Van Driel, and P. Meijer. 2001. " Teacher Knowledge and the Knowledge Base of Teaching." International Journal of Educational Research 35, no. 5 : 441 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883‐0355(02)00003‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walls, H., and M. Johnston. 2023. " Teachers' Beliefs and Practices for the Teaching of Writing in the New Zealand Elementary School: Influences on Student Progress." Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 28, no. 1 : 27 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2023.2208145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wearmouth, J., M. Berryman, and L. Whittle. 2011. " "Shoot for the Moon!" Students' Identities as Writers in the Context of the Classroom." British Journal of Special Education 38, no. 2 : 92 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8578.2011.00502.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiebe Berry, R. A. 2006. " Beyond Strategies: Teacher Beliefs and Writing Instruction in Two Primary Inclusion Classrooms." Journal of Learning Disabilities 39, no. 1 : 11 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijekumar, K., A. L. Beerwinkle, K. R. Harris, and S. Graham. 2019. " Etiology of Teacher Knowledge and Instructional Skills for Literacy at the Upper Elementary Grades Annals of Dyslexia." Annals of Dyslexia 69, no. 1 : 5 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodard, R. 2019. " Teacher–Writer–Crafter–Maker: An Exploration of How Making Mattered for One Writing Teacher." Literacy 53, no. 4 : 236 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyatt‐Smith, C., and G. Castleton. 2004. " Factors Affecting Writing Achievement: Mapping Teacher Beliefs." English in Education 38, no. 1 : 39 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Clare Dowdall</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref222"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1494529 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Building a Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy: Working with Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs about Writing – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Clare+Dowdall%22">Clare Dowdall</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4901-2147">0000-0002-4901-2147</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(1). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 26 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy+Education%22">Literacy Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Teachers%22">Writing Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Attitudes%22">Writing Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70083 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: In various settings internationally, and in England in particular, writing pedagogy and associated practice is reported as being enacted in contexts of high-stakes accountability. These contexts contribute to a prevailing social imaginary for literacy education that can frame and constrain the possibilities for teachers and learners, meaning that opportunities to develop writing pedagogy and practice that are inclusive, expansive, responsive to change, and socially just, are restricted. In this paper, in the light of contextual information, the social imaginary for literacy education is described and conceptualized in relation to teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing. Next, a scoping style review of relevant research and theoretical literature from the last 20 years that reports insights into teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy is presented. Nine themes and associated claims are constructed as a result of the insights derived and are presented collectively to provoke research-informed critical reflection about the nature of teacher knowledge and beliefs about writing and writing pedagogy in relation to the social imaginary and its effects. To conclude, an alternate imaginary is presented as an ideal: The Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy. This imaginary brings teacher knowledge about the social imaginary for literacy education into relation with teacher professional knowledge, to promote pedagogies and practices for writing that are inclusive, expansive, responsive, and socially just. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1494529 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494529 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70083 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 26 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition) Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Literacy Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Inclusion Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Justice Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Building a Professional Imaginary of Writing Pedagogy: Working with Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs about Writing Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Clare Dowdall IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
