Liminality and praxis: high school English teachers’ unsettled theories about teaching writing

Driving through large cities in Texas, it is not uncommon to see billboards advertising for teachers. The most recent iteration of these ads asks simply, “Want to Teach?” followed by an equally stark reference to a location such as “in Dallas, TX.” As these messages become increasingly prevalent, the public is steadily habituated to the ease and banality of teaching as a catch-all “job” that anyone can do. Subtly undermining the academic knowledge and specialized training required to become a K-12 teacher, these billboards and other similarly pervasive media contribute to a culture of deskilling and deprofessionalizing teachers (Milner, 2013). In tandem to the assumption that anyone can teach, such messages belie curricular mandates and teaching methods centered on standards-based accountability measures and test-centric pedagogies that permit little room for the nuances of teaching and learning (Wronowski, 2021).

Writing instruction is not exempt from such influences. Legislative mandates prioritize test scores as the primary measure of students’ writing success, directing writing pedagogy toward forms of writing that are tested (Lesley et al., 2021; Wahleithner, 2018). Methods that support the view of writing as a succession of skills to be mastered and measured invite misconceptions about the ease of teaching composition and neglect an understanding that writing is driven by complex theoretical foundations of practice and pedagogy that bring together identity, rhetorical context and praxis (Park, 2013; Williamson, 2023; Yagelski, 2012). Also, there is little evidence to support the benefit of teaching tested forms of writing (Wahleithner, 2018). Despite the attempts, test scores have not increased (National Institute of Education Sciences, 2011).

Teachers often find themselves in the fray of legislative mandates and requirements to prepare students to pass a writing test (Smit et al., 2022). Even though the teacher writer and the writing teacher are inversions of each other (Cremin, 2015), in the space between doing and teaching exists a chasm of obscurity that widens with the growing problem of teacher retention, hiring and new-to-teaching professionals being placed in classrooms with little or no pedagogical guidance in writing instruction (Sanders et al., 2020). Lillge (2019) noted conflicts arise “when English teachers self-identify as writers and teachers of writing in ways that contradict how they are positioned” in professional development and argued “understanding the nature of these conflicts offers one explanation for why English teacher learning about the teaching of writing remains so fragmented” (p. 342). Such fragmentation places teachers in a liminal state contending with many competing forces such as mandated curriculum, level of content knowledge concerning writing processes and level of pedagogical knowledge of writing practice (Lesley et al., 2022; Wahleithner, 2018; Ybema et al., 2011).

Given this phenomena, the purpose of our inquiry was to examine how teachers new to teaching writing in a historically “underperforming” high school articulated a theory of writing in ways that led to an understanding of their role, purpose and identity as writing teachers while facing pressures to increase student scores on state mandated writing exams. To conduct this study, we examined teachers’ thoughts about writing instruction at an early point in teaching at the same high school (i.e. at the conclusion of their first-third year of teaching ninth and tenth grade English). As part of this investigation, we sought to examine how teachers described the ways various forces such as the high school English program’s discourse community with attendant professional development and instructional expectations shaped their writing practices as they navigated teaching experiences. In light of the school’s history of being monitored for low student performance, we felt this investigation was particularly salient as it reflected persistent concerns about student writing across the nation (Applebee and Langer, 2011; Fields, 2020; Goldsmith, 2023; Read and Landon-Hays, 2013).

The setting where this study took place was an urban high school in Texas with a history of state oversight due to student performance on state exams. Situated on the edge of a mid-sized city, the school’s parking lot drifted into rural fields, giving a sense of emptiness as the outlines of buildings spread out and vanished. The high school also had a high teacher turnover rate, limited resources and a predominantly underserved population of students. The student body consisted of 49% African American students, 47% Latinx students, 2% White students and 2% students of two or more races. According to state data, 92% of students were considered economically disadvantaged. The school also had a growing population of multilingual, newcomer students.

In this context, we set out to explore teachers’ theories of writing. To investigate how teachers construct theories of writing, in this qualitative study we asked, how do ninth and tenth grade English teachers describe their experiences with writing instruction to reveal their theories of writing in the early years of teaching at a high school with a large underserved population of students, limited resources and high teacher attrition?

This study draws on literature exploring the intersecting and complex processes of:

• writing teacher identity; and

• methods for cultivating teachers’ confidence and knowledge of writing pedagogy for both practicing and preservice teachers (Tracy et al., 2024).

Teachers’ situated sense of themselves as writers is a central tenet of the research in both of these domains (Cremin and Baker, 2010; Park, 2013). Studies examining writing teacher development such as Cremin and Baker’s (2010) investigation of teacher writing identity pointed to the importance of practicing teachers actively participating in writing as part of their pedagogy to confront many dilemmas of writing such as emotional engagement and personal authenticity.

Several studies have looked to preservice teacher education as a means through which to cultivate teachers’ writing identities and knowledge of teaching writing. Some have called attention to the lack of writing instruction altogether in teacher education programs and the problems this poses for teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and application of writing pedagogy (Morgan and Pytash, 2014; Myers et al., 2016). Other studies have focused on pre-service teacher writing identity as a key factor in developing theoretical knowledge about writing pedagogy. For instance, Kohnen (2019) revealed the difficulties of preservice high school teachers’ developing a writer teacher identity as they transitioned from coursework to the field of teaching. Similarly, Grossman et al. (2000) found teachers partially appropriated some of the tools for writing instruction learned in their pre-service coursework over time, often in year two of their first three years of teaching. To explain this phenomenon, Grossman et al. (2000) argued that preservice teachers needed more than a “vision” of teaching writing. Rather, they needed practical tools grounded in theory, noting “theory becomes real only through practice” (p. 658). Exploring a similar disconnect between preservice coursework and classroom instruction, Bomer et al. (2019) found pre-service teachers encountered competing discourses between their literacy coursework and field experiences with little attention given to analyzing the ideological differences. Bomer et al. (2019) stated preservice teachers needed overt guidance on the theoretical divergences of writing practices they would encounter and argued “for a higher degree of visibility for the social situatedness of writing as a process, medium and technology” to be able to make “decisions about how to represent writing to their own students” (p. 198). Each of these studies linked preservice teacher writing identity to theoretical knowledge and sociocultural contexts for teaching and learning.

Beyond the experiences of pre-service teachers, several studies have also examined the influence of professional development embedded in teachers’ practice on the formation of teachers’ identities as writers and knowledge of teaching writing. Approaches to embedded professional development feature a range of methods and theoretical constructs for teaching writing as well as results. For example, Locke (2015) followed five teachers across two years of time as they “developed, implemented, evaluated and continually modified a sustained programme of Writing Workshop-based experiences aimed at developing the writing/composing motivation and competence of teacher participants” (p. 55). The goal of this work was to research the effects of sustained, collaborative professional development with embedded practitioner inquiry on teachers’ writing instruction. All of the teachers in the study cited increased self-efficacy as a teacher of writing due to their Writing Workshop experiences. Bifuh-Ambe (2013) also focused on a process approach to writing instruction in a 10-week study with 28 teachers. The professional development in this study addressed the following objectives:

• Examine the purpose of writing, their writing habits and identify their strengths and weaknesses as writers.

• Learn useful strategies to motivate both themselves and their students become more successful writers.

• Participate in and learn to construct mini-lessons in writing workshops that include: writing, conferencing, editing and publishing.

• Learn effective methods for evaluating students’ writing, using portfolios and rubrics.

• Learn how to scaffold writing instruction for English language learners and students with special needs (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013, p. 140).

At the end of the professional development, teachers cited a positive shift in their writing identity and attitude toward writing but struggled with translating their experience as writers to motivating students to write and thus felt less competent to teach writing at the conclusion of the workshops. These results indicate the dissonance between teacher professional development aimed at increasing instructional knowledge and the impact on teacher development of theories of writing.

In a more prescriptive approach to professional development, McKeown et al. (2023) studied practice-based professional development (PBPD) predicated on self-regulated strategy development (SRSD). In this study, eight fourth grade teachers received sixteen hours of instruction across two days and materials to use SRSD with their classes, collaborated with peer-teachers and experts by practicing the lessons and receiving feedback prior to implementation and measured student growth with each lesson. The SRSD lessons were prepared by the research team and contained a meta-script as a guide for teachers to ensure fidelity of implementation. Results of the PBPD indicated a high level of implementation fidelity and a significant improvement in student writing performance.

All of these studies embedded in teacher practice emphasized different theories of teaching writing and positioned teachers as learners with varying degrees of decision-making. The autonomy teachers were given to apply writing pedagogy to their classroom practice, interact with peers and explore theories varied widely. Yet, each study sought to better understand successful instructional practices. Furthermore, each study is emblematic of variance with writing discourses. Despite calls for reform in teacher education and professional development the past two decades (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003), little has changed with writing instruction in high school classrooms in the USA (Smit et al., 2022; Graham and Harris, 2019a, 2019b). In fact, research has pointed to a decline in the quality and scope of writing instruction (Alston and Eagle, 2024). Although varying in focus, these studies invited teachers to explore theoretical aspects of writing instruction as a remedy to this trend. Missing from these studies, however, was a comparative analysis of different theoretical underpinnings for writing instruction that both practicing and pre-service teachers must contend with. As Bomer et al. (2019) noted teachers need to examine competing theories or “discourses of writing that to varying degrees make visible or invisible the situatedness of writing within wider social relationships” (p. 198). Theory is deeply intertwined with practice (Grossman et al., 2000). However, the manner in which we invite teachers to explore both tacit and overt writing theories warrants further investigation. Thus, in the present study we sought to understand how teachers form theories of writing, the factors such as teacher preparation and professional development embedded in practice that contribute to this formation and how various sources of knowledge guide their instructional practices.

We framed the teachers’ reflections about writing instruction from the theoretical perspectives of critical sociocultural theory (Moje and Lewis, 2020), liminality (Fogarty et al., 2020) and Ivanič’s (2004) discourses of writing framework. Critical sociocultural theory examines the intersection of agency, identity and power as a lens through which to understand learning. In this theory, Moje and Lewis (2020) argued that learning is situated within a discourse community of individuals constructed as both an ideational group existing across time and a real-time group bound by a shared experience. Critical sociocultural theory also emphasizes how environments influence individuals’ actions and challenge inequities in resources afforded teachers’ levels of autonomy with instructional decision-making. Given the interplay of factors driven by top-down authority and deprofessionalization affecting teacher learning and practice, this theory guided us to think about the role of power relations in the multiplicities of experiences teachers encounter as they build theoretical knowledge about teaching writing. Critical sociocultural theory also supports a complex framework for analyzing teacher learning and practice, especially in instances when curricular mandates override or are in conflict with teacher knowledge (Strom and Viesca, 2023).

In addition to critical sociocultural theory, we drew on previous work that examined the act of writing as a liminal endeavor (Fogarty et al., 2020; Lesley et al., 2022). Originating from the field of anthropology, the notion of liminality was first understood as a rite of passage ritual and transitional experience of “passing through” one state to the next (Szakolczai, 2009, p. 142). In anthropology, the liminal state is a place of confusion and uncertainty that ultimately leads to transformation (Ybema et al., 2011). In rhetoric and composition, liminality has been applied to the study of writing, particularly for students on the threshold of moving into different writing contexts (Cosgrove, 2021). Liminality with writing highlights instances of transition and transfer of knowledge about writing from one setting to the next (Donahue and Foster-Johnson, 2018). Liminal theories of writing also underscore the inherent uncertainty in the experience of writing leading to a state of possibility (Fogarty et al., 2020). Thus, this theory added depth to our analysis of the transitional state teachers encounter as both writers and writing teachers. Further, this theory shed light on the challenges and uncertainty of being new teachers.

Finally, we drew on Ivanič’s (2004) discourses of writing framework. Ivanič defined discourses of writing as “constellations of belief about writing, beliefs about learning to write, ways of talking about writing, and the sorts of approaches to teaching and assessment which are likely to be associated with these beliefs” (p. 224). Ivanič (2004) noted the ways teachers speak about writing positions them with one or more of six discourses that include:

1. a skills discourse;

2. a creativity discourse;

3. a process discourse;

4. a genre discourse;

5. a social practices discourse; and

6. a sociopolitical discourse (p. 225).

Ivanič also noted these discourses were inherently hybrid and layered. Ivanič’s framework (2004) helped us connect teachers’ theories about writing to the ways they talked about their writing practices. For example, Ivanič’s theory offered a broader lens through which to identify theories about writing teachers were enacting such as privileging activity related to particular discourses of writing.

This study received IRB approval from Texas Tech University. All guidelines and regulations for studies involving humans were followed. Data examined in this study was part of a larger project that followed more broadly the English program through professional development sessions and classroom observations (Lesley et al., 2023). Here, we focus on analyzing interview data to understand how teachers described being and becoming writing teachers as they taught grade levels where state writing exams were administered to measure student writing proficiency.

As a university professor, I (Mellinee) have spent the past nine years partnering with ninth and tenth grade teachers at this high school to study various aspects of teaching writing. This work has been complicated by the turnover rate of English teachers. Yet, year after year, I see the same exhaustion in teachers’ eyes when I show up for a Professional Learning Community meeting or enter their classroom to do an observation. They look weighed down, fatigued, even a little scared. I worry my presence adds to the heaviness of what they are feeling about teaching writing and raises questions for me of how teachers can persist under these circumstances. I am curious about the decision-making processes and truisms teachers hold in mind about writing pedagogy as they navigate multiple messages. My positionality in this study gave me a great deal of access to professional development and classroom instruction. Using discourse analysis offered a more complex view into the ways teachers conceptualized writing instruction. Thus, discourse analysis helped me move past observable data to more nuanced and layered conceptualizations in my understanding of teachers’ writing practices.

As a high school English teacher in Texas, I (Staci) began my career in 1998, when English standards were driven by strict mode. Then, in 2003, the transition to the TAKS test shifted the focus to process writing. Professional development followed the trend. Then in 2012 the STAAR exam’s entry into Texas school culture invited a focus on the test, and writing instruction became synonymous with test preparation. Testing in the district where I teach took over the time spent on professional development in writing theory and pedagogy, and there was no longer a systematic and aligned pedagogy of writing instruction. I have often wondered how teachers can teach writing beyond testing formulas if they are not trained in how to teach the craft by engaging in the craft. Using discourse analysis gave me insights into the ways teachers build theories about writing instruction.

Because the gathered interviews occurred across six years of time (12 interviews in total), this study began before the COVID-19 global pandemic, persisted through remote learning during the pandemic and continued into the post-pandemic period, encompassing the return to in-person instruction. The study also occurred during a major change to the format of the writing test required for ninth and tenth grade English. One of the most significant changes was in the genre of writing students were expected to demonstrate. At the study’s beginning, ninth grade students were required to write an expository essay and tenth grade students to write an argumentative one. In both essay types, students were required to respond to a general prompt.

In 2023, the state writing test was modified to focus on an informational “extended constructed response” to a reading passage. This shift in genre necessitated reading comprehension skills and the ability to include text evidence in composing an essay. The essay portion of the test was also modified from a stand-alone score to being embedded as 16% of the overall English test score (Figure 1).

Data sources for this study consisted of interviews with 12 teachers conducted at the end of their first-third year of teaching ninth or tenth grade English. The interviews were gathered across six years of time from 2019 to 2024. We selected this timeframe for the teacher interviews to capture an early point in the teachers’ journey at the school but also one in which the teacher had completed at least one full school year. While the time span also includes cultural and educational disruptions related to COVID 19, the state testing changes that coincide with this global pandemic are the factors shaping the instructional situations of this time period relative to the teachers’ interviews as the state test’s change affected professional development and instructional practice. The primary goal of the interview was to capture a sense of each teachers’ current views about teaching writing. Sample interview questions include the following:

These questions were crafted to explore teachers’ perspectives about their experiences as writing teachers at the point in time that the interview was conducted.

We also participated in professional development embedded in the teachers’ practice led by a literacy coach at the school to understand the professional environment. Please see Table 1 for an example of the professional development topics addressed during one school year and corresponding discourses of writing (Ivanič, 2004) guiding the professional development. Topics presented in this sample were often repeated in subsequent years and, as such, capture a microcosm of writing discourses teachers encountered in this context.

Four of the teachers interviewed identified as male; eight identified as female. Seven of the teachers were first-year teachers. Two were second-year teachers. Three teachers had several years of previous teaching experience in other schools before joining this high school’s faculty. All of the teachers were working in a context of immense pressure to raise student test scores on the English state exam, attending professional development to learn how to provide writing instruction and working together to plan and implement lessons. The teachers’ writing ethos and agency was a significant component of the analysis of the interviews. In addition, in our analysis we noted the ways teachers positioned students as writers. (Please see Table 2 for a description of the participants, their views of writing and positioning of students.)

Data analysis occurred in phases. First, we analyzed an interview transcript together to establish a shared approach to creating holistic, “first cycle” codes (Saldana, 2021, p. 97). We read the remaining 11 interviews separately, but since they were stored in a shared document, we were able to see each other’s notations. As we analyzed the transcripts, we met twice weekly to discuss what we were noticing with our initial, inductive, first cycle codes and patterns emerging in the transcripts. Examples of the first cycle codes included phrases such as:

• using planning techniques;

• student resistance to writing;

• focus on formulas for writing; and

• differentiated writing instruction.

In the second phase, we met to analyze the first cycle codes for one of the transcripts and combine these initial codes into cohesive patterns. After this phase was complete, we divided the remaining transcripts again and met two weeks later to discuss trends in the second phase of coding. As we looked at these codes, we identified three broader categories of “identity,” “practice” and “instructional/professional environment” and noted a series of tensions the teachers were navigating within each category. For these categories, we defined identity as the ways teachers described their writing ability or attitude toward writing such as describing themselves as a “creative” writer or “strong formal essay writer.” Practice entailed teachers’ descriptions of how they carried out writing instruction as well as the beliefs that shaped their teaching approaches. The instructional/professional environment encompassed instructional expectations teachers were required to uphold or learned through school-based professional development and district mandates. In addition, praxis referred to the critical reflection teachers engaged in regarding their own instructional practice. We noted instances of praxis when teachers interrogated their practice, recounted moments of pedagogical dissonance or asked critical questions about their instruction. These tensions encapsulated instructional trends and the complexity of competing discourses teachers navigated in their descriptions of teaching writing.

In the third phase, Mellinee identified representative excerpts from the categories to conduct a discourse analysis in each transcript to further elucidate the themes and tensions teachers articulated about being a writing teacher. Mellinee used Gee’s (2014) seven building tasks of language to analyze the excerpts, particularly focusing on how grammatical choices in language relate to meaning, as teachers “use spoken and written language to create or build the world” (p. 91). Yet, as interviews are one of “certain key discourse types which embody ideologies” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 67) which leads to formation of theory, the ideologies upon which teachers build their pedagogical practice were of interest. To further illuminate this process, we used Gee’s (2014) methods of deconstructing language, as these tools were most fitting for dissecting interview data, especially where we, two literacy instructors, attempted to make “new and strange” [in testing culture of writing, which has permeated Texas writing instruction for over two decades] what we usually see as “normal” and “natural” (pp. 13–14).

To carry out the discourse analysis, Mellinee began by breaking up the excerpt into lines of salient speech that imparted new information. Then, Mellinee asked Gee’s (2014) seven building tasks of language discourse questions for each excerpt to garner a sense of what situation about writing instruction teachers were constructing with their words. From this step Mellinee created an overarching title for the excerpt that she identified as a stanza title. Next Mellinee identified which of the seven building tasks was prevalent in the excerpt. Finally, Mellinee identified the underlying situated discourse model or theory about teaching writing imparted in the excerpt. For example, in the following excerpt that focuses on teaching practice Mr Flores, a first-year teacher was asked the question: “In your estimation, what was the most important component of writing instruction you implemented this year? Please explain.” Mr Flores responded:

Mellinee broke this excerpt into segments of new information and numbered each of these lines. Following this, Mellinee asked each of Gee’s (2014) seven building tasks of language discourse questions to determine which question was most prevalent. Mellinee crafted a title for the stanza, noted the prevalent language building task and excavated the underlying discourse model about teaching writing. This process revealed insights into how Mr Flores enacted a theory of teaching writing and resulted in the following analysis of his response.

Stanza:Teaching writing topic-focused thesis statements is more important than creative writing.

Language building task:Significance (Gee, 2014, p. 17).

Underlying discourse model:Students’ academic writing should be guided by a clear thesis statement that is focused on the topic of the prompt given:

• Staying on topic.

• Not going off of your thesis.

• Aside from creative writing.

• I look at those as are they doing it.

• Because I don’t like giving grades for that.

• But just staying on topic.

• We like to emphasize their voice.

• And they didn’t really.

• Bring it back to their thesis.

• At the beginning of the year.

• Sophomores are getting better about that.

Mellinee identified this excerpt as answering Gee’s discourse question of significance because of the emphasis Mr Flores placed on the importance of students learning to “stay on topic” with essay writing and the comparative lack of significance given to “creative writing” while encouraging student “voice” but not grading a thesis statement on this element of writing. Rather, Mr Flores evaluated student writing more generally on whether or not students maintained a focus on the topic explicated in the thesis. In the process used for discourse analysis, the last step is to identify the underlying discourse model about teaching writing to address the research question for this study. In this instance, the teacher’s enacted theory of writing emphasized the students’ ability to stay on topic with writing an essay.

By first coding the entire body of interviews, we were able to understand the larger themes that resonated through the language of all of the participants, uncover the teachers’ writing selves in and out of the classroom and consider how these experiences affected their instructional practices and revealed their theories of writing. By narrowing our focus to the specific language of particular participants through engaging in discourse analysis, we were able to deconstruct how those themes related to specific experiences and represented constructed identities depicted through grammatical features. Gee (2000) noted how the same aspects of identity in various people can be negotiated and seen by the self and others through differing perspectives on identity. A policy brief from the National Council of Teachers of English posits that “valuing composing – written, oral, and visual – as a means of discovering self, learning about the world, creating meaning, and interacting with others” is a requisite outlook for teachers of language arts and English (NCTE, 2006, p. 14). We felt discourse analysis illuminated teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward writing in ways that revealed how these aspects of their identities affect praxis. Further, discourse analysis captured the ways they described their beliefs about teaching writing, positioned students as writers and viewed professional learning in the context of tested writing instruction.

In addition to this process, we also used Ivanič’s (2004) discourses of writing typology to illuminate the variety of discourses and theories about writing filtering into the context of the school setting and teacher interviews. Through the lens of Ivanič’s typology we identified four of the discourses of writing being enacted to varying degrees by teachers (i.e. process discourse, skills discourse, genre discourse and creativity discourse). For example, as part of analyzing the enacted theory of writing, we included Ivanič’s discourses of writing as a theoretical lens through which to analyze broader overarching writing theories we saw emphasized in the professional development occurring at the school and the instructional methods teachers used. Ivanič identified a framework of six discourses that could be “used as a research tool to identify distinct discourses which may be instantiated relatively homogeneously or in various combinations in expressed beliefs, in particular elements in the practice of the teaching and assessment of writing, and in policy and curriculum documents” (2004, p. 226). Because Ivanič’s discourses of writing are “constellations of beliefs,” we used this framework to analyze broader trends in teachers’ enactment of writing theory (2004, p. 224). Table 2 captures how we used Ivanič’s framework to analyze each teachers’ instructional focus or enactment of writing theories. For example, Ms Brown stated she emphasized teaching writing through providing students with exemplars of the writing assignment for students and formulas for essay writing (e.g. an inverted pyramid). Using Ivanič’s framework, we interpreted Ms Brown’s enactment of writing theories as largely undergirded by a skills discourse of writing and a genre discourse of writing. Ivanič developed the typology of writing discourses in concert with Gee’s (1996) approach to discourse analysis. Ivanič argued that “participating in one or more of these discourses positions people who talk about or teach writing” in particular ways that indicate “distinct approaches to the teaching of writing” and the “distinct theories of language and literacy” undergirding these practices (p. 224). Thus, Ivanič’s discourses of writing helped unearth teachers’ theories of writing.

Through the analysis of discourse in the teacher interviews, we studied how word choices and grammatical structures were “tools for active building and designing” in terms of constructing meaning (Gee, 2014, p. 59). Gee (2014) argues the ways speakers make particular choices indicates “doing,” and the construction of grammatical and syntactical structures one way, instead of another way, implies meaning. Through applying the “why this way and not that way” tool and analyzing the grammatical arrangements and word choices teachers used to construct meaning (Gee, 2014, p. 62), we explicated the relationship between language and how it was used to reveal teachers’ writing theories, identities, perceptions of professional environments and perceived relationship between professional development and instructional practice in various terms.

Through analysis of how teachers used language “to build in the world” (Gee, 2014, p. 90, 91) and address the research question how do ninth and tenth grade English teachers describe their experiences with writing instruction to reveal their theories of writing in the early years of teaching at a high school with a large underserved population of students, limited resources and high teacher attrition, we found that teachers were grappling with 15 dichotomous tensions that fell into the three overarching categories of “identity,” “practice” and “professional/instructional environment.” The time period over which this data was collected pointed to the contextual pressures on teachers to produce students who perform well on tests, and the larger zeitgeist of the effects on education wrought by COVID 19. These tensions, contextualized in the writing classroom environment and writing instruction professional development, complicated teachers’ sense of what it means to be a teacher of writing, often pulling their attention in multiple directions. (Please see Table 3 for a breakdown of the tensions.) These tensions also exemplified the liminal state teachers experience in coming to understand and implement writing theories. This liminal state became evident in the ways teachers described their writing identities, their purposes for writing, their instructional practice and their views of students as writers. The complexity of developing a writing teacher identity in this sociocultural milieu was depicted through the range of tensions that we saw across all teacher interviews as a result of our coding process (Table 2). Furthermore, we came to see the tensions as an important step in teacher development of theories about writing pedagogy. Each of these tensions frames a space for liminality in the teachers’ movement between ideologies and practices.

In what follows, we explore these topics in greater depth through discourse analysis to excavate teachers’ theories and discourses of writing. Through analysis of the participants’ responses to questions about their writing life, instructional practices and how they learned to teach writing, considered in the context of the time in which the response occurred (2019–2024), we sought to uncover the teachers’ writing selves in and out of the classroom and how this affected their instructional practices as well as revealed their theories of writing. We know that the uses of language are built within a context, and together the language and context ultimately create a picture. To exemplify the findings from this discourse analysis, in what follows we focus on two tensions teachers grappled with involving self as writing teacher and perceptions of students as writers, as these elements are key components for how praxis evolves.

Identity: Teacher reflections on their becoming writing teachers.

The ways teachers described how they learned to teach writing paralleled their identity as writing teachers. Eight of the teachers discussed how they learned to teach writing prior to becoming a teacher. Of these eight, seven of the teachers described how they learned to teach writing by teaching it, stating that they did not learn until they were in the classroom. One teacher noted learning to teach writing in her personal life and having to adjust from this experience to classroom teaching. For the scope of this paper, we chose to focus here on two teachers, Ms Garcia and Ms Norris, who represent two ideologies of practice in learning to teach writing in the context of high stakes testing mandates. The following excerpt is from Ms Garcia’s (2022) interview conducted at the end of her first year of teaching.

Stanza:Learning to teach tested writing.

Language building task: Connections (Gee, 2014, p. 19).

Underlying discourse model:high stakes testing is different now.

I think the big thing is STAAR writing.

• I was completely new to STAAR.

• We didn’t have STAAR when I was in school.

• We had the TAKS test.

• But we didn’t write essays the way that we asked the kids to write essays.

• Like it wasn’t the same format.

• I don’t know.

• It just feels different,

• So I think that has evolved.

• I mean, I still don’t necessarily like STAAR writing um.

• But I am coming around to it .

• Just trying to find a way.

• To make it more accessible to kids.

• In a way that I understand.

• And that they understand, too.

In this excerpt, Ms Garcia describes teaching writing by creating a connection to her students through comparing their experiences with tested writing to her own as a high school student. Statements like “it just feels different” and “I think it has evolved” impart a sense of nostalgia and even loss with the act of writing essays for a standardized test. Ms Garcia goes on to say she does not “necessarily like STAAR writing” but is “trying to find a way to make it more accessible to kids.” With these statements, she positions herself as an ally to students. She concludes her comments by stating that she wants to find a way to teach tested writing so that it makes sense to both students and her. Through this excerpt, Ms Garcia is searching for writing methods by drawing on her previous experiences and questioning how she can demystify the task of tested writing for students. She does not criticize tested writing. Focusing on STAAR writing in her response about learning to teach writing, she acknowledges tested writing as framing much of her knowledge about how to teach writing.

So that we can understand how subjects and objects of verbs serve as the “arguments of the verb” (Gee, 2014, p. 64), in Table 4 we separated the predicates to distinguish the action from the subject, the central focus (subject) from what is being said about the central focus (predicate) (Gee, 2014). Through examining subjects and predicates, we noticed the centering of the teacher self in the actions of each clause. The verbs, however, did not connote action as much as they did attitude. The response invited us to remember that “each way of combining words” and of choosing words “has meaning” (Gee, 2016, p. 58). The subject, or center of the focus for six of these clauses is the speaker, Ms Garcia, who claimed the authority or focus of attention of the clause with the pronoun “I.” Of those six uses of the personal singular pronoun, the verbs are telling in that they do not connote action, the action of learning to teach writing or the action of teaching writing. The verbs, think, was, was, don’t, think, still don’t, am, understand, are a mix of linking, negated actions and cognitive action. Following these verbs are objects of these actions such as STAAR, STAAR, school, that, STAAR writing, it and it. This repetition of the standardized state assessment (STAAR), and the pronoun it (a deictic pointing word that refers back to STAAR) emphasized the teacher’s centering of the standardized writing instruction related to state testing as her primary method of teaching writing, and what she saw as the primary purpose as a student for learning to write.

In four clauses where the personal plural pronoun “We” is used, Ms Garcia aligned herself with an earlier generation of students who were subject to the state of Texas’ TAKS standardized test, which was relevant from 2003 to 2012, and her predicates here are similar in lacking specific action to the verbs she used with the singular personal pronoun case. The verbs didn’t have, had, didn’t write, asked are followed, respectively, by the objects STAAR, TAKS test, essays, kids to write essays, indicating a prolonged ideology, from her positionality of student to that of teacher, of standardized testing indicating writing instruction. The positioning of self and students as recipients of instruction based on standardized testing invited us to consider how this may inform the teacher’s sense of writing theory as standardized-testing derived and the extent to which her focus on teaching writing connected to the training in literacy she received in professional development. As the interview excerpt concludes, the parallel verb repetition of “understand” as the action of the last two subjects, “I” (Ms Garcia) and “they” (students) signifies a collective struggle to know and appropriately apply a helpful and productive theory of teaching writing geared to the STAAR test that would benefit both teacher and students, as they were allies in the uncertainty concerning standardized testing as writing instruction invited. This passage also revealed Ms Garcia’s foray into the liminal uncertainty of purposes for teaching writing.

Ms Garcia represents the body of teachers who come into the profession without formal knowledge of how to teach writing, those who want and need instruction, so that they are more confident in framing writing instruction. Both teachers sought greater understanding of instructional methods. Ms Norris, however, had some experiential knowledge of teaching writing when she began teaching at the high school. Ms Norris stated the following in an interview conducted in 2024 at the end of her first year of teaching.

Stanza:Learning to teach writing to a new population of students.

Language building task: Significance (Gee, 2014, p. 17).

Underlying discourse model:Writing strategies must fit the needs of students:

• I feel like writing.

• is something that I’m comfortable teaching.

• I enjoy writing.

• I’ve taught my own children to write.

• I homeschooled for about 8 years, and I taught other children in different co-ops.

• How to write through middle school ages.

• And, so, I feel like it’s it’s something that is a strength, and I think I would do.

• You know, 13. certain things differently just given this setting.

Similar to Ms Garcia, in this excerpt Ms Norris positions herself as having previous writing experiences that were not entirely relevant to her students. She begins by describing her competency with teaching writing and notes that she enjoys writing herself. Trepidation with teaching writing, however, emerges as she contemplates her success with teaching writing at the high school. Although she had success with teaching writing to her own and other children in a homeschool cooperative, she did not feel entirely confident with teaching writing in the high school setting.

Separating the subjects from verbs, and the objects of verbs revealed how the writing teacher describes self is related to the actions she takes as a writing instructor, highlighting how a micro-event such as speech can signify a more macro-event such as action (Fairclough, 2013). Ms Norris’s focus on the personal singular pronoun as the subject of each sentence, and the collective look at the verbs as themes, indicated an ownership of a writing teacher identity (please see Table 5). Her verbs such as “enjoy” are of positive feelings and of actions she has taken, certain actions, in her history of teaching writing, that resulted in her seeing teaching writing as “comfortable” and “a strength.” She moved from her personal feelings as a writer to her experiences teaching writing, first noting how she taught her own children, then moving outside of the intimate relationship of family to other children. She presented herself and her experiences as part of the same response, weaving her identity as a person who enjoys writing with her being a writing teacher. This discourse indicates that Ms Norris saw herself as part of two communities, that of writer and that of teacher of writing, spaces where she “synthesiz[es] several influences into [her] novel modes of understanding and participation” in these various cultures of learning (John-Steiner and Mahn, 1996, p. 192), which then contributed to her self-concept as a confident writing teacher. Ms Norris struggled with the shift in setting from her kitchen table to a bustling classroom. As she imagined teaching next year, she visualized small group instruction as the ideal for teaching writing. Beyond a later reference to small group instruction that harkened back to a homeschooling environment, she cited few plans for teaching writing “differently.”

Through the interwoven nature of self as writer and self as writing teacher, both Ms Garcia and Ms Norris indicate an openness to embarking on writing praxis based in an overt examination of writing theories, for both self and the other or student. Both teachers are seeking new knowledge about teaching writing through doing “certain things differently” and “just trying to find a way.” These excerpts represent a desire for continued learning in their evolution of practice that is the foundation for developing theories of teaching writing.

Table 2 captures an analysis of how teachers described students in their writing instruction – instruction that involved tools such as sentence of the week and patterns of power lessons (Anderson et al., 2022), planning methods that were prescriptive in nature and number and the situating of all of these writing strategies in the context of teaching the state writing test. Teachers depicted their positionalities in relation to their students, and in doing so, revealed their ideas about student performance on the tested structures of writing instruction they had been implementing. For the scope of this paper, we highlight four quotes from teachers depicting students. All four quotes revealed insights into the ways teachers talked about struggling to elevate the quality of student writing.

In the following excerpt Ms Little describes students’ academic capabilities as part of a discussion about obstacles she has faced as a writing teacher. In the excerpt, she focuses on student writing skills as an identity.

Stanza:Students are the lowest ever taught.

Language building task: Identities (Gee, 2014, p. 17).

Underlying discourse model: Students’ general academic aptitude shapes writing ability.

• My students

• this year

• have been

• really low.

• They are the lowest

• I’ve ever taught.

In this passage, Ms Little describes students as generally functioning below expectations academically. In so doing, she equates their identity as learners with their writing aptitude and labels them as “low.” There is no variation in student performance levels. Students are represented as a collective. Ms Little also compares students to previous ones she taught. The use of state-of-being verbs such as “have been” and “are” adds to a sense that student learning is fixed.

In another example, Mr Flores depicted students as highly dependent upon his guidance to initiate writing. Here, the relationship with the teacher is given primacy in addressing who his students are as writers.

Stanza:Students rely on teacher support with writing tasks.

Language building task:Relationships (Gee, 2014, p. 18).

Underlying discourse model:Students cannot craft writing without teacher scaffolds and support:

• They need guidance.

• At [high school where he student taught]

• I noticed some differences

• in freedom,

• but at [this high school]

• they need something

• to grab onto.

In this excerpt, Mr Flores positions students as possessing a kind of desperation for teacher help that he describes as “something to grab onto” to craft writing. He also compares his current students to those from his student teaching experience by describing one group as possessing autonomy or “freedom” as writers and the other as needing “guidance.” He uses the phrase “they need” twice, which emphasizes the helplessness students exhibit toward writing.

Echoing a similar concern about students who are lost with writing instruction, Ms Smith described a student who had difficulty beginning a writing assignment. Her focus is on writing activities.

Stanza:Struggling writers need help beginning a writing task.

Language building task:Activities (Gee, 2014, p. 17).

Underlying discourse model:Sentences are the building blocks of writing:

• He doesn’t know

• where to start

• a sentence.

• So, it’s not

• all of the students,

• but there are a few

• that don’t know

• general grammar rules.

Unlike the previous examples, Ms Smith does not generalize all students as struggling with writing. Nonetheless, Ms Smith is troubled by this student’s and a few others’ foundational knowledge about “general grammar rules.” To exemplify this gap in abilities, she references the case of one student and focuses on their inability to start a sentence. It’s not clear in this excerpt what Ms Smith means by “start,” but given the reference to “general grammar rules” later in the excerpt, she could be referencing capitalization rules.

In another example, Ms Brown talks about reasons why students struggle with writing. She connects empirical information about students’ writing skills to build an understanding of the causes of students’ struggles with writing.

Stanza:Students are overwhelmed with writing tasks.

Language building task:Connections (Gee, 2014, p. 18).

Underlying discourse model:Students’ lack of effort is connected to a lack of understanding:

• Like, they don’t know

• the answers to the five questions

• that you asked,

• and they’re just

• overwhelmed.

• And don’t, don’t even want

• to make any more effort.

• I think

• the rubric

• is difficult for them

• to understand, too.

Ms Brown connects students’ negative attitude toward completing writing tasks with lack of understanding writing requirements and tools such as the rubric used to evaluate their writing. She describes students as “overwhelmed” and finding writing expectations as “difficult” to “understand.” Ms Brown emphasizes students’ lack of effort, which coupled with noting they are overwhelmed creates a sense of defeat.

In these excerpts, deficit views of students’ writing abilities were presented through multiple discourses of writing such as a skills discourse and process discourse. Ms Little was emblematic of how teachers characterized students, not their work, as writers. Labeling a student as “really low,” and “the lowest [she’s] ever taught” indicated that she was using the students’ performance as the measurement of their aptitude. Fairclough (2013) claimed that “texts figure in how people represent the world, including themselves” (p. 174), and in this case, the teacher’s language depicts the student writer as an “other,” one who embodies a deficit in performing adequately. Mr Flores compared his current students to students he previously taught at a neighboring and more affluent school, finding his current students “need guidance” and “need something to grab onto,” portraying them as less able to think and do for themselves. Ms Smith said that her students “don’t know general grammar rules,” placing them as disadvantaged from a skills discourse. The use of this description also aids in the characterization of students who may struggle with the standardized STAAR test. Ms Brown further illustrated this view of students as not possessing the requisite knowledge or motivation for success when she said that they “don’t know the answers” and they “don’t even want to make any more effort” and the rubric for the STAAR essay, which she also taught, “is difficult for them to understand.”

For writing teachers, the “learning lies in their seeking to become involved in their students’ curiosity and in the paths and streams it takes them through” (Freire, 2005, p. 32), but in a culture of tested writing and their desire to do what is “right” for students, teachers may find themselves lost in the liminal space of internal and external tensions that result in a difficulty developing a complex theoretical foundation for writing instruction and the effect this has on student learning. As students are viewed as data points, measured by how well they achieve the skills of tested writing, teacher writing theories are stagnated when disconnected from authentic writing practice.

District mandates, standardized testing and professional development provided by school leadership constituted a prevalent theme in teacher interviews. These external factors guided much of teachers’ instruction and views about student performance expectations. For example, in the following excerpt, Ms Little noted how professional development shaped the way she gave feedback to students.

Stanza:Collective evaluation of writing as professional development.

Language building task:Connections (Gee, 2014, p. 18).

Underlying discourse model:Teachers learn from one another how to provide feedback to students:

• [Analyzing student writing] helps to give you

• an idea campus-wide

• what are the writing standards.

• They’re pretty consistent across the board

• and helps to focus

• on what we need as a whole.

• I keep their writing throughout the year

• and I may give them back

• their previous essays.

• I’ll tell them to do

• what I asked them to do last time

• and they’ll get more circles.

• It helps to compare how they did.

• Because of the virtual and face to face,

• we didn’t do much

• student giving each other feedback.

In this excerpt, Ms Little discusses the importance of professional development where teachers analyzed student writing samples. Much of the emphasis in this work was on evaluating student writing based on state writing standards. Ms Little gives authority for determining the quality of writing to the state standards focused on by leadership at the school. Connecting the work of evaluating student writing with colleagues as well as connecting evaluation to the state writing standards guided Ms Little’s underlying theory about approaches to providing students feedback about their writing. Similar to her experiences in professional development, Ms Little invited students to review their previous writing based on the feedback she had given. This approach invited students to analyze their writing in a similar fashion as she had done in professional development. Ms Little departs from her experience of sharing with peers, however, explaining the modalities of teaching made it difficult for her to emulate students’ sharing their writing analysis with one another.

Similarly, Ms Johnson credits the one-on-one mentoring she received from the literacy coach as teaching her how to evaluate students’ skills with writing and guide her instruction.

Stanza:Expert guidance in analyzing data about student writing performance.

Language building task:Relationships (Gee, 2014, p. 18).

Underlying discourse model:Deeply analyzing assessment data provides important information about teaching writing:

• One thing

• that I did want to mention

• is that [literacy coach] has us do data digs,

• which I’ve had to do

• and come up with two strengths

• and two weaknesses.

• [literacy coach] had us

• go through each question

• and if percentages were like 23/24

• I learned a lot

• and I’m a much stronger writing teacher this year.

• We went through each question of district assessments

• and [literacy coach] sat down with me

• for two hours one day

• and now I know

• how to do that on my own.

• I’ve never gone that deep into data,

• even into my master’s class.

• learned a lot from [literacy coach].

Ms Johnson found the time spent in one-on-one instruction with the literacy coach to be invaluable for her learning about how to analyze student writing. For Ms Johnson, teaching writing well is predicated on a depth of understanding student performance on district assessment data. Ms Johnson sees herself becoming “a much stronger writing teacher” through learning how to analyze student performance from the literacy coach. This performance included both essay writing and grammar questions. Ms Johnson also credits the scaffolding she experienced with the literacy coach as dramatically changing her instructional skills with writing. This learning relationship is more impactful than her master’s level coursework.

As a first-year teacher, Mr Flores describes how his writing instruction was shaped by the professional environment of high stakes testing from his student teaching year where he taught a non-tested grade level to his first year teaching where he taught a tested level. He explains the shift as learning to teach “standardized writing.”

Stanza:Learning to teach standardized writing.

Language building task:Politics (Gee, 2014, p. 18).

Underlying discourse model:Evaluating writing is guided by state rubrics for tested writing.

• Primarily just being a new teacher

• and learning how to do the STAAR writing.

• I had no idea

• when I student taught,

• I was in English 4,

• this year was a big year

• in terms of learning standardized writing.

• I know what 3s and 4s look like

• and how they grade these essays.

• I’m teaching 10th and 12th grade English.

• Both are argumentative in nature

• with a persuasive essay with English 2.

• You’re arguing a side

• and with English 12 there’s a literary analysis.

• Summary vs analyzing,

• which is what I’m still working with.

• Both are very different:

• one is formulaic

• and one is not.

In this excerpt, Mr Flores describes his learning the importance of evaluating and teaching “standardized writing.” Through the social good of scores of “3s and 4s,” Mr. Flores normalizes the practice of state mandated standardized testing as he explains the differences between teaching a tested and non-tested grade level. Mr Flores also emphasizes the importance of teaching writing structure as he explicates the differences in genre of the tested forms of writing. He contemplates the through line of writing in different genres by noting the commonality of “argumentative” writing but also describes genres and approaches to writing in dichotomous ways such as “persuasive” and “literary” as well as “summary” and “analyzing.” He concludes with describing genre in either/or terms based on whether the writing is tested or not. When one grade level of writing instruction is described as “formulaic” and one as not, the dichotomy that faces teachers when developing a theory of writing in a culture of high-stakes testing is highlighted.

Findings from this study highlight the complexities of learning to teach writing and raise questions about how to best support teachers in this endeavor, particularly in a context of pressure to raise student test scores with writing where teachers have limited autonomy to design curriculum. This study also adds to the body of work on writing teacher development to consider the constraints encountered in a historically “underperforming” high school with attendant issues of teacher attrition and limited resources. Such contextual factors pulled teachers’ attention toward the immediate need of testing and remediation. Another contextual factor with this study included transitions of state tests, turnover of teachers and other phenomena such as a global pandemic and how teachers’ theory and praxis can become unmoored with these changing tides. All of these contextual factors created a milieu of shifting but omnipresent challenges. Findings revealed the tensions teachers navigate in a state of liminality where the threshold of becoming a writing teacher is constantly shifting (Ybema et al., 2011). Findings also point to liminality as a field of potentialities and state of seeking understanding leading to a heightened need for reflexivity and self-discovery. The tensions and depictions of students that teachers articulated in their interviews add to a sense of liminality and thus become an important beginning point to interrogate writing discourses, power dynamics surrounding educational practices, a need to advocate for students as learners and come to view standardized testing and professional development initiatives as discourses and cultural artifacts (Iverson et al., 2004).

Overall, we found teachers were somewhat unsettled in their discussions of becoming and belonging as writing teachers. In their descriptions of instruction, all of the teachers focused on teaching tested forms of writing. Some added goals of enhancing student motivation and attitudes toward writing and infusing creativity, but every teachers’ discussions about theories of writing were dominated by methods designed to help students pass the state writing test. The teachers also tended to conflate how they learned to write with learning how to teach writing, often referring to their writing experiences as a high school or college student as the context for where they learned to teach writing. In addition, we found that teachers tended to get swayed toward following scripted programs and formulas for writing taught as part of the school’s professional development. In summary, teachers struggled to find a balance between generative methods for writing instruction and formulaic methods that mimicked expectations for tested writing.

In addition to these findings, this study reveals the importance of teachers developing a theory of writing that grows with them through their practice into a critical embodiment of praxis. Specifically, teachers need professional learning opportunities that are driven by awareness of writing discourses and their questions about teaching writing that are carried out through a dialogic inquiry (Crawford-Garrett et al., 2020). Without a theory of the self as a teacher of writing, teachers cannot negotiate the different ideologies that infuse their practice, resulting in an inability to cultivate meaningful writing instruction and in-so-doing advocate for students’ development as authentic writers. Although professional development played a central role in the teachers’ discussion of their writing instruction, there was little attention given to the theoretical underpinnings of methods used and there was little opportunity for teachers to explore tensions and questions they had about their practice and the uncertainty and shifting criteria for success. Rather, professional development was focused on describing methods teachers were expected to use in their instruction in relation to these shifts.

Not seeing the landscape of writing theories compels teachers to center standardized testing within their pedagogy without an understanding of tested writing’s place within students’ broader writing development. Teachers need tools to unite their writing selves with their writing teacher selves. Without opportunities to explore writing discourses and develop a strong and expansive theory of writing, teachers cannot adequately critique teaching to the test writing practices or formulaic writing techniques. Thus, teachers succumb to requirements as pedagogy instead of infusing requirements/mandates into a theoretically sound framework for writing instruction. In effect, teachers adopt standardized testing as writing pedagogy and the ever-changing terrain of standardized writing instruction shaped by political winds has further implications for the necessity of teachers developing a theory and praxis of writing instruction that transcends these uncertainties, centering their writing selves in their writing practice and sense of purpose as a writing teacher.

In addition, our analysis revealed it is not enough for teachers to have a strong writing identity formed from their experiences as students; they must also have a strong understanding of writing pedagogy. Ideally, these two processes are developed together, but they are not one and the same. In this study, teachers struggled with bridging the gap between being a writer and being a writing teacher. It is important to have a basic understanding of writing theory from which to develop pedagogy. This is the key to how practice turns into praxis and gives teachers something to anchor their thinking to in a state of liminality. Teachers need to approach instructional methods as a contested space, a thorny rite of passage.

Given the complexity of the context for teaching writing (e.g. student development, state mandates, professional climate of the school, teacher identity as writer), a much more comprehensive approach to teacher learning that invites teachers to investigate these factors is warranted through such venues as professional development, communities of practice and school-university partnerships. Teacher preparation programs cannot adequately address a pedagogy for teacher development across time. Teaching writing encompasses much more than an explanation of how to implement methods that ultimately will not translate easily into a complex context for writing instruction. Thus, more research that maps teachers’ development as writing teachers across time and within unique circumstances is needed to construct more comprehensive models of teacher learning.

Implications arising from this study point to the need for more opportunities for teachers to explore a constellation of writing theories and discourses grounded in practice (Bomer et al., 2019). In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, typologies designed to map writing theories that span different turns and perspectives of writing pedagogy have been created by scholars in the fields of rhetoric and composition, literacy education research and others. For instance, Hodges (2017) identified four prevalent writing theories that guide instruction in K-12 and post-secondary settings that include the cognitive processes theory, the sociocultural theory, social cognitive theory and ecological theory. Similarly, Smith (2018) articulated a typology of writing theory as “waves” focused on:

• a products dimension;

• a process dimension;

• a practices dimension; and

• a pathways dimension (p. 66).

Ivanič’s (2004) typology of discourses is another theoretical model that reveals the complexity of discourses at play in teaching writing. School-university partnerships could be an avenue to support teachers as they interrogate writing theories and discourses (Lesley et al., 2023; Lindenman and Lohr, 2018). In fact, we wondered how having an opportunity to lead professional development in this study might have led to different investigations about writing instruction and praxis.

Equally important is ongoing exploration that cultivates a theoretical understanding while navigating pressures for teaching to the test and assisting teachers who come to the profession without a writing identity to develop not only that identity, but a theoretical foundation on which to continue to build that identity in conjunction with teaching practice. The lack of theoretical alignment with practice and teacher praxis contributes to a gap in knowing and doing, ultimately shortchanging students. Teaching writing with a theoretical framing that originates from the teacher’s own experiences allows for the situating of writing tasks within the larger context of modeling for students how a writing identity develops, together developing authentic writing selves, for “literacy learning is socially situated,” and it is “appropriated from more knowledgeable others in one’s social and cultural environment” (Davidson, 2010, p. 255). A writing community where one genre, such as tested writing, is not the purpose of writing, but one piece in a tapestry of writing experiences, enables students and teachers together to grow their practices of writing as a lifelong culture of being and knowing through language. In the climate of testing culture that characterizes instruction in Texas schools, this is an ever-changing endeavor, one where the powers that shape writing instruction and assessment change with the political winds. This context requires a complexity in the level of praxis that is needed to both bring clarity to teachers about theories undergirding their work and to guide their analysis of the effectiveness of their practice, one that values authentic writing while meeting the mandates of state curricular and assessment dictates. Teachers developing a theory of writing may be the only stable factor in the ever-changing culture of writing instruction.