Towards boundary crossing: primary and secondary school teachers teaching creative writing and its redrafting

Purpose There is little research into how teachers think about and teach creative writing and its redrafting and how this might differ depending upon the age of the pupils being taught. This paper aims to compare the creative writing conceptualisations and practices of primary school teachers (5–11-year olds) and secondary school teachers (11–18-year-olds) in England through a qualitative survey. This comparison enables to think about the influence of policy on creative writing in primary and secondary schools as well as what professional development could look like for these teachers to improve the teaching of creative writing. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative survey exploring the creative writing and redrafting pedagogies and conceptualisations was responded to by primary school teachers ( n = 18) and secondary school teachers ( n = 19). Taking an ecological view of creative writing and teacher identity, the authors undertake a comparative analysis of the survey data using the 5A’s theory of creativity (Glaveanu, 2013) and a view of professional identity existing within “landscapes of practice” (Wenger-Trayner, Wenger-Trayner, 2015). This enables to illuminate how and why creative writing is contextually afforded, or otherwise, in primary and secondary landscapes of practice. Findings This analysis demonstrates how the redrafting of creative writing is marginalised in both landscapes of practice and how redrafting is largely conceptualised as a technical rather than critical or creative action. The authors show how teachers, particularly in primary school, aim for their pupils to produce “products” rather than engaging in the “process” of creative writing. This analysis also shows that whilst creative writing is overall more marginalised in the secondary school landscape, it is often taught through process approaches. In both landscapes of practice, the re-drafting of creative writing is largely taught through product approaches. Research limitations/implications This research is potentially skewed by the fact that we recruited our participants through networks relating the teaching of English, including creative writing. What is worrying about this limitation, however, is that the picture of creative writing in schools in England probably leans more to a product approach than the picture this research has uncovered. Practical implications Professional development for teachers in both landscapes is needed in relation to pedagogical actions for creative writing and its redrafting. Some of the key differences we have outlined in conceptualisations and practices between primary and secondary schools landscapes, notably the overuse of product-based teaching actions in primary landscapes, and some of the differences we have outlined within discrete landscapes of practice, notably how some primary school teachers feel more confident to challenge the product-based approach, with one conceptualising redrafting as “creative”, indicate that professional development should involve teachers working across schools. Social implications Policy needs to be reformed to move away from the technicist view of creative writing held in both landscapes of practice. Linked to this, the way creative writing is assessed as a product in secondary schools needs to change – the re-introduction of portfolio-based coursework (Bishop, 1990) would provide the affordance of redrafting as an action central to creative writing processes. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is a rare piece of research which compares primary and secondary school teachers’ approaches to teaching creative writing. It shows that primary school teachers can be formulaic in the way they teach creative writing, using product approaches. However, in secondary schools the picture is different: teachers, particularly those, who are writers themselves, give students more agency in redrafting and shaping their writing. This indicates how professional development should involve primary and secondary school teachers in dialogue with one another to cross boundaries of practice.