This two-part report will focus on synthesising theories and pedagogies featuring in Nancie Atwell’s

(1996 ) ’In the Middle’ with the theory and practical frameworks published in Gannon, Howie &
Sawyer’s (2010) ‘Charged with Meaning’ and Boas & Gazis’s (2016) ‘The Artful English Teacher’. Part
A features a literature review of in Nancie Atwell’s In the Middle, explicitly focussed on chapters
four, five and six. Part B will synthesis Atwell’s theories with theory and practical advice published in
Charged with Meaning and The Artful English Teacher and several other publications to establish
theory and guidelines toward the programming of an English writing unit designed to enhance
creativity and imagination through writing.

Part A. Literature Review.

Chapters 4-6 of Atwell’s ‘In the Middle’ underpin current trends in education research and literature
highlighting a transformation in contemporary education as it shifts from traditional top down,
teacher focused instruction to a wholistic approach where student learning is the major factor in the
classroom. To highlight these transformations which underpin Atwells concerns, Taylor (2000) cites
Tobin (et al. 2000, p.1) “bout the dreadful ways writing was taught--or not taught- when 'we were in
school'; stories about the miraculous changes brought about by the writing process movement; and,
lately, stories about how some of those changes may not have been so miraculous after all”

Overarching themes presented by Atwell (1996) suggests teaching is transcending from the
traditional assumption that students don’t have ideas to write about and that teacher intervention
and forceful leading has been most common practice in traditional classrooms asserting the
provision of writing topic to students by the teacher lends itself to the design of a ‘dependant
classroom of writers’ rather than empowered student writers with creativity at their centre of their
writing workshop. “We laid down the old, stodgy burdens of the profession-the Warriner's
Handbooks, the forty- five-minute lectures and canned assignments-and embraced new roles ...
These were heady times, as many English teachers abandoned the old ortho- doxies and cleared the
way for our kids' voices”. (Atwell, 1996, p. 170). Atwell contests these traditional assumptions by
asserting students of all communities and SES’s have ideas to write about an will write. “Old topic
anxiety” (Atwell, 1996, p. 171) as Atwell asserts, has been replaced with faith in students desire to
voice and write confidently and independently as suggested by her avid dedication to afford
ownership of the writing process to her students at the jump of a writing unit. “it makes good sense
to jump in, so right from the first day of writing class, kids’ own ideas lie at the heart of the course”
(Atwell, 1996, p. 171).

1
Atwell insists on the presence of tension within her writing workshop. Tension between not knowing
and the confidence to continue and discover what was previously unknown creates what an
adventure for teacher and student alike which undoubtable carries the essence of creativity into
writing and moreover heightens the learners experience of autonomous creativity inself thus
creating transferrable experiential learning knowledge crucial to life-long learning. Taylor, (2000)
cites Atwell:

“The power of teaching in a workshop grows from making a place where students and a
teacher can say "I don't know" and feel "I think I can find out. The tension of knowing and
not knowing- writing, reading, my students, myself-becomes a continuous adventure and a
source of inspiration for a lifetime.” (Taylor, 2000, p. 2)

Effective pedagogies, learning environments, professional practice, assessment, feedback and

reflection all play a role in best practice education which without their consolidated implementation
students will simply not receive the quality education vital for personal and professional
development in their complex, synthesised roles of student, citizen and future world leaders.
Atwell’s ‘In the Middle’ (chapters 4-6) explaines the mini lesson, writer’s workshop, group share,
conferencing and publication in detail giving the reader an impression their influence on her
understanding of best practice writing education.

The mini lesson is a five to ten minutes, procedure and or skills-based tutorial designed to inform
one element of the writing unit. Commencing as ‘teacher-led’ the unit’s mini-lessons become more
student-focussed as students learning needs become more skilled oriented. Atwell uses her personal
experiences with ‘writers’ problems’ to inform and design mini-lessons to be shared with students as
they too will more than likely experience similar challenges in their own work (Atwell, 1996, p. 172).
Students learn through observation, interpretation and performance of teacher-modelled writing
which Atwell attributes the development of students own leads, styles and flow in a positive learning
environment supportive of creativity. Atwell’s timing of didactic instruction, she admits, can be
presented in disjunction with the immediate needs of some students as their learning paths will vary
however Atwell considers this and believes students will retain such information and draw from
them as situations demand.

The writer’s workshop provides the first and arguably the most important element of writing namely
getting the pen to paper. Teacher again shares anecdotes through “topic modelling” (Atwell, 1996,
p. 172) which students have shown more inclination to draw inspiration to write. Atwell prioritises
identity and autonomy in writing, pressing students to appreciate and write about their ‘ordinary’

2
rather than popular tropes they know little about. Student compositions must be their own while
mini-lessons are didactic and designed with purpose to lead students to skills or realizations which
will again lead to the writer’s independence. Atwell lists several conferencing paradigms, topic
conference, editing conference, whole class conference and conferring with oneself. Conferencing
involves the vocalising of ideas which solidifies, informs and inspires ideas throughout the workshop.
Conferences are fast and methodical and initiated with as many students as possible. Observations
must be recorded and students who are missed must be prioritised. Elements of conference
engagement are eye contact and teacher refrain from ‘touching’ student work both physically and
figuratively. Acknowledge skills and techniques and their influence on the experience of the piece
but resist subjective praise (Atwell, 1996, p. 190).

The purpose of the writing conference can is as diverse as the student’s needs participating in them
but, at the core of each as Atwell explains, is “the goal is helping kids grow to independence”
(Atwell, 1996, p. 182). For students, conferencing provides new writing or editing or proof-reading
skills, reading aloud for clarity of their own story, voice and tone, while teachers use this time to
assess current student position and future requirements. One-on-ones are student-student or
student-teacher addressing personal individual writing journeys. “Status of class conference”
(Atwell, 1996, p. 182) is used to establish direction of each student’s day goals. Student-teacher
conference allows ideas, leads and problems to be shared with teacher-as-leader inquiry promoting
writing organisation, structure and the development of classroom “patterns of response” (Atwell,
1996, p. 177). Teacher-modelling of liberating, common discourse synonomous with the creative
process leads to student empowerment through effective meta-language. Self-conference (Atwell,
1996, p. 197) is Atwell’s response to students jeopardising their empowerment and independence
by relying on outsourcing solutions to challenges within the writing processes going to their
colleagues for help rather than believing in their own capacity. Clearly Atwell links student
dependency with their traditional subjugated position within teacher focused education. Self-
conferencing again is structured with set scaffold prompts and modelled by the teacher first before
students attempt. Editing conferences negotiate creativity and form, both fundamental to the
process of composition. Atwell asserts creativity or content must be nurtured before that of form
which will be addressed in the editing phase.

“Editorial issues should be addressed after the content of a piece of writing is set. When the writer is
satisfied with what he or she has said whether it has taken one draft or twelve, then the writer
attends formally and finally to the conventions of written American English” (Atwell, 1996, p. 200).

3
Empowering student creativity through editing requires chunking editing into manageable parts
making the experience one of transferrable knowledge where elements such as tense, syntax,
repetition and spelling become salient creators of meaning. “Group Share” (Atwell, 1996, p. 180)
begins with students receiving and owning two new folders reinforcing a classroom culture of
student agency and ownership of writing and the nurturing of creativity. As students engage
together in the front of the room in an informal sharing circle, teacher modelling informs tasks-at-
hand while establishing conferencing discourse such as acceptable criticism for composers. Sharers
are organised prior to the share circle to avoid share circle turned silent circle. Group share offers
students answers to potential writing problems current and future, alternatives to problem solving,
new skills and perspectives (Atwell, 1996, p. 181). Atwell utilises the content of these group shares
to inform her future mini-lessons. As a daily exercise group share brings closure to the lesson and
provides all students a space to share safely and reflect.

The importance of agendas, goals and purpose on engagement is undeniable in all quests for
growth, conversations and dedication to student publication for this reason is essential (Atwell,
1996, p. 190). Atwell makes students aware that students must publish their work. Grading responds
to what is set out as the unit commences and the goals set post-student-teacher conferences
“quarter writing goals” (Atwell, 1996, p. 210) and recorded at the time. First quarter goals cannot
represent the first quarter assessment due to insufficient time to achieve. Henceforth assessments
are made in consideration of a student’s writing experimentation and engagement. Overall,
assessing one piece of writing is not an accurate demonstration of creativity, independence and
writer development. The entirety of the students portfolio folder will illustrate the growth of a
writer through experimentation, ideas and their development toward a published piece and
therefore reflects a wholistic understanding of their progress through the unit, and the unit itself
(Atwell, 1996, p. 209)

Atwell’s writing unit serves to enhance creativity and imagination through the empowering,
confidence building, independent writer focussed unit design where ‘can’ “is a crucial modifier”
(Atwell, 1996, p. 182). Students are empowered through ownership and ‘can do’ of the writing
process celebrating they ‘can’ write and ‘can’ achieve the skills of a writer and realise they through
to the publishing of their work. Throughout Atwell’s theories of best practice is the constant
insistence of her own responsibility to ensure a successful writing class through control of crucial
positive learning environment elements, which are employed through the pedagogies of this unit.

4
Class climate ensure students are empowered and trusted with the task of writing and composing
their own voices. Atwell’s empowerment of students is structured through modelling, classroom
management of space, time and constant measurement of student participation.

Designing a Writing Unit

Key elements of a successful writing unit which encourages supports and promotes creativity is
student empowerment and independence. ”At the core of each element of a writing course “the
goal is helping kids grow to independence” (Atwell, 1996, p. 182). Teacher as professional learner,
positive learning environment (PLE), student empowerment and independence, skills development,
assessment and attention to student’s individual needs and the needs of the class to progress
through the creative process of writing toward publishing. First and foremost, the writing
experiences of teacher as professional learner will inform this unit’s pedagogies, mini-lessons,
conferencing, assessments and skills provided to students, therefore teacher as researcher,
reflexivity and modelling learning through activity participation is key . Taylor (2000) cites Atwell
(1996, p. 4):

“I didn't intuit or luck into this place, and I didn't arrive overnight. I paved the way-I continue
to pave it-through writing and reading about writing, through uncovering and questioning my
assumptions, through observing my kids and myself in action and trying to make sense of my
observations, through dumb mistakes, uncertain experiments, and, underneath it all, a desire
to do my best by students and a willingness to acknowledge that my definition of best will be-
should be-ever changing.”

This unit encourages teacher reflexivity, participation and interpersonal relationships with students
aforementioned building on another of Atwell’s key considerations, namely a ‘positive learning
environment’ widely acknowledged through education research as fundamental to designing an
enhancement of creativity and imagination through writing (Boas & Gazis, 2016). “The importance
of the learning environment has been widely discussed and recognised as strongly influencing a
student's deeper learning and problem-solving skills” (Kim & Davies, 2014, p.6) For this reason as
Atwell states, these skills of deep learning and problem solving are highly prioritised within best
practice writing units. Implementation of Kerin’s ‘powerful pedagogies’ (Kerin, 2016, p. 189), found
in Appendix 2, will serve to inform and empower students and teacher within this unit design.

5
A safe and positive learning environment nurtures and promotes student confident to create and
share. Testing via surveys and short quizzes and wring activities will demonstrate the level of the
class and is advised by Boas & Gazis (2016, p142). Teacher-modelling and procedural instruction at
the core of this unit shall set clear academic and behavioural expectations and outcomes are set
from the beginning and reinforced throughout the unit via conference, and reflexive professional
learning wherein students will achieve empowerment through effective preparation to create and
demonstrate skills in an independent capacity. Expectations of both teacher and students will be
clearly introduced at the beginning of the unit and supported by the ‘Expectations’ document
(Atwell. 1996, p. 218) featured in Appendix 1.

The new unit’s workshopping element is where students write. Based on Atwell’s (1996)
recommendations for best practice writing units, student will write for two thirds of total class time
always keeping records of all writing attempts and erasing nothing. During workshop, if a teacher is
not modelling best practice writing they are responsible for empowering students through recording
observations on student engagement and writing progress to inform future conferences, also
providing support and guidance through open ended questions and thought-provoking insights.
Students use of literary devices and skills will receive acknowledgment but subjective criticism such
as good, bad or otherwise are avoided.

Writing workshops replaced writing assignments. Atwell explains “of a typical fifty-minute class
period, writers’ workshop consumes about two-thirds” (Atwell, 1996, p. 182). Based on this
assertion, lessons will feature two-thirds independent creation and one-third skills and editing work.
Rules of workshopping are no erasing; all thoughts and ideas are valuable. What students choose
and what students decline are all important parts of their unit’s writing journey. Students must only
write on one side of the page only to allow for students to edit and move forward in their writing
confidently. Students will quietly work hard all the time to avoid distracting others creativity.
Conferences, self and peer reflection (Boas & Gazis, 2016, p142). are to be sat in designated quiet
conference areas set out at the beginning of the unit. When writing commences, modelling again
begins, Atwell insists on the success of modelling as a pedagogy. Teachers will show students what
writing looks like (head down and focussed) and they will write “always” (Atwell, 1998, p.179).
Teachers must offer conference first to those who most need it, all the while keeping records of who
has received “valuable feedback” (Keally, 2016, p.130) and who is waiting.

6
Mini lessons at the units beginning will be procedural then become less so as student’s needs
diversify toward skills based. “Mini-lessons can last up to about 5 minutes and go from procedural to
modelling and introducing “concepts and techniques” as the unit progresses (Atwell, 1996, p. 217). A
procedural mini-lesson may address “how a workshop works, what I expect of them and what they
can expect of me ” (Atwell. 1996, p. 218). Skill based mini-lessons may feature “show don’t tell”
writing awareness or anecdotes to promote engagement through “topic modelling” (Atwell. 1996, p.
172) or think, pair, share together, share with the class “student topic search” (Atwell. 1996, p. 172).
Teachers will be responsible for embodying student focussed pedagogy through teacher modelling
‘student-relatable topics’ when modelling skills in mini-lessons, avoiding disengagement through the
irrelevant and unfamiliar (Atwell, 1998, p.177). Ensure a PLE is always provided. Student creativity
can be stifled by the disparity between sudden development of self-consciousness associated with
adolescence and their traditional perception of power, skills and authority commonly assumed of
student’s ability to engage and compose a piece. Students creativity within the mini lesson will be
determined dramatically by the experiential safety and comfort found within their learning
environment. The units conferencing will be initially ‘teacher to class’ modelling and illustrating
elements necessary for the empowerment and self-management of ideas and writing projects
toward publication.

Transferrable familiarity seems to underpin the inspiring spirit of the whole writing course according
to Atwell’s accounts in which lesson success is constantly dependent upon patterns, familiarity and
support which nurtures the PLE, creativity and independence within students. Worth mentioning is
the Kafkaesque ‘freedom and happiness through confinement’ which Atwell finds so inspiring to her
students where through clear instruction and skill development in writing and acceptable discursive
communication, student responses toward collegial appeal for a specified problem allows students
to learn through teaching and visa-versa (Atwell. 1996, p. 190). Similarly, assessment and feedback
through observation and conferencing will ensure the opportunity for teachers to “drive learning”
forward through Vygotsky’s “SMART” formative assessment cited in Daly (et al. 2006, p. 157) where
“feed up, feedback, feed forward” pedagogies model, critique and direct future student endeavours
toward high impact learning. This enhancement of creativity through editing is a new way to reduce
disengagement occurring during the ‘boring stuff’ such as overwhelming tasks too large to be
digested. Therefore, editing procedures will be chunked and issued via mini-lesson empowering
student creativity through chunking editing into manageable parts making the experience one of
transferrable knowledge where elements such as tense, syntax, repetition and spelling become
salient creators of meaning rather than a blur of guess work. The final product of the unit will be a
wholistic representation of the writing unit. However from the beginning of this unit, students will

7
be made aware that one fundamental element of the successful writer is publication. “Publication is
crucial” (Atwell, 1996, p. 190). No time needs to be spent on arguing the importance of agendas,
goals and purpose on engagement when considering progression through any learning unit.
Publication for this reason is essential. Assessable documents will be the two folders issued at the
beginning of the unit and monitored throughout the unit. This will allow a broad scope of
demonstrated abilities for teachers to generate positive and productive assessments of both student
progress and unit efficiency.

8
References

Atwell, Nancie. (1998). In the middle : new understandings about writing, reading, and
learning. Portsmouth, NH :Boynton/Cook,

Boas, E., Gazis, S. (eds) (2016), The Artful English Teacher: Over 100 Practical Strategies
for the English Classroom, Adelaide: Australian Association for the Teaching of English.
(Boas, Gazis, 2016)

Gannon, S., Howie, M. and Sawyer, W. (eds) (2010) Charged with Meaning: Phoenix
Education.

A.K. Kim., J. Davies, (2014), A teacher's perspective on student centred learning: towards
the development of best practice in an undergraduate tourism course
Journal of Hospitality, 14, 6-14

Kerin, R. (2016) Powerful pedagogies, cited in Boas, E. and Gazis, S. (eds)(2016), The Artful
English Teacher: Over 100 Practical Strategies for the English Classroom, Adelaide:
Australian Association for the Teaching of English. 176-192

Taylor, M. (2000). Nancie Atwell's "In the Middle" and the Ongoing Transformation of the
Writing Workshop. The English Journal, 90(1), 46-52.

9
Appendix 1. Atwell’s (1996) Expectations for Grade 8 Writing.

10
(Atwell. 1996, p. 218)

11
Appendix 2. Kerin’s (2016, p.189) Powerful Pedagogies Checklist.

(Kerin, et al. 2016, p. 189)

12