Workshop 1 — Voice, tone, and diction

Purpose: keep the event steady while changing how the writer positions a reader.

1. Circle three changed words. Label each connotation.
2. Name the likely tone of each version and cite the word doing most work.
3. Rewrite for a sceptical student reader without changing the facts.

Choice commentary: I changed ______ because I wanted the reader to ______.

Workshop 2 — Detail that earns inference

1. Underline observable detail; beside it, write one possible inference.
2. Cross out one detail if it merely decorates.
3. Draft 130–170 words in a public setting. Make one emotion inferable but do not name it.

Reader test: My reader inferred ______ from the detail ______.

Workshop 3 — Syntax, punctuation, and pace

1. Combine the first three statements into one complex or compound-complex sentence.
2. Keep “Nobody moved.” separate. Explain its effect.
3. Create a second version that feels slower. Use punctuation deliberately, then read both aloud.

Boundary audit: Mark each simple, compound, complex, or compound-complex sentence.

Workshop 4 — Character through dialogue and silence

1. Annotate what speech, action, and silence suggest. Keep inference separate from fact.
2. Add four lines of dialogue that change the relationship.
3. Punctuate speech accurately and include one meaningful pause or action beat.

What remains unsaid?

Workshop 5 — Narrative architecture

Seed: A borrowed key is missing ten minutes before the hall must be locked.

1. Write the story’s consequential turn in one sentence.
2. Plan five events that cause, reveal, or complicate that turn.
3. Choose one technique—foreshadowing, flashback, or a time/perspective shift—only if it changes the reader’s experience.

Structure test: Remove one event. What stops making sense?

Workshop 6 — Ethical persuasion

Fictional evidence set: In a school-made survey, 84 of 120 respondents said a later Thursday library closing would help them study; 18 disagreed and 18 were unsure. The proposal requires one staff member for 45 extra minutes. These figures are invented for practice.

1. Write a precise claim that the evidence can support.
2. Add reasoning, a credible acknowledgment of cost, and a proportionate appeal.
3. Write a counterargument and response; do not exaggerate certainty.

Workshop 7 — Analytical and discursive reasoning

1. State the tension between the two positions without caricaturing either.
2. Draft one paragraph that uses a short quotation and explains its significance.
3. Add a transition to a competing view, then write a synthesising conclusion.

Evidence audit: Highlight quotation, explanation, and synthesis in different colours.

Workshop 8 — Pūrākau, authority, and adaptation

1. Sort the proposed work: analysis, personal response, retelling, or adaptation.
2. Identify what authority is missing and who should decide whether the plan continues.
3. Draft a respectful email that pauses publication and asks a local authorised source for guidance. Do not request private knowledge.

Safer alternative if authority is unavailable:

Workshop 9 — Revision before proofreading

1. Write the intended purpose and reader.
2. Ask a reader where the reasoning becomes vague; record only what they actually experienced.
3. Revise one claim, one piece of reasoning, and the sequence. Proofread only after the meaning works.

Before → after evidence:

Feedback decision: accepted / adapted / rejected because …

Workshop 10 — Portfolio evidence

Select three pieces across at least two forms. Personal writing is optional; supplied or public-context work is valid.

Sharing choice: ☐ private kaiako submission ☐ trusted reader ☐ pseudonym ☐ audio ☐ voluntary class sharing

Reflection: Which decision now gives you the most control as a writer? Cite your own text.