Playing With Techniques¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 10 studies (4 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 3 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

Playing with techniques is a strategy in which learners experiment with a specific authoring technique — sentence combining, imagery, dialogue, structural moves — in short, low-stakes exercises before or alongside composing full texts. The technique is typically first studied in mentor texts, then rehearsed in isolation or in small chunks, so that learners can manipulate it without the simultaneous demands of planning, drafting, and editing a whole piece.

Design Implications¶

The strategy works by isolating one craft variable at a time, reducing the working-memory and motivational load of full composition while building a repertoire of moves learners can later deploy deliberately Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. Because the exercises are explicitly low-stakes, they encourage risk-taking and revision-oriented experimentation that graded full drafts suppress; process-focused framing outperforms outcome-focused framing for learners still acquiring a skill Process goals outperform outcome goals for novices. [+M]. The technique study that precedes play matters: analyzing how published authors use a move gives learners a model to imitate and vary, and contrasting multiple cases of the technique supports abstraction of what the move is for Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Mentor texts in which the target technique is visible and can be analyzed first
• Short, bounded exercises (a sentence, a paragraph, a stanza) rather than full drafts
• Explicit permission to write badly — the exercise is for trying, not evaluating
• A follow-on opportunity to apply the technique in authentic writing (Application)
• Feedback that targets the technique, not general quality Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]

Constraints¶

• Isolated drills detached from authentic writing purposes transfer poorly; learners may execute the technique on demand but never use it in their own composing [-M] — Hillocks's synthesis found decontextualized drill exercises among the least effective approaches to writing instruction
• If every exercise is collected and graded, the low-stakes quality that drives experimentation disappears [-M]
• Playing with a technique without first analyzing it in models produces imitation of surface features without understanding of function [~M]
• Learners who have already mastered the technique find the exercises redundant and disengaging [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Imitation then variation: copy the structure of a mentor-text passage, then rewrite it with new content
• Sentence combining: give learners kernel sentences to combine using the target construction
• Constrained writing games: e.g., "describe this room without naming any color" — constraints force engagement with a specific craft choice
• Revision sprints: revisit an existing draft and apply one newly learned technique in three different ways
• Choice boards: offer several technique exercises and let learners pick, supporting autonomy

Target Learners¶

• Developing writers in upper elementary through secondary grades, where craft instruction shows the strongest effects [+M]
• Reluctant writers, for whom short low-stakes exercises lower the affective barrier to writing at all [~M]
• Less useful for advanced writers who already deploy the technique flexibly [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Craft knowledge: knowing what a technique does and when to use it
• Procedural fluency: making the technique available without conscious effort
• Writer identity and self-efficacy: building willingness to experiment and revise

Instructions¶

1. Select one technique tied to a current writing goal (e.g., varying sentence openings for rhythm).
2. Analyze models: read 2–3 mentor passages aloud and annotate where and how the technique appears; contrasting cases helps learners abstract the move's function Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M]
3. Demonstrate: the teacher composes an example live, thinking aloud about the choices being made, consistent with Cognitive Apprenticeship modeling.
4. Play: learners complete a short exercise (3–10 minutes) applying the technique to their own content; use Act It Out or oral rehearsal first for learners who struggle to start.
5. Share and compare: volunteers read examples; the class discusses what each version accomplishes, using Analogies to connect moves across examples.
6. Apply: learners use the technique in their ongoing draft; feedback on that draft should reference the practiced technique Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]

Related Strategies¶

• Mentor-text analysis — the analytic phase that gives technique play its model and purpose
• Sentence combining — a specific, well-researched instance of technique play
• Revision conferences — where experimented techniques get consolidated into drafts

Examples¶

• Nancie Atwell's writing workshop (Center for Teaching and Learning, Maine) — students try out craft moves observed in published literature in their own notebooks before drafting, with the teacher conferring rather than grading the experiments.
• The Writing Revolution (Hochman & Wexler) — sentence-level activities such as because-but-so exercises and sentence combining give students structured, low-stakes practice with syntactic techniques before paragraph work. https://www.thewritingrevolution.org
• Poetry imitation exercises — after studying a poem's structure (e.g., a list poem or a villanelle), students write their own version on a new topic, playing with the form without the pressure of inventing structure from scratch.

Key Sources¶

• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
• Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
• Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25–37. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4
• Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43