Provide Writing Models¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 11 studies (5 causal, 3 review, 2 quant-synthesis, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 1 of 11 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Providing writing models means giving learners access to exemplary (and sometimes flawed) texts — mentor texts, annotated exemplars, or teacher-written drafts — so they can observe how skilled writers handle structure, genre conventions, and craft before producing their own work. The strategy is most effective when models are actively analyzed (what makes this work? why did the writer choose this?) rather than merely read, and when analysis feeds directly into the learner's own drafting.

Design Implications¶

Writing models function as worked examples for a domain where the "procedure" is largely tacit: they externalize what expert writing looks like so novices need not infer quality standards from grades or rubrics alone. Observational learning from models is a well-established route to skill acquisition, and in writing specifically, reading combined with structured model analysis outperforms reading alone [~M]. Models also serve an evaluative function — they give learners concrete reference points against which to judge their own drafts, which is a precondition for self-regulated revision Sadler's formative assessment framework. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Models that are genuinely exemplary but within reach — slightly above learners' current level, not professional outliers
• Guided analysis: prompts or annotating tasks that direct attention to specific moves (thesis placement, transitions, evidence use), since unguided exposure rarely transfers
• Explicit connection between the analyzed feature and the learner's upcoming writing task
• Multiple models per genre where possible, so learners abstract features rather than imitate one voice Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M]

Constraints¶

• A single strong model can anchor learners to one structure or voice, producing formulaic imitation rather than flexible genre control [~M] — mitigate with contrasting models
• Models far above learners' current proficiency can depress self-efficacy and produce copying rather than emulation [~W]
• Passive reading of models without analysis or follow-up drafting yields little measurable improvement [~M]
• Less effective for learners already fluent in the genre, for whom model study becomes redundant Expertise-reversal effect. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Annotated exemplars — teacher commentary on a model text makes the reasoning visible, analogous to a worked example with steps explained
• Model-overflow sequences — learners observe a model, then a weaker model, then write; comparing good and flawed texts sharpens criteria Erroneous examples build conceptual knowledge. [+M]
• Process models — showing drafts, revisions, and feedback trails rather than only polished final products, which teaches that writing is iterative
• Learner-generated models — anonymized peer work from previous cohorts; relatable and demonstrates attainable standards
• Gradual release — from full model study, to partially completed texts learners finish, to independent writing

Target Learners¶

• Novice writers who lack internalized genre conventions and would otherwise guess at what "good" looks like [+M]
• Adolescent and adult learners acquiring new academic or disciplinary genres (lab reports, arguments, literature reviews)
• Less beneficial for advanced writers in a familiar genre, who benefit more from direct drafting practice Expertise-reversal effect. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Genre knowledge: understanding the structures and conventions of a text type
• Craft and style: sentence-level techniques, voice, cohesion
• Evaluative judgment: building the criteria learners use to assess and revise their own drafts Sadler's formative assessment framework. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. Select 2–3 authentic models of the target genre at an attainable level of quality.
2. Have learners read and annotating-analyze the models against explicit criteria (structure, moves, language choices), ideally comparing texts to abstract shared features Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M].
3. Co-construct a criteria list or rubric from the analysis so learners articulate the standards themselves.
4. Move into guided drafting — a partially completed model text learners extend, then independent writing — following a worked-example-to-problem sequence Example-problem sequences reduce cognitive load. [+M].
5. Return to the models during revision as reference points for self- and peer-evaluation.

Related Strategies¶

• Use of contrasting good and weak texts pairs naturally with erroneous-example analysis Erroneous examples build conceptual knowledge. [+M]
• Model analysis followed by independent drafting mirrors example–problem sequencing Example-problem sequences reduce cognitive load. [+M]

Examples¶

• The Writing Revolution — Hochman & Wexler's method builds sentence-level and genre writing through explicit models and guided practice, with exemplars preceding independent composition.
• Mentor texts in workshop classrooms — e.g., units built around published essays (Didion, Orwell) that students analyze for craft moves before drafting their own; a staple of National Writing Project practice.
• Disciplinary exemplars in higher education — departments sharing annotated first-class essays with undergraduates to make implicit academic-writing standards visible; widely used in UK "essay bank" and feedback-literacy initiatives.

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
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714
• Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660–668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660