Debunking edu-myths: Children must master sentence-level accuracy before they can write whole texts

The idea that children need extensive, isolated sentence practice is an edu-myth.
It’s a common misconception that extensive out-of-context sentence drills will make children better writers.
Extensive sentence practice is only beneficial when it’s embedded in real writing. Isolated drills typically have little to no positive impact – and can even be detrimental.

The Writing Revolution (TWR), also known as the Hochman Method, has gained significant traction in some schools, particularly for its structured sentence-level focus. It promises to improve student writing by explicitly teaching students to write grammatically correct, complex sentences before moving on to writing whole texts. TWR resonates strongly with some teachers by offering an oversimplified solution to what is otherwise the complexity of teaching writing.

However, research into writing development consistently emphasises the importance of giving children frequent opportunities to write independently. Instructional approaches that limit these opportunities may ultimately restrict students’ ability to develop as confident, independent writers.

Though popular, TWR currently lacks the level of rigorous, independent research typically required to classify it as evidence-based.

While evaluations (like those from Metis Associates) have reported promising results, TWR currently lacks:

Peer-reviewed studies with control groups
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
Independent, large-scale validation

Despite this, some teachers find it valuable, while others would caution that it can lead to overly formulaic writing that may not be considered independently produced.

So while TWR offers a narrowly focused approach, what does the research currently say about sentence-level writing instruction? Let’s walk through evidence-based practices that are well-supported and actionable in the classroom.

What the research currently supports: Sentence instruction and student application

Explicit sentence instruction

Research is clear. Children benefit when we explicitly teach them how to build and combine sentences using conjunctions like and, but, because, and other more sophisticated structures over time.

Sentence combining — the practice of showing children how to turn short, choppy sentences into compound and complex ones — is one of the most consistently effective strategies a writing teacher can use.
Meta-analyses report strong effect sizes for sentence-level instruction, with measurable improvements in writing fluency and syntactic maturity (Young & Ferguson 2021).

Explicitly teaching how conjunctions function within sentences gives students the building blocks they need to write with control and variety (see our Sentence-Level Curriculum for more details).

Application in children’s own writing: The critical step

Here’s where the most important research insight comes in: Students must apply their new sentence-level skills to their own writing. Research consistently shows that without explicit opportunities to apply sentence-level craft moves in their own meaningful writing, children rarely transfer these skills independently.

What doesn’t work: Isolated drills

Research cautions against relying on disconnected sentence-level exercises and worksheets. In fact, such practice has been identified by Graham & Perin (2007) as one of the few instructional practices a teacher can use that will have a significant negative impact on their students’ writing development.

Children don’t need extensive out-of-context practice. Instead, they need carefully scaffolded instruction that is consistently and regularly applied in their own meaningful writing.

As our Writing Map shows, when sentence instruction is divorced from meaningful writing experiences, students may improve on practice drills but they very often fail to carry those skills into their independent writing.

Ofsted’s Curriculum Research Review also stresses that sentence-level instruction should be embedded in authentic, contextual writing projects and not taught as isolated grammar exercises.

What about SRSD instruction?

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a research powerhouse in writing instruction.

SRSD is a structured, evidence-based approach that teaches students strategies for generating ideas, planning, drafting, revising and proof-reading their compositions. See this article for more details.

It is the most rigorously validated and consistently effective instructional approach for improving student writing. It’s been continually trialled and studied and shows consistently large effects on student writing outcomes (Young & Ferguson 2021).

If you’re looking for a well-evidenced model for teaching at the sentence level, SRSD is a great option.

Practical instructional sequence for teachers

Here’s a framework for evidence-based writing instruction that you can trust:

Explicit teaching and modelling: Model a sentence-level craft move to your class.
Guided practice: Ask children to practice using the craft move on their ‘trying things out page’.
Application to own writing:
- Ask children to use the craft move in their own writing that day.
- Reiterate how children can use the craft move in their future writing too.
- Expect to see children using the craft move in their personal writing projects.

Celebration and review:
- Ask children who have used the craft move in particularly innovative or sophisticated ways to share their manuscript with the rest of the class.
- Hold ‘revision checklist sessions‘ with small groups of children to review their use of taught craft moves.

Key takeaways

✅ Sentence-level instruction, when explicitly taught and applied to students’ own writing, is strongly supported by research.

✅ The critical step is transfer: students must use the sentence-level craft move in their own writing.

✅ Avoid isolated drills – explicit sentence-level instruction should be connected to meaningful writing experiences.

✅ Instructional frameworks like SRSD provide a more thorough routine to teacher instruction that integrates sentence-level work within the broader writing process.

Final thoughts

Sentence-level instruction is powerful, but it is only effective when connected to meaningful writing experiences. Teachers can feel confident investing time in explicit sentence work – so long as students are also given many real opportunities to write, revise, and make independent choices as writers.

📘 Key meta-analyses and reviews

Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
- Demonstrates strong effect sizes for sentence-level instruction and warns against the use of extensive disconnected practice exercises and worksheets.
Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., et al. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 233–253.
- Reviews grammar instruction practices and their impact on student writing.
Ofsted’s (2021). Curriculum Research Review: English.
- Highlights the importance of explicit sentence-level instruction within a writing process framework.

🛠 Teaching sentence-level craft moves

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research.
- Offers foundational evidence for sentence-level instruction.

🧠 Self-regulated strategy development instruction

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2005). Writing better: Teaching writing process and self-regulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
- A definitive guide to SRSD implementation and its evidence base.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2006). Self-Regulated Strategy Development in writing instruction.
- Explores SRSD steps, self-regulation integration, and efficacy for diverse learners.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896

Reports effect sizes up to 1.17 versus about 0.59 for other methods.

🗣 Isolated vs. embedded instruction

Graham & Perin (2007). Explicitly identify disconnected grammar and drill practices as among the few writing approaches with significant negative impact.
Ofsted (2021) states that sentence-level teaching must be embedded within meaningful writing experiences.