Intervention plan — Writing (high school)

Subject: Writing | Issues: Weak paragraph structure (no clear topic sentence; evidence not connected to argument) and recurring grammar errors (run-on sentences, missing punctuation) | Audience: High school | Timeframe: 2 weeks (10 sessions, 20 min each)

Timeline

Week 1 — Structure first: Address paragraph structure exclusively. Do not correct grammar errors during this week — marking too many issues at once reduces the learner’s ability to act on any of them. Grammar is addressed in Week 2 once structure is more stable.

Week 2 — Grammar in context: Introduce targeted grammar work using the learner’s own writing as the material. Do not use worksheets with isolated sentences — always work within real paragraphs.

Target skills

Week 1:

• Days 1–2: Write a topic sentence that makes a clear claim (not just names a topic)
• Days 3–4: Connect evidence to the topic sentence using “this shows that…” or “this supports the argument because…”
• Days 5: Write a complete paragraph independently — topic sentence, evidence, link — without a template

Week 2:

• Days 6–7: Identify and correct run-on sentences in their own writing (using a full stop or conjunction to separate)
• Days 8–9: Check for and correct missing punctuation at sentence boundaries
• Day 10: Write one paragraph and self-edit for both structure and the two grammar targets before submission

Activities

• Topic sentence sort (Days 1–2): Learner receives 6 sentences — 3 are clear claims, 3 are weak topics (e.g. “This paragraph is about climate change”). Sort them and explain why each is strong or weak. Then write one strong topic sentence for a given subject.
• Sentence frame linking (Days 3–4): Learner is given a topic sentence and a piece of evidence. They write the linking sentence only using “this shows that…” or “this supports the argument because…” Once confident, they construct the full paragraph.
• Independent paragraph build (Day 5): New topic. Learner writes a full paragraph from scratch using the three-part structure. No template visible. Facilitator reads it and gives one specific piece of feedback only.
• Run-on correction (Days 6–7): Learner receives a version of their own previous paragraph with run-ons highlighted but not corrected. They fix each one, choosing whether to use a full stop or a conjunction — and explain the choice.
• Self-edit checklist (Days 8–10): A 4-item checklist: topic sentence makes a claim / evidence is linked / no run-on sentences / full stops at sentence ends. Learner applies it to their own writing before any facilitator feedback.

Check-in points

• End of Day 2: Can the learner distinguish a claim from a topic announcement? If not, repeat the sort activity with new examples before Day 3.
• End of Day 5: Does the independent paragraph have all three structural elements? If yes — proceed to Week 2. If one element is missing — spend Day 6 practising only that element before introducing grammar.
• End of Day 8: Can the learner identify run-on sentences in their own writing without prompting? If not — stay on identification before moving to correction.
• End of Day 10: Does the self-edited final paragraph meet all four checklist criteria? This is the success benchmark for the intervention.

IF → THEN rules

• IF learner cannot write a topic sentence after Day 2 → provide a sentence starter: “I will argue that…” and have them complete it. Remove the starter on Day 4.
• IF linking sentences still feel mechanical by Day 4 → ask the learner to explain the link verbally first, then write what they said. Speaking before writing reduces the cognitive load.
• IF grammar errors persist in self-editing → reduce the checklist to one item only: full stops. Master one target before adding the second.
• IF improvement is clear by Day 7 → introduce a second evidence sentence in the paragraph structure, requiring two linking sentences. Increases complexity while maintaining the skill focus.
• IF disengagement appears → switch from paragraph writing to peer marking. Learner reviews a model paragraph (not their own) using the checklist. Evaluating others is less threatening than producing and often re-engages reluctant writers.

Support strategies

• Always begin each session by reading aloud one thing the learner did correctly in the previous session — specifically, not generally. “Yesterday your topic sentence made a clear claim — that’s exactly right.”
• Avoid marking grammar errors in Week 1 even if they are visible — correcting structure and grammar simultaneously overwhelms and discourages. Trust the sequencing.
• When the learner self-edits successfully, name it: “You found that yourself. That’s the skill — I didn’t have to tell you.”
• Frame the checklist as a tool, not a test: “This is what every professional writer does before they submit anything.”