Concision is not about writing less — it is about achieving the same meaning with fewer words, so that every word earns its place and the reader's attention is not wasted on empty structure. Wordy writing dilutes meaning: important ideas get buried in unnecessary clauses, padding phrases, and repeated structures. The grammatical tools for concision are well-defined: relative clauses can often be reduced to participle phrases, noun clauses can be replaced by gerunds, coordinated clauses can share elements through ellipsis, and passive constructions can often be replaced by a single active verb. None of these changes alter the meaning — they sharpen it. This lesson gives teachers practical strategies for improving writing quality that go beyond advice like 'write shorter sentences' and explain exactly what to cut and how.
Before you start — think honestly about your own teaching and experience.
Look at the examples. Answer each question before reading the explanation — this is how your students will learn too.
Full relative clause: 'The report that was written by the inspector contained several recommendations.'
Reduced to participle: 'The report written by the inspector contained several recommendations.'
Full relative clause: 'The teacher who had prepared the lesson arrived early.'
Reduced to participle: 'Having prepared the lesson, the teacher arrived early.'
What has been removed in each reduction? What makes the reduced version possible? Are there any relative clauses that cannot be reduced this way?
A relative clause can be reduced to a participle phrase when the subject of the relative clause is the same as the noun it modifies (no new subject introduced). The relative pronoun (who, which, that) and the auxiliary verb (is, was, had) are removed, leaving the participle alone. Active progressive clauses ('who is sitting') → present participle ('sitting'). Passive clauses ('that was written') → past participle ('written'). Perfect clauses ('who had prepared') → 'having prepared' moved to front. Not all relative clauses can be reduced: if the relative clause has its own different subject, or if removing the pronoun would create ambiguity, reduction is not possible.
Noun clause: 'The fact that she had worked hard was recognised.'
Gerund: 'Her hard work was recognised.' OR 'Having worked hard, she was recognised.'
Noun clause: 'We know that he made an effort.'
Gerund: 'We know of his effort.' OR keep as-is (sometimes a noun clause is the clearest option)
When does replacing a noun clause with a gerund or noun phrase improve the sentence? When might keeping the full clause be better?
The gerund (verbal noun) replacement compresses a full clause — with its own subject and verb — into a phrase with no internal subject. 'It is important that teachers attend' has two clauses; 'Attending is important for teachers' has one. The compression is particularly useful when the subject of the noun clause is already established. However, noun clauses are sometimes the clearest choice — particularly when the content of the clause is complex or needs its own subject. The skill is knowing when the gerund is genuinely more concise without being less clear.
Padded: 'In order to improve the results, the school hired additional staff.'
Concise: 'To improve the results, the school hired additional staff.'
Padded: 'It is the case that the situation is improving.'
Concise: 'The situation is improving.'
Padded: 'She arrived at the school and she sat down and she opened her register.'
Concise: 'She arrived at the school, sat down, and opened her register.'
What is removed in each case? Does any meaning change? What category of wordiness does each example illustrate?
These examples show four types of padding: (1) 'due to the fact that' — a wordy synonym for 'because'; (2) 'in order to' — 'to' alone is almost always sufficient for purpose infinitives; (3) 'it is the case that' — an empty framing clause that adds nothing; (4) repeated subjects in coordinated clauses — once the subject is established, it can be shared across all verbs in the coordinate structure by ellipsis. None of these changes lose meaning. Every one of them makes the sentence cleaner and faster to read. Students and teachers who know these padding patterns by name can systematically remove them from their writing.
| Form | Use / Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Wordy version | Concise version |
| Reduce active relative clause | students who are working hard | students working hard |
| Reduce passive relative clause | the report that was written last week | the report written last week |
| Replace noun clause with gerund | It is important that she attends. | Her attendance is important. / Attending is important. |
| Ellipsis in coordination | She arrived and she sat down and she opened her book. | She arrived, sat down, and opened her book. |
| Remove padding: because | due to the fact that / owing to the fact that | because / since / as |
| Remove padding: to | in order to / so as to | to |
| Remove padding: empty frame | It is the case that / It should be noted that | [delete — start with the content] |
| Active verb replaces passive phrase | A decision was made by the committee to close the school. | The committee decided to close the school. |
The distinction between necessary and unnecessary length is ultimately a judgement, not a rule. Some apparently wordy phrases serve a genuine purpose: 'It should be noted that' can flag an important qualification; 'due to the fact that' can be clearer than 'because' in a very long sentence where 'because' might be misread. The test is always: does removing this phrase or clause change the meaning, or does it only remove weight? If the meaning is unchanged, remove it. If the meaning shifts, the length was doing work. A useful principle: if you can read a sentence with the phrase removed and understand exactly the same thing, the phrase is padding. This principle empowers students to self-edit — they do not need a list of forbidden phrases, they need the habit of asking 'is this earning its place?'
Concision checklist for any sentence: 1. Is there a relative clause with 'who is/was' or 'which is/was'? → Try reducing to a participle: 'who is working' → 'working' 2. Does the sentence begin 'It is the case that / It is important that / The fact that'? → Consider a gerund or direct statement 3. Are there coordinated clauses with the same subject repeated? → Apply ellipsis: remove repeated subjects and auxiliaries 4. Does the sentence contain 'due to the fact that / in order to / at this point in time'? → Replace with 'because / to / now' 5. Is the passive used with 'by + agent' where the active would be shorter? → Convert to active: 'A decision was made by the committee' → 'The committee decided'
Rewrite each wordy sentence as concisely as possible without changing the meaning.
Each passage is wordy. Identify the specific padding or unnecessary structure and rewrite it concisely.
Use this sequence directly in class — guided discovery, no textbook needed. Tap each step to mark it done.
STEP 1 — Count the words, then cut (5 min): Write the long sentence from discovery sequence 3 on the board: 'She arrived at the school and then she walked to the staffroom and she put down her bag and she sat down at her desk.' Count the words together (21). Ask students how many words the concise version needs. Produce it together: 13 words, same meaning. Ask: what did we cut, and was anything lost?
STEP 2 — Relative clause reduction (8 min): Write five relative clauses on the board: two with 'who is/are', two with 'which was/were', one with 'who had'. Ask students to reduce each. Establish the rule: remove pronoun + auxiliary, keep participle. Discuss which cannot be reduced (different subject in the relative clause) and why.
STEP 3 — Padding phrase hunt (7 min): Write the padding phrases on the board. Ask students to find them in a short wordy paragraph (prepared in advance). For each one found, ask: what is the one-word replacement? 'Due to the fact that' → because. 'In order to' → to. 'It is the case that' → [nothing — delete the whole frame]. Count the words saved.
STEP 4 — Gerund replacement (6 min): Write three 'It is important/necessary/essential that...' sentences. Ask students to rewrite using a gerund or direct statement. Discuss: is the gerund always more concise? Is it always as clear? (Sometimes a noun clause is genuinely the clearest option — concision does not mean always shortest.)
STEP 5 — Full rewrite (9 min): Give students a wordy paragraph (5–7 sentences) combining all four types of wordiness. Students work in pairs to apply all four concision strategies. Share the most improved version. Count total words before and after. Discuss: was any meaning lost?
Use directly in class — copy, adapt, or read aloud. No printing needed.
For each strategy, choose the option that best describes where you are now.
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.