PEE - am I alone in wanting to shoot whoever invented it?

[ChipsForSupper]

I hate PEE paragraphs. They are so formulaic and restrictive and my students tie themselves in knots trying to make the explanation tie up to the point. I have lots of experience of teaching this in my subject (Secondary English) so it's not that I don't understand the PEE structure, but even I can get halfway through a PEE paragraph and feel that i am jumping through hoops to 'make' exploratory analysis fit the structure.

Does anyone find PEE useful because I would love to hear some success stories!

I find it very useful. If they don't use I get essays which are just point and evidence which is crap! If the analysis isn't matching the evidence they need to consider the evidence they are choosing more. Or are their points too long? Are they explaining in their points? An English essay without explanation (analysis) is never going to do very well (old money KS3 sats Level 4 tops).

I hadn't heard of this until I googled it just now and realised it's a what my old geography teacher used to call, 'fact, reason, so what?' which used to help me massively with my essays. It helped me, as a student at that time and as a writer since, to plan what I was going to say and cut down on the number of words I needed to write it.

We use it with our middle/lower ability students but agree it is restrictive for higher ability. We have also started PETER +CL for GCSE lit which is a bit more complex for the assessment objectives.

We just call it PEEL - point, evidence, explanation, link. It really isn't limiting to higher ability students. When they have cemented that they need to use these things then the ordering can change. I've seen some schools call it PEA - the A being analysis. I prefer PEE because my KS3 classes find it hilarious and therefore remember it. Our students are high achievers.

PETER +CL
eek - what is that?

I'm a student and I hate this too. Ours is PEEEL - Point, Example, Explanation, Evaluation, Link. It makes me want to kill myself. The tutor told me I don't have to use it, though, which is a relief. If I find it boring to write, GOK how boring it is to read. I like my essays to be nice to read, not a series of clunky formula-fulfillment paragraphs.

Although it's not nearly as horrible as the !!!five pages!!! of learning outcomes and assessment criteria I'm supposed to meet for my next history assignment For example, criterion 4 e for distinction:

The student, student's work or performance consistently combines or synthesises information with outcomes that are accurate, appropriate and

• succinct
• innovative
• creative

There shouldn't even be a criterion 4e. I just want the tutor to read it over, make a few comments and give a grade that they think reflects the quality of it

And, particularly in a subject like English lit, it doesn't seem to allow for, say, a nice complex analysis of two or more linked points which involve two or more pieces of evidence plus possibly a couple of external sources, all of which help to make sense of the point(s) being made. And where is the correct place to put conjecture, or perhaps discussion of the relative merits of a couple of interdependent or even mutually exclusive points or arguments? I refuse to separate out ideas which work better when put together.

P - point
E- evidence
T- technique or terminology
E - explanation/exploration
R - reader/audience response
C - context
L - link

Iced - it does. It doesn't mean. You can only include one piece of evidence. It's a starting point. To encourage students to actually analyse work. It should also in the example you give be possible to identify a point, evidence and analysis. If not then there's no reason for the paragraph to be there. It shouldn't be taught as a straight-jacket to bind essays in but as a scaffold to help students learn to write essays. I currently teach a year 11 who is way beyond it but he is in a class with students who need to be reminded to include analysis in their work. The framework is useful still to them whereas the able students don't need to think about it anymore. Perhaps the real problem is using it as a failsafe formula rather than something to aid the development of a writer.

Ah Bertie - that's all the things I expect them to include in a discussion (or rather the mark scheme does) - this will help the students who need precise instructions. My sciency-minded boys like to know the 'right answer' a framework is a close as I can get to that. Then when they've cracked that I can coax them into more imaginative writing.

Agree - it seems to be preferred by boys more than girls!

Ah, I only teach boys up to GCSE. Maybe that explains my different experience?

We have TEEL in Australia:
Topic
Evidence
Explanation
Link

It's helpful as a building block, but contains good writing.

My personal bugbear is the "rule" here that says all English essays must begin with the title and author, e.g. "In 'Macbeth", by William Shakespeare...".

I issued the challenge to find a single review or essay in the quality weekend press that did this. none, of course, it's stupid, wooden, utterly shit writing.

Constrains.

I'm fairly sure that I structured my undergraduate essays like this and I got a first from a very well regarded university.