I have noticed a topic of conversation flare up again: the old PEE debate. A debate that annually pops its head up to enrage people and ensure that people start sharpening their pitchforks. Like some Hydra, as soon as one acronym is chopped to bits and so another one appears. I, personally, have no problem with students having an aide-mémoire in exams. By the time of the final exams, they need quick, short reminders of what to do. The teenage brain panics and forgets some pretty basic things when faced with an exam question. We’ve all seen a student trying to write about Macbeth when the teacher has spent the last two years teaching Romeo and Juliet. It happens.
The exam boards moan about PEE and other structures. And, to be honest, they have to moan about it because we pay them a lot of money for the exams. They need to give us something for our money. Plus, if PEE was so damaging, then wouldn’t you think that the Literature exam mark scheme would be written in such a way to combat its use? Band 1 - address the question - point. Band 2 - evidence from the text (a technique). Band 3 - explained response. Change the markscheme and you might have fewer students and schools relying on it?
The problem with PEE and any other acronym is how it controls thinking, teaching and writing. I think it should be used as a ticklist and not a tool for teaching or structuring writing. Have you made a point? Have you supported your point with evidence? Have you explained your point? Therefore, the acronym should be an aide-mémoire for the thinking. After writing, they should check they have the key threads. What people often forget is that students are not just doing English that week, or even day. The student is probably doing a number of exams. Each exam dedicates its structures and ways to answer the question. Students have to code switch between exams. It is not as simple as writing the same style for every question. It just doesn’t work like that. Plus, the use of acronyms helps free up memory for students. The knowledge we want them to work on and show in the exams.
Teaching with PEE is the main issue. Having PEE at the heart of how you approach analysis is the real problem. If students are practising writing a PEE paragraph, then when are students exploring the thinking that goes behind these letters? The reductive rather than clarifying drive behind PEE is the crux. Teaching English is wibbly wobbly. It isn’t neat and tidy. Teaching with PEE assumes that it is neat. It forgets how to form an argument. It forgets how structure links to meaning. It forgets the impact of societal rules on people. Instead it simplifies and neatens the thinking. I’d say that instead of worrying about its use in essays, we concentrate on teaching the aspects under those tent poles. Behind a point there is so much to work on. Behind any evidence there is so much to pick out. Behind an explanation there is so much for us to say. If we only focus on the tent poles, we miss out on the rest that is underneath. Teach Literature better and you don’t need to worry, or even care too much about acronyms. Your students will know what to do and the acronym will be a quick reminder to do it.
With that all in mind, let’s have a look at what is under one of those tent poles. Effect. Largely, students struggle with effect and I have been spending the last year exploring it with classes. A great question to ask students is: Who do you love? Or: who do you hate? This provokes such an interesting response. I tend to get students to write a sentence:
The audience loves …
With Romeo and Juliet, I tend to get them loving Juliet, Mercutio, Romeo, Nurse and hating Tybalt, Capulet and Lady Capulet.
I then ask students to give me a reason for their loving or hating the character. We simply add the word because to the sentence.
The audience loves Mercutio because
For this, they usually suggest his bawdy jokes or how he lightens the mood or doesn’t take things seriously. Then, we explore the turning point. What is the reason behind loving the character? What does Shakespeare agree with this character on?
Shakespeare possibly agrees with Mercutio’s attitude towards life as …
We then look at the wider picture. What is it that Shakespeare is promoting in society with this character? Alternatively, we’d be talking about attacking if it was a character we hate.
Through Mercutio, Shakespeare promotes how being young should be a time of fun, laughter and experimentation.
We then look at the opposite of this. Who represents the opposite or anthithesis of this idea?
The audience dislikes Tybalt because he represents the opposite of Mercutio. A man trapped by society’s expectations of him.
With this, students can go on to explore what Shakespeare is attacking with this character.
The exploration of ideas is at the heart of teaching Literature and we need to investigate ways to do this more. PEE doesn’t investigate ideas. We need to work on developing structures to help students explore. For me, exploring the audience’s love or hate for characters is a gold mine for thinking. Shakespeare making us love or hate a character shows us what he agrees with and what he disagrees with. Sometimes, it isn’t love or hate in some of his plays. Sometimes, it is about caring for certain characters - especially tragedies.
I would argue that character is often the single biggest thing in a text which shows us where a writer’s sympathies lie. The characters he/she cares for are the type of people he/she likes. And, those people represent the type of thinking and the type of ideas the writer likes also. A character isn't directly thinking what the writer thinks, but they do show a warmth to that perspective or outlook.
Who do you love?
Thanks for reading,
Xris
P.S. If you need an acronym. I will give you this one for it. LBRSROR. I think it is catchy.
