You cannot simplify English!

I’ve been around long enough, in English teaching, to see the hydra that is PEE shape, reform and grow another head. As soon as you chop one form of it down, another takes its place. The problem lies with the fact that analysis is not a natural form of writing. Whilst expressing our thoughts and feelings is natural as too is telling stories, the close analysis of an idea or aspect of a text is purely alien. When eating a curry, we don’t pick out a grain of rice and study its taste, colour or composition, yet in subjects like English that’s what we are doing when analysing. Picking out the grains of rice. 

We have a knack in schools in oversimplifying the complex. Sometimes, things are complex that they cannot be simplified. The problem with PEE is that it is deceptive. It presented analysis as something simple, easy, stepped, logical and easy to judge. Any new reiteration is likely to fall down, because it doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of analysis. When exploring complex mathematical problems you don’t look for a simple easy route. You look for a stepped approach to solve the problem. Our problem with PEE, or any alternative, is that it doesn't address the components behind writing an essay. 

If I was honest, it took years to write decent essays, because I wasn’t taught what to do. I learnt largely by osmosis. And, if we are honest, that’s where a lot of teachers learnt to write analytically. Through osmosis. It was through the constant exposure to essays and constant critiques of my own writing that got me there. There were no simplistic frameworks. No easy mnemonics for me to sing as I write. And that’s fine for a percentage of students. They have that ability to absorb or soak stuff up, unaware they are doing it. 

We’ve been drilling down at the elements for teaching an analytical paragraph. What is it students need to do to form and develop an idea? We developed this resource for teachers. It is a work in progress, but it gives you an idea. 

I wanted something to help teachers guide improvements in analysis. A way for teachers to see what their priorities should be when guiding a class on literature. Because literature is endless, you need some starting points. The emphasis on knowledge means that we often put the stress on the knowledge of text rather than the way students write. If students are doing badly in literature it is somehow viewed as being a knowledge problem, and not a writing problem. Or, if the writing is seen as the problem, things are viewed in terms of adherence to the set structure. Or, simply a case of adding ‘features’ to the text. The best analysis is always concise, crisp and clear. It is never weighted down with adverbs or tentative phrases. The emphasis here is on forming, developing, supporting and building ideas and not a checklist. Analysis is checklist proof. 

The problem with structures like PEE or its alternatives is that there is no through line. There is an assumption that the P, E and E are connected, but rarely do students do this effectively. The parts are there but they are often untethered or floating around. We wanted to put the opinion at the heart of the focus. When writing, you are taking an opinion and shaping it and forming an argument around it. 

With a group recently, I’ve been working on developing ideas in the opening few sentences. They struggled with adding depth to their analysis. They’d repeat things that I said and attempted to crowbar it into their writing. There was no developing and extending their own opinion. So, we looked at how they could contextualise or tether their opinion somehow. 

We explored how there were three ways to tether their thinking: 1: a contextual piece of information. 2: a piece of information around the writer and their intent. 3: an idea from another domain of knowledge. We presented students with three ways to develop the opinion. 

They then had to look at how the two sentences could be developed or be linked. 

• Dickens presents Victorian society to be cold and solely focused on business and money. 

• Dickens felt that Britain was broken and that it had forgotten to feel emotions and care for those less fortunate. 

• By presenting society as cold, Dickens is able to highlight how money has corrupted society. 

What this allowed students to do was thread ideas into their writing around the writer’s intent or context without bolting it on. It was part of the discussion. It wasn’t just part of it, but at the centre of what they were writing. When they continued writing, they were able to refer back to what they said. They echoed the phrase ‘Britain was broken’ when talking about Scrooge and his symbolism, which they then developed further in the comparison with Tiny Tim’s death. Students were forming throughlines in their writing. 

Students need permission to explore. When we rely on simplistic approaches, we don’t give them permission to explore. PEE or What / How / Why don’t allow for exploration. It isn’t built into the structure. That exploration is missing. The structure doesn’t give permission. We need to give and show permission to explore. That’s where the beauty of the subject comes from. The ability to explore a thread and go off at a tangent. We need to give students the permission to do that. It isn’t natural. 

If we are going to get students better at analysing texts, we need to stop looking for shortcuts. I think we should focus on how we teach the components of essay writing. To do that, we need to be collectively clear about what those components are. Stop trying to make purple prose essays and get students to form and develop analytical arguments. 

Thanks for reading, 

Xris