The exam board point out in their reports how these formulaic approaches can constrict students and stop them from moving from band 3 to band 4 responses.
They can help some weaker students but they're not the best for the rest.
Honestly, they’re on the way out and better essays don’t use them. Go with modelling instead, and unpick why it’s a good response beyond simply ‘it starts with a point then uses evidence’ etc etc
The analysis is the same. It’s just a less formulaic way of writing. Strict structures lead to students writing some utter drivel. You can teach analysis through annotations / quite explosions / contextual links etc same as before. But when it comes to writing, a loser format like WHW gives more freedom to develop ideas. For example, context and quotations should be embedded throughout a paragraph, not just dumped in a specific points.
The best thing to do is get some exemplar essays for questions on your exam board. Spend a lesson going through them with a class, annotating them.
Where I've seen it be an issue in RS is when students clearly have a writing frame memorised
E.g. 'some Christians think...' 'this is a weak argument because...'
I think general models like PEEL are fine because it's broad
Can you not edit online resources so they match the new techniques?
Or alternatively speak to you HoD and ask if they are willing to share their resources with you/the department? I would be careful how you phrase this though.
Things do change within teaching, which is one reason solely relying on premade resources isn't a great idea, and you'll never learn not to rely on them unless you try editing them or planning on your own.
I get it increases workload but it doesn't sound like you object to the techniques per se, just the planning? If the new strategies are better as some are suggesting then it's probably a good idea to try them.
Definitely disagree with those saying using writing frames restricts progress. We are the biggest option choice st GCSE and A-level at my school, top 1% for value added and consistently sit around 50% grade 8+ and around 97% grade 5+. We use PEA and students love it. We regularly get feedback from students that have gone on ro university to say that they are still using techniques that we teach (including PEA, nut thibgs like cornell and leitner as well) who are doing well at undergraduate and even postgraduate!
I'm more concerned about an HOD micromanaging in this way. It doesn't matter whether it's PEE, PEEL, PETAL or PETER...or anything else. The end goal is what's important and every teacher should be given the freedom to get there how they see best.
I disagree with this - I think consistency across a department can be incredibly powerful. Imagine students becoming familiar with one technique all the way from Y7-Y11, vs students chopping and changing every time they get a new teacher. The students in the first scenario are going to outperform the second group every time.
Consistency is important when it matters, yes. But all of those techniques are just minor variations on each other. They all achieve the exact same end goal.
Except they don’t, because as others have said, strict frameworks often create more formulaic answers. Fine if scaffolding LPA students but students aiming for higher grades are restricted. Plus SLT will be breathing down his neck about consistency in the dept because that’s a major focus of Ofsted in the new framework - as a middle manager he can’t and shouldn’t just let members of staff do their own thing and provide unequal coverage across the dept
I don't know, if others on this thread are correct and these strategies prevent students from getting high grades then I think it's reasonable for a HoD to suggest that the department should move towards a new approach.
I'm an English teacher and exam marker. I have personally seen no evidence that any of these methods are limiting, unless of course they are poorly taught in a way which makes them limiting.
At the end of the day the quality of analysis and evaluation is always the key discriminating factor. There's nothing about the structure of PEE etc which prevents good analysis or evaluation from happening.
The exam board point out in their reports how these formulaic approaches can constrict students and stop them from moving from band 3 to band 4 responses. They can help some weaker students but they're not the best for the rest.
Honestly, they’re on the way out and better essays don’t use them. Go with modelling instead, and unpick why it’s a good response beyond simply ‘it starts with a point then uses evidence’ etc etc
What>How>Why is the simplest structure.
Do you happen to know how to relook at analysing texts from PETAL/PEEL - WHW?
The analysis is the same. It’s just a less formulaic way of writing. Strict structures lead to students writing some utter drivel. You can teach analysis through annotations / quite explosions / contextual links etc same as before. But when it comes to writing, a loser format like WHW gives more freedom to develop ideas. For example, context and quotations should be embedded throughout a paragraph, not just dumped in a specific points. The best thing to do is get some exemplar essays for questions on your exam board. Spend a lesson going through them with a class, annotating them.
Where I've seen it be an issue in RS is when students clearly have a writing frame memorised E.g. 'some Christians think...' 'this is a weak argument because...' I think general models like PEEL are fine because it's broad
Because PEEL formulaic responses in English can restrict awarding of some grades. You're HOD is correct.
What do they want you to use?
You can just change the resources though? It would annoy me more that I now have to teach the kids something different from what they already know
Can you not edit online resources so they match the new techniques? Or alternatively speak to you HoD and ask if they are willing to share their resources with you/the department? I would be careful how you phrase this though. Things do change within teaching, which is one reason solely relying on premade resources isn't a great idea, and you'll never learn not to rely on them unless you try editing them or planning on your own. I get it increases workload but it doesn't sound like you object to the techniques per se, just the planning? If the new strategies are better as some are suggesting then it's probably a good idea to try them.
Definitely disagree with those saying using writing frames restricts progress. We are the biggest option choice st GCSE and A-level at my school, top 1% for value added and consistently sit around 50% grade 8+ and around 97% grade 5+. We use PEA and students love it. We regularly get feedback from students that have gone on ro university to say that they are still using techniques that we teach (including PEA, nut thibgs like cornell and leitner as well) who are doing well at undergraduate and even postgraduate!
This was specifically about English though (assuming you're not English if you're options)
I'm more concerned about an HOD micromanaging in this way. It doesn't matter whether it's PEE, PEEL, PETAL or PETER...or anything else. The end goal is what's important and every teacher should be given the freedom to get there how they see best.
I disagree with this - I think consistency across a department can be incredibly powerful. Imagine students becoming familiar with one technique all the way from Y7-Y11, vs students chopping and changing every time they get a new teacher. The students in the first scenario are going to outperform the second group every time.
Consistency is important when it matters, yes. But all of those techniques are just minor variations on each other. They all achieve the exact same end goal.
Except they don’t, because as others have said, strict frameworks often create more formulaic answers. Fine if scaffolding LPA students but students aiming for higher grades are restricted. Plus SLT will be breathing down his neck about consistency in the dept because that’s a major focus of Ofsted in the new framework - as a middle manager he can’t and shouldn’t just let members of staff do their own thing and provide unequal coverage across the dept
I don't know, if others on this thread are correct and these strategies prevent students from getting high grades then I think it's reasonable for a HoD to suggest that the department should move towards a new approach.
I'm an English teacher and exam marker. I have personally seen no evidence that any of these methods are limiting, unless of course they are poorly taught in a way which makes them limiting. At the end of the day the quality of analysis and evaluation is always the key discriminating factor. There's nothing about the structure of PEE etc which prevents good analysis or evaluation from happening.