the dangers of TEEL

[Toudai]

I tutor VCE English so a younger cousin of mine in year 11 recently showed me one of her essays. It was good and all, but she followed TEEL in every paragraph so I knew exactly how paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 would be structured after only reading the first one. It made her essay seem, well, mechanical. I haven't come across this problem before and am struggling to come up with a good way for her to approach this. The only thing I've been able to come up with so far is read more of other people's work and take note of what they're doing. Any pointers VCE Noters?

[Hutchoo]

Are you talking about the flow of the essay?

[Russ]

TEEL is a really important thing to use until you're confident enough to move past it. I have no idea what level your cousin is at, but in year 11 I was still using the TEEL model. Eventually you tend to be able to write in a more expansive and fluid style but the only way to get there is with practice and exposure to high level essays/concepts. So if you make her aware of this and explain that following the TEEL structure limits her to a midrange essay, she can try to delve into a certain line of argument and explore that in more depth. If she can synthesize quotes into her sentences then it's much easier to do this and not look as if you're following a rehearsed pattern.

(that said, english is extremely formulaic and sadly enough getting a 50 is mostly just rewriting a memorized essay)

[EvangelionZeta]

TEEL is a really important thing to use until you're confident enough to move past it. I have no idea what level your cousin is at, but in year 11 I was still using the TEEL model. Eventually you tend to be able to write in a more expansive and fluid style but the only way to get there is with practice and exposure to high level essays/concepts. So if you make her aware of this and explain that following the TEEL structure limits her to a midrange essay, she can try to delve into a certain line of argument and explore that in more depth. If she can synthesize quotes into her sentences then it's much easier to do this and not look as if you're following a rehearsed pattern.

(that said, english is extremely formulaic and sadly enough getting a 50 is mostly just rewriting a memorized essay)

Untrue.  I would argue that most top-tier students would see little merit in memorising an essay.  It's certainly true of the 50-scoring students I've encountered.

[Toudai]

Thanks for the help guys and girls In response to Hutchoo, no, i don't mean the flow of the essay. Her expression is really apt- i think the essay would get a high. So yeah, i don't think she'd have any problems doing well in the subject, but the thing is that she wants to do like REALLY well. It's just that she gives a topic sentence; then explains, gives evidence from the text, then extends that point, and gives another piece of evidence. Like her arguments are good and all, but like I said before, it just feels mechanical. Any tips besides reading the essays of other English high-achievers that she could use?

[darkphoenix]

TEEL is just like a basis for the essay.

You don't have to follow it precisely. Eg. you could use 2 pieces of evidence and 2 explanations and one link at the end.

It can be altered as there is no "one way" to write an essay.

[Russ]

Untrue.  I would argue that most top-tier students would see little merit in memorising an essay.  It's certainly true of the 50-scoring students I've encountered.

Was the case for the students I know who got 50s (and for a whole bunch of others who didn't). But of course it won't be the case for all top students, I was just commenting that English is unfortunately more formulaic than it should be (ie Lit.)

[Eriny]

I think it's best to actually not use TEEL when you're writing the essay, but instead use it more as a proofreading check-off list. You just make sure it's all there (because it definitely needs to be all there!) but not until after you write it.

[ice_blockie]

I don't think that TEEL is inherently "bad" in that it gives students some sort of structure to work with i.e. it forces them to include evidence and explanation. I can't say for certain but I think the problem of appearing mechanical isn't related so much to the use of TEEL but moreso the nuance and variety of expression used. Appearing formulaic is probably very clear when said essay introduces quotes the same way and explains links in the same structure. Varying grammatical structures and incorporating different forms of evidence would probably lead to a richer essay and hence less of a mechanical structure?

[lynt.br]

I don't think that TEEL is inherently "bad" in that it gives students some sort of structure to work with i.e. it forces them to include evidence and explanation. I can't say for certain but I think the problem of appearing mechanical isn't related so much to the use of TEEL but moreso the nuance and variety of expression used. Appearing formulaic is probably very clear when said essay introduces quotes the same way and explains links in the same structure. Varying grammatical structures and incorporating different forms of evidence would probably lead to a richer essay and hence less of a mechanical structure?

I agree with this.

I would also like to add TEEL is really just a 'framework' for creating an argument. It is widely recommended by teachers because it forces students to include all the necessary elements of a strong argument and removes irrelevant filler material.

When you consider the structure of a strong argument, it will always contain:
a) A thesis statement/proposition
b) Evidence backing up that proposition
c) Critical analysis of the evidence in relation to the proposition - does it support or contradict the thesis statement?

In a complex argument requiring multiple logical steps (such as an English essay), each 'step' will also contain an explanation of how it relates to the overarching argument.

When you look at TEEL, the main reason it 'works' is because it forces students to bring in evidence and then critically analyse that evidence. It also encourages your argument to flow logically, in a step by step process.

The main problem is many students treat TEEL as a formula, rather than seeing it as the skeleton of an argument. As Ice_Blockie said, most essays end up sounding overly prescribed because of micro level problems such as repetitive grammar structures. It may also sound prescribed if the 'explanation' section is weak, where the student does not really analyse the evidence. The explanation section of TEEL should be varied in each instance because it is a unique application of the specific evidence provided to the essay topic.

When I did English, I never really followed TEEL like a template but rather kept it in the back of my mind as a sort of checklist. It is a useful tool for evaluating your own work and making sure you logically reach each conclusion.

that said, english is extremely formulaic and sadly enough getting a 50 is mostly just rewriting a memorized essay

I think when most high scoring students say they 'memorised' an essay, they really mean they memorised arguments. In many cases, this is simply caused by repeated use of the same arguments from writing many practice essays. Once you have refined an argument from repeated use, your delivery doesn't really change and the gap between forming an opinion when presented with a topic and deciding how you will present that opinion becomes a lot shorter. A lot of essay topics can be broken down into segments which repeatedly come up year after year.

I doubt people that memorise essays word for word can consistently score well in English, and even if they can it is a horribly inefficient way to approach the subject. Why not just take the effort to learn the theory behind a strong argument and then  apply that knowledge to any topic thrown at you?

[Hutchoo]

I think it's best to actually not use TEEL when you're writing the essay, but instead use it more as a proofreading check-off list. You just make sure it's all there (because it definitely needs to be all there!) but not until after you write it.

I agree.

[Mulan]

woah... first time I've ever hear that TEEL is bad! I always thought that you had to use it.

[cypriottiger]

its funny how people mention memorising essays for the exam. i personally have found my sac marks have been better "winging it" than writing practise essays on the prompts given. for example i had a context and only wrote a page of quotes as my prep, while for another i wrote a essays for all of the 6 prompts given, and yet i scored considerably better for the first essay :S
im a...err... in-the-moment writer, bursts of genius followed by lengthy spells of nothingness. i have no idea as to how im going to study for these exams :S

[chrisjb]

Hey guys, this is what I think of teel. I never realy understood TEEL when i was learning essay writing, and even now when i write my work i'm not conciously thinking of it, i can only look at my work afterwards and see how TEEL fits in. The most common ways that my writing varies from the standard structure is by varying the topic sentence and not having a set way of starting every paragraph. I also see it as not important if my evidence flows into my topic sentence, or my explination into my link. I also see it as unimportant if i use multiple links throughout the paragraph, and usualy link by expressing key words from the prompt. I think that the link should be the least noticable, but the most important of the four aspects of teel.

The other thing that can help to hide the teel is seamless incorporation of quotes. If a quote is built up to, or used not as part of a sentence then it stands out and this makes the essay look uber structured, and having little or no flow. By using a quote as though it is your own words, and in such a way that the sentence is not disturbed at all means that although it is clear that you have quoted the text, it doesn't look like you just stuck a quote in because you needed one.

that's just what i think.

[kyzoo]

I don't even write according to a set structure anymore, I just write how I feel like writing, whereas previously I used the cycle of "Point --> Evidence --> Expansion of Point." I looked at an old essay where I followed this structure and it made me cringe at how mechanical and lacking of depth it was.