When is a point not a point (worth making)? I've tried many methods of teaching analytical writing over the years, and encountered many other terms from teaching colleagues to describe when things go wrong. An experienced IBDP teacher used to refer to the crime of students making 'empty statements', for example. If you could change one thing, what would it be?
Point-Evidence-Effect?
Most of the accepted forms of teaching analysis use some variety of teaching students to 'PEE(L)' (the L being the link to the rest of the argument or the question), albeit sometimes calling 'Evidence' instead 'Example', or using 'Explanation' instead of 'Effect'.
However, my favourite anecdote about when this overly simplistic approach can go wrong was when a perceptive if untrained Literature student of mine more than ten years ago wrote the following paragraph about Sophocles' Oedpius the King tragedy:
Naturally, my feedback on this paragraph was that a) it wasn't very good, and b) the structure of the paragraph needed attention.
'No, no, no!' he cried. All he had done was to follow the PEE structure I had taught him. He made a point, quoted as evidence, and then explained the effect of the evidence! So the problem must lie in the point being made in the first place.
Author-Choice-Effect
When analying, there necessarily should be interpretation. And an interpretative point cannot be one 'on the surface' - i.e. in this case, simply repeating the plot. It must instead be a point about thematic meaning and, considering the premises from Paper 2 - Analysis and Evaluation, should also consider the craft of the literary artist and how they create effects.
Consider these different analytical points from essays in real IBDP Paper 2 examinations:
In the first example, there is no clear point established. Indeed, there is a suggestion that, instead, there will be a degree of plot-retelling before we begin to make a interpretative point worth exploring. The second example might be better (with the exception of calling a work 'a book'), though it is slightly redundant since, presumably, the next sentence will say what setting and what values, something that could simply have been argued in the topic sentence.
By comparison, consider these:
Here, not only are the points clear, interpretative, and requiring proof (through evidence and explanation), but, to quote the examiner, they 'tie the answer to the question to the literary devices effectively'.
If an effective point has been made - and Author-Choice-Effect is the easiest template for students to follow - then the rest of the paragraph can simply follow this structure: Make a Point - Prove the Point - Tie the Point back to the Question.
Without this, we might be left still wondering how the paragraph about Oedipus doesn't gain a Level 7!
How much of Paper 2 - Making Analytical Points have you understood?
Twitter 
Facebook 
LinkedIn