You know TEEL: Topic sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Link. You've used it since Year 8. You tick all 4 parts, you include a quote, and the paragraph still comes back with "more analysis needed" or "you're describing the technique, not its effect."
That comment is frustrating, because you did use TEEL. I've written "more analysis" on hundreds of paragraphs, and the students who get that comment almost never have a formula problem. TEEL gets taught as a structure, and structure is the easy part: a paragraph can have all 4 parts in the right order and still say nothing worth marking. The difference between a Band 4 paragraph and a Band 6 paragraph almost never comes down to whether the student used TEEL. It comes down to what they did inside the Explanation.
Most guides on how to write a TEEL paragraph stop at the structure. This one shows you the difference, using a worked HSC English example, and gives you a quick self-check for your own writing.
What TEEL is actually for
TEEL stands for Topic sentence, Evidence, Explanation, Link. Some schools call it PEEL. Same idea, different first letter. Whatever version your teacher uses, every version wants the same thing: an argument about how a text creates meaning, not a summary of what happens in it.
Each part has a real job.
The Topic sentence is the argument the paragraph proves. Not the technique you're about to discuss, the argument itself. "Orwell uses symbolism here" is a label. "Orwell uses the telescreen as a symbol of total surveillance to position the reader to see the Party's control as inescapable" is an argument.
The Evidence is the specific quote or textual detail that backs the argument. Specific is the word that matters. A short, precise quote beats a long, vague one every time.
The Explanation is where you show how the evidence proves your argument. This is where marks are won and lost. It's also where most students rush, repeat themselves, or stop one step too early.
The Link connects the paragraph back to the question and your overall thesis.
A TEEL paragraph example: weak vs strong
Here's a question I've set Year 12 English students studying Nineteen Eighty-Four:
How does Orwell use language to explore the relationship between power and control?
A weak TEEL paragraph on that question looks like this:
Orwell uses imagery in the novel. He quotes the Party's slogans: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." This is an example of contradiction. The Party uses these slogans to control people. This shows that the Party has a lot of power over the citizens of Oceania.
Every TEEL part is technically present. Read it again, though. It names a technique, quotes it, calls it a contradiction, and then says the Party has power, which just restates the question's own terms. Nothing has been explained. A marker reads this and writes "you're describing the technique, not its effect."
Here's the same paragraph, written to argue:
Orwell uses the Party's paradoxical slogans to show that its power rests not on force alone, but on its ability to make citizens distrust their own thinking. The slogans, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength," pair concepts that are logically incompatible and present them as institutional truth. The effect is deliberately destabilising: a citizen who accepts these contradictions as fact has already surrendered the capacity for independent thought, which is the exact condition the Party needs to maintain control. Orwell's point is that the most complete form of power is not physical coercion; it is the quiet reshaping of how people reason. The slogan does not just describe the Party's ideology, it enacts it. That is the link back to the question: the relationship between power and control, for Orwell, runs through language itself, because a citizen who can only think in the Party's words can no longer think against the Party.
Same structure. Same 4 parts. The difference is what happens inside the Explanation.
The part that wins marks: the Explanation
Look at what changed between the two paragraphs.
The Topic sentence got sharper, and it got accurate. The weak version called the slogans "imagery," then "contradiction." Neither is the right term. They're paradoxes, and the strong version names them correctly. Getting the technique right is the first move of the analysis, not a detail you can fudge.
The Evidence is the same quote. Precision was already there.
The Explanation is where most of the work happens. The weak paragraph names the technique and restates the quote in different words. The strong paragraph sets out the steps: the slogans pair incompatible concepts, that pairing is destabilising, a destabilised citizen surrenders independent thought, and that surrender is the condition the Party needs. Each step earns the next one.
The Link changed too. The weak paragraph's last sentence just says the Party has power, which the question already assumed. The strong paragraph's last sentence ties the analysis back to the exact words of the question, power and control, and states what Orwell argues through them. That chain, from technique to effect to argument, is the analysis. A marker can see you understand not only what Orwell did, but how it works on the reader and why it matters.
A quick test for your Explanation: it almost always needs words like "because," "this suggests," "which positions the reader to," or "the effect of this is." If your explanation has none of those, if it just names the technique and paraphrases the quote, it's probably description rather than analysis.
The Explanation has one more job in HSC English: it connects the technique to the composer's intention or the reader's experience. "Orwell uses paradox" tells a marker what. "Orwell uses paradox to make the reader feel the same cognitive disorientation as Winston" tells them how and why. That's the move from Band 4 to Band 6.
Where paragraphs lose marks
These are the habits I write the same comment about, year after year.
A topic sentence that names the technique instead of making a claim. "Orwell uses paradox in this chapter" could sit above any paragraph ever written about the novel. Make it arguable. What does the paradox do? What does it make the reader feel or believe?
A quote that's too long. A quote longer than one line usually means you haven't decided which words are doing the work. Cut to the sharpest phrase and explain that.
An explanation that describes instead of analyses. "This paradox pairs opposite ideas, which suggests the slogan is contradictory" is description wearing analysis clothing. Ask the "so what" question. Why does that contradiction matter? What does it make the reader think or feel?
A link that copies the topic sentence. The link should connect to the question and your thesis, not repeat your first sentence word for word. If the question asks how Orwell explores power and control, the link is where you say something precise about that relationship, not just "therefore Orwell shows the Party has power."
Check your own paragraph before you hand it in
Before a paragraph goes in, read it once and ask yourself:
- Does my topic sentence make an argument, or does it just name a technique?
- Is my quote the sharpest possible version, the fewest words that do the most work?
- Does my explanation say how and why the technique works, or does it just describe what it does?
- Does my link connect back to the specific words in the question?
Answer yes to all 4 and you've written a paragraph that argues. A no tells you exactly which part to fix.
Want MarkMate to run this check for you?
The 4 questions above are exactly what MarkMate looks for, paragraph by paragraph, before your teacher sees it. It scores each TEEL part against the rubric for your subject, flags where the explanation is thin, and points you to the sentence that needs more work. It's the check I run with my own students.
Students get 5 free self-checks a month. Student plans start at A$7.99 a month.