Writing a High-Scoring PEP

This final lesson brings together everything from Lessons 1–7 and focuses on the practical strategies for writing a PEP that reaches Level 5 (17–20 marks). It covers the most common mistakes that keep students at Level 2–3, the specific features that examiners look for at Level 4–5, how to structure your 1,500 words effectively, and a complete checklist to review before submission.

---

What Level 5 Looks Like

The Edexcel Level 5 descriptor (17–20 marks) expects:

Criterion	What Level 5 Requires
Knowledge and understanding	Excellent, sophisticated knowledge of components of fitness, training methods, principles of training and fitness testing
Planning	Comprehensive planning with fully justified SMART targets, each element explained with reference to personal data, normative data and context
Data collection	Pre-PEP and post-PEP fitness test data collected accurately, presented in appropriate graphs, and compared to normative data
Application of principles	Sophisticated application of specificity, progressive overload, FITT, individual needs and rest/recovery throughout the programme
Progressive overload	Clear, consistent evidence of progressive overload across the programme, supported by data
Evaluation	Insightful evaluation using data to analyse SMART targets, evaluate effectiveness, and suggest specific, justified improvements
Quality of written communication	Clear, well-structured writing with accurate use of technical vocabulary

---

The Most Common Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)

Mistake 1: Descriptive Rather Than Analytical Writing

Level 2–3 (Descriptive)	Level 4–5 (Analytical)
"I did fartlek training."	"I chose fartlek training because it develops cardiovascular endurance by requiring the body to work at varying intensities, which replicates the intermittent demands of football where a midfielder alternates between jogging, running and sprinting."
"My beep test result was 7.2."	"My beep test result of Level 7.2 places me in the 'below average' category for males aged 15–16 when compared to normative data, confirming that cardiovascular endurance is a key weakness that should be the focus of my PEP."
"I increased the time."	"I applied progressive overload by increasing the duration of each session from 30 minutes in Weeks 1–2 to 40 minutes in Weeks 5–6. This 33% increase in training volume placed a greater demand on my cardiovascular system, stimulating further adaptation."

The key difference: Analytical writing explains why, links to theory, and uses data to support claims.

Mistake 2: SMART Targets Without Justification

Many students write a SMART target but then move on without justifying each element. At Level 5, every letter of SMART must be individually explained with reference to:

• Your personal fitness test data
• Normative data for your age and sex
• Your sport and position
• Your available resources (time, facilities, equipment)
• The realistic rate of improvement for your chosen component

Mistake 3: No Visible Progressive Overload

This is the single most common reason for PEPs remaining at Level 3. If you do the same session 12 times, you have NOT applied progressive overload. The examiner must be able to see a clear increase in at least one element of FITT (frequency, intensity, time or type) from week to week.

Solution: Include a summary table showing how FITT elements changed each week:

Week	Frequency	Intensity (Avg HR)	Duration	Overload Applied
1	3/week	138 bpm (67% MHR)	30 min	Baseline
2	3/week	142 bpm (69% MHR)	30 min	+2% intensity
3	3/week	148 bpm (72% MHR)	35 min	+3% intensity, +5 min duration
4	3/week	152 bpm (74% MHR)	35 min	+2% intensity
5	3/week	156 bpm (76% MHR)	40 min	+2% intensity, +5 min duration
6	3/week	160 bpm (78% MHR)	40 min	+2% intensity

Mistake 4: Superficial Evaluations

Weak Evaluation	Strong Evaluation
"My programme worked."	"My post-PEP beep test result of 8.6 represents an improvement of 1.4 levels from my pre-PEP score of 7.2, exceeding my target of 8.5 by 0.1 levels. My resting heart rate also decreased by 8 bpm, from 72 to 64 bpm, which indicates improved cardiac efficiency."
"I would train harder next time."	"I would increase the frequency from 3 to 4 sessions per week and combine fartlek with one HIIT session to target the anaerobic system more intensely, improving my recovery between sprints during football matches."

Mistake 5: Ignoring the Word Limit

The PEP should be approximately 1,500 words (excluding data tables and graphs). This is not a lot of space, so every word must count. Common traps:

• Spending 500 words describing what fitness tests are — the examiner already knows. Focus on your results and what they mean.
• Including long lists of exercises without analysis — a training diary with 12 identical entries adds length but not quality.
• Repeating the same point in different words — say it once, clearly and precisely.

---

Structuring Your 1,500 Words

Here is a recommended word allocation:

Section	Suggested Words	Key Content
Section 1: Planning and Analysis	500–600	PAR-Q mention, fitness test results table, normative data comparison, graph, strengths/weaknesses analysis, SMART target(s) with full justification, training method choice with justification, programme plan
Section 2: Implementing and Monitoring	400–500	Summary of progressive overload (table or description), 2–3 sample detailed diary entries, weekly evaluations (can be summarised), adaptations made
Section 3: Evaluation	400–500	Post-PEP fitness test results table, pre/post comparison graph, SMART target analysis, overall effectiveness evaluation, 3–4 specific justified improvements

Exam Tip: You do not need to include every single diary entry in the written PEP. You can include 2–3 sample entries in full detail and summarise the rest in a table. The progressive overload summary table and the weekly evaluations demonstrate the quality of your recording without consuming all 1,500 words.

---

A Complete Checklist for Level 5

Use this checklist before submitting your PEP. Every "Yes" moves you closer to Level 5.

Section 1: Planning and Analysis

#	Checklist Item	Done?
1	PAR-Q completed and mentioned
2	Pre-PEP fitness tests carried out (at least 3–4 relevant tests)
3	Results presented in a clear table with units
4	Results compared to normative data for your age and sex
5	At least one graph (bar chart or radar diagram) showing results vs. normative data
6	Strengths and weaknesses identified based on data, not just opinion
7	Component(s) of fitness to improve selected and justified
8	SMART target(s) set — each element individually justified
9	Training method chosen and justified (relevance, sport-specificity, facilities, motivation)
10	Programme plan summarised (frequency, intensity, time, type, facilities)

Section 2: Implementing and Monitoring

#	Checklist Item	Done?
11	Minimum 12 sessions completed (3/week for 4+ weeks)
12	Training diary includes specific data (duration, heart rate/RPE, exercises, sets, reps, weights, distances)
13	Warm-up and cool-down recorded for every session
14	Progressive overload clearly visible — use a summary table
15	Weekly evaluations written, referencing data and comparing to previous sessions
16	Adaptations recorded and justified
17	Mid-programme testing included (optional but recommended)

Section 3: Evaluation

#	Checklist Item	Done?
18	Post-PEP fitness tests completed using same tests and conditions as pre-PEP
19	Pre and post results presented in a table
20	At least one comparison graph (bar chart or radar)
21	Each SMART target explicitly analysed — achieved or not, with data evidence
22	Reasons for success or shortfall explained
23	Overall effectiveness evaluated (method, principles, data collection, learning)
24	At least 3 specific, justified improvements suggested

Quality of Written Communication

#	Checklist Item	Done?
25	Technical vocabulary used accurately (components of fitness, principles of training, FITT, SMART)
26	Writing is analytical, not just descriptive — explains WHY, not just WHAT
27	Data is used to support every major claim
28	Approximately 1,500 words (excluding tables and graphs)
29	Grammar, spelling and punctuation are accurate

---

Example: Turning a Level 3 Statement into a Level 5 Statement

graph LR
    L3["<b>Level 3</b><br>’I used progressive<br>overload in my PEP.’"] -->|Add specifics| L4["<b>Level 4</b><br>’I increased session<br>duration from 30 to 40<br>minutes over 6 weeks.’"]
    L4 -->|Add data + theory| L5["<b>Level 5</b><br>’I applied progressive overload<br>by increasing duration from<br>30 to 40 min and intensity<br>from 67% to 78% MHR. My<br>average heart rate data<br>confirms cardiovascular<br>adaptation: resting HR<br>dropped from 72 to 64 bpm.’"]

    style L3 fill:#e67e22,color:#fff
    style L4 fill:#f1c40f,color:#000
    style L5 fill:#27ae60,color:#fff

The pattern for Level 5 writing:

1. State what you did (briefly).
2. Quantify it with specific data.
3. Explain why it works, linking to theory (principles of training, components of fitness).
4. Support with evidence from your data (heart rate changes, fitness test improvements).

---

Time Management Tips

Phase	When	Approximate Time
Planning (PAR-Q, fitness tests, SMART targets, training method)	Before the programme starts	1–2 weeks
Implementing (training diary, evaluations)	During the programme	4–6 weeks
Post-PEP testing	Immediately after the final session	1–2 days
Writing up the PEP	After all data is collected	1–2 weeks
Reviewing and editing	Before submission	2–3 days