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