Chapter 29. EVALUATION          Introduction   Basics   Advanced   Samples   Activities --- Advanced Methods of Evaluation --- Other Processes Additional Types of Papers     Rhetorical Modes Writing Theory for Students --- Introduction These advanced ideas and/or applications can help you understand and use this paper's type of thinking better.  For additional information, check the chapter's Grammar Book Links in the right column.                          Other Processes in an Evaluation                     Evaluation Using Elements of Critical Thinking According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder, two of the leading experts in the new critical-thinking movement, there are nine markers of good critical thinking:  “clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, fairness” (Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools 9, Dillon Beach, CA, The Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2001.)  These can be turned into a nine-part evaluative system: A Table: Evaluation Using Critical-Thinking Elements CLARITY: Is the text clear both in its usage (words, phrases, and style) and in its explanations of ideas (for the appropriate audience)? ACCURACY: Is it factually correct? PRECISION: Is it precise?  Does it not waste words but make its points efficiently and cleanly? RELEVANCE: Does the text connect in valuable ways with other public discussions or needs? DEPTH: Does it not just skim the surface of the subject but instead go deeply into the underlying issues, problems, and events? BREADTH: Does it cover its subject broadly enough to have meaning for more than just a very narrow segment of people or problems? LOGIC: Is it logical?  Does it proceed in a step by step, sufficiently cause-and-effect structure that makes sense?   SIGNIFICANCE: Is the subject and the author's treatment of it significant for a large enough group of readers?   FAIRNESS: Does the author "play fair" by assuming ethical rules and guidelines the great majority of readers (and of others in his or her profession) hold in common (e.g., democracy, equality, disclosure of bias, etc.)?.                 Evaluation Using a Rubric In the "Help" section is a set of guidelines for grading papers--called a "rubric"--that also can be used for evaluating texts.  This rubric asks about the quality of a paper using these five steps or parts:  CONTENTS SUPPORTING DETAILS ORGANIZATION PARAGRAPHS PROFESSIONAL APPEARANCE Though meant as an example of a system to grade papers (one, in fact, that I use), it also can be applied as a tool to evaluate texts.  It is especially applicable for those who wish to become editors of others' texts someday, and for those who wish to become teachers.  For more details about this particular rubric, please go to "Rubrics" in the "Grading" part of the "Help" section.     Evaluation Using Problem Solving Judging the "effectiveness" of something also is a problem-solving approach.  It is possible to evaluate a reading or subject by examining what problem it is attempting to solve, and how well or poorly it solves it.  To do so, you simply need to evaluate it using the steps of a good problem solving system.  To see the typical steps in such a system, go to "Critical Thinking--Problem Solving" in this Web site's "General Activities and Exercises" page (also accessible through each chapter's "Activities and Exercises" page).     Evaluation of Information See critical-thinking expert John Chaffee's "Questions to Evaluate Information" at http://college.hmco.com/english/chaffee/critical_thinking/2e/students/tools/index.html.     Evaluation of Logic See critical-thinking expert John Chaffee's "Logical Fallacies." --- Return to top.             Additional Types of Evaluation Writing   Writing an Editorial That Critiques Methods, Not Beliefs One specialized form of an evaluation is a newspaper editorial that critiques a way of doing or saying something, rather than disagreeing with the content of it.  More often, of course, an editorial takes a stance opposing someone or something.  However, editorial writers sometimes will agree in essence with the subject; however, the editorialist will comment on how the subject is using an inappropriate, counterproductive, or otherwise incorrect method of arguing or acting.  A typical example of this type of editorial, an evaluative one, is the editorialist who agrees with the goal of an environmentalist, a judge, a community group, or a business, but the editorialist believes the person or group in question is proceeding incorrectly in trying to reach one of its goals.  The editorialist may claim the offending party is unethical, impractical, injudicious, guilty of illegal acts, or simply poor in its procedures. Usually such an editorial proceeds first with a brief summarizing statement claiming the editorialist's and the subject's similar belief or goal, and an evaluation of how the subject's method is at fault.  The editorialist then proceeds to enlarge on these, often giving a brief description of exactly what he or she believes in common with the subject.  The main part of the editorial then is devoted to evaluating the subject's poor procedure, point by point, offering examples and explanations.  Usually, in the final paragraphs (or at the end of each individual point), the editorialist then will paint a picture of what the subject should be doing to successfully reach his or her goal. The tone usually is one of balance and fairness, sometimes even regret (at having to correct the subject's methods), though occasionally the subject's methods may seem so ethically inappropriate that the editorialist may take a slight tone of displeasure.  As in typical editorial writing, the tone can be somewhat stronger than in academic writing.  Even so, there should be, equally or more so, an overall feeing of fairness and logic.  For more on editorial writing, see "Advanced Methods" in the thesis essay chapter. Writing Evaluative Conclusions in a Business Report, Performance Review, or System Review      The most common type of formal professional and business writing (other than letters) probably is the "Professional Report."  Often, a professional business report simply is a step-by-step, objective description of a system, project, or person.  However, in some situations, a writer may be asked to provide evaluative conclusions as well.  If that is the case, an evaluative system must be clear to both the writer and his or her audience: if it is not obvious (or legal concerns require full reporting), then the writer should be careful to describe what evaluative criteria are being used.  In this kind of report, the evaluative comments may occur at the end of each topic section, as a separate evaluative topic section at the end, or briefly as part of the conclusion.   A job performance review or a systems review are specific types of business reports that require thorough evaluation.  These types of reports can be broken into topic sections as described above.  The introduction and/or first topic section should, however, very clearly describe the subject, the need or purpose of the review, and the criteria that will be used.  To see more about writing a simple business report, go to "Professional Report" in this textbook. Writing a Recommendation Report   A recommendation report is a specific type of business or professional paper with its own, specific pattern of development.  It is an evaluative paper in that it uses a thoroughly developed set of criteria in order to judge the value or usefulness of several differing proposals.  It is a rich, complex, and--for those who enjoy business writing--rewarding evaluative method of writing.  To see more, go to the "Recommendation Report" chapter in the "Writing for Work" section of this textbook. Writing a Critical Review   This section--"Responding to Readings"--also covers methods of "Writing a Critical Review."   A critical review combines three to four types of papers from this section: summary, argument or analysis, and evaluation.  Often a critical review reviews--and evaluates--a book, play, art show, or some other creative production. --- OnlineGrammar.org's "Chapter 16. Research Writing, Plagiarism, & Samples" also has links to evaluation of research resources. --- Return to top.              Rhetorical Modes    Also see the Rhetorical Modes page in the "Starting" section. The Modes in Evaluation If you are working with the rhetorical modes, you sometimes can evaluate a text by describing how well or poorly the rhetorical modes in it are used.  This is true whether the basic structure and substructures use argumentation or other modes such as definition, example, cause and effect, classification, comparison/contrast, and process. Texts sometimes are set up, organized, or formed using the modes as structural patterns. If so, its structure probably looks something like this:  Introduction: Issue or Main Argument Body Sections: Rhetorical Mode Development (Comparison/Contrast, Classification, Exemplification, Process, etc.) Conclusion: Concluding Argument Often, however, a number of different modes may be used repeatedly as each point, reason, or explanation is developed. For example, the mode of exemplification often is used over and over--because, as the text makes a series of points, it may also use a series of examples about those points; or, for example, the text might use cause and effect to prove one point, exemplification to prove another point, and classification to prove yet another. There may even be a definition mode in the introduction or before the first point is made.   It is possible to evaluate a text entirely on the quality, quantity, and usefulness of its rhetorical modes, step by step.  However, even if you use a different evaluative system, your awareness of the use of the modes in the text will help you better understand the connections between all the various points, arguments, explanations, and examples or other proofs, thus improving your evaluative comments using whatever criteria you have chosen.   --- Return to top.           Writing Theory for Students: Writing an Evaluation   This part briefly discusses the theories that instructors use to teach and assign this kind of paper.   Evaluation is, according to contemporary critical thinking theory, the highest level of thinking to which one can aspire.  Benjamin Bloom described evaluation in such a way in 1964 when he listed his "Taxonomy of Thinking Skills":   Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Recall   --Bloom, B. S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York : David McKay, 1964. A taxonomy is--as explained in more details on the "Theory" page of the "Writing an Analysis" chapter--a classification system in which each element is a step requiring the one before it.  In other words, Bloom's "evaluation" includes not only its own particular intellectual behavior or methods, but also all the other thinking skills listed beneath it.  All of these skills are necessary to good evaluation.  If you think about it in terms of what a good judge must do, it makes sense.  If a judge is to accurately deliver a verdict in a complex case, he or she must be able to recall all the evidence presented in court and also all relevant laws, comprehend the meaning of each, apply the laws to the evidence, analyze which laws apply to the evidence and how, synthesize the several possible results or outcomes of this analysis, and only then, finally, evaluate which result or outcome is the most correct. Of course, in an evaluation process, you usually don't consciously tell yourself to use each of these steps, one by one.  However, good evaluation--not a "snap judgment" but rather a thorough, balanced one--almost always involves some kind of process.  The problem solving process is one such method of arriving at a final evaluation; it duplicates in many respects the typical process people go through when they solve a problem well (with emphasis on well).  This section, "Responding to Readings," in this textbook offers another type of critical-thinking process that is taxonomic and that has evaluation at its highest level.  This taxonomic list can be applied to readings, as has been done in this section, but it also can be applied to understanding and dealing with professional and personal matters.  Each of these levels of thinking represents one of the chapters in this section: evaluating arguing analyzing (sorting and regrouping) summarizing Another way to describe this is to use the acronym "D.A.R.E. (not the high school anti-drug program, but rather something new!).  If you place this in a taxonomic arrangement, with its beginning at the top (not at the bottom, as in Bloom's taxonomy above), the result is as follows: D.A.R.E. System (rev. 7-12) D.   Describe  Describe your text (or your problem or need) and all its surrounding issues. A.   Analyze  Analyze your information by sorting it according to several possible systems. R.   Respond/React Respond or react by offering several possible pros and cons--arguments--from public, academic, or other spheres and/or your own carefully weighed thoughts.. E.   Evaluate  Having collected all this data, evaluate which is best using a set of criteria: judge it as a legal judge might, using the evidence to critique it fairly and squarely. (For additional discussion about using these four steps of D.A.R.E., go to "The Steps of D.A.R.E. in a Critical Review" in another chapter.) If you have read most or all of this section of responding to readings, this, then, is one of the final results.  You now have a very concrete set of methods to use at each step for assessing the quality of a written work.  This evaluative system--D.A.R.E.--also is transferable to work and to personal life.  You simply develop each step, one at a time, to examine a person, situation, activity, problem, or need. However, ultimately, what most counts from your reading of this chapter or this section is not that you remember any one, particular evaluative system.  Rather, what you should remember is that any evaluation can--and should--be broken into steps so that you gain a complete picture of what you are evaluating and your options for evaluating it.  Problem solving and evaluative systems are natural to good, careful thinking, and if this chapter has taught you simply to take the time to develop some kind of careful, thoughtful steps in evaluating, it has met its most important goal. For a discussion of the value of writing about readings in composition courses, please go to this major section's "Theory and Pedagogy for Instructors" page. --- Return to top.

  3. Thinking & Reading