Writing forCollege.org

Home & Contents                       Basics                       College Writing                       www.OnlineGrammar.org

                                             

Chapter 29. EVALUATION          Introduction   Basics   Advanced   Samples   Activities --- Basics of Evaluating --- Why?           Starting                                         Organizing                       Revising & Editing           --- Introduction This section explains the basics of writing and revising an evaluation--why an evaluation process exists and how to start, organize, and edit it.  You may want to first see the "Introduction" before reading this page.  Be sure, before or after reading this "Basics Page," to see "Sample Papers" by students.  For more advanced information, go to "Advanced Methods."                 Why This Type of Paper?    The heart of an evaluation is a judgment.  An evaluation uses a set of standards or criteria to make its judgments.  The most obvious example is the process that occurs in a court of law.  A judge (and sometimes a jury) must work with a set of laws to decide whether a person's behavior is legal or criminal.  However, an evaluation in academic and professional usage (and in this chapter) often is more specific.  This kind of evaluation usually means a judgment of effectiveness.  It asks such questions as "How effective is the text of a reading (or an action, a business practice, a person, etc.)?" and "How can one take a set of 'laws' or standards and apply them to make a determination about how well or poorly the text of that reading is working?"   An evaluation of effectiveness is not a disagreement.  You should avoid agreeing or disagreeing directly with the content of a text.  Instead, your purpose is to judge only its quality--how well or poorly it is done.  An evaluation for effectiveness also is not entirely factual.  It is your own opinion.  Even so, a good academic or professional evaluation is not a quick judgment but rather one that is thorough, objective, and respectful, using a set of standards obvious to all parties.  An evaluation for effectiveness does resemble an analysis (see the "Analysis" chapter), but a limited and special kind: it uses a system or set of guidelines to determine specifically how effective--how useful, thorough, and balanced--a text is. As mentioned in the "Introduction," the Constitution of the United States is an example of a process involving an evaluation of effectiveness.  It is, in particular, a set of guidelines.  Its writers developed it in the belief that rule by King George of the American colonies needed to be judged fairly and objectively for all to see, and to do this, a set of criteria needed to be developed.  The Constitution is that set of criteria.  Using the guidelines in it, the United States determined that a more just and ethical system of government could be developed.  The American revolution proceeded from this initial evaluation of effectiveness.  Another example is that of an instructor grading a paper.  He or she starts with a set of grading criteria--guidelines by which to grade the paper--and applies each guideline in turn to determine a grade.  A third example is the more fair and objective versions of today's real-life television dating shows.  Participants are asked to democratically emphasize the question "What are my criteria for a good mate for me?" and not to develop a disagreement or argument with the other person about his or her intellectual beliefs.  At their best, such shows help viewers develop their own more objective, consistent criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of people.   Evaluating is one of the most fundamental functions of intelligent decision making.  Evaluating goes beyond simple analysis, which at its simplest describes the parts of a subject, and it also goes beyond disagreement, which merely engages someone in disagreeing (or agreeing) with the content or ideas of a subject.  Instead, evaluation rises above these levels of thinking to higher plane from which the methods of argument and of writing are observed.  Sometimes much more can be gained in this way than in simply breaking down a text into its parts or opposing it.  If you rise to this higher plane and examine the way an argument is made, you may find, for example, that there are few supporting details for it, points at which it appears to be illogical, and other points at which ideas have been left out; your conclusion might be that the argument itself has not been sufficiently made to adequately represent its subject.  In other situations, evaluation may be the logical final destination of your thinking.  This may be particularly true if you must make a decision in which you must choose between competing arguments (or, for example, competing candidates for a job interview).  If you have a set of criteria by which to judge the competing arguments, you then can judge which ones fall short of being complete or sufficient.  You also can decide, if one of the competing arguments is your own, what you need to add to it to make it as logical, thorough, and well supported as competing arguments are.   Evaluating is a skill that becomes very important in the professional world, too, as you rise from competence to competence in your work.  You must be able not just to argue and counter-argue, but more importantly, to evaluate situations and people.  In fact, as discussed in the "Dialogic Argument" chapter, your ability to dispassionately rise above competing arguments and evaluate the quality of each helps you act as a better coordinator of people and of plans and gains you more trust and respect than simply arguing strongly for one issue.  Those who are capable of consistent, balanced evaluation--of others and of themselves and their actions--usually are more capable of making necessary changes and of leading others well. --- Return to top.              How Will You Start?    The major section of WritingforCollege.org called "Starting" offers a number of useful ways to start thinking, speaking, and writing about a subject. The advice here, which follows, is for this chapter's type of paper in particular.  Starting by Reading Generally your very first focus should be on the text of the reading (or on the other subject) you will evaluate.  To start, you may find your paper easier to write if you find a text that you understand easily and thoroughly.  You should be able to understand the text well enough not only in content, but also in structure, such that you can easily see its individual points.  You also must be able to treat it very objectively, without finding it upsetting.   This major section of WritingforCollege.org has, within it, five chapters discussing how to respond to texts in five specific ways.  Because you always must start with a text, all five chapters of these chapters have these three paragraphs in common.  To see more about how to start with a text, please go to the brief summary and resource page "How to Start Your Paper by Reading."  If you are not starting with a text but rather a subject, much of the same advice still applies.  In other words, be sure that you know your subject well.  Writing Your Evaluation Once you've carefully read your text, start writing.  You can start by freewriting, by organizing/outlining, by collecting and/or expanding upon your critical-reading notes you've already made, or simply by writing your point-by-point evaluations.  You also can write about your feelings in disagreement with what you read, or even about images that occurred to you as you read the text.  Whichever method you choose, you probably will want to get as much of your thinking on paper as you can at the beginning. The tone with which you begin should be whatever tone works for you in the beginning in order to get your thoughts on the page.  In other words, if you must have or develop a strong feeling--such as indignation, anger, hurt, surprise, etc.--to evaluate for your first draft, then do so.  However, sooner or later--in the first or a later draft--the final tone you should achieve is one of balanced, reasoned calmness.  You must not only appear to go above the fray of emotional reactions, but you also must actually find a way to do so.  For this reason, if you have any choice of your reading matter or the points on which you evaluate it, you may want to avoid those that cause you strong emotional reactions.  It is of great importance that in your later drafts of your paper, you do not show any disagreement with the author's ideas themselves; rather, you must simply evaluate or judge the quality of the author's methods of argument and/or writing.  If the author has left out something important, failed to provide supporting detail adequately, or offered an argument that you can show is illogical, that is fine.  That is how to write your final drafts of your evaluation.   The most important step to take in evaluating a text is to decide on a system--a set of criteria or guidelines--for evaluating it.  The simplest and most common is the following set of commonly asked questions about the quality of a work.  These questions are similar in many ways to the grading guidelines used by instructors to evaluate the quality of a student's work, and to the professional standards used by job coordinators to evaluate the quality of an employee's or a system's performance.  You do not need to answer all of these questions to evaluate well; often, answering several is sufficient.  Your instructor may wish to choose specific questions for you to answer from this list:       GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING Inconsistencies, contradictions, or untruths? Strong, weak, or missing ideas, examples, or supporting details? Strong, weak, or missing organization, style, or tone? Bias or unspoken assumptions that need clarification? Negative or positive comparisons/contrasts with similar texts? Negative or positive emotional impact? Negative or positive actions/responses by readers? Ethical considerations? Here is a further description of each of these questions:       GUIDELINES/CRITERIA with More Details What are the inconsistencies, contradictions, or untruths in the text of your chosen text?  Does the text (or other subject you are evaluating) have ideas that seem inconsistent--that seem to lead to contradictory conclusions?  Are there obvious contradictions internally (within the text itself) or with what is known fact?  Are there other obvious untruths in the text, untruths that conflict with established fact? Are there strong, weak, or missing ideas, examples, or supporting details?  What ideas, examples, or supporting details in the text are strong or weak, and why objectively are they strong or weak?  Are important ideas, examples, or supporting details missing?  If so, what is missing, and why should it be present? Is there a strong, weak, or missing organization, style, or tone?  What in the organization, style, and/or tone is strong, weak, or missing?  Why or how is it present, weak, or absent, and what could be added, if need be, to correct the problem?  Are all the structural parts present?  What could be added to improve the text?  Is the style written appropriately--e.g., for an academic audience, a popular audience, an educated audience, etc.?  Is the tone appropriate to the subject matter and the audience? What bias or unspoken assumptions need clarification?  Is the author biased?  If so, does he or she state her bias, or is it left unmentioned?  If unmentioned, is it a reasonable and acceptable bias, or is it a negative prejudice, and why or how?  What sources or background seems to have influenced the author?  What unspoken assumptions does the author make about her audience?  Are these unspoken assumptions reasonable, or do they need clarification, and why or how? Are there any negative or positive comparisons/contrasts with similar texts that might be helpful to make?  What comparisons and/or contrasts can you make between this text and others that are better or more poorly written, styled, organized, or argued?  Avoid simply comparing and contrasting beliefs. Rather, what comparisons and contrasts of the quality of this text and one or two others can you make?  Do these comparisons/contrasts show what elements of arguing or writing work better and/or worse in your main text when set side by side with similar elements in the other texts? What negative or positive emotional impact will the text have on its readers?  What are the emotional appeals, outcomes, and results of the text?  Will most readers be influenced to feel and/or do something appropriate or inappropriate?  Because of readers' emotional responses, will positive or negative change result in the world at large? What negative or positive actions/responses by readers might the text inspire?  What types of action, positive and/or negative, will readers take?  Will such actions be a good or bad?  Will they result in positive or negative change in the world at large? What ethical issues or results have been appropriately considered or forgotten in the text?  What are the main ethical issues involved in the text?  Does it consider or ignore them, and why or how?  What should the text consider to be ethically more appropriate? For additional evaluative systems, see the "Advanced Methods" part of this chapter. Also be sure--as you build your paper--that you have plenty of quotations from the author so that the reader can see exactly how the author develops his/her thinking.  If you are assigned to do so, you may need quotations from other sources, as well, primarily to help support the points you are making.  Because you, yourself, are not a professional expert, you are depending--in a research paper--on quotations and paraphrases from the professional experts.  --- Return to top.           What Are Some Organizing Methods?    When organizing an evaluation, you may want to consider three practical matters.  Be aware of (1) the typical visual/textual design, (2) the central key to organizing this type of paper, and (3) dangers to avoid.  General principles of organization are described in detail in the "Organizing" chapter.  Specific details for this type of paper are below.   The "Introduction" has already shown you the following organization for an evaluation:     The Visual Plan or Map Unique Title          THE READING, OVERALL  EVALUATIVE OPINION, and introductory details         Body Section 1: first evaluative guideline and supporting details Body Section 2: second evaluative guideline and supporting details Body Section 3: third evaluative guideline and supporting details (Optional Body Sections 4-5: fourth-fifth evaluative guidelines and supporting details)         THE READING, OVERALL  EVALUATIVE CONCLUSION, and concluding details         Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al.          Here is a more detailed view of this structure.  This view is a visual and textual plan of how an evaluation generally looks when it is finished.      `         Your Own Unique Title OR Evaluation of "Essay"/Book*         Introduction**           Type of paper.  Source info: Author's Name, "Essay"/Title, & author's main argument.  Your evaluative method and its overall results.  Introductory quotation/details.  [1 par.]         (Optional: Summary)***           Summary of the text (optional).  Restate author's last name 1-2 times per paragraph; summarize the text accurately, completely, and briefly.  (See "Writing a Summary.")  This should be your shortest body section.  [1+ par.] First Unique Subtitle           1st evaluative method or step: (a) topic sentence, (b) discussion using quotations/paraphrases from your reading's text using (c) details supporting your opinions (such as quotations/paraphrases from other sources, your or others' personal experiences, facts, figures, etc.), and (d) a brief, concluding sentence or paragraph summarizing the entire topic section.  [2+ par.]    Second Unique Subtitle           2nd evaluative method: topic sentence, discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]  Third Unique Subtitle           3rd evaluative method: topic sentence, discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]  (Optional Fourth-Fifth Unique Subtitle)           4th-5th evaluative method: topic sentence, discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]          Conclusion            Source (author and/or title), your overall evaluative conclusion, and final quotation/details.  [1 par.]         Works Cited/Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al. Create an alphabetized bibliography on a separate page, according to the requirements of your discipline/instructor.  Formats vary among differing disciplines.  (See the chapter in Section G. "Quoting/Paraphrasing" for more detail.)         The Key to Building an Evaluation: Using Criteria Point by Point to Judge the Text             The key to the overall organization of an evaluation is to develop a point by point critique of the text of your reading using a set of criteria.  You can start with the criteria, or you can start with the points, parts, or methods in the text that you wish to critique.  A third method, which many writers use, is to intermix text and criteria by looking at the two of them side by side.  This requires reading the text carefully first, by itself, and preferably by using critical reading techniques to mark it.  It also is helpful to think of the criteria as a list of questions (as above).  Then tentatively try out some rough-draft writing.  Often, good rough-draft writers will start by making more judgments--and using more criteria--than they plan to use in their final draft.  By starting with more, they find themselves able to explore additional points and decide which ones work best for them.  Here are the three starting methods: Three Starting Methods for Organizing  STARTING WITH CRITERIA 1st criterion you want to try to apply      2nd criterion you want to try to apply     3rd criterion you want to try to apply     4th, 5th, 6th, etc. criterion you want to try to apply STARTING WITH THE TEXT text's 1st point, method, or structure to critique text's 2nd point, method, or structure to critique text's 3rd point, method, or structure to critique text's 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. point, method, or structure to critique MIXED METHOD     1st look, side by side, at criteria and text, until you find a match 2nd look, side by side, at criteria and text, until you find a match 3rd look, side by side, at criteria and text, until you find a match 4th, 5th, 6th look, etc., side by side, until you find a match Once you have a number of points and you've written a little (or more) on each one, consider which ones are strong because they seem the most accurate and/or have the clearest discussion and supporting details.  Consider deleting those that are weak.  Also consider whether you can combine any of them to make a more developed topic section of them.  Unless the set of criteria you are using has to be used in a certain order, consider placing your strongest topic section first. When you finalize your organizing, make paragraphs that contain  quotations, paraphrases, story and event examples, numbers, figures, and/or other specific proofs.  To see how to develop each paragraph individually, see the "Paragraphing" chapter in the "Revising and Editing" section.       Dangers to Avoid as You Organize One of the dangers to avoid in an evaluation is to directly agree or disagree with the author of the text.  The ideal attitude you should try to incorporate in your evaluative approach is that you are an objective, balanced judge who is simply applying a set of guidelines, whether you do or do not agree with the content.  Your attitude, in short, should be something like that of a friendly critic who may even agree with the author--but who ultimately finds room for improvement in the author's methods of arguing or writing. You offer your own opinions, but you offer them about the quality and/or efficiency of the writing or arguing, not the contents.  Do not agree or disagree with the contents--the beliefs--the author is describing. Another danger is sounding like you are simply writing your own general opinion piece or general response.  Make it clear to your reader that you have a specific set of criteria by naming those criteria--possibly in the introduction and most definitely, criterion by criterion, in each body section.  Also make it clear to your reader that you are judging the work by these specific criteria, step by step.  Finally, don't simply discuss your judgment using a criterion: offer specific details.  Give examples of what the author says by quoting (and paraphrasing) the author's points so that the reader can see, quite obviously, that your judgment makes sense.  If needed, provide quotations and/or paraphrases from other sources.  If your set of criteria comes from a specific source (such as a textbook), be sure to quote or paraphrase the actual criteria from that source and give proper credit to the source. A third danger is to think you have no right or ability to critique an author.  If this is what you think, you possibly may feel that a beginning college writer like you has insufficient experience or knowledge to judge an expert in his or her field.  There certainly is some truth to this; however, it may be helpful to you to remember two facts.  First, an evaluation assignment is a practice activity, one that you are given so that you can learn how to evaluate consistently and confidently at some future time in a class or in a professional job when you do know more.  Much of your lower-division coursework is, in this manner, a practice in thinking, writing, speaking, and acting for a future time and place.  Second, there is a real sense in which you do have every right to evaluate a writer, no matter how experienced she is: you are an audience member, a reader, and as such, you are your own expert on how well or poorly the author has communicated to you.  Of course, you need to consider whom it is that the author considers her audience; if you have doubts and you have some choice of reading, try to choose an article or essay that seems to be written to your own age group or level of education.  If your reading is chosen for you, develop a thorough sense of the audience to whom you think the author is trying to appeal: visualize the audience, write or discuss with someone the traits of this audience, think about the audience, and try to imagine how its members might perceive what the author is saying. ----- As you complete your later drafts, look carefully at the visual map above and the sample papers in this chapter.  Rearrange the order of your body sections and of your paragraphs as needed.  Consider your use of major organizing devices: for example, have you placed the correct key sentences in your introduction and conclusion, and have you developed a subtitle and topic sentence at the beginning of each major body section?                                    Asterisks *, **, and *** for the organizational plan or map above (advice given in most chapters): *In most academic disciplines, the title is typed simply: no quotation marks, underlining, or bold marking.  It is centered, and the font size and style are those used in the rest of the paper--normally a 12-point font in a style such as Times New Roman, Garamond, or CG Times.  In a professional situation, you may use academic style or whatever is commonly acceptable in your workplace. ** In some disciplines, the "Introduction" subtitle may be optional or even forbidden.  (Most social sciences and psychology papers, for example, should not have an "Introduction" subtitle.)  ***Some instructors--and some types of papers or disciplines--require a short summary (see) of a text  before you begin responding to it.  Ask your instructor.  Such a summary generally should have no quotations within it and should be fair and balanced (even if the text is not).          ***Some instructors may allow--or even, occasionally, prefer--your paper to be completely free of subtitles.  (Some literature, history, and philosophy instructors, for example, consider subtitles inappropriate.)  If you use no subtitles at all, consider using an extra space break at the beginning of each body section and/or an especially strong, clear topic sentence.  In addition, some instructors may prefer you to have a series of more than four body sections.  If so, pay attention especially to the paper's flow by using good transitions. For more about organizing body sections, topic sentences, and subtitles in general, please go to "Organizing College Papers."  For more about organizing paragraphs, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter. --- Return to top.        Are There Special Revising and Editing Needs?    In revising an evaluation, the focus techniques with which you started in the Introduction to this chapter also can help you finish your paper:     FOUR FOCUSES FOR REVISING: Subject, Drafts, Style, & Authenticity SUBJECT: Have you stayed on the subject throughout?  In an evaluation, this means being sure that everything fits the criteria you have chosen to use, and that your readers will perceive this, too.  Be sure, in addition, to introduce, explain, or connect each quotation at least briefly (see the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter in the "Researching" section) to the content of your discussion.  Have you also considered what kind of problem the author of your text presents and how each theory or viewpoint you use represents some kind of solution?  Can you help your readers perceive it in this way?  Often, offering alternative solutions helps readers better understand your point of view than just saying the author has done something poorly. FIRST & SECOND DRAFTS: Have you used all of the needed steps to write and revise your drafts? Free-write: after you have added quotations, try reading your paper aloud to see if it is choppy or has missing ideas.  If either is the case, trying rewriting the choppy parts freely, without copying what you've already written, or freewriting new paragraphs to complete your missing ideas. (To help cure choppy sentences, see "Using Mixed-Length Sentences" in "Editing.")  For general freewriting, see "How to Start First Drafts.")   Gather details: Do your details--quotations, paraphrases, facts, figures, and/or stories--fully support your evaluative opinions?  You cannot evaluate effectively without some kind of proof: you need your own supports to help back up what you are saying.  Be short--brief--on generalities when evaluating, and long on supporting details. Write for your audience: is your audience an instructor, your professional coordinator, or your own peers?  Have you visualized your audience?  Have you read your paper aloud as if reading to this audience?  Have you tried reading your paper aloud to a friend or family member, pretending he or she is your audience?  Will each step of your paper, idea by idea, sound logical, unbiased, and interesting to your audience?  At what points might your audience have trouble understanding what the various viewpoints--yours and others--mean, or how they apply to your text?   Organize: have you kept your introduction, conclusion, and/or a beginning summary reasonably short, moving excess discussion in them to body sections?  Do you need to reorganize the body sections for the greatest degree of logic, clarity, and audience interest (placing more interesting information first and last)?  Does your paper proceed in each topic section using the same pattern of application (i.e., is each topic section's presentation organized like the other topic sections, in a parallel pattern, step by step)? Research: iF you need to support your points and/or others' points with research, do you have a sufficient number of high-quality sources?  Have you fully integrated them with your paper by adding quotations and/or paraphrases from them?  If you are using non-print sources such as interviews, videos, or television, will they be considered appropriate and representative (well representing a viewpoint or theory) by your audience? If you are using online sources, have you checked them carefully to verify their quality and accuracy (see "Evaluating Web Sites" in OnlineGrammar.org)? STYLE & TONE: Have you converted all parts of your writing to the appropriate style and tone?  This type of paper should use a formal academic or professional writing style, and you should remember to include phrases a few times on each page, especially at the beginning of each new topic section, that indicate you are applying a theory, viewpoint, or system--not your own personal ideas.  Your overall tone should be quite objective.  Your tone may be dry, warm, clinical and detached, or even somewhat critical.  However, it must be even throughout so that you clearly are being equally objective in every part of your paper, and so your audience believes this, too.  AUTHENTICITY: Have you written with respectful consideration of your audience's beliefs?  Have you made your paper appear more authentic by adding plenty of supporting details?  In your criticism, have you tried to go to the heart of the author's style or argumentative method with respect for her content (even if you disagree with it)?  Have you brought interesting, vivid, and even unusual details into the paper's contents?  Have you been true to yourself and your own interests in the subject by trying to find the most interesting information to write about in each paragraph, something meaningful to you?              Final Advice Given in Most Chapters For specific, line-by-line editing, your paper needs proper development of both your particular points that you are making and points or places in the text to which you are referring.  In other words, you need to explain not only yourself, but also your sources/readings.  Your sources/readings must be absolutely clear to your reader in a fair, balanced, logical way.  You must, therefore, not just use quotations and paraphrases.  You also explain them.  (See the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter for how to do this.)  Remember that the typical quotation should, in many disciplines, have a statement of a source--a name or title--at its beginning; and, after it, there should be a page number (if the source is printed).  The typical paraphrase should have a source--a name or title--either before or after it, along with a page number (if any) afterwards.  In addition, quotations, paraphrases, and stories should not just be tossed into your paper: rather, they should be introduced by having a statement before and/or after each of its connection to what you are saying.  In most papers, you should use the third-person pronoun: "he," "she," "it," and "they."  You should not use "you" unless you are giving directions, or writing a diary or personal reflection, or a less formal magazine or newsletter article or other specific advice (as in this chapter).  In most formal writing situations, instructors and supervisors also often dislike the use "I" at any time (unless you are referring to yourself in a story example).  However, some forms of academic and professional writing--especially if a specific instructor or supervisor allows it--are starting to allow the use of the "I" pronoun.  If in doubt, ask your instructor or supervisor. Paragraphing in most academic papers follows some relatively standard guidelines.  You are working with a lot of information when you write a formal paper.  For this reason, clear, consistent paragraphing becomes even more important.  Your paragraphs should help you logically divide your body sections into smaller sub-parts, ideas, or sub-ideas--just for the sake of clarity and ease of reading, if for no other reason.  Also, generally, for a short- to medium-length paper, you should have one paragraph each for your introduction, conclusion, and--if you have it--your summary.  You should, as a matter of habit, have at least two or three paragraphs per page in your final draft.  On the other hand, be careful not to have too many paragraphs per page.  If you have a lot of short, choppy paragraphs, combine them.  The goal, graphically speaking, is to provide your audience with a variety of paragraph lengths--an occasional short one for emphasis or change of pace added to a mix of varying medium and long paragraphs.  The goal in terms of content is to make your ideas flow so well that your audience can easily keep them clear and separate without ever even noticing your paragraphing (or, for that matter, any other mechanical aspect of your paper).  For more advice, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter.   Several other common, useful strategies of efficient, thorough editing are in the several chapters of the "Revising and Editing" section.  Some of these strategies also are summarized in the following very-brief web page:   Very Brief Review of How to Edit Your Final Draft --- Good luck with your writing of your evaluation.  For more advanced and/or interesting information on this type of paper, please see the "Advanced" section of the chapter. --- Return to top.

  3. Thinking & Reading