Because the Nissan has the lowest initial price, it receives the most favorable judgment. The evidence is found on the price tag. Each car is compared by way of a single criterion: cost.
When we evaluate informally (passing judgments during the course of conversation, for instance), we typically assume that our criteria are self-evident and require no explanation. However, in written evaluation, it is often necessary that we clarify and define our criteria in order to make a persuasive evaluative argument.
Although we frequently find ourselves needing to use abstract criteria like "feasibility" or "effectiveness," we also must avoid using criteria that are overly vague or personal and difficult to support with evidence. As evaluators, we must steer clear of criteria that are matters of taste, belief, or personal preference. For example, the "best" lamp might simply be the one that you think looks prettiest in your home. If you depend on a criterion like "pretty in my home," and neglect to use more common, shared criteria like "brightness," "cost," and "weight," you are probably relying on a criterion that is too specific to your own personal preferences. To make "pretty in my home" an effective criterion, you would need to explain what "pretty in my home" means and how it might relate to other people's value systems. (For example: "Lamp A is attractive because it is an unoffensive style and color that would be appropriate for many people's decorating tastes.")
When you make judgments, it is important that you use criteria that are appropriate to the type of object, person, policy, etc. that you are examining. If you are evaluating Steven Spielburg's film, Schindler's List , for instance, it is unfair to criticize it because it isn't a knee-slapper. Because "Schindler's List" is a drama and not a comedy, using the criterion of "humor" is inappropriate.
Once you have established criteria for your evaluation of a subject, it is necessary to decide which of these criteria are most important. For example, if you are evaluating a Mexican restaurant and you have arrived at several criteria (variety of items on the menu, spiciness of the food, size of the portions, decor, and service), you need to decide which of these criteria are most critical to your evaluation. If the size of the portions is good, but the service is bad, can you give the restaurant a good rating? What about if the decor is attractive, but the food is bland? Once you have placed your criteria in a hierarchy of importance, it is much easier to make decisions like these.
When we evaluate, we must consider the audience we hope to influence with our judgments. This is particularly true when we decide which criteria are informing (and should inform) these judgments.
After establishing some criteria for your evaluation, it is important to ask yourself whether or not your audience is likely to accept those criteria. It is crucial that they do accept the criteria if, in turn, you expect them to accept the supporting judgments and overall claim or judgment built on them.
Related Information: Explaining and Defending Criteria
In deciding which criteria will be effective in your evaluation is determining which criteria your audience considers important. For example, if you are writing a review of a Mexican restaurant to an audience comprised mainly of senior citizens from the midwest, it is unlikely that "large portions" and "fiery green chile" will be the criteria most important to them. They might be more concerned, rather, with "quality of service" or "availability of heart smart menu items." Trying to anticipate and address your audience's values is an indispensable step in writing a persuasive evaluative argument.
Related Information: Understanding Audience Criteria
Laura Thomas - Composition Lecturer Your background experience influences the criteria that you use in evaluation. If you know a lot about something, you will have a good idea of what criteria should govern your judgments. On the other hand, it's hard if you don't know enough about what you're judging. Sometimes you have to research first in order to come up with useful criteria. For example, I recently went shopping for a new pair of skis for the first time in fifteen years. When I began shopping, I realized that I didn't even know what questions to ask anymore. The last time I had bought skis, you judged them according to whether they had a foam core or a wood core. But I had no idea what the important considerations were anymore.
Evidence consists of the specifics you use to reach your conclusion or judgment. For example, if you judge that "La Cocina's green chile is superb" on the basis of the criterion, "Good green chile is so fiery that you can barely eat it," you might offer evidence like the following:
"I drank an entire pitcher of water on my own during the course of the meal."
"Though my friend wouldn't admit that the chile was challenging for him, I saw beads of sweat form on his brow."
Related Information: Example Text
In the following paragraph, evidence appears in italics. Note that the reference to the New York Times backs up the evidence offered in the previous sentence:
Since killer whales have small lymphatic systems, they catch infections more easily when held captive ( Obee 23 ). The orca from the movie "Free Willy," Keiko, developed a skin disorder because the water he was living in was not cold enough. This infection was a result of the combination of tank conditions and the animal's immune system, according to a New York Times article .
Evidence for academic evaluations is usually of two types: concrete detail and analytic detail. Analytic detail comes from critical thinking about abstract elements of the thing being evaluated. It will also include quotations from experts. Concrete detail comes from sense perceptions and measurements--facts about color, speed, size, texture, smell, taste, and so on. Concrete details are more likely to support concrete criteria (as opposed to abstract criteria) used in judging objects. Analytic detail will more often support abstract criteria (as opposed to concrete criteria), like the criterion "feasibility," discussed in the section on criteria. Analytic detail also appears most often in academic evaluations of solutions to problems, although such solutions can also sometimes be evaluated according to concrete criteria.
Good evidence ranges from personal experience to interviews with experts to published sources. The kind of evidence that works best for you will depend on your audience and often on the writing assignment you have been given.
When you choose evidence to support the judgments you are making in an evaluation, it will be important to consider what type of evaluation you are being asked to do. If, for instance, you are being asked to review a play you have attended, your evidence will most likely consist primarily of your own observations. However, if your assignment asks you to compare and contrast two potential national health care policies (toward deciding which is the better one), your evidence will need to be more statistical, more dependent on reputable sources, and more directed toward possible effects or outcomes of your judgment.
Comparison and contrast is the process of positioning an item or concept being evaluated among other like items or concepts. We are all familiar with this technique as it's used in the marketing of products: soft drink "taste tests," comparisons of laundry detergent effectiveness, and the like. It is a way of determining the value of something in relation to comparable things. For example, if you have made the judgment that "La Cocina's green chile is superb" and you have offered evidence of the spiciness and the flavor of the chile, you might also use comparison by giving your audience a scale on which to base judgment: "La Cocina's chile is even more fiery and flavorful than Manuel's, which is by no means a walk in the park."
In this case, the writer compares limestone with wood to show that limestone is a better building material. Although this comparison could be developed much more, it still begins to point out the relative merits of limestone. Concrete is a feasible substitute for wood as a building material. Concrete comes from a rock called limestone. Limestone is found all over the United States. By using limestone instead of wood, the dependence on dwindling forest reserves would decrease. There are more sedimentary rocks than there are forests left in this country, and they are more evenly distributed. For this reason, it is quite possible to switch from wood to concrete as the primary building material for residential construction.
Comparing and contrasting rarely means placing the item or concept being evaluated in relation to another item or concept that is obviously grossly inferior. For instance, if you are attempting to demonstrate the value of a Cannondale mountain bike, it would be foolish to compare it with a Huffy. However, it would be useful to compare it with a Klein, arguably a similar bicycle. In this type of maneuver, you are not comparing good with bad; rather, you are deciding which bike is better and which bike is worse. In order to determine relative worth in this way, you will need to be very careful in defining the criteria you are using to make the comparison.
In order to make comparison and contrast function well in evaluation, it is necessary to be attentive to: 1) focusing on the item or concept under consideration and 2) the use of evidence in comparison and contrast. When using comparison and contrast, writers must remember that they are using comparable items or concepts only as a way of demonstrating the worth of the main item or concept under consideration. It is easy to lose focus when using this technique, because of the temptation to evaluate two (or more) items or concepts rather than just the one under consideration. It is important to remember that judgments made on the basis of comparison and contrast need to be supported with evidence. It is not enough to assert that "La Cocina's chile is even more fiery and flavorful than Manuel's." It will be necessary to support this judgment with evidence, showing in what ways La Cocina's chile is more flavorful: "Manuel's chile relies heavily on a tomato base, giving it an Italian flavor. La Cocina follows a more traditional recipe which uses little tomato and instead flavors the chile with shredded pork, a dash of vinegar, and a bit of red chile to give it a piquant taste."
A variety of writing assignments call for evaluation. Bearing in mind the various approaches that might be demanded by those particular assignments, this section offers some general strategies for formulating a written evaluation.
Sometimes your topic for evaluation will be dictated by the writing assignment you have been given. Other times, though, you will be required to choose your own topic. Common sense tells you that it is best to choose something about which you already have a base knowledge. For instance, if you are a skier, you might want to evaluate a particular model of skis. In addition, it is best to choose something that is tangible, observable, and/or researchable. For example, if you chose a topic like "methods of sustainable management of forests," you would know that there would be research to support your evaluation. Likewise, if you chose to evaluate a film like Pulp Fiction , you could rent the video and watch it several times in order to get the evidence you needed. However, you would have fewer options if you were to choose an abstract concept like "loyalty" or "faith." When evaluating, it is usually best to steer clear of abstractions like these as much as possible.
Once you have chosen a topic, you might begin your evaluation by thinking about what you already know about the topic. In doing this, you will be coming up with possible judgments to include in your evaluation. Begin with a tentative overall judgment or claim. Then decide what supporting judgments you might make to back that claim. Keep in mind that your judgments will likely change as you collect evidence for your evaluation.
Start by making an overall judgment on the topic in question, based on what you already know. For instance, if you were writing an evaluation of sustainable management practices in forestry, your tentative overall judgment might be: "Sustainable management is a viable way of dealing with deforestation in old growth forests."
With a tentative overall judgment in mind, you can begin to brainstorm judgments (or reasons) that could support your overall judgment by asking the question, "Why?" For example, asking "Why?" of the tentative overall judgment "Sustainable management is a viable way of dealing with deforestation in old growth forests" might yield the following supporting judgments:
When brainstorming possible judgments this early in the writing process, it is necessary to keep an open mind as you enter into the stage in which you collect evidence. Once you have done observations, analysis, or research, you might find that you are unable to advance your tentative overall judgment. Or you might find that some of the supporting judgments you came up with are not true or are not supportable. Your findings might also point you toward other judgments you can make in addition to the ones you are already making.
To prepare to organize and write your evaluation, it is important to clearly define the criteria you are using to make your judgments. These criteria govern the direction of the evaluation and provide structure and justification for the judgments you make.
We often work backwards from the judgments we make, discovering what criteria we are using on the basis of what our judgments look like. For instance, our tentative judgments about sustainable management practices are as follows:
If we were to analyze these judgments, asking ourselves why we made them, we would see that we used the following criteria: wellbeing of the logging industry, conservation of resources, wellbeing of the environment, and cost.
Once you have identified the criteria informing your initial judgments, you will want to determine what other criteria should be included in your evaluation. For example, in addition to the criteria you've already come up with (wellbeing of the logging industry, conservation of resources, wellbeing of the environment, and cost), you might include the criterion of preservation of the old growth forests.
In deciding which criteria are most important to include in your evaluation, it is necessary to consider the criteria your audience is likely to find important. Let's say we are directing our evaluation of sustainable management methods toward an audience of loggers. If we look at our list of criteria--wellbeing of the logging industry, conservation of resources, wellbeing of the environment, cost, and preservation of the old growth forests--we might decide that wellbeing of the logging industry and cost are the criteria most important to loggers. At this point, we would also want to identify additional criteria the audience might expect us to address: perhaps feasibility, labor requirements, and efficiency.
Once you have developed a long list of possible criteria for judging your subject (in this case, sustainable management methods), you will need to narrow the list, since it is impractical and ineffective to use of all possible criteria in your essay. To decide which criteria to address, determine which are least dispensable, both to you and to your audience. Your own criteria were: wellbeing of the logging industry, conservation of resources, wellbeing of the environment, cost, and preservation of the old growth forests. Those you anticipated for your audience were: feasibility, labor requirements, and efficiency. In the written evaluation, you might choose to address those criteria most important to your audience, with a couple of your own included. For example, your list of indispensable criteria might look like this: wellbeing of the logging industry, cost, labor requirements, efficiency, conservation of resources, and preservation of the old growth forests.
Stephen Reid, English Professor Warrants (to use a term from argumentation) come on the scene when we ask why a given criterion should be used or should be acceptable in evaluating the particular text, product, or performance in question. When we ask WHY a particular criterion should be important (let's say, strong performance in an automobile engine, quickly moving plot in a murder mystery, outgoing personality in a teacher), we are getting at the assumptions (i.e., the warrant) behind why the data is relevant to the claim of value we are about to make. Strong performance in an automobile engine might be a positive criterion in an urban, industrialized environment, where traveling at highway speeds on American interstates is important. But we might disagree about whether strong performance (accompanied by lower mileage) might be important in a rural European environment where gas costs are several dollars a litre. Similarly, an outgoing personality for a teacher might be an important standard of judgment or criterion in a teacher-centered classroom, but we could imagine another kind of decentered class where interpersonal skills are more important than teacher personality. By QUESTIONING the validity and appropriateness of a given criterion in a particular situation, we are probing for the ASSUMPTIONS or WARRANTS we are making in using that criterion in that particular situation. Thus, criteria are important, but it is often equally important for writers to discuss the assumptions that they are making in choosing the major criteria in their evaluations.
Once you have established the central criteria you will use in our evaluation, you will investigate your subject in terms of these criteria. In order to investigate the subject of sustainable management methods, you would more than likely have to research whether these methods stand up to the criteria you have established: wellbeing of the logging industry, cost, labor requirements, time efficiency, conservation of resources, and preservation of the old growth forests. However, library research is only one of the techniques evaluators use. Depending on the type of evaluation being made, the evaluator might use such methods as observation, field research, and analysis.
The best place to start looking for evidence is with the knowledge you already possess. To do this, you might try brainstorming, clustering, or freewriting ideas.
When you are evaluating policies, issues, or products, you will usually need to conduct library research to find the evidence your evaluation requires. It is always a good idea to check journals, databases, and bibliographies relevant to your subject when you begin research. It is also helpful to speak with a reference librarian about how to get started.
When you are asked to evaluate a performance, event, place, object, or person, one of the best methods available is simple observation. What makes observation not so simple is the need to focus on criteria you have developed ahead of time. If, for instance, you are reviewing a student production of Hamlet , you will want to review your list of criteria (perhaps quality of acting, costumes, faithfulness to the text, set design, lighting, and length of time before intermission) before attending the play. During or after the play, you will want to take as many notes as possible, keeping these criteria in mind.
To expand your evaluation beyond your personal perspective or the perspective of your sources, you might conduct your own field research . Typical field research techniques include interviewing, taking a survey, administering a questionnaire, and conducting an experiment. These methods can help you support your judgment and can sometimes help you determine whether or not your judgment is valid.
When you are asked to evaluate a text, analysis is often the technique you will use in collecting evidence. If you are analyzing an argument, you might use the Toulmin Method. Other texts might not require such a structured analysis but might be better addressed by more general critical reading strategies.
After developing a list of indispensable criteria, you will need to "test" the subject according to these criteria. At this point, it will probably be necessary to collect evidence (through research, analysis, or observation) to determine, for example, whether sustainable management methods would hold up to the criteria you have established: wellbeing of the logging industry, cost, labor requirements, efficiency, conservation of resources, and preservation of the old growth forests. One way of recording the results of this "test" is by putting your notes in a three-column log.
One of the best ways to organize your information in preparation for writing is to construct an informal outline of sorts. Outlines might be arranged according to criteria, comparison and contrast, chronological order, or causal analysis. They also might follow what Robert K. Miller and Suzanne S. Webb refer to in their book, Motives for Writing (2nd ed.) as "the pattern of classical oration for evaluations" (286). In addition to deciding on a general structure for your evaluation, it will be necessary to determine the most appropriate placement for your overall claim or judgment.
Writers can state their final position at the beginning or the end of an essay. The same is true of the overall claim or judgment in a written evaluation.
When you place your overall claim or judgment at the end of your written evaluation, you are able to build up to it and to demonstrate how your evaluative argument (evidence, explanation of criteria, etc.) has led to that judgment.
Writers of academic evaluations normally don't need to keep readers in suspense about their judgments. By stating the overall claim or judgment early in the paper, writers help readers both to see the structure of the essay and to accept the evidence as convincing proof of the judgment. (Writers of evaluations should remember, of course, that there is no rule against stating the overall claim or judgment at both the beginning and the end of the essay.)
The following is an example from Stephen Reid's The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (4th ed.), showing how a writer might arrange an evaluation according to criteria:
Introductory paragraphs: information about the restaurant (location, hours, prices), general description of Chinese restaurants today, and overall claim : The Hunan Dynasty is reliable, a good value, and versatile.
Criterion # 1/Judgment: Good restaurants should have an attractive setting and atmosphere/Hunan Dynasty is attractive.
Criterion # 2/Judgment: Good restaurants should give strong priority to service/ Hunan Dynasty has, despite an occasional glitch, expert service.
Criterion # 3/Judgment: Restaurants that serve modestly priced food should have quality main dishes/ Main dishes at Hunan Dynasty are generally good but not often memorable. (Note: The most important criterion--the quality of the main dishes--is saved for last.)
Concluding paragraphs: Hunan Dynasty is a top-flight neighborhood restaurant (338).
Sometimes comparison and contrast is not merely a strategy used in part [italics] of an evaluation, but is the strategy governing the organization of the entire essay. The following are examples from Stephen Reid's The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (4th ed.), showing two ways that a writer might organize an evaluation according to comparison and contrast.
Introductory paragraph(s)
Thesis [or overall claim/judgment]: Although several friends recommended the Yakitori, we preferred the Unicorn for its more authentic atmosphere, courteous service, and well-prepared food. [Notice that the criteria are stated in this thesis.]
Authentic atmosphere: Yakitori vs. Unicorn
Courteous service: Yakitori vs. Unicorn
Well-prepared food: Yakitori vs. Unicorn
Concluding paragraph(s) (Reid 339)
The Yakitori : atmosphere, service, and food
The Unicorn : atmosphere, service, and food as compared to the Yakitori
Concluding paragraph(s) (Reid 339).
Writers often follow chronological order when evaluating or reviewing events or performances. This method of organization allows the writer to evaluate portions of the event or performance in the order in which it happens.
When using analysis to evaluate places, objects, events, or policies, writers often focus on causes or effects. The following is an example from Stephen Reid's The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (4th ed.), showing how one writer organizes an evaluation of a Goya painting by discussing its effects on the viewer.
Criterion #1/Judgment: The iconography, or use of symbols, contributes to the powerful effect of this picture on the viewer.
Evidence : The church as a symbol of hopefulness contrasts with the cruelty of the execution. The spire on the church emphasizes for the viewer how powerless the Church is to save the victims.
Criterion #2/Judgment: The use of light contributes to the powerful effect of the picture on the viewer.
Evidence : The light casts an intense glow on the scene, and its glaring, lurid, and artificial qualities create the same effect on the viewer that modern art sometimes does.
Criterion #3/Judgment: The composition or use of formal devices contributes to the powerful effect of the picture on the viewer.
Evidence : The diagonal lines scissors the picture into spaces that give the viewer a claustrophobic feeling. The corpse is foreshortened, so that it looks as though the dead man is bidding the viewer welcome (Reid 340).
Robert K. Miller and Suzanne S. Webb, in their book, Motives for Writing (2nd ed.) discuss what they call "the pattern of classical oration for evaluations," which incorporates opposing evaluations as well as supporting reasons and judgments. This pattern is as follows:
Present your subject. (This discussion includes any background information, description, acknowledgement of weaknesses, and so forth.)
State your criteria. (If your criteria are controversial, be sure to justify them.)
Make your judgment. (State it as clearly and emphatically as possible.)
Give your reasons. (Be sure to present good evidence for each reason.)
Refute opposing evaluations. (Let your reader know you have given thoughtful consideration to opposing views, since such views exist.)
State your conclusion. (You may restate or summarize your judgment.) (Miller and Webb 286-7)
The following is a portion of an outline for an evaluation, organized by way of supporting judgments or reasons. Notice that this pattern would need to be repeated (using criteria other than the fieriness of the green chile) in order to constitute a complete evaluation proving that "Although La Cocina is not without its faults, it is the best Mexican restaurant in town."
Intro Paragraph Leading to Overall Judgment: "Although La Cocina is not without its faults, it is the best Mexican restaurant in town."
Supporting Judgment: "La Cocina's green chile is superb."
Criterion used to make this judgment: "Good green chile is so fiery that you can barely eat it."
Evidence in support of this judgment: "I drank an entire pitcher of water on my own during the course of the meal" or "Though my friend wouldn't admit that the chile was challenging for him, I saw beads of sweat form on his brow."
Supporting Judgment made by way of Comparison and Contrast: "La Cocina's chile is even more fiery and flavorful than Manuel's, which is by no means a walk in the park itself."
Evidence in support of this judgment: "Manuel's chile relies heavily on a tomato base, giving it an Italian flavor. La Cocina follows a more traditional recipe which uses little tomato, and instead flavors the chile with shredded pork, a dash of vinegar, and a bit of red chile to give it a piquant taste."
If you have an outline to follow, writing a draft of a written evaluation is simple. Stephen Reid, in his Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers , recommends that writers maintain focus on both the audience they are addressing and the central criteria they want to include. Such a focus will help writers remember what their audience expects and values and what is most important in constructing an effective and persuasive evaluation.
In his Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers , 4th ed., Stephen Reid offers some helpful tips for revising written evaluations. These guidelines are reproduced here and grouped as follows:
Criteria are standards of value . They contain categories and judgments, as in "good fuel economy," "good reliability," or "powerful use of light and shade in painting." Some categories, such as "price," have clearly implied judgments ("low price"), but make sure that your criteria refer implicitly or explicitly to a standard of value.
Examine your criteria from your audience's point of view. Which criteria are most important in evaluating your subject? Will your readers agree that the criteria you select are indeed the most important ones? Will changing the order in which you present your criteria make your evaluation more convincing? (Reid 342)
Include both positive and negative evaluations of your subject. If all of your judgments are positive, your evaluation will sound like an advertisement. If all of your judgments are negative, your readers may think you are too critical (Reid 342).
Be sure to include supporting evidence for each criterion. Without any data or support, your evaluation will be just an opinion that will not persuade your reader.
If you need additional evidence to persuade your readers, [go back to the "Collecting" stage of this process] (Reid 343).
Avoid overgeneralizing your claims. If you are evaluating only three software programs, you cannot say that Lotus 1-2-3 is the best business program around. You can say only that it is the best among the group or the best in the particular class that you measured (Reid 343).
Unless your goal is humor or irony, compare subjects that belong in the same class. Comparing a Yugo to a BMW is absurd because they are not similar cars in terms of cost, design, or purpose (Reid 343).
If you are citing other people's data or quoting sources, check to make sure your summaries and data are accurate (Reid 343).
Signal the major divisions in your evaluation to your reader using clear transitions, key words, and paragraph hooks. At the beginning of new paragraphs or sections of your essay, let your reader know where you are going.
Revise sentences for directness and clarity.
Edit your evaluation for correct spelling, appropriate word choice, punctuation, usage, and grammar (343).
Nesbitt, Laurel, Kathy Northcut, & Kate Kiefer. (1997). Academic Evaluations. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=47
Questions to ask when designing assignments:
Assignment suggestions:
* Association of College and Research Libraries/ALA, Information literacy competency standards for higher education , endorsed by the American Association for Higher Education, Council of Independent Colleges, and Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2000. 1 "Effective library assignments" <www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/infoserv/lue/effectiveassignments.html> 5/6/04. 2 K. Huber and P. Lewis, "Tired of Term Papers?" Research Strategies 2 (1984), 192-199. 3 Joseph, Miriam E. "Term Paper Alternatives." <http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/PaperAlternatives.html> 5/6/04 4 "Creating assignments." <www.lib.unb.ca/instruction/assignments.html> 5/6/04 5 VT Sapziano and JL Gibbons, "Brain chemistry and behavior: A new interdisciplinary course" Journal of Chemical Education 63 (1986), 398-399. 6 "Ideas for library assignments," <library.ups.edu/instruct/assign.htm>, 5/6/04. 7 "Creating assignments." <www.lib.unb.ca/instruction/assignments.html> 5/6/04 8 "Alternative assignments," <www.library.ohiou.edu/libinfo/depts/refdept/bi/alternatives.htm>, 5/6/04. 9 "Library assignments for lower-division science courses" <[email protected]>
Designing Writing Assignments designing-assignments
As you think about creating writing assignments, use these five principles:
You'll find discussions of these principles in the following sections of this guide.
Working backwards from goals, guidelines for writing assignments, resource: checksheets, resources: sample assignments.
To guarantee that writing tasks tie directly to the teaching goals for your class, ask yourself questions such as the following:
Although it might seem awkward at first, working backwards from what you hope the final papers will look like often produces the best assignment sheets. We recommend jotting down several points that will help you with this step in writing your assignments:
Successful writing assignments depend on preparation, careful and thorough instructions, and on explicit criteria for evaluation. Although your experience with a given assignment will suggest ways of improving a specific paper in your class, the following guidelines should help you anticipate many potential problems and considerably reduce your grading time.
II. The assignment
III. Revision of written drafts
Where appropriate, peer group workshops on rough drafts of papers may improve the overall quality of papers. For example, have students critique each others' papers one week before the due date for format, organization, or mechanics. For these workshops, outline specific and limited tasks on a checksheet. These workshops also give you an opportunity to make sure that all the students are progressing satisfactorily on the project.
IV. Evaluation
On a grading sheet, indicate the percentage of the grade devoted to content and the percentage devoted to writing skills (expression, punctuation, spelling, mechanics). The grading sheet should indicate the important content features as well as the writing skills you consider significant.
Visitors to this site are welcome to download and print these guidelines
Good analytical writing is a rigorous and difficult task. It involves a process of editing and rewriting, and it is common to do a half dozen or more drafts. Because of the difficulty of analytical writing and the need for drafting, we will be completing the assignment in four stages. A draft of each of the sections described below is due when we finish the class unit related to that topic (see due dates on syllabus). I will read the drafts of each section and provide comments; these drafts will not be graded but failure to pass in a complete version of a section will result in a deduction in your final paper grade. Because of the time both you and I are investing in the project, it will constitute one-half of your semester grade.
Papers will focus on the peoples and policies related to population, food, and the environment of your chosen country. As well as exploring each of these subsets, papers need to highlight the interrelations among them. These interrelations should form part of your revision focus for the final draft. Important concepts relevant to the papers will be covered in class; therefore, your research should be focused on the collection of information on your chosen country or region to substantiate your themes. Specifically, the paper needs to address the following questions.
Critical yet often overlooked components of the landscape architect's professional skills are the ability to critically evaluate existing designs and the ability to eloquently express him/herself in writing. To develop your skills at these fundamental components, you are to professionally critique a built project with which you are personally and directly familiar. The critique is intended for the "informed public" as might be expected to be read in such features in The New York Times or Columbus Monthly ; therefore, it should be insightful and professionally valid, yet also entertaining and eloquent. It should reflect a sophisticated knowledge of the subject without being burdened with professional jargon.
As in most critiques or reviews, you are attempting not only to identify the project's good and bad features but also to interpret the project's significance and meaning. As such, the critique should have a clear "point of view" or thesis that is then supported by evidence (your description of the place) that persuades the reader that your thesis is valid. Note, however, that your primary goal is not to force the reader to agree with your point of view but rather to present a valid discussion that enriches and broadens the reader's understanding of the project.
To assist in the development of the best possible paper, you are to submit a typed draft by 1:00 pm, Monday, February 10th. The drafts will be reviewed as a set and will then serve as a basis of an in-class writing improvement seminar on Friday, February 14th. The seminar will focus on problems identified in the set of drafts, so individual papers will not have been commented on or marked. You may also submit a typed draft of your paper to the course instructor for review and comment at any time prior to the final submission.
Final papers are due at 2:00 pm, Friday, February 23rd.
Purpose: Students should be able to integrate lecture and laboratory material, relate class material to industry situations, and improve their problem-solving abilities.
Assignment 1: Weekly laboratory reports (50 points)
For the first laboratory, students will be expected to provide depth and breadth of knowledge, creativity, and proper writing format in a one-page, typed, double-spaced report. Thus, conciseness will be stressed. Five points total will be possible for the first draft, another five points possible will be given to a student peer-reviewer of the draft, and five final points will be available for a second draft. This assignment, in its entirety, will be due before the first midterm (class 20). Any major writing flaws will be addressed early so that students can grasp concepts stressed by the instructors without major impact on their grades. Additional objectives are to provide students with skills in critically reviewing papers and to acquaint writers and reviewers of the instructors' expectations for assignments 2 and 3, which are weighted much more heavily.
Students will submit seven one-page handwritten reports from each week's previous laboratory. These reports will cover laboratory classes 2-9; note that one report can be dropped and week 10 has no laboratory. Reports will be graded (5 points each) by the instructors for integration of relevant lecture material or prior experience with the current laboratory.
Assignment 2: Group problem-solving approach to a nutritional problem in the animal industry (50 points)
Students will be divided into groups of four. Several problems will be offered by the instructors, but a group can choose an alternative, approved topic. Students should propose a solution to the problem. Because most real-life problems are solved by groups of employees and (or) consultants, this exercise should provide students an opportunity to practice skills they will need after graduation. Groups will divide the assignment as they see fit. However, 25 points will be based on an individual's separate assignment (1-2 typed pages), and 25 points will be based on the group's total document. Thus, it is assumed that papers will be peer-reviewed. The audience intended will be marketing directors, who will need suitable background, illustrations, etc., to help their salespersons sell more products. This assignment will be started in about the second week of class and will be due by class 28.
Assignment 3: Students will develop a topic of their own choosing (approved by instructors) to be written for two audiences (100 points).
The first assignment (25 points) will be written in "common language," e.g., to farmers or salespersons. High clarity of presentation will be expected. It also will be graded for content to assure that the student has developed the topic adequately. This assignment will be due by class 38.
Concomitant with this assignment will be a first draft of a scientific term paper on the same subject. Ten scientific articles and five typed, double-spaced pages are minimum requirements. Basic knowledge of scientific principles will be incorporated into this term paper written to an audience of alumni of this course working in a nutrition-related field. This draft (25 points) will be due by class 38. It will be reviewed by a peer who will receive up to 25 points for his/her critique. It will be returned to the student and instructor by class 43. The final draft, worth an additional 25 points, will be due before class 50 and will be returned to the student during the final exam period.
Two papers will be assigned for the semester, each to be no more than three typewritten pages in length. Each paper will be worth 50 points.
Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to aid the student in learning skills necessary in forming policy-making decisions and to encourage the student to consider the integral relationship between theory, research, and social policy.
Format: The student may choose any issue of interest that is appropriate to the socialization focus of the course, but the issue must be clearly stated and the student is advised to carefully limit the scope of the issue question.
There are three sections to the paper:
First: One page will summarize two conflicting theoretical approaches to the chosen issue. Summarize only what the selected theories may or would say about the particular question you've posed; do not try to summarize the entire theory. Make clear to a reader in what way the two theories disagree or contrast. Your text should provide you with the basic information to do this section.
Second: On the second page, summarize (abstract) one relevant piece of current research. The research article must be chosen from a professional journal (not a secondary source) written within the last five years. The article should be abstracted and then the student should clearly show how the research relates to the theoretical position(s) stated earlier, in particular, and to the socialization issue chosen in general. Be sure the subjects used, methodology, and assumptions can be reasonably extended to your concern.
Third: On the third page, the student will present a policy guideline (for example, the Colorado courts should be required to include, on the child's behalf, a child development specialist's testimony at all custody hearings) that can be supported by the information gained and presented in the first two pages. My advice is that you picture a specific audience and the final purpose or use of such a policy guideline. For example, perhaps as a child development specialist you have been requested to present an informed opinion to a federal or state committee whose charge is to develop a particular type of human development program or service. Be specific about your hypothetical situation and this will help you write a realistic policy guideline.
Sample papers will be available in the department reading room.
A (90-100): Thesis is clearly presented in first paragraph. Every subsequent paragraph contributes significantly to the development of the thesis. Final paragraph "pulls together" the body of the essay and demonstrates how the essay as a whole has supported the thesis. In terms of both style and content, the essay is a pleasure to read; ideas are brought forth with clarity and follow each other logically and effortlessly. Essay is virtually free of misspellings, sentence fragments, fused sentences, comma splices, semicolon errors, wrong word choices, and paragraphing errors.
B (80-89): Thesis is clearly presented in first paragraph. Every subsequent paragraph contributes significantly to the development of the thesis. Final paragraph "pulls together" the body of the essay and demonstrates how the essay as a whole has supported the thesis. In terms of style and content, the essay is still clear and progresses logically, but the essay is somewhat weaker due to awkward word choice, sentence structure, or organization. Essay may have a few (approximately 3) instances of misspellings, sentence fragments, fused sentences, comma splices, semicolon errors, wrong word choices, and paragraphing errors.
C (70-79): There is a thesis, but the reader may have to hunt for it a bit. All the paragraphs contribute to the thesis, but the organization of these paragraphs is less than clear. Final paragraph simply summarizes essay without successfully integrating the ideas presented into a unified support for thesis. In terms of style and content, the reader is able to discern the intent of the essay and the support for the thesis, but some amount of mental gymnastics and "reading between the lines" is necessary; the essay is not easy to read, but it still has said some important things. Essay may have instances (approximately 6) of misspellings, sentence fragments, fused sentences, comma splices, semicolon errors, wrong word choices, and paragraphing errors.
D (60-69): Thesis is not clear. Individual paragraphs may have interesting insights, but the paragraphs do not work together well in support of the thesis. In terms of style and content, the essay is difficult to read and to understand, but the reader can see there was a (less than successful) effort to engage a meaningful subject. Essay may have several instances (approximately 6) of misspellings, sentence fragments, fused sentences, comma splices, semicolon errors, wrong word choices, and paragraphing errors.
Patrick Fitzhorn, Mechanical Engineering: My expectations for freshman are relatively high. I'm jaded with the seniors, who keep disappointing me. Often, we don't agree on the grading criteria.
There's three parts to our writing in engineering. The first part, is the assignment itself.
The four types: lab reports, technical papers, design reports, and proposals. The other part is expectations in terms of a growth of writing style at each level in our curriculum and an understanding of that from students so they understand that high school writing is not acceptable as a senior in college. Third, is how we transform our expectations into justifiable grades that have real feedback for the students.
To the freshman, I might give a page to a page and one half to here's how I want the design report. To the seniors it was three pages long. We try to capture how our expectations change from freshman to senior. I bet the structure is almost identical...
We always give them pretty rigorous outlines. Often times, the way students write is to take the outline we give them and students write that chunk. Virtually every writing assignment we give, we provide a writing outline of the writing style we want. These patterns are then used in industry. One organization style works for each of the writing styles. Between faculty, some minute details may change with organization, but there is a standard for writers to follow.
Interviewer: How do students determine purpose
Ken Reardon, Chemical Engineerin: Students usually respond to an assignment. That tells them what the purpose is. . . . I think it's something they infer from the assignment sheet.
Interviewer What types of purposes are there?
Ken Reardon: Persuading is the case with proposals. And informing with progress and the final results. Informing is to just "Here are the results of analysis; here's the answer to the question." It's presenting information. Persuasion is analyzing some information and coming to a conclusion. More of the writing I've seen engineers do is a soft version of persuasion, where they're not trying to sell. "Here's my analysis, here's how I interpreted those results and so here's what I think is worthwhile." Justifying.
Interviewer: Why do students need to be aware of this concept?
Ken Reardon: It helps to tell the reader what they're reading. Without it, readers don't know how to read.
Kate Kiefer. (2018). Designing Writing Assignments. The WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/teaching/guides/designing-assignments/. Originally developed for Writing@CSU (https://writing.colostate.edu).
Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
National Research Council (US) Panel on the Evaluation of AIDS Interventions; Coyle SL, Boruch RF, Turner CF, editors. Evaluating AIDS Prevention Programs: Expanded Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1991.
Evaluation has its roots in the social, behavioral, and statistical sciences, and it relies on their principles and methodologies of research, including experimental design, measurement, statistical tests, and direct observation. What distinguishes evaluation research from other social science is that its subjects are ongoing social action programs that are intended to produce individual or collective change. This setting usually engenders a great need for cooperation between those who conduct the program and those who evaluate it. This need for cooperation can be particularly acute in the case of AIDS prevention programs because those programs have been developed rapidly to meet the urgent demands of a changing and deadly epidemic.
Although the characteristics of AIDS intervention programs place some unique demands on evaluation, the techniques for conducting good program evaluation do not need to be invented. Two decades of evaluation research have provided a basic conceptual framework for undertaking such efforts (see, e.g., Campbell and Stanley [1966] and Cook and Campbell [1979] for discussions of outcome evaluation; see Weiss [1972] and Rossi and Freeman [1982] for process and outcome evaluations); in addition, similar programs, such as the antismoking campaigns, have been subject to evaluation, and they offer examples of the problems that have been encountered.
In this chapter the panel provides an overview of the terminology, types, designs, and management of research evaluation. The following chapter provides an overview of program objectives and the selection and measurement of appropriate outcome variables for judging the effectiveness of AIDS intervention programs. These issues are discussed in detail in the subsequent, program-specific Chapters 3 - 5 .
The term evaluation implies a variety of different things to different people. The recent report of the Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavioral, Social, and Statistical Sciences defines the area through a series of questions (Turner, Miller, and Moses, 1989:317-318):
Evaluation is a systematic process that produces a trustworthy account of what was attempted and why; through the examination of results—the outcomes of intervention programs—it answers the questions, "What was done?" "To whom, and how?" and "What outcomes were observed?'' Well-designed evaluation permits us to draw inferences from the data and addresses the difficult question: ''What do the outcomes mean?"
These questions differ in the degree of difficulty of answering them. An evaluation that tries to determine the outcomes of an intervention and what those outcomes mean is a more complicated endeavor than an evaluation that assesses the process by which the intervention was delivered. Both kinds of evaluation are necessary because they are intimately connected: to establish a project's success, an evaluator must first ask whether the project was implemented as planned and then whether its objective was achieved. Questions about a project's implementation usually fall under the rubric of process evaluation . If the investigation involves rapid feedback to the project staff or sponsors, particularly at the earliest stages of program implementation, the work is called formative evaluation . Questions about effects or effectiveness are often variously called summative evaluation, impact assessment, or outcome evaluation, the term the panel uses.
Formative evaluation is a special type of early evaluation that occurs during and after a program has been designed but before it is broadly implemented. Formative evaluation is used to understand the need for the intervention and to make tentative decisions about how to implement or improve it. During formative evaluation, information is collected and then fed back to program designers and administrators to enhance program development and maximize the success of the intervention. For example, formative evaluation may be carried out through a pilot project before a program is implemented at several sites. A pilot study of a community-based organization (CBO), for example, might be used to gather data on problems involving access to and recruitment of targeted populations and the utilization and implementation of services; the findings of such a study would then be used to modify (if needed) the planned program.
Another example of formative evaluation is the use of a "story board" design of a TV message that has yet to be produced. A story board is a series of text and sketches of camera shots that are to be produced in a commercial. To evaluate the effectiveness of the message and forecast some of the consequences of actually broadcasting it to the general public, an advertising agency convenes small groups of people to react to and comment on the proposed design.
Once an intervention has been implemented, the next stage of evaluation is process evaluation, which addresses two broad questions: "What was done?" and "To whom, and how?" Ordinarily, process evaluation is carried out at some point in the life of a project to determine how and how well the delivery goals of the program are being met. When intervention programs continue over a long period of time (as is the case for some of the major AIDS prevention programs), measurements at several times are warranted to ensure that the components of the intervention continue to be delivered by the right people, to the right people, in the right manner, and at the right time. Process evaluation can also play a role in improving interventions by providing the information necessary to change delivery strategies or program objectives in a changing epidemic.
Research designs for process evaluation include direct observation of projects, surveys of service providers and clients, and the monitoring of administrative records. The panel notes that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is already collecting some administrative records on its counseling and testing program and community-based projects. The panel believes that this type of evaluation should be a continuing and expanded component of intervention projects to guarantee the maintenance of the projects' integrity and responsiveness to their constituencies.
The purpose of outcome evaluation is to identify consequences and to establish that consequences are, indeed, attributable to a project. This type of evaluation answers the questions, "What outcomes were observed?" and, perhaps more importantly, "What do the outcomes mean?" Like process evaluation, outcome evaluation can also be conducted at intervals during an ongoing program, and the panel believes that such periodic evaluation should be done to monitor goal achievement.
The panel believes that these stages of evaluation (i.e., formative, process, and outcome) are essential to learning how AIDS prevention programs contribute to containing the epidemic. After a body of findings has been accumulated from such evaluations, it may be fruitful to launch another stage of evaluation: cost-effectiveness analysis (see Weinstein et al., 1989). Like outcome evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis also measures program effectiveness, but it extends the analysis by adding a measure of program cost. The panel believes that consideration of cost-effective analysis should be postponed until more experience is gained with formative, process, and outcome evaluation of the CDC AIDS prevention programs.
Process and outcome evaluations require different types of research designs, as discussed below. Formative evaluations, which are intended to both assess implementation and forecast effects, use a mix of these designs.
To conduct process evaluations on how well services are delivered, data need to be gathered on the content of interventions and on their delivery systems. Suggested methodologies include direct observation, surveys, and record keeping.
Direct observation designs include case studies, in which participant-observers unobtrusively and systematically record encounters within a program setting, and nonparticipant observation, in which long, open-ended (or "focused") interviews are conducted with program participants. 1 For example, "professional customers" at counseling and testing sites can act as project clients to monitor activities unobtrusively; 2 alternatively, nonparticipant observers can interview both staff and clients. Surveys —either censuses (of the whole population of interest) or samples—elicit information through interviews or questionnaires completed by project participants or potential users of a project. For example, surveys within community-based projects can collect basic statistical information on project objectives, what services are provided, to whom, when, how often, for how long, and in what context.
Record keeping consists of administrative or other reporting systems that monitor use of services. Standardized reporting ensures consistency in the scope and depth of data collected. To use the media campaign as an example, the panel suggests using standardized data on the use of the AIDS hotline to monitor public attentiveness to the advertisements broadcast by the media campaign.
These designs are simple to understand, but they require expertise to implement. For example, observational studies must be conducted by people who are well trained in how to carry out on-site tasks sensitively and to record their findings uniformly. Observers can either complete narrative accounts of what occurred in a service setting or they can complete some sort of data inventory to ensure that multiple aspects of service delivery are covered. These types of studies are time consuming and benefit from corroboration among several observers. The use of surveys in research is well-understood, although they, too, require expertise to be well implemented. As the program chapters reflect, survey data collection must be carefully designed to reduce problems of validity and reliability and, if samples are used, to design an appropriate sampling scheme. Record keeping or service inventories are probably the easiest research designs to implement, although preparing standardized internal forms requires attention to detail about salient aspects of service delivery.
Research designs for outcome evaluations are meant to assess principal and relative effects. Ideally, to assess the effect of an intervention on program participants, one would like to know what would have happened to the same participants in the absence of the program. Because it is not possible to make this comparison directly, inference strategies that rely on proxies have to be used. Scientists use three general approaches to construct proxies for use in the comparisons required to evaluate the effects of interventions: (1) nonexperimental methods, (2) quasi-experiments, and (3) randomized experiments. The first two are discussed below, and randomized experiments are discussed in the subsequent section.
The most common form of nonexperimental design is a before-and-after study. In this design, pre-intervention measurements are compared with equivalent measurements made after the intervention to detect change in the outcome variables that the intervention was designed to influence.
Although the panel finds that before-and-after studies frequently provide helpful insights, the panel believes that these studies do not provide sufficiently reliable information to be the cornerstone for evaluation research on the effectiveness of AIDS prevention programs. The panel's conclusion follows from the fact that the postintervention changes cannot usually be attributed unambiguously to the intervention. 4 Plausible competing explanations for differences between pre-and postintervention measurements will often be numerous, including not only the possible effects of other AIDS intervention programs, news stories, and local events, but also the effects that may result from the maturation of the participants and the educational or sensitizing effects of repeated measurements, among others.
Quasi-experimental and matched control designs provide a separate comparison group. In these designs, the control group may be selected by matching nonparticipants to participants in the treatment group on the basis of selected characteristics. It is difficult to ensure the comparability of the two groups even when they are matched on many characteristics because other relevant factors may have been overlooked or mismatched or they may be difficult to measure (e.g., the motivation to change behavior). In some situations, it may simply be impossible to measure all of the characteristics of the units (e.g., communities) that may affect outcomes, much less demonstrate their comparability.
Matched control designs require extraordinarily comprehensive scientific knowledge about the phenomenon under investigation in order for evaluators to be confident that all of the relevant determinants of outcomes have been properly accounted for in the matching. Three types of information or knowledge are required: (1) knowledge of intervening variables that also affect the outcome of the intervention and, consequently, need adjustment to make the groups comparable; (2) measurements on all intervening variables for all subjects; and (3) knowledge of how to make the adjustments properly, which in turn requires an understanding of the functional relationship between the intervening variables and the outcome variables. Satisfying each of these information requirements is likely to be more difficult than answering the primary evaluation question, "Does this intervention produce beneficial effects?"
Given the size and the national importance of AIDS intervention programs and given the state of current knowledge about behavior change in general and AIDS prevention, in particular, the panel believes that it would be unwise to rely on matching and adjustment strategies as the primary design for evaluating AIDS intervention programs. With differently constituted groups, inferences about results are hostage to uncertainty about the extent to which the observed outcome actually results from the intervention and is not an artifact of intergroup differences that may not have been removed by matching or adjustment.
A remedy to the inferential uncertainties that afflict nonexperimental designs is provided by randomized experiments . In such experiments, one singly constituted group is established for study. A subset of the group is then randomly chosen to receive the intervention, with the other subset becoming the control. The two groups are not identical, but they are comparable. Because they are two random samples drawn from the same population, they are not systematically different in any respect, which is important for all variables—both known and unknown—that can influence the outcome. Dividing a singly constituted group into two random and therefore comparable subgroups cuts through the tangle of causation and establishes a basis for the valid comparison of respondents who do and do not receive the intervention. Randomized experiments provide for clear causal inference by solving the problem of group comparability, and may be used to answer the evaluation questions "Does the intervention work?" and "What works better?"
Which question is answered depends on whether the controls receive an intervention or not. When the object is to estimate whether a given intervention has any effects, individuals are randomly assigned to the project or to a zero-treatment control group. The control group may be put on a waiting list or simply not get the treatment. This design addresses the question, "Does it work?"
When the object is to compare variations on a project—e.g., individual counseling sessions versus group counseling—then individuals are randomly assigned to these two regimens, and there is no zero-treatment control group. This design addresses the question, "What works better?" In either case, the control groups must be followed up as rigorously as the experimental groups.
A randomized experiment requires that individuals, organizations, or other treatment units be randomly assigned to one of two or more treatments or program variations. Random assignment ensures that the estimated differences between the groups so constituted are statistically unbiased; that is, that any differences in effects measured between them are a result of treatment. The absence of statistical bias in groups constituted in this fashion stems from the fact that random assignment ensures that there are no systematic differences between them, differences that can and usually do affect groups composed in ways that are not random. 5 The panel believes this approach is far superior for outcome evaluations of AIDS interventions than the nonrandom and quasi-experimental approaches. Therefore,
To improve interventions that are already broadly implemented, the panel recommends the use of randomized field experiments of alternative or enhanced interventions.
Under certain conditions, the panel also endorses randomized field experiments with a nontreatment control group to evaluate new interventions. In the context of a deadly epidemic, ethics dictate that treatment not be withheld simply for the purpose of conducting an experiment. Nevertheless, there may be times when a randomized field test of a new treatment with a no-treatment control group is worthwhile. One such time is during the design phase of a major or national intervention.
Before a new intervention is broadly implemented, the panel recommends that it be pilot tested in a randomized field experiment.
The panel considered the use of experiments with delayed rather than no treatment. A delayed-treatment control group strategy might be pursued when resources are too scarce for an intervention to be widely distributed at one time. For example, a project site that is waiting to receive funding for an intervention would be designated as the control group. If it is possible to randomize which projects in the queue receive the intervention, an evaluator could measure and compare outcomes after the experimental group had received the new treatment but before the control group received it. The panel believes that such a design can be applied only in limited circumstances, such as when groups would have access to related services in their communities and that conducting the study was likely to lead to greater access or better services. For example, a study cited in Chapter 4 used a randomized delayed-treatment experiment to measure the effects of a community-based risk reduction program. However, such a strategy may be impractical for several reasons, including:
Although randomized experiments have many benefits, the approach is not without pitfalls. In the planning stages of evaluation, it is necessary to contemplate certain hazards, such as the Hawthorne effect 6 and differential project dropout rates. Precautions must be taken either to prevent these problems or to measure their effects. Fortunately, there is some evidence suggesting that the Hawthorne effect is usually not very large (Rossi and Freeman, 1982:175-176).
Attrition is potentially more damaging to an evaluation, and it must be limited if the experimental design is to be preserved. If sample attrition is not limited in an experimental design, it becomes necessary to account for the potentially biasing impact of the loss of subjects in the treatment and control conditions of the experiment. The statistical adjustments required to make inferences about treatment effectiveness in such circumstances can introduce uncertainties that are as worrisome as those afflicting nonexperimental and quasi-experimental designs. Thus, the panel's recommendation of the selective use of randomized design carries an implicit caveat: To realize the theoretical advantages offered by randomized experimental designs, substantial efforts will be required to ensure that the designs are not compromised by flawed execution.
Another pitfall to randomization is its appearance of unfairness or unattractiveness to participants and the controversial legal and ethical issues it sometimes raises. Often, what is being criticized is the control of project assignment of participants rather than the use of randomization itself. In deciding whether random assignment is appropriate, it is important to consider the specific context of the evaluation and how participants would be assigned to projects in the absence of randomization. The Federal Judicial Center (1981) offers five threshold conditions for the use of random assignment.
The parent committee has argued that these threshold conditions apply in the case of AIDS prevention programs (see Turner, Miller, and Moses, 1989:331-333).
Although randomization may be desirable from an evaluation and ethical standpoint, and acceptable from a legal standpoint, it may be difficult to implement from a practical or political standpoint. Again, the panel emphasizes that questions about the practical or political feasibility of the use of randomization may in fact refer to the control of program allocation rather than to the issues of randomization itself. In fact, when resources are scarce, it is often more ethical and politically palatable to randomize allocation rather than to allocate on grounds that may appear biased.
It is usually easier to defend the use of randomization when the choice has to do with assignment to groups receiving alternative services than when the choice involves assignment to groups receiving no treatment. For example, in comparing a testing and counseling intervention that offered a special "skills training" session in addition to its regular services with a counseling and testing intervention that offered no additional component, random assignment of participants to one group rather than another may be acceptable to program staff and participants because the relative values of the alternative interventions are unknown.
The more difficult issue is the introduction of new interventions that are perceived to be needed and effective in a situation in which there are no services. An argument that is sometimes offered against the use of randomization in this instance is that interventions should be assigned on the basis of need (perhaps as measured by rates of HIV incidence or of high-risk behaviors). But this argument presumes that the intervention will have a positive effect—which is unknown before evaluation—and that relative need can be established, which is a difficult task in itself.
The panel recognizes that community and political opposition to randomization to zero treatments may be strong and that enlisting participation in such experiments may be difficult. This opposition and reluctance could seriously jeopardize the production of reliable results if it is translated into noncompliance with a research design. The feasibility of randomized experiments for AIDS prevention programs has already been demonstrated, however (see the review of selected experiments in Turner, Miller, and Moses, 1989:327-329). The substantial effort involved in mounting randomized field experiments is repaid by the fact that they can provide unbiased evidence of the effects of a program.
The unit of assignment of an experiment may be an individual person, a clinic (i.e., the clientele of the clinic), or another organizational unit (e.g., the community or city). The treatment unit is selected at the earliest stage of design. Variations of units are illustrated in the following four examples of intervention programs.
Two different pamphlets (A and B) on the same subject (e.g., testing) are distributed in an alternating sequence to individuals calling an AIDS hotline. The outcome to be measured is whether the recipient returns a card asking for more information.
Two instruction curricula (A and B) about AIDS and HIV infections are prepared for use in high school driver education classes. The outcome to be measured is a score on a knowledge test.
Of all clinics for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in a large metropolitan area, some are randomly chosen to introduce a change in the fee schedule. The outcome to be measured is the change in patient load.
A coordinated set of community-wide interventions—involving community leaders, social service agencies, the media, community associations and other groups—is implemented in one area of a city. Outcomes are knowledge as assessed by testing at drug treatment centers and STD clinics and condom sales in the community's retail outlets.
In example (1), the treatment unit is an individual person who receives pamphlet A or pamphlet B. If either "treatment" is applied again, it would be applied to a person. In example (2), the high school class is the treatment unit; everyone in a given class experiences either curriculum A or curriculum B. If either treatment is applied again, it would be applied to a class. The treatment unit is the clinic in example (3), and in example (4), the treatment unit is a community .
The consistency of the effects of a particular intervention across repetitions justly carries a heavy weight in appraising the intervention. It is important to remember that repetitions of a treatment or intervention are the number of treatment units to which the intervention is applied. This is a salient principle in the design and execution of intervention programs as well as in the assessment of their results.
The adequacy of the proposed sample size (number of treatment units) has to be considered in advance. Adequacy depends mainly on two factors:
Many formal methods for considering and choosing sample size exist (see, e.g., Cohen, 1988). Practical circumstances occasionally allow choosing between designs that involve units at different levels; thus, a classroom might be the unit if the treatment is applied in one way, but an entire school might be the unit if the treatment is applied in another. When both approaches are feasible, the use of a power analysis for each approach may lead to a reasoned choice.
There is some controversy about the advantages of randomized experiments in comparison with other evaluative approaches. It is the panel's belief that when a (well executed) randomized study is feasible, it is superior to alternative kinds of studies in the strength and clarity of whatever conclusions emerge, primarily because the experimental approach avoids selection biases. 7 Other evaluation approaches are sometimes unavoidable, but ordinarily the accumulation of valid information will go more slowly and less securely than in randomized approaches.
Experiments in medical research shed light on the advantages of carefully conducted randomized experiments. The Salk vaccine trials are a successful example of a large, randomized study. In a double-blind test of the polio vaccine, 8 children in various communities were randomly assigned to two treatments, either the vaccine or a placebo. By this method, the effectiveness of Salk vaccine was demonstrated in one summer of research (Meier, 1957).
A sufficient accumulation of relevant, observational information, especially when collected in studies using different procedures and sample populations, may also clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. The process of accumulating such information can be a long one, however. When a (well-executed) randomized study is feasible, it can provide evidence that is subject to less uncertainty in its interpretation, and it can often do so in a more timely fashion. In the midst of an epidemic, the panel believes it proper that randomized experiments be one of the primary strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of AIDS prevention efforts. In making this recommendation, however, the panel also wishes to emphasize that the advantages of the randomized experimental design can be squandered by poor execution (e.g., by compromised assignment of subjects, significant subject attrition rates, etc.). To achieve the advantages of the experimental design, care must be taken to ensure that the integrity of the design is not compromised by poor execution.
In proposing that randomized experiments be one of the primary strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of AIDS prevention programs, the panel also recognizes that there are situations in which randomization will be impossible or, for other reasons, cannot be used. In its next report the panel will describe at length appropriate nonexperimental strategies to be considered in situations in which an experiment is not a practical or desirable alternative.
Conscientious evaluation requires a considerable investment of funds, time, and personnel. Because the panel recognizes that resources are not unlimited, it suggests that they be concentrated on the evaluation of a subset of projects to maximize the return on investment and to enhance the likelihood of high-quality results.
Deciding which programs or sites to evaluate is by no means a trivial matter. Selection should be carefully weighed so that projects that are not replicable or that have little chance for success are not subjected to rigorous evaluations.
The panel recommends that any intensive evaluation of an intervention be conducted on a subset of projects selected according to explicit criteria. These criteria should include the replicability of the project, the feasibility of evaluation, and the project's potential effectiveness for prevention of HIV transmission.
If a project is replicable, it means that the particular circumstances of service delivery in that project can be duplicated. In other words, for CBOs and counseling and testing projects, the content and setting of an intervention can be duplicated across sites. Feasibility of evaluation means that, as a practical matter, the research can be done: that is, the research design is adequate to control for rival hypotheses, it is not excessively costly, and the project is acceptable to the community and the sponsor. Potential effectiveness for HIV prevention means that the intervention is at least based on a reasonable theory (or mix of theories) about behavioral change (e.g., social learning theory [Bandura, 1977], the health belief model [Janz and Becker, 1984], etc.), if it has not already been found to be effective in related circumstances.
In addition, since it is important to ensure that the results of evaluations will be broadly applicable,
The panel recommends that evaluation be conducted and replicated across major types of subgroups, programs, and settings. Attention should be paid to geographic areas with low and high AIDS prevalence, as well as to subpopulations at low and high risk for AIDS.
The sponsoring agency interested in evaluating an AIDS intervention should consider the mechanisms through which the research will be carried out as well as the desirability of both independent oversight and agency in-house conduct and monitoring of the research. The appropriate entities and mechanisms for conducting evaluations depend to some extent on the kinds of data being gathered and the evaluation questions being asked.
Oversight and monitoring are important to keep projects fully informed about the other evaluations relevant to their own and to render assistance when needed. Oversight and monitoring are also important because evaluation is often a sensitive issue for project and evaluation staff alike. The panel is aware that evaluation may appear threatening to practitioners and researchers because of the possibility that evaluation research will show that their projects are not as effective as they believe them to be. These needs and vulnerabilities should be taken into account as evaluation research management is developed.
To conduct some aspects of a project's evaluation, it may be appropriate to involve project administrators, especially when the data will be used to evaluate delivery systems (e.g., to determine when and which services are being delivered). To evaluate outcomes, the services of an outside evaluator 9 or evaluation team are almost always required because few practitioners have the necessary professional experience or the time and resources necessary to do evaluation. The outside evaluator must have relevant expertise in evaluation research methodology and must also be sensitive to the fears, hopes, and constraints of project administrators.
Several evaluation management schemes are possible. For example, a prospective AIDS prevention project group (the contractor) can bid on a contract for project funding that includes an intensive evaluation component. The actual evaluation can be conducted either by the contractor alone or by the contractor working in concert with an outside independent collaborator. This mechanism has the advantage of involving project practitioners in the work of evaluation as well as building separate but mutually informing communities of experts around the country. Alternatively, a contract can be let with a single evaluator or evaluation team that will collaborate with the subset of sites that is chosen for evaluation. This variation would be managerially less burdensome than awarding separate contracts, but it would require greater dependence on the expertise of a single investigator or investigative team. ( Appendix A discusses contracting options in greater depth.) Both of these approaches accord with the parent committee's recommendation that collaboration between practitioners and evaluation researchers be ensured. Finally, in the more traditional evaluation approach, independent principal investigators or investigative teams may respond to a request for proposal (RFP) issued to evaluate individual projects. Such investigators are frequently university-based or are members of a professional research organization, and they bring to the task a variety of research experiences and perspectives.
The panel believes that coordination and oversight of multisite evaluations is critical because of the variability in investigators' expertise and in the results of the projects being evaluated. Oversight can provide quality control for individual investigators and can be used to review and integrate findings across sites for developing policy. The independence of an oversight body is crucial to ensure that project evaluations do not succumb to the pressures for positive findings of effectiveness.
When evaluation is to be conducted by a number of different evaluation teams, the panel recommends establishing an independent scientific committee to oversee project selection and research efforts, corroborate the impartiality and validity of results, conduct cross-site analyses, and prepare reports on the progress of the evaluations.
The composition of such an independent oversight committee will depend on the research design of a given program. For example, the committee ought to include statisticians and other specialists in randomized field tests when that approach is being taken. Specialists in survey research and case studies should be recruited if either of those approaches is to be used. Appendix B offers a model for an independent oversight group that has been successfully implemented in other settings—a project review team, or advisory board.
As the parent committee noted in its report, evaluations of AIDS interventions require skills that may be in short supply for agencies invested in delivering services (Turner, Miller, and Moses, 1989:349). Although this situation can be partly alleviated by recruiting professional outside evaluators and retaining an independent oversight group, the panel believes that an in-house team of professionals within the sponsoring agency is also critical. The in-house experts will interact with the outside evaluators and provide input into the selection of projects, outcome objectives, and appropriate research designs; they will also monitor the progress and costs of evaluation. These functions require not just bureaucratic oversight but appropriate scientific expertise.
This is not intended to preclude the direct involvement of CDC staff in conducting evaluations. However, given the great amount of work to be done, it is likely a considerable portion will have to be contracted out. The quality and usefulness of the evaluations done under contract can be greatly enhanced by ensuring that there are an adequate number of CDC staff trained in evaluation research methods to monitor these contracts.
The panel recommends that CDC recruit and retain behavioral, social, and statistical scientists trained in evaluation methodology to facilitate the implementation of the evaluation research recommended in this report.
The panel believes that the federal agencies that sponsor the design of basic research, intervention programs, and evaluation strategies would profit from greater interagency collaboration. The evaluation of AIDS intervention programs would benefit from a coherent program of studies that should provide models of efficacious and effective interventions to prevent further HIV transmission, the spread of other STDs, and unwanted pregnancies (especially among adolescents). A marriage could then be made of basic and applied science, from which the best evaluation is born. Exploring the possibility of interagency collaboration and CDC's role in such collaboration is beyond the scope of this panel's task, but it is an important issue that we suggest be addressed in the future.
In view of the dearth of current evaluation efforts, the panel believes that vigorous evaluation research must be undertaken over the next few years to build up a body of knowledge about what interventions can and cannot do. Dedicating no resources to evaluation will virtually guarantee that high-quality evaluations will be infrequent and the data needed for policy decisions will be sparse or absent. Yet, evaluating every project is not feasible simply because there are not enough resources and, in many cases, evaluating every project is not necessary for good science or good policy.
The panel believes that evaluating only some of a program's sites or projects, selected under the criteria noted in Chapter 4 , is a sensible strategy. Although we recommend that intensive evaluation be conducted on only a subset of carefully chosen projects, we believe that high-quality evaluation will require a significant investment of time, planning, personnel, and financial support. The panel's aim is to be realistic—not discouraging—when it notes that the costs of program evaluation should not be underestimated. Many of the research strategies proposed in this report require investments that are perhaps greater than has been previously contemplated. This is particularly the case for outcome evaluations, which are ordinarily more difficult and expensive to conduct than formative or process evaluations. And those costs will be additive with each type of evaluation that is conducted.
Panel members have found that the cost of an outcome evaluation sometimes equals or even exceeds the cost of actual program delivery. For example, it was reported to the panel that randomized studies used to evaluate recent manpower training projects cost as much as the projects themselves (see Cottingham and Rodriguez, 1987). In another case, the principal investigator of an ongoing AIDS prevention project told the panel that the cost of randomized experimentation was approximately three times higher than the cost of delivering the intervention (albeit the study was quite small, involving only 104 participants) (Kelly et al., 1989). Fortunately, only a fraction of a program's projects or sites need to be intensively evaluated to produce high-quality information, and not all will require randomized studies.
Because of the variability in kinds of evaluation that will be done as well as in the costs involved, there is no set standard or rule for judging what fraction of a total program budget should be invested in evaluation. Based upon very limited data 10 and assuming that only a small sample of projects would be evaluated, the panel suspects that program managers might reasonably anticipate spending 8 to 12 percent of their intervention budgets to conduct high-quality evaluations (i.e., formative, process, and outcome evaluations). 11 Larger investments seem politically infeasible and unwise in view of the need to put resources into program delivery. Smaller investments in evaluation may risk studying an inadequate sample of program types, and it may also invite compromises in research quality.
The nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic mandates an unwavering commitment to prevention programs, and the prevention activities require a similar commitment to the evaluation of those programs. The magnitude of what can be learned from doing good evaluations will more than balance the magnitude of the costs required to perform them. Moreover, it should be realized that the costs of shoddy research can be substantial, both in their direct expense and in the lost opportunities to identify effective strategies for AIDS prevention. Once the investment has been made, however, and a reservoir of findings and practical experience has accumulated, subsequent evaluations should be easier and less costly to conduct.
On occasion, nonparticipants observe behavior during or after an intervention. Chapter 3 introduces this option in the context of formative evaluation.
The use of professional customers can raise serious concerns in the eyes of project administrators at counseling and testing sites. The panel believes that site administrators should receive advance notification that professional customers may visit their sites for testing and counseling services and provide their consent before this method of data collection is used.
Parts of this section are adopted from Turner, Miller, and Moses, (1989:324-326).
This weakness has been noted by CDC in a sourcebook provided to its HIV intervention project grantees (CDC, 1988:F-14).
The significance tests applied to experimental outcomes calculate the probability that any observed differences between the sample estimates might result from random variations between the groups.
Research participants' knowledge that they were being observed had a positive effect on their responses in a series of famous studies made at General Electric's Hawthorne Works in Chicago (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939); the phenomenon is referred to as the Hawthorne effect.
participants who self-select into a program are likely to be different from non-random comparison groups in terms of interests, motivations, values, abilities, and other attributes that can bias the outcomes.
A double-blind test is one in which neither the person receiving the treatment nor the person administering it knows which treatment (or when no treatment) is being given.
As discussed under ''Agency In-House Team,'' the outside evaluator might be one of CDC's personnel. However, given the large amount of research to be done, it is likely that non-CDC evaluators will also need to be used.
See, for example, chapter 3 which presents cost estimates for evaluations of media campaigns. Similar estimates are not readily available for other program types.
For example, the U. K. Health Education Authority (that country's primary agency for AIDS education and prevention programs) allocates 10 percent of its AIDS budget for research and evaluation of its AIDS programs (D. McVey, Health Education Authority, personal communication, June 1990). This allocation covers both process and outcome evaluation.
Related information.
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
Turn recording back on
Connect with NLM
National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894
Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
Help Accessibility Careers
IMAGES
COMMENTS
A research design is a strategy for answering your research question using empirical data. Creating a research design means making decisions about: Your overall research objectives and approach. Whether you'll rely on primary research or secondary research. Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects. Your data collection methods.
Research Design building research design building research design assignment jadda yambo department of clinical mental health counseling, liberty university. Skip to document. University; High School. Books; ... Research and Program Evaluation (COUC 515) 89 Documents. Students shared 89 documents in this course. University Liberty University ...
Before beginning your paper, you need to decide how you plan to design the study.. The research design refers to the overall strategy and analytical approach that you have chosen in order to integrate, in a coherent and logical way, the different components of the study, thus ensuring that the research problem will be thoroughly investigated. It constitutes the blueprint for the collection ...
This will guide your research design and help you select appropriate methods. Select a research design: There are many different research designs to choose from, including experimental, survey, case study, and qualitative designs. Choose a design that best fits your research question and objectives.
Step 1: Consider your aims and approach. Step 2: Choose a type of research design. Step 3: Identify your population and sampling method. Step 4: Choose your data collection methods. Step 5: Plan your data collection procedures. Step 6: Decide on your data analysis strategies. Frequently asked questions.
Because the research design can be very complex, reporting the findings requires a well-organized narrative, clear writing style, and precise word choice. Design invites collaboration among experts. However, merging different investigative approaches and writing styles requires more attention to the overall research process than studies ...
Research design refers to the overall plan, structure or strategy that guides a research project, from its conception to the final analysis of data. Research designs for quantitative studies include descriptive, correlational, experimental and quasi-experimenta l designs. Research designs for qualitative studies include phenomenological ...
Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes.Revised on June 22, 2023. When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a research design, you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.. There are many ways to categorize different types of research.
Step 3 of the EBP process involves evaluating the quality and client relevance of research results you have located to inform treatment planning. While some useful clinical resources include careful appraisals of research quality, clinicians must critically evaluate the content both included in these summaries and what is excluded or omitted ...
research designs in an evaluation, and test different parts of the program logic with each one. These designs are often referred to as patched-up research designs (Poister, 1978), and usually, they do not test all the causal linkages in a logic model. Research designs that fully test the causal links in logic models often
Reading prior research requires an understanding of the academic writing style, the type of epistemological beliefs or practices underpinning the research design, and the specific vocabulary and technical terminology [i.e., jargon] used within a discipline. Reading scholarly articles is important because academic writing is unfamiliar to most ...
It's Complicated: What Students Say About Research and Writing Assignments from Project Information Literacy How Librarians Can Help Librarians are available to consult with faculty and instructors to create or revise effective research assignments and classroom activities that foster critical thinking, evaluation skills, and promote lifelong ...
Exercise 1: Improve one of the assignments by. Making some of the hidden skills or knowledge explicit by creating learning outcomes or objectives. Devising an activity that gives students practice with required skills. Clarifying the instructions. Directing students to university resources where they can get help.
Definition: Evaluating Research refers to the process of assessing the quality, credibility, and relevance of a research study or project. This involves examining the methods, data, and results of the research in order to determine its validity, reliability, and usefulness. Evaluating research can be done by both experts and non-experts in the ...
• Visual as well as text representations of the assignment Challenging, specific research questions and thinking prompts • Writing assignments of different lengths • Specificity -but not overwhelming detail -in the assignment and rubric • Detailed feedback -especially feedback that can be applied (formative) 31
Academic Evaluations. In our daily lives, we are continually evaluating objects, people, and ideas in our immediate environments. We pass judgments in conversation, while reading, while shopping, while eating, and while watching television or movies, often being unaware that we are doing so. Evaluation is an equally fundamental writing process ...
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
Not every instructor, though, uses research papers. For those that don't, or who wish to highlight information retrieval and evaluation more distinctly, this page provides an overview of some possibilities of assignments that deal explicitly with locating authoritative, reliable information sources. Successful assignments:
While many books and articles guide various qualitative research methods and analyses, there is currently no concise resource that explains and differentiates among the most common qualitative approaches. We believe novice qualitative researchers, students planning the design of a qualitative study or taking an introductory qualitative research course, and faculty teaching such courses can ...
Designing Writing Assignments designing-assignments. As you think about creating writing assignments, use these five principles: Tie the writing task to specific pedagogical goals. Note rhetorical aspects of the task, i.e., audience, purpose, writing situation. Make all elements of the task clear. Include grading criteria on the assignment ...
Holistic scoring is a quick method of evaluating a composition based on the reader's general impression of the overall quality of the writing—you can generally read a student's composition and assign a score to it in two or three minutes. Holistic scoring is usually based on a scale of 0-4, 0-5, or 0-6.
Evaluation has its roots in the social, behavioral, and statistical sciences, and it relies on their principles and methodologies of research, including experimental design, measurement, statistical tests, and direct observation. What distinguishes evaluation research from other social science is that its subjects are ongoing social action programs that are intended to produce individual or ...
Research Designs - Writing Assignment (Evaluative) ... In the previous two modules we discussed research designs and methods to measure and manipulate our variables of interest and disinterest. Before a researcher can move on to the testing phase and can actually collect data, there is just one more procedure that needs to be decided on ...