The Skillful Teacher

Unhelpful Favorable Evaluation
This paper is terrific, well done. You’ve made a lot of progress this
semester, and you can feel well pleased with your efforts. Keep up
the good work.
Helpful Favorable Evaluation
This paper is terrific, well done. You’ve made a lot of progress this
semester, particularly in three important areas:
1. You’re much more careful about citing evidence in support of your
arguments. For example, at the bottom of page 12 you quote
three sources to support your contention that critical thinking is a
contested concept. Then, on pages 17–19, your discussion of
how textbooks ignore ethical dilemmas in critical thinking is illus-
trated by reference to most of the chief texts in the area.
2. You’ve taken much greater trouble to acknowledge viewpoints
opposed to, and critical of, your own. A good example of this is
your discussion on Skinner’s work on page 7.
3. You’re cutting down on your use of unnecessary jargon. Pages
4–6 and 11–13 were models of clear writing. The only time I felt
I couldn’t understand your argument was when you described
the principle of falsifiability on pages 14–15.
Next time you try an assignment like this try to build on these
improvements and see if you can cut down on the jargon even fur-
ther. When you edit your next paper, try to pretend that you’re read-
ing it to a friend who knows nothing about the topic. If you come
across a phrase you think this friend wouldn’t understand, think
Giving Helpful Evaluations
179
14_980668 ch10.qxp  7/27/06  3:27 PM  Page 179

---

180
T
HE
S
KILLFUL
T
EACHER
about deleting this or rewriting it to make it more accessible. If it’s a
crucial concept, try to give two or three clear examples of it your
friend would appreciate. For example, would she know what the term
praxis
(used on page 10) means? Overall, however, you can feel well
pleased with your efforts. Keep up the good work.
Since both these evaluations are favorable, I’m assuming that stu-
dents would be happy to receive either of them. However, only one
of them—the second—is helpful. What are the differences (apart
from length) between the two of them that make the second one
so much more useful than the first? The individualized nature of
the second evaluation is one clear difference. The student reading
this evaluation knows the instructor has paid careful attention
to her work. The first one, by way of contrast, comprises a number
of generic comments that could conceivably be made about several
papers from the same group. The second evaluation also clearly
specifies which aspects of the student’s work were so favorable. The
first evaluation leaves a student with a warm glow but contains
nothing from which she can learn. She knows she has done well
and that the teacher likes her work. But exactly what it is about the
work that is so improved and impressive is never made clear. By way
of contrast, the second evaluation leaves her in no doubt about
these things. The second evaluation also has a strong future orien-
tation. The student knows she has done well, but she is also
directed, in clear and specific terms, to work on particular items the
next time she writes a paper like this one.
Let’s turn now to two examples of negative evaluations. Both of
these focus on a graduate student’s behavior in a course on critical
thinking.