Defining and Teaching Evaluative Thinking

Abstract

Evaluative thinking (ET) is an increasingly important topic in the field of evaluation, particularly among people involved in evaluation capacity building (ECB). Yet it is a construct in need of clarification, especially if it is to be meaningfully discussed, promoted, and researched. To that end, we propose that ET is essentially critical thinking applied to contexts of evaluation. We argue that ECB, and the field of evaluation more generally, would benefit from an explicit and transparent appropriation of well-established concepts and teaching strategies derived from the long history of work on critical thinking. In this article, based on previous work in the fields of education, cognitive science, and critical thinking, as well as on our experience as ECB practitioners, we propose several guiding principles and specific strategies for teaching ET that draw directly from research on the teaching of critical thinking.In the field of evaluation, especially among people involved in evaluation capacity building (ECB), evaluative thinking (ET) is increasingly recognized as a key component of evaluation capacity and high-quality evaluation practice (despite that shared recognition, definitions of ET are varied and sometimes ambiguous. In the absence of a clear and shared definition, the phrase risks becoming an empty buzz word-Patton warns that ''As attention to the importance of evaluation culture and

Philosophy for Children and the Incidence of Teachers’ Questions on the Mobilization of Dialogical Critical Thinking in Pupils

“…students "to reflect on each other's answers and opinions…to express their point of view…to answer open-ended questions, and to try to investigate and explore other possibilities" (Belghiti et al, 2016). Results of other studies also establish that open questions guide pupils toward rigorous thinking and well thought-out decisions (among others: Ali-Sheir et al, 2014;Brookhart, 2016;Buckley et al, 2015;Colley & Windchiti, 2016;Fasco, 1994;Francis, 2016). Open questions motivate pupils to actively participate in a discussion and to understand peer statements and lessons taught by the teacher (King, 1994;Melo-Leon, 2015;Smart & Marshall, 2013), stimulate divergent thinking and elicit a variety of answers that enable pupils to extrapolate, to create new relationships and to consider new points of view (Smith & Szymanski, 2013;King, 1994;McComas & Abraham, 2004).…”

“…Several authors have suggested ways to facilitate philosophical or critical dialogues with pupils (among others: Buckley et al, 2015;Cam, 2008;Canuto, 2015;Lipman et al, 1980;McComas & Abraham, 2004): In order to encourage pupils' interest during the exchange, the teacher prepares a discussion plan to challenge and answer the questions pupils posed beforehand; the discussion plan does not orient pupils toward one outcome or another, but rather helps them progress in their comprehension of the meanings of the concepts; the discussion plan reflects a progression in questions that range from the most concrete to the more conceptual; questions posed are likely to arouse the pupils' curiosity and to generate cognitive conflicts in their minds; wording of the questions must be adapted to the pupils' age group; questions must be meaningful for pupils and take into consideration their daily experience; questions can be preceded or followed by a game (for the younger ones) or an intellectual exercise (for the older ones); the teacher encourages the participation of all pupils without insisting if a pupil wishes to remain silent; the teacher follows up with questions to help pupils transcend their initial statement; the teacher encourages pupils to talk to each other directly (dialogue) instead of simply answering the teacher's questions (monologue); the teacher encourages pupils to listen to each other actively and caringly, to question each other and to support, complete, clarify, nuance, and criticize peers' points of view; the teacher gives pupils time to think before answering; the teacher makes sure pupils have fun and increase their self-esteem during dialogical critical praxis.…”

“…Both exchanges included closed and open questions, since P4C, while it aims at philosophical reflection, remains related to pupils' experiences and interests (see Buckley et al, 2015 …”

Achieving Sustainability Through Sustainable Organizational Evaluation Systems

“…Evaluative thinking is recognized both at the individual and collective levels. Individually, Buckley, Archibald, Hargraves, and Trochim (2015) argue that:…”

An Evaluation Toolkit for Small NGOs in Water‐based Development

“…The logic model, online surveys and project implementation checklist are examples of simple, low-cost tools that can be used to collect evidence that is easily understandable to someone with little or no formal evaluation training in a short period of time. We suspect that these facilitators and barriers to evaluation may be applicable to other NGOs, as evaluation capacity building practitioners have identified similar challenges to promoting evaluative thinking (Buckley, Archibald, Hargraves, & Trochim, 2015). In light of these lessons, our continued goal is to develop the use of low-cost tools for NGOs, encourage ongoing evaluation within them, and to promote evaluation as an investment (with high return) in an NGO's sustainability.…”