Media Studies · Media Studies: Interpreting, Evaluating and Producing Complex MediaEvaluating Effectiveness: Criteria, Evidence and Qualified Judgments
1.3About 70 minutes
Learning goals- I can build criteria for evaluating a media text from its purpose(s).
- I can evaluate how effectively a complex text communicates information, ideas, opinions or themes, using evidence.
- I can write a qualified judgment about whether a text achieves its purpose, for whom and why.
Words to know
evaluation
A judgment of how well a text achieves its purpose, based on criteria and evidence.
criteria
The standards used to judge a text; they should come from its purpose.
qualified judgment
A judgment that states for whom, in what context and with what limits a text is effective.
reach
How many people encounter a text (views, impressions).
engagement
How people interact with a text (watch time, likes, shares, comments).
call to action
The part of a text that tells the audience what to do next.
Remember from Grade 10
In Grade 10 you evaluated whether texts achieve their purpose using ethos, pathos, logos and kairos, and you learned that views and likes are not the same as success. In Grade 11 you will evaluate increasingly complex texts that communicate information, ideas, opinions and themes, and you will build your own criteria instead of relying on one checklist.
Hook: 2 million views, zero bike lanes
An invented creator, Priya Velo, posts a six-minute video essay: Why Your Town Needs Protected Bike Lanes. It is beautifully edited, with drone shots of Canadian cities, cheerful music and animated maps. It gets 2 million views and thousands of comments.
The town council in Priya's own city votes against new bike lanes a month later. A council member says: "Nice video, but it didn't answer how cyclists will manage in February."
Was the video effective? It depends on what it was for.
Evaluation is not opinion
"I liked it" is a reaction. An evaluation is a judgment about how well a text achieves its purpose, supported by evidence, using criteria that fit that purpose.
To evaluate a complex text:
- Name the purpose(s). Priya's video aims to inform viewers about protected bike lanes and persuade them (and, through them, councils) to support them.
- Build criteria from the purpose. For a persuasive informational text, criteria might be: accurate, credible evidence; clear structure; answers likely objections; appeals suited to the audience; a clear call to action.
- Gather evidence from the text for each criterion.
- Judge how well each criterion is met.
- Qualify the judgment: effective for whom, in what context, and with what limits.
Criteria for different purposes
- Informing: accuracy, sources cited, clarity, completeness, fairness to other views, accessibility (captions, plain language).
- Persuading: strength and relevance of evidence, handling of counter-arguments, appeals suited to the audience, call to action, credibility of the speaker.
- Entertaining: engagement, pacing, originality, emotional payoff, craft.
- Expressing a theme or identity: coherence of the theme, use of symbols, authenticity of voice, emotional truth.
Complex texts have several purposes, so you may need criteria from more than one list. You also judge the relationship between purposes: does the entertaining style support the persuasive purpose, or distract from it?
Measuring success
Creators and organizations often measure success with numbers: reach (views, impressions), engagement (watch time, shares, comments). These matter, but for persuasive or informational texts they are only the start. The deeper questions are whether people understood, changed their attitude or took action.
Worked exampleLet's evaluate Priya Velo's video essay
Evaluate how effectively the invented video essay Why Your Town Needs Protected Bike Lanes communicates its information and argument, and whether it achieves its purpose.
- Purpose: inform about protected bike lanes and persuade viewers to support them locally.
- Criterion 1, credible evidence: the video cites a city transportation report and shows before-and-after data from other cities. Met: sources are named on screen.
- Criterion 2, clear structure: it moves from problem (unsafe roads) to solution (protected lanes) to examples. Met: chapter titles help viewers follow.
- Criterion 3, answers likely objections: it handles cost and traffic but never mentions winter, which the council member raised. Not met for a Canadian audience, where snow clearing is the first question many people ask.
- Criterion 4, call to action: the video ends with "Share this video!" rather than "Contact your councillor before the vote." Partly met: it drives reach, not civic action.
- Relationship of purposes: the polished, entertaining style built huge reach (top of the funnel), but the argument did not reach action for the audience that mattered (councillors).
- Qualified judgment: effective at informing and inspiring a broad online audience, but less effective at its persuasive purpose for local decision makers, because it skipped the strongest local objection and gave a weak call to action.
The video is effective at reach and informing (credible sources, clear structure) but only partly effective at persuading where it counts, because it ignores winter and offers a share rather than an action call. A stronger version would address snow clearing and tell viewers how to contact council.
The qualified-judgment frame
Sentence frame for a qualified evaluation: "[Text] is effective at [purpose] for [audience] because [evidence], but less effective at [purpose] because [evidence]."
Just for funFunny but true: the saying "Not everything that can be counted counts" is often credited to Albert Einstein, but there is no good evidence he said it. Researchers trace a version of it to the sociologist William Bruce Cameron in 1963. Even famous quotes need source evaluation.
Hands-on activityBuild a criteria card and test it
You need: two short informational or persuasive media texts on the same topic (for example, two public-service videos about winter driving, two infographics about recycling, or two news explainers), paper and a pen.
- Write the purpose of the texts in one sentence.
- Build a criteria card with four criteria that come from the purpose. Write each as a question (Does it answer the most likely objection?).
- Score each text on each criterion: Met, Partly met, Not met, with one piece of evidence each.
- Write a qualified judgment for each text using the frame in the tip.
- Decide which text is more effective for a specific audience (for example, new drivers aged 16 to 18) and explain why.
What to look for: criteria that come from purpose (not is it cool?), evidence for every score, and a judgment that names an audience and a limitation.
Your turn
1What is the difference between a reaction and an evaluation?
A reaction is a personal response (I liked it). An evaluation judges how well a text achieves its purpose, using criteria and evidence.
2Where should evaluation criteria come from?
From the text's purpose(s), not from personal taste.
3List three criteria for evaluating an informational text.
Any three: accuracy, sources cited, clarity, completeness, fairness to other views, accessibility.
4Name the five levels of the impact funnel, top to bottom.
Reach, engagement, understanding, attitude, action.
5Why is 2 million views not proof that Priya's video achieved its purpose?
Views measure reach. Her purpose was to persuade people to support bike lanes; the council voted against them, so reach didn't turn into action where it mattered.
6What does it mean to qualify a judgment?
To say for whom, in what context and with what limits the text is effective, instead of a simple yes or no.
More practice: warm-up
1Is engagement higher or lower in the funnel than action?
Higher (closer to the top).
2Give one criterion for an entertaining text.
Any one: engagement, pacing, originality, emotional payoff, craft.
3Which appeal (from Grade 10) uses facts and reasoning?
4True or false: a complex text may need criteria from more than one purpose.
5What is a call to action?
The part of a text that tells the audience what to do next.
More practice: on your own
1Write two criteria for evaluating a 30-second PSA that aims to get teens to wear helmets while snowboarding.
Sample: Does it give a credible reason that matters to teens (not just to parents)? and Does it make helmet-wearing look normal or cool rather than embarrassing?
2A climate documentary is scientifically accurate but 2 hours long with slow pacing. Evaluate it for a Grade 9 classroom audience.
Sample: effective at accuracy (strong logos) but less effective for Grade 9 students because the length and slow pacing may lose attention before the message is understood. Shorter chapters or a 20-minute cut would suit this audience better.
3Explain how a text's entertaining style can distract from its persuasive purpose.
If viewers remember the jokes, music or visuals but not the argument or the action, the style has pulled attention away from the purpose. Entertainment should carry the message, not replace it.
4Rewrite Priya's call to action so it better serves her persuasive purpose.
Sample: "Our council votes on March 3. Click the link to email your councillor in under a minute." It names a specific action, deadline and tool.
5Why might a text be effective for one audience and not another? Use Priya's video.
Different audiences have different concerns and knowledge. Online viewers were inspired by the visuals, but councillors needed answers about winter maintenance and budgets, which the video left out.
Challenge
1A charity's emotional video about animal shelters raises $50 000 in donations but is criticized for showing only sad images. Write a qualified evaluation.
Sample: The video is highly effective at its fundraising purpose: its strong pathos moved viewers to action (donations). However, it is less effective at informing, because showing only sad images gives an incomplete picture of shelters and may cause compassion fatigue if the charity relies on it every time.
2Explain why an evaluator should consider the text's context (time, place, platform) as well as its content.
The same text can succeed in one context and fail in another. Kairos (timing), the platform (a phone feed vs a cinema) and local concerns (winter in Canada) all affect whether the message lands. Ignoring context can lead to a judgment that is accurate about the text but wrong about its effect.
3Design a simple way Priya could measure whether her next video changes attitudes or actions, not just views.
Sample: put a short poll at the start and end (Do you support protected lanes?) to measure attitude change, and use a tracked link to an email-your-councillor tool to count actions. Comparing the numbers shows movement down the funnel.
Quiz
1. An evaluation of a media text must be based on:
2. Which is the best criterion for a text whose purpose is to inform?
3. Which level of the impact funnel do views measure?
4. Which statement is a qualified judgment?
5. Priya's video is weakest on which criterion?
6. Why should evaluators consider context?
What this lesson teaches: expectation 1.3: evaluating how effectively increasingly complex media texts communicate information, ideas, opinions and themes, and whether they achieve their purpose. Students build criteria from purpose, gather evidence, and write qualified judgments. Priya Velo and her video are invented.
How to help at home:
- When your teen says a video was good, ask "Good at doing what? For whom?"
- Compare two public-service ads on the same topic and decide together which would change your behaviour, and why.
Common difficulties:
- Using taste as criteria (it was boring). Ask what the purpose needed.
- Yes/no judgments. Push for effective for... but less effective for... because...
- Confusing popularity with success. Use the funnel.
Fact note: the saying "Not everything that can be counted counts" is often attributed to Einstein without good evidence; a version appears in sociologist William Bruce Cameron's writing from 1963.