Evaluating Complex Texts: Comparative Judgments, Ethics and Evidence of Effect

Remember from Grade 11

In Grade 11 you evaluated texts with explicit criteria, evidence and qualified judgments (largely effective for..., less effective because...). You also checked documentaries and data visuals for techniques that claim to show the truth.

Grade 12 raises the bar in three ways: you will compare complex texts with the same purpose, include ethics as a criterion, and ask what kind of evidence of effect actually exists. Expectation 1.3 asks you to evaluate how effectively texts communicate information, ideas, themes, issues and opinions, and whether they achieve their purpose.

Hook: two anti-vaping campaigns

An invented public-health unit has two short video campaigns aimed at Ontario students aged 14 to 18.

• **Campaign A, Your Lungs, Your Funeral: dark lighting, a coughing teen, a hospital bed, a dramatic voice-over and a final shot of a gravestone. It got 1.2 million views** and many comments.
• **Campaign B, Most of Us Don't: bright, quick interviews with real local students saying why they don't vape, plus one statistic about how many of their peers don't vape and a link to a free quitting service. It got 300 000 views**.

Which campaign was more effective? If you said A because it got more views, this lesson is for you.

Criteria for evaluating complex texts

Strong evaluation uses criteria that fit the text's purpose. Common criteria:

1. Purpose fit: do the techniques serve the stated goal (inform, persuade, change behaviour)?
2. Audience fit: are the language, tone, platform and representation right for the target audience?
3. Accuracy and support: are claims true, current and supported?
4. Craft: are the form, conventions and techniques skilfully used?
5. Ethics: does the text respect its audience and the people it shows? Does it avoid manipulation, stereotyping or harm?

Weight criteria by importance. For a public-health campaign, purpose fit and audience fit usually matter more than visual polish.

Evidence of effect

Views and likes measure reach and engagement, not effect. Effects on understanding, attitude and behaviour need other evidence: surveys before and after, recall tests, calls to a quit line, sales data. When you evaluate, say what evidence exists and what is missing.

What research suggests about persuasion techniques

• Fear appeals can work when they come with a clear, doable action that people believe they can take. Without that, audiences may tune out, mock the message or feel it isn't about them.
• Psychological reactance (a concept from psychologist Jack Brehm, 1966): when people, especially teens, feel their freedom is being threatened, they may push back and do the opposite. Heavy-handed messages can trigger it.
• A social norms approach corrects false beliefs about what peers do (most of us don't), which can work when the statistic is true and believable.

These are tendencies, not laws. Your evaluation should apply them to the evidence of the specific text.

Writing a comparative evaluation

1. Name the shared purpose and audience.
2. State your criteria and weights.
3. Evaluate each text against each criterion with evidence.
4. Note the evidence of effect that exists and what is missing.
5. Give a qualified overall judgment: B is likely more effective for most of the target audience, although A may reach more people.