It is surprisingly easy to start out intending to perform an assessment, yet end up offering evaluative or evaluative-sounding feedback. This is a trap that even strong assessors can have difficulty avoiding. Much of the problem is that the words we use are not like Lego blocks—they are not innocuous little chunks of self-contained and unchanging meaning that may be freely added to different contexts. The words we use are irrevocably linked to the affect, life experiences, and culture of both the person using the words as well as the person reading/hearing the words. Even if we have the best of intentions, the words we choose do not automatically signify those intentions to others.

As a short and relatively insignificant case-in-point, consider what Ward Cleaver said to his son, Beaver, when he was pleased with something Beaver had done: “That’s fine, son.” The word ‘fine’ would seem to be one which would not cause much confusion among users. But while the popular and current meaning of ‘fine’ is, according to Merriam-Webster ‘all right’ (which is defined as, ’satisfactory’), the historical (and less colloquial) meaning is, ‘free from impurity’ and thus ’superior in kind, quality, or appearance.’ This one word, then, can be used by different speakers to denote a quality as either ’satisfactory’ or ’superior,’ thus making what Ward meant as a high compliment sound dismissive or condescending to those whose primary meaning for ‘fine’ is ’satisfactory.’

This is just a single example but for nearly any adjective we might choose, similar issues arise. There is not a definitive dictionary for English and the meanings of the words we use change with surprising rapidity. (It should go without saying that it behooves each of us, as speakers of English, to consider carefully the popular, current, and colloquial meanings of the words we use.)

What does this have to do with Assessment and Evaluation? Consider the following:

Sentence #1  is a statement of fact (let’s assume it’s true) that makes reference to an objective measure. Any further conclusion beyond simply raising the measure and making the measurement opens the door for a host of language issues.

Sentence #2  is an evaluation or judgment. Looking even more closely (mentally diagramming the sentence), we can see that ‘you’ is defined as a ‘driver,’ with ‘dangerous’ telling us what kind of driver and therefore what kind of ‘you.’ This is intensely personal, and, as a similar sentence demonstrates (“You are a woman”), does not imply a sometime thing or action performed, but an actual state of being. There is no implication that this state can ever be changed or improved (going from being a dangerous driver to a safe driver).

Sentence #3  is much more assessment-based. It clearly separates the person (you) from the action (driving), making it obvious that the action is something performed rather than a state of being. This impersonal approach automatically relieves the statement from being personal. Further, the statement itself implies how improvement (to safer driving) might be made. Finally, it references, even if indirectly, the objective measures, giving even more information for how that improvement might be made. We could have fallen into the trap of saying, “Your driving can be made less dangerous…” but while this phrasing might avoid the intense personalization of Sentence #1, it clearly implies that the driving is dangerous. And it may well be, but if the goal is improvement, we prefer to make reference to the improved quality rather than the current one.

Have you ever received what was supposed to be assessment-based feedback, only to feel that you’d been the victim of a drive-by evaluation? Do we need to more carefully consider the way we phrase and word the feedback we give? Or is this a case of, ‘Most people know what I mean’?