Evaluating Non-Fiction Resources: Criteria for Quality

SUMMARY
Evaluating the quality of non-fiction resources is a complex task. Key criteria are suggested for both content and form in order to evoke classroom and professional discussion about what makes a resource one of effectiveness, impact, interest, and significance.

A Traditional Distinction: Content and Form

Teachers and teacher-librarians take seriously the work of developing strong criteria in order to buy, use, and share the best non-fiction resources. This is even more important at a time of fiscal restriction on the one hand, and of overwhelming choice on the other. Such work is even more difficult as the list of formats and types of resources grows. This is one of the reasons I favour aggregating applications like lcommons.org to share the work and resources.

Is there a notion that might help the complex process of evaluating the quality of one resource against another?

One place to turn might be a distinction, made by ancient rhetoricians and modern pedagogues alike, between content  (the matter being created) and form (the manner in which it is created). Synonyms for content might include substance, idea, or argument; synonyms for form might include style, medium, or treatment.

Some frame this distinction as one of substance versus style. But this is a wayward notion, as ideas are wedded to their expression. A building's form follows its function and its function depends on its form.

Evoke-a-Gram 3: Evaluating the Quality of Non-Fiction Resources

Readers seem to have liked my previous two "evoke-a-grams" (1. From Data to Wisdom and 2. IMPACT Acronym for Literary Analysis). These graphics are deliberately suggestive to evoke interaction and application to diverse contexts.

Because evoke-a-grams are what McLuhan might call "probes" (towards pattern recognition), I follow them with certain prompts to aid individual and group discussion.

So to help teachers and students analyze the quality of non-fiction resources, I have created my next evoke-a-gram to focus on content-based and form-based criteria. You could use it to clarify the purchase, analysis, and appreciation of everything from textbooks to library books, from newspapers to newscasts, from radio features to film documentaries. Such criteria should be shared with colleagues and taught in all subjects. If you're eager about assessment, you can use the criteria to create rubrics, checklists, etc.

Key Prompts

1. For each of the two circles representing content and form:

• What is meant by each of the criteria (e.g., accurate, authoritative, appropriate, clear)? Do you prefer other synonymous terms?
• How can each of the criteria be used to determine the quality of a resource? 
• Are these criteria useful for evaluation or are there criteria missing? 
• Are some criteria more important than others?
• Does this importance change depending on the type of resource? 
• Must all criteria be met for a resource to be deemed effective?

2. For the central space representing the commonality between the two circles:

• What is meant by "quality?"
• What is meant by each of the resulting concepts (e.g., effectiveness, impact, interest, and significance)?
• How do these concepts result from the interaction of the content-based and form-based criteria?
• Are these concepts useful for evaluation or are there concepts missing? 
• Are some concepts more important than others?
• Does this importance change depending on the type of resource? 
• Must all concepts be realized for a resource to be deemed one of quality? 

Comments?

If this approach interests you, write or comment and I will add further related material in subsequent posts and pages on this blog. You could even use the criteria above to evaluate the quality of my blog itself!