The difference between analysis and critical analysis lies in the use of wider research and critical literature and scholarship as a key feature of establishing and justifying a line of argument. 

This shows a greater understanding of the topic that is enmeshed in the scholarly context of the research. It demonstrates a greater capacity to engage with the  knowledge, skills and thinking in the discipline. A key feature of effective scholarship is that  it 'stands on the shoulders of giants'. It is vital that students who aspire to tertiary studies are prepared for critical analysis as engagement with existing and traditional scholarship in an area is a key feature of university studies

Analysis might involve examining the strengths and weaknesses of the target of analysis using the student's own data and research, logic, and judgement to come to an answer to a question. It is more specifically focused on the phenomena being analysed. 

Bacall intended to create a sense of fear and horror from the reader in the poem "Trenches".  She wrote "Boom Boom Boom."  The repeated use of alliteration and onomatopoeia of  in three "Booms" captures the relentless barrage of the trenches and that sensory experience impacts on the reader. This seems then to be one of those poems in which Bacall pursued their stated aim of "showing what it was like". (Bacall,1920) The aim of creating a sense of horror is achieved by the imagery, devices, as intended by Bacall.  

For many subjects, critical analysis involves engaging with literature and research, and the context of the target of analysis. It requires coming to a conclusion about the target of analysis by employing the literature on the topic in analysing own data,  logic and judgement, and data and judgements of others.  To elicit critical analysis it is best to formulate a question which has been located within the wider scholarly debate on a question. 

Bacall intended to create a sense of fear and horror from the reader in the poem "Trenches".  She wrote "Boom Boom Boom."  The repeated use of alliteration and onomatopoeia of  in three "Booms" captures the relentless barrage of the trenches and that sensory experience impacts on the reader. This seems then to be one of those poems in which Bacall pursued their stated aim of "showing what it was like". (Bacall,1920) This analysis is consistent with Boggart's analysis that "Bacall wanted others to know about the trenches".  Boggart particularly cites the image "Bleeding, dying, rats devouring" as indicative of Bacall's intention. Indeed the powerful image of suffering contained in that quotation is consistent with the repeated use of alliteration and onomatopoeia is creating a sensory experience of death, noise and filth of the trenches. The aim of communicating horror is achieved by the poetic devices, as intended by Bacall.  

The distinction between analysis and critical analysis may be applied differently in different subjects or task types. In Science or Mathematics, engagement with critical literature may well be too challenging for college students, and further undermine the training in experimental methods and analysis. As such, the achievement standards address evaluation as the highest standard and will relate to the capacity to analyse the reliability and accuracy of data and method. 

Analysis might involve examining the strengths and weaknesses of the target of analysis using the student's own data, logic, and judgement to come to an answer to a question. It is specifically focused on the phenomena being analysed in of itself. 

For example, X is a poor method for solving the problem because in my experiments it fails in 7 out of 10 times. That failure rate is not useful enough to use more widely. The origins of the errors are likely a, b and c. a and b could be improved by doing y. C could be improved by using more sensitive instruments. 

Evaluation in a conclusion to an experimental report might involve examining the strengths and weaknesses of the target of analysis using the student's own data, logic, and judgement to come to an answer to a question. In addition, they take a more critical approach by breaking the problem into parts that might be analysed individually.  They then apply quantitative and qualitative reasoning both to the individual components and to  justify their suggested improvements, and justifying their suggested improvements with quantitative and qualitative reasoning . That quantitative and qualitative reasoning is then applied to the original problem to make a change. 

For example, X is a poor method for solving the problem because in my experiments it fails in 7 out of 10 times. That failure rate is not useful enough to use more widely. I show below that the errors originate in a, b and c, and that a has the biggest impact. Doing y would reduce the a error by 50%, because it would eliminate the loss of w.

b and c errors could be reduced by using more sensitive instruments and those that worked with smaller amounts of z. I re-did the experiment with the following changes, which approximated y, and it reduced the failure rate to 6 out of 10 times. As shown below, if all of the changes to a, b, and c were made the failure rate could be reduced to 3 out of 10. The failure rate of 3/10 may be inherent in the method, but would still make the experiment widely usable. 

As the root of the word suggests, evaluate, "to form an opinion of the amount, value or quality of something after thinking about it carefully"(Oxford)  looks to determine the value of something for a purpose. In this academic context, evaluate could be used to indicate a capacity to engage with metalanguage and metacognition and place knowledge claims in the context of epistemological questions in the discipline, i.e. the value or quality of the knowledge claim. The student shows a capacity to understand how knowledge is created and what separates reliable and valid knowledge claims from less reliable and invalid claims, and applies that in answering questions and mounting arguments.  Alternately, it could be used to indicate a capacity to examine the value of something for a purpose. Students may well make judgements about the value, quality or success of a text, process or proposal.  This will require deep knowledge of the thing being evaluated, of the category of thing being evaluated, the ideal of the thing, as well as alternatives. To elicit evaluation from a student will require a different question than one that will elicit analysis and critical analysis. 

For example, 

Analysis- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Machiavelli's arguments about being a successful Prince?

A fairly direct question that enables deep thinking about the nature of leadership in Renaissance Italy and beyond.

Critical analysis- Critically analyse Burkhart's argument that Machiavelli's ideal Prince was a satire. 

A questions that requires deep thinking about leadership in Renaissance Italy, but also about the purpose of the text and the scholarly debate about its purpose. 

Evaluate - Evaluate Machiavelli's 'The Prince' as a source for understanding the means by which the Italian 'Princes' ruled in the Quattrocento. 

You will note that the last question requires a deep knowledge of the period, of the text, text type, and of the process by which historical arguments are formed and validated. It will require engaging with the wider debates about the purpose of the text, e.g. satire, propaganda, political thesis, and engaging with the question of whether its very inaccuracy is in fact revealing. 

These are very high standards that reflect the capacities of our most capable students.