What's the Difference between a Conclusion and Evaluation?

There's often a lot of confusion about what goes into a conclusion and what is in an evaluation, and whether they are the same thing. Most of the confusion stems from the fact that they both talk about the experiment and the results (although given that we've spent so long working up to the experiment, it would be weird if they didn't). So what's the difference?

The evaluation involves looking at your experiment and seeing how you could have improved your technique. Evaluation looks at your results and asks if they show your experiment to have been performed well. It's like feedback on your performance - if you did the experiment again, what would you change? What new equipment might you use? Alternatively, explain why you think your method could not be improved.
If you had any outliers, mention them, or explain why you don't think you have any. Mention the range of data and error bars, and whether you feel they are acceptable (do the error bars overlap?). The evaluation looks at the accuracy and repeatability of the results. The exam board prefers the word 'repeatable' to 'reliable'. Repeatable means that if you did the experiment again, you could expect to get the same results and explain why.

The conclusion will relate back to the hypothesis. Did you prove your hypothesis correct? If you did, why are you so sure? The conclusion will also mention the results (the degree of scatter etc), but this time it's to do with how confident you are in the fact that they have proved your hypothesis. You need to bring in scientific knowledge again, this time to explain why you think the hypothesis is supported by your results. You could also talk about what extra data or further experiments would make you even more confident in your results. The conclusion will also bring in secondary data to prove your point. What is secondary data, I hear you ask? That's for another post...