Your question has been asked a million times. Here are three brief thoughts.

1. Colloquially (and often pragmatically), research and evaluation mean the same thing. In a technical sense, there is a difference. All evaluations are research, but not all research is evaluation.

2. Evaluation means to judge or to assign a value. Most likely one ranks practices and programs. In contrast, research without evaluation can be non-judgmental and descriptive, causal, etc. One's research aims dictate the purpose; one would no more evaluate one's religious belief as correct/incorrect than one hired to evaluate an educational intervention would purely describe it without a judgment of worth.

3. One's purpose influences one's paradigm, but don't get hung up on the indefensible idea one is connected with a solo paradigm throughout a study. I like the marriage of pragmatism plus critical realism (think Joseph Maxwell). We act with what tools we have, though we should be optimal versus satisficing. Critical realism fits qualitative research and cuts across most paradigms; we investigate a sample because each has a story to tell, informed by a perspective. Still, everything isn't reduced to unknowable and completely individuated.

Evaluation is conducted after the completion of the project to evacuate that project reached intended objectives or result it always conduct the end or after completion of a project.

and Research is a systemic process to investigate a problem or to answer an inquiry

One approach is to specify 'evaluation' as 'program evaluation', which is a large well-established multidisciplinary area of applied research used to evaluate a wide variety of 'programs'. This is consistent with David Coker's first point. Ideally, evaluations are planned ahead of time as an essential part of the program itself.

Some research is not 'evaluative', such as an exploratory comparison of anxiety levels in students doing different kinds of on-line learning during Covid. But! findings from that research could be used to create on-line programs that could then be formally evaluated.

The paradigm labels in your textbook mix theoretical (e.g. Feminist, Critical Race) with methodological (e.g. quantitative, qualitative) which can be confusing especially since Randomized Controlled Trials are a form of Experiment, and both are Quantitative and based in Probability Theory. Isn't it possible to imagine a school-based program to support, say, Indigenous children who have experienced domestic violence using insights from Post-Colonial and Critical Race theories, and evaluate it using quantitative (RCT), qualitative (focus groups), or both (mixed methods) approaches? In other words, it might be clearer to present the paradigm columns as a matrix, with actual examples of the different combinations of theoretical approaches and research methods.

Research refer to the problems solving,that already exists, your views, fact finding, review some relevant literature of previous authors that relevant to your work, while evaluation is totally assessment of using different varieties and application of taxonomy of education to acquire positive outcome

RESEARCH:

Consider a problem.

State the problem precisely.

Identify the variables.

State the objectives of your research [What is that you want to establish?]

Review the literature and find what is not researched.

Identify the methodology

Collect data

Analyze

and find the solution

When you have research topics

*You identify the variables,I.e

Independent variables and dependent variables.

*Statement of the problems

* Identify the research questions.

* State the research hypothesis if applicable.

Review difference work of authors that have direct bearing with the topic.

*Research method

*What types of research design, sample and population of the respondents.

* Method of Data collection

*Method of Data analysis