TEACHING CARTOGRAPHY The Role of Peer-Assessment John Lowry - - PDF document

30/11/2016 1

TEACHING CARTOGRAPHY

The Role of Peer-Assessment

John Lowry presented by Nick Rollings

Reminder!

• Please participate in the

Student Poster and Map Competition!

• New event this year at the

Pacific Islands GIS&RS User Conference

• Examine the maps and

posters in foyer and submit your ballot at the registration desk before 4:30 Wednesday!

30/11/2016 2

Objectives of this presentation

• Rationale and Peer-Assessment

approach in GS231—Cartography and Geovisualization

• Examples of draft and final maps (after

peer-assessment)

• Results of student survey of Peer-

Assessment in GS231 this semester

• Concluding observations & feedback

Peer Assessment and GS231

• Peer Assessment pedagogy
• Common in many disciplines
• Students evaluate the work of peers
• Students generate discussion (or provide feedback)
• Moderated at some level by the instructor
• Cartography:
• Involves applying principles best learnt by doing &

mimicking

• Like art, good cartography evolves through an iterative

process of refinement

30/11/2016 3

GS231 Assessment Structure

• 8 mapping assignments each covering different

cartographic techniques or principles

• Each assignment: Student submit draft map randomly

assigned two peers’ maps to assess based on feedback student completes final map for marking by instructor.

Initial draft map (1 week) Assessment Phase (1 week) Refinement Phase (1 week) Assignment Given Draft submitted Peer feedback Final Submitted Marks given by Instructor

Map Assignment 1

• Theory:
• Cartographic Design Principles (Visual Hierarchy,

Contrast, Figure-Ground, Visual Balance, Focus and Attention, Alignment and Positioning)

• Technical Skills (ArcMap & QGIS):
• Data frames, map scale, map elements,

manipulate layers, symbology, alignment tools

• Following are Draft and Final map for the

same student.

30/11/2016 4

DRAFT FINAL

Map Assignment 1: Layout and Design

Map Assignment 2: Principles of Colour

• Theory:
• RGB and CMYK colour models, Concepts and

uses of Hue, Saturation and Value (HSV)

• Technical Skills (ArcMap & QGIS):
• Creating a colour map file in ArcGIS and QGIS

30/11/2016 5

DRAFT FINAL

Map Assignment 2: Principles of Colour

Map Assignment 3: Typography

• Theory:
• Typographic guidelines, positioning rules,

fonts, character and word spacing, leading

• Technical Skills:
• Annotation (geodatabase)

30/11/2016 6

DRAFT FINAL

Map Assignment 3: Typography Guidelines

Map Assign. 4: Large Scale Reference

• Theory:
• Concepts of scale and generalization
• Technical Skills (ArcMap):
• Screen digitizing data for a large scale map

30/11/2016 7

DRAFT FINAL

Map Assignment 4: Large Scale Reference Maps

Map Assign. 4: Quantitative Data

• Theory:
• Concepts of count and continuous data, rates

and ratios; Choropleth mapping

• Technical Skills (ArcMap):
• Download data from web (PopGIS), convert count

to ratios, Calculate percent change.

30/11/2016 8

DRAFT FINAL

Map Assignment 5: Mapping Quantitative Data

Other lab assignments

• Cartograms (ArcGIS Cartogram extension)
• Data Driven Pages (ArcGIS)
• Web-based mapping (ArcGIS Online)

30/11/2016 9

Student Questionnaire

• Anonymous responses
• Focused on peer-assessment process
• Given at the end of the semester

Doing the peer assessment helped me better understand things we learned about in lecture (e.g. principles of colour, good map design, etc.)

• Students recognized the link between lab and lecture.

30/11/2016 10

After I assessed other students’ maps I often reflected

• n how I could improve my own map.
• Looking at other students’ maps motivated self

reflection

Most of the time my peers gave a thoughtful, honest assessment of my maps.

• There was a problem that some students did not do

the peer assessments which left other students frustrated.

30/11/2016 11

Sometimes I did not assess my peers’ maps because:

• Reasons for not assessing peer’s maps varied.

The process of completing a draft map, then assessing peers’ maps, then finalizing my draft map took too long.

• The process: Draft > Peer Assessment > Final often

took 3 weeks, which may have been too long.

30/11/2016 12

My final map was usually greatly improved compared to my draft map.

• Students recognized their maps were improved

compared to drafts

Instead of doing peer-assessment, it would have been better if assessments/critiques of the lab assignments were done by a Teaching Assistant.

• About half the class saw the value in doing the
• assessment. The other half apparently did not.

30/11/2016 13

Conclusions

• In general, students seemed to recognize the value of

the peer assessment process

• Some students often did not do the peer assessment;

this caused some frustration

• Students valued the input from their peers as they felt it

helped improve their maps

• There were 7 peer assessments. Next year there may
• nly be 5.
• Feedback from the audience on ideas for improvement

is welcome!

Vinaka!