1. The Role of Peer-Assessment
teaching cartography
The Role of Peer-Assessment
John Lowry
presented by Nick Rollings

2. 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!

3. 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

4. Peer Assessment and GS231 Peer Assessment pedagogy Cartography:
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

5. 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)
Final Submitted Marks given by Instructor
Assignment Given
Draft submitted
Peer feedback

6. Map Assignment 1 Theory: Technical Skills (ArcMap & QGIS):
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.

7. Map Assignment 1: Layout and Design
DRAFT
FINAL

8. 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

9. Map Assignment 2: Principles of Colour
DRAFT
FINAL

10. Map Assignment 3: Typography
Theory:
Typographic guidelines, positioning rules, fonts, character and word spacing, leading
Technical Skills:
Annotation (geodatabase)

11. Map Assignment 3: Typography Guidelines
DRAFT
FINAL

12. Map Assign. 4: Large Scale Reference
Theory:
Concepts of scale and generalization
Technical Skills (ArcMap):
Screen digitizing data for a large scale map

13. Map Assignment 4: Large Scale Reference Maps
DRAFT
FINAL

14. 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.

15. Map Assignment 5: Mapping Quantitative Data
DRAFT
FINAL

16. Other lab assignments Cartograms (ArcGIS Cartogram extension)
Data Driven Pages (ArcGIS)
Web-based mapping (ArcGIS Online)

17. Student Questionnaire
Anonymous responses
Focused on peer-assessment process
Given at the end of the semester

18. 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.

19. After I assessed other students’ maps I often reflected on how I could improve my own map.
Looking at other students’ maps motivated self reflection

20. 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.

21. Sometimes I did not assess my peers’ maps because:
Reasons for not assessing peer’s maps varied.

22. 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.

23. My final map was usually greatly improved compared to my draft map.
Students recognized their maps were improved compared to drafts

24. 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.

25. 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 only be 5.
Feedback from the audience on ideas for improvement is welcome!

26. Vinaka!