• The GGES assessment subcommittee has evaluated cartographic communication for five years.

− Senior students submit their best map as part of their Geography 400 capstone portfolio in the Spring semester.

− Four to five faculty evaluate these maps using a instructional rubric.

− Cartographic instruction occurs in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) courses.

• The quality of student work has risen significantly due to several interventions made to close the loop.

− The advent of Geography 380: Cartography & Geovisualization has had a marked positive influence on student work being first offered in Spring 2016.

− Explicit instruction on map design are introduced and reinforced in 270 Geographic Information Systems I and 370 Geographic Information Systems II.

• Results from 2014 – 2016:− 52% scored under 10 of a possible 20 pts.

− Only 28% of submitted maps met competency

GGES Cartographic Communication Scoring Rubric

Visuals Included with Rubric

While not exhaustive, these four slides from Dr. Olson’s lectures are included with the cartographic rubric.

Rubrics (without scoring parameters) are available to students in lab spaces. These serve as reminders for students when they craft their maps.

Faculty rotate on and off the assessment subcommittee. These visuals help illustrate some of what to look for in evaluating cartographic design.

A challenge for students that they were often accepting GIS software defaults for borders and label. Default settings are usually suboptimal for map design. Showing the possibilities of different colors, label placement strategies, and features like halos and shadows with text resulted in more creativity and better visual communication.

Software defaults also produce legends like the example on the left. These examples are used in class to show students how to turn data into readable, logical keys for readers to use.

This slide is used to demonstrate sight lines to students. Aligning map elements across the entire layout aids readers in focusing systematically through a map. Students have sometimes found this topic to be a little “fuzzy” at first.

Examples From Earlier Assessment

Maps from the first years of assessment tended to:1) Lack a clear message

2) Have poor layouts; resulting in confusion or clutter

3) Have distorted map areas (issues of map projection)

4) Not highlight critical thinking in presentation

5) Lack general visual appeal; looking like a very basic assignment

6) Use unclear labeling and confusing legends

7) Demonstrate that students could not self-assess their best map; often handing in work from a complex project… but not a great map

Submitted work began improving in 2016 with notable advancements in:

1) Main messages and patterns being more apparent

2) The use of color and arrangement to enhance messages

3) Quantitative reasoning being highlighted and explained

4) Students critically assessing software defaults and adopting better visualizations

5) Awesomeness and creativity

Future Assessment Work: Curricular Changes

GIS faculty Rocio Duchesne, Eric Compas, and Jeff Olson met a dozen times over AY 17-18 to assess, discuss GIS courses and adapt to coming technology changes. Results from the cartographic assessment exercise were part of these discussions

Many curricular changes were proposed and accepted by the department and curriculum committee. The contact hours for GIS I have been reduced and topics have been shifted within existing courses, and a new course yet to be offered.

We will need to continue assessing visual communication to evaluate how curricular changes in GIS will influence student proficiency in cartography.

Examples of Recent Student Work

General reference maps visualizing terrain Choropleth maps with complex data distributions

Students develop their own color palettes

Critical thinking to derive categories, classifications

Bivariate choropleth maps explore overlapping themes

Labeling and explanatory text to unveil complexity Comparative mapping

Multiple layers force students to prioritize