February 1, 2010 FEEDBACK to: xx
HW-A02 – Atlas for a
THEMES that might be discussed:
Counties are political entities… human geography.
People draw boundaries… for reasons.
Some county boundaries are based on physical geography… for reasons
Some county boundaries are based on geographic grids … for simplicity, or ignorance, or for politics – such as along the boundary of another state.
Some county boundaries are based on culture… (Carbon – Emery)
Observations -
Evidence…
Was your map clear… were your boundaries shown accurately as lines on county map… and as classified on a map that shows major physical features. Was the discussion about the county’s size, location, boundaries pretty much accurate. Did observations seem important to the discussion of relationships of politics and place.
Absolutely Yes, clear Just fine Okay enough Not clear Troubles
Interpretations -
Analysis…
· Terrific if there was evidence that you’d considered the themes of geography—
Place, Location, Interaction, Migration, and Regions… I know we have not discussed some of these.
· The main theme I hoped would outcrop in discussion was “interaction between people and environments” or “interaction between human and physical geographies”… or “webs of relationships among people places and environment”… and then some discussion. County boundaries are inherently political.
· Could I tell that you figured out some reasonable reasons why your county’s boundaries were drawn where they were drawn?
· Could I tell whether the boundaries made sense to you from your ever-growing understanding of human and physical geography?
Map files: ____ of
10
Complete: Yes Pretty much Not quite
Yes.
Meaningful:
Absolutely, the basis for discussion of cover page.
Just fine, the county boundaries were classified and classification made sense.
Okay, the county boundaries were classified but the discussion of the cover page didn’t quite seem to relate to the map because the map wasn’t quite clear enough.
Troubles… not a good sense of natural features, so difficult to evaluate whether natural features mattered.
Cover page: __of 10
(see some of the logic, above)
Discussion of county location, size, and boundaries,
specifically, why are the boundaries where they are; how do the boundaries
indicate interaction of human and physical geographies of
· 12- Awesome: the discussion was interesting, made sense, shared information that showed relationships that explored social or behavioral sciences such as politics. Plenty of verbiage. Thanks for sharing your ideas. Congratulations on thinking geographic thoughts even if I might not totally interpret as you have interpreted.
· 11- Absolutely: reflected a sense of place… understanding of connections. Verbalized relationships. Plenty of discussion. Perhaps some skepticism or questioning. Congratulations.
· 10 -Really good: some geographic analysis… webs of relationships. It’s clear that people draw boundaries and there’s some logic to what they did. Wrote enough that I could follow your logic
· 9-Just fine: presented the information. Your cover page indicates that you can make connections. I don’t quite get a strong sense of place… yet… but just fine.
· 7 or 8- Not quite an analysis. I can’t tell that you understand the connections… perhaps because the discussion is cryptic, or so much like the example I’m not sure you’re thinking your thoughts, perhaps you’re timid and don’t quite trust your understanding of interaction, or are worried about getting a bad grade for saying something totally off the wall…
· 5-Trouble… good start… but it looks like some disconnects between the evidence (your maps) and your discussion… or lack of discussion
__ of 20 …