Printable classroom resource
Student map project rubric
Assess the question, evidence and explanation behind a student map, as well as the map itself. This printable resource reuses the ten criteria and four performance levels from our student map-project guide.
Share the criteria before students start. Use the browser’s Print command for a paper copy, or keep the criteria beside the map and text equivalent during review.
Use the rubric
Read the student’s question, inspect feature captions and sources, then follow the presentation or companion text. Select the descriptor that best matches the evidence for each row.
Score each row 1–4. A complete project should not have a 1 in Ethics, Sources, or Accessibility. A strong-looking map does not compensate for unsafe personal information or unsupported claims.
- Agree on any course-specific weighting before the assignment begins.
- Look for what the student can explain, rather than rewarding the largest number of pins.
- Give one specific comment and one manageable next revision.
- When an element such as multimedia is not part of the assignment, explain your adaptation before students submit.
Assessment criteria
| Criterion | 4 — Strong | 3 — Solid | 2 — Thin | 1 — Not yet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic question | Bounded, relational, and visible in the map’s design | Clear question, slightly too broad | Theme posing as a question | No question; pins wander |
| Selection of places | Every feature is necessary; omissions are explained | Most features earn their place | Several tourist or duplicate pins | Dump of unrelated points |
| Layers and legend | Layers encode the argument; legend is complete | Layers exist and mostly help | One pile of pins; weak legend | No readable organization |
| Sources and citations | Feature-level credits and a bibliography; uncertainty tagged | Sources present with minor gaps | Generic URLs, missing dates | Unsourced claims |
| Spatial thinking | Uses distance, adjacency, scale, or change on purpose | Some spatial comparison | Map as illustration only | Map contradicts the writing |
| Multimedia | Media add evidence and are credited | Media relevant but uneven | Decorative media | Uncredited or unsafe media |
| Accessibility | Table + captions + color-independent coding | Most content available as text | Key ideas only on the map | Inaccessible or hover-only |
| Collaboration and process | Roles and change log are visible | Work shared with minor imbalance | Last-minute single editor | No process evidence |
| Ethics and privacy | No sensitive personal data; public vs. restricted sharing is correct | Small issues, quickly fixed | Careless personal detail | Personal addresses, minors identified, or reckless public sharing |
| Presentation | Timed tour + text equivalent; complication included | Clear tour, little critique | Reads captions in order | Cannot explain the map |
Record scores
Record one score and a short evidence note for each criterion. Use these notes to guide feedback and revision.
| Criterion | Score (1–4) | Evidence / comment |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic question | ||
| Selection of places | ||
| Layers and legend | ||
| Sources and citations | ||
| Spatial thinking | ||
| Multimedia | ||
| Accessibility | ||
| Collaboration and process | ||
| Ethics and privacy | ||
| Presentation |
Optional weighting
Suggested weights (adjust to your course): Question 15%, Selection 10%, Layers 10%, Sources 15%, Spatial thinking 15%, Multimedia 5%, Accessibility 10%, Process 5%, Ethics 10%, Presentation 5%.
Choose equal row scoring or the stated course weighting before marking; these are alternatives. The rubric does not prescribe a pass percentage. A project that fails Ethics or Sources does not pass on pretty cartography.
Student submission check
- My question names a place and a relationship to investigate.
- I can explain why each mapped feature belongs.
- Captions name the evidence and its source, including uncertainty.
- Legend categories also appear in text, rather than color alone.
- A feature table or script communicates the same argument without the interactive map.
- I have checked images, personal information, sources and the intended sharing audience.
- I explain one limitation or complication instead of claiming that the map proves everything.
Teacher feedback and revision
Record the evidence that supports your judgement. Describe a change the student can make: identify a missing source, qualify an approximate location, revise a legend or add a text equivalent.
Student or group:
Project title:
Geographic question:
Evidence that worked:
Priority revision:
Student’s response / next step:
Reviewer and review date:
For the full process, return to the student map-project guide. Use twelve student project models when students need an initial question to adapt.