Geographical Communication and Evaluation
Communicating geographically
Effective communication uses appropriate conventions: a titled, sourced and scaled map or graph; labelled axes with units; a legend; consistent terminology; and a logical structure of introduction, body and conclusion. Extended responses should signpost judgement - the reader should know your overall position by the end of the introduction and see it defended throughout.
Evaluation and judgement
Evaluation means weighing evidence and reaching a defensible judgement. Use criteria explicitly: effectiveness, equity, sustainability, cost, timescale and scale of impact. A strong evaluation acknowledges counter-evidence, states the criteria used, and concludes with a qualified judgement ("largely effective for short-term relief, but limited in reducing long-term vulnerability because…").
Structuring extended responses
A reliable structure: define the issue and scale; present evidence for one side with data; present counter-evidence; evaluate using named criteria; conclude with a qualified judgement and, where asked, a recommendation. Use connectives that signal reasoning ("therefore", "however", "this suggests") rather than listing.
Traps
- Describing both sides without ever judging - the most common lost-mark pattern.
- Unsupported judgement ("it was very effective") with no criterion or evidence.
- Ignoring the command word: "discuss" needs balance, "evaluate" needs criteria and a verdict, "justify" needs reasons for a chosen position.
- Sloppy conventions: missing units, unlabelled axes, unsourced data.
Rule of thumb
Use C-C-J: state the Criteria, present the Competing evidence, then deliver the Judgement. One sentence of qualified judgement at the end of each evaluation paragraph is worth more than a page of description.