关键词 > GEOS300
GEOS 300 Geographical Sciences
发布时间：2025-11-12
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
Final Project
• Format:
• Select a microclimate (from around UBC/Vancouver, from somewhere else you’ve been, or from somewhere you’ve never been, e.g. using GoogleEarth).
• Microclimate should have a nearby, very distinct climate for comparison.
• Research the microclimate and present a written research report of your microclimate in the range of 3000-4000 words.
• Figures/diagrams are welcome and encouraged (count a figure as 250 words up to 4 figures; additional figures are welcome with no maximum, but there is a minimum 2000 word count of actual writing).
• Projects are individual. You may discuss your microclimate and ideas with classmates (and may even choose the same microclimate), but you must each conduct your own analysis and submit your own report. List the names of all students you discussed your project with at the top of your report.
• Refer to the rubric below for specifics of what we are looking for (including but not limited to external references (from peer reviewed research papers)).
• Content:
• Must draw from all three modules
• From each module, you must include at least one in-depth qualitative
assessment and at least one quantitative assessment (i.e. calculate and/or measure something) of some aspect of the microclimate.
• Tips and tools for selecting a microclimate:
• Pick something you’re excited about interested in learning more about
• hXps://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/(e.g. for rain shadows, vortex streets, etc.)
• hXps://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/
• hXps://climatebc.ca/mapVersion
• Google Earth Engine
• Pacific Spirit Park: find your own microclimate!
Tentative Rubric (subject to alteration)
|
Criteria |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
Content Accuracy 25% |
Factual information and details and consistently and fully articulated |
There are no glaring errors or errors on major informaHon and details; any mistakes commiXed may be aXributed to nervousness or oversight. |
Factual errors are commiXed oZen enough to distract knowledgeable audience members. |
Enough errors are commiXed that a general listener would begin to doubt which information is correct. |
Very liXle to no grasp of the subject maXer and/or is making things up. |
|
Content Depth 30% |
Presenter has a thorough and accurate knowledge of the key concepts and theories. Theories are related to each other correctly, and applied to material appropriately. The audience gains insight into the topic and how it relates to a broader context. |
The discussion of concepts and underlying theory are generally accurate; some applications are included and some connections across subject material are made. |
Minor errors are commiXed in the discussion of key concepts and theories. There are aXempts to contextualize theory, but not enough for a general audience member to apply/relate concepts to the outside world. |
Explanations of concepts and theories are inaccurate or incomplete. There is liXle to no relation made between concepts, or between concepts the real world. |
LiXle to no evidence of understanding of underlying physical processes or theory |
