GEOG 356: Resources Management

GEOG 356: Resources Management

Assignment 2 Guideline

Assignment 2: E-poster (20% for the final grade)

Due date: 11:59 pm, Oct. 28, 2024. Late submissions will have a -5% per day deduction applied.

Pleasenotethatyoucancompletethis assignmentbeforethedeadline!

Summary: This assignment asks you to research and then design a “virtual/electronic conference

poster” that outlines the use of “two-eyed seeing” (aka blended Indigenous/Western Science approaches) in a specific case study example of resource management. It is important to note that there are many examples of two-eyed seeing that never use the term two-eyed seeing (two-eyed seeing is often used within a specific First Nations context in North America, but there are many other examples where the same concept is applied with so-called ‘traditional peoples’/Indigenous peoples. This is often referred to   as "blended knowledge" or simply combined Scientific/Traditional knowledge). Lectures on October 1st  and Guest Lecture on October 3rd  in Week 5 give you more understanding of the concept. Please attend my office hours or speak tome after class if you need help identifying a case study or want to check to make sure the case study you  have identified is appropriate.

Format: e-poster (poster size: A4), formatted as you would expect to see in an academic conference (some examples shown and discussed in Week-1 class)

Overview and instructions: You will search for documentation about a specific resource

management case study example (project,program, protected area, landscape, project initiative,a specific type of resource, etc.) anywhere in the world where two-eyed seeing has formed a significant part of the overall management approach. You will first give enough context about your case study example so that the reader will be able to understand your subsequent analysis. You will then analyze and explain to the reader how two-eyed seeing has affected the overall management of your case study.

Youre-poster should include:

•   Introduction

o Provide a brief introduction about your poster topic and its significance.

o A good poster contains a concise introduction section with a broader overview of the problem.

•    Overview of your case study example

o Provide a brief overview of what your case study comprises, where it is located, who the major actors are in your case, etc.

o A good poster consists of a specific overview instead of trying to include all background stories.

•   Explanation of how two-eyed seeing affects the management of your case study

o Provide an in-depth explanation of how the two-eyed seeing approach contributes to the management of your case study resources /in your case study area.

o You can use maps/images/charts/figures where relevant to support your explanation.

o Make sure you provide the name and source of maps/images/charts/figures you have used in your poster.

o A good poster links/explains the idea from maps/images/charts/figures used in your poster into the text rather than keeping it stand-alone.

•    Conclusions

o Explain what you can conclude about the benefits and challenges of using two-eyed seeing for your resource management case.

o A good poster has a succinct conclusion section instead of restating the same thing from the previous sections.

•   List of references

o You need to provide at least three academic sources including journal articles. However,you are encouraged to consider more resources.

o Provide an alphabetical listing of all sources 代 写GEOG 356: Resources Management used (can be in smaller font BUT legible if you are worried about the space).

o Be sure to cite sources using APA or a comparable style.

You can improve the overall style. of your poster by being thoughtful about:

o Presentation (use of graphics, distinct headings, etc.).

o Poster “impact” (e.g. colour, contrast, separation between sections, graphic elements which increase impact).

o Supporting figures/tables/maps/photos.

o Idea development (logic, sequence, continuity, structure, grammar, sentence construction, word choice, etc.).

o Citations (i.e., cite all materials as you would a research paper. Endnotes have been recommended to clarify some ideas in the poster’s main text).

You can consider the following resources to get tips on creating Posters:

• http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/poster.html

• http://hsp.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/ScientificPosters.pdf

• http://www.makesigns.com/tutorials/scientific-poster-parts.aspx

• http://abacus.bates.edu/~bpfohl/posters/

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgjgwIXadA(YouTube video)

Marks breakdown (100 total marks available):

Marking components	Beginning (0-5)	Developing (5-7)	Proficient (8-10)
1. Introduction (10 marks)	Generally, a poor introduction	Either the reader is not eased into the topic OR does not know the poster will address two-eyed seeing	The reader is eased into the topic and knows the poster will address two-eyed seeing
	Beginning (0-7)	Developing (7-11)	Proficient (11-15)
2. Case study example overview (15 marks)	Very poorly done/far too brief	Good overview - the reader is given some info but perhaps not enough to fully understand the case study	Excellent overview – the reader is given enough information to understand the case study
	Beginning (0-12)	Developing (12-17)	Proficient (18-24)	Exemplary (25-30)
3.   Explanation of how two-eyed seeing affects the management of your case study (30 marks)	Very poorly done all around, not at a third year University standard!	Fair text explanation of how two-eyed seeing contributes to management (and maps/images/charts/figures are used where relevant) but many elements not discussed	Good text explanation of how two-eyed seeing contributes to management (and maps/images/charts/figures are used where relevant) but perhaps not a complete discussion	Excellent well-rounded text explanation of how two- eyed seeing contributes to management (and maps/images/charts/figures are used where relevant)
	Beginning (0-10)	Developing (10-14)	Proficient (15-20)
4. Conclusions (20 marks)	A very brief restatement of points already made; no attempt at conclusions	A good summary of points already made (but lacking in true ‘conclusions’)	An excellent distillation of what the student learned/concluded about two- eyed seeing in their case (not

			just arestatement or summary of points already made)
	Beginning (0-1)	Developing (2-3)	Proficient (4-5)
5. List of References (5 marks)	Very poorly done overall, or perhaps just a listing of URLs	A confusing mixture of reference styles, improperly done, or too few sources (less than 3)	A complete listing of all sources, consistently using a recognized style (i.e., APA)
	Beginning (0-10)	Developing (10-14)	Proficient (15-20)
6. Overall Style (20 marks)	Overall, many style elements are poorly done, or the poster looks like it was done at the last minute.	Overall, several style. elements are not done well, observed some glitches on presentation, ‘impact’/professionalism, idea development/logic/structure, spelling, grammar, citations, etc.).	All elements of ‘style’ are done very well (i.e. presentation, ‘impact’/professionalism, idea development/logic/structure, spelling, grammar, citations, etc.).