You know it’s a new school year when the annual debate pops up surrounding scales of analysis. 

*For teachers asking why this is even an important concept: assessing which scale to tackle an inquiry is a fundamental skill for the discipline, and beyond.

Since we are geographers, our typical default for instruction is the map. And while it is tempting to find any and EVERY map for students to practice this skill, the use of certain maps will lead to confusion over which scale of analysis should be applied. The problem with dot density and isoline maps depicted over world regions and the globe, is that it challenges our ability to compare formal region to another formal region (such as Indiana vs. Wisconsin, province vs. province, country vs. country, etc.). When using maps to demonstrate this skill, it is best practice to use choropleth maps so that comparisons are easily made, and you can move on with your life. Do yourself a favor…stop using isoline, heat, and dot density maps to teach this skill. Yes, it is true, there are textbooks that have committed this party foul – don’t fall for it, you will confuse the dickens out of your kids…and yourself.

You can also practice this skill with words, charts, or graphs. Here is a quick practice worksheet where students can choose the best scale of analysis that a career professional would use to conduct a geographic inquiry.

Per the current College Board 2019 course description, there are four testable scales of analysis:

1. Local: (Sub-state, County, Province, Prefecture, County, Township, Census Tract, etc.). Note that this could include local regions such as the Midwest and the American South, but to date, these questions elude us.
2. Country: including National/State: e.g. Canada compared to Mexico
3. Regional: They mean world regional, e.g. South Asia, East Asia, North Africa, Europe, Latin America.
4. Global: Useful for demonstrating change over time for global statistics (world averages, global population, etc.)

Have a great day,

H.I.