Investigating aspects of data visualization literacy using 20 information visualizations and 273 science museum visitors

Abstract

In the information age, a person’s ability to read and make data visualizations is nearly as important as being able to read and write text. This article reports the results of a multi-phase study conducted in informal learning environments in three US science museums. The goal of the study was to determine the familiarity of youth and adult museum visitors with different visualization types. To address this, a total of 273 visitors were shown 5 out of 20 different visualizations that included two charts, five maps, eight graphs, and five network layouts. They were asked to judge the familiarity of the visualization, provide information on how to read it, and provide a name and identify typical locations where they would encounter the data display and possible data sources that might be visualized in this way. The results show that while most participants have a strong interest in science, math, and art, many have a hard time naming and interpreting visualizations. Participants in this study commonly encounter visualizations in school, in books, at work, on the Internet, and in the news. Overall, they were more familiar with basic charts, maps, and graphs, but very few are familiar with network layouts and most have no ability in reading network visualizations. When asked how they would interpret the visualizations, most participants pointed to superficial features such as color, lines, or text as important to developing understanding. Overall, we found that participants were interested in the visualizations we presented to them, but had significant limitations in identifying and understanding them. The results substantiate intuitions shared by many regarding the rather low level of data visualization literacy of general audiences. We hope they will help catalyze novel research on the development of easy-to-use yet effective visualizations with standardized names and guaranteed properties that can be readily used by those interested to understand and solve real-world problems. The results also have implications for how information visualizations are taught and used in formal and informal education, the media, or in different professions.

Keywords

Information visualization data literacy user study science museums

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Research Council. Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

Michaels

Shouse

Schweingruber

. Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.

Eckhaus

Wolfe

. Gathering and interpreting data: an interdisciplinary approach. Sci Scope 1997; 21(4): 44–46.

Espinoza

. Developing inquiry through activities that integrate fieldwork and microcomputer-based technology. Sci Activit 2002; 39(3): 9–17.

Hug

Barbara

McNeill Katherine

. Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: does data type influence classroom conversations? Int J Sci Educ 2008; 30(13): 1725–1751.

McNeill

Krajcik

. Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In: Lovett

Shah

(eds) Thinking with data: proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp. 233–265.

Kozhevnikov

Motes

Hegarty

. Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Sci 2007; 31(4): 549–579.

Maltese

Harsh

Svetina

. Interpretation of graphical representations along the novice—expert continuum. J Coll Sci Teach, in press.

10.

Roth

W-M

Michael Bowen

. Professionals read graphs: a semiotic analysis. J Res Math Educ 2001; 32(2): 159–194.

11.

Manyika

Chui

Brown

. Big data: the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity (Report for the McKinsey Global Institute). New York: McKinsey & Company, 2011.

12.

Csikszenymihalyi

. Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial, 1996.

13.

Sternberg

Lubart

. Chapter 1. The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In: Sternberg

(ed.) Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 3–15.

14.

Hammerman

Rubin

. Strategies for managing statistical complexity with new software tools. Stat Educ Res J 2004; 3(2): 17–41.

15.

Konold

. Handling complexity in the design of educational software tools. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on teaching statistics, Salvador, Brazil, 2–6 JULY 2006. Auckland, New Zealand: IASE.

16.

Storksdieck

Bronnenkant

Kissler

. The national museum of natural history’s global links—forces of change: summative exhibition evaluation. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation, 2003.

17.

Grack

Ellenbogen

Rowe

. Beyond Oohs and Aahs: using evaluation to help visitors understand complex scientific visualizations. Paper presented at the visitor studies association conference, Grand Rapids, MI, 25–29 July 2006.

18.

Kittur

Chi

Suh

. Crowdsourcing user studies with mechanical turk. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI), Florence, 5–10 April 2008, pp. 453–456. New York: ACM.

19.

Heer

Bostock

. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In: Proceedings of ACM human factors in computing systems (CHI), Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp. 203–212. New York: ACM.

20.

Grammel

Tory

Storey

. How information visualization novices construct visualizations. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr 2010; 16(6): 943–952.

21.

Kang

Stasko

. Understanding and characterizing insights: how do people gain insights using information visualization? In: Proceedings of the 2008 workshop on beyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, Florence, 5 April 2008, pp. 4:1–4:6. New York: ACM.

22.

Borkin

Bylinskii

. What makes a visualization memorable? IEEE T Vis Comput Gr 2013; 19(12): 2306–2315.

23.

Skupin

Biberstine

Börner

. Visualizing the topical structure of the medical sciences: a self-organizing map approach. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(3): e58779.

24.

Bahador

Simonetto

Kobourov

. Node, node-link, and node-link-group diagrams: an evaluation. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr 2014; 20(12): 2231–2240.

25.

Lam

Bertini

Isenberg

. Empirical studies in information visualization: seven scenarios. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr 2012; 18(9): 1520–1536.

26.

OECD. PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework (Technical report). OECD, 2012, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA%202012%20framework%20e-book_final.pdf

27.

Boy

Rensink

Bertini

. A principled way of assessing visualization literacy. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr 2014; 20(12): 1963–1972.

28.

Börner

Polley

. Visual insights: a practical guide to making sense of data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.

29.

Börner

. Atlas of knowledge: anyone can map. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2015.

30.

Card

Mackinlay

. The structure of the information visualization design space. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Phoenix, AZ, 21 October 1997, pp. 92–99. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

31.

Chi

. A taxonomy of visualization techniques using the data state reference model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Salt Lake City, UT, 9–10 October 2000, pp. 69–75. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

32.

Keim

. Visual exploration of large data sets. Commun ACM 2001; 44(8): 38–44.

33.

Kosslyn

. Understanding charts and graphs. Appl Cognitive Psych 1989; 3(3): 185–225.

34.

Mackinlay

. Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM T Graphic 1986; 5(2): 110–141.

35.

Munzner

. Information visualization: principles, techniques, and practice. Natick, MA: A K Peters, 2014.

36.

Pfitzner

Hobbs

Powers

. A unified taxonomic framework for information visualization. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific symposium on information visualisation, Adelaide, Australia, vol. 24, Feburary 2003, pp. 57–66. Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.

37.

Shneiderman

. The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on visual languages, Boulder, CO, 3–6 September 1996, pp. 336–343. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

38.

Wilkinson

. The grammar of graphics. New York: Springer, 2005.

39.

Bertin

. Semiology of graphics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

40.

Engelhardt

. The language of graphics: a framework for the analysis of syntax and meaning in maps, charts, and diagrams. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2002.

41.

Harris

. Information graphics: a comprehensive illustrated reference. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

42.

Sci2 Team. Science of science (Sci2) tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, 2009, https://sci2.cns.iu.edu

43.

Glaser

. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social Problems 1965; 12(4): 436–445.

44.

AAPOR Big Data Task Force. AAPOR report on Big Data, 2015, http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/Task-Force-Reports/BigDataTaskForceReport_FINAL_2_12_15.pdf

45.

Stork

Sanders

. You say potato, I say potäto: problems associated with the lack of shared meaning in instruction and learning. Quest 2000; 52(1): 60–78.

46.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010.