Experience in using commercially available software to teach students about principles of graphical data analysis suggests that several critical design modifications are advisable. In a quasi-experimental study, three different versions of an original graphing program were used by inner-city high school students solving scientific data analysis problems. A version incorporating “coaching” feedback into a highly flexible interface was found to be significantly superior to either an “open” version giving no extrinsic feedback or a “restrictive” one that disabled program options whose use was deemed inappropriate based on the data analysis context. As an illustration of one of the graph-based critical thinking skills developed by the students, results are presented as contrasting pairs of graphs in which one is designed to emphasize, and the other to downplay, the effects/of interface design, gender, and their interactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LepperM. R. and GurtnerJ., Children and Computers: Approaching the Twenty-First Century, Educational Psychologist, 44, pp. 170–178, 1989.
2.
TaylorR. P. (ed.), The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, Teachers College Press, New York, 1980.
3.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, Publication No. OTA-SET-379, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1988.
4.
LockheedM. E.GulovsonJ. P., and MorrisonD., Student Use of Applications Software, Technical Report 85–3, Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
5.
CarrollJ. M. and CarrithersC., Blocking Learner Error States in a Training-Wheels System, Human Factors, 26, pp. 377–389, 1984.
6.
FryeD. and SolowayE., Interface Design: A Neglected Issue in Educational Software, in CHI + GI 1987 Conference Proceedings: Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interface, CarrollJ. M. and TannerP. P. (eds.), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1987.
7.
GoldenbergE. P., The Difference Between Graphing Software and Educational Graphing Software, Educational Development Center, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts, 1989.
8.
DeweyJ., Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York, 1916.
9.
DeweyJ., My Pedagogic Creed, in Dewey on Education, DworkinM. S. (ed.), Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 19–32, 1959.
10.
JacksonD. F.EdwardsB. J., and BergerC. F., Teaching the Design and Interpretation of Graphs Through Computer-Aided Graphical Data Analysis, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, in press.
11.
BrunerJ. S., Notes On A Theory of Instruction, in Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966.
12.
DeweyJ., Experience and Education, Macmillan, New York, 1938.
13.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
14.
PerkinsD. N., The Fingertip Effect: How Information-Processing Technology Shapes Thinking, Educational Researcher, 14: 7, pp. 11–17, 1985.
15.
SuppesP., The Uses of Computers in Education, Scientific American, 215, pp. 206–221, 1966.
16.
HoldenC., Computers Make Slow Progress in Class, Science, 244, pp. 906–909, 1989.
17.
FischerG. and LemkeA. C., Construction Kits and Design Environments: Steps Toward Human Problem-Domain Communication, Human-Computer Interaction, 3, pp. 179–222, 1987–88.
18.
PolanyiM., The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1966.
19.
WinogradT. and FloresF., Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1986.
20.
LaurillardD., Computers and the Emancipation of Students: Giving Control to the Learner, Instructional Science, 16, pp. 3–18, 1987.
21.
DiSessaA. A., Artificial Worlds and Real Experience, Instructional Science, 14, pp. 207–227, 1986.
22.
ClementsD. H., Effects of Logo and CAI Environments on Cognition and Creativity, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 309–318, 1986.
23.
PapertS., Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking, Educational Researcher, 16: 1, pp. 22–30, 1987.
24.
PintrichP. R.BergerC. F., and StemmerP. M., Students' Programming Behavior in a Pascal Course, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, pp. 451–466, 1987.
25.
SchoenfeldA. H., Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Press, New York, 1985.
26.
WeizenbaumJ., Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, Freeman, New York, 1976.
27.
SalomonG., AI in Reverse: Computer Tools That Turn Cognitive, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, pp. 123–129, 1988.
28.
VygotskyL., Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986.
29.
HamburgerH. and LodgherA., Semantically Constrained Exploration and Heuristic Guidance, Machine-Mediated Learning, 3, pp. 81–105, 1989.
30.
JacksonD. F.BergerC. F., and EdwardsB. J., Computer-Assisted Thinking Tools: Problem Solving in Graphical Data Analysis, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, pp. 43–67, 1992.
31.
PeaR. D., Cognitive Technologies for Mathematics Education, in Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, SchoenfeldA. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 89–122, 1987.
32.
GoodmanF. L., An Antonym for “Feedback,”Educational Theory, 13, pp. 105–107, 118, 1963.
33.
BaggettP., Understanding Visual and Verbal Messages, in Acquiring Knowledge From Text and Picture, MandleH. and LevinJ. (eds.), North Holland, New York, pp. 101–124, 1989.
34.
ClarkR. E., Confounding in Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, pp. 137–148, 1985.
35.
SchmidC. F., Statistical Graphics: Design Principles and Practices, Wiley, New York, 1983.
36.
HawkinsD., Messing About in Science, in The Informed Vision, Agathon Press, New York, 1974.
37.
TufteE. R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 1983.
