The role of experience and culture in computer graphing and graph interpretive processes

ABSTRACT

This paper supports critics of current approaches to the development of computer graphing and graph visualization programs which model the user as an individual problem solver reliant on perceptual skills. These critics argue that such a model of graphing is ill-suited to meet the complex needs of real users. This paper agrees with this criticism and provides conclusions from two bodies of literature on graphing practices which have not been traditionally cited in studies of computer development, graph production and human factors. These literature surveys are taken from the fields of the sociology of scientific and technical practices and of educational research in science and technology. Surveys of these literatures illustrate the importance of experience and culture in the successful practice of designing and interpreting graphs.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bastide, F. (1988) The iconography of science texts: principles of analysis. In Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S., Editors, Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• 2: Lee E. Brasseur, How computer graphing programs change the graph design process: results of research on the fill pattern feature, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.18 n.4, p.4-20, Nov. 1994 [doi>10.1145/192433.192438]
• 3: Stuart K. Card , Jock D. Mackinlay , Ben Shneiderman, Information visualization, Readings in information visualization: using vision to think, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1999
• 4: Kathryn Henderson, On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998
• 5: LaTour, B. (1987). Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• 6: Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, 0. and Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research 60 (1) l-64.
• 7: Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (1988). Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. In Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S., Editors, Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• 8: Mirel, B. (1998). Visualizations for data exploration and analysis: A critical review of usability research. Technical Communication, 45 (4): 491-509.
• 9: Mokros, 1. R. and Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to Interpret Graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24 (4) 369-383.
• 10: Roth, W-M. and Bowen, G. M. (1999). Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: graphing competencies from Grade 8 to professional science inside (classrooms) and outside (field/laboratory). Science, Technology & Human Values 24 (2) 179-212.
• 11: Roth, W-M. and McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: cognitive ability or practice? Science Education 81 91-106.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES

Additional Classification:
  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.2 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.0 General
          Subjects: Cognitive simulation

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Human Factors, Performance, Theory