Visualizing Data to Support Judgement, Inference, and Decision Making in Learning Analytics: Insights from Cognitive Psychology and Visualization Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding human judgement and decision making during visual inspection of data is of both practical and theoretical interest. While visualizing data is a commonly employed mechanism to support complex cognitive processes such as inference, judgement, and decision making, the process of supporting and scaffolding cognition through effective design is less well understood. Applying insights from cognitive psychology and visualization science, this paper critically discusses the role of human factors — visual attention, perception, judgement, and decision making — toward informing methodological choices when visualizing data. The value of visualizing data is discussed in two key domains: 1) visualizing data as a means of communication; and 2) visualizing data as research methodology. The first applies cognitive science principles and research evidence to inform data visualization design for communication. The second applies data- and cognitive-science to deepen our understanding of data, of its uncertainty, and of analysis when making inferences. The evidence for human capacity limitations — attention and cognition — are discussed in the context of data visualizations to support inference-making in both domains, and are followed by recommendations. Finally, how learning analytics can further research on understanding the role data visualizations can play in supporting complex cognition is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".