Visualization Empowerment: How to Teach and Learn Data Visualization (Dagstuhl Seminar 22261)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data visualization is becoming an important asset for a data-literate, informed, and critical society. Despite the variety of existing resources to teach theories and practical skills in this domain, little is known about 1) how learning processes in the context of visualization unfold and 2) best practices for engaging and teaching data visualization to diverse audiences and in different contexts. This Dagstuhl Seminar invited practitioners, researchers, and teachers from the areas of visualization, design, education and cognitive psychology to explore these questions from multiple perspectives. Through a range of practical activities, talks, and discussions, we have begun characterizing and classifying teaching methodologies. We have redacted a pedagogical manifesto, and started formalizing the concept of improvisation with visualization in the context of teaching and learning. We have also interrogated creativity as an important aspect of visualization teaching and learning and explored links between data physicalization and visualization teaching activities. Across these different themes, we have begun to map out the challenges of visualization teaching and learning and the opportunities for research and practice in this area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".