Agreeing to Disagree: Students Negotiating Visual Ambiguity Through Scientific Argumentation
- 456 Downloads
Visual representations are commonly used as evidence for scientific claims. However, their potential for ambiguity can lead to multiple different interpretations. Both historical and contemporary cases exist of graphs that, by virtue of their ambiguity, have propelled public debate and misunderstanding of science. For instance, temperature graphs can be differently interpreted to support opposing views on global climate change; and questions over the choices of data and the formats of their displays have pitted designers against engineers over the causes of high profile space shuttle disasters. These examples demonstrate that a degree of representational competence is necessary to deal with ambiguity in visual evidence, and to ultimately engage effectively in scientific argumentation. This chapter considers the notion of ambiguity in graphs, and the skills necessary for engaging with that ambiguity in the context of scientific argumentation. I present an episode of dispute between two middle school students during a computer-supported inquiry project. Using the students’ argument over the interpretation of a graph of global temperatures, I illustrate how individual prior knowledge and expectations framed their differing interpretations, and how the same visual artifact served as evidence for their opposing claims. Analysis of this case highlights opportunities for learning to argue when instruction acknowledges ambiguity and legitimizes disagreement.
KeywordsVisual Ambiguity Individual Prior Knowledge Global Temperature Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Ambiguous Focus
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant number 0918743. A preliminary version of this work was presented at CSCL 2011, the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
Funding information Matuk, C. F., Sato, E., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Agreeing to disagree: Challenges with ambiguity in visual evidence. Proceedings of the 9th International conference on computer supported collaborative learning CSCL2011: Connecting computer supported collaborative learning to policy and practice, (Vol. 2, pp. 994–995). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
- Amann, K., & Knorr Cetina, K. (1988). The fixation of (visual) evidence. Human Studies, 11(2), 133–169.Google Scholar
- Avola, D., Caschera, M.C., Ferri, F., Grifoni, P. (2007). Ambiguities in sketch-based interfaces, Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS ‘07), Hawaii.Google Scholar
- Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the image. In S. Heath (Ed.), Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
- Carter, B. (2006, April 9). There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998. The Telegraph Newspaper.Google Scholar
- Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- d’Ulizia, A., Grifoni, P., & Rafanelli, M. (2008). Visual notation interpretation and ambiguities. In F. Ferri (Ed.), Visual languages for interactive computing: Definitions and formalizations. Information Science Reference Hershey: IGI GLobal.Google Scholar
- Empson, W. (1932). Seven types of ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Eppler, M. J., Mengis, J., & Bresciani, S. (2008, July). Seven types of visual ambiguity: On the merits and risks of multiple interpretations of collaborative visualizations. In Information Visualisation, 2008. IV’08. 12th International Conference (pp. 391–396). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Futrelle, R.P. (2000). Ambiguity in visual language theory and its role in diagram parsing, IEEE Symposium on Visual Language, 172–175, Tokio IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design, proceedings of the conference of human factors in computing system, 5–10 April 2003, Fort Lauderdale, FL. New York ACM Press.Google Scholar
- Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 19–26). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Linn, M. C., Eylon, B.–. S., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29–46). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233–265). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Mooney, C. (2013, 7 October). Who created the global warming “pause”?. Mother Jones. Retrieved 27 July 2015 from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc.
- Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: George AlIen and Unwin.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999). Symphony: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process space analysis, paper presented at CHI 99: Conference on human factors in computing systems, may 19–21, 1999. Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001). BGuILE: Stategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress. Mahvah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, N., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into the world. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1991). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Alexander, L. V., Allen, S. K., Bindoff, N. L., et al. (2013). Technical summary. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 33–115). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tufte, E. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire (CT): Graphics Press.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B. (2002). Some ways that graphics communicate. In N. Allen (Ed.), Working with words and images: New steps in an old dance. Westport: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar