Cited by 38Data Visualization and AnalyticsLibrary Science and Information LiteracyLiteracy, Media, and Education

Data visualisation literacy in higher education: An exploratory study of understanding of a learning dashboard tool

Open access
Donohoe, David, Costello, Eamon·2020·International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)

Abstract

The visualisation of data has become ubiquitous. Visualisations are used to represent data in a way that is easy to understand and useful in our lives. Each data visualisation needs to be suitable to extract the correct information to complete a task and make an informed decision while minimising the impact of biases. To achieve this, the ability to create and read visualisations has become as important as the ability to read and write. Therefore, the Information Visualisation community is applying more attention to literacy and decision making in data vis-ualisations. Until recently, researchers lacked valid and reliable test in-struments to measure the literacy of users or the taxonomy to detect biased judgement in data visualisations. A literature review showed there is relatively little research on data visualisations for different user data literacy levels in authentic settings and a lack of studies that pro-vide evidence for the presence of cognitive biases in data visualisa-tions. This exploratory research study was undertaken to develop a method to assess perceived usefulness and confidence in reporting dashboards within higher education by adapting existing research in-struments. A survey was designed to test perceived usefulness, per-ceived skill and 24 multiple-choice test items covering six data visuali-sations based on eight tasks. The study was sent to 157 potential par-ticipants, with a response rate of 20.38%. The results showed data vis-ualisations are useful, but the purpose of some data visualisations is not always understood. Also, we showed there is a consensus that re-spondents perceive their data visualisation literacy is higher than they believe their peers to be. However, the higher their overconfidence, the lower their actual data visualisation literacy score. Finally, we discuss the benefits, limitations and possible future research areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3991/ijet.v15i17.15041

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donohoe, D., & Costello, E.
Affiliations
Dublin City University (IE)
Venue
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
Published
2020-09-11
Volume
15
Issue
17
Pages
115
ISSN
1863-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3085184300
Cited by
38
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
Keywords
learning analytics dashboards, higher education, cognitive biases, overconfidence, perceived usefulness, information visualization, assessment instruments, decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review