Towards Critical Appraisal of Infographics as Scientific Inscriptions

Joseph L. Polman and Engida H. Gebre

Science is frequently conceived to be a subject challenging to understand, particularly at the high
school level. With that, educators realize that in order to understand science, students need to be
able to use different forms of representation and translate from one form to the other. Research
elucidates the motivational, cognitive, and communicational benefits for learners in science
education resulting from multiple forms of representation such as infographics (Jarman &
McClune, 2007).
When using infographics as learning and instructional tools in science education, three core
considerations must be madetwo relate to interpreting existing infographics, and one involves
students producing their own infographics to express understanding of science topics or related
data. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010), The Framework for K-12 Science
Education (National Research Council, 2012), and the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS Lead States, 2013) all share the common belief that the development of fluency in
interpreting and analyzing graphical representations is as critically important as developing and
using visuals created models by students.
The focus of the study, funded by the Collaborative Infographics for Science Literacy (CISL),
was to help develop young adult literacy and meta-representational competence through
engaging them in learning with and creating collaborative science news infographics (Gebre &
Polman, 2015). The goal was also to inform other science educators of how to approach critical
reading and production of infographics. Using six infographics developed by professionals and
published online, 10 individuals with expertise in science, graphic/information design, and
learning sciences were provided with two infographics and were asked to critically appraise them

by interpreting and evaluating the quality of each artifact. The artifacts were randomly assigned
science infographics found on http://visual.ly.com. After analysis, the expert participants were
interviewed via Skype or a recorded face-to-face interaction. These 39 minute interviews
uncovered general strategies that experts of these varieties applied to their interpretations of
these diverse infographics (Gebre & Polman, 2015, p.876). The empirical results of the study
have illuminated what features of quality science infographics educators and designers have
attempted to have students pay attention to in learning environments incorporating infographics;
and, what efforts to put forth to design learning environments integrating infographics.
The approach taken by the researchers to have education and graphic design experts participate
in the study proved valuable in gaining insight into the construction of an infographic, but
uncovering student perceptions of the same infographic would be a great help as well. It is
necessary to understand how students decode the information would help in knowing how to
effectively use infographics in science instruction.

References
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). English language arts standards. Washington,
DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a
representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40,
528.
Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the
classroom. New York:McGraw-Hill.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Polman, J. L., & Gebre, E. H. (2015). Towards critical appraisal of infographics as scientific
inscriptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 868-893.
doi:10.1002/tea.21225