The development of scientific visual literacy has been identified as critical to the training of tomorrow's scientists and citizens alike. Within the context of the molecular life sciences in particular, visual representations frequently incorporate various components, such as discipline-specific graphical and diagrammatic features, varied levels of abstraction, and spatial arrangements of visual elements to convey information. Visual literacy is achieved when an individual understands the various ways in which a discipline uses these components to represent a particular way of knowing. Owing to the complex nature of visual representations, the activities through which visual literacy is developed have high cognitive load. Cognitive load can be reduced by first helping students to become fluent with the discrete components of visual representations before asking them to simultaneously integrate these components to extract the intended meaning of a representation. We present a taxonomy for characterizing one component of visual representations-the level of abstraction-as a first step in understanding the opportunities afforded students to develop fluency. Further, we demonstrate how our taxonomy can be used to analyze course assessments and spur discussions regarding the extent to which the development of visual literacy skills is supported by instruction within an undergraduate biochemistry curriculum.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,344,763
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from CBELife Sciences Education
#736
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,996
of 353,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CBELife Sciences Education
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
