发表机构
Linköping University（林雪平大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文追溯可视化素养的历史，指出其测量框架源于早期政府统计的量化、个体化和二元分类价值观，并提出两波研究浪潮，倡导从评估转向情境化实践与批判性阅读。
AI 中文摘要
可视化领域的基础框架将素养操作化为一种个人能力，通过图表理解任务来测量。这一关注点引发了一个问题：为什么测量已成为理解素养的主导框架？我们并非询问素养是否应被测量，而是探究测量如何成为该领域理解素养的方式。我们将可视化素养追溯至文本素养的历史，并认为在采用这一术语时，该领域引入了植根于早期政府统计的三种价值观：量化、个体化和二元分类。为了标记这一历史所促成的转变，我们区分了两波浪潮：第一波以评估和个人熟练度为中心，第二波则将素养视为一种情境化实践，关注人们在上下文中如何使用可视化及其所服务的目的。以这种方式审视这一构念表明，完善评估工具本身并不能确定素养是什么，并指出了第二波研究的方向：对情境中素养的形成性研究、文化根基的测量工具以及批判性阅读。本文表明，可视化素养继承了其测量框架而非发现了它，提供了区分基于评估的素养与情境化实践的两波词汇，并将该领域与具有测量具体替代方案的批判性素养传统联系起来。这些贡献使我们能够将测量和意义视为一个问题的两个部分，将关注点从谁算有素养转向素养旨在做什么。
英文摘要
Foundational frameworks in visualization have operationalized literacy as an individual competency, measured through chart-comprehension tasks. This focus raises a question: why has measurement become the dominant frame for understanding literacy? Rather than asking whether literacy should be measured, we ask how measurement became the field's way of understanding it. We trace visualization literacy back through the history of textual literacy and argue that in adopting the term, the field imported three values rooted in early government statistics: quantification, individualization, and binary classification. To mark the shift this history makes possible, we distinguish two waves: a first centered on assessment and individual proficiency, and a second that treats literacy as a situated practice, attentive to how people use visualizations in context and to the purposes they serve. Examining the construct this way suggests that refining assessment instruments does not, by itself, settle what literacy is, and points to directions for second-wave research: formative studies of literacy in context, culturally grounded instruments, and critical reading. This paper shows that visualization literacy inherited its measurement frame rather than discovering it, offers a two-wave vocabulary distinguishing assessment-based literacy from situated practice, and connects the field to a critical-literacy tradition with concrete alternatives to measurement. These contributions allow us to treat measurement and meaning as two parts of a single question, shifting attention from who counts as literate to what literacy is meant to do.
Comments6 pages, 1 figure; to appear at IEEE VIS 2026
