Graphing is an important practice for scientists and in K-16 science curricula. Graphs can be constructed using an array of software packages as well as by hand, with pen-and-paper. However, we have an incomplete understanding of how students’ graphing practice vary by graphing environment; differences could affect how best to teach and assess graphing. Here we explore the role of two graphing environments in students’ graphing practice. We studied 43 undergraduate biology students’ graphing practice using either pen-and-paper (PP) (n = 21 students) or a digital graphing tool GraphSmarts (GS) (n = 22 students). Participants’ graphs and verbal justifications were analyzed to identify features such as the variables plotted, number of graphs created, raw data versus summarized data plotted, and graph types (e.g., scatter plot, line graph, or bar graph) as well as participants’ reasoning for their graphing choices. Several aspects of participant graphs were similar regardless of graphing environment, including plotting raw vs. summarized data, graph type, and overall graph quality, while GS participants were more likely to plot the most relevant variables. In GS, participants could easily make more graphs than in PP and this may have helped some participants show latent features of their graphing practice. Those students using PP tended to focus more on ease of constructing the graph than GS. This study illuminates how the different characteristics of the graphing environment have implications for instruction and interpretation of assessments of student graphing practices.

在科学家和K-16科学课程中，绘图是一种重要的实践。可以使用一系列软件包来构建图形，也可以用纸和笔手工构建图形。但是，我们对学生的绘画实践如何因绘画环境而有所不同尚不完全了解。差异可能会影响如何最好地教授和评估图形。在这里，我们探讨了两种绘图环境在学生绘图实践中的作用。我们使用纸笔（PP）（n  = 21名学生）或数字绘图工具GraphSmarts（GS）研究了43名本科生物学学生的制图实践（n = 22名学生）。分析参与者的图表和口头辩护以识别特征，例如绘制的变量，创建的图表数量，原始数据与绘制的摘要数据以及图表类型（例如散点图，折线图或条形图）以及参与者的特征。他们的图形选择的推理。不论绘图环境如何，参与者图表的几个方面都是相似的，包括绘制原始数据与汇总数据，图表类型和总体图表质量，而GS参与者更可能绘制最相关的变量。在GS中，参与者可以轻松制作比PP中更多的图表，这可能有助于一些参与者展示其绘图实践的潜在特征。那些使用PP的学生比GS更加注重于易于构造图形。