Identifying Learning Preferences and Strategies in Health Data Science Courses: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Learning and teaching interdisciplinary health data science (HDS) is highly challenging, and despite the growing interest in HDS education, little is known about the learning experiences and preferences of HDS students. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to identify learning preferences and strategies in the HDS discipline. METHODS: We searched 10 bibliographic databases (PubMed, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, EBSCOhost, ERIC, and IEEE Xplore) from the date of inception until June 2023. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and included primary studies written in English that investigated the learning preferences or strategies of students in HDS-related disciplines, such as bioinformatics, at any academic level. Risk of bias was independently assessed by 2 screeners using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and we used narrative data synthesis to present the study results. RESULTS: After abstract screening and full-text reviewing of the 849 papers retrieved from the databases, 8 (0.9%) studies, published between 2009 and 2021, were selected for narrative synthesis. The majority of these papers (7/8, 88%) investigated learning preferences, while only 1 (12%) paper studied learning strategies in HDS courses. The systematic review revealed that most HDS learners prefer visual presentations as their primary learning input. In terms of learning process and organization, they mostly tend to follow logical, linear, and sequential steps. Moreover, they focus more on abstract information, rather than detailed and concrete information. Regarding collaboration, HDS students sometimes prefer teamwork, and sometimes they prefer to work alone. CONCLUSIONS: The studies' quality, assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, ranged between 73% and 100%, indicating excellent quality overall. However, the number of studies in this area is small, and the results of all studies are based on self-reported data. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted to provide insight into HDS education. We provide some suggestions, such as using learning analytics and educational data mining methods, for conducting future research to address gaps in the literature. We also discuss implications for HDS educators, and we make recommendations for HDS course design; for example, we recommend including visual materials, such as diagrams and videos, and offering step-by-step instructions for students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».