Challenges and Opportunities of Teaching Data Visualization Together with Data Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing amount of data globally, analyzing and visualizing data are becoming essential skills across various professions. It is important to equip university students with these essential data skills. To learn, design, and develop data visualization, students need knowledge of programming and data science topics. Many university programs lack dedicated data science courses for undergraduate students, making it important to introduce these concepts through integrated courses. However, combining data science and data visualization into one course can be challenging due to the time constraints and the heavy load of learning. In this paper, we discuss the development of teaching data science and data visualization together in one course and share the results of the post-course evaluation survey. From the survey’s results, we identified four challenges, including difficulty in learning multiple tools and diverse data science topics, varying proficiency levels with tools and libraries, and selecting and cleaning datasets. We also distilled five opportunities for developing a successful data science and visualization course. These opportunities include clarifying the course structure, emphasizing visualization literacy early in the course, updating the course content according to student needs, using large real-world datasets, learning from industry professionals, and promoting collaboration among students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".