识别健康数据科学课程中的学习偏好和策略:系统回顾。

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES JMIR Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.2196/50667
Narjes Rohani, Stephen Sowa, Areti Manataki
{"title":"识别健康数据科学课程中的学习偏好和策略:系统回顾。","authors":"Narjes Rohani, Stephen Sowa, Areti Manataki","doi":"10.2196/50667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify learning preferences and strategies in the HDS discipline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"10 ","pages":"e50667"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying Learning Preferences and Strategies in Health Data Science Courses: Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Narjes Rohani, Stephen Sowa, Areti Manataki\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/50667\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify learning preferences and strategies in the HDS discipline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e50667\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/50667\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:跨学科健康数据科学(HDS)的学习和教学极具挑战性,尽管人们对 HDS 教育的兴趣与日俱增,但对 HDS 学生的学习经历和偏好却知之甚少:我们进行了一项系统性研究,以确定健康数据科学学科的学习偏好和策略:我们检索了 10 个文献数据库(PubMed、ACM Digital Library、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Wiley Online Library、ScienceDirect、SpringerLink、EBSCOhost、ERIC 和 IEEE Xplore),检索时间从开始之日起至 2023 年 6 月。我们遵循 PRISMA(系统综述和元分析首选报告项目)指南,纳入了用英语撰写的、调查生物信息学等 HDS 相关学科任何学术水平学生的学习偏好或策略的主要研究。由两名筛选者使用混合方法评估工具对偏倚风险进行独立评估,我们使用叙述性数据综合法来呈现研究结果:在对数据库中检索到的 849 篇论文进行摘要筛选和全文审阅后,我们选择了 2009 年至 2021 年间发表的 8 篇(0.9%)研究论文进行叙述性综合。其中大部分论文(7/8,88%)调查了学习偏好,只有 1 篇论文(12%)研究了人文社科课程的学习策略。系统综述显示,大多数人类发展报告学习者更喜欢将视觉演示作为主要的学习输入。在学习过程和组织方面,他们大多倾向于遵循逻辑、线性和顺序步骤。此外,他们更关注抽象信息,而不是详细和具体的信息。在合作方面,高分学生有时喜欢团队合作,有时喜欢单独工作:使用混合方法评估工具评估的研究质量介于 73% 和 100% 之间,表明总体质量优秀。然而,该领域的研究数量较少,而且所有研究结果都是基于自我报告的数据。因此,需要开展更多的研究,以深入了解 HDS 教育。我们提出了一些建议,如使用学习分析和教育数据挖掘方法,以开展未来研究,填补文献空白。我们还讨论了对人类发展数据系统教育者的影响,并对人类发展数据系统课程设计提出了建议;例如,我们建议加入图表和视频等可视化材料,并为学生提供逐步指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Identifying Learning Preferences and Strategies in Health Data Science Courses: Systematic Review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Practical Recommendations for Navigating Digital Tools in Hospitals: Qualitative Interview Study. Leveraging Open-Source Large Language Models for Data Augmentation in Hospital Staff Surveys: Mixed Methods Study. Virtual Reality Simulation in Undergraduate Health Care Education Programs: Usability Study. Correction: Psychological Safety Competency Training During the Clinical Internship From the Perspective of Health Care Trainee Mentors in 11 Pan-European Countries: Mixed Methods Observational Study. ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1