Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Data science syllabi measuring its content

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning analytics is an emerging field in which educators and researchers are using data to improve their students’ educational experiences. One of the most common courses offered by higher academic institutions in the US is data science. This paper examines the data science syllabi found in today’s academic sector and compares the results to those of Friedman’s, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 135–148 (2017) study of Big Data syllabi. For the present study, 40 data science syllabi used in private and public academic institutions in the US were collected, and Palmer et al.’s, To Improve the Academy, 33, 14–36 (2014) rubric was used as a framework to analyze them. The study found that the most frequently used communication engagement tool, according to the syllabi, was discussion forums (used in 53% of the syllabi), and instant message applications were second (21%). Using Palmer et al.’s rubric, the study found 95% of all data science syllabi the study examined provided very detailed articulation and scored in the top range outline by the model. In comparing data science syllabi to big data syllabi, the study found that data science syllabi provided better descriptions of the learning goals than did big data syllabi. Future studies could examine students’ participation and appreciation of these courses using a machine analytics rubric.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M. K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. In Machine learning, 6(1), 37–66 (Vol. 6, pp. 37–66). Heidelberg: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C. and Norman, M.K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Anderson, P., Bowring, J., McCauley, R., Pothering, G., & Starr, C. (2014, March). An undergraduate degree in data science: Curriculum and a decade of implementation experience. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 145–150). ACM.

  • Banihashem, S. K., Aliabadi, K., Ardakani, S. P., Delaver, A., & Ahmadabadi, M. N. (2018). Learning analytics: A critical literature review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences (In press), 9.

  • Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demšar, J., Zupan, B., Leban, G., & Curk, T. (2004, September). Orange: From experimental machine learning to interactive data mining. In European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery (pp. 537–539). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, V. (2013). Data science and prediction. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diggle, P. J. (2015). Statistics: A data science for the 21st century. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 178(4), 793–813.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Eberly, M. B., Newton, S. E., & Wiggins, R. A. (2001). The syllabus as a tool for student-centered learning. The Journal of General Education, 50, 56–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996, August). Knowledge discovery and data mining: Towards a unifying framework. In KDD (Vol. 96, pp. 82–88).

  • Fiaidhi, J. (2014). The next step for learning analytics. IT Professional, 16(5), 4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornaciari, C. J., & Lund Dean, K. (2003). The 21st-century syllabus: From pedagogy to andragogy. Journal of Management Education, 38(5), 701–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. (2017). Measuring the promise of big data syllabi. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinstein, U. M. F. G. G., & Wierse, A. (2002). Information visualization in data mining and knowledge discovery. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Gross Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, J., Hoerl, R., Horton, N. J., Nolan, D., Baumer, B., Hall-Holt, O., Murrell, P., Peng, R., Roback, P., Temple Lang, D., & Ward, M. D. (2015). Data science in statistics curricula: Preparing students to “think with data.”. The American Statistician, 69(4), 343–353.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, B., Franklin, M., Haas, L., Kraska, T., & Ullman, J. (2017, April). Data science education: We're missing the boat, again. In 2017 IEEE 33rd international conference on data engineering (ICDE) (pp. 1473–1474). IEEE.

  • James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 112). New York: Springer.

  • Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Konkol'ová, V., & Paralič, J. (2018, November). Active learning in data science education. In 2018 16th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 285–290). IEEE.

  • Kuhlmann, C. B. (1917). Minnesota History Teachers' Syllabus. The Social Studies, 8(5), 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leek, J. (2013). Six types of analyses every data science should know [blog post]. Retrieved July 11, 2018.

  • Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Educause Review Online, 46(5), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Peer learning, collaborative learning, cooperative learning. In Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (pp. 158–166).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. G., & Mendelson, C. N. (1978). A small study assessing teacher effectiveness: Does learning last? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 352–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. M. (1999). Machine learning and data mining. Communications of the ACM, 42(11).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, P. M., & Karaganis, J. (2010). On making public policy with publicly available data: The case of US communications policymaking. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 384–391

  • O'Neil, C., & Schutt, R. (2013). Doing data science: Straight talk from the frontline. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

  • Palmer, M. S., Bach, D. J., & Streifer, A. C. (2014). Measuring the promise: A learning-focused syllabus rubric. To Improve the Academy, 33, 14–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. G. (2012). The evaluation of big data and learning analytics in American higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richlin, L. (2006). Blueprint for learning: Construction college courses to facilitate, assess, and document learning. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

  • Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 288.

  • Saltz, J. S., & Stanton, J. M. (2017). An introduction to data science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K.E., & Campbell, J.P. (2012). Analytics in higher education: Establishing a common language. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 1(1), l-ll.

  • White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. F. J. (1997). Statistics = data science. Retrieved July 11, 2018.

  • Wu, X., Kumar, V., Quinlan, J. R., Ghosh, J., Yang, Q., Motoda, H., et al. (2008). Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowledge and Information Systems, 14(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, USF, 4202 E Fowler Avenue, CIS 2011, Tampa, Florida, 33620-7800, USA

    Alon Friedman

Authors
  1. Alon Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alon Friedman.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedman, A. Data science syllabi measuring its content. Educ Inf Technol 24, 3467–3481 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09935-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09935-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation