SpringerLink
Log in

Data Science Thinking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Guide to Teaching Data Science

  • 998 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights the cognitive aspect of data science. It presents a variety of modes of thinking, which are associated with the different components of data science, and describes the contribution of each one to data thinking—the mode of thinking required of data scientists (not only professional ones). Indeed, data science thinking integrates the thinking modes associated with the various disciplines that make up data science. Specifically, computer science contributes computational thinking (Sect. 3.2.1), statistics contributes statistical thinking (Sect. 3.2.2), mathematics adds different ways in which data science concepts can be conceived (Sect. 3.2.3), and each application domain brings with it its thinking skills, core principles, and ethical considerations (Sect. 3.2.4). Finally, based on these thinking modes, which are associated with the components of data science, we present data thinking (Sect. 3.2.5). The definition of data science inspires the message that processes of solving real-life problems using data science methods should not be based only on algorithms and data, but also on the application domain knowledge. In Sect. 3.3 we present a set of exercises that analyze the thinking skills associated with data science.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 58.84
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 53.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 74.89
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This section is partially based on Chap. 4 of Hazzan et al. (2020). Presented here with permission.

  2. 2.

    This section is based on Mike and Hazzan (2022a, 2022b). Machine learning for non-major data science students: A white box approach, special issue on Research on Data Science Education, The Statistics Education Research Journal (SERJ) 21(2), Article 10. Reprint is allowed by SERJ journal’s copyright policy.

  3. 3.

    This section is based on the following paper:

    © 2022 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Mike and Hazzan (2022a, 2022b).

  4. 4.

    See Leron and Hazzan (2009). Presented here with permission.

References

  • Alyahyan, E., & Düştegör, D. (2020). Predicting academic success in higher education: Literature review and best practices. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, D., & Garfield, J. B. (2004). The challenge of develo** statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boholano, H. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning skills. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, G. W., & Moore, D. S. (1997). Mathematics, statistics, and teaching. The American Mathematical Monthly, 104(9), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1997.11990723

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished Manuscript in Progress, Referenced in https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf

  • De Veaux, R. D., Agarwal, M., Averett, M., Baumer, B. S., Bray, A., Bressoud, T. C., Bryant, L., Cheng, L. Z., Francis, A., Gould, R., Kim, A. Y., Kretchmar, M., Lu, Q., Moskol, A., Nolan, D., Pelayo, R., Raleigh, S., Sethi, R. J., Sondjaja, M., Tiruviluamala, N., et al. (2017). Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate programs in data science. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-060116-053930

  • Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis Cambridge. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSchryver, M. D., & Yadav, A. (2015). Creative and computational thinking in the context of new literacies: Working with teachers to scaffold complex technology-mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 411–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2016). Deep learning (vol. 1). MIT press Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google for Education: Computational Thinking. (2020). https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/

  • Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.25.2.0116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günbatar, M. S. (2019). Computational thinking within the context of professional life: Change in CT skill from the viewpoint of teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2629–2652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B. (2018). Technology and teacher–student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan, O. (2003a). How students attempt to reduce abstraction in the learning of mathematics and in the learning of computer science. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 95–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan, O. (2003b). Reducing abstraction when learning computability theory. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan, O., & Hadar, I. (2005). Reducing abstraction when learning graph theory. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(3), 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan, O., Ragonis, N., & Lapidot, T. (2020). Guide to teaching computer science: An activity-based approach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C. (2011). Computational thinking: What it might mean and what we might do about it. In Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp. 223–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture, 8(1), 351–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliegr, T., Bahník, Š., & Fürnkranz, J. (2021). A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on interpretation of rule-based machine learning models. Artificial Intelligence, 103458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessons from early AI projects. (2017). Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3834749

  • Mike, K., & Hazzan, O. (2022a). Machine learning for non-majors: A white box approach. Statistics Education Research Journal, 21(2), Article 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mike, K., & Hazzan, O. (2022b). What is common to transportation and health in machine learning education? The domain neglect bias. IEEE Transactions on Education. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3218013

  • Mike, K., Ragonis, N., Rosenberg-Kima, R., & Hazzan, O. (2022). Computational thinking in the era of data science. Communications of the ACM, 65(8), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. G. (1990). The skills challenge of the nineties. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 153(3), 265. https://doi.org/10.2307/2982974

  • Murrell, A. (2019). Big data and the problem of bias in higher education. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/audreymurrell/2019/05/30/big-data-and-the-problem-of-bias-in-higher-education/

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Data science for undergraduates: Opportunities and options. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25104

  • Papert, S. (1990). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas, (vol. 10, p. 1095592). Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, L., Fink, L., Krishnan, A., Fogel, J., Berman, L., & Bergdoll, R. (2018). A measure of basic math skills for use with undergraduate statistics students: The macs11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setlur, V. (2022). AI augments and empowers human expertise. Tableau. https://www.tableau.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/Data_Trends_2022.pdf

  • Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart?: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallman, K. K. (1993). Enhancing statistical literacy: Enriching our society. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(421), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1993.10594283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing, 2014, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education in Science and Technology, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Orit Hazzan & Koby Mike

Authors
  1. Orit Hazzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koby Mike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orit Hazzan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hazzan, O., Mike, K. (2023). Data Science Thinking. In: Guide to Teaching Data Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24758-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24758-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24757-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24758-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation