Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36354210›Full record

ArticleBiochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology2023

Student responses to creative coding in biomedical science education.

Phillip Gough, Oliver Bown, Craig R Campbell, Philip Poronnik, Pauline M Ross

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Student responses to creative coding in biomedical science education.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Phillip GoughAffective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3687-6365
Oliver BownFaculty of Art and Design, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9520-0192
Craig R CampbellFMH Media Lab, Education Innovation, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0843-7579
Philip PoronnikFMH Media Lab, Education Innovation, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6246-528X
Pauline M RossSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8714-5194
The University of Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomedical science students need to learn to code. Graduates face a future where they will be better prepared for research higher degrees and the workforce if they can code. Embedding coding in a biomedical curriculum comes with challenges. First, biomedical science students often experience anxiety learning quantitative and computational thinking skills and second biomedical faculty often lack expertise required to teach coding. In this study, we describe a creative coding approach to building coding skills in students using the packages of Processing and Arduino. Biomedical science students were taught by an interdisciplinary faculty team from Medicine and Health, Science and Architecture, Design and Planning. We describe quantitative and qualitative responses of students to this approach. Cluster analysis revealed a diversity of student responses, with a large majority of students who supported creative coding in the curriculum, a smaller but vocal cluster, who did not support creative coding because either the exercises were not sufficiently challenging or were too challenging and believed coding should not be in a Biomedical Science curriculum. We describe how two creative coding platforms, Processing and Arduino, embedded and used to visualize human physiological data, and provide responses to students, including those minority of students, who are opposed to coding in the curriculum This study found a variety of students responses in a final year capstone course of an undergraduate Biomedical Science degree where future pathways for students are either in research higher degrees or to the workforce with a future which will be increasingly data driven.

Indexed as

CurriculumStudentsFacultyHumansInterdisciplinary StudiesLearningArduinobiomedical science educationcreative codedata visualizationprocessing

Identifiers

PMID36354210
PMCPMC10099880
OpenAlexW4308687469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.