CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Educational Assessment and PedagogyScience Education and PedagogyEngineering Education and Curriculum Development

Insight from Biology Program Learning Outcomes: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

Open access
Clark, Noelle, Hsu, Jeremy L.·2023·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.22-09-0177PMC PMC10074271
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Program learning outcomes (PLOs) play a critical role, informing curricula, teaching, and assessment. Undergraduate biology PLOs were collected and analyzed to provide insight into how institutions may be using PLOs and uncover what skills and competencies are most frequently listed. Implications for biology programs and instructors are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.22-09-0177

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent survey of undergraduate biology program learning outcomes revealed that reading and analyzing PSL was the sixth most common competency among undergraduate biology programs in the United States.

    “and a recent survey of undergraduate biology program learning outcomes revealed that reading and analyzing PSL was the sixth most common competency among undergraduate biology programs in the United States (Clark and Hsu, 2023).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Clark and Hsu, 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(3), 152– 153. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010 26213509 PMC4511057 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Adedokun, O. A. Bessenbacher, A. B. Parker, L. C. Kirkham, L. L. Burgess, W. D. (2013). Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 940– 951.
  3. Allen, D. Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197– 203. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-06-0168 17012210 PMC1618692 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Armbruster, P. Patel, M. Johnson, E. Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203– 213. doi: 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025 19723815 PMC2736024 · DOI
  5. Arneson, J. B. Offerdahl, E. G. (2018). Visual literacy in Bloom: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to support visual learning skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar7. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-08-0178 29351910 PMC6007771 · DOI
  6. Auchincloss, L. C. Laursen, S. L. Branchaw, J. L. Eagan, K. Graham, M. Hanauer, D. I., … & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29– 40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 24591501 PMC3940459 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Barnard, M. Whitt, E. McDonald, S. (2021). Learning objectives and their effects on learning and assessment preparation: Insights from an undergraduate psychology course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 673– 684. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1822281 · DOI
  8. Bingham, A. J. Witkowsky, P. (2021). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. In Vanover, C. Mihas, P. Saldana, J. (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview (pp. 133– 146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  9. Brancaccio-Taras, L. Pape-Lindstrom, P. Peteroy-Kelly, M. Aguirre, K. Awong-Taylor, J. Balser, T., … & Zhao, J. (2016). The PULSE Vision & Change Rubrics, Version 1.0: A valid and equitable tool to measure transformation of life sciences departments at all institution types. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar60. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0260 27856548 PMC5132357 · DOI
  10. Branchaw, J. L. Pape-Lindstrom, P. A. Tanner, K. D. Bissonnette, S. A. Cary, T. L. Couch, B. A., … & Brownell, S. E. (2020). Resources for teaching and assessing the Vision and Change biology core concepts. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0243 32357095 PMC8697664 · DOI
  11. Brooks, S. Dobbins, K. Scott, J. J. A. Rawlinson, M. Norman, R. I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721– 733. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901964 · DOI
  12. Brownell, S. E. Freeman, S. Wenderoth, M. P. Crowe, A. J. (2014). BioCore Guide: A tool for interpreting the core concepts of Vision and Change for biology majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 200– 211. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0233 26086653 PMC4041499 · DOI
  13. Bumpus, E. C. Vinco, M. H. Lee, K. B. Accurso, J. F. Graves, S. L. (2022). The consistency of expectations: An analysis of learning objectives within cognitive assessment course syllabi. Teaching of Psychology, 49(1), 30– 36. doi: 10.1177/0098628320965248 · DOI
  14. Chatterjee, D. Corral, J. (2017). How to write well-defined learning objectives. Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine, 19(4), E610. PMC5944406 29766034
  15. Clemmons, A. W. Donovan, D. A. Theobald, E. J. Crowe, A. J. (2022). Using the intended–enacted–experienced curriculum model to map the Vision and Change core competencies in undergraduate biology programs and courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(1), ar6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-02-0054 34941362 PMC9250375 · DOI
  16. Clemmons, A. W. Timbrook, J. Herron, J. C. Crowe, A. J. (2020). BioSkills Guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the Vision and Change core competencies. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), ar53. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0259 33001766 PMC8693931 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Cleveland, L. M. McCabe, T. M. Olimpo, J. T. (2017). A call for programmatic assessment of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding and higher-order cognitive skills. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). 19.1.30. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1368 PMC5969447 29904561 · DOI
  18. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37– 46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Combs, K. L. Gibson, S. K. Hays, J. M. Saly, J. Wendt, J. T. (2008). Enhancing curriculum and delivery: Linking assessment to learning objectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 87– 102. doi: 10.1080/02602930601122985 · DOI
  20. Couch, B. A. Wright, C. D. Freeman, S. Knight, J. K. Semsar, K. Smith, M. K., … & Brownell, S. E. (2019). GenBio-MAPS: A programmatic assessment to measure student understanding of Vision and Change core concepts across general biology programs. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), ar1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-07-0117 30681904 PMC6757222 · DOI
  21. Crowe, A. Dirks, C. Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368– 381. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 19047424 PMC2592046 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Denicoló, G. (2019). Assessing program learning outcomes: A tale of self-discovery. The Physics Teacher, 57(1), 47– 49. doi: 10.1119/1.5084929 · DOI
  23. Dolan, E. L. (2017). Undergraduate research as curriculum. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(4), 293– 298. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21070 28696054 · DOI
  24. Dou, R. (2018). Review: Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE). American Biology Teacher, 80(1), 64. doi: 10.1525/abt.2018.80.1.64 · DOI
  25. Ewell, S. N. Cotner, S. Drake, A. G. Fagbodun, S. Google, A. Robinson, L., … & Ballen, C. J. (2022). Eight recommendations to promote effective study habits for biology students enrolled in online courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), e00260– 21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00260-21 35496703 PMC9053018 · DOI
  26. Fata-Hartley, C. (2011). Resisting rote: The importance of active learning for all course learning objectives. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 36– 39.
  27. Fleet, C. M. Rosser, M. F. N. Zufall, R. A. Pratt, M. C. Feldman, T. S. Lemons, P. P. (2006). Hiring criteria in biology departments of academic institutions. BioScience, 56(5), 430– 436. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0430:HCIBDO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  28. Freelon, D. (2013). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1).
  29. Hartel, R. W. Foegeding, E. A. (2004). Learning: Objectives, competencies, or outcomes? Journal of Food Science Education, 3(4), 69– 70.
  30. Hsu, J. L. Lo, S. M. Sato, B. K. (2021). Defining understanding: Perspectives from biology instructors & biology education researchers. American Biology Teacher, 83(6), 372– 376. doi: 10.1525/abt.2021.83.6.372 · DOI
  31. Johnson, J. E. Envick, B. R. (2014). Assessing the learning goal outcomes of an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship cohort program: A comprehensive survey approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(1), 135– 149.
  32. Joyner (Melito), H. S. (2016). Curriculum mapping: A method to assess and refine undergraduate degree programs. Journal of Food Science Education, 15(3), 83– 100. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12086 · DOI
  33. Kuh, G. D. Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1– 20. doi: 10.1787/hemp-22-5ks5dlhqbfr1 · DOI
  34. Landis, J. R. Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363– 374. doi: 10.2307/2529786 884196 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297– 306. 18056301 PMC2104507
  36. Marzano, R. J. (2010). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
  37. Matsuda, T. (2020). Backward design by setting STEM education goals before designing S-TE-M subjects lessons: A trial in a teacher promotion course. In Bastiaens, T. Marks, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of Innovate Learning Summit 2020 (pp. 117– 122). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/218791
  38. McCormick, A. C. Zhao, C.-M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51– 57.
  39. Metzler, E. Rehrey, G. Kurz, L. Middendorf, J. (2017). The aspirational curriculum map: A diagnostic model for action-oriented program review. To Improve the Academy, 36(2), 156– 167. doi: 10.1002/tia2.20062 · DOI
  40. Minbiole, J. (2016). Improving course coherence & assessment rigor: “Understanding by design” in a nonmajors biology course. American Biology Teacher, 78(6), 463– 470. doi: 10.1525/abt.2016.78.6.463 · DOI
  41. Mitchell, K. M. W. Manzo, W. R. (2018). The purpose and perception of learning objectives. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(4), 456– 472. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1433542 · DOI
  42. Momsen, J. L. Long, T. M. Wyse, S. A. Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 435– 440. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001 21123690 PMC2995761 · DOI
  43. National Research Council. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 20669482
  44. Neiles, K. Y. Arnett, K. (2021). Backward design of chemistry laboratories: A primer. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(9), 2829– 2839. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00443 · DOI
  45. Orr, R. B. Csikari, M. M. Freeman, S. Rodriguez, M. C. (2022a). Evidence based teaching guide: Learning objectives. CBE—Life Science Education. Retrieved August 16, 2022, from https://lse.ascb.org/learning-objectives PMC9582829 35998163
  46. Orr, R. B. Csikari, M. M. Freeman, S. Rodriguez, M. C. (2022b). Writing and using learning objectives. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(3), fe3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073 35998163 PMC9582829 · DOI
  47. Osueke, B. Mekonnen, B. Stanton, J. D. (2018). How undergraduate science students use learning objectives to study. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(2). 19.2.30. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1510 PMC6022773 29983848 · DOI
  48. Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 215– 225. doi: 10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7 · DOI
  49. Redelius, K. Quennerstedt, M. Öhman, M. (2015). Communicating aims and learning goals in physical education: Part of a subject for learning? Sport, Education and Society, 20(5), 641– 655. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2014.987745 · DOI
  50. Reynolds, H. L. Kearns, K. D. (2017). A Planning tool for incorporating backward design, active learning, and authentic assessment in the college classroom. College Teaching, 65(1), 17– 27. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2016.1222575 · DOI
  51. Rhew, N. D. Black, J. A. Keels, J. K. (2019). Are we teaching what employers want? Identifying and remedying gaps between employer needs, accreditor prescriptions, and undergraduate curricular priorities. Industry and Higher Education, 33(6), 362– 369. doi: 10.1177/0950422219874703 · DOI
  52. Rubinstein, A. Chor, B. (2014). Computational thinking in life science education. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(11), e1003897. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003897 25411839 PMC4238948 · DOI
  53. Russell, S. H. Hancock, M. P. McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548– 549. doi: 10.1126/science.1140384 17463273 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Sana, F. Forrin, N. D. Sharma, M. Dubljevic, T. Ho, P. Jalil, E. Kim, J. A. (2020). Optimizing the efficacy of learning objectives through pretests. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar43. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0257 32870085 PMC8711814 · DOI
  55. Secules, S. McCall, C. Mejia, J. A. Beebe, C. Masters, A. S. L. Sánchez-Peña, M. Svyantek, M. (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 19– 43. doi: 10.1002/jee.20377 · DOI
  56. Shupe, D. (2007). Significantly better: The benefits for an academic institution focused on student learning outcomes. On the Horizon, 15(2), 48– 57. doi: 10.1108/10748120710757299 · DOI
  57. Simon, B. Taylor, J. (2009). What is the value of course-specific learning goals? Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(2), 52– 57.
  58. Simon, M. A. (2006). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for investigating and establishing learning goals. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(4), 359– 371. doi: 10.1207/s15327833mtl0804_1 · DOI
  59. Smith, M. K. Brownell, S. E. Crowe, A. J. Holmes, N. G. Knight, J. K. Semsar, K., … & Couch, B. A. (2019). Tools for change: Measuring student conceptual understanding across undergraduate biology programs using Bio-MAPS assessments. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 20(2), 20. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1787 PMC6713482 31501687 · DOI
  60. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2016). In Danver, S. L. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of online education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved December 22, 2022, from https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/2018PrinciplesOfAcreditation.pdf
  61. Stanton, J. D. Dye, K. M. Johnson, M. (2019). Knowledge of learning makes a difference: A comparison of metacognition in introductory and senior-level biology students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar24. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-12-0239 31144572 PMC6755210 · DOI
  62. Stefan, M. I. Gutlerner, J. L. Born, R. T. Springer, M. (2015). The quantitative methods boot camp: Teaching quantitative thinking and computing skills to graduate students in the life sciences. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(4), e1004208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004208 25880064 PMC4399943 · DOI
  63. Tanner, K. Allen, D. (2006). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: On integrating pedagogical training into the graduate experiences of future science faculty. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 1– 6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05-12-0132 17012182 PMC1635132 · DOI
  64. Tibbetts, Y. Priniski, S. J. Hecht, C. A. Borman, G. D. Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Different institutions and different values: Exploring first-generation student fit at 2-year colleges. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00502 PMC5904273 29695986 · DOI
  65. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281– 294. doi: 10.1080/09695940701591867 · DOI
  66. Towns, M. H. (2010). Developing learning objectives and assessment plans at a variety of institutions: Examples and case studies. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 91– 96. doi: 10.1021/ed8000039 · DOI
  67. Varty, A. K. (2016). Options for online undergraduate courses in biology at American colleges and universities. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar58. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0075 27856546 PMC5132355 · DOI
  68. Warrens, M. (2015). Five ways to look at Cohen’s kappa. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5(4), 197. doi: 10.4172/2161-0487.1000197 · DOI
  69. Wright, A. M. Schwartz, R. S. Oaks, J. R. Newman, C. E. Flanagan, S. P. (2020). The why, when, and how of computing in biology classrooms. F1000Research, 8, 1854. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20873.2 PMC6971840 32025290 · DOI
  70. Zoller, Uri. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 195. doi: 10.1021/ed070p195 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clark, N., & Hsu, J. L.
Affiliations
Chapman University (US)
Corresponding author
Hsu, Jeremy L.
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2023-03
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
ar5-ar5
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.22-09-0177
PMC
PMC10074271
OpenAlex
W4315928179
Cited by
26
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6
FWCI
19.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Chapman University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
Keywords
program learning outcomes, biology education, core competencies, quantitative reasoning, computational skills, research skills, student learning assessment, curriculum improvement
MeSH terms
Biology, Curriculum, Humans, Learning, Students, United States, Interdisciplinary Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review