Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36637376›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2023

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

Noelle Clark, Jeremy L Hsu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Examining the influence ofJournal of microbiology & biology education · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Characterizing full-time, non-tenure-track teaching faculty in biology.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025
    Article
  6. Charting a new vision: lessons onJournal of microbiology & biology education · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

2 authors.

Noelle ClarkSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.
Jeremy L HsuSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Learning goals and objectives are a key part of instruction, informing curricular design, assessment, and learning. These goals and objectives are also applied at the programmatic level, with program learning outcomes (PLOs) providing insight into the skills that undergraduate biology programs intend for their students to master. PLOs are mandated by all major higher education accreditation agencies and play integral roles in programmatic assessment. Despite their importance, however, there have not been any prior attempts to characterize PLOs across undergraduate biology programs in the United States. Our study reveals that many programs may not be using PLOs to communicate learning goals with students. We also identify key themes across these PLOs and differences in skills listed between institution types. For example, some

Indexed as

LearningStudentsBiologyCurriculumHumansInterdisciplinary StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36637376
PMCPMC10074271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.