biology essay and objective 2020

1.1 Themes and Concepts of Biology

Learning objectives.

• Identify and describe the properties of life
• Describe the levels of organization among living things
• List examples of different sub disciplines in biology

Biology is the science that studies life. What exactly is life? This may sound like a silly question with an obvious answer, but it is not easy to define life. For example, a branch of biology called virology studies viruses, which exhibit some of the characteristics of living entities but lack others. It turns out that although viruses can attack living organisms, cause diseases, and even reproduce, they do not meet the criteria that biologists use to define life.

From its earliest beginnings, biology has wrestled with four questions: What are the shared properties that make something “alive”? How do those various living things function? When faced with the remarkable diversity of life, how do we organize the different kinds of organisms so that we can better understand them? And, finally—what biologists ultimately seek to understand—how did this diversity arise and how is it continuing? As new organisms are discovered every day, biologists continue to seek answers to these and other questions.

Properties of Life

All groups of living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to stimuli, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, regulation/homeostasis, energy processing, and evolution. When viewed together, these eight characteristics serve to define life.

Organisms are highly organized structures that consist of one or more cells. Even very simple, single-celled organisms are remarkably complex. Inside each cell, atoms make up molecules. These in turn make up cell components or organelles. Multicellular organisms, which may consist of millions of individual cells, have an advantage over single-celled organisms in that their cells can be specialized to perform specific functions, and even sacrificed in certain situations for the good of the organism as a whole. How these specialized cells come together to form organs such as the heart, lung, or skin in organisms like the toad shown in Figure 1.2 will be discussed later.

Sensitivity or Response to Stimuli

Organisms respond to diverse stimuli. For example, plants can bend toward a source of light or respond to touch ( Figure 1.3 ). Even tiny bacteria can move toward or away from chemicals (a process called chemotaxis) or light (phototaxis). Movement toward a stimulus is considered a positive response, while movement away from a stimulus is considered a negative response.

Link to Learning

Watch this video to see how the sensitive plant responds to a touch stimulus.

Reproduction

Single-celled organisms reproduce by first duplicating their DNA, which is the genetic material, and then dividing it equally as the cell prepares to divide to form two new cells. Many multicellular organisms (those made up of more than one cell) produce specialized reproductive cells that will form new individuals. When reproduction occurs, DNA containing genes is passed along to an organism’s offspring. These genes are the reason that the offspring will belong to the same species and will have characteristics similar to the parent, such as fur color and blood type.

All living organisms exhibit a “fit” to their environment. Biologists refer to this fit as adaptation and it is a consequence of evolution by natural selection, which operates in every lineage of reproducing organisms. Examples of adaptations are diverse and unique, from heat-resistant Archaea that live in boiling hot springs to the tongue length of a nectar-feeding moth that matches the size of the flower from which it feeds. Adaptations enhance the reproductive potential of the individual exhibiting them, including their ability to survive to reproduce. Adaptations are not constant. As an environment changes, natural selection causes the characteristics of the individuals in a population to track those changes.

Growth and Development

Organisms grow and develop according to specific instructions coded for by their genes. These genes provide instructions that will direct cellular growth and development, ensuring that a species’ young ( Figure 1.4 ) will grow up to exhibit many of the same characteristics as its parents.

Regulation/Homeostasis

Even the smallest organisms are complex and require multiple regulatory mechanisms to coordinate internal functions, such as the transport of nutrients, response to stimuli, and coping with environmental stresses. Homeostasis (literally, “steady state”) refers to the relatively stable internal environment required to maintain life. For example, organ systems such as the digestive or circulatory systems perform specific functions like carrying oxygen throughout the body, removing wastes, delivering nutrients to every cell, and cooling the body.

To function properly, cells require appropriate conditions such as proper temperature, pH, and concentrations of diverse chemicals. These conditions may, however, change from one moment to the next. Organisms are able to maintain homeostatic internal conditions within a narrow range almost constantly, despite environmental changes, by activation of regulatory mechanisms. For example, many organisms regulate their body temperature in a process known as thermoregulation. Organisms that live in cold climates, such as the polar bear ( Figure 1.5 ), have body structures that help them withstand low temperatures and conserve body heat. In hot climates, organisms have methods (such as perspiration in humans or panting in dogs) that help them to shed excess body heat.

Energy Processing

All organisms (such as the California condor shown in Figure 1.6 ) use a source of energy for their metabolic activities. Some organisms capture energy from the Sun and convert it into chemical energy in food; others use chemical energy from molecules they take in.

The diversity of life on Earth is a result of mutations, or random changes in hereditary material over time. These mutations allow the possibility for organisms to adapt to a changing environment. An organism that evolves characteristics fit for the environment will have greater reproductive success, subject to the forces of natural selection.

Levels of Organization of Living Things

Living things are highly organized and structured, following a hierarchy on a scale from small to large. The atom is the smallest and most fundamental unit of matter that retains the properties of an element. It consists of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. Atoms form molecules. A molecule is a chemical structure consisting of at least two atoms held together by a chemical bond. Many molecules that are biologically important are macromolecules , large molecules that are typically formed by combining smaller units called monomers. An example of a macromolecule is deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ( Figure 1.7 ), which contains the instructions for the functioning of the organism that contains it.

To see an animation of this DNA molecule, click here .

Some cells contain aggregates of macromolecules surrounded by membranes; these are called organelles . Organelles are small structures that exist within cells and perform specialized functions. All living things are made of cells; the cell itself is the smallest fundamental unit of structure and function in living organisms. (This requirement is why viruses are not considered living: they are not made of cells. To make new viruses, they have to invade and hijack a living cell; only then can they obtain the materials they need to reproduce.) Some organisms consist of a single cell and others are multicellular. Cells are classified as prokaryotic or eukaryotic. Prokaryotes are single-celled organisms that lack organelles surrounded by a membrane and do not have nuclei surrounded by nuclear membranes; in contrast, the cells of eukaryotes do have membrane-bound organelles and nuclei.

In most multicellular organisms, cells combine to make tissues , which are groups of similar cells carrying out the same function. Organs are collections of tissues grouped together based on a common function. Organs are present not only in animals but also in plants. An organ system is a higher level of organization that consists of functionally related organs. For example vertebrate animals have many organ systems, such as the circulatory system that transports blood throughout the body and to and from the lungs; it includes organs such as the heart and blood vessels. Organisms are individual living entities. For example, each tree in a forest is an organism. Single-celled prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes are also considered organisms and are typically referred to as microorganisms.

Visual Connection

Which of the following statements is false?

• Tissues exist within organs which exist within organ systems.
• Communities exist within populations which exist within ecosystems.
• Organelles exist within cells which exist within tissues.
• Communities exist within ecosystems which exist in the biosphere.

All the individuals of a species living within a specific area are collectively called a population . For example, a forest may include many white pine trees. All of these pine trees represent the population of white pine trees in this forest. Different populations may live in the same specific area. For example, the forest with the pine trees includes populations of flowering plants and also insects and microbial populations. A community is the set of populations inhabiting a particular area. For instance, all of the trees, flowers, insects, and other populations in a forest form the forest’s community. The forest itself is an ecosystem. An ecosystem consists of all the living things in a particular area together with the abiotic, or non-living, parts of that environment such as nitrogen in the soil or rainwater. At the highest level of organization ( Figure 1.8 ), the biosphere is the collection of all ecosystems, and it represents the zones of life on Earth. It includes land, water, and portions of the atmosphere.

The Diversity of Life

The science of biology is very broad in scope because there is a tremendous diversity of life on Earth. The source of this diversity is evolution , the process of gradual change during which new species arise from older species. Evolutionary biologists study the evolution of living things in everything from the microscopic world to ecosystems.

In the 18th century, a scientist named Carl Linnaeus first proposed organizing the known species of organisms into a hierarchical taxonomy. In this system, species that are most similar to each other are put together within a grouping known as a genus. Furthermore, similar genera (the plural of genus) are put together within a family. This grouping continues until all organisms are collected together into groups at the highest level. The current taxonomic system now has eight levels in its hierarchy, from lowest to highest, they are: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. Thus species are grouped within genera, genera are grouped within families, families are grouped within orders, and so on ( Figure 1.9 ).

The highest level, domain, is a relatively new addition to the system since the 1970s. Scientists now recognize three domains of life, the Eukarya, the Archaea, and the Bacteria. The domain Eukarya contains organisms that have cells with nuclei. It includes the kingdoms of fungi, plants, animals, and several kingdoms of protists. The Archaea, are single-celled organisms without nuclei and include many extremophiles that live in harsh environments like hot springs. The Bacteria are another quite different group of single-celled organisms without nuclei ( Figure 1.10 ). Both the Archaea and the Bacteria are prokaryotes, an informal name for cells without nuclei. The recognition in the 1970s that certain “bacteria,” now known as the Archaea, were as different genetically and biochemically from other bacterial cells as they were from eukaryotes, motivated the recommendation to divide life into three domains. This dramatic change in our knowledge of the tree of life demonstrates that classifications are not permanent and will change when new information becomes available.

In addition to the hierarchical taxonomic system, Linnaeus was the first to name organisms using two unique names, now called the binomial naming system. Before Linnaeus, the use of common names to refer to organisms caused confusion because there were regional differences in these common names. Binomial names consist of the genus name (which is capitalized) and the species name (all lower-case). Both names are set in italics when they are printed. Every species is given a unique binomial which is recognized the world over, so that a scientist in any location can know which organism is being referred to. For example, the North American blue jay is known uniquely as Cyanocitta cristata . Our own species is Homo sapiens .

Evolution Connection

Carl woese and the phylogenetic tree.

The evolutionary relationships of various life forms on Earth can be summarized in a phylogenetic tree. A phylogenetic tree is a diagram showing the evolutionary relationships among biological species based on similarities and differences in genetic or physical traits or both. A phylogenetic tree is composed of branch points, or nodes, and branches. The internal nodes represent ancestors and are points in evolution when, based on scientific evidence, an ancestor is thought to have diverged to form two new species. The length of each branch can be considered as estimates of relative time.

In the past, biologists grouped living organisms into six kingdoms—animalia, plantae, fungi, protista, archea, and bacteria. The pioneering work of American microbiologist Carl Woese in the early 1970s has shown, however, that life on Earth has evolved along three lineages, now called domains—Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. Woese proposed the domain as a new taxonomic level and Archaea as a new domain, to reflect the new phylogenetic tree ( Figure 1.11 ). Many organisms belonging to the Archaea domain live under extreme conditions and are called extremophiles. To construct his tree, Woese used genetic relationships rather than similarities based on morphology (shape). Various genes were used in phylogenetic studies. Woese’s tree was constructed from comparative sequencing of the genes that are universally distributed, found in some slightly altered form in every organism, conserved (meaning that these genes have remained only slightly changed throughout evolution), and of an appropriate length.

Branches of Biological Study

The scope of biology is broad and therefore contains many branches and sub disciplines. Biologists may pursue one of those sub disciplines and work in a more focused field. For instance, molecular biology studies biological processes at the molecular level, including interactions among molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, as well as the way they are regulated. Microbiology is the study of the structure and function of microorganisms. It is quite a broad branch itself, and depending on the subject of study, there are also microbial physiologists, ecologists, and geneticists, among others.

Another field of biological study, neurobiology, studies the biology of the nervous system, and although it is considered a branch of biology, it is also recognized as an interdisciplinary field of study known as neuroscience. Because of its interdisciplinary nature, this sub discipline studies different functions of the nervous system using molecular, cellular, developmental, medical, and computational approaches.

Paleontology, another branch of biology, uses fossils to study life’s history ( Figure 1.12 ). Zoology and botany are the study of animals and plants, respectively. Biologists can also specialize as biotechnologists, ecologists, or physiologists, to name just a few areas. Biotechnologists apply the knowledge of biology to create useful products. Ecologists study the interactions of organisms in their environments. Physiologists study the workings of cells, tissues and organs. This is just a small sample of the many fields that biologists can pursue. From our own bodies to the world we live in, discoveries in biology can affect us in very direct and important ways. We depend on these discoveries for our health, our food sources, and the benefits provided by our ecosystem. Because of this, knowledge of biology can benefit us in making decisions in our day-to-day lives.

The development of technology in the twentieth century that continues today, particularly the technology to describe and manipulate the genetic material, DNA, has transformed biology. This transformation will allow biologists to continue to understand the history of life in greater detail, how the human body works, our human origins, and how humans can survive as a species on this planet despite the stresses caused by our increasing numbers. Biologists continue to decipher huge mysteries about life suggesting that we have only begun to understand life on the planet, its history, and our relationship to it. For this and other reasons, the knowledge of biology gained through this textbook and other printed and electronic media should be a benefit in whichever field you enter.

Career Connection

Forensic scientist.

Forensic science is the application of science to answer questions related to the law. Biologists as well as chemists and biochemists can be forensic scientists. Forensic scientists provide scientific evidence for use in courts, and their job involves examining trace material associated with crimes. Interest in forensic science has increased in the last few years, possibly because of popular television shows that feature forensic scientists on the job. Also, the development of molecular techniques and the establishment of DNA databases have updated the types of work that forensic scientists can do. Their job activities are primarily related to crimes against people such as murder, rape, and assault. Their work involves analyzing samples such as hair, blood, and other body fluids and also processing DNA ( Figure 1.13 ) found in many different environments and materials. Forensic scientists also analyze other biological evidence left at crime scenes, such as insect parts or pollen grains. Students who want to pursue careers in forensic science will most likely be required to take chemistry and biology courses as well as some intensive math courses.

Scientific Ethics

Scientists must ensure that their efforts do not cause undue damage to humans, animals, or the environment. They also must ensure that their research and communications are free of bias and that they properly balance financial, legal, safety, replicability, and other considerations. Bioethics is an important and continually evolving field, in which researchers collaborate with other thinkers and organizations. They work to define guidelines for current practice, and also continually consider new developments and emerging technologies in order to form answers for the years and decades to come.

Unfortunately, the emergence of bioethics as a field came after a number of clearly unethical practices, where biologists did not treat research subjects with dignity and in some cases did them harm. In the 1932 Tuskegee syphilis study, 399 African American men were diagnosed with syphilis but were never informed that they had the disease, leaving them to live with and pass on the illness to others. Doctors even withheld proven medications because the goal of the study was to understand the impact of untreated syphilis on Black men.

While the decisions made in the Tuskegee study are unjustifiable, some decisions are genuinely difficult to make. For example, bioethicists may examine the implications of gene editing technologies, including the ability to create organisms that may displace others in the environment, as well as the ability to “design” human beings. In that effort, ethicists will likely seek to balance the positive outcomes -- such as improved therapies or prevention of certain illnesses -- with negative outcomes.

Bioethics are not simple, and often leave scientists balancing benefits with harm. In this text and course, you will discuss medical discoveries that, at their core, have what many consider an ethical lapse. In 1951, Henrietta Lacks, a 30-year-old African American woman, was diagnosed with cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Unique characteristics of her illnesses gave her cells the ability to divide continuously, essentially making them “immortal.” Without her knowledge or permission, researchers took samples of her cells and with them created the immortal HeLa cell line. These cells have contributed to major medical discoveries, including the polio vaccine and work related to cancer, AIDS, cell aging, and even very recently in COVID-19 research. For the most part, Lacks has not been credited for her role in those discoveries, and her family has not benefited from the billions of dollars in pharmaceutical profits obtained partly through the use of her cells.

Today, harvesting tissue or organs from a dying patient without consent is not only considered unethical but also illegal, regardless of whether such an act could save other patients’ lives. Part of the role of ethics in scientific research is to examine similar issues before, during, and after research or practice takes place, as well as to adhere to established professional principles and consider the dignity and safety of all organisms involved or affected by the work.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/concepts-biology/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Samantha Fowler, Rebecca Roush, James Wise
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Concepts of Biology
• Publication date: Apr 25, 2013
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/concepts-biology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/concepts-biology/pages/1-1-themes-and-concepts-of-biology

© Jul 10, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Free Biology Essay Examples & Writing Tips

Don’t know what to write about in your essay on biology? Looking for good biology essay examples for inspiration? This article has all you need!

A biology essay is a type of academic paper that focuses on a particular topic of biology. It can discuss animal life, cycles in biology, or a botanic subject. You will need to demonstrate your critical thinking skills and provide relevant evidence to support your perspective.

On this page, you will find examples of biology essays. You will also find here tips and topics prepared by our experts . They can assist you in nailing your short or extended essay.

If you’ve been assigned to write a biology essay, you probably know which area of research you have to choose. However, it might be beneficial to explore other available scopes. It’s useful for both interdisciplinary study and the cases when you are free to pick your area of research. In this section, let’s figure out what you can study in biology.

Here are biological areas of research you should be familiar with:

• Cancer Biology studies this type of disease to prevent, detect, diagnose and cure it. The ultimate goal of such biologists is to eliminate cancer.
• Cell Biology is a branch that studies the structure, function, and behavior of cells. Here, biologists study healthy and sick cells to produce vaccines, medication, etc.
• Biochemistry is an application of chemistry to the study of biological processes on cell and molecular levels. It is a cross-discipline between chemistry and biology. The focus is on the chemical processes of living organisms.
• Computation Biology is a study of biological data that develops algorithms and models to understand biological systems. Here, scientists either work for institutions or research for private enterprises.
• Genetics is an area that focuses on the study of genes and genetic variations for health benefits. It looks at the way DNA affects certain diseases.
• Human Disease is an area within which scientists study different diseases. The field covers cancer, developmental disorders, disease genes, etc.
• Immunology is a branch of biology that focuses on immunity. Immunologists look at the way the body responds to viruses as a way to protect the organism.
• Microbiology studies all living organisms that are too small for our eye to see. It includes bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms.
• Neurobiology is the study of the nervous system. Biologists examine the way the brain works and look into brain illnesses.
• Stem Cell and Developmental Biology seeks to examine how the processes behind stem cell’s ability transform cells. The biologists in this area use the power of stem cells to model human illnesses.

Want to know how to start a biology essay? Wondering about the best way to write your essay on biology? Then check out the following tips.

When you’re writing about biology, pay attention to the following features:

• Introduction . Just as in any other form of academic writing, the first section of your paper introduces the subject. Here, explain why your ideas are relevant to biology as a science.
• Thesis Statement. The final one or two sentences of the first paragraph should include your original hypothesis and experiment. You will be proving them in the main body. You do not have to include the results as the reader will encounter them later. If you’re struggling with this part, try our thesis generator .
• Main Body. In this part, write about all the experiments in detail. Often, teachers require to include visual aid to prove your point. For Zoology, Anatomy, Botany, it is pretty easy to find some photos and illustrations.
• Conclusion. Here, restate your thesis. Reemphasize the most critical aspects described in the main body. You can do it by using our summarizing tool . The goal of this last paragraph is to leave an everlasting impression on the reader.

Thank you for reading our article. We hope you found it helpful. Share it with your class peers who also study biology. Additionally, have a look at the biological essay examples below.

746 Best Essay Examples on Biology

Grass and its importance, the benefits of animals to humans essay.

• Words: 1166

Effects of Vinegar on the Germination Rate of Mung Beans Seeds

• Words: 1750

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological System Theory

• Words: 1827

The Effect of Temperature on Amylase Activity

• Words: 1293

Ubiquity of Microorganisms

• Words: 2210

Biology of Grasses: Description and Importance

Anaerobic respiration and its applications.

• Words: 1274

Browning Reactions Explained

Strawberries history.

• Words: 1484

Dark or Light Skin: Advantages and Disadvantages

Mung seed germination patterns under varying ph values, seed germination experiment: results and discussion, mitosis and meiosis in onion root tip.

• Words: 1691

Botany and Taxonomy of the Onion

• Words: 2414

Lemon, Its Origin and Production

• Words: 1115

Biology: Analysis of Egg Experiment

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells: key differences, similarities and differences of photosynthesis and cellular respiration, pets and people, the insect effect on human life, corn plant’s developmental stages, forensic procedures: hairs and fibres.

• Words: 2067

Understanding the Effects of Quantity of Light on Plants Growth

• Words: 1089

Nanobiotechnology, Its Advantages and Disadvantages

A brief discussion of animal and plant cells, seed germination and osmosis.

• Words: 1127

Osmosis Through a Potato Slice Dipped in Solutions of Varying Concentrations

• Words: 1075

The Function and Structures of the Human Heart

Vitamin a: description and usage, biology lab report: biodiversity study of lichens, the c-fern plant laboratory experiment.

• Words: 1101

Consequences of Orange Juice on the Germination of Mung Bean Seeds

The anatomy and physiology of the nervous system of a rat.

• Words: 1612

A Light Microscope: Function and Usage

The characteristics and importance of nervous system.

• Words: 1705

Life in the Bottom of the Ocean and Its Protection

• Words: 1529

How Science Biology Might Help Alleviate Human Suffering

Mitosis in onion root and whitefish blastula, dugesia, a planarian with its peculiar characteristics.

• Words: 3207

Transpiration Process in Plants

Is earthworm beneficial or harmful to humans, responsible house plant keeping.

• Words: 2262

Importance of the Brain in Human Body

Characteristics of adult development.

• Words: 1311

Soil Impact on the Growth of Plants

• Words: 1227

Cell Organelles, Their Functions, and Disease

• Words: 1195

Digestion, Absorption and Assembly of Proteins

• Words: 1456

Description of Mitosis and Meiosis

The digestive system in the human body, a lab report for microbiology class, vision, its structure and function in humans, archaea and bacteria prokaryotes dichotomous keys, the genus rosa’s adaptation to the environment.

• Words: 1144

Photosynthesis as a Biological Process

A passion flower: properties and story of discovery, marine life in united arab emirates.

• Words: 1474

How SCOBY Changes Its Environment: Lab Experiment

• Words: 1214

The Muscular Movement: Pyramidal and Extrapyramidal Motor Systems

Psychophysics: definition & fundamentals.

• Words: 1606

“The Egg and the Sperm” by Emily Martin Critique

• Words: 2577

Olfactics and Its Importance for Living Beings

• Words: 1446

History Of Biotechnology

• Words: 1908

Basic and Applied Biology: Key Differences

Yeast and the fermentation process, the concept of selective breeding.

• Words: 2724

How the Human Eye Works Analogous to a Camera

The brain: structure and functions, plant growth and development with music, bird dna extraction: sex determination of gallus gallus.

• Words: 1109

The Human Cloning Debates

• Words: 1197

Wildlife Management and Extinction Prevention in Australia

• Words: 2902

Epithelial Tissue: Structure and Functions

Rabbit muscular system dissection report, ubiquity of bacteria: laboratory activity.

• Words: 1496

Substrate Concentration and Rate of Enzyme Reactions

• Words: 1730

Co-Evolution: Angiosperms and Pollinating Animals

Biology. cell analogy – nucleus + nucleolus, differences of domesticated and wild animals and plants, vaquita – endangered species.

• Words: 1367

Energy Balance and Expenditure

Practical report: determination of a bacteriophage titer, digestive journey of cheeseburger, computational biology as an essential research area, microbial growth and effect of ph on it.

• Words: 1330

Chlamydia Sexually Transmitted Disease

Cell theory, functions, discoveries, how the skeletal muscles derive the energy for contraction.

• Words: 1913

Biology: Photosynthesis and Respiration

Cloning of plants at the botanic garden, the effect of habitat disturbance on invertebrate abundance and diversity.

• Words: 1282

Viruses: Alive or Not From Scientific Perspective

Botany and zoology in the classroom.

• Words: 1631

Whether or Not Human Cloning Should Be Allowed

• Words: 1350

Living Things: What Do They Have in Common?

The pomegranate or “punica granatum l.”.

• Words: 1184

What Enzymes Are and How Do They Work

A study of the brine shrimps and their natural environment.

• Words: 1937

Microbiology: Zygomycota, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota

The dna extraction procedure: scientific experiment, human biology: nervous, muscle, epithelial and connective tissue, different ecosystems and living things, vertical stratification, ethnobotanical uses of plants.

• Words: 1938

Introduction to the Nervous System

Venomous snakes: the importance of the antidotes, the human family tree development, the thermoregulation is and its importance, the role of the olive in human history and lives.

• Words: 1653

Preparation of Polymers and Polymer Modification

Cell creation. basic characteristic of life, microbiology and its role in healthcare, bacteria identification: enterobacter aerogenes.

• Words: 1096

What Is Mitochondria and What Functions Does It Have

• Words: 1095

The Physical Self Concept Analysis

Biochemistry: protein translocation types & forms.

• Words: 1254

Geelong Botanic Garden’s Ecosystem

• Words: 2506

The Ocean’s Rarest Mammal Vaquita – An Endangered Species

• Words: 1878

16S and 18S Ribonucleic Acids: The Key Differences

The intricate world of camouflage: lessons from nature and beyond.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Tips on How to Write a Biology Essay: Learn from the Example of Jellyfish Essay

How to Write a Biology Essay

In this article, we will guide you on how to write a perfect biology essay from scratch. You’ll find various tips to help you excel in writing your essay and creating a paper worth the highest grades. We also prepared a jellyfish essay example for you, so it can be easier to enhance all the specifics and structure of this kind of paper.

What is Biology Essay

A biology essay is a student-written work where you present arguments and ideas about a particular biological topic. The essay on biology can take different forms like argumentative, cause-and-effect, descriptive, detailed analysis, or ‘how-to’ instruction, depending on the professor’s guidelines and writer’s preferences. 

A descriptive paper can explain a biological subject, while an argumentative one provides evidence to support a point of view. It’s up to you to choose which type is more suitable for the topic you’re writing about. The most common type is a cause-and-effect essay explaining an event’s reasons and consequences. 

How to Craft a Perfect Essay About Biology

Writing is an art form that requires time and effort. But if you prefer someone else to write the paper for you, you can just text the experts, ‘ do my homework for me ,’ and consider it done. 

Here is the step by step instruction to organize the process for desired results. 

Choose Your Biology Essay Topic

To get a good grade:

• make your paper informative and enjoyable by choosing a topic you wish to explore. 
• Use a brainstorming technique to generate 30-50 options for biology essay topics and research to create a shortlist. 
• Keep a notebook to jot down your ideas.

Choose a Question for Research

When writing a biology essay, use a scientific approach by selecting a research question related to your topic. Always avoid overly complex or apparent questions. You can also text our profs ‘ write my research paper ,’ and it can be done in a blink.

Create an Outline

Always have a clear plan when writing biology essays while starting a paper. Use a 5-paragraph structure with an outline to keep your main idea and arguments organized. Use any format that works best for you and adjust as needed. Discard any ideas that don’t fit your research question.

Use a Strong Thesis Statement

The introduction should end with a strong thesis statement synthesizing the overall essay, conveying the research question and your point of view. The paper is ineffective without a clear thesis, as readers may not understand your position.

Use Citation and References

Include a list of references in your academic papers, such as biology essays, to avoid plagiarism and provide data sources. Use the appropriate citation style, like APA or CSE, and consult a guide for requirements.

How to Structure a Biology Essay

Ensure your essay has an attention-grabbing introduction, a detailed body, and a solid conclusion with distinct sections. Use around seven paragraphs for the main body, adjusting as needed for the required word count.

Biology Essay Introduction

In the introduction of your essay about biology, showcase your expertise by providing a brief background of the topic and stating the essay’s objective. For a research paper, explain why the study is relevant. Make sure the reader understands the essence of your subject.

The body section of your essay on biology should focus on supporting and defending your thesis statement. To achieve this, make a list of essential points to cover and address each one step by step. Starting a new paragraph for each point ensures neatness and a continuous flow. 

In conclusion, restate your thesis statement and summarize supporting points to solidify your arguments. Avoid introducing new concepts, and leave a lasting impression on your instructor.

Jellyfish Essay - Example of a Biology Essay About a Fascinating Creature of the Ocean

Jellyfish, also known as jellies, are incredible creatures of the ocean. They’re members of the phylum Cnidaria, including corals and sea anemones. You can find jellyfish in every ocean around the globe, from the surface to the depths of the sea. 

Do you know what shape the jellyfish body has?! It’s one of their most unique features. Their bell-shaped body comprises a soft, jelly-like substance called mesoglea, found between two cellular layers. The outer layer of cells, the epidermis, is thin and flexible, while the inner layer, the gastrodermis, contains the jellyfish’s digestive system. At the bottom of the bell is the mouth, surrounded by tentacles armed with stinging cells called nematocysts. 

The jellyfish tentacles consist of venom-filled sacs, which can be potentially dangerous and life-threatening. Considering the severity of its sting, researchers have gathered information on how to treat it effectively. Use thick clothing, tweezers, sticks, or gloves to alleviate the sting. It’s crucial to avoid touching the sting with bare skin since the venom can cause severe harm. Always dispose of the tool used for removing the sting to prevent re-stinging. 

Jellyfish are creatures that feed on small fish and other tiny marine organisms. They capture their prey using the tentacles and bring it to their mouth. Once the food is inside the jellyfish, it’s broken down by digestive enzymes and absorbed into the gastrovascular cavity. 

An exciting thing about jelly is its life cycle. They go through several stages of development, starting as a tiny, free-swimming larva and then growing into a polyp. The polyp stage is stationary, and the jellyfish attaches itself to a surface using a sticky pad. During this stage, the jellyfish reproduces asexually, creating clones of itself. These clones then break off from the polyp and develop into the familiar bell-shaped body of the adult jellyfish. 

Jellyfish play an essential role in the ocean’s ecosystem too. They’re a food source for many marine creatures, including sea turtles and some fish species. They also help to control the population of tiny marine animals by feeding on them, and their waste products contribute to the nutrient cycle in the ocean.

However, jellyfish populations can sometimes explode and become a nuisance. This phenomenon mostly occurs when their natural predators are eliminated from the ecosystem or when water conditions, like temperature and salinity, are conducive for jellyfish growth. In cases where jellyfish populations reach excessive levels, they can clog fishing nets and interfere with other human activities in the ocean.

Jellyfish really are stunning creatures of the ocean. They’re diverse, with many different species, and are essential to the marine ecosystem. While they can sometimes become a nuisance, they’re vital to the ocean’s food web and nutrient cycle. Studying jellyfish can give us a greater understanding of the complex and interconnected systems that make up our oceans.

Practical Tips for Creating Perfect Academic Papers

Developing writing skills is crucial for your academic success regardless of your major. Check out these tips we provided for improving your writing. But if you aren't fond of writing, you can easily hand it to professionals by saying, ‘ do homework for me .’

Search for Samples or Examples

To improve your writing, analyze examples of well-written biology essays or research papers. Although not all online samples are perfect, they can still provide insights into what works and what doesn’t. However, avoid plagiarism and ensure your paper is original by presenting fresh ideas and a unique perspective. 

Read Whenever You Can

Develop your writing skills by reading widely and extensively. Look for biology papers in scientific journals, websites, or books. Don’t forget to take notes on interesting points that you can use in your papers later.

Practice Makes Perfect

Don’t expect to write a perfect paper on your first try, so take every opportunity to practice your writing. Find a mentor if needed and use online resources to learn from your mistakes and improve your skills.

Always Organize Your Writing Process

Organize your work process instead of waiting for inspiration by defining stages, scheduling time for each task, and eliminating distractions. Don’t wait for mood to write an essay about biology; use different strategies to overcome writer’s block.

Proofread and Get Other Feedback

It’s hard to assess your own work accurately. Seek feedback from peers or instructors to identify strengths and weaknesses to improve upon. Don’t wait for your professor’s feedback to know if your biology essay is good. 

Interesting Biology Essay Topics from Our Experts to Practice Your Writing

In this paragraph, we listed different biology essay topics from which you can choose your preferred one and practice writing to excel in your academic papers.

• A jellyfish - my favorite creature
• Facts about animal behavior
• Biodiversity conservation
• Chemical Ecology
• Impacts of air pollution
• Acid Rain’s impact on wildlife
• The greenhouse effect
• Causes of global warming
• Effects of climate change on nature
• Ways to avoid water pollution

These are interesting topics and also some of the most significant environmental problems. Choose the one you like and practice.

Final Thoughts

This article provides tips that will definitely make your writing process easier and more effective. Adjust these tips while writing your biology paper and structure it as we did in the jellyfish essay example. But if you still prefer a professional to do it for you, contact us by writing ‘ do my research paper ,’ and our experts will handle it.

Ryan Acton is an essay-writing expert with a Ph.D. in Sociology, specializing in sociological research and historical analysis. By partnering with EssayHub, he provides comprehensive support to students, helping them craft well-informed essays across a variety of topics.

• Plagiarism Report
• Unlimited Revisions
• 24/7 Support

BIOLOGY JUNCTION

Test And Quizzes for Biology, Pre-AP, Or AP Biology For Teachers And Students

How to Write a Biology Essay

“The point of the essay is to change things.” – Edward Tufte

Writing a biology essay can be a complex task, requiring not only a deep understanding of the subject but also the ability to present scientific information clearly and effectively. Prepare well and exploit a structured approach to crafting a compelling and well-researched biology text. Some simple steps go from understanding the assignment and conducting detailed research to structuring your essay and incorporating credible sources so that you can reach academic excellence without any complications. For qualitative preparation check out biology essay examples on a trustworthy source and follow the expert instructions to ensure your text meets the high standards of scientific writing.

Understand the Biological Context

You will hardly create any qualitative content unless you clearly understand what you are going to write about. Identify the biological concept or phenomenon that is to be at the center of your writing. If you have any hesitations or your assignment seems ambiguous to you, consult your professor for clarifications or any educational assistant for further directions.

What can help you dive deeper into your biological context is also a literature review. Proceed through a thorough literature review to understand the current state of research on the topic. Look up databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, and institutional libraries.

Formulate a Hypothesis or Research Question

Pass on to generate a hypothesis or research question that is going to be the core of your essay. If your writing involves an experimental or observational study, formulate a clear, testable hypothesis. Develop a specific research question to guide your investigation if it’s a review or analytical essay. So, define the type of your text and formulate its central point respectively for further successful steps.

Conduct Detailed Research and Data Collection

Now that you know your context and your attitude as for the assignment it is time to back it up with the proof. Start with primary sources, covering research articles, original studies, and scientific experiments. When you have enough, pass on to secondary sources, such as review articles, meta-analyses, and books for broader context.

Additionally, biological research allows you to conduct data analysis to strengthen your essay arguments. If the step is relevant to your work, analyze raw data from experiments or existing datasets using statistical methods. Create or refer to graphs, tables, and figures to present data effectively.

Create and Follow a Structured Outline with Scientific Rigor

Sometimes it is very difficult to organize your work properly so that you can finish it on time and produce qualitative content without any delay. So the very next step is to create a structured outline with scientific rigor so that you can stick to it to write a fundamental essay.

● Abstract – if you are required to, begin with an abstract. Provide a concise summary of the essay, including the research question, methods, key findings, and conclusions.

● Introduction – the next step or the primary point when an abstract is not necessary is to write an introduction. For your introduction include detailed background information with references to key studies and findings. Explain the significance of the topic within the field of biology. And don’t forget to state your thesis or hypothesis clearly. The rest of your writing will be tied to it. Be confident you’ve singled out the central idea of your topic and the findings related.

● Methods – if necessary or stated in the assignment, dwell on the methods you’ve exploited when researching and writing. Provide a description of the experimental design, including controls, variables, and procedures. Add the list of materials and equipment used. Explain how data was collected and recorded. This part of the essay will be solid proof of your no-plagiarism work.

● Results – think of the way you are going to display the results of your research and organize them appropriately. Present data in an organizedmanner using figures, tables, and charts. Add statistical tests if used and their outcomes.

● Discussion – remember that you not only have to present the data and evidence you have collected but also analyze and show your attitude to the findings. Interpret the results in the context of the research question or hypothesis. Compare findings with previous studies and discuss similarities and differences. Be open about any limitations in your study or analysis.

● Conclusion – with the analysis of your findings ready, you should summarize your work with a proper conclusion. Dwell on how your findings support or disprove the thesis/hypothesis. Discuss the broader implications of your findings for the field of biology. Suggest areas for further research.

Make an outline and cover it step by step so that you have a logical and strong text in the end. This will help you to get everything important and finish up your essay on time. Usually with a scientific assignment, you don’t need the inspiration to guide you but should have a proper organization of the writing process to assist you. Outlining will be a crucial part of your well-organized work with the essay.

Incorporate Scientific Evidence

Your biological essay will be no more but the words compound together unless you exploit strong scientific evidence to support your arguments. Ensure all references are from peer-reviewed scientific journals or reputable academic sources. Use a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) and include in-text citations and a bibliography to guarantee the genuineness and trustworthiness of your sources and proofs.

Exploit direct quotations sparingly; prefer paraphrasing and summarizing with proper citations. Put the evidence in between your personal conclusions and attitude to the issue you are addressing in your writing. This will display you have processed the question under study deeply and made your own conclusions out of your findings.

Consider Formatting and Technical Details

Scientific essay requires a relevant approach to its formatting and presentation. Use proper scientific nomenclature, italicizing genus and species names (e.g., Homo sapiens). Make sure you exploit standard units of measurement (SI units) and provide conversions if necessary. Define acronyms and abbreviations the first time they are used. Pay attention to these points when proofreading and editing or get someone to help you with a fresh look. A thorough approach and consistency in details will only add to the quality of your essay.

Spend Time on Proofreading and Peer Review

Take care your scientific essay looks appropriate and proves your level of qualification. Proofreading and thorough review will help you create a desirable image for your writing. Check for grammatical errors, scientific accuracy, and clarity. Use apps and tools to optimize and speed up the process. If possible, have your writing reviewed by a peer or mentor in the field for additional feedback. Or reach out to professionals from online services for high-end proofreading and review.

Care about Adherence to Ethical Guidelines

In the age of tolerance, you should also be confident that your essay doesn’t diminish or offend anyone’s rights and position as to your topic under study. Begin with ethical considerations. If your writing involves discussing experiments on humans or animals, ensure it adheres to ethical guidelines and includes necessary approvals. Additionally, avoid plagiarism by properly citing all sources and using original language. Check your text for authenticity with the help of anti-plagiarism tools on the Internet but beware of scams for anyone to steal your work.

Biology Essay Conclusion

Writing a biology essay involves proper planning, thorough research, and attention to detail. Cover some essential measures so that you can craft a well-structured and scientifically sound text that effectively communicates your findings and arguments. Mind the assignment and formulating a hypothesis to presenting data and discussing implications since each element plays a crucial role in the overall quality of your work. Remember to adhere to ethical guidelines, properly cite all sources, and seek feedback from peers or mentors. With these tools and strategies, you’ll be well-equipped to produce a high-quality biology essay that displays your knowledge and analytical skills.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

BioCore Guide: A Tool for Interpreting the Core Concepts of Vision and Change for Biology Majors

• Correction for BioCore Guide: A Tool for Interpreting the Core Concepts of Vision and Change for Biology Majors
• Sara E. Brownell
• Scott Freeman
• Mary Pat Wenderoth
• Alison J. Crowe

Address correspondence to: Sara E. Brownell ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

*School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

The intent of the Vision and Change conversations and national conference was to move toward a consensus framework in the biology community that would be broadly adaptable, given the unique structures, capacities, and constraints of individual life sciences programs … We pose these core concepts … as a resource and starting point based on the collective experience and wisdom of a broad national community of biological scientists and educators.

Vision and Change ( AAAS, 2011 , p. 11)

Biology is without question the most diverse of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. What began as an observational science has blossomed into a wide-ranging set of subdisciplines, each with its own set of key concepts, experimental techniques, and approaches to the study of life. The discipline is currently so segmented that biologists who work in particular subdisciplines attend separate scientific meetings, publish in specialty journals, and are sometimes housed in different departments.

The rapid expansion and increased diversity of the field has greatly expanded the scope and impact of biological discoveries but creates a challenge for instructors. The exponential rate of discovery in biology makes it difficult to decide what to teach in a 4-yr undergraduate curriculum. Given that we cannot teach everything, can we reach consensus about what is most important to teach?

IDENTIFICATION OF CORE CONCEPTS IN UNDERGRADUATE BIOLOGY

In an effort to consolidate the ever-expanding volume of biological knowledge to a more manageable set of ideas, several groups have outlined the “big ideas” in biology ( Table 1 ). Some of these efforts are focused on biology as a whole, whereas others are targeted to specific subdisciplines. Collectively, this literature has laid a strong foundation for articulating the most important aspects of biology and several common “big ideas” have emerged. While these efforts have enhanced awareness, many lack large-scale validation, which may explain why few have gained significant traction in the wider community. The most notable exception to this is the framework for K–12 education, which has recently been adopted as a set of scientific standards for elementary and secondary schools, but the focus of this set of recommendations is on K–12 and not undergraduate biology.

At the undergraduate level, the most extensive effort has come from a collaboration between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Association for the Advancement in Science (AAAS), which culminated in the report Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action ( AAAS, 2011 ). Through a series of conversations at regional and national meetings, more than 500 biologists and biology educators discussed the need to reform undergraduate biology education and provided a set of unifying recommendations. Specifically, Vision and Change outlined five core concepts that are important for undergraduate biology majors to understand by the time they graduate ( Table 2 ).

While it successfully distilled the complexity of biology down to only five core concepts, the recommendations set forth in Vision and Change were intentionally broad. They were meant to serve as “a resource and starting point” ( AAAS, 2011 , p. 11) for further delineation into subconcepts. The challenge is to elaborate the core concepts, so faculty members have a better grasp on how to teach them.

Taking the next step, the Society for Microbiology ( Merkel, 2012 ), the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ( Tansey et al. , 2013 ), and the American Society of Plant Biologists and Botanical Society of America ( American Society of Plant Biologists, 2012 ) have outlined how the core concepts of Vision and Change could be interpreted in each of their subdisciplines. While these society-specific efforts have been useful in making the core concepts more concrete for instructors teaching courses in these subdisciplines, their statements are often too specific for general biology majors, who are tasked with gaining a conceptual understanding of the discipline as a whole. To build on the important work coming out of the subdisciplines, we set out to interpret what the core concepts of Vision and Change mean for a general biology curriculum.

TARGET AUDIENCE FOR BIOCORE GUIDE: GRADUATING GENERAL BIOLOGY MAJORS

Although a unified curriculum for all undergraduate biology majors has not been established ( Cheesman et al. , 2007 ), there have been efforts focused on identifying both a common set of courses ( Heppner et al. , 1990 ; Marocco, 2000 ; National Research Council [NRC], 2003 ; Cheesman et al. , 2007 ; Labov et al. , 2010 ) and a common set of essential topics ( Ledbetter and Campbell, 2005 ; Timmerman et al. , 2008 ; AAAS, 2011 ; Gregory et al. , 2011 ). However, in line with the increased specialization of biology, curricula have also been recommended for biochemistry ( Voet et al. , 2003 ), zoology ( Russell, 2009 ), physiology ( Silverthorn, 2003 ), and neuroscience ( Wiertelak and Ramirez, 2008 ).

Would the biology community as a whole benefit more from recommendations for general biology majors or for subdiscipline-specific majors? To answer this question, we examined the structure of biology departments and majors at a randomly selected sample of 183 institutions throughout the United States (see Supplemental Material for methodology). As the data in Table 3 indicate, the vast majority of colleges and universities in our sample have general biology departments and confer a general biology degree. On the basis of these results, we concluded that the most useful approach for most institutions would be to articulate what the Vision and Change core concepts mean to faculty and students in a general biology program.

a Out of a random sample of 10% of the total number of Carnegie-classified institutions that confer bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees ( n = 183 institutions), the majority has general biology departments and confer a general biology degree.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: CREATING THE BIOCORE GUIDE FOR VISION AND CHANGE’S CORE CONCEPTS

With the core concepts of Vision and Change as a guide, we delineated a set of general principles for each concept. These principles are cross-disciplinary elaborations of each larger core concept intended to illustrate central themes that can be applied to different subdisciplines of biology. We also outlined a set of statements that were more specific interpretations of each of the core concepts within the three major subdisciplines of biology: molecular/cellular/developmental biology, physiology, and ecology/evolution. Although artificial—the three subdivisions do not exist as separate entities in organisms—they do represent the typical components of an introductory biology curriculum and span the scale of biology, from molecules to ecosystems. Thus, we used these subdisciplines as an attempt to sample the diversity of biology.

Collectively, we refer to the principles and statements as the Vision and Change BioCore Guide. Figure 1 summarizes the relationship between the different BioCore Guide elements and how the BioCore Guide itself relates to the broader goals of Vision and Change. We expect that the organization of core concepts, principles, and statements will be useful to the biology community as departments strive to adhere to the recommendations of Vision and Change. For example, test questions could be written that assess student understanding of each statement, and by extension, each principle and core concept.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for interpreting the core concepts of Vision and Change. Based on the core concepts of Vision and Change, the BioCore Guide consists of two levels: principles and statements. Specific questions based on the statements can be developed to assess student understanding of these concepts.

A GRASSROOTS APPROACH TO DEVELOPING THE VISION AND CHANGE BIOCORE GUIDE

To develop a tool that biology faculty would use and endorse, we involved biology faculty at each step of the process. This bottom-up, grassroots approach differs from more traditional efforts that rely on small working groups, often composed of faculty members who are on education committees and/or engaged in education research, to investigate an issue, write a report summarizing their findings, and then disseminate these “best practices” to the broader academic community. Despite the popularity of these top-down methods, they have not been shown to be particularly effective for catalyzing faculty and institutional change ( Henderson et al. , 2010 , 2011 ). Although we incorporated feedback from biology education researchers who have been policy makers at specific points in the development process, the goal of our “faculty-first” approach was to produce a tool that would resonate with instructors and thereby encourage implementation. An overview of our process is shown in Figure 2 .

Figure 2. The development process for the BioCore Guide. In this two-phase process, we began developing the BioCore Guide by soliciting input from faculty at the University of Washington. We then obtained feedback from biologists and biology educators nationally. In total, the BioCore Guide was iteratively revised six times.

Phase I. Home Institution Development and Review

As a first step, we obtained input from biology faculty at the University of Washington. Specifically, we engaged faculty members with Vision and Change by having them consider whether the five core concepts of Vision and Change were important for graduating biology majors to understand. Using an online survey, we found strong alignment between the national goals of Vision and Change and faculty goals in this department; all of the core concepts of Vision and Change were judged to be as important or more important than previously established departmental learning goals.

Our next step was to begin operationalizing the core concepts of Vision and Change into specific statements for each of the three major subdisciplines of biology. We did this by recruiting faculty to join one of three different focus groups with expertise in 1) molecular/cellular/developmental biology, 2) physiology, and 3) ecology/evolution. Faculty groups, each composed of three faculty members, independently brainstormed ideas for how each of the Vision and Change core concepts could be interpreted for their subdiscipline. They then refined their ideas to produce two to three statements for each of the core concepts, with each statement intended to capture features of their subdiscipline that they wanted general biology majors to master before graduation. We then assembled all the statements into a first-draft BioCore Guide. The “local” phase of the development process closed after three iterative revisions, based on discussions with the University of Washington (UW) Biology Education Research Group ( n = 4), the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee ( n = 11), and attendees at departmental faculty meetings ( n ∼ 25).

Phase II. National Review and Validation

In the second phase of developing the BioCore Guide, we solicited feedback on the initial draft from biologists and biology educators with different subdiscipline expertise in biology at a diverse set of national institutions. Using a convenience-sampling approach, we identified biology faculty members who were content experts and asked them to evaluate each statement and provide feedback on: 1) its scientific accuracy/wording and 2) its importance in terms of what a general biology major should understand by the time he or she graduates. We encouraged respondents to provide written edits of each statement and also asked them to identify additional or missing concepts. Participants were reminded to focus on the level of understanding expected of a general biology major, not a specialist from one of the subdisciplines. Twenty-five biologists (nine ecologists/evolutionary biologists, seven physiologists, and nine molecular/cellular biologists) provided written feedback. We then summarized their suggestions, identified consensus ideas, and modified the BioCore Guide accordingly. While we did not incorporate all of the suggestions, we did discuss each contribution and weighed its relevance in relationship to other suggestions.

Using the newly revised version of the BioCore Guide, we then solicited feedback from the biology education research community in two ways. We organized a focus group composed of five biology education researchers at the national meeting of the Society for Advancement in Biology Education (SABER) and asked participants to comment on the “big picture” organization of the document. This discussion resulted in two major changes to the BioCore Guide: 1) we developed broader principles under each concept, as a way to better organize the specific statements and see commonalities among subdisciplines; and 2) the biologically artificial boundaries among the subdisciplines were supplemented by a biologically relevant scale of molecules to ecosystems. In addition, we requested feedback on the BioCore Guide from professionals at SABER's national meeting whose work focused on instruction and discipline-based education research. Ten additional participants provided written comments on the accuracy of the statements and their importance for a graduating general biology major; these comments were used to further modify the BioCore Guide.

As a final step, we sought national validation of the BioCore Guide. We administered an anonymous online survey, distributed through mailing lists of a diverse group of scientific societies and education research groups (for a list of the organizations contacted, see the Supplemental Material). The voluntary survey asked reviewers to rate on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” whether each principle and statement in the BioCore Guide was 1) scientifically accurate and 2) important for a graduating biology major to understand. We intentionally did not provide reviewers will the option of a “neutral” response, because we wanted the reviewers to take a stance on each statement and felt that practicing biologists should be comfortable with all the topics required of a general biology major. Reviewers were also given the opportunity to provide specific edits or comments, including whether any major topics were missing from the BioCore Guide. We obtained feedback from 184 participants, who varied by subdiscipline expertise and type of institution ( Table 4 ).

In sum, we collected individual written feedback from 244 biologists and biology educators. The comments and edits were extensive, indicating that respondents took the time to provide a thorough and thoughtful review of the BioCore Guide. The large number of written responses supports the claim that the BioCore Guide represents the most extensive and systematic collection of faculty opinion on the core concepts of Vision and Change to date.

VISION AND CHANGE BIOCORE GUIDE OF CORE CONCEPTS FOR GENERAL BIOLOGY MAJORS

Through our national validation, we received input on whether the principles and statements achieved scientific accuracy and whether they were important for a graduating general biology major to know. Table 5 summarizes the validation data for the five principles and 40 statements in the BioCore Guide by showing average percent agreement for each section.

a Data shown are average percentage agreement for each principle and for all the statements for each subdiscipline from 184 respondents.

More than 95% of respondents agreed that each of the principles was important for a general biology major to master before graduation ( Table 5 ). In addition, more than 89% of respondents agreed with the scientific accuracy of each of the principles. Because reviewers had an opportunity to provide specific feedback on the principles, we were able to modify each principle to reflect the consensus feedback; the revised principles appear in Figure 3 .

Figure 3. BioCore Guide: a nationally validated tool for interpreting the core concepts of Vision and Change. We present the principles and statements that encompass the BioCore Guide, which have been built by more than 200 people in the biology community. The columns represent the three major subdisciplines of biology (molecular/cellular/developmental biology, physiology, and ecology/evolutionary biology), which are also depicted on a biological scale from the molecular to the ecosystem level. Each concept is represented by a separate box, with a set of overarching principles that cross subdisciplinary boundaries at the top and then two to three statements for each of the subdisciplines. ( Continued on next page )

In the national validation of the statements, respondents agreed that all 40 of the statements were important for a graduating general biology major to know, with average agreement for each section being more than 93% ( Table 5 ). Reviewers also rated the scientific accuracy of the 40 statements highly; average agreement for scientific accuracy was more than 90% for each section. Reviewers suggested minor modifications to some statements. If at least three people in the national validation made the same suggestion, the alterations were incorporated into the BioCore Guide; the revisions are shown in Figure 3 .

We gave reviewers the opportunity to recommend other concepts that may be important to include for a general biology major that we had not included on the BioCore Guide. No concepts were suggested by more than 5% of our sample, which we interpreted to mean that reviewers did not think that the BioCore Guide was missing any critically important statements. However, we do provide a list of these additional ideas in Supplemental Table S1, organized by core concept. Although these suggestions have not been validated, they could serve as a resource for biologists interested in incorporating a greater number of ideas into the BioCore Guide.

In addition to providing the version of the BioCore Guide that was sent for national validation, Supplemental Figure S1 indicates which principles and statements were modified to produce Figure 3 and reports the averages on the Likert scale of 1–4 (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) and percentages of agreement for importance and scientific accuracy for each statement and principle based on the national survey.

The final Vision and Change BioCore Guide of core concepts, shown in Figure 3 , has been built by 244 members of the biology community and iteratively revised a total of six times. For each core concept, the BioCore Guide consists of a set of cross-disciplinary principles and two to three statements for each subdiscipline.

WHERE DO THE CORE COMPETENCIES OF VISION AND CHANGE FIT IN?

Vision and Change outlined a set of core competencies in addition to the five core concepts. These include the ability to: 1) apply the process of science, 2) use quantitative reasoning, 3) use modeling and simulation, 4) tap into the interdisciplinary nature of science, 5) communicate and collaborate with other disciplines, and 6) understand the relationship between science and society. We chose to focus on explicating the core concepts of biology rather than the core competencies, simply because we found the concepts to be more controversial with faculty—we observed much lower consensus among faculty members regarding what the five core concepts mean for their subdiscipline. Although this essay focuses solely on the core concepts, it is not because the competencies are less important. In our view, it is essential to address both core concepts and competencies as we work toward undergraduate biology reform.

THE BIOCORE GUIDE SPANS A 4-YR UNDERGRADUATE BIOLOGY CURRICULUM

Although many of the BioCore Guide statements are addressed in introductory biology courses because of their fundamental importance, some may be more appropriately taught in advanced courses. We did not determine at what level each statement should be taught, but emphasize that the BioCore Guide is intended to be used beyond introductory biology. We strongly encourage its use across the curriculum in ways that will promote an emphasis on the core concepts—even in upper-level courses with highly specialized topics. We hope that the BioCore Guide will promote dialogue about when each of these statements should be taught and how basic concepts can be elaborated on and reinforced in upper-level courses. Students need multiple opportunities to work with an idea to help them understand it at a deeper level. Additionally, engaging with the same concepts across the curriculum will help students understand the importance of using these core concepts as a way to structure their thinking about biology.

Outlining how topics could be taught across the curriculum could help us develop learning progressions for these concepts in undergraduate biology ( Duncan and Rivet, 2013 ). It may be important to reinforce statements that are introduced early in an undergraduate's career—restating and reminding, but perhaps also elaborating. An increasingly sophisticated understanding might focus on the complexity of biological interactions and processes, helping students move from thinking about single molecules, signal transduction pathways, or communities to analyzing the complex interactions that exist among these different entities. Further, while general or canonical examples might be presented in introductory courses, upper-level classes could explore important exceptions, delve into the primary literature, or challenge students to engage more with the Vision and Change core competencies.

Consider a BioCore Guide statement from the information flow concept under molecular/cellular biology: “In most cases, genetic information flows from DNA to mRNA to protein, but there are important exceptions.” We imagine that most introductory courses cover the basic ideas of transcription and translation but may not address the exceptions to the DNA → mRNA → protein pathway or how the flow of genetic information is controlled. In upper-level molecular biology courses, more of the details and exceptions will likely be introduced. For example, students may be asked to explore the role of microRNAs in gene regulation or to analyze examples of successive reduction in genome size in somatic cells during development in organisms such as Tetrahymena or lamprey. Finally, upper-level courses may have students read primary literature or interpret data that either support or refute a given statement related to this core idea.

USING THE BIOCORE GUIDE TO IMPROVE THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM

We envision at least five major purposes for this BioCore Guide, which we outline below.

Strengthening Connections between Course-Specific Learning Goals and the Core Concepts from Vision and Change

There are few guidelines for faculty to use when developing course goals and learning outcomes. The BioCore Guide furnishes a nationally validated guideline for identifying student learning objectives and other course outcomes. If a faculty member aligns course goals with statements from the BioCore Guide, that instructor, along with other faculty teaching in the department, should gain a better understanding of how specific course activities can help students reach nationally validated goals for biology majors. In addition, students may be able to see which courses target the same statements and better appreciate common themes among courses or how course sequences build on each other.

Aligning a Curriculum with the BioCore Guide to Identify Gaps

Most departments strive to offer a cohesive curriculum for general biology majors. But currently, faculty members who teach upper-level courses are often unaware of what their colleagues are teaching in introductory courses. If so, courses and curricula can become disconnected from one another. Identifying which concepts are addressed in which courses—by mapping a suite of required courses onto the BioCore Guide—could allow departments to identify gaps in their curriculum (e.g., statements not targeted by any courses) and assess whether prerequisite courses introduce the core concepts that upper-level courses build upon.

Help Undergraduates See the “Big Picture” of Biology

Undergraduate majors frequently wrestle with how the details they are learning in various courses fit into a larger, synthetic view of biology. Faculty advisors could use the BioCore Guide to help students see how their required biology and non–biology courses fit together and how courses with differences in subject matter (e.g., ecology and molecular biology) have common underlying principles.

Accreditation and Certification

Department chairs, committee heads, and deans could use the BioCore Guide during the accreditation process to articulate larger curricular goals. In addition, work has begun on developing a certification program for departments that align their programs with the goals of Vision and Change. The Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) is a collaborative effort developed and funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute to catalyze the adoption of the goals outlined in the Vision and Change report. The PULSE organization has started the process by creating rubrics for departments to use in assessing alignment ( PULSE Community, 2014 ). The BioCore Guide could be used in conjunction with the PULSE rubrics as a way for departments to self-assess their current status at meeting curricular learning outcomes aligned with the core concepts.

Use the BioCore Guide as a Basis for Diagnostic Programmatic Assessments

The biology community is largely in agreement that undergraduate biology majors should master the core concepts outlined in Vision and Change by the time they graduate. We now need a way of assessing whether they have achieved that understanding. There are a number of different approaches for testing student understanding of fundamental concepts (e.g., Nehm and Schonfeld, 2008 ; Shi et al. , 2010 ; Hartley et al. , 2011 ; Smith et al. , 2013 ), each with its own strengths. However, the community currently lacks a test that could be easily administered to thousands of students to serve the needs of biology departments interested in assessing general biology majors’ understanding of the core concepts spanning the subdisciplines.

Thus, as part of a multi-institution team (University of Washington, University of Maine, University of Colorado–Boulder, Arizona State University, and University of Nebraska–Lincoln), we are using this BioCore Guide to develop a restricted-response programmatic assessment that will track undergraduate biology majors’ understanding of core concepts as they progress through the major. As our goal is to produce a test that could be used at the departmental or programmatic level—not the individual course level—we are proposing that it be administered to students at multiple time points in a curriculum: 1) before introductory biology, to assess students’ incoming knowledge; 2) after completion of an introductory biology series, to gauge students’ intermediate progress; and 3) before graduation, to determine the summative impact of the biology curriculum. Collecting baseline scores for students will allow institutions that have students transferring in at different points in the curriculum or students entering with different abilities to see the specific impact of their program on student understanding of the core concepts. We are intentionally structuring questions to target both introductory and advanced levels of thinking so that we can monitor improvement of student thinking as students progress through the curriculum. Success with the advanced-level questions would require higher-order cognitive understanding of one topic and/or across-discipline thinking that requires students to think broadly about biological concepts. Taking an integrative approach, focused on assessing student learning of diverse topics in biology at multiple stages of a general biology curriculum, will make this test distinct from previously developed concept inventories, capstone assessments, and subdiscipline-specific efforts. We are currently developing questions for this diagnostic tool, each of which will be aligned with the BioCore Guide, and thus Vision and Change, with the goal of producing a general biology test that would be available to interested institutions in the next few years. Departments could then use this programmatic assessment to monitor student learning and make evidence-based revisions to their curricula.

ADAPTING THE BIOCORE GUIDE FOR USE AT YOUR OWN INSTITUTION

We offer this BioCore Guide as a starting point for the five applications listed above and acknowledge that the goals of undergraduate biology education will evolve as the field of biology changes. Thus, the framework is not intended to be static; it will need to be modified and updated over time.

Departments may even wish to adapt this BioCore Guide immediately, so that it conforms more closely to their interests, needs, and departmental culture. Although a departmentally modified BioCore Guide will not have national validation, it may be more effective in terms of promoting faculty acceptance and institutional change.

In addition, the BioCore Guide is not meant to be prescriptive. The statements should not be viewed as a checklist for faculty instruction or be used to constrain what biology faculty teaches. Much of what excites us and our students lies in the details of our fields: a rare genetic disease, the crystal structure of a G protein–coupled receptor, the impact of climate change on salamander populations, the relationship between stress and Alzheimer's disease. Far from pushing faculty away from a personalized view of biology, our goal is to give instructors an organizing framework to position specific examples, moving the focus away from a collection of facts and toward a more cohesive picture of our science.

This BioCore Guide, implemented in conjunction with the PULSE community's rubrics and ultimately with our programmatic assessment, could help departments incorporate the Vision and Change call to action into their institutional culture. We envision this BioCore Guide as an agent of change to help us complete this journey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded in part by the University of Washington College of Arts and Sciences, the University of Washington Department of Biology, and NSF DUE 1323010 collaborative research grant: University of Washington: P.I. A.J.C., S.F.; Arizona State University: Co-P.I. S.E.B.; University of Maine: P.I. M. Smith; University of Colorado–Boulder: PI J. Knight, Co-P.I. B. Couch. We thank the UW faculty who participated in this effort, particularly Toby Bradshaw and Kevin Mihata for leadership. We also thank members of the Biology Education Research Group, in particular Mercedes Converse for her help. Finally we thank the 50-plus people who provided specific feedback on the BioCore Guide (see the Supplemental Material for full list of names) and the 184 respondents who anonymously completed the national validation of the BioCore Guide, greatly strengthening the quality of this work.

• Alles DL ( 2001 ). Using evolution as the framework for teaching biology . Am Biol Teach 63 , 20-23. Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science ( 2011 ). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action , Washington, DC. Google Scholar
• American Society of Plant Biologists ( 2012 ). Core Concepts and Learning Objectives. http://my.aspb.org/blogpost/722549/152613/Core-Concepts-and-Learning-Objectives-in-Undergraduate-Plant-Biology (accessed 20 December 2013). Google Scholar
• Cheesman K, French D, Cheesman I, Swails N, Thomas J ( 2007 ). Is there any common curriculum for undergraduate biology majors in the 21st century? . BioScience 57 , 516-522. Google Scholar
• Duncan RG, Rivet AE ( 2013 ). Science learning progressions . Science 339 , 396-397. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Gregory E, Ellis JP, Orenstein AN ( 2011 ). A proposal for a common minimal topic set in introductory biology courses for majors . Am Biol Teach 73 , 16-21. Google Scholar
• Hartley LM, Wilke BJ, Schramm JW, D’Avanzo C, Anderson CW ( 2011 ). College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: contrasting principle-based and informal reasoning . BioScience 61 , 65-75. Google Scholar
• Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N ( 2011 ). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature . J Res Sci Teach 48 , 952-984. Google Scholar
• Henderson C, Finkelstein N, Beach A ( 2010 ). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: an introduction to four core change strategies . J Coll Sci Teach 39 , (5), 18-25. Google Scholar
• Heppner F, Hammen C, Kass-Simon G, Krueger W ( 1990 ). A de facto standardized curriculum for US college biology and zoology . BioScience 40 , 130-134. Google Scholar
• Khodor J, Halme DG, Walker GC ( 2004 ). A hierarchical biology concept framework: a tool for course design . Cell Biol Educ 3 , 111-121. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Klymkowsky MW ( 2010 ). Thinking about the conceptual foundations of the biological sciences . CBE Life Sci Educ 9 , 405-407. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Labov JB, Reid AH, Yamamoto KR ( 2010 ). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? . CBE Life Sci Educ 9 , 10-16. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Ledbetter ML, Campbell AM ( 2005 ). A survey of survey courses: are they effective? Argument favoring a survey as the first course for majors . Cell Biol Educ 4 , 133-137. Google Scholar
• Marbach-Ad G, et al. ( 2007 ). A faculty team works to create content linkages among various courses to increase meaningful learning of targeted concepts of microbiology . CBE Life Sci Educ 6 , 155-162. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Marocco DA ( 2000 ). Biology for the 21st century: the search for a core . Am Biol Teach 62 , 565-569. Google Scholar
• Merkel S ( 2012 ). The development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on understanding . J Microbiol Biol Educ 13 , 32. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Michael J, McFarland J ( 2011 ). The core principles (“big ideas”) of physiology: results of faculty surveys . Adv Physiol Educ 35 , 336-341. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Michael J, Modell H, McFarland J, Cliff W ( 2009 ). The “core principles” of physiology: what should students understand? . Adv Physiol Educ 33 , 10-16. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• National Research Council ( 2003 ). BIO2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Nehm R, Schonfeld IS ( 2008 ). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview . J Res Sci Teach 45 , 1131-1160. Google Scholar
• PULSE Community ( 2014 ). Home page In: www.pulsecommunity.org (accessed 4 February 2014). Google Scholar
• Quinn H, Schweingruber H, Keller T (eds.) ( 2011 ). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Rowland DL, Smith CA, Gillam EM, Wright T ( 2011 ). The concept lens diagram: a new mechanism for presenting biochemistry content in terms of “big ideas.” . Biochem Mol Biol Educ 39 , 267-279. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Russell AP ( 2009 ). Situating and teaching 21st century zoology: revealing pattern in the form and function of animals . Integr Zool 4 , 309-315. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Scheiner SM ( 2010 ). Toward a conceptual framework for biology . Q Rev Biol 85 , 293-318. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Shi J, Wood WB, Martin JM, Guild NA, Vicens Q, Knight JK ( 2010 ). Diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology . CBE Life Sci Educ 9 , 453-461. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Silverthorn DU ( 2003 ). Restoring physiology to the undergraduate biology curriculum: a call for action . Adv Physiol Educ 27 , 91-96. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Smith JI, et al. ( 2013 ). Development of the biology card sorting task to measure conceptual expertise in biology . CBE Life Sci Educ 12 , 628-644. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Tansey JT, Baird T, Cox MM, Fox KM, Knight J, Sears D, Bell E ( 2013 ). Foundational concepts and underlying theories for majors in “biochemistry and molecular biology.” . Biochem Mol Biol Educ 41 , 289-296. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Timmerman BE, Strickland DC, Carstensen SM ( 2008 ). Curricular reform and inquiry teaching in biology: where are our efforts most fruitfully invested? . Integr Comp Biol 48 , 226-240. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Voet JG, Bell E, Boyer R, Boyle J, O’Leary M, Zimmerman JK ( 2003 ). Recommended curriculum for a program in biochemistry and molecular biology . Biochem Mol Biol Educ 31 , 161-162. Google Scholar
• Wiertelak EP, Ramirez JJ ( 2008 ). Undergraduate neuroscience education: blueprints for the 21st century . J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 6 , A34-A39. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Wood WB ( 2009 ). Revising the AP biology curriculum . Science 325 , 1627-1628. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Prior experiences as students and instructors play a critical role in instructors’ decision to adopt evidence-based instructional practices 25 March 2024 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 11, No. 1
• Exploring patterns of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religiosity among college biology students in the United States 19 August 2024 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 17, No. 1
• Defining evolution: exploring students’ conceptions of evolution in introductory biology courses 23 August 2024 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 17, No. 1
• PULSE Ambassadors program: empowering departments to transform STEM education for inclusion and student success 12 September 2024 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 9
• Why ask why? Toward coordinating knowledge of proximate and ultimate explanations in physiology 1 Sep 2024 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 48, No. 3
• Austin Heil ,
• Joshua Olaniran ,
• Cara Gormally , and
• Marguerite (Peggy) Brickman
• Kristy Wilson, Monitoring Editor
• Design principles for molecular animation 21 August 2024 | Frontiers in Bioinformatics, Vol. 4
• Nationally endorsed learning objectives to improve course design in introductory biology 15 August 2024 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 19, No. 8
• Preparing the Next Generation of Integrative Organismal Biologists 5 July 2024 | Integrative And Comparative Biology, Vol. 8
• Molecular storytelling: a conceptual framework for teaching and learning with molecular case studies 3 June 2024 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 9
• Incorporating Sex-Diverse and Gender-Inclusive Perspectives in Higher Education Biology Courses 3 June 2024 | Integrative And Comparative Biology, Vol. 47
• Crystal Uminski ,
• Sara M. Burbach , and
• Brian A. Couch
• Tammy Long, Monitoring Editor
• Rebecca B. Orr ,
• Peggy Brickman
• Stephanie Gardner, Monitoring Editor
• The development and validation of the Mutation Criterion Referenced Assessment (MuCRA) 22 July 2022 | Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 58, No. 3
• A framework for leveraging network course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) faculty to develop, validate, and administer an assessment instrument 25 Apr 2024 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 25, No. 1
• Daniel L. Reinholz and
• Tessa C. Andrews
• Matthew Hora, Monitoring Editor
• Knowledge-Map Analysis of Undergraduate Biochemistry Teaching Research: A Bibliometric Study from 2012 to 2021 2 January 2024 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 101, No. 2
• Defining and unpacking the core concepts of pharmacology: A global initiative 20 September 2023 | British Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 181, No. 3
• Accelerating STEM education reform: linked communities of practice promote creation of open educational resources and sustainable professional development 22 February 2023 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 10, No. 1
• Taya Misheva ,
• Sara E. Brownell , and
• M. Elizabeth Barnes
• Erika Offerdahl, Monitoring Editor
• Sharleen Flowers ,
• Kal H. Holder ,
• Gabrielle K. Rump , and
• Stephanie M. Gardner
• Foundations in physiology: an introductory course using the core concepts 1 Sep 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 3
• Teaching with core concepts to facilitate the integrated learning of introductory organismal biology 1 Sep 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 3
• Learning by Listing: Synthesizing Biological Concepts Using Groups of Four 1 November 2023 | Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 52, No. 7
• Group Active Engagements for Facilitating Principles-Based Learning in Introductory Organismal Biology 1 Aug 2023 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 85, No. 6
• Rethinking (again) Hardy-Weinberg and genetic drift in undergraduate biology 8 June 2023 | Frontiers in Genetics, Vol. 14
• Using Test Question Templates to teach physiology core concepts 1 Jun 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 2
• Audrey Chen ,
• Kimberley A. Phillips ,
• Jennifer E. Schaefer , and
• Patrick M. Sonner
• Kyle Frantz,, Monitoring Editor
• Cornerstone over Capstone: The case for structured career development opportunities early in the undergraduate biology curriculum as a way to influence science and biology identities 5 May 2023 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 18, No. 5
• Identifying the core concepts of pharmacology education: A global initiative 3 January 2023 | British Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 180, No. 9
• Noelle Clark and
• Jeremy L. Hsu
• Kristy Jean Wilson, Monitoring Editor
• How students reason about matter flows and accumulations in complex biological phenomena: An emerging learning progression for mass balance 1 July 2022 | Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 60, No. 1
• A Comparison of Online and In-Person Evolution Instruction That Includes Religious Cultural Competence 15 Dec 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 3
• Mendelian or Multifactorial? Current Undergraduate Genetics Assessments Focus on Genes and Rarely Include the Environment 15 Dec 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 3
• Characterizing First-Year Biology Majors’ Motivations and Perceptions of the Discipline 15 Dec 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 3
• Kush S. Bhatia ,
• Austin Stack ,
• Cheryl A. Sensibaugh , and
• Paula P. Lemons
• Molly Bolger, Monitoring Editor
• Constructing the Wiggers diagram using core concepts: a classroom activity 1 Dec 2022 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 46, No. 4
• Exploring physiology instructors’ use of core concepts: pedagogical factors that influence choice of course topics 1 Dec 2022 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 46, No. 4
• From genetics to biotechnology: Synthetic biology as a flexible course‐embedded research experience 2 September 2022 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 50, No. 6
• M. Elizabeth Barnes ,
• Rebekkah Riley ,
• Chloe Bowen ,
• Jacqueline Cala , and
• Stacy M. Alvares, Monitoring Editor
• Development of the biotic impacts of climate change core concepts (BIC 4 ) framework 29 April 2022 | Environmental Education Research, Vol. 28, No. 8
• Jennifer Momsen ,
• Elena Bray Speth ,
• Sara Wyse , and
• Brian Sato, Monitoring Editor
• Statewide Curricular Alignment & Learning Outcomes for Introductory Biology 1 Mar 2022 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 84, No. 3
• Integrating the Five Core Concepts of Biology into Course Syllabi to Advance Student Science Epistemology and Experimentation Skills 12 May 2022
• Experiments in Data Mining: Using Digitized Natural History Collections to Introduce Biology Students to Data Science 12 May 2022
• Exploring the relationship between genotype and phenotype using yeast alcohol dehydrogenase 1 8 December 2021 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 50, No. 1
• The Conceptualization of Quantitative Reasoning among Introductory Biology Faculty 15 Dec 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 3
• Dina L. Newman ,
• Aeowynn Coakley ,
• Aidan Link ,
• Korinne Mills , and
• L. Kate Wright
• Core concepts in physiology: teaching homeostasis through pattern recognition 1 Dec 2021 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 45, No. 4
• MUREs: a new member of the URE-CURE family of research opportunities for undergrads 1 Dec 2021 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 45, No. 4
• Role models, compatibility, and knowledge lead to increased evolution acceptance 12 October 2021 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 14, No. 1
• The (STEM)2 Network: a multi-institution, multidisciplinary approach to transforming undergraduate STEM education 29 January 2021 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 8, No. 1
• Defining and unpacking the core concepts of pharmacology education 24 November 2021 | Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 6
• Beyond Memorization: Exercises that Help Students Forge, Remember, and Apply their Knowledge 24 July 2021 | Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 61, No. 4
• Student Association of Lecture Content with the Five Core Concepts of Biology: Novel Results from an Introductory Biology Course 10 Sep 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 2
• Repetition Is Important to Students and Their Understanding during Laboratory Courses That Include Research 10 Sep 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 2
• K. Supriya ,
• Julie A. Roberts , and
• Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
• Muslim undergraduate biology students’ evolution acceptance in the United States 11 August 2021 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 16, No. 8
• Identifying the core concepts of pharmacology education 21 July 2021 | Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4
• Quira Zeidan ,
• Jennifer Loertscher ,
• Adele J. Wolfson ,
• John T. Tansey ,
• Erika G. Offerdahl ,
• Peter J. Kennelly ,
• Daniel R. Dries ,
• Victoria Del Gaizo Moore ,
• Diane M. Dean ,
• L. Michael Carastro ,
• Sachel M. Villafañe , and
• Ludmila Tyler
• Erin L. Dolan, Monitoring Editor
• Introductory biology undergraduate students' mixed ideas about genetic information flow 16 December 2020 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 49, No. 3
• Student Annotations of Published Data as a Collaboration between an Online Laboratory Course and the C. elegans Database, WormBase 30 Apr 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• Resilient Instructional Strategies: Helping Students Cope and Thrive in Crisis 30 Apr 2021 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• 2021 | Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 61, No. 3
• How Might the Next Generation Science Standards Support Styles of Scientific Reasoning in Biology? 2 Dec 2020 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 82, No. 9
• Alexa W. Clemmons ,
• Jerry Timbrook ,
• Jon C. Herron , and
• Ross Nehm, Monitoring Editor
• Another look at the core concepts of physiology: revisions and resources 1 Dec 2020 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 44, No. 4
• From panic to pedagogy: Using online active learning to promote inclusive instruction in ecology and evolutionary biology courses and beyond 29 October 2020 | Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 22
• E. G. Bailey ,
• R. F. Greenall ,
• D. M. Baek ,
• C. Morris ,
• N. Nelson ,
• T. M. Quirante ,
• N. S. Rice ,
• S. Rose , and
• K. R. Williams
• Sarah L. Eddy, Monitoring Editor
• Doing the Molecular Splits: Hands-On Demonstration Tips to Promote Student Engagement Using Split Inteins in Molecular Biology 1 Sep 2020 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 82, No. 7
• Christina I. Petersen ,
• Paul Baepler ,
• Paul Ching ,
• Kristen S. Gorman ,
• Cheryl L. Neudauer ,
• William Rozaitis ,
• J. D. Walker , and
• Deb Wingert
• C. Gary Reiness, Monitoring Editor
• Hayley M. Dunlop ,
• Gale M. Sinatra ,
• Taija M. Hendrix ,
• Yi Zheng , and
• Janet L. Branchaw ,
• Pamela A. Pape-Lindstrom ,
• Kimberly D. Tanner ,
• Sarah A. Bissonnette ,
• Tawnya L. Cary ,
• Brian A. Couch ,
• Alison J. Crowe ,
• Jenny K. Knight ,
• Katharine Semsar ,
• Julia I. Smith ,
• Michelle K. Smith ,
• Mindi M. Summers ,
• Caroline J. Wienhold ,
• Christian D. Wright , and
• Cynthia Brame, Monitoring Editor
• Undergraduate Textbook Representations of Meiosis Neglect Essential Elements 1 May 2020 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 82, No. 5
• EvMedEd: A Teaching Resource for Integrating Medical Examples into Evolution Education 1 Feb 2020 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 82, No. 2
• Are scientists biased against Christians? Exploring real and perceived bias against Christians in academic biology 29 January 2020 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 1
• An Online Interactive Video Vignette that Helps Students Learn Key Concepts of Fermentation and Respiration 1 Jan 2020 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 2
• Emily E. Scott ,
• Mary Pat Wenderoth , and
• Jennifer H. Doherty
• John Coley, Monitoring Editor
• Patricia Zagallo ,
• Jill McCourt ,
• Robert Idsardi ,
• Mark Urban-Lurain ,
• Tessa C. Andrews ,
• Kevin Haudek ,
• Jennifer K. Knight ,
• John Merrill ,
• Ross Nehm ,
• Luanna B. Prevost , and
• Elisabeth Schussler, Monitoring Editor
• Concept inventories as a resource for teaching evolution 16 January 2019 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 12, No. 1
• Applying measurement standards to evolution education assessment instruments 8 February 2019 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 12, No. 1
• A community-informed list of key speciation concepts for undergraduate education 6 June 2019 | Evolution: Education and Outreach, Vol. 12, No. 1
• Changes in students’ mental models from computational modeling of gene regulatory networks 19 November 2019 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 6, No. 1
• Interdisciplinary insights from instructor interviews reconciling “structure and function” in biology, biochemistry, and chemistry through the context of enzyme binding 23 December 2019 | Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, Vol. 1, No. 1
• Biology education research: building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems 2 December 2019 | Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, Vol. 1, No. 1
• Using the Ecology and Evolution‐Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science assessment to measure student thinking across the Four‐Dimensional Ecology Education framework 26 September 2019 | Ecosphere, Vol. 10, No. 9
• Designing a Molecular Biology Serious Educational Game 18 April 2019
• Christian D. Wright ,
• Scott Freeman ,
• Alison J. Crowe , and
• Investigating Biology Pre-service Teacher Perception of General Biology and Digital Literacy 9 April 2019 | IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 243
• Phys-MAPS: a programmatic physiology assessment for introductory and advanced undergraduates 1 Mar 2019 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 43, No. 1
• The state of evolutionary medicine in undergraduate education 9 May 2019 | Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, Vol. 2019, No. 1
• Drawing a Link Between Genetic Inheritance and Meiosis: A Set of Exercises for the Undergraduate Biology Classroom 1 Jan 2019 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 20, No. 2
• Tools for Change: Measuring Student Conceptual Understanding Across Undergraduate Biology Programs Using Bio-MAPS Assessments 1 Jan 2019 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 20, No. 2
• Physical Models Support Active Learning as Effective Thinking Tools 5 December 2019
• Formative Assessment to Improve Student Learning in Biochemistry 5 December 2019
• A Short, Course-Based Research Module Provides Metacognitive Benefits in the Form of More Sophisticated Problem Solving 1 Jan 2019 | Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 048, No. 04
• Research and Teaching: Construction Ahead: Evaluating Deployment Methods for Categorization Tasks as Precursors to Lecture 1 Jan 2019 | Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 048, No. 04
• Student Perception on the Study of Evolution in a General Biology Course in a Christian College 10 February 2019 | Journal of Research on Christian Education, Vol. 27, No. 3
• Best practices in active and student-centered learning in physiology classes 1 Sep 2018 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 42, No. 3
• A digital technology‐based introductory biology course designed for engineering and other non‐life sciences STEM majors 28 June 2018 | Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 26, No. 5
• From functioning communality to hostile behaviour: students’ and teachers’ experiences of the teacher–student relationship in the academic community 3 July 2017 | Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 5
• Sara E. Brownell ,
• Michelle K. Smith
• Janet Batzli, Monitoring Editor
• Caroline J. Wienhold and
• Janet Branchaw
• Daron Barnard, Monitoring Editor
• Mendel or Molecules First: What is the Best Approach for Teaching General Genetics? 1 Apr 2018 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 80, No. 4
• M. A. Ziadie and
• T. C. Andrews
• Kathryn E. Perez, Monitoring Editor
• Helping Students SOAR: Quizfolio Tips to Engage First-Generation, Under-Represented Minority Undergraduates in Scientific Inquiry 1 Mar 2018 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 80, No. 3
• Can Six Minutes of Culturally Competent Evolution Education Reduce Students' Level of Perceived Conflict Between Evolution and Religion? 1 Feb 2018 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 80, No. 2
• Core principles of evolutionary medicine 26 December 2017 | Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, Vol. 2018, No. 1
• Promoting mastery of complex biological mechanisms 13 September 2017 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 46, No. 1
• Experiences and practices of evolution instructors at Christian universities that can inform culturally competent evolution education 15 November 2017 | Science Education, Vol. 102, No. 1
• Michael Ashley ,
• Katelyn M. Cooper ,
• Jacqueline M. Cala , and
• Michèle Shuster, Monitoring Editor
• Define Your Goals Before You Design a CURE: A Call to Use Backward Design in Planning Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences 1 Sep 2017 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 18, No. 2
• Tawnya Cary , and
• Promoting the Multidimensional Character of Scientific Reasoning 1 Apr 2017 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 18, No. 1
• Jasmine M. Truong , and
• Katayoun Chamany, Monitoring Editor
• Investigating Aquatic Insect Emergence: A Demonstration of the 5E Learning Cycle 1 Mar 2017 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 79, No. 3
• Impact of a Short Evolution Module on Students’ Perceived Conflict between Religion and Evolution 1 Feb 2017 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 79, No. 2
• Killing two birds with one stone: Model plant systems as a tool to teach the fundamental concepts of gene expression while analyzing biological data 1 Jan 2017 | Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms, Vol. 1860, No. 1
• Janet M. Batzli ,
• Laurel M. Hartley ,
• April Cordero Maskiewicz , and
• Elizabeth A. Desy
• Jennifer Momsen, Monitoring Editor
• Vision & Change: Why It Matters 1 Aug 2016 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 78, No. 6
• Katherine M. Stefanski ,
• Grant E. Gardner , and
• Rebecca L. Seipelt-Thiemann
• M. Elizabeth Barnes , and
• Jeff Schinske, Monitoring Editor
• Beyond the Adaptationist Legacy: Updating Our Teaching to Include a Diversity of Evolutionary Mechanisms 1 Feb 2016 | The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 78, No. 2
• Establishing common course objectives for undergraduate exercise physiology 1 Dec 2015 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 39, No. 4
• David I. Hanauer , and
• Cynthia Bauerle
• Marshall Sundberg, Monitoring Editor:
• The ASM Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Microbiology: A Case Study of the Advocacy Role of Societies in Reform Efforts 1 May 2015 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 16, No. 1
• William B. Wood , and
• Jennifer K. Knight
• Alison Gammie, Monitoring Editor
• Correction for BioCore Guide: A Tool for Interpreting the Core Concepts of Vision and Change for Biology Majors 13 Oct 2017 CBE—Life Sciences Education

Submitted: 7 December 2013 Revised: 23 February 2014 Accepted: 24 February 2014

© 2014 S. E. Brownell et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2014 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Writing and Using Learning Objectives

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Academic Affairs, Collin College, Plano, TX 75074.
• 2 HHMI Science Education, BioInteractive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
• 3 Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
• 4 Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
• PMID: 35998163
• PMCID: PMC9582829
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073

Learning objectives (LOs) are used to communicate the purpose of instruction. Done well, they convey the expectations that the instructor-and by extension, the academic field-has in terms of what students should know and be able to do after completing a course of study. As a result, they help students better understand course activities and increase student performance on assessments. LOs also serve as the foundation of course design, as they help structure classroom practices and define the focus of assessments. Understanding the research can improve and refine instructor and student use of LOs. This essay describes an online, evidence-based teaching guide published by CBE-Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) at http://lse.ascb.org/learning-objectives. The guide contains condensed summaries of key research findings organized by recommendations for writing and using LOs, summaries of and links to research articles and other resources, and actionable advice in the form of a checklist for instructors. In addition to describing key features of the guide, we also identify areas that warrant further empirical studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

LO guide landing page, which…

LO guide landing page, which provides readers with an overview of choice points.

Screenshots representing summaries of and…

Screenshots representing summaries of and links to selected papers.

Components of an LO.

Components of integrated course design…

Components of integrated course design (after Fink, 2003).

Similar articles

• Peer Instruction. Knight JK, Brame CJ. Knight JK, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Jun;17(2):fe5. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018. PMID: 29749835 Free PMC article.
• Group Work. Wilson KJ, Brickman P, Brame CJ. Wilson KJ, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Spring;17(1):fe1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-12-0258. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018. PMID: 29378749 Free PMC article.
• Teaching Discipline-Based Problem Solving. Frey RF, Brame CJ, Fink A, Lemons PP. Frey RF, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022 Jun 1;21(2):fe1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-02-0030. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022. PMID: 35544201 Free PMC article.
• Motivating Students in the 21st Century. Sedden ML, Clark KR. Sedden ML, et al. Radiol Technol. 2016 Jul;87(6):609-16. Radiol Technol. 2016. PMID: 27390228 Review.
• The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11. Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, Khan KS, Zamora J, Malick S, Morley D, Pollard D, Ashcroft T, Popovic C, Sayers J. Buckley S, et al. Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):282-98. doi: 10.1080/01421590902889897. Med Teach. 2009. PMID: 19404891 Review.
• Nationally endorsed learning objectives to improve course design in introductory biology. Hennessey KM, Freeman S. Hennessey KM, et al. PLoS One. 2024 Aug 15;19(8):e0308545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308545. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39146309 Free PMC article.
• 12 tips for developing Physician Education. McCoy K, Fore-Arcand L. McCoy K, et al. MedEdPublish (2016). 2024 Jan 9;14:3. doi: 10.12688/mep.19901.1. eCollection 2024. MedEdPublish (2016). 2024. PMID: 38495780 Free PMC article.
• Early-Career Pedagogical Practice: The Value of Training Undergraduates to Teach. Carr CEG, Bailey K. Carr CEG, et al. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2023 Dec 17;22(1):A22-A26. doi: 10.59390/XYFR3420. eCollection 2023 Fall. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2023. PMID: 38322403 Free PMC article.
• Content Coverage as a Persistent Exclusionary Practice: Investigating Perspectives of Health Professionals on the Influence of Undergraduate Coursework. Tripp B, Cozzens S, Hrycyk C, Tanner KD, Schinske JN. Tripp B, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024 Mar;23(1):ar5. doi: 10.1187/cbe.23-05-0074. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024. PMID: 38166020 Free PMC article.
• The EvMed Assessment: A test for measuring student understanding of core concepts in evolutionary medicine. Misheva T, Nesse RM, Grunspan DZ, Brownell SE. Misheva T, et al. Evol Med Public Health. 2023 Aug 30;11(1):353-362. doi: 10.1093/emph/eoad028. eCollection 2023. Evol Med Public Health. 2023. PMID: 37881688 Free PMC article.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
• 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, 3(8), 203–213. - PMC - PubMed
• Beckman, W. S. (2008). Pre-testing as a method of conveying learning objectives. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 17(2), 61–70.
• Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Gernsbacher, M. A., Pomerantz, J. (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (2nd ed., pp. 59–68). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

Research Materials

• NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Review the Free-Response Questions from the 2024 AP Exam.

Future ap biology updates.

We're updating AP Biology for earliest possible implementation in the 2025-26 school year.

Exam Overview

Exam questions assess the course concepts and skills outlined in the course framework. For more information, download the AP Biology Course and Exam Description (CED) .

Encourage your students to visit the AP Biology student page for exam information.

New FRQ Layout for the 2024 AP Biology Exam

Starting with the 2024 exam, the layout for the free-response questions (FRQs) will be different from prior exams. For a summary of the changes, and to help you visualize this change to the layout, we’ve applied the 2024 layout to the  2021–2023 AP Biology FRQs.

You can find the original scoring guidelines on the past exam questions page .

Mon, May 5, 2025

AP Biology Exam

Exam format.

The AP Biology Exam has question types and point values that remain stable and consistent from year to year, so you and your students know what to expect on exam day.

Section I: Multiple Choice

60 Questions | 1 hour 30 Minutes | 50% of Exam Score

• Individual questions
• Sets of questions with 4–5 questions per set

Section II: Free Response

6 Questions | 1 hour 30 Minutes | 50% of Exam Score

• There are 2 long questions and 4 short questions. Long questions are worth 8–10 points each; short questions are worth 4 points each.
• Interpret and evaluate experimental results
• Interpret and evaluate experimental results with graphing
• Scientific investigation
• Conceptual analysis
• Analysis of a model or visual representation
• Data analysis

AP Calculator Policy and Equations and Formulas Sheet

A four-function (with square root), scientific, or graphing calculator may be used on the exam.

Students are permitted to use the AP Biology Equations and Formulas Sheet on the exam. This resource is also available in Appendix A of the CED.

AP Exams Calculator Policy

Make sure you and your students know which calculators are permitted.

Exam Questions and Scoring Information

Ap biology exam questions and scoring information.

View free-response questions and scoring information from this year's exam and past exams.

Score Reporting

Access your score reports.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(4); Winter 2022

Probing Internal Assumptions of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Tori m. larsen.

1 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093

2 Program in Biological Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201

3 Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201

Bianca H. Endo

Alexander t. yee.

6 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201

8 Preuss School, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093

Stanley M. Lo

10 Program in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093

Associated Data

Bloom’s taxonomy is a classification of learning objectives originally developed for general educational purposes. The taxonomy was revised to expand beyond cognitive processes and to include knowledge types as an orthogonal dimension. As Bloom’s taxonomy is a tool widely used in biology education by researchers and instructors, it is important to examine the underlying assumptions embedded within how people may implicitly understand and use the taxonomy. In this paper, we empirically examine two major assumptions: the independence of the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions and the use of action verbs as proxies for different cognitive processes. Contingency analysis on 940 assessment items revealed that the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions are related and not independent. Subsequent correspondence analysis identified two principle axes in how the two dimensions are related, with three clusters of knowledge types and cognitive processes. Using the Shannon evenness index, we did not find a clear relationship between question prompt words (including action verbs) and cognitive processes in the assessment items. Based on these results, we suggest that both dimensions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy should be used and that question prompt words or action verbs alone are not sufficient in classifying the embedded learning objectives within assessment items.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, reform in undergraduate science education has called for the development of skills such as problem solving and critical thinking to assure the successful transition from education to employment ( National Research Council [NRC], 2003 , 2007 , 2012 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018 ). As educators, we should work to ensure that classroom assessments are aligned with our educational goals ( Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 ; Astin and Antonio, 2012 ). Alignment is critical for our understanding of what educational interventions and instructional practices lead to the results we aim to achieve ( Handelsman et al. , 2007 ). However, assessments as an aspect of alignment have historically lagged behind other curricular innovations ( Orpwood, 2001 ; Pellegrino, 2013 ), despite explicit guidance from policy documents.

Researchers have developed a number of classification systems for the purpose of improving curricular alignment. Biggs’s structure of the observed learning outcome (SOLO) classifies learning outcomes of student work in terms of complexity ( Biggs and Collis, 1982 ). The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), developed based on Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NRC, 2013 ), breaks down learning into three dimensions, including scientific and engineering principles, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas ( Laverty et al. , 2016 ). This study focuses on another commonly used classification system: Bloom’s taxonomy ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ; Anderson et al. , 2001 ).

The motivation behind the creation of the original Bloom’s taxonomy was to shed light on the behaviors that are important to student learning ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ). The taxonomy has been studied extensively and was ultimately revised in 2001 ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Bloom’s taxonomy has been adopted as a research and educational tool by many disciplines, from mathematics to music ( Hanna, 2007 ; Starr et al. , 2008 ; Halawi et al. , 2009 ; Karaali, 2011 ; Coleman, 2013 ). In undergraduate biology education, Bloom’s taxonomy is widely used in assessing course alignment ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Jensen et al. , 2014 ), identifying assessment objectives in introductory courses ( Momsen et al. , 2010 , 2013 ) and mapping out strategies to write effective assessments ( Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Lemons and Lemons, 2013 ; Arneson and Offerdahl, 2018 ).

Assumptions are embedded within any categorization system, and the meaning and validity of conclusions drawn from a system are situated in such assumptions. Articulating and testing embedded assumptions will help us better understand the tools we are using in research and instruction. For example, Bigg’s SOLO levels are assumed to correspond with Piaget’s levels of child development in that they both require mastery of earlier stages to master future stages of abstraction ( Biggs and Collis, 1989 ). The 3D-LAP relies on the potential for an assessment item to elicit a particular type of learning in a student, which assumes the features described in their three dimensions are at least somewhat valuable proxies for student cognition ( Laverty et al. , 2016 ). For a system as widely used as Bloom’s taxonomy, it is important for researchers and instructors to contemplate the underlying assumptions embedded within the structure of the taxonomy, especially as the taxonomy is revised and used in new ways. Here, we articulate and examine key assumptions embedded within how people use Bloom’s taxonomy.

Evolution of Bloom’s Taxonomy

In the original taxonomy, learning was organized into six cognitive-process categories: knowledge , comprehension , application , analysis , synthesis , and evaluation . (In this paper, we will use italicized words when referring to Bloom’s taxonomy categories.) Each category had certain associated cognitive behaviors or action verbs, for example, recalling and recognizing for knowledge or defending and judging for evaluation ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ). However, the cognitive-process categories of the taxonomy were never presented or conceived of as equal subdivisions; rather, they were structured as levels of a cumulative hierarchy organized from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. This structure assumes a linear progression of the six cognitive-process categories, with links between adjacent levels (e.g., from knowledge to comprehension ) but not between nonadjacent levels (e.g., from knowledge to application ; Stoker and Kropp, 1971 ). In other words, performance on knowledge questions should directly predict performance on comprehension questions but not performance on application questions or any other subsequent cognitive-process categories.

Because of the wide reception of the original Bloom’s taxonomy, studies examined the underlying assumptions of the cumulative hierarchy structure ( Furst, 1981 ; Kreitzer and Madaus, 1994 ; Booker, 2007 ). Empirical evidence based on student performance data indicated that: 1) an underlying factor predicts performance on assessment items in all six cognitive-process categories ( Madaus et al. , 1973 ); 2) the knowledge category may be part of a different structure ( Seddon 1978 ; Hill and McGaw, 1981 ); 3) direct connections exist between nonconsecutive categories, such as comprehension and analysis ( Hill and McGaw, 1981 ); and 4) the synthesis and evaluation categories are swapped in terms of complexity ( Kropp et al. , 1966 ). Furthermore, researchers and instructors alike found it difficult to distinguish between the categories or found the distinctions not helpful ( Colder, 1983 ). These challenges prompted a revision of the taxonomy ( Table 1 ).

Features of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy a

The revised taxonomy sought to clarify ambiguities among the different categories in each of the two dimensions by creating extensive subcategories. This expansion of subcategories was done in response to the difficulties of distinguishing the different categories, thus limiting the usability of the original taxonomy ( Colder, 1983 ). For example, instead of simply having an application category in the original taxonomy, apply in the revised taxonomy is subdivided into executing routine procedures in a familiar task versus choosing and then implementing a procedure in an unfamiliar task ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Analogously, conceptual knowledge is subdivided into knowledge of classifications and categories, knowledge of principles and generalizations, and knowledge of theories, models, and structures ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). The revised taxonomy suggests that, when categorizing a learning objective or assessment item, one should look to the subcategories for specificity and to help place the objective or assessment in a larger category ( Krathwohl, 2002 ).

Even though the cumulative hierarchy model of the original taxonomy did not have a strong basis in evidence, the revised taxonomy holds steady in its theoretical interpretation that both the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions are organized from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract, perhaps with some potential overlap at either end of each category ( Krathwohl, 2002 ). This conceptualization was motivated by the desire to move from rote learning to meaningful learning, with the assumption that more complex knowledge types and cognitive processes are more meaningful ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). However, the revised taxonomy acknowledges that the cumulative hierarchy is not strict and instead suggests a relaxed hierarchy ( Anderson et al. 2001 ). In practice, mastery of the simple categories may not necessarily be required for mastery of more complex categories ( Krathwohl, 2002 ; Agarwal, 2019 ). Researchers found empirical evidence for a relaxed hierarchy within the cognitive-process dimension, with overlap occurring among nonadjacent levels ( Hill and McGaw, 1981 , Agarwal, 2019 ). Because the assumption of the cumulative hierarchy has been extensively studied within the original and revised taxonomies, we will not be focusing on this assumption in our study. In the following sections, we outline two key features of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy and their underlying untested assumptions, which are embedded within how people use the taxonomy in research and practice.

Assumption 1: Independence of Dimensions

The revised taxonomy consists of two dimensions, acknowledging the empirical evidence that knowledge types make an orthogonal dimension to cognitive processes ( Seddon 1978 ; Hill and McGaw, 1981 ). Any learning objective or assessment item requires some form of knowledge and a cognitive action to perform with that knowledge ( Kreitzer and Madaus, 1994 ; Krathwohl, 2002 ). The revised taxonomy classifies knowledge into four types: factual , conceptual , procedural , and metacognitive ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Each assessment item should be classified by the intersection of a knowledge type and a cognitive process ( Krathwohl, 2002 ).

In the revised taxonomy, the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions are conceived as independent, with student learning happening at the intersection ( Krathwohl, 2002 ). This structural element is evident in the presentation of every combination of knowledge type and cognitive process as possible. Researchers and instructors alike, especially in biology education, tend to only use the cognitive-process dimension ( Allen and Tanner, 2002 ; Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Momsen et al. , 2010 , 2013 ; Freeman et al. , 2011 ; Jensen et al. , 2014 ; Thompson and O’Loughlin, 2015 ; Semsar and Casagrand, 2017 ; Lalwani and Agrawal, 2018 ). The exclusion of the knowledge-type dimension may stem from two potential explanations: 1) Knowledge type does not matter to biology education researchers and instructors for the questions they are asking, and/or 2) people implicitly assume that the two dimensions are so closely associated that only one is needed when using Bloom’s taxonomy. Many policy documents involve both knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions, suggesting that the first explanation is unlikely to hold true ( Table 2 ). Therefore, it is important to examine the independence of the two dimensions of Bloom’s taxonomy, as researchers and educators may implicitly believe that the dimensions are correlated enough that the cognitive-process dimension alone is sufficient for describing student learning.

Parallels among revised Bloom’s taxonomy and policy documents a

Assumption 2: Verbs as Proxies for Cognitive Processes

The revised cognitive-process dimension shifts the categories into their verb forms to emphasize the action focus ( Krathwohl, 2002 ). This dimension includes: remember , understand , apply , analyze , evaluate , and create . To account for some of the psychometric inconsistencies identified in previous studies ( Kropp et al. , 1966 ; Seddon 1978 ; Hill and McGaw, 1981 ), the new remember category takes the place of the original knowledge category, and synthesis becomes create and switches with evaluate in terms of complexity.

In the original taxonomy, each category had certain associated cognitive behaviors or action verbs, for example, recalling and recognizing for knowledge or defending and judging for evaluation ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ). In the revision, the cognitive-process categories and subcategories were codified as verbs themselves ( Krathwohl, 2002 ). Perhaps this change reinforces the assumption that verbs could be proxies for their associated cognitive actions. In other words, someone looking to write assessment items in a certain category could simply include the verbs of that category. In this assumption, using the verb “judge” will automatically require students to engage in the cognitive process of evaluate . Such associations have continued as a common practice ( Stanny, 2016 ), including attempts to automate classification of assessment items by Bloom’s taxonomy using verbs alone ( Omar et al. , 2012 ).

Research Questions

The two assumptions, that is, independence of dimensions and verbs as proxies, are both evident in how researchers and instructors use Bloom’s taxonomy today and have not been empirically examined. Therefore, our research questions are as follows:

• Are the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions independent?
• Can the verbs embedded within assessment items be used as proxies for cognitive processes in Bloom’s taxonomy?

Data Source

Our data set consisted of a total of 940 assessment items. Of these, 834 were from 12 lower- and upper-division courses across eight biology subdisciplines taught by 16 different instructors in the years 2011–2015 ( Figure 1 ). There courses were offered at a private, not-for-profit, large, primarily residential, doctoral university in the midwestern United States, described by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education ( McCormick & Zhao, 2005 ) in the category of highest research activity and with a 4-year, full-time, more selective, and lower transfer-in undergraduate profile. In our preliminary data analysis, we discovered that the assessment items skewed with an overrepresentation of remember and understand questions. Therefore, another 106 items were added for a total of 940 items. The additional items were included from published sample questions from the Advanced Placement (AP) Biology exam ( n = 51) and the biological and biochemical sciences section of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) exam ( n = 55). These standardized exams are created through a committee process and had been recently redesigned with the intention to include more assessment items with higher-order cognitive processes ( Wood, 2009 ; Schwartzstein et al. , 2013 ).

Features of our data set. We analyzed assessment items from a variety of biology courses (A); lower- and upper-division courses (B); and assessment sources such as exam, quiz, review, and homework problems (C). The data set also included 51 AP Biology and 55 MCAT questions, which accounted for about 11% of the total sample ( n = 940). The AP Biology and MCAT questions were combined as one category and included in the pie charts for completeness of the data set.

Development of the Coding Scheme

The revised Bloom’s taxonomy intentionally uses language that is generalizable across contexts and encourages more detailed expansion within individual disciplines ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ; Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Therefore, a coding scheme more specific to undergraduate biology assessment items is needed. Our articulation of the taxonomy was a culmination of discussions throughout an iterative coding process, identifying ambiguities to offer an elaboration of the revised taxonomy in the context of biology. To familiarize ourselves with the revised taxonomy, researchers independently generated their own assessment items for each of the six cognitive processes in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy and discussed how they would categorize one another’s questions. Subsequently, the team categorized the generated items according to the knowledge dimension. All discussions focused on the specific features of these items and their variations that would determine the appropriate categorizations and designations.

After this initial training, the data set was divided in subsets of about 50 assessment items. For each subset, the researchers analyzed the items independently, identifying a knowledge-type category and a cognitive-process category, along with the corresponding subcategories, for each item. The research team then discussed each item and arrived at consensus for the main categories. Subcategories were not subject to consensus but were used as explanations and points for discussion. In each round of the consensus process, we had extensive discussions on each item to minimize ambiguity in the coding scheme and further delineate features of the various knowledge-type and cognitive-process categories, as well as their subcategories. Our final coding scheme is described in the Coding Scheme section.

Context-dependent information can change the way an assessment item is coded. For example, if an instructor passed out a study guide that listed various accepted analyses for a graph, the cognitive process needed to answer a question about that graph would become remember instead of analyze . In our coding process, only the information given within each assessment item was considered, as we did not have insights into what was discussed in the context of individual courses. The same assumption was made in other studies examining biology assessment items using Bloom’s taxonomy ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Momsen et al. , 2013 ). Groups of related assessment items, such as associated specific diagrams, figures, or models, were kept together for contextual information. These items were coded individually, as each of them may still use different knowledge types and cognitive processes.

Researchers

Four researchers engaged in the iterative coding process. Two were undergraduates (T.M.L. and A.T.Y.) who completed at least half of the introductory biology course sequences for their respective majors at the beginning of the project. We reasoned that undergraduates are especially suited for this type of project, because they are proximal in expertise to students who would encounter these problems on exams or standardized exams. The third researcher (B.H.E.) was a graduate student in biology education research with an undergraduate degree in biological sciences. These three researchers were directly involved in coding assessment items and data analysis. The fourth researcher (S.M.L.) was a biology faculty member with discipline-based education research expertise who engaged in all research discussions.

Reliability

Out of the 940 assessment items in the data set, 17% ( n = 159) were coded by all three primary researchers, 47% ( n = 442) by two researchers, and 36% ( n = 339) by a single researcher. Fleiss’ kappa, a generalized form of Cohen’s kappa beyond two raters, was used to measure interrater reliability in the subset coded by all three researchers ( Fleiss, 1971 ). Initial interrater reliability for the knowledge-type and cognitive-process categories were κ = 0.68 and κ = 0.70, respectively, both falling within the range of substantial agreement ( Landis and Koch, 1977 ). Disagreements within the items with more than one coder were resolved through discussions, and the final consensus was recorded for subsequent data analysis.

Independence of Dimensions

We performed statistical analyses to test whether the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy are independent of each other. All statistical analyses were performed in JMP Pro (v. 11.0 to v. 16.0). We used contingency analysis to tabulate the two-dimensional categorical data (i.e., the knowledge-type and cognitive-process categories) from observed frequencies in our data set of biology assessment items and the Fisher’s exact test of independence, which is not affected by small numbers, to assess the independence of the two dimensions ( Agresti, 1992 ), as some intersections of knowledge types and cognitive processes have small numbers (Supplemental Table S1). In the Fisher’s exact test of independence, the null hypothesis states that the proportions or distributions of one dimension (i.e., cognitive-process categories) are the same across the different values of the other dimension (i.e., knowledge-type categories; McDonald, 2009 ). When the null hypothesis is rejected, it means that the knowledge-type and cognitive-process categories are related and not independent.

Subsequently, we used correspondence analysis to determine the relationship among the different categories, because our data set contains categorical data. Correspondence analysis is a multivariate method that decomposes the contingency table statistics into orthogonal factors and displays the set of categorical data in a descriptive graphical form, analogous to principal component analysis for continuous data ( Jolliffe and Ringrose, 2006 ). Multidimensional principle axes are calculated to capture as much variation in the data as possible; ultimately, the correspondence analysis results in Cartesian coordinates that denote relationships among categories, where closer categories are considered more related to one another ( Greenacre, 2010 ). Points on the two major dimensions identified in correspondence analyses were put into groups by cluster analysis with hierarchical clustering ( Johnson, 1967 ).

Verbs as Proxies

We expanded our testing of the assumption that verbs within assessment item prompts are being used as proxies for cognitive processes to include question words in addition action verbs. We use “prompt words” as the inclusive term for both. We tabulated specific words used in assessment item prompts as an additional dimension of data to compare with the cognitive-process and knowledge-type categories coded for each assessment item. Some assessment items did not have discrete prompts, consisting of words such as “be,” “to,” or “as” to infer the question being asked. Other assessment items used formatting to imply the questions that students were expected to answer, such as fill in the blanks. For these reasons, 169 assessment items (18% of n = 940) were excluded from the prompt word data, resulting in a final sample of 771 items for this analysis. Prompt words were independently recorded by two researchers (B.H.E. and T.D.) who reached consensus for all assessment items.

Shannon evenness index ( J ′) was used to test the hypothesis that prompt words or action verbs can be used as a proxy for cognitive processes. Commonly used to examine biodiversity, J ′ measures how evenly different species are distributed within an ecosystem by considering the number of species present and the frequency of individuals within each species ( Pielou, 1966 ). Here, we adapt J ′ to examine the distribution of prompt words in relation to cognitive processes in assessment items. Incidentally, Shannon indices were originally developed to determine the entropy or uncertainty of words in a string of text ( Shannon, 1949 ), suggesting that it is reasonable to use J ′ to measure the evenness of the distribution of prompt words.

J ′ ranges between 0 and 1, with higher values signifying a more even distribution of the use of a specific prompt word across all six cognitive processes, and lower values signifying a stronger association of a prompt word to a given cognitive process. J ′ is calculated with the following formulas ( Pielou, 1966 ):

where S is the number of categories or cognitive processes observed, p i the proportion of a specific cognitive process used out of the total frequency of a given prompt word, and i the index for the different cognitive processes.

Coding Scheme

In this section, we describe the details of our final coding scheme. Our coding scheme is not meant to be definitive or universal, as course contexts and prior experiences can affect how instructors and students interpret specific learning objectives. Rather, the following description and explanation reflect our interpretation of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. When appropriate, we also clarify distinctions between different categories in the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions with additional frameworks or examples from the existing literature.

Types of Knowledge

Factual and conceptual knowledge can be distinguished based on the context of the question ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). We found in our process of delineating these distinctions within our data set that facts consist of a discrete set of details, elements, or specific terminology, whereas concepts draw upon relationships among different facts. Our decision was further informed by the literature on expert versus novice knowledge. Whereas novices tend to see information as isolated facts, experts notice meaningful patterns that connect information ( NRC, 2000 ). The assessment item in Figure 2A asks students about the definition of the different levels of protein structures. To answer the assessment item in Figure 2B , students need to have knowledge not only about the characteristics of k cat / K M but also how it can be used and why it is significant. The multiple-choice option of k cat / K M “reflect[ing] the property of the enzyme when substrate concentration is at saturation” suggests that students need to know what happens to enzymes when they are saturated with substrates and how this phenomenon relates to the definition of k cat / K M .

Example assessment items. We selected examples to highlight differences among knowledge types: factual (A), conceptual (B), and procedural (C); and cognitive processes: understand (D), analyze (E), and create (F). The dimension not highlighted is also included in parentheses for reference.

Procedural knowledge consists of information on how and when to use specific skills, algorithms, techniques, or methods; this type of knowledge can be drawn both in theory or practice and can be divided into three subcategories ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). In biology, knowledge of skills and algorithms can include knowing how to read a graph or calculate results using equations. Knowledge of techniques and methods can range from proper pipetting techniques to the scientific method. In additional, procedural knowledge includes criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures, for example, knowing when a Western blot is a more appropriate technique than a Northern blot to test a hypothesis. The assessment item in Figure 2C asks students to know which blotting technique is used to detect RNA.

Metacognitive knowledge refers to awareness about oneself and one’s cognition in general, which include strategic knowledge, conditional knowledge, and self-knowledge ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Students draw upon metacognitive knowledge when thinking about effective test-taking strategies, being aware of theoretical assumptions and experimental limitations, or knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses. Recent studies have placed an emphasis in the role of metacognition in learning and teaching ( Bransford et al. , 1999 ; Dauer et al. , 2013 ; NASEM, 2018 ). However, we did not identify any assessment items in our data set using metacognitive knowledge. In a study on model-based reasoning, students were first tasked to create a diagram and write a paragraph to explain a phenomenon; subsequently, students were also asked whether they created the diagram or wrote the paragraph first and why ( Dauer et al. , 2013 ). The latter prompt represents a question on metacognitive knowledge.

Cognitive Processes

Remember occurs when relevant information is presented with little to no abstraction and is retrieved from memory consistent with how it was originally presented; two subcategories include: recognize and recall ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). To recognize is to identify previously seen information. Recalling involves remembering information with no options to select from. While both subcategories require retrieving information from memory, recalling may be more cognitively demanding ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ).

Understand and analyze have many similarities ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ; Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Even the expanded subcategories in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy are seemingly synonymous between the two cognitive processes. For example, classifying, comparing, and explaining as subcategories of understand parallel organizing, differentiating, and attributing as subcategories of analyze . Such close equivalences remained a constant point of ambiguity and dispute ( Elmas et al. , 2020 ). To articulate a clear distinction between the two cognitive processes, we draw inspirations from Biggs’s SOLO. Like the original Bloom’s taxonomy, Biggs’s SOLO is a hierarchical framework: prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, rational, and extended abstract ( Figure 3 ), and these different levels can be applied to classify students’ outcomes based on the complexity of their work ( Biggs and Collis, 1982 ). In Biggs’s SOLO, students demonstrate the unistructural learning outcome when they are able make a single generalization between two ideas ( Biggs and Collis, 1982 ). This best corresponded to our articulation of understand , a cognitive process that emphasizes the construction of a single relationship. When an assessment item asks students not only to draw multiple connections (multistructure) but also to piece together these relationships in the context of a larger whole (relational), students are asked to analyze . The analyze cognitive process, therefore, requires the construction of a more complex mental structure, as well as connections on how its constituent parts function together ( Dewey, 1933 ; Zagzebski, 2001 ). We acknowledge that Biggs’s SOLO is intended for students’ demonstrated work, whereas Bloom’s taxonomy is designed to characterize learning objectives. We do not claim that these two taxonomies are used to measure the same constructs; rather, we borrow from the conceptual organization in Biggs’s SOLO as a framework to inform our thinking of how to distinguish the different cognitive processes in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.

Biggs’s SOLO as a framework for cognitive processes. Biggs’s SOLO describes five levels of complexity in terms of work completed by students. In the prestructural stage, student work tends to be so incomplete that they miss the purpose of the question. There is no Bloom’s taxonomy equivalent, as learning objectives should not call for students to miss the point of the question. Unistructural work draws a single connection between two ideas, which parallels the understand cognitive process, such as drawing a conclusion based on a direct cause-and-effect connection. Multistructural work demonstrates multiple unistructural connections but does not articulate the relationship among these connections. In our data set, we did not see a Bloom’s taxonomy equivalent, as assessment items calling for multistructural outcomes were likely coded as separate understand questions. The relational stage, which parallels the analyze cognitive process, not only demonstrates multiple connections but also how these connections are related to one another as part of a larger whole. The extended-abstract stage, which parallels the create cognitive process, goes beyond the relational stage by connecting the coherent structure to relevant outside information, often bringing in different perspectives and generating novel insights. Figure adapted from Biggs and Collis (1982) .

The assessment item in Figure 2D prompts students to explain how the structure of a G-protein affects its function. Students use the understand cognitive process to determine a single cause-and-effect relationship: Once the active-site residue is modified, the protein function is altered. In contrast, the assessment item in Figure 2E asks students to analyze by piecing together multiple connections and the relationships among these connections. To determine the effect of the inhibitor on translation requires answering and connecting the following questions. How are single and polyribosomes related to the process of translation? What do they signify in the experimental results? What are the important differences observed when the inhibitor is present or absent? What roles do the small and large subunits, as well as the mRNA, play in the initiation and/or elongation steps of translation? Although both understand and analyze require drawing relationships, understand only requires the establishment of a single relationship, and analyze emphasizes how multiple connections work in concert to serve an overall purpose or structure. We note that the presence of experimental data in Figure 2E does not automatically make it an analyze question. It is conceivable to rewrite the assessment item in Figure 2D to include experimental data while still asking students to understand by determining a single cause-and-effect relationship.

Apply involves using methods or patterns in a given situation, both in theory and in practice, and there are two subcategories: execute and implement ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). In biology, established methods or patterns may include setting up a polymerase chain reaction, using an equation such as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, or reading a graph. Executing involves carrying out previously established methods or patterns when encountering a familiar and routine task such as an exercise ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Implementing entails students working within an existing framework to select a method to solve an unfamiliar problem, and the method is typically more generalized and may have branchpoints of decisions embedded within or multiple position outcomes ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). In principle, the framework in question can be based on any type of knowledge in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ).

The revised Bloom’s taxonomy pointed out that the apply cognitive process is likely associated with procedural knowledge, as this type of knowledge encompasses methods and patterns ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). Both knowledge and cognitive process are used in unison to achieve a specific learning objective. Accessing the knowledge of how or when to do something (i.e., procedural knowledge) is different from carrying out a task that uses these established methods or patterns (i.e., apply ). It is conceivable to have an assessment item that asks students to remember specific procedural knowledge, for example, to recall different types of microscopy procedures.

Evaluate involves making judgments based on information or evidence, such as the efficiency of a given laboratory method or how consistent a hypothesis is with the supporting evidence. The criteria to determine the certainty or uncertainty of the judgments can be based on a set of metrics specified in the question, in the subcategory of critiquing. Alternatively, the subcategory of checking involves judgments on the internal consistency of the information or evidence, without external metrics being provided. In developing such judgments in the evaluate cognitive process, students are asked to make an argument: There is no definitive right or wrong answer, only more or less supported arguments ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ).

Create involves organizing multiple components to form a novel, coherent, and functional whole ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ). While this echoes some of the ideas in analyze , such as taking different elements of a structure into consideration, what sets create apart is the requirement that something novel is generated. For example, the assessment item in Figure 2F asks students to generate analogies between biochemistry concepts and features in a sculpture. This example falls under the extended abstract category of Biggs’s SOLO ( Figure 3 ), where students are expected to connect multiple relational structures across different frameworks or domains of knowledge. Other forms of create use cognitive processes that are typically aligned with activities within scientific investigations. The subcategory of generating involves prompting multiple propositions to explain a given phenomenon, thereby creating new possibilities of knowledge. The subcategories of planning and producing often go hand in hand, such as designing a series of adaptive experiments to investigate an unknown phenomenon or to arrive at a solution. Like evaluate , the create cognitive process requires the communication of novel ideas.

The Two Dimensions Are Related and Not Independent

Regarding the knowledge-type dimension, a majority of the assessment items called for factual or conceptual knowledge (38% and 49%, respectively), with the remaining assessment items calling for procedural knowledge (13%; Figure 4A and Table 3 ). With respect to the cognitive-process dimension, remember and understand (44% and 37%, respectively) were much more common than other four cognitive processes ( Figure 4A and Table 3 ). Combining both dimensions, factual knowledge showed the least variation when associated to the cognitive processes; nearly three-quarters of these assessment items asked students to remember ( Figure 4A and Table 3 ). Conceptual knowledge was used in combination with the most varied distribution of cognitive processes, accounting for the majority of assessment items calling for the analyze , evaluate , and create cognitive processes, whereas procedural knowledge accounted for the majority of assessment items calling for the apply cognitive processes ( Figure 4A and Table 3 ).

Correlation between the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions. (A) Stacked bar graph shows the distribution of assessment items in various combinations of knowledge and cognitive processes. Fisher’s exact test reveals that the two dimensions are statistically related ( p < 0.0001). (B) Correspondence analysis (scatter plot) and hierarchical clustering (dashed ovals) of data reveal three predominant combinations of knowledge types and cognitive processes. The principle axes c1 and c2 accounted for 61.5% and 38.5% of variance in the data, respectively.

Shannon evenness indices for most frequently used prompt words a

Fisher’s exact test between the knowledge types and cognitive processes revealed a significant relationship between the two dimensions ( p < 0.0001). When the dimensions are considered together, the combination of factual knowledge and remember is the most common (28%), followed by the combination of conceptual knowledge and understand (23%; Figure 4A and Table 3 ). These observed combinations are more easily visualized through a graphical representation from correspondence analysis followed by hierarchical clustering. The combination of factual knowledge and remember has the strongest association, signified by the near-direct overlap of both points in the correspondence analysis ( Figure 4B ). Following hierarchical clustering, our results revealed reveal three predominant combinations of knowledge and cognitive processes: factual knowledge with remember ; conceptual knowledge with understand , analyze , evaluate , and create ; and procedural knowledge with apply ( Figure 4B ).

Verbs Are Poor Proxies for Cognitive Processes

For each assessment item, prompt words were recorded to investigate whether such words were associated with specific cognitive processes ( Table 3 ). First, we found that more than half of the assessment items in our data did not use an action verb; instead, 57% of the items used question words such as “which” or “what.” Of the five most frequently used prompt words, three were question words (“which,” “what,” and “how”), and only two were action verbs (“describe” and “explain”). Each of these five prompt words spans at least five out of the six cognitive-process categories and have J ′ values ranging from 0.58 to 0.85 in our data set ( Table 3 A). We further examined the five most frequently used action verbs (“describe,” “explain,” “name,” “draw,” and “identify”), which have J ′ values ranging from 0.58 to 1.00 in our data set ( Table 3 B). These high J ′ values indicate a spread of these prompt words being used across different categories and the lack of association between a given prompt word and a corresponding cognitive process.

The findings indicate that, at least in the data set of biology assessment items in our study, the two dimensions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy are related and not independent. We also found that assessment items in biology tend to coincide in certain combinations of knowledge types and cognitive processes. We reason that there may be two potential explanations for these observed combinations. The combinations could be: 1) the result of underlying features of biology as a discipline or 2) the result of the behavioral habits of people, such as instructors, who create assessment items. We futher explore these two possibilities in the following paragraphs.

The nature of certain knowledge types and the nature of certain cognitive processes may necessitate that some combinations are statistically more likely to occur in assessment items in biology, similar to how one might expect more apply questions in a traditional mathematics course focused on using formulas for calculations. Other combinations, while possible in theory, may not carry practical relevance for the discipline. For example, it may be irrelevant to ever consider making an assessment item that involves creating factual knowledge in biology. Also, while statistically unlikely, some combinations such as conceptual knowledge and apply were still observed in our data set. Assessment items in these low-frequency combinations may be of particular interest for further examination (Supplemental Figure S1).

It could be that questions involving certain knowledge types and certain cognitive processes are easier or more desirable for instructors to write, making them more likely to occur in assessments. For instance, assessment items that ask students to recall or understand a concept may be easier to write than something that would require a student to create something or evaluate it. Another factor that we were not able to consider in our data was how the format of the question could affect what combinations of knowledge type and cognitive process are more likely. Both the original and revised Bloom’s taxonomy imply that at least cognitive processes may be limited by question format (e.g., multiple choice, short answer, drawing); however, no study has empirically examined this assumption directly ( Anderson et al. , 2001 ; Crowe et al. , 2008 ).

Finally, our data demonstrate that prompt words within assessment items are generally not predictive of cognitive processes. For example, while prompt words such as “describe” and “identify” are often considered in relation to the remember cognitive process, they can also be associated with the create cognitive process in an appropriate context ( Figure 2F ). In this case, students are asked to identify concepts that they have learned in the course and describe how physical features of the given sculpture are analogies for the course concepts. We conclude that prompt words do not reliably predict cognitive processes; thus, instructors creating assessment items and researchers categorizing them should not simply connect the prompt words in an assessment item with associated verbs and cognitive processes of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. As such, rubrics for researchers and instructors on how to use the revised Bloom’s taxonomy should not include a column for associated verbs, despite the form that the cognitive processes of the revised taxonomy takes. Instead, the whole context of the assessment item should be considered.

Limitations

As with earlier studies using Bloom’s taxonomy ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Momsen et al. , 2013 ), we made a similar assumption not to consider course contexts when we coded the assessment items. This means that certain items, if, for instance, they were mentioned word for word in class, may be asking students to use a different set of knowledge types and cognitive processes depending on what was previously presented to students in the course.

Due to the low frequency of certain combinations of knowledge types and cognitive processes in our data set, it is possible that the particular clustering we identified may not be fully generalizable. As such, we do not attempt to make universal claims that are true of all assessment items in biology. However, it is worthwhile to note that across our many instructors and courses, certain combinations remained rare for potential reasons described earlier in the Discussion .

While conducting our study, we also revealed another explanation for the dependence of the two dimensions of the taxonomy that has to do with the procedure of coding. In our methods, we followed convention and coded each assessment item with one knowledge type and one cognitive process corresponding to the presumed learning objective embedded in the assessment item ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ; Anderson et al. , 2001 ; Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Lemons and Lemons, 2013 ; Hanna, 2007 ; Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Starr et al. , 2008 ; Halawi et al. , 2009 ; Momsen et al. , 2010 , 2013 ; Karaali, 2011 ; Coleman, 2013 ; Jensen et al. , 2014 ; Arneson and Offerdahl, 2018 ). However, an assessment item could potentially have multiple embedded or implicit learning objectives. For example, when asking students to analyze experimental data, we may assume that students are already familiar with the technical vocabulary in the assessment item without explicitly labeling such factual knowledge as part of the learning objective. Therefore, assigning a single knowledge type and a single cognitive process may not fully capture an instructor’s or student’s thought process when encountering an assessment item. Instead, we propose that future studies could consider an expanded coding process wherein each assessment item is analyzed for all the embedded types of knowledge and cognitive processes.

Implications

While our data do not suggest that certain combinations of knowledge types and cognitive processes are more or less desirable as learning objectives in undergraduate biology education, we recommend that researchers and instructors who use the revised Bloom’s taxonomy should do the following: First, given that there were exceptions to the clustering of certain knowledge types and cognitive processes in the form of rare combinations (Supplemental Figure S1), coding both dimensions would ensure an item is not misclassified. Furthermore, we suggest that instructors who create assessment items should articulate both dimensions for students, as they are both engaging with a type of content (knowledge type) and performing an action (cognitive process). This suggestion is aligned with policy documents ( Table 2 ). Existing Bloom’s taxonomy tools in biology ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ; Arneson and Offerdahl, 2018 ) and the 3D-LAP ( Laverty et al. , 2016 ) have made important contributions to helping instructors be intentional about the composition of their assessments. Whereas the 3D-LAP aligns well with the NGSS with two dimensions dealing with content and actions, we believe that Bloom’s taxonomy tools in biology could be more aligned to policy documents with the inclusion of a content-focused knowledge-type dimension.

Our findings are best understood in light of studies that have shown how the intended and enacted object of learning, as well as what students learn, can be misaligned ( Bussey et al. , 2013 ; Dietiker et al. , 2018 ). In this case, learning objectives (intended object of learning) may be misaligned with assessment items (enacted object of learning). Additionally, if an instructor were to assume that a particular verb would indicate a particular cognitive process when it in fact does not, that could result in further misalignment of the intended and enacted objects of learning with what students learn. Prompt words in general should not be used to assume information about the embedded learning objective within an assessment item. Instead, the context of the question and how researchers, instructors, and students approach assessment items should be considered.

Ultimately, a more transparent scaffoldiing system is needed to support instructors in articulating what they are asking for as students think about how to approach a problem. An expanded coding process like the one we describe may provide such a scaffold. To code all the embedded knowledge types and cognitive processes within an assessment item, both instructors and students would need to articulate the various steps they take within a problem. Then, instructors and students could compare their steps to reveal any potential misalignments.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to the faculty participants who contributed assessment items for this analysis. We thank L. Smith and E. Tour for feedback on earlier versions of the article. T.M.L. and A.T.Y. were supported in part by the Undergraduate Research Assistant Program at the Office of Undergraduate Research, Northwestern University. S.M.L. was supported in part by the Faculty Career Development Program at University of California San Diego. This project was initiated with support by an institutional award from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for undergraduate biology education under award no. 52006934 at Northwestern University. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. DUE-1821724.

• Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice and Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 ( 2 ), 189–209. doi: 10.1037/edu0000282 [ Google Scholar ]
• Agresti, A. (1992). A survey of exact inference for contingency tables . Statistical Science , 7 ( 1 ), 131–153. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011454 [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, D., Tanner, K. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Questions about questions . Cell Biology Education , 1 ( 3 ), 63–67. doi: 10.1187/cbe.02-07-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Astin, A. W., Antonio, A. L. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggs, J., Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy . Australian Journal of Education , 33 ( 2 ), 151–163. 10.1177/168781408903300205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggs, J. B., Collis, K. F. (1982). The psychological structure of creative writing . Australian Journal of Education , 26 ( 1 ), 59–70. doi: 10.1177/000494418202600104 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bissell, A. N., Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom . BioScience , 56 ( 1 ), 66–72. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., Furst, M., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I, Cognitive domain . Philadelphia, PA: David McKay Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booker, M. J. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection of American education . Academic Questions , 20 ( 4 ), 347–355. doi: 10.1007/s12129-007-9031-9 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bussey, J. T., Orgill, M., Crippen, J. K. (2013). Variation theory: A theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 14 ( 1 ), 9–22. doi: 10.1039/C2RP20145C [ Google Scholar ]
• Colder, J. R. (1983). In the cells of the “Bloom taxonomy.” Journal of Curriculum Studies , 15 ( 3 ), 291–302. doi: 10.1080/0022027830150305 [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman, V. M. (2013). National Music Education Standards and Adherence to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy . Doctoral dissertation , Minneapolis, MN: Walden University. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1048 [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dauer, J. T., Momsen, J. L., Speth, E. B., Makohon-Moore, S. C., Long, T. M. (2013). Analyzing change in students’ gene-to-evolution models in college-level introductory biology . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 50 ( 6 ), 639–659. doi: 10.1002/tea.21094 [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dietiker, L., Males, L. M., Amador, J. M., Earnest, D. (2018). Curricular noticing: A framework to describe teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 49 ( 5 ), 521–532. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.49.5.0521 [ Google Scholar ]
• Elmas, R., Rusek, M., Lindell, A., Nieminen, P., Kasapoğlu, K., Bílek, M. (2020). The intellectual demands of the intended chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey: A comparative analysis based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 21 ( 3 ), 839–851. doi: 10.1039/D0RP00058B [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman, S., Haak, D., Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure Improves performance in introductory biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 2 ), 175–186. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters . Psychological Bulletin , 76 ( 5 ), 378–382. 10.1037/h0031619 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furst, E. J. (1981). Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and educational issues . Review of Educational Research , 51 ( 4 ), 441–453. doi: 10.3102/00346543051004441 [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenacre, M. (2010). Correspondence analysis of raw data . Ecology , 91 ( 4 ), 958–963. doi: 10.1890/09-0239.1 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halawi, L. A., McCarthy, R. V., Pires, S. (2009). An evaluation of e-learning on the basis of Bloom’s taxonomy: An exploratory study . Journal of Education for Business , 84 ( 6 ), 374–380. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.374-380 [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman, J., Miller, S., Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching . New York, NY: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: Implications for music education . Arts Education Policy Review , 108 ( 4 ), 7–16. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.108.4.7-16 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill, P. W., McGaw, B. (1981). Testing the simplex assumption underlying Bloom’s taxonomy . American Educational Research Journal , 18 ( 1 ), 93–101. doi: 10.3102/00028312018001093 [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Woodard, S. M., Kummer, T. A. (2014). Teaching to the test … or testing to teach: Exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding . Educational Psychology Review , 26 ( 2 ), 307–329. doi: 10.1007/s10648-013-9248-9 [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes . Psychometrika , 32 ( 3 ), 241–254. doi: 10.1007/BF02289588 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jolliffe, I. T., Ringrose, T. J. (2006). Canonical correspondence analysis . In Kotz, S., Read, C. B., Balakrishnan, N., Vidakovic, B., Johnson, N. L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences . Hobeken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/0471667196.ess0609 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karaali, G. (2011). An evaluative calculus project: Applying Bloom’s taxonomy to the calculus classroom . PRIMUS , 21 ( 8 ), 719–731. doi: 10.1080/10511971003663971 [ Google Scholar ]
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview . Theory into Practice , 41 ( 4 ), 212–218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreitzer, A. E., Madaus, G. F. (1994). Empirical investigations of the hierarchical structure of the taxonomy . In Anderson, L. W., Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 64–81). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kropp, R. P., Stoker, H. W., Bashaw, W. L. (1966). The validation of the taxonomy of educational objectives . Journal of Experimental Education , 34 ( 3 ), 69–76. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1966.11010940 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lalwani, A., Agrawal, S. (2018). Validating revised Bloom’s taxonomy using deep knowledge tracing . In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (225–238). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_17 [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data . Biometrics , 33 ( 1 ), 159–174. 10.2307/2529310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laverty, J. T., Underwood, S. M., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., Carmel, J. H., Caballero, M. D., … & Cooper, M. M. (2016). Characterizing college science assessments: The three-dimensional learning assessment protocol . PLoS ONE , 11 ( 9 ), e0162333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162333 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemons, P. P., Lemons, J. D. (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: It’s not just Bloom’s . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 ( 1 ), 47–58. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0024 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madaus, G. F., Woods, E. M., Nuttall, R. L. (1973). A causal model analysis of Bloom’s taxonomy . American Educational Research Journal , 10 ( 4 ), 253–262. doi: 10.3102/00028312010004253 [ Google Scholar ]
• McCormick, A. C., Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification . Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 37 ( 5 ), 51–57. 10.3200/CHNG.37.5.51-57 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, J. H. (2009). Fisher’s exact test of independence . Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed., pp. 77–85). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., Grosz, N. (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 12 ( 2 ), 239–249. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-08-0130 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, context, and cultures . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (NRC). (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 10.17226/9853 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8 . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. (2012). Education for life and work: Guide for practitioners . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Next Generation science education: For states, by states . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Omar, N., Haris, S. S., Hassan, R., Arshad, H., Rahmat, M., Zainal, N. F. A., Zulkifli, R. (2012). Automated analysis of exam questions according to Bloom’s Taxonomy . Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 59 , 297–303. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.278 [ Google Scholar ]
• Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform . Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice , 8 ( 2 ), 135–151. doi: 10.1080/09695940125120 [ Google Scholar ]
• Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities . Science , 340 ( 6130 ), 320–323. doi: 10.1126/science.1232065 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pielou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections . Journal of Theoretical Biology , 13 , 131–144. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartzstein, R. M., Rosenfeld, G. C., Hilborn, R., Oyewole, S. H., Mitchell, K. (2013). Redesigning the MCAT exam: Balancing multiple perspectives . Academic Medicine , 88 ( 5 ), 560–567. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828c4ae0 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seddon, G. (1978). The properties of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain . Review of Educational Research , 48 ( 2 ), 303–323. doi: 10.3102/00346543048002303 [ Google Scholar ]
• Semsar, K., Casagrand, J. (2017). Bloom’s dichotomous key: A new tool for evaluating the cognitive difficulty of assessments . Advances in Physiology Education , 41 ( 1 ), 170–177. doi: 10.1152/advan.00101.2016 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication in the presence of noise . Proceedings of the IRE , 37 ( 1 ), 10021. doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1949.232969 [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student learning . Education Sciences , 6 ( 4 ), 37. doi: 10.3390/educsci6040037 [ Google Scholar ]
• Starr, C. W., Manaris, B., Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: Specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science . ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , 40 ( 1 ), 261–265. doi: 10.1145/1352135.1352227 [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoker, H. W., Kropp, R. P. (1971). An empirical validity study of the assumptions underlying the structure of cognitive processes using Guttman-Lingoes smallest space analysis . Educational and Psychological Measurement , 31 ( 2 ), 469–473. doi: 10.1177/001316447103100215 [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson, A. R., O’Loughlin, V. D. (2015). The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): A discipline-specific rubric for utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences . Anatomical Sciences Education , 8 ( 6 ), 493–501. doi: 10.1002/ase.1507 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, W. B. (2009). Revising the AP Biology curriculum . Science , 325 ( 5948 ), 1627–1628. doi: 10.1126/science.1180821 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zagzebski, L. (2001). Recovering understanding . In Steup, M. (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty: Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]

stcharlesedu.com

This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now!

Get a new domain registered at NameSilo.com. Find out who owns any domain name with the WHOIS tool.

This webpage was generated by the domain owner using Sedo Domain Parking . Disclaimer: Sedo maintains no relationship with third party advertisers. Reference to any specific service or trade mark is not controlled by Sedo nor does it constitute or imply its association, endorsement or recommendation.

Jamb Admission

Latest nigerian school news, neco gce biology practical complete correct questions and answers 2019/2020.

TEXT OR WHATSAPP US WITH THIS NUMBER FOR YOUR MIDNIGHT ANSWERS!!.. 08133139104 2019 NECO GCE Biology Practical Expo, 2019 NECO GCE Questions , 2019 NECO GCE Biology Practical Runz, 2019 NECO GCE Biology Practical OBJ AND THEORY questions and answers Text or whatsapp us with this number for your midnight answers. Here is the only place to get real 2019 NECO GCE 2019 Biology Practical Questions and Answers expo/runz If you are looking for where you can get the live questions and answers for November/December Biology Practical (QUESTIONS ), Here is the best place to Get a good grade like A or B in this examination and be free forever from O’Level Issues Every Year. Follow these steps below to get the live questions and answers a day before your exam or at least 6 hours before your exam time. Text Message : N800 MTN CARD Password/Online Answers : N500 MTN CARD WhatsApp Message : N500 MTN CARD ====================================== Text Message : In this package, we send Answers to your phone inbox via SMS. WhatsApp Message : In this package, we add you to our WhatsApp group Chat were we will post answers both in pictures or written form to you. Password/Online Answers: In this package we send you the password to unlock an answer page and access your answers.

NECO GCE 2019 Biology Practical QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EXPO / RUNS

Follow The Procedure below: Forward: Your Name MTN Recharge card pin Phone number & Subject To 08133139104 ====================================== For Example :- I paid for direct Mobile Mtn Card: 2564 5263 6687 Number: 090********* Subject: Nov/Dec Biology Practical Send it to 08133139104 ====================================== No Free Answer will be Posted here at All, So Subscribe Now and Get Your Answer A Day Or latest 6 hours Before Exam. Keep your recharge cards safe until you receive a confirmation message. Make your examination with this help desk without stressing yourself. Click here to see the NECO GCE 2019/2020 Biology Practical Essay and Objective Questions and Answers,

Biology Practical Essay and Objective 2019/2020 NECO GCE, NECO GCE 2019/2020 Biology Practical November/December examination expo runz, free NECO GCE 2019/2020 Biology Practical Essay and Objective papers now posted on WhatsApp, free expo website for NECO GCE, 2019/2020 Biology Practical Essay and Objective objectives posted for free. Complete correct NECO GCE 2019/2020 Biology Practical Essay and Objective answers and questions

17 Comments

I need it Biology practical neco GCE answers

Weldon I need it

I neeed biology pratical and essay ,chemistry, math,physic

I need govt and biology and geography

Just subscribe

i need biology practicalplease

Kindly subscribe above

09097720595 I need it

I need it nw pls

I need it nw

I need biology practical

biology, I need it

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Copyright © 2023 | All Rights Reserved.

Band 8+: The maps below show the future plan about the Biology School in particular university. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant

The maps illustrate how the Biology School at one university changed in 2015 and 2020.

Overall, the school situated to the right of a road underwent several developments, the most important of which are the construction of new buildings and facilities and the expansions of some areas.

Regarding the top of the maps, while the indoor sports hall at the northeast corner remained unchanged, the adjacent area which was bare in 2015, was used to erect a lab and an office in 2020. The central area witnessed a slight renovation with the drama center repurposed into a music center, while the library stayed still.

Initially, the southern region of the school had a cafe, a lecture room, an IT center, and a teaching building. However, in 2020, this area experienced some changes with the lecture room and the teaching building duplicated, along with the expansion of the IT center. Notably, a new car park designated for staff was constructed in the area to the southwest of the maps, next to the road.

Check Your Answer On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample answer, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, answers on the same topic:, the maps below show the future plan about the biology school in particular university. summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The provided plans illustrate the current layout and future developments planned for the Biology School at a university. Overall, A comparison of the two diagrams reveals several significant changes, with new facilities added, existing buildings relocated, and improved infrastructure. In the present configuration, the central library is prominently located at the heart of the campus, […]

The provided maps depict the changing of the Biology School in a certain university. Overall, there were several significant changes, with the new facilities added, new buildings relocated, and improved infrastructure. In 2015, there was a central library in the center of the campus and a drama center located next to it. To the north […]

The illustrations display the changes that took place in the Biology School between 2015 and 2020. Overall, this school has witnessed several transformations, with new facilities added, buildings relocated, and improved infrastructure. According to the first map, the Central library was prominently situated at the heart of the campus, surrounded by various facilities. To the […]

Other Topics:

The maps below show an industrial area in the town of norbiton, and olanded devolvement of the site..

The plans display an industrial region which is planned for the future renovation of site. Overall, Five new facilities will be included in further time. They are housing, shops, school , playground and medical centre. However some facilities remain the same. At present, in industrial area, the town stand at westran side, while river in […]

The maps below show the centre of a small town called Islip as it is now, and plans for its development.

The map shows the pictures of Islip town centre in present and its planned development. Overall, there is a big change in the road system around the centre. Moreover, the surrounding countryside is planned to be replaced by many other institutions. In detail, it is clear that there is only one main road across the […]

The picture diagram below details the emergency evacuation plan in Gillespie Neuroscience Research Facility. Summarise the information by selecting the main features, and prepare a report to be submitted to the municipal authority for approval.

The graphical diagram illustrates a straightforward plan to evacuate people from the basement of Gillespie Neuroscience Research Facility in times of emergency. Overall, this plan is designed to make it easily understandable for the general public. This design plan includes locations of two stairways, three routes of exit, an elevator, and exact positions of fire […]

The graphical diagram illustrates a straightforward plan to evacuate people from the basement of Gillespie Neuroscience Research Facility in times of emergency. Overall, this plan is designed to make it easily understandable for the general public. This design plan includes the locations of two stairways, three routes of exit, an elevator, and the exact positions […]

Plans & Pricing