Ocean scientists are well versed in utilizing specialized methods and instruments to rigorously assess the ocean’s physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and properties. With growing national interest in specifically ocean literacy for citizens of all ages (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013) and K–12 science education in general (Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013), similarly specialized methods and instruments are being developed to assess students’ learning of oceanography concepts. The purpose of this commentary is (1) to introduce Oceanography readers, particularly those who teach at the college level, to a few teaching tools, such as learning goals and Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), that could be immediately useful to instructors for assessing learning of oceanography concepts, and (2) to raise awareness of the availability of an instrument called the Oceanography Concept Inventory (OCI; Arthurs and Marchitto, 2011; Arthurs et al., 2015), which can help to assess student learning of oceanography concepts. Learning goals provide the foundation for creating or selecting appropriate assessments of learning, and the OCI is a ready-made instrument for assessing higher-order cognitive skills beyond the mere recall of factual information.

Arthurs, L. 2016. Assessing student learning of oceanography concepts. Oceanography 29(3):18–21, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.68.

Anderson, L.W., D.R. Krathwohl, and B.S. Bloom. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 353 pp.
1. Arthurs, L., and T. Marchitto. 2011. Qualitative methods applied in the development of an introductory oceanography concept inventory survey. Pp. 97–111 in Qualitative Inquiry in Geoscience Education Research: Geological Society of America Special Paper 474. A.D. Feig and A. Stokes, eds, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, https://doi.org/10.1130/2011.2474(08).
2. Arthurs, L., J.F. Hsia, and W. Schweinle. 2015. The oceanography concept inventory: A semicustomizable assessment for measuring student understanding of oceanography. Journal of Geoscience Education 63:310–322, https://doi.org/​10.5408/14-061.1.
3. Bardar, E.M., E.E. Prather, K. Brecher, and T.F. Slater. 2007. Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory. Astronomy Education Review 5(2):103–113.
4. Barrett, B.S., W.A. Swick, and D.E. Smith Jr. 2014. Assessing an undergraduate oceanography curriculum. Oceanography 27(4):13–17, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.99.
5. Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education Goals by a Committee of College and University Examiners. David McKay Company, New York, NY.
6. Deane, T., K. Nomme, E. Jeffery, C. Pollock, and G. Birol. 2016. Development of the Statistical Reasoning in Biology Concept Inventory (SRBCI). CBE-Life Sciences Education 15(1):ar5, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-06-0131.
7. Feller, R.J. 2007. Education: 110 misconceptions about the ocean. Oceanography 20(4):170–173, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2007.22.
8. Hake, R. 1998. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66:64–74, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809.
9. Handelsman, J., S. Miller, and C. Pfund. 2007. Scientific Teaching. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, 184 pp.
10. Harrow, A.J. 1972. Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain. David McKay Company, New York, NY, 190 pp.
11. Helm, H. 1980. Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education 15:92–105, https://doi.org/​10.1088/0031-9120/15/2/308. 
12. Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. Swachhamer. 1992. Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30:141–158.
13. Krathwohl, D.R. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice 41(4):212–218, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
14. Libarkin, J.C., and S.W. Anderson. 2005. Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the geoscience concept inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education 53(4):394–401, https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.394.
15. Libarkin, J.C., and S.W. Anderson. 2006. The geoscience concept inventory: Application of Rasch analysis to concept inventory development in higher education. Pp 45–73 in Applications of Rasch Measurement in Science Education. X. Liu and W. Boone, eds, JAM Publishers.
16. Libarkin, J.C., and E.M. Geraghty Ward. 2011. The qualitative underpinnings of quantitative concept inventory questions. Pp 37–48 in Qualitative Inquiry in Geoscience Education Research: Geological Society of America Special Paper 474. A.D. Feig and A. Stokes, eds, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, https://doi.org/​10.1130/2011.2474(04).
17. Linenberger, K.J., and S. Lowery Bretz. 2015. Biochemistry students’ ideas about how an enzyme interacts with a substrate. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 43(4):213–222, https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20868.
18. Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Series in Educational Innovation, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 253 pp.
19. Morshead, R.W. 1965. Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook II: Affective domain. Studies in Philosophy of Education 4(1):164–170, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00373956.
20. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Ocean Literacy: The Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts of Ocean Sciences for Learners of All Ages. Version 2, http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitChart.pdf.
21. National Research Council. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 374 pp.
22. National Research Council. 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 264 pp.
23. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 534 pp.
24. Novak, J.D. 1977. A Theory of Education. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 295 pp.
25. Shabatura, J. 2013. Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives, https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy.
26. Simon, B., and J. Taylor. 2009. What is the value of course-specific learning goals? Journal of College Science Teaching 39(2):52–57.
27. Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, and J.K. Knight. 2008. The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE—Life Sciences Education 7:422–430, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045.
28. Smith, M., and K. Perkins. 2010. “At the end of my course, student should be able to…”: The benefits of creating using effective learning goals. Microbiology Australia March 2010:35–37. 
29. Treagust, D.F. 1988. Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education 10(2):159–169, https://doi.org/​10.1080/0950069880100204.
30. Wiggins, G.P., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design, 2^nd ed. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, 370 pp. 
31. Wren, D., and J. Barbera. 2014. Psychometric analysis of the thermochemistry concept inventory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 15:380–390, https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00170A.

This is an open access article made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format as long as users cite the materials appropriately, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate the changes that were made to the original content. Images, animations, videos, or other third-party material used in articles are included in the Creative Commons license unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If the material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission directly from the license holder to reproduce the material.