Evaluation of Core Concepts of Physiology in Physiology Curricula: Results from Faculty Surveys

Abstract

The Physiology Majors Interest Group (P‐MIG) is a consortium of educators from institutions with undergraduate degree programs in Physiology interested in building a network of peers to share ideas and best practices in teaching undergraduate students. P‐MIG held three stand‐alone conferences in 2017 at Michigan State University, in 2018 at University of Arizona, and in 2019 at University of Minnesota. A primary goal of these initial conferences was to discuss the establishment of national guidelines for undergraduate Physiology programs. Subsequently, P‐MIG members self‐selected into two committees that worked towards developing these guidelines. Fifteen Core Concepts of Physiology have been proposed and developed by Michael, Cliff, McFarland, Modell, and Wright as conceptual frameworks. The initial goal of the Core Concepts of Physiology committee was to determine if there was a consensus among participating programs regarding inclusion of these conceptual frameworks in undergraduate Physiology programs and to determine if there was a sub‐set of core concepts common to most degree programs. P‐MIG conference attendees completed surveys prior to the 2017 and 2018 P‐MIG conferences and were asked to choose the top 5 most important core concepts for their program goals and student populations. Previously, we have reported that homeostasis, structurefunction, cell‐cell communication, scientific reasoning, levels of organization, flow down gradients, and interdependence have been ranked as the top core concepts by individual faculty members. After the 2018 P‐MIG meeting, the Core Concepts Committee designed a curricular survey to evaluate the depth to which each core concept was included in the curricula at various institutions. Seven self‐selected Physiology programs participated in this survey which assessed Core Concept inclusion in all core courses and electives within the major (not covered, minimally covered, and covered to a great extent). The top 5 core concepts ranked by each institution varied considerably. Homeostasis and interdependence were in the top 5 for 6 of the participating programs. Scientific reasoning, structure/function and causality were in the top 5 for 6 programs. Cell‐cell communication (3 programs), levels of organization (2 programs), energy (2 programs), cell membrane (1 program), flow down gradients (1 program), mass balance (1 program), and physics/chemistry (1 program) also appeared in the top 5 for the 7 programs that completed the survey. There was a lack of consensus on the top 5 core concepts included in undergraduate Physiology curricula, likely due to variability in student population and program objectives at different institutions. In conclusion, the Core Concepts Committee recommends that future guidelines should include a focus on inclusion of the Core Concepts of Physiology as general models used in Physiology curricula but the guidelines should not dictate a specific sub‐set of core concepts. Flexibility should be built into the guidelines to allow each Physiology program to choose which core concepts to emphasize, based on their student population and program objectives.Support or Funding InformationAPS, ACDP