Department of Physiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Department of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2020 Dec 1;44(4):632-639. doi: 10.1152/advan.00187.2019.
Unlike other STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) disciplines, program guidelines for undergraduate physiology degree programs have yet to be firmly established. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of physiology core concepts within undergraduate physiology curricula to discern whether a common subset could be broadly recommended for inclusion in programmatic guidelines. A curricular survey tool was developed to evaluate the depth to which each core concept was included in physiology curricula. Seven self-selected physiology programs assessed core concept inclusion across all courses within the major (0 = not covered, 1 = minimally covered, and 2 = covered to a great extent). The top core concepts ranked by each institution varied considerably, but all were robustly represented across programs. The top five combined rankings for all institutions were as follows: ) interdependence (1.47 ± 0.63); ) structure/function (1.46 ± 0.72); ) homeostasis (1.45 ± 0.71); ) scientific reasoning (1.44 ± 0.70); and ) cell-cell communication (1.38 ± 0.75). No common subset of specific core concepts was evident among the seven participating institutions. Next, results were compared with recent Physiology Majors Interest Group (P-MIG) faculty and student surveys that ascertained perceptions of the top five most important core concepts. Three core concepts (homeostasis, structure/function, cell-cell communication) appeared in the top five in more than one-half of survey questions included. We recommend that future programmatic guidelines focus on inclusion of the core concepts of physiology as general models to scaffold learning in physiology curricula, but the programmatic guidelines should allow flexibility in the core concepts emphasized based on program objectives.
与其他 STEM（科学、技术、工程和数学）学科不同，本科生理学学位课程的课程指南尚未确定。本研究的目的是检查本科生理学课程中使用生理学核心概念的情况，以确定是否可以广泛推荐一组共同的核心概念纳入课程指南。开发了课程调查工具来评估每个核心概念在生理学课程中的涵盖深度。七个自选的生理学课程评估了主要课程中每个核心概念的涵盖程度（0=未涵盖，1=最小程度涵盖，2=广泛涵盖）。每个机构排名最高的核心概念差异很大，但在所有课程中都得到了很好的体现。所有机构的前五个综合排名如下：）相互依存（1.47±0.63）；）结构/功能（1.46±0.72）；）稳态（1.45±0.71）；）科学推理（1.44±0.70）；和）细胞间通讯（1.38±0.75）。七个参与机构之间没有明显的特定核心概念共同子集。接下来，将结果与最近的生理学专业兴趣小组（P-MIG）教师和学生调查进行比较，以确定对前五个最重要核心概念的看法。三个核心概念（稳态、结构/功能、细胞间通讯）在超过一半的调查问题中出现在前五位。我们建议未来的课程指南侧重于将生理学的核心概念作为生理学课程学习的一般模型纳入，但课程指南应允许根据课程目标在核心概念强调方面具有灵活性。
