PHYSIOLOGY MAJORS INTEREST GROUP

CORE CONCEPTS
The Core Concepts of Physiology Project
Core concepts (often referred to as “big ideas”) are descriptions of phenomena and mechanisms that are applicable in many different contexts in physiology. They provide coherence or structure to the domain. They provide tools for acquiring an understanding of physiology, and they thus can serve as tools for solving problems in the domain. They have utility for any consideration of the domain long after the details have been forgotten.
The core concepts of physiology were first identified by members of the Conceptual Assessment in Physiology (CAP) team and then validated by approximately 70 physiology instructors from a diverse group of colleges and universities.
Core concepts are big, and as such, they are made up of many smaller ideas. The systematic unpacking of the smaller ideas yields a conceptual framework. Simply put, a conceptual framework is an explicit hierarchical structure of the ideas that make up a core concept. The CAP group has generated validated conceptual frameworks for three core concepts and is currently working to validate two more.
A concept inventory is an assessment tool aimed at determining the extent to which a student understands the core concept, more of less independently of any specific physiological topic to which it might apply.
We believe that a focus on the core concepts of physiology can provide useful tools for learning, teaching, and assessing physiology at any academic level.
Key champions of core concepts:
Joel Michael (jmichael40@gmail.com)
Harold Modell (modell@physiologyeducation.org)
Jenny McFarland (jmcfarla@email.edcc.edu)
The following papers have been written by the collaborators of the Core Concepts in relation to the needs, goals and ideas for physiology education:
-
Martinková, P., Drabinová, A., Liaw, Y.L., Sanders, E., McFarland, J., and Price, R.M. Using DIF analysis to reveal potential equity gaps in conceptual assessments. CBE Life Sciences Education DOI: doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307
-
McFarland, J., Michael, J., Modell, H., Wenderoth, M.P., Cliff, W., and Wright, A. (2016) A Conceptual Framework for Homeostasis: Development and Validation. Advances in Physiology Education 40: 213–222. Additional Materials linked below DOI: 10.1152/advan.00103.2015 Additional materials: hcf-additional_materials-homeostasiscf-paper.pdf
-
McFarland, J., Price, R.M., Wenderoth, M.P., Martinková, P., Cliff, W., Michael, J., Modell, H., and Wright, A. Development and Validation of the Homeostasis Concept Inventory. CBE Life Sciences Education DOI: doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0305
-
Michael J. (2007) Conceptual assessment in the biological sciences: a National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop. Advances in Physiology Education 31: 389–391. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00047.2007
-
Michael, J. (editor). (2017) Core Concepts of Physiology: A New Paradigm for Teaching Physiology. American Physiological Society and Springer-Verlag, New York. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6909-8 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781493969074
-
Michael, J., Martinková, P., McFarland, J., Wright, A., Cliff, W., Modell, H., and Wenderoth, M.P. (2017) Validating a conceptual framework for the core concept of “cell-cell communications.” Advances in Physiology Education 41(2):260-265. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00100.2016
-
Michael, J. and McFarland, J. (2011) The core principles (“big ideas”) of physiology: results of faculty surveys. Advances in Physiology Education 25:336-341. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00004.2011
-
Michael J., McFarland, J., and Wright, A. (2008) The second Conceptual Assessment in the Biological Sciences workshop. Advances in Physiology Education 32: 248-251. DOI: 10.1152/advan.90122.2008
-
Michael, J., Modell, H., McFarland, J., and Cliff, W. (2009). The “core principles” of physiology: what should students understand? Advances in Physiology Education, 33: 10-15. DOI: 10.1152/advan.90139.2008
-
Modell, H., Cliff, W., Michael, J., McFarland, J., Wright, A. and Wenderoth, M.P. (2015) A Physiologist's View of Homeostasis. Advances in Physiology Education 39(4):259-266 DOI: 10.1152/advan.00107.2015