A Conceptual Framework for the Core Concept of Cell‐Cell Communications

Physiology faculty regard Cell‐Cell Communications as one of the core concepts their students should understand and be able to apply. This concept has been summarized as follows: the function of the organism requires that cells pass information to one another to coordinate their activities. We have developed a conceptual framework that describes the core concept of Cell‐Cell Communications and have begun the process of validating its content. This framework consists of 51 items, descriptions of physiological phenomena, which are arranged in as many as four hierarchical levels under the core concept: critical components (e.g. binding of the messenger molecule to its receptor gives rise to signal transduction ), constituent ideas (e.g. there are two basic mechanisms for transduction ), elaborations (e.g., the speed of the response of the two systems is different ), and amplifications (e.g.the speed of response in a second‐messenger system . . .). Thirty‐seven faculty were surveyed about the importance of each of the 51 items (5=Essential, 4=Important, 3=Moderately Important, 2=Slightly Important, 1=NOT Important). Written feedback about the items was also solicited from the respondents. Respondents teach at 2‐year colleges, 4‐year colleges offering only bachelors degrees, 4‐year colleges offering some masters degrees, research universities, and professional schools. Mean responses over all 51 items ranged from 4.92 (slightly less than Essential) to 3.46 (between Important and Moderately Important). No more than 2 respondents rated any item as Not Important, and all items were rated as Essential by at least 2 respondents. We conclude that our respondents found the framework as a whole to be important for students to understand. Written feedback did point to one item that needed to be re‐written to conform with current understanding of the phenomenon referred to in the framework. There seems to be strong and linear dependence of importance on level of hierarchy, with items on the main level being deemed the most important and with lower importance for items at lower levels. Although our respondents teach at different educational levels, analyses support the conclusion that there are no differences in the ratings based on the different categories of institutions. The generation of a validated conceptual framework is the first step in the process of writing a concept inventory to be used to assess student understanding of this core concept. Support or Funding Information Supported by NSF grant DUE‐104344