Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?

Veronika Havlíčková; Andrej Šorgo; Martin Bílek

doi:10.29333/ejmste/83679

Full Text (PDF)

Veronika Havlíčková ¹, Andrej Šorgo ², Martin Bílek ³ ^*

More Detail

¹ University of Hradec Kralove, Faculty of Education, Hradec Kralove, CZECH REPUBLIC² University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Maribor, SLOVENIA³ Charles University, Faculty of Education, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

With the advent of computers virtual dissection was recognized as a plausible option for the replacement of hands-on dissection. Based on survey data collected from 489 Czech Biology teachers it was revealed that teachers value positively both variants of dissection, even more, differences are small or even negligible. Differences on motivation scale toward both variants are small or negligible too. From the answers based on motivation scale, we can construct a ghost teacher as someone who recognizes both alternatives of dissections as interesting, and even pleasant and fun activities. However, dissection should be performed as mostly as self-regulated activities with perceived benefits for the students as the dominant incentive, while not recognizing activity as important. The differences exist both between the acceptability of different kind of organisms for hands-on and virtual dissection, and in the actual school practice. In the long term perspective is cohabitation of both variants most probable.

Keywords

attitudes to hands-on and virtual dissection
biology teachers
general biology education
prospective biology teachers
school experimental activity

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2018, Volume 14, Issue 4, 1415-1429

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

Publication date: 21 Jan 2018

Article Views: 3964

Article Downloads: 4839

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305.
Akpan, J. P., & Andre, T. (2000). Using a computer simulation before dissection to help students learn anatomy. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(3), 297-313.
Allchin, D. (2005). “Hands-Off” Dissection? What do we seek in alternatives to examining real organisms? The American Biology Teacher, 67(6), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0369:HD]2.0.CO;2.
Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 22-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450235.
Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: Problems, alternatives, and recommendations. Washington, DC: The Humane Society Press.
Böckers, A., Jerg‐Bretzke, L., Lamp, C., Brinkmann, A., Traue, H. C., & Böckers, T. M. (2010). The gross anatomy course: an analysis of its importance. Anatomical sciences education, 3(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.124.
Costello, A. B. (2009). Getting the most from your analysis. Pan, 12(2), 131-146.
Crites Jr, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206001.
De Villiers, R., & Monk, M. (2005). The first cut is the deepest: reflections on the state of animal dissection in Biology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 583-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500041523.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2014). The effects of 3D plastic models of animals and cadaveric dissection on students’ perceptions of the internal organs of animal. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 767-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.938a.
Fančovičová, J., Prokop, P., & Lešková, A. (2013). Perceived disgust and personal experiences are associated with acceptance of dissections in schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(9), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.938a.
Fazal-Ur-Rehman, Khan S. N., & Yunus, S. M. (2012). Students, perception of computer assisted teaching and learning of anatomy-in a scenario where cadavers are lacking. Biomedical Research, 23(2), 215-218.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications.
Gawronski, B. (2007). Attitudes can be measured! But what is an attitude? Social Cognition, 25(5), 573-581. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.573.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003, October). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In 2003 Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. (pp. 82-88).
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and emotion, 24(3), 175-213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250.
Havlíčková, V., & Bílek, M. (2015). Pitvy a pitevní alternativy ve výuce biologie, lékařských a veterinárních oborů–z výsledků výzkumných studií. Paidagogos, 2015(2), 107 – 145.
Holstermann, N., Ainley, M., Grube, D., Roick, T., & Bögeholz, S. (2012). The specific relationship between disgust and interest: Relevance during Biology class dissections and gender differences. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.005.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2009). The influence of emotion on students’ performance in dissection exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 43(4), 164 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2009.9656177.
Hug, B. (2005). Dissection reconsidered: A reaction to de Villiers and Monk’s ‘The first cut is the deepest’. Journal of curriculum studies, 37(5), 601-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500061182.
Hug, B. (2008). Re-examining the practice of dissection: What does it teach? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701484746.
Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
Lenhard, W. & Lenhard, A. (2016) Effect size calculation. Retrieved on November 26, 2016 from https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html.
Lewis, T. L., Burnett, B., Tunstall, R. G., & Abrahams, P. H. (2014). Complementing anatomy education using three‐dimensional anatomy mobile software applications on tablet computers. Clinical Anatomy, 27(3), 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22256.
Lock, R. (2007). Dissection-alive and well? Biologist-institute of Biology, 54(2), 59.
Lock, R., & Alderman, P. (1996). Using animals in secondary school science lessons: teacher experience and attitude, Journal of Biological Education, 30(2), 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1996.9655489.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006.
Millett, K., & Lock, R. (1992). GCSE students’ attitudes towards animal use: some implications for Biology/science teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 204-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1992.9655274.
Moore, R. (2001). Why I support dissection in science education. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(2), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0402_6.
National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (2008). Responsible use of live animals and dissection in the science classroom. NSTA Position Statement. Retrieved on November 29, 2016 from http://www.nsta.org/docs/PositionStatement_LiveAnimalsAndDissection.pdf.
Oakley, J. (2012). Science teachers and the dissection debate: perspectives on animal dissection and alternatives. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(2), 253-267.
Patel, K. M., & Moxham, B. J. (2008). The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clinical anatomy, 21(2), 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20584.
Patil, V. H., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Donavan, D. T. (2007). Parallel analysis engine to aid determining number of factors to retain [Computer software]. Retrieved on November 28, 2016 from http://smishra.faculty.ku.edu/parallelengine.htm.
Pawlina, W., & Lachman, N. (2004). Dissection in learning and teaching gross anatomy: rebuttal to McLachlan. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, 281(1), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20038.
Predavec, M. (2001). Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes. Journal of Biological Education, 35(2), 75-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655746.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is Biology boring? Student attitudes toward Biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105.
Puhek, M., Perše, M., & Šorgo, A. (2012). Comparison between a real field trip and a virtual field trip in a nature preserve: knowledge gained in Biology and ecology. Journal of Baltic science education, 11(2), 164-174.
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Würst-Ackermann, P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on students’ motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839–2856. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.654518.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Singh, M. K., Singh, S., Kumari, A., & Kumar, P. (2012). Teach Biology Science Using a Computer Simulation Process. International Transactions in Applied Sciences, 4(2), 267-270.
Smith, W. (1994). Use of animals and animal organs in schools: Practice and attitudes of teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 28(2), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1994.9655376.
Šorgo, A., Hajdinjak, Z., & Briški, D. (2008). The journey of a sandwich: computer-based laboratory experiments about the human digestive system in high school Biology teaching. Advances in physiology education, 32(1), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00035.2007.
Špernjak, A., & Šorgo, A. (2017a). Dissection of Mammalian Organs and Opinions about It among Lower and Upper Secondary School Students. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(1), 111-130.
Špernjak, A., & Šorgo, A. (2017b). Differences in acquired knowledge and attitudes achieved with traditional, computer-supported and virtual laboratory biology laboratory exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1298532.
Strauss, R., T., & Kinzie, M., B. (1994). Student achievement & attitudes in a pilot study comparing an interactive videodisc simulation to conventional dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 56(7), 398-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449869.
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010). The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anatomical sciences education, 3(2), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139.
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016). The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT determinants between pre-and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 602-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037.
Tan, S., & Waugh, R. (2013, February). Use of virtual-reality in teaching and learning molecular biology. In 3D immersive and interactive learning (pp. 17-43). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-90-6_2.
Theoret, C. L., Carmel, É. N., & Bernier, S. (2007). Why dissection videos should not replace cadaver prosections in the gross veterinary anatomy curriculum: Results from a comparative study. Journal of veterinary medical education, 34(2), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.34.2.151.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529-554. https://doi.org/10.1086/214483.
Tomažič, I., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Factors Affecting Students’ Attitudes toward Toads. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(6), 2505-2528. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01237a.
Tomažič, I., (2011a). Reported experiences enhance favourable attitudes toward toads. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 7(4), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75207.
Tomažič, I., (2011b). Seventh graders’ direct experience with, and feelings toward, amphibians and some other nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 19(3), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853011X578901.
Tranter, J. (2004). Biology: dull, lifeless and boring? Journal of Biological Education, 38(3),104–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655914.
Winkelmann, A. (2007). Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Medical Education, 41(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02625.x.

How to cite this article

APA

Havlíčková, V., Šorgo, A., & Bílek, M. (2018). Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

Vancouver

Havlíčková V, Šorgo A, Bílek M. Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4):1415-29. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

AMA

Havlíčková V, Šorgo A, Bílek M. Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4), 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

Chicago

Havlíčková, Veronika, Andrej Šorgo, and Martin Bílek. "Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 4 (2018): 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

Harvard

Havlíčková, V., Šorgo, A., and Bílek, M. (2018). Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), pp. 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679

MLA

Havlíčková, Veronika et al. "Can Virtual Dissection Replace Traditional Hands-on Dissection in School Biology Laboratory Work?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1415-1429. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679