Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 87–101

Use of dissection-related courseware by low-ability high school students: A qualitative inquiry

  • Mable B. Kinzie
  • M. Jean Foss
  • Susan M. Powers


This article reports on a naturalistic study conducted with 24 low-achieving high school Biology students. Observations and interviews were used to determine how the teacher and students used two different computer-based instructional programs on frog anatomy and dissection, and how students conducted a subsequent dissection. Student and teacher opinions were solicited about the different computer-based programs and the dissection laboratory. Findings suggest that dissection can be a valuable learning experience for low-achieving Biology students when they are engaged in group cooperation and interaction and receive adequate instructional preparation. Results also point to the motivation these students exhibit toward computer use, to the importance of balancing learner and program control, and to the value of considering the teacher as a possible source of both interaction and structure during courseware use. Recommendations based on these and other findings are offered for educators and instructional developers.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989).Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Ascher, C. (1985). Increasing science achievement in disadvantaged students.The Urban Review, 17(4), 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, W. (1984). Dissection dissected.The Science Teacher, 51(6), 42–49.Google Scholar
  4. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Foss, J. (1990). A hypermedia program of the frog: A laboratory dissection of Rana pipiens. In R. V. Hairston (Ed.),The responsible use of animals in Biology classrooms (pp. 63–67). Reston, VA: The National Association of Biology Teachers.Google Scholar
  6. Griffith, S. (1991, December 17). Severing students from a tradition.The Washington Post, D1, D4.Google Scholar
  7. Hooper, K. (1988). Multimedia in education. In S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds.),Interactive multimedia: Visions of multimedia for developers, educators, and information providers. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kinzie, M. B., Strauss, R., and Foss, M. J. (in press). The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school Biology students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  9. Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome.Review of Educational Research, 46, 443–462.Google Scholar
  10. Neuman, D. (1989). Naturalistic inquiry and computer-based instruction: Rationale, procedures, and potential.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 39–51.Google Scholar
  11. Neuman, D. (1991). Learning disabled students' interactions with commercial courseware: A naturalistic study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
  12. Strauss, R., & Kinzie, M. (1991). Hi-tech alternatives to dissection.American Biology Teacher, 53, 154–158.Google Scholar
  13. Technology and the at-risk student: Outcomes from the first annual Technology Leadership Conference. (1988).Electronic Learning, 8(3), 36–49.Google Scholar
  14. Yelverton, B. J. (1991, September). Reverse dissection.The Science Teacher, 58(9), 72–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mable B. Kinzie
    • 1
  • M. Jean Foss
    • 2
  • Susan M. Powers
    • 1
  1. 1.the University of VirginiaUSA
  2. 2.Albemarle County Public SchoolsUSA

Personalised recommendations