Advertisement

EXAMINING HIGH SCHOOL ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY TEACHER EXPERIENCE IN A CADAVER DISSECTION LABORATORY AND IMPACTS ON PRACTICE

  • Allison MattheisEmail author
  • Debra Ingram
  • Murray S. Jensen
  • Jon Jackson
Article

Abstract

This article describes the results of a study that investigated the experiences of a group of high school anatomy and physiology teachers who participated in a cadaver dissection laboratory workshop organized through a university–school partnership. Teacher feedback was collected before, during, and after the workshop through pre-arrival surveys, open-ended written responses to questions during the experience, focus group interviews with teachers, and follow-up surveys and meetings. Two evaluation specialists also attended and engaged in participant observation during the dissection experience. Using an interpretive qualitative approach, data were analyzed and coded for emergent themes. These findings are presented along with first-person narrative description of the experience from teachers’ perspectives. This article contextualizes this initiative relative to hands-on learning of anatomy and physiology, secondary science teacher professional development, and instructional improvement. Results of this study support the positive impact of such experiences on instructor content understanding and outcomes for classroom practice. Specific changes to teacher behavior and dissection instruction following the workshop and ongoing professional development efforts are reported.

Key words

dissection high school anatomy and physiology education high school biology teaching teacher professional development university–school partnerships 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9507_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. Agrosino, M. V. & de Mays Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 673–702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burbank, M. D. & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capobianco, B., Horowitz, R. & Canuel-Browne, D. (2004). Action research for teachers. The Science Teacher, 71(3), 48–53.Google Scholar
  6. CIS 2011. Programs for high school students and teachers. Precollege programs, Twin Cities campus annual report, 2010-2011. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  7. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hug, B. (2008). Re-examining the practice of dissection: What does it teach? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K. & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamberelis, G. & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887–907). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed., p. 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milano, R. N. (2010). Biology teachers’ dissection practices and influences that lead to their adoption: An exploratory research. New Haven, CT: Southern Connecticut State University.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 38 p.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 385 p.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson J., Turner G., Crittenden K., Boudreaux A., (2009). A model for high-school teacher professional development and student learning. Paper presented at 39th ASEE/ISEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX. 18–21.Google Scholar
  27. Randler, C., Wüst-Ackermann, P., Vollmer, C. & Hummel, E. (2012). The relationship between disgust, state-anxiety and motivation during a dissection task. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richmond, G. (1996). University/school partnerships: Bridging the culture gap. Theory Into Practice, 35(3), 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rizzolo, L. J. & Stewart, W. B. (2006). Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when…? The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, 289B, 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruebush, L. E., Grossman, E. L., Miller, S. A., North, S. W., Schielack, J. F. & Simanek, E. E. (2009). Scientists’ perspective on introducing authentic inquiry to high school teachers during an intensive three-week summer professional development experience. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silverstein, S. C., Dubner, J., Miller, J., Glied, S. & Loike, J. D. (2009). Teachers’ participation in research programs improves their students’ achievement in science. Science, 326, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steffy, B. E., Wolfe, M. P., Pasch, S. H. & Enz, B. J. (2000). Life cycle of the career teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  33. Weinstein, M. & Broda, M. (2009). Resuscitating the critical in the biological grotesque: Blood, guts, biomachismo in science/education and human guinea pig discourse. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 761–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winkelmann, A. (2007). Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: A review of the evidence. Medical Education, 41, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winkelmann, A., Hendrix, S. & Kiessling, C. (2007). What do students actually do during a dissection course? First steps towards understanding a complex learning experience. Academic Medicine, 82(10), 989–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Mattheis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Debra Ingram
    • 2
  • Murray S. Jensen
    • 2
  • Jon Jackson
    • 3
  1. 1.Applied and Advanced Studies in EducationCalifornia State University Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations