Advertisement

The Effect of a Prior Dissection Simulation on Middle School Students' Dissection Performance and Understanding of the Anatomy and Morphology of the Frog

  • Joseph Paul Akpan
  • Thomas Andre
Article

Abstract

Science teachers, school administrators, educators, and the scientific community are faced with ethical controversies over animal dissection in classrooms. Simulation has been proposed as a way of dealing with this issue. One intriguing previous finding was that use of an interactive videodisc dissection facilitated performance on a subsequent actual dissection. This study examined the prior use of simulation of frog dissection in improving students' actual dissection performance and learning of frog anatomy and morphology. There were three experimental conditions: simulation before dissection (SBD); dissection before simulation (DBS); or dissection-only (DO). Results of the study indicated that students receiving SBD performed significantly better than students receiving DBS or DO on both actual dissection and knowledge of the anatomy and morphology. Students' attitudes toward the use of animals for dissection did not change significantly from pretest to posttest and did not interact with treatment. The genders did not differ in achievement, but males were more favorable towards dissection and computers than were females.

Computer simulation dissection anatomy morphology science education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Akpan, J. P. (1998). Computer simulations and learning science: A review of the literature (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Alessi, S. M., and Trollip, S. R. (1985). Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, J. (1970). Dissection versus prosection in the teaching of anatomy. Medical Education, 45(8), 600–608.Google Scholar
  4. Andre, T., Duschen, A, Werner, B., Mroch, A., and Akpan, J. (1999). Impact of a prior conceptional change simulation on learning about motion, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, April 1999).Google Scholar
  5. Andre, T., and Haselhuhn, C. (April 1995). Mission Newton! using a computer game that simulates motion in Newtonian space before or after formal instruction in mechanics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  6. Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrikson, A., and Chambers, S. (April 1997). Attitudes of elementary school students and their parents towards science and other school subjects. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. AAUW. (1989). American Association Union of Women Report, revised edition, New York Review/Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, S. P. (1988). Comparison of effectiveness of interactive videodisc versus lecture-demonstration instruction. Journal of Physical Therapy 68(5): 699–703. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 3(2): 16–21.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, W. (1984). Dissection dissected. The Science Teacher 51: 42–49.Google Scholar
  10. Bernard, G. R. (1972). Prosection demonstrations as substitutes for the conventional human gross anatomy laboratory. Journal of Medical Education 47(11): 726–728.Google Scholar
  11. Bowd, A. D. (1989). Alternatives to dissection as an instructional technique. The Av 8: 7–5.Google Scholar
  12. Brant, G., Hooper, E., and Sugrue, B. (1991). Which comes first the simulation or the lecture? Journal of Educational Computing Research 7(4): 469–481.Google Scholar
  13. Bredemeier, M. E., and Greenblat, C S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games. Simulation and Games 12: 307–332.Google Scholar
  14. Bross, T. R. (1986). The microcomputer-based science laboratory. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 5(3): 16–18.Google Scholar
  15. Carlsen, D., and Andre, T. (1992). Use of amicrocomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 19(4): 105–109.Google Scholar
  16. Chambers, J. A., and Sprecher, J. W. (1983). Computer-Assisted Instruction: Its Use in the Classroom, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1966). Some current research on effectiveness of education simulations: Implications for alternative strategies. American Behavioral Scientist 10: 4–7.Google Scholar
  18. Choi, B., and Grennaro, E. (1987). The effectiveness of using computer simulated experiments on junior high students' understanding of the volume displacement concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6): 539–552.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4): 445–459.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in educational research. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1(2): 137–147.Google Scholar
  21. Dekkers, J., and Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation as an instructional strategy. Journal of Educational Research 74: 424–427.Google Scholar
  22. DeRosa, B. (1986). Is dissection necessary? Children and Animals 10(3): 1–2.Google Scholar
  23. Dwyer, C. S. (1978). Strategies for Improving Visual Learning, Learning Services, State College, Pennsylvania, p. 33.Google Scholar
  24. Ebner, D. B., Danaher, B., Mahoney, J. B., Lippert, H. T., and Balson, P. M. (1984). Current issues in interactive videodisc and computer-based instruction. Instructional Innovator 29(3): 24–29.Google Scholar
  25. Fawver, A. L., Branch, C. E., Trentham, L., Robertson, B. R., and Beckett, S. D. (1990). A comparison of interactive videodisc instruction with live animal laboratories. Advances in Physiology Education 4(1): 11–14.Google Scholar
  26. Gilmore, D. R. (1991). Politics and prejudice: Dissection in biology education. The American Biology Teacher, 33(4): 212–213.Google Scholar
  27. Gredler, M. E. (1992). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of (research) paradigm. In Handbook of Research of Technology and Communications, Macmillan Library Reference, Simon and Schuster Macmillan, New York, New York, Chapter 17, pp. 521–538.Google Scholar
  28. Guy, J. F., and Frisby, A. J. (1992). Using interactive videodisc to teach gross anatomy to undergraduates at The Ohio State University. Academic Medicine 67(2): 132–133.Google Scholar
  29. Harper, B. H. (1995). The Effect of Using Interactive Video Frog Dissection Software on Learning Attitudes and State-Anxiety of High School Biology Students. (Ed. D Boston Univ.).Google Scholar
  30. Hoskins, B. B. (1979). Sensitizing introductory biology students to biotech's issues. The America Biology Teacher 41: 151–153.Google Scholar
  31. Igelstud, D. (1986). Frogs. The America Biology Teacher 48: 435–436.Google Scholar
  32. Kahle, J. B., and Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 552–557.Google Scholar
  33. Kinzie, M. B., Foss, M. J., and Powers, S. M. (1993). Use of dissection-related courseware by low-ability high school students: A qualitative inquiry. Educational Technology Research & Development 41(3): 87–101.Google Scholar
  34. Kinzie, M. B., Strauss, R., and Foss, M. J. (1993). The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(8): 989–1000.Google Scholar
  35. Leonard, W. H. (1985). Biology instruction by interactive videodisc or conventional laboratory: A qualitative comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (French Lick Springs, Indiana, April 15–18, 1985) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 258 811).Google Scholar
  36. Leonard, W. H. (1989). A comparison of student reactions to biology instruction by interactive videodisc or conventional laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(2): 95–104.Google Scholar
  37. Leonard, W. H. (1992). A comparison of student performance following instruction by interactive videodisc versus conventional laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 93–102.Google Scholar
  38. Lieb, M. J. (1985). Dissection: A valuable motivational tool or a trauma to the high school students? (Master's Thesis, The Foster G. McGraw School of the National College of Education).Google Scholar
  39. Lock, R. (1995). GCSE students' attitudes to dissection and using animals in research and product testing. Journal Biology Education 77(279): 15–21.Google Scholar
  40. Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Simulations in science education. Science Education 65(3): 243–252.Google Scholar
  41. Mackenzie, I. S. (1988). Issues and methods in the microcomputerbased lab. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 7(3): 12–18.Google Scholar
  42. McCollum, T. L. (1988). The effect of animal dissection on student acquisition of knowledge and attitudes toward the animals dissected. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No Ed 294 749.Google Scholar
  43. Munro, A., Fehling, M. R., and Towne, D. M. (1985). Instructional intrusiveness in dynamic simulation training. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 12(2): 50–53.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, P. J. (1986). Computer simulations in biological education: Analogues or models? Journal of Biological Education 20: 201–205.Google Scholar
  45. NABT. (1990, Policy statement). The responsible use of animals in biology classrooms, including alternatives to dissection. The American Biology Teacher 52(2): 72.Google Scholar
  46. Offner, S. (1993). The importance of dissection in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher 55(3): 147–149.Google Scholar
  47. Orlans, F. B. (1988). Debating dissection. The Science Teacher 55(8): 36–40.Google Scholar
  48. Orlansky, J., and String, J. (1979). Cost-effectiveness of computerbased instruction in military training, Training, IDA Paper P-1375, Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  49. Pierfy, D. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and steppingstones. Simulation & Games 8(2): 255–268.Google Scholar
  50. Schrock, J. R. (1984). Computers in science education: Can they go far enough? Have we gone too far? The American Biology Teacher 46: 252–256.Google Scholar
  51. Showalter, V. M. (1970). Conducting science investigations using computer simulated experiments. The Science Teacher 10: 46–50.Google Scholar
  52. Strauss, R., and Kinzie, M. B., (1994). Student achievement and attitudes in a pilot study comparing an interactive videodisc simulation to conventional dissection. American Biology Teacher 56(7): 398–402.Google Scholar
  53. Thomas, R., and Hooper, E. (1991). Simulation: An opportunity we are missing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 23(4): 497–513.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, R. A., and Boysen, J. P. (1989). A taxonomy for the instructional use of computers, AEDS Monitor 22(11–12): 15–17.Google Scholar
  55. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory: In Organiza tion of Memory. E. Tulving and W. Donalson (Eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 38–403.Google Scholar
  56. Tylinski, J. D. (1995). The effect of a computer simulation on junior high students' understanding of the physiological systems of an Earthworm Dissection. Ed. D. Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  57. Winders, A., and Yates, B. (1990). The traditional science laboratory versus a computerized science laboratory: Think carefully before supplanting the old with the new. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2(3): 11–15.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, A. W. (1979). CAL In Biology, In Learning Through Computers, Macmillan, London, pp. 11–21.Google Scholar
  59. Zim, H. S. (1940). Science interesting and activities or adolescents. In Research in Science Education 1938 Through 1947. R. W. Boening, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 266–273.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Paul Akpan
    • 1
  • Thomas Andre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionN157 Lagomarcino, Iowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations