https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/the_pedagogical_benefits_and_pitfalls_of_virtual_tools_for_teaching_and_learning_laboratory_practices_in_the_biological_sciences.pdf

The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the Biological Sciences

This study used a computer-based rat anatomy to compare student learning outcomes from computer-based instruction with a conventional dissection. The study was carried out with first-year undergraduate biology students. On average, students who completed the computer-based instruction did 7.4 percentage points better than students completing the conventional dissection. This pattern held across the three types of questions, namely text, pictures, and real rat questions. There was a significant relationship between the time spent on both classes and the marks gained. Students who spent longer on the class gained higher marks and, regardless of time, the computer-based students had higher marks. The increase in marks shown by the computerbased students was consistent across all grades of students. Possible reasons for the increase in marks is the flexibility of time using the computer-based instruction, the ability to see all structures clearly and the absence of smell and blood. This study shows that compu...

Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes

In biology education, the study of structure has traditionally involved the use of dissection. Animal‐rights campaigners have caused biology educators and learners to question the necessity of dissections. This study reviews the research evidence for the efficacy of alternatives to dissection and then turns to research evidence on attitudes to dissection. It suggests that the place, practice, and purpose of dissection in biology education can act as an indicator of the state of society in which those practices are embedded. The current situation in South Africa is reviewed to illustrate how social factors outside the laboratory influence pedagogic practice.

/pdf/the-first-cut-is-the-deepest-reflections-on-the-state-of-12ps2g3ukl.pdf

The first cut is the deepest: reflections on the state of animal dissection in biology education

This article presents the scientific argument that learning methods that replace traditional nonhuman animal-consumptive methods in life science education-so-called alternatives to dissection-are pedagogically sound and probably superior to dissection. This article focuses on the pedagogy, a learning method's effectiveness for conveying knowledge.

/pdf/dissection-the-scientific-case-for-alternatives-8airk2fin8.pdf

Dissection: The Scientific Case for Alternatives

IN 1993, a medical student at the University of Colorado was compelled to transfer to another university when she failed a course for refusing to participate in a required laboratory exercise that involved performing lethal procedures on anesthetized dogs. The student sued and, in August 1995, was awarded $95,000 from the university, which promised to establish a review process to accommodate future students who have similar concerns. Also in 1993, a biology student at the University of Victoria, Canada, studied a live marine mollusk and released it back to the ocean rather than kill and dissect an animal as assigned. She wrote an in-depth report on the mollusk that included anatomical illustrations based on published accounts. In return, she was wrongfully charged with plagiarism for copying the illustrations and given a failing grade. A year later, after a school senate hearing, the plagiarism charge was dropped, but the grade was never adjusted despite repeated appeals to do so. The foregoing examples are among the more serious of tens of thousands of dissectionor vivisectionrelated conflicts that occur each year in middle schools, high schools and universities throughout North America (Hepner 1994; Francione & Charlton 1992). The Dissection Hotline (1-800-922-3764), a nonprofit conflict resolution service for students, teachers and parents, has received more than 100,000 calls since its inception in 1989. Four states (New York, Pennsylvania, California and Florida) have enacted laws, and numerous school boards have adopted policies, declaring that students not be forced to dissect animals. These are reminders that there continues to be considerable discontent surrounding dissection (Orlans 1995). A first step toward resolving conflict is understanding its causes. My aim in this article is to outline some of the misconceptions and misunderstandings that underlie most dissection conflicts. By doing this, I hope to help make the dissection issue less volatile, and one that generates fewer difficulties for students, teachers and administrators.

/pdf/student-teacher-conflict-regarding-animal-dissection-2k1kacgkq6.pdf

Student/Teacher Conflict regarding Animal Dissection

This paper reports on a scheme where first-year university biology students are given a choice between dissecting a rat or opting out and doing an equivalent laboratory exercise using a model. Over five years, around 10 per cent of students have chosen to opt out of the dissection. Their examination results, even on questions related to the dissection, have not been significantly different from other students. An overwhelming majority of students in the class support the opt-out scheme. The decision on whether or not to opt out involves a discussion of the issues with peers and class demonstrators, and therefore acts as a valuable exercise in practical bioethical decision-making. This scheme may have useful lessons for all university biology course organizers.

Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jan Meadows

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology