Virtuální pitvy a jejich akceptace studenty učitelství biologie v České republice

Veronika Havlíčková; Martin Bílek; Andrej Šorgo

doi:10.14712/18047106.1037

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018): sciED Research Reports

Virtual Dissections and their Acceptance by Biology Teaching Students in the Czech Republic

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

Pedagogická fakulta Univerzita Hradec Králové
Katedra chemie a didaktiky chemie Pedagogická fakulta Univerzita Karlova M. Rettigové 4 Praha
Univerzita Maribor, Fakulta přírodních věd a matematiky & Fakulta elektrotechniky a počítačových věd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1037

PDF (Czech)

How to Cite

Havlíčková, V., Bílek, M., & Šorgo, A. (2018). Virtual Dissections and their Acceptance by Biology Teaching Students in the Czech Republic. Scientia in Educatione, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1037

Download Citation

Abstract

Virtual dissections, performed via computer simulations as an alternative to hands-on dissections, have been slowly finding its place within lessons of Biology as a general educational subject. This fact has been demonstrated by many, predominantly international, studies, which were subject to our investigation already in the survey part of our research; the findings served as a basis for further questionnaire survey examining the attitudes of biology teacher trainees towards the use of virtual and hands-on dissections in the Czech Republic. The aim of the survey was primarily to identify the attitude of pre-service biology teachers concerning the use of virtual and hands-on dissections, their experience with these teaching applications, and their preferences with regard to these options. An analysis of the obtained indicates that most of the students have had experience with hands-on dissections. However, the students’ attitudes confirms their preference towards using virtual dissections, although the performance of hands-on dissections is not to be
eliminated completely.

References

Arora, L. & Sharma, B.R. (2011). Assessment of role of dissection in anatomy teaching from the perspective of undergraduate students: A qualitative study. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, 3(2), 59–65. Search in Google Scholar
Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 59(1), 22–25. Search in Google Scholar
Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives & recommendations, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press, Public policy series (Humane Society Press). Search in Google Scholar
Balcombe, J. (2001). Dissection: The scientific case for alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(2), 117–126. Search in Google Scholar
Barr, G. & Herzog, H. (2000). Fetal pig: The high school dissection experience. Society & Animals, 8(1), 53–69. Search in Google Scholar
DeHoff, M. E., Clark, K. L. & Meganathan, K. (2011). Learning outcomes and student-perceived value of clay modelling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology, AJP. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(1), 68–75. Search in Google Scholar
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, 9(9), 311–318. Search in Google Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage Publications. Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, T. (2011). Is dissection humane? Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 4(0), 4. Search in Google Scholar
Havlíčková, V. & Bílek, M. (2015). Pitvy a pitevní alternativy ve výuce biologie, lékařských a veterinárních oborů – z výsledků výzkumných studií. Paidagogos, 2, 107–145. Dostupné z http://www.paidagogos.net/issues/2015/2/article.php?id=6. Search in Google Scholar
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. Search in Google Scholar
Janštová, V. (2017). Invertebrate dissections can motivate pupils towards studying biology. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková & I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science Education XIV. (pp. 25–31). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar
Lombardi, S.A., Hicks, R. E., Thompson, K.V. & Marbach-Ad., G. (2014). Are all hands-on activities equally effective? Effect of using plastic models, organ dissections, and virtual dissections on student learning and perceptions. Advances in Physiology Search in Google Scholar
Education, 38(1), 80–86. Search in Google Scholar
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. Search in Google Scholar
Mulu, A. & Tegabu, D. (2012). Medical students’ attitudinal changes towards cadaver dissection: a longitudinal study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, 22(1), 51–58. Search in Google Scholar
Oakley, J. (2009). Under the knife: Animal dissection as a contested school science activity. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 1(2), 59–67. Search in Google Scholar
Oakley, J. (2012). Science teachers and the dissection debate: Perspectives on animal dissection and alternatives. International Journal of Environmental & Science Search in Google Scholar
Education, 7(2), 253–267. Search in Google Scholar
Oakley, J. (2013). “I didn’t feel right about animal dissection”: Dissection objectors share their science class experiences. Society & Animals, 21(4), 360–378. Search in Google Scholar
Ondrová, R. (2012). Využití pitev bezobratlých živočichů ve výuce biologie na středních školách. Diplomová práce, Praha. Search in Google Scholar
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. Search in Google Scholar
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. Search in Google Scholar
Prokop, P., Fančovičová, J. & Kubiatko, M. (2009). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes toward bats. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 19–30. Search in Google Scholar
Randler, C., Hummel, E. & Wurst-Ackermann, P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on student’s motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839–2856. Search in Google Scholar
Strauss, R.T. & Kinzie, M. B. (1991). Hi-Tech alternatives to dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 53(3), 154–158. Search in Google Scholar
Špernjak, A. & Šorgo, A. (2017). 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. Retrieved from Search in Google Scholar
http://www.cepsj.si/pdfs/cepsj 7 1/pp 111-130.pdf. Search in Google Scholar
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. Search in Google Scholar
Tomažič, I., Pihler, N. & Strgar, J. (2017). Pre-service Biology teachers’ reported fear and disgust of animals and their willingness to incorporate live animals into their live animals into their teaching through study years. Journal of Baltic Science Education, Search in Google Scholar
(3), 337–349. Search in Google Scholar
Valliyate, M., Robinson, N. G. & Goodman, J. R. (2012). Current concepts in simulation and other alternatives for veterinary education: a review. Veterinarni Medicina, 57(7), 325–337. Search in Google Scholar
Svoboda zvířat: Organizace na ochranu zvířat. (2011). Výsledky průzkumu ohledně problematiky pokusů a pitev na zvířatech prováděných na školách. Dostupné z http://www.svobodazvirat.cz/novinky/vysledky-pruzkumu-ohledneproblematiky- Search in Google Scholar
pokusu-a-pitev-na-zviratech-provadenych-na-skolach.htm. Search in Google Scholar

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

[1] Arora, L. & Sharma, B.R. (2011). Assessment of role of dissection in anatomy teaching from the perspective of undergraduate students: A qualitative study. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, 3(2), 59–65. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 59(1), 22–25. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives & recommendations, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press, Public policy series (Humane Society Press). Search in Google Scholar

[4] Balcombe, J. (2001). Dissection: The scientific case for alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(2), 117–126. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Barr, G. & Herzog, H. (2000). Fetal pig: The high school dissection experience. Society & Animals, 8(1), 53–69. Search in Google Scholar

[6] DeHoff, M. E., Clark, K. L. & Meganathan, K. (2011). Learning outcomes and student-perceived value of clay modelling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology, AJP. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(1), 68–75. Search in Google Scholar

[7] 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, 9(9), 311–318. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage Publications. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Hasan, T. (2011). Is dissection humane? Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 4(0), 4. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Havlíčková, V. & Bílek, M. (2015). Pitvy a pitevní alternativy ve výuce biologie, lékařských a veterinárních oborů – z výsledků výzkumných studií. Paidagogos, 2, 107–145. Dostupné z http://www.paidagogos.net/issues/2015/2/article.php?id=6. Search in Google Scholar

[11] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Janštová, V. (2017). Invertebrate dissections can motivate pupils towards studying biology. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková & I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science Education XIV. (pp. 25–31). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Lombardi, S.A., Hicks, R. E., Thompson, K.V. & Marbach-Ad., G. (2014). Are all hands-on activities equally effective? Effect of using plastic models, organ dissections, and virtual dissections on student learning and perceptions. Advances in Physiology Search in Google Scholar

[14] Education, 38(1), 80–86. Search in Google Scholar

[15] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Mulu, A. & Tegabu, D. (2012). Medical students’ attitudinal changes towards cadaver dissection: a longitudinal study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, 22(1), 51–58. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Oakley, J. (2009). Under the knife: Animal dissection as a contested school science activity. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 1(2), 59–67. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Oakley, J. (2012). Science teachers and the dissection debate: Perspectives on animal dissection and alternatives. International Journal of Environmental & Science Search in Google Scholar

[19] Education, 7(2), 253–267. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Oakley, J. (2013). “I didn’t feel right about animal dissection”: Dissection objectors share their science class experiences. Society & Animals, 21(4), 360–378. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Ondrová, R. (2012). Využití pitev bezobratlých živočichů ve výuce biologie na středních školách. Diplomová práce, Praha. Search in Google Scholar

[22] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[23] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[24] Prokop, P., Fančovičová, J. & Kubiatko, M. (2009). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes toward bats. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 19–30. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Randler, C., Hummel, E. & Wurst-Ackermann, P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on student’s motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839–2856. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Strauss, R.T. & Kinzie, M. B. (1991). Hi-Tech alternatives to dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 53(3), 154–158. Search in Google Scholar

[27] Špernjak, A. & Šorgo, A. (2017). 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. Retrieved from Search in Google Scholar

[28] http://www.cepsj.si/pdfs/cepsj 7 1/pp 111-130.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

[29] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Tomažič, I., Pihler, N. & Strgar, J. (2017). Pre-service Biology teachers’ reported fear and disgust of animals and their willingness to incorporate live animals into their live animals into their teaching through study years. Journal of Baltic Science Education, Search in Google Scholar

[31] (3), 337–349. Search in Google Scholar

[32] Valliyate, M., Robinson, N. G. & Goodman, J. R. (2012). Current concepts in simulation and other alternatives for veterinary education: a review. Veterinarni Medicina, 57(7), 325–337. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Svoboda zvířat: Organizace na ochranu zvířat. (2011). Výsledky průzkumu ohledně problematiky pokusů a pitev na zvířatech prováděných na školách. Dostupné z http://www.svobodazvirat.cz/novinky/vysledky-pruzkumu-ohledneproblematiky- Search in Google Scholar

[34] pokusu-a-pitev-na-zviratech-provadenych-na-skolach.htm. Search in Google Scholar

Scientia in educatione

Virtual Dissections and their Acceptance by Biology Teaching Students in the Czech Republic

How to Cite

Abstract

References

Author Biography

Downloads

License