To Dissect
or not to dissect?
Shannon Shackles
Pros: Live Dissections
Data retrieved from Oakley 2011
In Oakley's (2011) survey, Ontario science teachers were asked to identify what they believed to be the benefits of conducting live dissections in their classrooms. Many of the teachers believed there was an irreplaceable pedagogical value to completing live dissections. Having students work with an actual animal they observe real-life interconnections between organs and systems (Oakley, 2011). Live dissections provide a confirmation of what students have learned in class and provides a permanent learning experience (Montgomery, 2008).
Another benefit of live dissections identified by Ontario science teachers was the realism of conducting live dissections. Many teachers suggested that virtual alternatives are "too perfect" and do not show variation between organisms of the same species (Oakley, 2011). Performing live dissections have been identified to involve four of the five senses (Montgomery, 2008).
The fact that live dissections are experiential was seen as another added benefit of completing live dissections (Oakley, 2011). Live dissections allow students to transfer things they have seen and read about and makes it a real life experience (Montgomery, 2008).
A large number of teachers also said that student enjoyment is a big reason as to why they conduct live dissections in their classrooms (Oakley, 2011). Teachers in this survey stated that live dissections engages students and has encouraged many students to persue a future in science.
Other benefits of conducting live dissections include the development of a respect for animals, it encourages future learning, and it supports the Ontario science curriculum.
"You can have a student regurgitate on a paper-and-pencil test that a mammal's lungs are spongy, but there is no way that a student will understand what spongy means unless they see a real lung"
-Offner, 1993
Research Supporting Live Dissections
There has been a lot of research conducted on students learning while doing both live dissections and virutal dissections. There have been research findings that have identified a difference in learning between using the two methods, some in favour of live dissections and some in favour of virtual dissections. Below is a summary table retrieved from Montgomery identifying some of the research that concluded that live dissections proved to have a positive influence on learning in comparison to virtual alternatives.
Table retrieved from Montgomery, 2008
In the study conducted by Cross & Cross in 2004, four high school biology classes (n=74) were tested over a period of two years. Half of the class did a live dissection and the other half of the class did a virtual dissection. After completing the practical, students were required to identifty organs and their functions. As you can see in the table to the left, students who performed the live dissection performed significantly better on the test.
Retrieved from Cross & Cross, 2004.
In the study conducted by Kariuki & Paulson in 2001, 104 grades 9-12 general biology students were tested. Half of the students were assigned to the control group (live dissection) and the other half of the students were assigned to the experimental group (virtual dissection). After completing the dissection, students were given a test taken from a biology test bank. The first part of the test was multiple choice and the second part of the test was labelling an anatomy diagram. Students who completed the live dissection performed significantly better on this test than the students who completed the virtual dissection.
Virtual Dissection
Live Dissection
Retrieved from Kariuki & Paulson, 2001