SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2010 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Fiziksel kurbağa diseksiyona V-Frog© ’un bir kıyaslaması

A comparison of V-Frog© to physical frog dissection

Keith BROPHY
Kevin CHUGH
James P. LALLEY
Phillip S. PiIOTROWSKI
Barbara BATTAGLIA
Pages
189–200
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Scores on a posttest administered immediately following treatment indicated that the virtual group learned more than the physical group (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog© and physical frog dissection on learning, retention, and affect.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Subjects were secondary students enrolled in year-long life science classes in a suburban high school (N=102).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Scores on a posttest administered immediately following treatment indicated that the virtual group learned more than the physical group (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog© and physical frog dissection on learning, retention, and affect. Subjects were secondary students enrolled in year-long life science classes in a suburban high school (N=102). Virtual dissections were done with V-Frog©, a virtual reality software application that allows users to work with a virtual specimen that can be cut and explored in ways that are therefore unique for each individual user. The study employed a pretest, posttest, delayed posttest design using the pretest as a covariate in the analysis of the posttest and delayed posttest. Scores on a posttest administered immediately following treatment indicated that the virtual group learned more than the physical group (p

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı V-Frog© kullanılarak sanal kurbağa diseksiyonu ve fiziksel kurbağa direksiyonunun öğrenme, hatırlama ve duyuş üzerine etkililiğini incelemek ve kıyaslamaktır. Sanal diseksiyonlar, sanal numune ile çalışmaya imkân tanıyan bir yazılım olan V-Frog© ile yapılmıştır. Çalışma on testin, son test ve gecikmeli testte bir kovaryans olarak kullanıldığı, on, son ve gecikmeli test dizaynı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Son test puanları sanal grubun fiziksel gruptan çok daya iyi öğrendiğini belirtmektedir (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BROPHY, K., CHUGH, K., LALLEY, J. P., PiIOTROWSKI, P. S., BATTAGLIA, B. (2022). Fiziksel kurbağa diseksiyona V-Frog© ’un bir kıyaslaması. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 189–200. https://ajindex.com/articles/540854

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. American Anti-Vivisection Society. (1996). Dissecting dissection. The AV Magazine, 105(3), 2-33.
  2. Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. American Biology Teacher, 59(1), 22-25.
  3. Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives, & recommendations. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.
  4. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
  5. Cross, T. R., & Cross, V. E.( 2004). Scalpel or mouse. American Biology Teacher, 66 (6), 408-411.
  6. Duncan, A. (2008). To dissect or not: student choice-in-dissection laws ensure the freedom to choose. Journal of Law & Education, 37(2), 283-289.
  7. Kinzie, M. B., Strauss, R., & 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.
  8. Madrazo, G.M. (2002) The debate over dissection: dissecting a classroom dilemma. Science Educator, 11(1), 41-45.
  9. Marszalek, C., & Lockard, J. (1999, February). Which way to jump: conventional frog dissection, cd-tutorial, or microworld?. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX. McCollum, T. L. (1987). The effect of animal dissections on student acquisition of knowledge of and attitudes toward the animals dissected. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(10), 2592. Montgomery, L. (2008). A comparison of the effectiveness of virtual and traditional dissection on learning frog anatomy in high school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 11. Offner, S.P.R.I.Y. (1993). The importance of dissection in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 55(3), 147-149.
  10. Orlans, F.B. (1988). Debating Dissection. The Science Teacher, 55(8), 36-40. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (2009). Elementary and secondary schools: conscientious objection in the classroom. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/elem_sec_alternatives.html
  11. PETA. (2004). How animals are collected and killed for dissection and the alternatives you can choose, Th