A Comparison of V-Frog[C] to Physical Frog Dissection
The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog[C] 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). Vir...
Saved in:
| Published in | International journal of environmental and science education Vol. 5; no. 2; pp. 189 - 200 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication
2010
Elektronik Dergi |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 1306-3065 1306-3065 |
Cover
| Abstract | The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog[C] 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[C], 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 [less than or equal to] 0.001). Delayed posttest scores indicated there were no effects for treatment found. In the area of affect, survey results were fairly even between the two groups. Students did not show superior retention using V-Frog[C]. However, it should be noted that with no additional instructional cost, students could repeat the virtual dissection to improve retention. The results of the study indicated that the V-Frog[C] provides a viable alternative to physical dissection that produces effective learning outcomes and may be appealing to teachers and students for a number of practical and/or ethical reasons. (Contains 4 tables.) |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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<.001).
Gecikmeli test puanları işlem için bir etkinin bulunmadığını belirtmektedir. Öğrenciler VFrog© için daha yüksek hatırlama göstermemişlerdir. Bununla birlikte, ek bir öğretim
maliyeti olmaksızın öğrencilerin hatırlatmayı arttırmak için sana diseksiyonu tekrar
edebileceği göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları ihtiva etmektedir ki, VFrog© fiziksel diseksiyona uygun bir alternatif sağlamaktadır.
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<.001). Delayed posttest scores indicated there were no effects for treatment found. In the
area of affect, survey results were fairly even between the two groups. Students did not
show superior retention using V-Frog©. However, it should be noted that with no additional
instructional cost, students could repeat the virtual dissection to improve retention. The
results of the study indicated that the V-Frog© provides a viable alternative to physical
dissection that produces effective learning outcomes and may be appealing to teachers and
students for a number of practical and/or ethical reasons. The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog[C] 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[C], 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 [less than or equal to] 0.001). Delayed posttest scores indicated there were no effects for treatment found. In the area of affect, survey results were fairly even between the two groups. Students did not show superior retention using V-Frog[C]. However, it should be noted that with no additional instructional cost, students could repeat the virtual dissection to improve retention. The results of the study indicated that the V-Frog[C] provides a viable alternative to physical dissection that produces effective learning outcomes and may be appealing to teachers and students for a number of practical and/or ethical reasons. (Contains 4 tables.) |
| Audience | High Schools Secondary Education |
| Author | Piotrowski, Phillip S Brophy, Keith Chugh, Kevin Lalley, James P Battaglia, Barbara |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: Lalley, James P – sequence: 2 fullname: Piotrowski, Phillip S – sequence: 3 fullname: Battaglia, Barbara – sequence: 4 fullname: Brophy, Keith – sequence: 5 fullname: Chugh, Kevin |
| BackLink | http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ884418$$DView record in ERIC |
| BookMark | eNpNjN1KAzEUhINUsNa-gUJeILA5OfnZy7K2_lDQC_VGpOxmE43ubkpSL_r2bqmIA8MZ5jvMOZkMcXAnZMpFodhoOfmXz8g858_iIF0gqCmRC1rFflunkONAo6cvbJXi-2v1RneRPn7sc7B1Rw8dvQ45O7sLcbggp77uspv_3hl5Xi2fqlu2fri5qxZr5jgXmhkPTQkCDZetVw0gOAmAWGqlWgT0ZasBtPfjuyyM52iNG7lWLZdWgpiRq-Pud1d_NaHfbFPo67TfcECh9Mgvj9ylYP_g8t4YRG7ED_xPSP0 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | ERI GA5 GIY GIZ GJA GJB |
| DatabaseName | ERIC ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery) ULAKBIM - Mühendislik ve Temel Bilimler Veri Tabani ULAKBIM - Yaşam Bilimleri Veri Tabani ULAKBIM - Turk Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabani ULAKBIM - Türk Tıp Veri Tabani |
| DatabaseTitle | ERIC |
| DatabaseTitleList | ERIC |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: ERI name: ERIC url: https://eric.ed.gov/ sourceTypes: Open Access Repository |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Zoology Environmental Sciences |
| DocumentTitleAlternate | Fiziksel kurbağa diseksiyona V-Frog© 'un bir kıyaslaması |
| EISSN | 1306-3065 |
| ERIC | EJ884418 |
| EndPage | 200 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 124367 EJ884418 |
| GroupedDBID | .GO 2WC ABIVO ABOPQ ACGFO ADDVE AEGXH AIAGR ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS C1A E3Z ERI FRP GA5 GJA GX1 OK1 P2P RDL RNS TR2 ADACO GIY GIZ GJB LI0 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-e1137-8f2b9234815df6b242e522449766d424f9d7227ffe11508f14c8e24476d15c523 |
| IEDL.DBID | ERI |
| ISSN | 1306-3065 |
| IngestDate | Tue Jan 05 18:08:02 EST 2021 Tue Sep 02 20:05:45 EDT 2025 |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | false |
| IsScholarly | false |
| Issue | 2 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-e1137-8f2b9234815df6b242e522449766d424f9d7227ffe11508f14c8e24476d15c523 |
| Notes | TSOS |
| OpenAccessLink | http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ884418 |
| PageCount | 12 |
| ParticipantIDs | ulakbim_primary_124367 eric_primary_EJ884418 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2010 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2010-01-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – year: 2010 text: 2010 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationTitle | International journal of environmental and science education |
| PublicationYear | 2010 |
| Publisher | International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication Elektronik Dergi |
| Publisher_xml | – name: International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication – name: Elektronik Dergi |
| References | 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. 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 V-Frog©: Virtual Reality Frog Dissection Software American Anti-Vivisection Society. (1996). Dissecting dissection. The AV Magazine, 105(3), 2-33. Velie, S., & Hall, T. (1999) Virtual frog dissection-reality check? Retrieved from Web site: http://www.ofsd.k12.wi.us/science/study.htm 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. Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives, & recommendations. Washington, DC : Humane Society Press. Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. American Biology Teacher, 59(1), 22-25. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. 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. 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. Buffalo, NY: Tactus Technologies. Cross, T. R., & Cross, V. E.( 2004). Scalpel or mouse. American Biology Teacher, 66 (6), 408-411. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66. 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. Madrazo, G.M. (2002) The debate over dissection: dissecting a classroom dilemma. Science Educator, 11(1), 41-45. Scientific Computing (2008). V-Frog©Simulates Dissection, Scientific Computing, 25(2), 11-11. Offner, S.P.R.I.Y. (1993). The importance of dissection in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 55(3), 147-149. PETA. (2004). How animals are collected and killed for dissection and the alternatives you can choose, The PETA Guide to Animals and the Dissection Industry. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, VA. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 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. 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. |
| References_xml | – reference: Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. – reference: 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. – reference: Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66. – reference: Madrazo, G.M. (2002) The debate over dissection: dissecting a classroom dilemma. Science Educator, 11(1), 41-45. – reference: Velie, S., & Hall, T. (1999) Virtual frog dissection-reality check? Retrieved from Web site: http://www.ofsd.k12.wi.us/science/study.htm – reference: Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. American Biology Teacher, 59(1), 22-25. – reference: American Anti-Vivisection Society. (1996). Dissecting dissection. The AV Magazine, 105(3), 2-33. – reference: 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. – reference: 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. – reference: 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. – reference: Balcombe, J. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives, & recommendations. Washington, DC : Humane Society Press. – reference: 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. – reference: PETA. (2004). How animals are collected and killed for dissection and the alternatives you can choose, The PETA Guide to Animals and the Dissection Industry. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, VA. – reference: Offner, S.P.R.I.Y. (1993). The importance of dissection in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 55(3), 147-149. – reference: Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. – reference: V-Frog©: Virtual Reality Frog Dissection Software – reference: 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. – reference: Cross, T. R., & Cross, V. E.( 2004). Scalpel or mouse. American Biology Teacher, 66 (6), 408-411. – reference: 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. – reference: 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 – reference: . Buffalo, NY: Tactus Technologies. – reference: Scientific Computing (2008). V-Frog©Simulates Dissection, Scientific Computing, 25(2), 11-11. |
| SSID | ssj0000070426 |
| Score | 1.5255896 |
| Snippet | The purpose of the present study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of virtual frog dissection using V-Frog[C] and physical frog dissection on... Bu çalışmanın amacı V-Frog© kullanılarak sanal kurbağa diseksiyonu ve fiziksel kurbağa direksiyonunun öğrenme, hatırlama ve duyuş üzerine etkililiğini... |
| SourceID | ulakbim eric |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository |
| StartPage | 189 |
| SubjectTerms | Anatomy Animals Attitude Measures Comparative Analysis Computer Assisted Instruction Computer Simulation Computer Software Ethics Instructional Effectiveness Laboratory Procedures Predictor Variables Pretests Posttests Retention (Psychology) Scores Secondary School Students Suburban Schools Zoology |
| Title | A Comparison of V-Frog[C] to Physical Frog Dissection |
| URI | http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ884418 http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/uvt/index.php?cwid=9&vtadi=TSOS&c=ebsco&c=summon&c=ebsco&ano=124367_ccbadcd1dec362b9644671e7ca7cec16 |
| Volume | 5 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVFQY databaseName: GFMER Free Medical Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1306-3065 dateEnd: 20191231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000070426 issn: 1306-3065 databaseCode: GX1 dateStart: 20060101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_journals/Free_medical.php providerName: Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1LS8NAEB5qoeBFtDZYX-zBayCb7CvHEltLQfFgJShSkn2IqInU9P-7m6SxF8HLHnaYyyzL983ufDMAVxnFKpNa-kpGzCeugDBngfKDODRcuQZS1GmHb-_YfEkWKU17sJ3i-N-KyoUQFsfFnlMwBjtJT0N6uUsM6kyrLuxitBGe1y5dXfNg85G952-fO3AyO4SDlgeiSXNwR9DTxRC86a_szBrbe_c9hMFTWT9_HwOdoKQbHYhKgx792bp8fU5eUFWi-zbqyO2ha_fXXusWRrCcTR-Sud-OPvA1xpHFDRPmlnq5TirKsNziqLZEiRBLHpgiITGx4mHIjdGO0QmDiRTa2jlTmEqbXHrQL8pCnwDSsYip5lLkUhODlZBOTasIp1kUCy7HMHIBWX013S1W20CNwWsj1JksF4gYP_3D4Qz2m6919z5xDv1qvdEXFrGr_LI-ILvepPgHIEiR8Q |
| linkProvider | ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+Comparison+of+V-Frog%5BC%5D+to+Physical+Frog+Dissection&rft.jtitle=International+journal+of+environmental+and+science+education&rft.au=Lalley%2C+James+P&rft.au=Piotrowski%2C+Phillip+S&rft.au=Battaglia%2C+Barbara&rft.au=Brophy%2C+Keith&rft.date=2010&rft.pub=International+Consortium+for+the+Advancement+of+Academic+Publication&rft.issn=1306-3065&rft.eissn=1306-3065&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=189&rft.externalDocID=EJ884418 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1306-3065&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1306-3065&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1306-3065&client=summon |