|
KSN
Volume 36
Number 3
February 1990
(Reprint of 1991 issue)
ISSN: 0022-877X
ABOUT
THIS ISSUE
- about
KSN
- about
the author
IN THIS ISSUE
- introduction
- "arguments" voiced by opponents
of dissection
- will
you have a 'Jenifer'?
- general strategies
- guidelines for good dissections
- the "hammer test"
- wherein lies "meaning"?
- sensory scale
- developing students' powers of observation
- vivisection
- shortcomings of "alternatives"
- palpation
- the modern muscle misconception -
a case for reality
- the text and the lab
- lysenko - the case against abstractions
- student blood labs
- what is wrong with the NABT
polcy on dissection?
- consequences of eliminating the real
experience base
- summary
- further reading
- read this - it concerns your future
This
page was last modified:
November 8, 2003 3:29 PM
Originally posted:
March 19, 2003
|
|
Dissection
by
John Richard Schrock
The
loss of dissection, vivisection, and experimentation from
public school science classes may pose a more serious
threat to the intellectual and physical health of the
human population than recent challenges to animal use
in biomedical research. While the plight of accident and
disease victims should provide an effective defense of
animal research for vaccines and cures, the absolute need
for examination of real organisms in the classroom and
in other science education settings is not self-evident.
Indeed, a shallow and naive understanding of the learning
process is used to purvey videotapes, models, computer
simulations, and stuffed animals as equivalent or superior
to real laboratory experiences. The function of this issue
of the Kansas School Naturalist is to clarify how
the examination of real material is essential to all students'
science literacy, and to help biology teachers “hang tough.”
Note:
“Dissection” is pronounced dis-séction, not dýe-section.
Next
Section:
- "arguments" voiced by opponents
of dissection
|
