ESU / Liberal Arts & Sciences / Biology /

home
page
Index of Issues  |   Issues in Other Languages   |   Requests  |   Staff

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 3:30 PM

Originally posted:
March 19, 2003


 

Dissection
by John Richard Schrock


DEVELOPING STUDENTS' POWERS OF OBSERVATION

A student who has a rich supply of real experiences is easy to teach; a teacher's words are more meaningful and explanations trigger memories and unanswered questions: "Aha, so that is why . . . ."Once a student builds this additional understanding, the student in turn pays closer attention to additional related experiences--actually "sees more." This is why an athlete pays closer attention when you explain muscles or why a farm kid lingers longer in front of a museum display of a hawk. At one time, our school children were experience-rich (about the natural world) and we provided the information that made it all come together. Today we must provide both the information and the experience base to make it meaningful.

Beyond the senses that frame our experiences are three properties of outside experiences that are relied upon to develop an accurate mental map of the world using a scientific "attitude."

INTERACTION--The old teaching machines and their modern computer counterparts claim to be "interactive" based on one property: they provide a different response to the varied student input at the keyboard. But interacting with a real "liver" does not feel or taste or smell or sound like a keyboard and only partly resembles the visual image presented. If there were true interaction, we could fully teach students to drive or swim at a computer terminal. Obviously the bumps of the road, the jerks of the steering wheel, and the buoyancy of the water are essential interactive experiences to driving and swimming.

TEST TRUTHFULNESS--Once we reach out to poke and prod (interact with) the real world, we watch carefully for what happens. We get much additional information about our world this way. But the back of a photo doesn't show you the other side of the liver. And the plastic model does not have live cell structure. But the dissected animal does "test true:" it shows the other side, the microstructures, and anything else you want to ask of it well beyond what the teacher or textbook author ever anticipated. There is nothing more misleading than a fruit fly computer "lab" that gives exact 3:1 offspring from a hybrid cross. Computer "dissections" are also false in their "perfection." A small percentage of humans (and animals) are right-left reversed. A larger number have four instead of two kidneys. Abnormalities are an added bonus in real labs.

REAL CONSEQUENCES--In the real world, if your knowledge is wrong, you suffer the consequences. If you make a driving error, you have a wreck.

If you open your mouth underwater, you cough and sputter. But this does not happen when you use all those abstract "alternatives." Students sheltered by an abstract curriculum not only remember less, they don't worry about the consequences of not knowing. Personally, I am glad that marginally competent drivers have to suffer the consequences of their accidents, for that is the only factor that keeps them on their side of the road. Likewise, our safety during epidemics of contagious diseases relies on a general minimal level of biological and medical understanding in the public at large. And we individually suffer (perhaps die) if we do not know a pain in the lower abdomen may be appendicitis and not a stomachache. Dissections and tours of slaughterhouses and hospitals add the vital dimension of "real consequences" that is desperately lacking in much of U.S. education today.


VIVISECTION involves dissecting or cutting into an animal while it is alive. For some reason, the term is not used when we cut living plant matter, as when we "dissect" flowers in biology labs (the tissues are kept alive by immersing stems in water), cut bouquets, harvest living crops, or even peel (living) potatoes. The major uses of vivisection are:
  1. basic research in biochemistry and physiology,
  2. applied research in the causes and treatments of animal and human diseases,
  3. testing of trial surgical techniques and drug effects,
  4. testing of toxic effects of commercial non-medical products,
  5. specialized medical education including surgical techniques, and
  6. general biology education for all students.



Next Section:
- shortcomings of "alternatives"
- palpation

  The Kansas School Naturalist |  Department of Biology
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences  |   Emporia State University

© Copyright 1977-2002 Terms of Use  |  Privacy