animal dissection essay

• April 21 Feature: Alisha Sankhe | Tino Creative Writers
• April 21 Cupertino Over the Years | Academics Full Article
• April 21 Cupertino Over the Years | Social Full Article
• April 21 Cupertino Over the Years | Athletics Full Article
• March 28 The 'Industry Plant' Dilemma
• March 28 FUHSD Earth Day Event
• March 28 Rock Climber: Nicholas Kann
• March 28 Declining EV Sales
• March 28 Winston Lee Berkeley Commit
• March 28 The Golden Spurs' Competition Season

The Prospector

The Ethicality of Animal Dissections

Natalie Chen and Sania Mehta November 9, 2021

Animal dissection is a common activity performed in high school biology classes across North America, typically involving pigs, frogs, mice, or worms. However, with over twelve million animals used for dissection each year, the widespread practice has gathered substantial opposition, especially towards the ethics of the issue. Growing concern over the ethicality of dissection, as well as developing technology allowing for cruelty-free alternatives has raised the question in many school districts across the country: should dissection be removed from school curriculums?

Animal dissections are an overall beneficial and productive use of dead animals, given that they are utilized and sourced under ethical conditions. The skills learned by students through performing dissections are valuable assets to them even after leaving an academic environment and are not easily replaced with alternative methods. 

For students at Cupertino High School, one of the most memorable parts of their freshman experience is the fetal pig dissection. The dissection allows students to establish concepts learned throughout the school year, such as genetics or population. A component of the dissection involves removing the heart of the fetal pig.  The hearts are then be measured, weighed, and compared with data from peers to answer critical questions related to variation and natural selection learned in earlier units. 

Said Andrew Goldenkranz, who teaches ninth-grade biology, “So we can establish everything we’ve learned about populations in either genetics or evolution, but you can only do that when you have a population of pigs that you’re working with.”

Moreover, the anatomical similarity of pigs compared to humans makes them the ideal specimen to learn about human anatomy. While only a minority of students choose to go into a healthcare profession, everyone will struggle with illness at some point in their lives. Through the study of fetal pigs, students can deepen their understanding of human health and physiology. 

The practice of procedures done in real life inspires students to pursue careers in the science and medical fields, which can help shift the perspectives of students who might not have considered themselves academically oriented.

Said Goldenkranz, “Students who sometimes don’t excel in other academic ways, like they’re not always good at the paper and pencil stuff, those students really step up and are super good around a hands-on activity like the pigs […] The multi-sensory nature of it is really worthwhile because it brings out strengths in the kids that we don’t usually see.”

The dissection also allows students to develop fine motor skills not typically taught in a classroom setting. Through handling scalpels, using chemicals and looking at samples through a microscope, students can practice hand-eye coordination and attention to detail, which are valuable skills that will stick with them even after leaving an academic environment.

Despite the benefits, many students choose not to participate in the dissection. Whether it is because of a conscientious objection to dissection or personal reasons regarding health or religion, the school allows students the right to opt-out of dissections, although it is uncommon. According to Goldenkranz, out of roughly 600 students across the department, four to five students choose not to participate. Students who opt out of dissections are given alternatives, such as being observers rather than dissectors. 

The most controversial aspect of animal dissection is the sources of the animals used. There is a stark moral distinction between growing animals for the sake of study and utilizing animals or animal parts that would otherwise have gone to waste; the former is inhumane and unethical, but the latter is a productive use of unwanted animals and can lead to scientific contributions. In the case of the fetal pig dissection, the pigs come from one of two supply houses located in Illinois and North Carolina, depending on the yearly pricing and availability. These supply houses have contracts with big farms in other parts of the country, who supply them with stillborn offspring from farmed pigs. An important distinction lies in the pig’s condition at birth; if the pigs were being harvested alive specifically for the sake of lab dissections, that would be strictly unethical and should be put out of practice. However, here at CHS, the pigs used are stillborn and pronounced dead at birth. Dissection is the most practical and productive use of their bodies instead of  being used in dog food or fertilizer.

Said Goldenkranz, “Assuming that these companies are telling us the truth, and these are companies that have been around for a long time, and I think they’re telling us the truth,  these are stillborn [pigs], then yeah, they’re already dead, so it’s not like we’re sacrificing them for this purpose.”

In the Physiology curriculum, individual organ dissections are done instead, including heart and brain dissections. These organs are a byproduct of factory farming animal production in the United States, where livestock organ waste is abundant. Dissecting these organs provides learning opportunities by utilizing unwanted animal parts.

Interestingly, In the Fremont Union High School District, ethics are not a significant factor in dissection in the biology curriculum. According to Goldenkranz, the topic has not yet been brought up among the science departments. However, in other districts, some schools are turning to alternatives to animal dissection, albeit more due to a lack of time and resources than moral concerns.

Said Goldenkranz, “Depending on the lab facilities and resources that a school has, you know, our most precious resource is always time. So we want to make sure that if we’re going to dedicate time to that part of the unit that we’re getting out of it what we want.”

Opposition to classroom dissections has brought up debates about substitute methods. The rapidly advancing technology industry has created numerous alternatives to animal dissection over the past few decades. Virtual simulations, 3D anatomy models and dissection videos are all perfectly valid means for students to learn the content of anatomy. However, these alternatives lack hands-on components, which can deprive students of valuable expertise.

“The skill of asking questions, of understanding the model, of constructing explanations, that’s harder to do in simulation[s], so doing it in real life gives us some real advantages,” said Goldenkranz.

Furthermore, students who have performed the fetal pig dissection report overall positive takeaways from the experience.

Said Viva Parmar, a senior at CHS, “It has really given me more hands-on experience with science. Ever since I performed my first dissection, I’ve been really interested in biology and I am interested in pursuing it as a future career option.” 

Given their numerous academic benefits for students, animal dissections under ethical circumstances are a worthwhile use of unwanted animal parts and should remain in biology curricula across North America.

While the primary aim of dissection is to give students hands-on experience with animal anatomy, scholars inquire how students internalize the practice – that is, what attitudes and values may be transferred through it. Dissection can promote a decreased sensitivity toward animal life and individual or ethical discomfort. (Barr, G., & Herzog, H. (2000). Fetal pig: The High School Dissection Experience. Society & Animals, 8(1), 6.) This can desensitize students to animal testing. Teachers from the study have observed many middle school students perform the concerning act of “recreational mutilation.” This promotes animal persecution and human negligence.

In addition to the animals mutilated in dissection, an immeasurable number of live mice, rabbits, rats, turtles, and other animals are tortured and killed in crude university-level biology and psychology demonstrations. Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals are daily tasks for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts that occur during animal testing were performed outside laboratories, they would be considered felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with minimal or no protection.

With millions of animals’ lives on the line, purchasing animals for dissection is an economically significant business. Through investigations into biological supply companies – which sell animal bodies and parts – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has uncovered acts of cruelty to animals, including the drowning of rabbits and the embalming of cats while they were still living. The unethical supply of animals sold in the booming industry reduces local populations, generates an imbalance in the ecosystem and decreases biodiversity.

Moreover, many students dislike performing dissections and may even be traumatized by them. According to Cutting Edge Controversy: The Politics of Animal Dissection and Responses to Student Objection by Jan Oakley, in a standard class, 3-5% of students verbally oppose dissection, and a higher number of students silently condemn it. 

Due to this, dissecting real animals is unnecessary as synthetic alternatives – such as online virtual dissections – are readily available. These simulations are more cost-effective than the use of real animals. Using alternatives, each body system can be studied and virtually dissected as many times as needed until students are confident with the material, unlike animal dissection, in which each system is uprooted, and the specimen is discarded when the lesson is finished. PETA found that many students find these alternatives effective substitutes. A study published in The American Biology Teacher concluded that one-third of biology students in a data set of 500 preferred to utilize alternatives over animal specimens. 

Today, the high school biology curriculum weaves together genetics, evolution, and the relationship of cells to explain environmental symbiosis. Classes no longer leap from photosynthesis to the skeletal system but establish a biotechnology and engineering system foundation. Simulation-based education more accurately reflects what students will encounter when they get to medical school as all U.S. medical schools have abandoned the usage of animals in their standard curriculum. Likewise, the College Board does not require it for AP Biology, the International Baccalaureate for IB Biology or the Next Generation Science Standards. 

In order to increase diverse participation in STEM, cultural concerns regarding animal dissections must be acknowledged and addressed. Several cultures, including those of many Native American tribes, consider animal dissection taboo. Lori A. Alvord, the first female Navajo surgeon, said that her “ultimate challenge” in medical school involved human dissection: “Navajos do not touch the dead. Ever. It is one of the strongest rules in our culture” She realized later that she might have requested accommodation to watch rather than actively participate or to make use of computer simulations. However, at the time, she assumed she had no choice but to violate the taboo. A survey from the International Journal of Stem Education found that from 96 students, 50% of the respondents generally observe tribal taboos and 38% would choose not to pursue a science major if they suspected it would require them to violate an important tribal taboo. They discovered 67% would be more inclined to take science classes if the science curricula were more respectful of tribal taboos. 

Conclusion:

Scrutinizing the practice of animal dissection reveals many multi-faceted concerns. If well implemented, dissection may have several viable merits from an educational standpoint. However, when one considers the associated costs – animal suffering and death in the supply trade, disruption of wild animal populations, desensitization of animal suffering, and cultural taboos – a realization that a more nuanced perspective needs to be fostered. This perspective needs to acknowledge both ethical and cultural perspectives. Ending an animal’s life is not a decision that should be made lightly in the context of today’s science education. This practice necessitates critical reconsideration.

Power Outages in the Bay Area

Gifted Kid Syndrome

The Impact of Climate Change on Sports

The Push of Sex Work in Social Media

The Rise and Popularity of Doc Martens

Psychological Effects of TikTok

Destigmatization of Sex Education in Media

Editorial: Phone Usage

PRO/CON: Should Colleges Publicize Application Reviews?

How Old is “Too Old” for Trick Or Treating

Preserving the Freedom to Read

The Digitalization of Schoolwork

The Necessity of CAASPP

Supreme Court Overturning Student Loan Forgiveness

The Need for Cross-Department Communication Among Teachers

Arts & Leisure

‘Fast X’ Your Seatbelts: The Louis Leterrier-Directed Latest Franchise Installment Takes It One Step Closer To Form

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Animal Dissection in Schools Essay Example

Do you remember your animal dissection in school? Dissecting an animal in school might be the most memorable school experience for many students. The opportunity to cut open an animal is exciting for many people. Animal dissection should be required in all schools because it gives a hands-on experience and can inspire students to pursue a science career.

To begin, animal dissection should be required in schools because it gives a hands-on approach to learning. According to Edulab.com, “The hands-on approach of dissection allows students to see, touch and explore the various organs.” (The Importance of Dissection in Biology) Seeing organs and understanding how they work within a single animal may strengthen students' comprehension of biological systems. This follows with the students remembering what they had just learned. Plus, Molly St. Louis recorded that, “ 65% of the population learns by doing the activity, over other learning techniques.”(St. Louis) Doing the dissection hands-on allows students to take an interest in what they are doing. When seeing organisms, the students will think of what they did with the animal and bring that into their real-life experiences. This leads to students having a better understanding of how the body works.

Also, animal dissection should be required in schools because it can inspire students to pursue a career in science. According to nsta.com, “75% of students said dissection made them realize science was fun.” ( Top 3 Pros and Cons of Animal Dissection) Many students haven’t experienced dissection, so they don’t know if they are interested in science. Dissection grows the desire to learn more. According to Jerry Vannatta, “ I didn’t enjoy science when I was younger, but after my dissection, I started to get an interest in science. The interest grew into me wanting to become a surgeon.”(Vannatta) Many surgeons motivate teachers to do dissection in class. Students can grow and take an interest in what they can do in the future.

Although some critics may argue that dissection is unnecessary, and isn’t good for the environment, many students enjoy and learn from the experience. A study shows, “Dissection has an emotional impact on about half of the students. In general, students considered these experiences to be an important part of their future.”.(The effects of dissection-room experiences and related coping strategies among Hungarian medical students) Without this experience students may not be able to thrive in the future.

In conclusion, dissection gives a hands-on experience and can inspire students for the future. This is a memorable and instructive aspect of science. That proves dissection should be required in schools.

Related Samples

• NASA Artemis Program Essay Example
• The Effects of Poaching Essay Example
• The Positive and Negative Effects of Technology Essay Example
• Why Zoom Calls Are Ruining Education In 2021
• Surveillance Cameras In Public Places Essay Example
• Essay on My Dream Job: A Special FBI Agent
• Essay Sample on Block Scheduling
• Cell Phones Should Not be Banned Essay Example
• Personal Essay Example: My Writing Experience
• Analysis Of Learning: Your First Job By Dr. Robert Leannson

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, attitudes toward animal dissection and animal-free alternatives among high school biology teachers in switzerland.

• 1 Animalfree Research, Bern, Switzerland
• 2 Environmental Sciences and Humanities Institute, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
• 3 Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom

Animal dissection has been a traditional teaching tool in biology for centuries. However, harmful animal use in education has raised ethical and environmental concerns in the last decades and led to an ongoing debate about the role and importance of animal dissection in teaching across all education levels. To understand the current status of dissection in secondary education and the attitudes toward humane teaching alternatives among the educators, I conducted a survey–for the first time–among high school biology teachers in Switzerland. The specific aims of this study were (i) to explore the extent of animal or animal parts dissection in high school biology classes, (ii) to understand the attitudes and experiences of high school biology teachers toward dissection and animal-free alternatives, and (iii) to gain some insight into the circumstances hindering a wider uptake of alternatives to animal dissection in high school education. In total, 76 teachers participated in the online survey. The vast majority (97%) of the participants reported using animal dissection in their classes. The responses also revealed that a large proportion of the teachers consider animal-free alternatives inferior teaching tools in comparison with dissection. As the obstacles to adopting alternatives were most often listed the lack of time to research other methods, high costs, and peer pressure. In conclusion, the wider uptake of humane teaching methods would require financial support as well as a shift in the attitudes of high school biology teachers.

Introduction

Harmful animal use in education has been a controversial issue, raising ethical and environmental concerns ( Hug, 2008 ) as well as concerns about the potential psychological impact on students ( Capaldo, 2004 ). The discussion so far has focused mostly on tertiary education ( Knight, 2007 , 2014 ; Zemanova, 2021 ; Zemanova and Knight, 2021 ). However, animals are not only being used in human or veterinary medicine training at universities but also as a part of general biology education in high schools. This tradition began in the early 1900s ( Kinzie et al., 1993 ) and is still present in many countries, despite the many available animal-free alternatives ( Balcombe, 2001 ) and legislation requiring replacement of animal use for scientific purposes–including teaching and training–whenever possible (e.g., the EU Directive 2010/63 or the Swiss Animal Welfare Act).

Humane alternatives to harmful animal use in education, such as videos, books, virtual dissections, or plastic 3D models, have been implemented since at least the 1960s ( de Villiers and Monk, 2005 ) and have been shown to produce equivalent or even superior learning outcomes ( Knight, 2007 ; Patronek and Rauch, 2007 ; Zemanova and Knight, 2021 ). Nevertheless, as the number of animals used for teaching and training purposes remains relatively high ( Zemanova et al., 2021 ), there is a chasm between the evidence of the efficacy of humane teaching methods and the continued implementation of harmful animal use in education.

Many factors can influence teachers’ decisions on whether to use animal dissection or humane alternatives, for example, their own education, previous experience with animal-free teaching methods, or school guidelines ( Oakley, 2012b ). Nevertheless, up to date, only a few studies investigated the attitudes and experiences of high school biology teachers toward animal dissection ( King et al., 2004 ; de Villiers and Sommerville, 2005 ; Oakley, 2012b ; Kavai et al., 2017 ).

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate, for the first time, the experiences and attitudes of the Swiss high school teachers toward the use of dissection and animal-free alternatives. Specifically, the survey intended to determine (1) the extent to which animals or animal parts are being used in biology classes in Swiss high schools, (2) whether Swiss high school teachers embrace and adopt animal-free alternatives, and (3) the attitudes of teachers toward dissection and humane teaching methods. The exploration of teachers’ attitudes toward dissection and alternatives can provide a clearer picture about the barriers and opportunities for making the shift toward more humane biology education ( Oakley, 2012b ).

Materials and Methods

Survey design.

An online survey was designed using the platform Typeforms 1 to obtain anonymous responses from high school biology teachers in Switzerland. Questions were written in German and organized into two parts: (1) a general part with questions about demographic data of the respondents, and (2) a scientific part with questions on the use of animal or animal organ dissection in their teaching practice. The survey contained a combination of open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions, allowing respondents to check one or more boxes from a list of possible answers. Attitudes were measured on a five-point Likert scale ( Likert, 1932 ). The first version of the survey was launched in August 2019 and an updated version with several additional questions was launched again in June 2021. Each time, the survey stayed open for responses for 12 weeks.

Survey Distribution and Administration

Email invitations to participate in the survey, together with a link to the anonymous online questionnaire, were distributed through emailing the administration offices of 162 high schools across 26 Swiss cantons, asking for forwarding the email to the biology teachers at their school. Schools were identified through the Swiss Rectors Association and their number represents approximately 10% of all secondary schools in Switzerland ( Federal Statistical Office, 2022 ). Respondents were also recruited through an announcement on social media and through contacting the organizations Teachers Switzerland, Association of Swiss Science Teachers, and Association of Swiss Gymnasium Teachers. Consequently, it was not possible to control how many invitation emails reached potential respondents and to calculate the response rate.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including bar plots and a frequency table, were used to summarize the responses. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to assess any potential influence of the demographic characteristics (age, gender) on the attitudes. Significance for all levels was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R 4.1.3 ( R Core Team, 2022 ) integrated in RStudio 2022.02.1 ( Rstudio Team, 2022 ).

Demographic Characteristics

A total of 76 teachers, 22 in 2019 and 54 in 2021, completed the survey. Both genders were almost equally represented ( Figure 1A ), reflecting the average gender distribution among high-school teachers across Switzerland ( Federal Statistical Office, 2021 ). One third of the respondents belonged to the age category 20–35 years old, 40% to the age bracket 36–45 years old, 22% to 46–55 years old, and 8% to 56–65 years old ( Figure 1B ). The majority of the respondents taught at a grammar school (gymnasium) and worked in the primarily German-speaking cantons ( Figures 1C,D ).

Figure 1. (A) Gender of the respondents participating in the survey. (B) Age of the respondents participating in the survey. (C) Type of school the respondents teach in. (D) Swiss canton the respondents teach in.

Prevalence of Dissection, Species Used, and Availability of Animal-Free Alternatives

Almost all of the respondents (91%) performed dissection of animals or animal parts during their own education, of which only a minority (4%) reported negative experiences associated with dissection ( Figure 2A ). The majority (94%) also stated that they can decide whether to include dissection in their teaching ( Figure 2B ). Out of 76 teachers, only two do not use dissection in their science classes (for ethical reasons; Figure 2C ). Over one third of the teachers participating in the survey start including dissection in biology classes in grade 7 ( Figure 2D ), which in the Swiss educational system corresponds to the age group of 12- or 13-year olds.

Figure 2. (A) Experience with dissection in respondents’ own education. (B) Extent to which the respondents can decide whether to include dissection in their teaching. (C) Use of animal dissection in biology classes. (D) School grade in which the respondents first include dissection in their teaching.

Most commonly used in dissection classes are animal organs, such as a heart or an eye, fish, insects, earthworms, and squids ( Figure 3A ). The teachers usually get this material from the butcher, at pet stores, or they collect animals in nature ( Figure 3B ). According to the teachers, the most important thing that students can learn from dissection is anatomy, 3D experience, recognition of the complexity of reality, or ethics, and respect toward animals ( Figure 3C ).

Figure 3. (A) Type of animals used in dissection classes. (B) Source of animals used in dissection classes. (C) The most important learning outcome of dissection exercise.

The teachers actively allow their students to opt out, despite the teachers’ limited experience with alternatives that they could provide to their students ( Figures 4A,B ). The teachers stated that only a minority of students–regardless of their gender–chooses not to participate in dissection ( Figures 4C,D ). As the reasons of students for not wanting to participate were listed most often nausea or disgust, strong respect for animals, and religion or worldview ( Figure 5A ). If a student decides not to participate in dissection, the most frequently offered alternative is the observation of other students performing dissection, followed by videos or photos. Some teachers also use virtual dissection as an alternative ( Figure 5B ).

Figure 4. (A) Familiarity of the respondents with the available animal-free alternatives. (B) Proportion of the respondents giving their students actively the opportunity to opt out of dissection. (C) Estimated proportion of students opting out of dissection. (D) Gender distribution among students refusing to participate in dissection.

Figure 5. (A) Reasons of students for not participating in dissection. (B) Alternatives provided by the respondents to students not wanting to participate in dissection.

The respondents were also asked what they perceived as the barriers to implementing animal-free alternatives. The majority of the respondents do not find animal-free alternatives as good for education as the use of real animals ( Figure 6A and Table 1 ). The teachers also reported having little time to research appropriate alternative teaching methods and that alternatives are too expensive ( Figure 6A ). Consequently, what would teachers need to make the shift away from using animals are high-quality alternatives, more time for the preparation of classes with alternative methods, and a higher budget ( Figure 6B ).

Figure 6. (A) Perceived barriers to implementing animal-free alternatives instead of animal dissection. (B) Needs of the respondents that would have to be met in order to include animal-free alternatives in their teaching practice.

Table 1. Percentage of teachers who agreed or disagreed with the following statements regarding the use of dissection and alternatives.

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Animal Dissection and Animal-Free Alternatives

The majority of the teachers (83%) participating in the survey agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that dissection is a valuable part of teaching biology in schools (83%; Table 1 ) and that dissection interests their students (83%; Table 1 ). More than a half of the teachers are aware of the available animal-free alternatives, but 70% disagreed with the statement that alternatives are just as good as animals or animal parts for teaching biology ( Table 1 ). While 52% of the teachers would be willing to use an alternative in their teaching, 46% stated that it is not easy to do so ( Table 1 ). Lastly, more than half of the teachers disagreed with the statement that cantons should specify that teachers must inform students of their right to opt out of dissection ( Table 1 ). There was no statistically significant influence of the age on the attitude toward animal dissection and alternatives. Only two statements elicited different responses between genders: women expressed concern about what dissection might be teaching the value of animal life more frequently than men (statement nr. 5 in Table 1 ; p = 0.019) and were more willing to use animal-free alternatives instead of animals in their teaching (statement nr. 9 in Table 1 ; p = 0.028).

Prevalence of Animal Dissection at Swiss High Schools

Although in the literature Switzerland has been repeatedly listed as one of the five countries–together with Argentina, Israel, Netherlands, and Slovakia–that prohibits dissection below the university level ( Waltzman, 1999 ; Balcombe, 2000 ; Oakley, 2012b ; Sathyanarayana, 2013 ; Osenkowski et al., 2015 ), this survey showed that dissection of animals or animal parts at Swiss high schools remains prevalent. Out of 76 teachers participating in the survey, only two (i.e., 3%) do not use animal dissection in their teaching practice ( Figure 2C ).

These results are analogous to findings described from other countries. In King et al. (2004) the authors reported that out of 494 American teachers participating in their survey, 79% used dissection in their classes. A more recent study from the United States by Osenkowski et al. (2015) described similar results: out of 1,178 teachers, 84% reported using dissection in biology education. The survey by de Villiers and Sommerville (2005) of 242 prospective biology teachers at a South African university found that 71% would expect their students to dissect animals in their classroom.

Type and Source of Animals Used in Dissection

In the survey, teachers reported that animal organs, fish, and insects are used most frequently in dissection ( Figure 3A ). At American high schools, frogs, fetal pigs, and earthworms are the most common material ( King et al., 2004 ; Osenkowski et al., 2015 ). In the United States, it has been estimated that 99% of animals used in biology classes for dissection are caught in the wild ( Environmental Magazine, 2004 ), which might mean that the size of the local population might severely decline over time, and potentially lead to an imbalance within the ecosystem. In contrast, Swiss teachers usually get the dissection material from the butcher, animal pet stores, and only 9% of the respondents stated that they also catch animals in nature ( Figure 3B ).

Pedagogical Value of Animal Dissection

The teachers participating in the survey were asked what, in their opinion, dissection teaches. Among the primary goals for the dissection exercise were stated learning anatomy, having the 3D experience, and recognition of the complexity of reality ( Figure 3C ). Similar responses were reported also from previous studies ( Kavai et al., 2017 ). The American Psychological Association states that animal dissection “engenders creativity, original thought, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills” ( American Psychological Association, 2017 ). Oakley (2012b) reported that some teachers are convinced that the use of animals in education might in fact teach students about the ethics of using animals in research. Indeed, several teachers in my study mentioned ethics, responsible action, respect for animals, and fascination for life as the educational outcomes ( Figure 3C ).

However, it has been argued that dissection can encourage a decreased sensitivity toward animal life. Solot and Arluke (1997) observed sixth-grade students during fetal pig dissection. They found that many students described themselves as becoming “immune” or “adapted” to the situation, i.e., appearing hardened by the activity as the dissection progressed. Sabloff (2001) postulated that through dissection, animals become positioned as “artifacts,” meaning that they are considered (1) made for human use, (2) not sentient, (3) discardable, and (4) excluded from the moral community. And Sapontzis (1995) suggested that dissection teaches students that an animal can be killed for “trivial” purposes such as curiosity or tradition.

Furthermore, over the last 100 years, the focus of biology has shifted from anatomy to cellular level and genetics ( Oakley, 2009 ). In contrast, the practice of dissection in high schools is almost 100 years old and it is questionable whether it remains a valid representation of contemporary biology ( Hart et al., 2008 ; Oakley, 2009 ). Hug (2005) suggests that dissection might have become a ritual of science carried out without critical evaluation of its usefulness. Only a part of high school students would eventually enroll in university courses that relate to the experience of dissection, e.g., veterinary medicine, for the majority of students the dissection experience will have no relevance for their future career ( Orlans, 1993 ). In addition, there have been contradicting opinions voiced about whether dissection encourages or discourages students to eventually pursue a career in science. Several studies reported that dissection can and does turn some students from life sciences ( Balcombe, 2000 ; Bishop and Nolen, 2001 ).

Proportion of Students Opting Out of Animal Dissection

While the majority of the teachers participating in the survey actively allow their students to opt out of dissection, 7% of the teachers do not ( Figure 4B ). According to the teachers’ statements, only a minority of students opt out of dissection practice ( Figure 4C ). Previous studies have estimated that in a typical class, 3–5% of the students will openly object to dissection ( Balcombe, 2000 ; Hart et al., 2008 ; Spernjak and Sorgo, 2017 ).

Balcombe (1997) stated that “perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of the animal dissection issue is the number of students who openly object to the practice.” Students may not voice their preference due to fear of embarrassment in front of their peers, fear of a failing grade, or fear of challenging the teacher’s authority ( Balcombe, 2000 ). Consequently, it is assumed that only a minority of the students objecting to dissection expresses their concerns and opinions openly. This was reported also in the study by Oakley (2012a) , which showed that the actual proportion of students harboring objections to dissection is higher than the proportion that voiced their opinion.

Whereas some authors claim that using dissection provides high school students with an “exciting” education experience ( Barr and Herzog, 2000 ), it is important to note that dissection may not be enjoyable for every student. There have been published several studies investigating the attitudes of high school students toward dissection. For instance, the study carried out by Stanisstreet et al. (1993) found that 48% of 420 students from three different secondary schools in the United Kingdom considered the dissection of animals for teaching purposes to be wrong. Another study of 85 students aged 15–16 reported that over a third of the respondents felt that dissection is disrespectful to the animal ( Doster et al., 1997 ). A retrospective survey of 191 undergraduate students reported that 27% of them experienced negative emotional reactions to dissection in high school ( Bowd, 1993 ).

Randler et al. (2016a) used a dissection video clip shown before the dissection of a fish to reduce anxiety among students. In another study, Randler et al. (2016b) employed humor to reduce anxiety and disgust. Nevertheless, such strategies should not be encouraged as seeing their classmates joke during dissection can be very uncomfortable for other students ( Tolbert, 2019 ). Since this study was limited to surveying the experience and attitudes of teachers, further research elucidating the Swiss students’ perspective on dissection is warranted.

Teachers’ Experience With and Attitudes Toward Animal-Free Alternatives

Animal dissection practice seems to be deeply ingrained in the Swiss educational system. The majority of teachers were taught through dissection ( Figure 2A ) and continue to demonstrate the biological concepts in this “traditional” way ( Figures 2B–D ). This prevalence of dissection can be attributed to strong opinions about the efficacy and usefulness of animal-free alternatives exposed in the responses. The very slight gender difference in attitudes is consistent with previous studies, showing that women express concern for animal welfare and suffering more frequently and to a greater extent than men ( Herzog, 2007 ; Phillips et al., 2011 ; Zemanova, 2021 ).

Similarly to previous studies ( Oakley, 2012b ), my survey revealed that teachers continue to perceive dissection as the best way for students to learn biology ( Figure 6A and Table 1 ). While the majority of teachers responding to the survey found that alternatives are not as good material for learning as animal dissection, alternatives have been shown to have equivalent or higher efficacy in providing the intended learning outcomes than harmful animal use ( Zemanova and Knight, 2021 ). Humane teaching methods offer also other benefits. They are often less expensive, require less preparation and cleaning time, and allow students to work at their own pace and repeat the task as many times as needed ( Oakley, 2012b ; Osenkowski et al., 2015 ).

For instance, virtual dissections allow the study of inner anatomy by virtual manipulation, while providing substantial advantages for schools: repeatability, immediate feedback, no health risks, etc. ( Havlíčková et al., 2018 ). The comparison of virtual frog dissection and physical frog dissection among high school students showed equivalent learning outcomes, but virtual dissection additionally allows for repetition of the exercise at no additional instructional cost to increase retention ( Lalley et al., 2010 ). Similar studies using a computer-based rat dissection ( Predavec, 2001 ) or a virtual fetal pig dissection ( Maloney, 2005 ) reported even better learning outcomes when using these alternative methods, possibly due to the opportunity to observe all structures clearly and due to the time flexibility of using computer-based learning.

Legal and Ethical Aspects of Animal Dissection

The 3Rs principles of responsible animal use were described in 1959, encouraging the Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animals used for scientific purposes, including education and training ( Russell and Burch, 1959 ). Since then, the 3Rs principles have been implemented in many legislations worldwide and promoted by various societies. In Switzerland, the 3Rs principles are anchored in the Animal Welfare Act (2005), which requires that experiments (including the use in teaching and training) on vertebrate animals, cephalopods, and decapods are only carried out if there is no suitable alternative method available. Despite these efforts and regulations, my study revealed that the use of animals in dissections already at the secondary education level remains widespread. The 3Rs principles are more rigorously implemented in the post-secondary educational context ( Hart et al., 2008 ) and the secondary education seems to have been overlooked. Therefore, it is imperative that more effort is invested in applying the 3Rs principles in high school education to counteract the persistent tradition of dissection.

Another aspect that needs to be considered is ethics. Without a doubt, dissection of animals or animal parts can enable students to learn important concepts in anatomy, as stated by the teachers ( Figure 3C and Table 1 ). However, does the pedagogical value outweigh the ethical implications of harm to the animal ( Hug, 2008 )? If viable alternatives exist, the killing of animals for teaching anatomy is unnecessary and therefore ethically questionable ( Oakley, 2009 ).

The majority (82%) of the respondents stated that they hold discussions on the ethics of dissection. In the survey conducted by Oakley (2012a) with both teachers and students, 86.3% of teachers reported conducting classroom discussions on the ethics of dissection, while only 28.9% of students confirmed this. Further studies surveying the students would be needed to elucidate whether teachers indeed hold ethical discussions with their students and if so, to what extent.

Barriers to Shifting Toward Animal-Free Alternatives

Through this survey, there were identified several barriers to shifting away from animal dissection to animal-free alternatives in secondary education: (1) lack of high-quality alternatives, (2) conviction that alternatives are not as good as dissection, (3) lack of time to prepare alternative methods, and (4) lack of funding ( Figure 6 and Table 1 ). To change the current prevalent status of animal dissection in Swiss high schools, these factors need to be targeted. For instance, the development of platforms where teachers could share their approaches to humane teaching might help save their time that would be needed for preparation of classes implementing alternatives ( Hart et al., 2007 ). To shift the opinions, pedagogical education as well as continuing education provided by teachers’ associations would be well-positioned to promote the use of humane teaching methods as well as to make teachers acquainted with available alternatives. Additionally, another strategy might be to switch from the currently implemented “opt out” practice for students who want to use alternatives to “opt in” for students who want to dissect ( Downie and Meadows, 1995 ; van der Valk et al., 1999 ).

Limitations of the Study

Some reservations might be raised about the results. First, as the respondents were self-selected, I might have received a skewed sample of teachers that were motivated to participate in the survey by their strong beliefs either in favor of or against the use of dissection in biology education. Second, since the questionnaire was available only in German, the response rate was highest among German-speaking cantons of Switzerland. Lastly, the number of participants might be considered low, even though comparable to other studies investigating the same topic ( Donaldson and Downie, 2007 ; Oakley, 2012b ; Kavai et al., 2017 ).

Animal dissection has been used as a teaching tool for centuries, either for demonstration of animal anatomy or for hands-on practice of technical skills. Because of the long tradition, it might be difficult to move away from this practice. Nevertheless, the ethical concerns surrounding the harmful animal use in teaching and training require that education practice evolves to embrace humane teaching alternatives. The teachers participating in this survey believed that dissection offers a learning experience and learning outcomes that could not be matched by animal-free alternatives. This is, however, in stark contrast to the empirical evidence showing that humane teaching methods are equivalent or even superior teaching tools than harmful animal use. More widespread dissemination of information about available alternatives and their efficacy might therefore help teachers to adopt non-harmful practices and minimize the number of animals used in education.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Silvia Frey for support and all participants for their time and valuable contribution.

• ^ https://www.typeform.com/

American Psychological Association (2017). Resolution Reaffirming Support for Research and Teaching with Nonhuman Animals. Available online at: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/use-animals (accessed on Sep 24, 2021).

Google Scholar

Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. Am. Biol. Teacher 59, 22–25. doi: 10.1163/156853000511087

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balcombe, J. (2000). The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: The Humane Society Press.

Balcombe, J. (2001). Dissection: the scientific case for alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 4, 117–126. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0402_3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barr, G., and Herzog, H. (2000). Fetal pig: the high school dissection experience. Soc. Anim. 8, 53–69. doi: 10.1163/156853000x00039

Bishop, L. J., and Nolen, A. L. (2001). Animals in research and education: ethical issues. Kennedy Instit. Ethics J. 11, 91–112. doi: 10.1353/ken.2001.0006

Bowd, A. D. (1993). Dissection as an instructional technique in secondary science: choice and alternatives. Soc. Anim. 1, 83–89. doi: 10.1163/156853093x00163

Capaldo, T. (2004). The psychological effects on students of using animals in ways that they see as ethically, morally or religiously wrong. ATLA 32, 525–531. doi: 10.1177/026119290403201s85

de Villiers, R., and Monk, M. (2005). The first cut is the deepest: reflections on the state of animal dissection in biology education. J. Curric. Stud. 37, 583–600. doi: 10.1080/00220270500041523

de Villiers, R., and Sommerville, J. (2005). Prospective biology teachers’ attitudes toward animal dissection: implications and recommendations for the teaching of biology. S. Afr. J. Educ. 25, 247–252. doi: 10.10520/EJC32056

Donaldson, L., and Downie, R. (2007). Attitudes to the uses of animals in higher education: has anything changed? Biosci. Educ. 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3108/beej.10.6

Doster, E. C., Jackson, D. F., Oliver, J. S., Crockett, D. K., and Emory, A. L. (1997). “Values, dissection, and school science: an inquiry into students’ construction of meaning,” in Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science , ed. P. A. Rubba (Athens: University of Georgia), 222–246.

Downie, R., and Meadows, J. (1995). Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology. J. Biol. Educ. 29, 187–194. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1995.9655444

Environmental Magazine (2004). Harvest of Shame. Available online at: https://emagazine.com/harvest-of-shame/ (accessed on Sep 25, 2021).

Federal Statistical Office (2021). Lehrkräfte. Available online at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/wirtschaftliche-soziale-situation-bevoelkerung/gleichstellung-frau-mann/bildung/lehrkraefte.html (accessed on Mar 14, 2022).

Federal Statistical Office (2022). Schulen nach Bildungsstufe 2020/2021. Available online at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bildung-wissenschaft/bildungsinstitutionen/schulen.html (accessed on Mar 15, 2022).

Hart, L. A., Wood, M. W., and Hart, B. L. (2008). Why Dissection? Animal Use in Education. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Hart, L. A., Wood, M. W., and Weng, H.-Y. (2007). Three barriers obstructing mainstreaming alternatives in K-12 education. ALTEX 23, 38–41.

Havlíčková, V., Šorgo, A., and Bílek, M. (2018). Can virtual dissection replace traditional hands-on dissection in school biology laboratory work? EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14, 1415–1429. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/83679

Herzog, H. A. (2007). Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoos 20, 7–21. doi: 10.2752/089279307780216687

Hug, B. (2005). Dissection reconsidered: a reaction to de Villiers and Monk’s ‘The first cut is the deepest’. J. Curric. Stud. 37, 601–606. doi: 10.1080/00220270500061182

Hug, B. (2008). Re-examining the practice of dissection: what does it teach? J. Curric. Stud. 40, 91–105. doi: 10.1080/00220270701484746

Kavai, P., De Villiers, R., and Fraser, W. (2017). Teachers’ and learners’ inclinations towards animal organ dissection and its use in problem-solving. Int. J. Instruct. 10, 39–54. doi: 10.12973/iji.2017.1023a

King, L. A., Ross, C. L., Stephens, M. L., and Rowan, A. N. (2004). Biology teachers’ attitudes to dissection and alternatives. ATLA 32, 475–484. doi: 10.1177/026119290403201s76

Kinzie, M. B., Strauss, R., and Foss, J. (1993). The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school biology students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 989–1000. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300813

Knight, A. (2007). The effectiveness of humane teaching methods in veterinary education. ALTEX 24, 91–109. doi: 10.14573/altex.2007.2.91

Knight, A. (2014). Conscientious objection to harmful animal use within veterinary and other biomedical education. Animals 4, 16–34. doi: 10.3390/ani4010016

Lalley, J. P., Piotrowski, P. S., Battaglia, B., Brophy, K., and Chugh, K. (2010). A comparison of V-Frog© to physical frog dissection. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 5, 189–200.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55.

Maloney, R. S. (2005). Exploring virtual fetal pig dissection as a learning tool for female high school biology students. Educ. Res. Eval. 11, 591–603. doi: 10.1080/13803610500264823

Oakley, J. (2009). Under the knife: animal dissection as a contested school science activity. J. Activ. Sci. Technol. Educ. 1, 59–67.

Oakley, J. (2012b). Science teachers and the dissection debate: perspectives on animal dissection and alternatives. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 7, 253–267. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2016.1254358

Oakley, J. (2012a). Dissection and choice in the science classroom: student experiences, teacher responses, and a critical analysis of the right to refuse. J. Teach. Learn. 8, 15–29. doi: 10.22329/jtl.v8i2.3349

Orlans, F. B. (1993). In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Osenkowski, P., Green, C., Tjaden, A., and Cunniff, P. (2015). Evaluation of educator & student use of & attitudes toward dissection & dissection alternatives. Am. Biol. Teacher 77, 340–346. doi: 10.1525/abt.2015.77.5.4

Patronek, G. J., and Rauch, A. (2007). Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 230, 37–43. doi: 10.2460/javma.230.1.37

Phillips, C., Izmirli, S., Aldavood, J., Alonso, M., Choe, B., Hanlon, A., et al. (2011). An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals 1, 7–26. doi: 10.3390/ani1010007

Predavec, M. (2001). Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes. J. Biol. Educ. 35, 75–80. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2000.9655746

R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed on Mar 15, 2022).

Randler, C., Demirhan, E., Wust-Ackermann, P., and Desch, I. H. (2016a). Influence of a dissection video clip on anxiety, affect, and self-efficacy in educational dissection: a treatment study. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15:ar1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-07-0144

Randler, C., Wüst-Ackermann, P., and Demirhan, E. (2016b). Humor reduces anxiety and disgust in anticipation of an educational dissection in teacher students. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 11, 421–432. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.329a

Rstudio Team (2022). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Available online at: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed Mar 15, 2022).

Russell, W. M. S., and Burch, R. L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.

Sabloff, A. (2001). Reordering the Natural World: Humans and Animals in the City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sapontzis, S. F. (1995). We should not allow dissection of animals. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 181–189. doi: 10.1007/bf02251882

Sathyanarayana, M. C. (2013). Need for alternatives for animals in education and the alternative resources. ALTEX Proc. 2, 77–81.

Solot, D., and Arluke, A. (1997). Learning the scientist’s role: animal dissection in middle school. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 26, 28–54. doi: 10.1177/089124197026001002

Spernjak, A., and Sorgo, A. (2017). Dissection of mammalian organs and opinions about it among lower and upper secondary school students. CEPS J. 7, 111–130. doi: 10.25656/01:12963

Stanisstreet, M., Spofforth, N., and Williams, T. (1993). Attitudes of children to the uses of animals. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 15, 411–425. doi: 10.1080/0950069930150405

Tolbert, S. (2019). “Queering dissection: “I wanted to bury its heart, at least”,” in Gender in Learning and Teaching: Feminist Dialogues Across International Boundaries , eds C. Taylor, C. Amade-Escote, and A. Abbas (London: Routledge).

van der Valk, J., Dewhurst, D., Hughes, I., Atkinson, J., Balcombe, J., Braun, H., et al. (1999). Alternatives to the use of animals in higher education - the report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 33. ATLA 27, 39–52. doi: 10.1177/026119299902700105

Waltzman, H. (1999). Dissection banned in Israeli schools. Nature 402:845. doi: 10.1038/47149

Zemanova, M. A. (2021). Making room for the 3Rs principles of animal use in ecology: potential issues identified through a survey. Eur. J. Ecol. 7, 18–39. doi: 10.17161/eurojecol.v7i2.14683

Zemanova, M. A., and Knight, A. (2021). The educational efficacy of humane teaching methods: a systematic review of the evidence. Animals 11:114. doi: 10.3390/ani11010114

Zemanova, M. A., Knight, A., and Lybæk, S. (2021). Educational use of animals in Europe indicates reluctance to implement alternatives. ALTEX 38, 490–506. doi: 10.14573/altex.2011111

Keywords : animal use, biology education, dissection, humane teaching, secondary education, teaching practice

Citation: Zemanova MA (2022) Attitudes Toward Animal Dissection and Animal-Free Alternatives Among High School Biology Teachers in Switzerland. Front. Educ. 7:892713. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.892713

Received: 09 March 2022; Accepted: 11 April 2022; Published: 04 May 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Zemanova. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Miriam A. Zemanova, [email protected]

Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: a Pedagogical Dilemma

This essay is about the ethical considerations surrounding animal dissection in education. It discusses the educational benefits of dissection, such as providing hands-on experience and fostering critical thinking skills. However, it also raises ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and the moral implications of using sentient beings for educational purposes. The essay explores alternative teaching methods and emphasizes the importance of integrating ethical education into the curriculum. By fostering empathy and ethical awareness, educators can navigate the ethical complexities of animal dissection while ensuring students receive a comprehensive education in the life sciences.

PapersOwl showcases more free essays that are examples of Dissection.

How it works

The utilization of animal dissection as a pedagogical tool has stirred a tempestuous debate within educational circles, igniting fervent discussions regarding its ethical ramifications. This essay embarks on an exploration of the intricate ethical tapestry woven around this controversial practice, delving into its educational significance, moral quandaries, and avenues for ethical evolution.

Advocates of animal dissection extol its irreplaceable role in fostering a profound comprehension of anatomical intricacies among students. By immersing themselves in the tactile exploration of real specimens, students cultivate an intimate familiarity with the complexities of biological structures, transcending the limitations of theoretical learning.

Moreover, the process instills invaluable skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving, enriching the educational landscape with experiential wisdom.

However, the ethical compass wavers amidst the utilization of animal subjects, evoking poignant reflections on the sanctity of life and the moral obligations inherent in educational practices. Critics contend that the utilization of sentient beings for instructional purposes represents a transgression against their intrinsic rights, invoking a moral imperative to safeguard their welfare and dignity. Additionally, the burgeoning availability of alternative methodologies, ranging from virtual simulations to synthetic anatomical models, engenders contemplation regarding the necessity of animal sacrifice for educational ends.

Moreover, the provenance of dissection specimens evokes ethical queries, especially concerning animals sourced from shelters or other euthanasia-related contexts. The confluence of consent, respect for the deceased, and societal perceptions of animal life amplifies the ethical resonance of such practices, warranting thoughtful introspection within educational frameworks.

In response to these ethical entanglements, educators are charting innovative pathways towards ethical evolution within pedagogical landscapes. The integration of virtual dissection software, augmented reality technologies, and ethically-sourced anatomical models heralds a paradigm shift towards compassionate and sustainable educational practices. These modalities not only assuage ethical concerns but also foster inclusive learning environments that accommodate diverse ethical perspectives.

Furthermore, the cultivation of ethical literacy within educational curricula emerges as an imperative imperative, equipping students with the ethical acumen to navigate the complex terrain of scientific inquiry with integrity and empathy. By nurturing critical reflection, ethical awareness, and compassionate engagement, educators nurture a generation of ethical stewards poised to navigate the ethical nuances of animal dissection and beyond.

In summation, the discourse surrounding animal dissection in education traverses a labyrinth of ethical deliberations, demanding nuanced contemplation and ethical evolution. While the practice holds pedagogical merit, its ethical implications mandate a conscientious examination of its moral compass. Through innovative alternatives, ethical integration, and compassionate pedagogy, educators can forge a path towards ethical enlightenment, fostering a harmonious coexistence between educational imperatives and ethical integrity.

Cite this page

Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma. (2024, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/

"Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma." PapersOwl.com , 1 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/ [Accessed: 25 Apr. 2024]

"Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma." PapersOwl.com, Mar 01, 2024. Accessed April 25, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/

"Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma," PapersOwl.com , 01-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/. [Accessed: 25-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethical Reflections on Animal Dissection: A Pedagogical Dilemma . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-reflections-on-animal-dissection-a-pedagogical-dilemma/ [Accessed: 25-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10244783

Dissection in biology education compared to alternative methods in terms of their influence on students’ emotional experience

Lisa-maria kaiser.

1 Faculty of Biology, Biology Didactics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Sabrina Polte

Tim kirchhoff.

2 BiProfessional, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Nadine Großmann

3 Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute for Biology Education, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Matthias Wilde

Associated data.

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because this study is part of an ongoing research project and qualification works in which further analysis are planned. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [email protected] .

Introduction

Dissecting animal organs is a method of biology teaching that offers a direct and authentic view into morphological structures and enables hands-on activity and multisensory experiences. However, the dissection process is often associated with certain (negative) emotions that might hinder successful learning. One such emotion that is particularly common during dissection is disgust. Experiencing disgust can negatively affect emotional experiences. Consequently, alternatives for dissection in biology lessons are being sought.

In this study, the method of dissection is compared with two common methods of teaching the anatomy of the mammalian eye: watching a video and working with an anatomical model. The focus of the comparison is on the influence on the following emotional qualities of experience: perceived disgust, perceived interest, well-being and boredom. Two hundred and eighteen students ( M age = 14.19, SD age = 1.02 years, 52% female) from secondary schools in Germany participated in a two-hour lesson on the anatomy of the mammalian eye using one of the three aforementioned teaching methods.

Our results show that perceived disgust was higher for the dissection group than in the ones that worked with a video or a model. We found that dissecting and watching a video led to a similar level of interest, well-being, and boredom. The anatomical model was perceived as less disgusting but more boring than the dissection. The detailed videos of a dissection seem to offer similar positive emotional experiences when compared to dissecting in class and may be an alternative approach when teachers have concerns about performing a real dissection.

1. Introduction

One of the main tasks of biology education is to enable students to deal with living beings and to gain a sophisticated insight into the structure and function of organisms and one’s own body ( Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2019 ). The understanding of the anatomy and morphology of living beings can be well illustrated by original objects, including not only living animals and plants but also original visual objects such as zoological specimens or parts of animals such as organs ( Kattmann, 2020 ). Both working with living animals and dissecting animal organs in biology lessons are strongly associated with emotions that can impact students’ learning ( Randler et al., 2013 ; Randler, 2021 ). Positive emotional experiences such as well-being and interest can have a positive effect on learning ( Gläser-Zikuda et al., 2005 ; Krapp, 2007 ; Hummel and Randler, 2012 ; Pekrun, 2014 ), while negative emotions such as boredom, disgust, or anxiety can have a negative effect on learning processes ( Randler et al., 2005 ; Randler, 2021 ).

Due to the nature of the subject, biology teachers and their students are probably more often confronted with the negative emotion of disgust than teachers of other subjects ( Gropengiesser and Gropengiesser, 1985 ; Randler et al., 2013 ; Randler, 2021 ). Especially when dissecting animal organs, students may experience strong feelings of disgust ( Holstermann et al., 2009 ; Randler et al., 2013 ). Studies have shown that perceived disgust during dissection can compromise other emotional and motivational qualities of experience such as students’ state of interest, perceived self-efficacy ( Holstermann et al., 2009 , 2012 ), and motivation ( Randler et al., 2013 ) and thus negatively affect learning. This is one reason why alternative methods to dissection should be examined with regard to their impact on students’ emotional experience and their relevance for biology teaching.

In this study, the method of dissection is compared with two common alternative methods of teaching the anatomy of the mammalian eye, namely watching a video and working with an anatomical model. The following emotional qualities of experience were focused on in the comparison: disgust, perceived interest, well-being, and boredom.

2.1. Dissection and working with original objects in biology classes

Dissecting animal organs is a teaching method that offers a direct and authentic view into morphological structures. As a hands-on activity, it enables both methodological learning and understanding the process of scientific inquiry ( Bowd, 1993 ). Thus, dissection is a way to offer students first-hand experiences called Primärerfahrungen in German ( Klingenberg, 2014 ; Kattmann, 2020 ) in biology classes. Primärerfahrungen entail that students have immediate contact with the learning object and can interact with it directly ( Klingenberg, 2014 ; Kattmann, 2020 ). The German term Primärerfahrungen must be distinguished from the term “primary experience” as defined by Dewey (1995) , which considers a holistic approach during one’s unreflected first contact with a learning object. Through immediate interaction with the original object, Primärerfahrungen can lead to higher interest in the learning materials ( Hummel and Randler, 2012 ; Klingenberg, 2014 ). Another characteristic of Primärerfahrungen is learning with multiple sensory and emotional perspectives ( Klingenberg, 2014 ). By contrast, Sekundärerfahrungen are characterized by greater distance and abstraction from the original and do not allow direct interaction with the original object ( Tunnicliffe and Ueckert, 2007 ). Sekundärerfahrungen can be provided in the form of replicas, videos, anatomical models, pictures, or texts.

Primärerfahrungen often allow students to also engage in hands-on activities, meaning learning through one’s own practical experience and active engagement with the learning object. When performing hands-on activities, students work on and investigate the natural object by using scientific instruments and methods ( Holstermann et al., 2010 ). In addition to acquiring subject-specific methodological skills, hands-on methods and Primärerfahrungen can promote students’ interest and motivation ( Hummel and Randler, 2010 ; Swarat et al., 2012 ; Wilde et al., 2012 ; Klingenberg, 2014 ). Furthermore, hands-on methods support the acquisition of scientific inquiry skills and scientific knowledge ( Caglak, 2017 ). Teachers value the more in-depth understanding of anatomy and function as well as the 3D experience combined with the haptic experience ( Donaldson and Downie, 2007 ; Zemanova, 2022 ; see also Primärerfahrungen ).

Despite these advantages, methodological alternatives to dissections in the classroom such as videos or models are also applied (i.e., more Sekundärerfahrungen ; see Strauss and Kinzie, 1991 ; Kinzie et al., 1993 ; de Villiers and Monk, 2005 ). One reason to do so is that a dissection is much more time-consuming to prepare and perform than using alternatives ( de Villiers and Monk, 2005 ). Moreover, ethical concerns play an important role in how dissections are handled. The killing of animals for school lessons and the dissection itself are viewed critically by many students ( Stanisstreet et al., 1993 ; Donaldson and Downie, 2007 ). However, it must be distinguished whether a whole animal is dissected that has been killed specifically for the teaching purposes or if single organs such as lungs or eyes are dissected, which are usually derived from slaughterhouse waste products ( Donaldson and Downie, 2007 ). When implementing such dissections, affective issues need to be considered (see Bowd, 1993 ). In a study by Zemanova (2022) , teachers stated that disgust was the main reason why students did not want to participate in dissection.

In summary, dissection is a teaching method ( Bowd, 1993 ), that might trigger both positive and negative emotional experiences ( Holstermann et al., 2009 , 2012 ). Disgust and further emotional qualities of experience are considered in the following section.

2.2. Emotional experiences in biology lessons

For students, everyday school life provides a variety of emotions that can influence their learning ( Schutz and DeCuir, 2002 ; Schutz et al., 2006 ). From a theoretical point of view, emotions are complex and multidimensional constructs ( Hascher, 2010 ). They consist of physiological, cognitive, expressive, and motivational components, and they also inherit an affective core. Affective experience can be classified as positive or negative valence ( Frenzel et al., 2020 ). The motivational influence of emotions lies in promoting positive experiences and avoiding negative states of mind ( Abele-Brem and Gendolla, 2000 ). Furthermore, emotions comprise a state and a trait condition ( Frenzel et al., 2020 ). However, in our study, we focus solely on the state condition, that is the emotional experience within the learning situation. From a neurobiology perspective, emotional experiences play a key role in terms of cognitive processing and learning. In brief, emotional experiences can be connected to higher levels of attention and enhanced memorizing ( Tyng et al., 2017 ). Learning situations might trigger intense positive or negative emotions in students ( Pekrun and Hofmann, 1999 ). Negative emotional experiences can lead students to try to avoid a learning situation, whereas positive ones can increase their motivation to learn ( Bindra, 1969 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 ). Randler (2021) applied the concept of learning emotions to the specific conditions of biology education. In this context, the emotion disgust has an outstanding relevance for biology teaching, especially when working with living/dead animals or dissecting organs (see, e.g., Holstermann et al., 2009 ; Randler et al., 2012a ). However, Holstermann et al. (2012) found that disgust during a dissection does not necessarily dominate the emotional experience and may co-occur with other (desirable) variables such as students’ interest. Therefore, students’ emotional experience during dissections and alternative methods should be viewed holistically in terms of different positive and negative qualities. According to Randler et al. (2011) perceived interest, well-being, and boredom are important learning emotions that should be considered in addition to disgust. In our study, this operationalization allows to exemplarily investigate positive emotional qualities of experience, that is students’ perceived interest and well-being, as well as complementary negative emotional qualities, such as disgust and boredom simultaneously. The following sections introduce these four emotional qualities of experience separately.

2.2.1. Disgust

Disgust is considered a negative emotion and is one of the most intense defensive feelings in humans ( Ekman and Friesen, 1975 ; Menninghaus, 1999 ). It is accompanied by a strong physical reaction which is characterized, for example, by turning away from the disgust-evoking object, an aversion to touch it, or by being repulsed up to the point of retching and vomiting ( Ekman and Friesen, 1975 ). Disgust is an emotion with a variety of potential triggers ( Tybur et al., 2009 ). Tybur et al. (2009) therefore categorize disgust into three different types: pathogenic disgust, sexual disgust, and moral disgust. Disgust for animals and for the organs of dead animals is assigned to pathogenic disgust ( Tybur et al., 2009 ; Prokop and Randler, 2017 ). Although these defensive feelings are natural protective responses ( Curtis et al., 2004 ; Oaten et al., 2009 ; Prokop et al., 2010 ), when students show exaggerated disgust, it can strongly influence biology lessons ( Gropengiesser and Gropengiesser, 1985 ). The emotion disgust can have a negative impact on students’ interest and intrinsic motivation ( Holstermann et al., 2009 ; Randler et al., 2013 ; Kaiser, et al., in press ) and, in turn, their learning ( Prokop and Fančovičová, 2017 ).

2.2.2. Interest

Currently, there are different approaches either conceptualizing interest as a motivational (see, e.g., the person-object-theory of interest; Krapp, 1999 , 2007 ) or an emotional construct (see, e.g., Gläser-Zikuda et al., 2005 ; Ainley and Ainley, 2011 ; for an overview see Renninger and Hidi, 2011 ). From a motivational point of view, interest is defined as a relationship between a person and an object ( Krapp, 1992 ). An interest-driven activity is characterized by a high perceived value of the object (value-related component), a positive emotional quality of experience during the activity (emotional component; Krapp, 1999 ), as well as the endeavor to learn more about the object (cognitive component; Prenzel, 1988 ). Moreover, interest is either an enduring motivational disposition (individual interest), or a psychological state that arises within a specific situation (situational interest; Krapp, 2002 ). Due to this specific psychological state of “being interested” and the positive experience described by the aforementioned components, interest also has an emotional core. Randler et al. (2011) and Gläser-Zikuda et al. (2005) consider interest to be a cognitive-emotional construct. This conceptualization focuses on the respective “appraisal process during the state of interest” in terms of its positive or negative valence (“affective experience”; Renninger and Hidi, 2011 , p. 171). In this study, we follow this view of interest as situation-specific emotional experience. Perceived interest might foster students’ willingness to engage in a situation and promotes sustainable learning ( Ainley and Ainley, 2011 ; Renninger and Hidi, 2011 ).

2.2.3. Well-being

There is no uniform definition of the state of subjective well-being. However, there is agreement that positive emotions such as enjoyment represent the core component of well-being ( Diener, 2000 ; Götz et al., 2004 ). It is insufficient that no negative emotions occur to experience well-being, but well-being includes the experience of positive emotions ( Frenzel et al., 2020 ). Some definitions focus on the affective dimension of well-being and conceptualize it as a balance of positive and negative emotions that leads to a state of life satisfaction as a positive disposition ( Diener and Larsen, 1993 ; Diener et al., 1999 ; Lucas, 2016 ). Accordingly, perceived well-being within a situation is not one emotion but a superordinate state of emotional experience that processes several emotions. In relation to school teaching, this means that experiencing enjoyment in class, for example, can lead to positive feelings and well-being. Studies have shown that well-being in biology classes not only depends on the teaching materials but also on the topic of the lesson ( Randler, 2021 ). Students’ perceived well-being in class is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of factors such as classroom climate and teacher support ( Clement, 2010 ). While interest here emphasizes more the cognitive dimension, well-being refers to the affective dimension of enjoyment during the lesson ( Randler et al., 2011 ). Thus, although interest and enjoyment often occur together, they represent complementary qualities of positive emotional experience ( Ainley and Ainley, 2011 ; Renninger and Hidi, 2011 ).

2.2.4. Boredom

In contrast to anger or disgust, boredom is usually more quietly expressed, and the teaching process is less disturbed ( Pekrun et al., 2010 ). Boredom is a relatively weak negative emotional state and is usually directly related to an activity ( Götz et al., 2007 ). Even though some student-centered teaching methods such as experimentation or learning at workstations have been shown to counteract boredom, these measures alone are not enough to avoid the occurrence of this emotion ( Schaal and Bogner, 2005 ). Boredom is characterized as a lack of value in the learning situation and the perception that time slowly passes ( Pekrun et al., 2010 ). The activity is perceived as unimportant by the students ( Pekrun et al., 2010 ). Thus, the state of boredom is more than the lack of interest, as it is actively experienced as a negative state and is therefore often associated with avoidance-tendencies. Boredom can correlate negatively with learning performance ( Randler et al., 2005 ; Randler, 2009 ).

3. Hypotheses

Dissections trigger strong emotions such as disgust ( Holstermann et al., 2009 , 2012 ). As an alternative to dissections, videos and anatomic models can be used to provide students the same content. Since students have no direct physical contact to the dead materials and other disgust-triggers such as unpleasant smells in these two cases, we hypothesized dissections to be perceived as more disgusting than videos and models. Thus, we tested the following hypothesis:

H1 : The students who dissect a pig’s eye report more perceived disgust than the students who watch a video of a dissection (a) or who work with anatomical models (b).

There are several other emotions that might have an impact on students’ learning ( Pekrun and Hofmann, 1999 ). According to Randler et al. (2011) , there are three emotional qualities of experience that are particularly important in the context of biology learning: perceived interest, well-being, and boredom. The emotion disgust correlates negatively with students’ interest and intrinsic motivation ( Holstermann et al., 2009 , 2012 ; Randler et al., 2013 ; Kaiser et al., in press ). Regarding these considerations, we furthermore assume that students who engage in a dissection, a potentially “disgusting” method (see, e.g., Holstermann et al., 2009 ), show a lower degree of positive emotional qualities of experience than students watching a dissection-video or working with anatomic models.

H2 : The students who dissect a pig’s eye report less perceived interest than the students who watch a video of a dissection (a) or who work with anatomical models (b).

H3 : The students who dissect a pig’s eye report less well-being than the students who watch a video of a dissection (a) or who work with anatomical models (b).

In addition to these positive qualities, we examined the students’ boredom during the lesson. As a hands-on method, dissections provide various options of engagement and self-activity ( Holstermann et al., 2010 ), which should counteract boredom. Videos and anatomic models, on the other hand, cannot be influenced by the students and provide less options for interactions. Thus, we tested the following hypothesis:

H4 : The students who dissect a pig’s eye report less boredom than the students who watch a video of a dissection (a) or who work with anatomical models (b).

4.1. Sample

In the current study, 218 students from two secondary schools in Germany participated. Ninety-nine students (45%) visited a Gymnasium (a secondary school type preparing students for higher education ending after the 12th or 13th grade) and 119 students (55%) visited a Realschule (another secondary school type ending after the 10th grade and geared towards preparing students for further vocational training). Both schools were located in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. On average, the students were 14.19 ( SD  = 1.02) years old. The distribution of girls and boys was balanced (52% female). The specific distribution of the students referring to the respective grades is illustrated in Table 1 . Approximately half of the students have had prior experience with dissection, either by dissecting on their own (28%) or by being a part of a team and passively watching while other students dissected (18%). The other students have had no prior experience with dissection (54%).

Distribution of the students, their average age, and the proportion of girls depending on the different grades.

4.2. Design

We used a quasi-experimental design with two measuring time points to examine our hypotheses ( Tolmie et al., 2011 ; Döring and Bortz, 2016 ). Between these measuring points, the students attended a two-hour teaching unit about the anatomy of mammalian eyes. This lesson was divided into two parts: (1) text work providing students with content and specific topic-related vocabulary and (2) an explorative phase in which the students examined these structures in detail. In the respective treatments, we varied this last phase into three treatments with one dissecting a pig’s eye (D-treatment), the next watching a video of a dissection (V-treatment), and the last working with an anatomical model (M-treatment). In the D-treatment, the students dissected a pig’s eye according to examination instructions.

If used as a teaching method, dissections inherit two qualities: First, it provides realistic Primärerfahrungen with an original object ( Kattmann, 2020 ). Second, as a hands-on method, it provides students the opportunity to be active and explorative ( Holstermann et al., 2009 ). We let the students choose whether they wanted to do the dissection or work with an anatomic model instead. Across all classes, five students did not participate in the dissection and were consequently removed from the sample for the analysis. In the V-treatment, we designed a video showing the dissection of a pig’s eye. The video had the same structure as the dissection instruction and, thus, provided the same content. Moreover, the video allowed the students to deal with a realistic depiction of the original object. There was no physical contact with the dead materials and potentially disgusting smells. Although the scientific inquiry process was visualized, there was no hands-on examination, and the video provided no possibilities for interaction (except for pausing the video). In the M-treatment, the students dealt with an anatomic model of an eye. The students could explore the eye by dissembling the model. In addition, the students received a reader which provided the same structure and information as the dissection instruction and the video. Accordingly, all students received the same content information. In contrast to the last two methods, an anatomical model is an abstract and reduced representation of the original object ( Kattmann, 2020 ). A summary of the key characteristics of each treatment and the respective subsample information are presented in Table 2 . We assigned the classes within a school randomly to the three treatments.

Illustration of the respective treatment and subsample characteristics.

To assess the students’ emotional experience, we used a quantitative survey with retrospective self-reports. Approximately one week before the start of the intervention, we assessed students’ level of disgust regarding dissections. Furthermore, we asked the students about the extent of their prior experiences with dissections. The situational emotional qualities of experience (well-being, interest, boredom, and disgust) were measured at the end of the lesson.

4.3. Measures

The quantitative data was collected by using standardized questionnaires. All scales were measured using a five-point rating scale from not true at all (0) to absolutely true (4).

4.3.1. Disgust regarding dissection

We measured disgust towards dissection using a 9-item scale for disgust regarding dissections (“I am disgusted by dissecting animal organs.”). The scale was based on a scale for animal disgust (see Wilde et al., 2018 ) and was adapted and complemented to dissections (see Kaiser et al., in press ). The questionnaire included items on disgust perception in direct terms and on sensory perception towards dissection such as tactile, visual, and olfactory stimuli that can trigger disgust ( Miller, 1997 ; Petrowski et al., 2010 ; Liuzza, 2021 ). Internal consistency was found to be good (Cronbach’s α = 0.85).

4.3.2. Emotional experience

The emotional experience during dissection were assessed using the situational emotion short scale ( Randler et al., 2011 ). This questionnaire includes the subscales interest , well-being , and boredom with three items each. The subscale interest refers to a subject-topic-relationship and maps the importance and utility of the teaching topic (e.g., “I found that topic important.”). The scale showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). The subscale well-being refers to the emotion enjoyment and a generally positive feeling during the lesson (e.g., “The lesson pleased me.”). The subscale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). The subscale boredom includes subject-related boredom and lack of attention during the lesson (e.g., “I felt bored.”). The subscale showed satisfying internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.80). The situational emotion short scale was extended by an additional subscale assessing students’ perceived disgust during the lesson with three items (e.g., “I found the topic of this lesson disgusting.”). The items are based on the wording of the other items of the situational emotion short scale ( Randler et al., 2011 ). The original adjectives were replaced by the specific disgust adjectives from the Differential Affect Scale ( Merten and Krause, 1993 ). The internal consistency was found to be good (Cronbach’s α = 0.89).

4.4. Statistics

The main goal of our study was to compare students from the dissection treatment (D-treatment) in terms of different indicators of the emotional quality of experience with the alternative methods video (V-treatment) and anatomical model (M-treatment). Thus, we conducted Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) and planned contrast analysis ( Field, 2018 ). In this context, we tested whether the requirements for the ANOVA, such as normal distribution and homogeneity of variance ( Tolmie et al., 2011 ; Field, 2018 ), were met. As the variables perceived disgust , perceived interest , and well-being did not show variance homogeneity, we used robust alternatives ( Field, 2018 ). All calculations were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 28 .

4.4.1. Preliminary analysis

As students’ prior motivational disposition may have an impact on their situational emotional experience, we controlled for potentially confounding factors. Thus, we used a single-factor ANOVA to compare the students in the three treatments concerning their prior disgust regarding dissections. In addition, we controlled for students’ prior disgust regarding dissections at the different grade levels by using a one-factor ANOVA. Because prior studies showed negative relationships between disgust and other motivational and emotional variables such as interest ( Holstermann et al., 2012 ), motivation ( Randler et al., 2013 ), and flow-experience ( Polte and Wilde, 2018 ), as well as interdependencies between the respective emotions ( Diener and Iran-Nejad, 1986 ), we also evaluated intercorrelations (Pearson’s correlations) between all subscales.

4.4.2. Hypotheses testing

As we tested several related variables within the same sample, we performed a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; see Field, 2018 ). Thus, we assessed an overall test for differences throughout all variables ( Field, 2018 ). To investigate our hypotheses, we used simple contrasts ( Bühner and Ziegler, 2009 ; Field, 2018 ) to compare students from the D-treatment (comparison category) respectively with students from the V-and M-treatment regarding their perceived disgust (H1), perceived interest (H2) , well-being (H3), and boredom (H4). In case of variance heterogeneity, we used robust parameters. The effect-sizes ( r effect size ) were calculated according to Sedlmeier and Renkewitz (2008) .

5.1. Preliminary analysis

First, we controlled for differences between the respective groups before the start of the intervention. We did not find any significant differences between the students of the different treatments in terms of their prior disgust towards dissections ( F (2, 117.85) = 0.65, p  = 0.190). Moreover, we did not find differences between the different grades in terms of students’ prior disgust regarding dissections ( F (2, 109.30) = 0.03, p  = 0.973). Furthermore, we found theory-conform correlations between all subscales (see Table 3 ). Disgust correlated negatively with positive variables such as interest and well-being as well as slightly positive with boredom. Perceived interest correlated with well-being and moderately negatively with boredom. Analogously, boredom and well-being correlated moderately negatively.

Intercorrelations (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, bivariate) throughout all treatment groups.

Significant correlations ( p  < 0.05) are marked with an *.

5.2. Hypotheses testing

To test the aforementioned hypothesis, we compared the teaching method dissection to alternative methods in terms of students’ emotional experience. The overall test of the MANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between at least some of the three teaching methods: dissecting, watching a video, or working with anatomical models (Wilk’s Λ = 0.70, F (8, 378) = 10.12, p  < 0.001, η 2 p  = 0.17). Accordingly, further analyses for each dependent variable separately are appropriate. However, further contrast analyses revealed only some specific differences between the D-treatment and the other two treatments. The descriptive statistics and results of the respective contrast analysis for all subscales are presented in Table 4 .

Illustration of the descriptive parameters and results of the contrast analyses.

Significant comparisons are highlighted bold.

Regarding perceived disgust , contrast analysis showed significant differences between the treatments. Students in the D-treatment reported more perceived disgust than students in the V-treatment. The effect size for this comparison indicates a small effect ( r effect size  = 0.19; Cohen, 1988 ). Furthermore, students in the D-treatment reported more perceived disgust than students in the M-treatment ( Table 4 ). Students in the M-treatment showed the lowest values regarding their perceived disgust. In this context, the effect size indicates a moderate effect ( r effect size  = 0.39; Cohen, 1988 ). Regarding the descriptive parameters, it is noticeable that the mean values in the D-treatment are accompanied with a relatively high standard deviation compared to the mean values in the V-and M-treatment. Regarding the positive emotional qualities perceived interest and well-being , contrast analysis revealed no significant differences ( Table 4 ). The students from the D-treatment did not report significantly lower values of perceived interest and well-being compared to students from the V-and M-treatment. We investigated students’ boredom in addition to the aforementioned positive qualities. Contrast analysis showed that students in the D-treatment reported significantly less boredom than the students in the M-treatment ( Table 4 ). The effect size ( r effect size  = 0.30) indicates a medium effect ( Cohen, 1988 ). However, we did not find significant differences between the D-and the V-treatment.

6. Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare dissections with alternative methods (working with videos or anatomical models) in terms of students’ emotional qualities of experience (perceived disgust, perceived interest, well-being, and boredom). The results of the study confirmed our first hypothesis. The students who dissected a pig’s eye during the lesson were more disgusted than students who watched a video of a dissection (H1a) or who worked with an anatomic model (H1b). While dissections are Primärerfahrungen and offer a multi-sensory experience, the video of a dissection as well as the anatomical model have a greater distance to the original ( Kattmann, 2020 ). With both teaching methods, no direct interaction with the original object is possible and the options for sensory experience are limited. In the case of the video of the dissection of a pig’s eye, a very detailed view of the original is offered that has the potential to evoke disgust ( Tolin et al., 1997 ; Lang et al., 1999 ). However, when watching the video, some sensory experiences such as the perceived unpleasant smell and the haptic experiences are missing. Both perceptions can trigger or intensify feelings of disgust in addition to the visual impression ( Petrowski et al., 2010 ). The anatomical model is a more abstract representation of the original and thus has a larger distance to the original. Hence, it is not surprising that an abstract representation is perceived as being less disgusting. Nevertheless, it must be noticed that the average perceived disgust was, compared to the scale range (0 to 4), relatively low (D-Treatment: M  = 1.09, SD  = 1.11) and the standard deviation relatively high. This indicates a rather low perceived disgust, but high variation regarding the subjective ratings.

Since previous studies (see, e.g., Holstermann et al., 2009 ; Randler et al., 2013 ; Polte and Wilde, 2018 ; Kaiser et al., in press ) showed that motivational variables such as interest, flow, and self-efficacy are negatively related to disgust, we assumed that a method that clearly evokes disgust (see H1) affects the development of interest and other positive emotional qualities such as well-being and thus ultimately leads to lower emotional qualities than methods that evoke less disgust. While intercorrelations ( Table 3 ) also show a negative relationship between disgust and perceived interest and well-being as well as a positive relationship to boredom, the findings of our study contradict this assumption on a treatment level. The students in the dissection treatment did not generally report poor qualities of emotional experiences. It should be noted that the methods dissecting, watching a video, and using the model resulted in similar levels of the positive emotional qualities of perceived interest (H2a) and well-being (H3a). The methods dissection and watching a video both allow for a very detailed view of the original object. While the video lacks the possibility of hands-on experience, the method working with an anatomical model offers this possibility but no sensory experience with the original object. While some studies have shown that hands-on activities have a positive effect on students’ interest ( Swarat et al., 2012 ; Wilde et al., 2012 ), this effect did not become apparent in our study. The mere method or hands-on activity does not necessarily lead to higher interest ( Holstermann et al., 2010 ; Dohn, 2013 ). Thus, the topic of the lesson, the mammalian eye, might be more important than the method for the development of perceived interest (see Randler et al., 2005 ). After all, the topic of the lesson was the same in all three treatments and the interest in human biology topics is particularly pronounced among students in the 8th to 10th grades ( Löwe, 1987 ; Holstermann and Bögeholz, 2007 ). Ritchie et al. (2016) also showed that it is possible to be very disgusted in lessons and still be very interested in the topic at the same time. A possible explanation is that disgust might also increase attention to the subject matter ( van Hooff et al., 2013 ). Increased attention, in turn, can increase perceived interest, as the catch component mentioned in the development of interest suggests ( Mitchell, 1993 ; Krapp, 1998 ). Thus, contrary to our second hypothesis, the students in the D-treatment did not show a lower level of perceived interest than the students in the V-and the M-treatment.

This was also evident in the results for our third hypothesis on well-being. Despite the differences in perceived disgust, the subjective well-being was found to be equally high in all treatment groups ( Table 4 ). Apparently, all students enjoyed the lesson on the mammalian eye regardless of the method used. Enjoyment of learning is an important component of subjective well-being in the classroom and can increase students’ interest ( Pekrun, 2014 ; Sutter-Brandenberger et al., 2018 ). The high degree of well-being in all treatment groups could also be related to the fact that all three methods were different from regular biology lessons and were therefore perceived as new and interesting. The novelty of a learning situation can be influenced by various factors such as new teaching methods, learning locations, or even teachers ( Dohn, 2013 ). In our study, both dissecting and watching a dissection video represented an unusual learning situation for students in biology class. Moreover, in all treatment groups, the lessons were conducted by student teachers from the university and not by the regular biology teacher. Novelty can motivate and capture students’ attention ( Mitchell, 1993 ) and promote situational interest. Well-being, in turn, can characterize the positive affective qualities of being interested. The results of the intercorrelations also show that interest and well-being are strongly positively correlated with each other ( Table 3 ).

Our fourth hypothesis was only partially confirmed. The students who dissected showed significantly less boredom than students who worked with an anatomical model (H4b). As a hands-on method, dissection offers many opportunities to become active, which counteracts boredom ( Holstermann et al., 2010 ; Minkley et al., 2017 ). The anatomical model offers fewer opportunities for interaction and is more distant from the original object due to the stronger degree of abstraction. The video offers no opportunities for hands-on experiences and such passive methods are usually perceived as being more boring compared to student-active methods ( Randler et al., 2005 ; Minkley et al., 2017 ). On the other hand, dissecting was perceived as more disgusting than watching a video or working with a model. Similar to the positive emotional qualities of experience (H2a and H3a), no statistical differences were found for boredom between the D-Treatment and the V-Treatment in our study (H4a). Both methods allow a view of the original perceived disgusting object and, as already pointed out, disgust can also lead to increased attention ( van Hooff et al., 2013 ). Increased attention is in itself a characteristic of the psychological state of interest ( Ainley et al., 2002 ), and in the video treatment, enjoyment and interest in the lesson may have outweighed boredom.

Negative emotions do not necessarily interfere with school learning ( Strauss and Kinzie, 1991 ; Hascher and Edlinger, 2009 ; Pekrun, 2014 ), and emotions may co-exist in an individual as long as one does not dominate over the others ( Diener and Iran-Nejad, 1986 ; Holstermann et al., 2012 ). This was also evident in our study. Even though dissection was perceived as significantly more disgusting than the other methods, the perceived interest and well-being in this group was not lower than in the other two groups. On the treatment level, it seems to be confirmed that several positive and negative emotions can be expressed at the same time in a learning situation. However, negative emotions such as disgust do not fundamentally undermine subjective well-being and the perception of interest. The possible co-occurrence of disgust is therefore not a sufficient reason to decide against using dissections as a teaching method. Our study shows that positive emotional experience and low boredom can be highly pronounced despite using a clear disgust-evoking method. Therefore, the differences between classes should always be considered in a sophisticated way. On this basis, it should be decided whether the implementation of a dissection is useful. It is important to let students decide about the extent to which they want to participate in disgust-evoking activities. In addition, less disgusting alternatives should be offered that allow the students to determine the distance to the disgusting object themselves. A well-documented video of a real dissection is a good method to offer a less disgusting alternative. Especially as these can still lead to similar positive emotional experience in the classroom as a real dissection. Working in groups is one more important possibility to reduce students’ stress (e.g., triggered by strong disgust) in learning situations ( Minkley et al., 2017 ). Another approach is to use a combination of the different methods in the classroom. For example, in a study by Akplan and Andre (1999) , it was shown that the use of a simulation of a dissection of a frog before the real dissection had a positive effect on the students’ knowledge of anatomy. Thus, a video of dissection could also be used as preparation for the real dissection to familiarize students with the supposedly disgusting learning situation. Holstermann et al. (2010) also found that prior experience in hands-on activities lead to increased interest in biological methods such as dissection. Other studies ( Randler et al., 2012b , 2013 ; Wüst-Ackermann et al., 2018 ) found that disgust with certain learning objects was reduced through school-based and pedagogically prepared exposure to the object. The reduction of disgust in relation to natural objects can therefore also represent an important learning outcome of biology lessons.

6.1. Limitations

Despite our promising results, some limitations need to be addressed. First, emotions and emotional qualities of experience are complex constructs ( Frenzel et al., 2020 ) that also do not always have uniform definitions ( Götz et al., 2004 ; Tybur, 2021 ). For instance, it is not clear which emotions determine subjective well-being ( Götz et al., 2004 ). Other factors such as the classroom climate and teacher support are also important for the development of subjective well-being at school ( Clement, 2010 ). Three different components also contribute to the development of situational interest ( Krapp, 1999 ). A more differentiated view of the individual components could provide more detailed findings. For example, Kaiser et al. (in press) were able to show that there are differences in the effect of the disgust experience on the three components of interest (value-related, cognitive, and emotional).

Second, disgust is a strong negative emotion that can be very stressful for some students and then hinder successful learning ( Ekman and Friesen, 1975 ; Prokop and Fančovičová, 2017 ). A differentiated look at the students who felt strongly disgusted would also be useful here as particularly strong disgust can correlate with other emotional qualities ( Randler, 2009 ; Randler et al., 2013 ). A person-centered approach considering disgust simultaneously with other motivational variables with a larger sample could be the aim of further studies. However, this also reveals a difficulty in implementing studies with students who are strongly disgusted. As described above, when dealing with disgust in class, it is important not to force students to participate. However, five students in the D-treatment who were particularly disgusted by dissection did the tasks with an anatomical model and did not participate in the dissection. We excluded these students from the sample because they did not participate in the actual dissection. However, next to these research-methodological considerations, from a practical point of view it must be discussed how disgust might be decreased and how all students can be motivated to engage in the dissection task. One way could be to prepare the students for the actual activity with a video of the dissection ( Randler et al., 2007 ). Possibly some of these students would then decide to participate in the actual dissection in the group.

Third, in the debate about the use of alternatives to dissection, ethical reasons and animal welfare play a particularly important role, which will not be discussed further here. It is important to inform students that the organs they dissect are products of human consumption or waste products from this process ( Spernjak and Šorgo, 2017 ). The animals were therefore not killed for the sake of school lessons, per se. The learning video is also a good alternative from this point of view, as only one organ is used for recording the dissection, but it can serve as a visual tool for many students.

6.2. Conclusion

Our study was able to confirm that disgust correlates negatively with positive emotional qualities of experience and negatively with boredom. For students who are strongly disgusted, this negative emotion can predominate over other qualities of experience and impair learning in biology classes. However, this correlation could not be confirmed in the comparison of the methods implemented at the treatment level. Even if disgust correlates negatively with interest, and well-being, this does not mean that methods such as dissection automatically lead to less positive emotional experiences in the teaching unit. In our study, the differences regarding the emotional qualities of experience between the dissecting treatment and the alternative treatments seem to be small. Detailed video recordings of dissection usually elicit a similar emotional response and thus offer a good alternative experience to the real dissection.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethik-kommission der Universität Bielefeld. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

L-MK developed the study concept and design, recruited the sample, performed most of the statistical analysis, and wrote parts of the methods and hypotheses as well as the results sections. SP wrote the first draft of all other article sections and developed the article concept with L-MK. TK contributed to the development of the study design, performed parts of the statistical analysis, and reviewed the article. NG contributed to the statistical procedure and reviewed and revised the article. MW contributed to the study design and reviewed the article. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This project is part of the “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung,” a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder which aims to improve the quality of teacher training. The programme is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (funding number 01JA1908). The authors acknowledge support for the publication costs by the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the participating schools, teachers, and students for their support and participation in the study.

• Abele-Brem A., Gendolla G. (2000). “ Motivation und emotion [motivation and emotion] ” in Emotionspsychologie . eds. Otto J. H., Euler H. A., Mandl H. (Weinheim: Beltz; ), 297–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainley M., Ainley J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: the contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36 , 4–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainley M., Hidi S., Berndorff D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship . J. Educ. Psychol. 94 , 545–561. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akplan J. P., Andre T. (1999). The effect of a prior dissection simulation on middle school students’ dissection performance and understanding of the anatomy and morphology of the frog . J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 8 , 107–121. doi: 10.1023/A:1018604932197 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bindra D. (1969). A unified interpretation of emotion and motivation . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 159 , 1071–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1969.tb12998.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowd A. D. (1993). Dissection as an instructional technique in secondary science: choice and alternatives . Soc. Anim. 1 , 83–89. doi: 10.1163/156853093X00163, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bühner M., Ziegler M. (2009). Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler [statistics for psychologists and social scientists] . München: Pearson Studium. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caglak S. (2017). Does hands-on science practices make an impact on achievement in science? A meta-analysis . J. Edu. Sci. Environ. Health 3 , 69–87. doi: 10.21891/jeseh.275708 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clement N. (2010). “ Student wellbeing at school: the actualization of values in education ” in International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing . eds. Lovat T., Toomey R., Clement N. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 37–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis V., Aunger R., Rabie T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease . Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 , S131–S133. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0144, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Villiers R., Monk M. (2005). The first cut is the deepest: reflections on the state of animal dissection in biology education . J. Curriculum Stud. 37 , 583–600. doi: 10.1080/00220270500041523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. (1995). Erfahrung und Natur [Experience and nature] . Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E. (2000). Subjective well-being . Am. Psychol. 55 , 34–43. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Iran-Nejad A. (1986). The relationship in experience between various types of affect . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 , 1031–1038. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.1031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Larsen R. J. (1993). “ The experience of emotional well-being ” in Handbook of emotions . eds. Lewis M., Haviland J. M. (New York: The Guilford Press; ), 405–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., Smith H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress . Psychol. Bull. 125 , 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dohn N. B. (2013). Upper secondary students’ situational interest: a case study of the role of a zoo visit in a biology class . Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35 , 2732–2751. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.628712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson L., Downie R. (2007). Attitudes to the uses of animals in higher education: has anything changed? Biosci. Educ. 10 , 1–13. doi: 10.3108/beej.10.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Döring N., Bortz J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und evaluation in den Sozial-und Humanwissenschaften [Research Methods in Social and Human Science] (5th). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ekman P., Friesen W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Field A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frenzel A. C., Götz T., Pekrun R. (2020). “ Emotionen [Emotions] ” in Pädagogische Psychologie . eds. Wild E., Möller J. (Berlin: Springer; ), 211–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gläser-Zikuda M., Fuß S., Laukenmann M., Metz K., Randler C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement – conception and evaluation of the ECOLE approach . Learn. Instr. 15 , 481–495. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Götz T., Frenzel A. C., Pekrun R. (2007). Regulation von Langeweile im Unterricht. Was Schülerinnen und Schüler bei der Windstille der Seele (nicht) tun [regulation of boredom in the classroom. What pupils (don't) do when there is a lull in the wind] . Unterrichtswissenschaft 35 , 312–333. doi: 10.25656/01:5499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Götz T., Zirngibl A., Pekrun R. (2004). “ Lern-und Leistungsemotionen von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Students’ emotions for learning and achievement] ” in Schule positiv erleben. Erkenntnisse und Ergebnisse zum Wohlbefinden von Schülerinnen und Schülern . ed. Hascher T. (Bern: Haupt AG; ), 49–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gropengiesser H., Gropengiesser I. (1985). Ekel im Biologieunterricht [Disgust in biology lessons] . Unterr. Biol. 9 , 40–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hascher T. (2010). Learning and emotion: perspectives for theory and research . Eur. Educ. Res. J. 9 , 13–28. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.13 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hascher T., Edlinger H. (2009). Positive Emotionen und Wohlbefinden in der Schule − ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge und Erkenntnisse [Positive emotions and well-being in school – an overview of methods and results] . Psychol. Erz. Unterr. 56 , 105–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstermann N., Ainley M., Grube D., Roick T., Bögeholz S. (2012). The specific relationship between disgust and interest: relevance during biology class dissections and gender differences . Learn. Instr. 22 , 185–192. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstermann N., Bögeholz S. (2007). Interesse von Jungen und Mädchen an naturwissenschaftlichen Themen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I [Gender-specific interests of adolescent learners in science topics] . Z. Didakt. Nat. wiss. 13 , 71–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstermann N., Grube D., Bögeholz S. (2009). The influence of emotion on students’ performance in dissection exercises . J. Biol. Educ. 43 , 164–168. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2009.9656177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstermann N., Grube D., Bögeholz S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest . Res. Sci. Educ. 40 , 743–757. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9142- [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hummel E., Randler C. (2010). Experiments with living animals – effects on learning success, experimental competency and emotions . Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2 , 3823–3830. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.597 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hummel E., Randler C. (2012). Living animals in the classroom: a Meta-analysis on learning outcome and a treatment–control study focusing on knowledge and motivation . J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 21 , 95–105. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9285-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser L.-M., Stiller C., Wilde M. (in press). “ Oh, no - That’s disgusting! influence of disgust and different teaching methods on students’ state of interest .” in Fostering Scientific Citizenship in an Uncertain World - Selected Papers from the ESERA 2021 Conference (Book Series: Contributions from science education research) . eds. Carvaho G. S., Anastacio Z., Afonso A. S. (Springer).
• Kattmann U. (2020). “ Vielfalt und Funktionen von Unterrichtsmedien [diversity and functions of teaching media] ” in Fachdidaktik Biologie . eds. Gopengießer H., Harms U., Kattmann U.. 12th ed (Hannover: Aulis; ), 344–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinzie M. B., Strauss R., Foss J. (1993). The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school biology students . J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30 , 989–1000. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300813 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klingenberg K. (2014). “Primärerfahrung” with living animals in contrast to educational videos: a comparative intervention study . J. Biol. Educ. 48 , 105–112. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2013.849285 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krapp A. (1992). Interesse, Lernen und Leistung. Neue Forschungsansätze in der Pädagogischen Psychologie [interest, learning and achievement. New research approaches in educational psychology] . Z. Pädagogik 38 , 747–770. doi: 10.25656/01:13977 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krapp A. (1998). Entwicklung und Förderung von Interessen im Unterricht [developing and promoting interests in the classroom]. Psychol . Erziehung und Unterricht 44 , 185–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krapp A. (1999). Intrinsische Lernmotivation und Interesse. Forschungsansätze und konzeptuelle Überlegungen [intrinsic motivation and interest. Research approaches and conceptual considerations] . Z. Pädagogik 45 , 387–406. doi: 10.25656/01:5958 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krapp A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective . Learn. Instruc. 12 , 383–409. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00011-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krapp A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest . Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guidance 7 , 5–21. doi: 10.1007/s10775-007-9113-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang P., Bradley M., Cuthbert B. (1999). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical Manual and Affective Ratings . Gainesville, FL: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liuzza M. T. (2021). “ Olfaction and disgust: sensory and affective processes to avoid disease ” in The Handbook of Disgust Research . eds. PA P., NS C. (Cham: Springer; ), 119–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Löwe B. (1987). Interessenverfall im Biologieunterricht [decrease of interest in biology] . Unterr. Biol. 11 , 62–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas R. E. (2016). “ Subjective well-being in psychology ” in The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy . eds. Adler M. D., Fleurbaey M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 403–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Menninghaus W. (1999). Ekel: Theorie und geschichte einer starken Empfindung [disgust: Theory and history of a strong sensation] . Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merten J., Krause R. (1993). DAS (Differentielle Affekt Skala) [DAS (Differential Affect Scale)] , Arbeiten der Fachrichtung Psychologie der Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller W. I. (1997). The Anatomy of Disgust . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen . (2019). Kernlehrplan für das gymnasium – Sekundarstufe I in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Biologie [Core curriculum for secondary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia. Biology] . Available at: https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/lehrplan/197/g9_bi_klp_%203413_2019_06_23.pdf (Accessed May 12, 2021).
• Minkley N., Ringeisen T., Josek L. B., Kaerner T. (2017). Stress and emotions during experiments in biology classes: does the work setting matter? Contem. Educ. Psychol. 49 , 238–249. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell M. (1993). Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom . J. Educ. Psychol. 85 , 424–436. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oaten M., Stevenson R. J., Case T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism . Psychol. Bull. 135 , 303–321. doi: 10.1037/a0014823, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R. (2014). Emotions and learning . Educ. Pract. Series 24 , 1–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Götz T., Daniels L. M., Stupnisky R. H., Perry R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 531–549. doi: 10.1037/a0019243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Götz T., Titz W., Perry R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research . Educ. Psychol. 37 , 91–105. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Hofmann H. (1999). “ Lern-und Leistungsemotionen: Erste Befunde eines Forschungsprogramms [learning and achievement emotions: initial findings from a research programe] ” in Emotion, Motivation und Leistung . eds. Jerusalem M., Pekrun R. (Göttingen: Hogrefe; ), 247–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrowski K., Paul S., Schmutzer G., Roth M., Brähler E., Albani C. (2010). Domains of disgust sensitivity: revisited factor structure of the questionnaire for the assessment of disgust sensitivity (QADS) in a cross-sectional, representative german survey . BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 10 :95. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-95, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polte S., Wilde M. (2018). Wirkt Ekel vor lebenden Tieren bei Schülerinnen und Schülern als Prädiktor für ihr Flow-Erleben? [Is disgust of living animals a predictor of students’ flow experiences?] . Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 24 , 287–292. doi: 10.1007/s40573-018-0075-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prenzel M. (1988). Die Wirkungsweise von Interesse. Ein pädagogisch-psychologisches Erklärungsmodell [the functioning of interest. An educational-psychological explanation] (13th). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prokop P., Fančovičová J. (2017). The effect of hands-on activities on children’s knowledge and disgust for animals . J. Biol. Educ. 51 , 305–314. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2016.1217910 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prokop P., Fančovičová J., Fedor P. (2010). Health is associated with anti-parasite behavior and fear of disease-relevant animals in humans . Ecol. Psychol. 22 , 222–237. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2010.496676 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prokop P., Randler C. (2017). “ Biological predispositions and individual differences in human attitudes toward animals ” in Ethnozoology: Animals in Our Lives . eds. Alves R. R. N., Albuquerque U. P. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; ), 447–466. [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C. (2009). Association between emotional variables and school achievement . Int. J. Instr. 2 , 3–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C. (2021). “ Emotionen im Biologieunterricht [emotions in biology education] ” in Emotionen im Unterricht. Psychologische, pädagogische und fachdidaktische Perspektiven . eds. Gläser-Zikuda M., Hofmann F., Fredeking V. (Kohlhammer: Stuttgart; ), 121–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Baumgärtner S., Eisele H., Kienzle W. (2007). Learning at work-stations in the zoo: a controlled evaluation of cognitive and affective outcomes . Visit. Stud. 10 , 205–216. doi: 10.1080/10645570701585343 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Hummel E., Gläser-Zikuda M., Vollmer C., Bogner F. X., Mayring P. (2011). Reliability and validation of a short scale to measure situational emotions in science education . Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 6 , 359–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Hummel E., Prokop P. (2012a). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals . Soc. Anim. 20 , 61–74. doi: 10.1163/156853012X614369 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Hummel E., Wüst-Ackermann P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on students’ motivation and achievement . Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35 , 2839–2856. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.654518 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Ilg A., Kern J. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students . J. Environ. Educ. 37 , 43–52. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.37.1.43-52 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Randler C., Wüst-Ackermann P., Vollmer C., Hummel E. (2012b). The relationship between disgust, state-anxiety, and motivation during a dissection task . Learn. Individ. Differ. 22 , 419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renninger K. A., Hidi S. E. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest . Educ. Psychol. 46 , 168–184. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.587723 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie S. M., Hudson P., Bellocchi A., Henderson S., King D., Tobin K. (2016). Evolution of self-reporting methods for identifying discrete emotions in science classrooms . Cult. Stud. of Sci. Educ. 11 , 577–593. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9607-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaal S., Bogner F. X. (2005). Human visual perception - learning at workstations . J. Biol. Educ. 40 , 32–37. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9656006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutz P. A., DeCuir J. T. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education . Educ. Psychol. 37 , 125–134. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutz P. A., Hong J. Y., Cross D. I., Osbon J. N. (2006). Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18 , 343–360. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9030-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlmeier P., Renkewitz F. (2008). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik in der Psychologie [research methods and statistics in psychology] . Pearson Studium. Germany. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spernjak A., Šorgo A. (2017). Dissection of mammalian organs and opinions about it among lower and upper secondary school students . CEPS J. 7 , 111–130. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanisstreet M., Spofforth N., Williams T. (1993). Attitudes of children to the uses of animals . Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 15 , 411–425. doi: 10.1080/0950069930150405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss R. T., Kinzie M. B. (1991). High-tech alternatives to dissection . Am. Biol. Teach. 53 , 154–158. doi: 10.2307/4449249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutter-Brandenberger C. C., Hagenauer G., Hascher T. (2018). Students’ self-determined motivation and negative emotions in mathematics in lower secondary education - investigating reciprocal relations . Contem. Educ. Psychol. 55 , 166–175. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swarat S., Ortony A., Revelle W. (2012). Activity matters: understanding student interest in school science . J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49 , 515–537. doi: 10.1002/tea.21010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolin D. F., Lohr J. M., Sawchuk C. N., Lee T. C. (1997). Disgust and disgust sensitivity in blood-injection-injury and spider phobia . Behav. Res. Ther. 35 , 949–953. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(97)00048-x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolmie A., Muijs D., McAteer E. (2011). Quantitative methods in educational and social research using SPSS . Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunnicliffe S. D., Ueckert C. (2007). Teaching biology - the great dilemma . J. Biol. Educ. 41 , 51–52. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tybur J. M. (2021). “ Individual differences in disgust ” in The Handbook of Disgust Research. Modern Perspectives and Applications . eds. Powell P. A., Consedine N. S. (Cham: Springer; ), 99–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tybur J. M., Lieberman D., Griskevicius V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 , 103–122. doi: 10.1037/a0015474, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyng C. M., Amin H. U., Saad M. N. M., Malik A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on learning and memory . Front. Psychol. 8 :1454. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Hooff J., Devue C., Vieweg P., Theeuwes J. (2013). Disgust-and not fear-evoking images hold our attention . Acta Psychol. 143 , 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilde M., Basten M., Großmann N., Haunhorst D., Desch I., Strüber M., et al.. (2018). The (non-)benefit of choosing: if you get what you want it is not important that you chose it . Motiv. Emot. 42 , 348–359. doi: 10.1007/s11031-018-9675-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilde M., Hussmann J., Lorenzen S., Meyer A., Randler C. (2012). Lessons with living harvest mice: an empirical study of their effects on intrinsic motivation and knowledge acquisition . Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34 , 2797–2810. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.654829 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wüst-Ackermann P., Vollmer C., Randler C., Itzek-Greulich H. (2018). The vivarium: maximizing learning with living invertebrates - an out-of-school intervention is more effective than an equivalent lesson at school . Insects 9 , 3–26. doi: 10.3390/insects9010003, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zemanova M. A. (2022). Attitudes toward animal dissection and animal-free alternatives among high school biology teachers in Switzerland . Front. Educ. 7 :892713. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.892713 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

We can help you reset your password using the email address linked to your BioOne Complete account.

• BioOne Complete Titles
• BioOne eBook Titles
• About BioOne Digital Library
• How to Subscribe & Access
• Library Resources
• Publisher Resources
• Instructor Resources
• FIGURES & TABLES
• SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENT
• DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

Animal dissection is practiced to varying degrees around the world and is particularly prevalent in North America throughout all levels of education. However, a growing number of studies suggest that non-animal teaching methods (NAMs) (e.g., virtual anatomy tools and three-dimensional models) are better for achieving learning goals compared to dissection. We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2005 and 2020 that evaluated the pedagogical value of NAMs versus animal dissection. Our results from 20 published studies show that in 95% of the studies (19/20) students at all education levels (secondary, postsecondary, and medical school) performed at least as well—and in most of those studies better (14/19)—when they used NAMs compared to animal dissection. These results provide compelling evidence in support of the 3Rs' principle of replacement. Given that NAMs have been demonstrated as effective for science education, steps should be taken by educational institutions to phase out animal dissection.

KEYWORDS/PHRASES

Publication title:, collection title:, publication years.

Animal Dissection in Schools: Life Lessons, Alternatives and Humane Education

This policy paper makes the case for a more ethical approach to life science education.

[Abstract excerpted from original source.]

“The practice of classroom dissection has long been one of the most controversial educational issues in America and beyond. This paper, written by Jan Oakley, Ph.D., of Lakehead University, looks at the history of dissection exercises and the implications they have for young students, including the ethical,  environmental and economic factors involved. This paper serves as a handbook for supporting student choice policies and a move toward respecting the “life” in life sciences. A must-have resource for students, parents, educators, advocates and legislators working in support of humane science policies.”

Oakley, J. (2013). Animal Dissection in Schools: Life Lessons, Alternatives and Humane Education.

Related Posts

Jan 21 2022  |  Julie O'Connor

Can Humane Education Improve Student Reading Comprehension?

Jul 23 2018  |  Julie O'Connor

How Can Humane Education Motivate Students?

Jun 7 2017  |  Faunalytics

Animal Tracker 2017: Humane Education

Mar 16 2015  |  karol orzechowski

Fall 2013 Humane Education Study Analysis

Aug 5 2013  |  Faunalytics

Results From First Humane Education Lecture Survey

May 21 2013  |  Faunalytics

Dissection Objectors Share Their Science Class Experiences

Aug 17 2012  |  Faunalytics

Current Concepts In Simulation And Other Alternatives For Veterinary Education

Jul 19 2012  |  Faunalytics

Students Want Option To Cut Out Animal Dissection

Dissection In Massachusetts Classrooms

Jul 7 2010  |  Faunalytics

Dissection As An Instructional Technique In School

May 5 2010  |  Faunalytics

The Significant Life Experiences (SLEs) Of Humane Educators

Dec 2 2008  |  Faunalytics

Can Television Make A Difference In Humane Education?

Donate to Faunalytics today

Support Our Work

Your donation saves animals and empowers advocates

Informed Action. Greater Reaction.

Post Office Box 152703, San Diego, CA 92195

Contact Faunalytics

© 2023 Faunalytics | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Effective Advocacy Animals Used For Food Companion Animals Animals Used in Science Wild Animals Other Topics

What We Do Board & Staff Research In Progress Press Volunteer With Us Shop

Don’t Miss a Thing

Faunalytics delivers the latest and most important information directly to your inbox. Choose what topics you want to see and how often you get our emails, and you can unsubscribe anytime.