EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 26 (2016) SHS Web of Conferences, 26 (2016) 01120 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web of Conferences
Volume 26, 2016
ERPA International Congresses on Education 2015 (ERPA 2015)
Article Number 01120
Number of page(s) 7
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162601120
Published online 26 April 2016
  1. American Antivivisection Society. Dying to learn: animal use in education, history of vivisection and dissection., (2012). www.dyingtolearn.org/animalUseHistory.html [Google Scholar]
  2. Arora, L., & Sharma, B.R. Assessment of role of dissection in anatomy teaching from the perspective of undergraduate Students: A qualitative study. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 59–65., (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bögeholz, S., & Rüter, S. Wenn Erfahrung weh tut [The dark side of nature experience]. In: Lehren fürs Leben, eds. Gropengießer, H, Janßen-Bartels, A and Sander, E pp 80–95. Köln, Germany: Aulis Verlag Deubner., (2004). [Google Scholar]
  4. Maloney, R. Exploring virtual fetal pig dissection as a learning tool for female high school biology students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 591–603., (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arráez-Aybar, L.A., Castaño-Collado, G., & Casado-Morales, I. A study of cognitiveaffective and physiological-motor reactions to human dissection in Spanish students of human anatomy. European Journal of Anatomy, 11(S1), 67–71., (2014). [Google Scholar]
  6. Barr, G., & Herzog, H. (2000). Fetal pig: The high school dissection experience. Society & Animals, 8(1), 53–69. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hart, L. A., Wood, M. W., & Hart, B. L. Why dissection? Animal use in education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press., (2008). [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernstein, P. L. Dissection as inquiry: Using the “peanut observation” activity to promote a revised paradigm of dissection and facilitate student involvement and understanding. American Biology Teacher, 62(5), 374–77., (2000). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bishop, L. J., & Nolen, A. L. Animals in research and education: Ethical issues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11(1), 91–112., (2001). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Demirhan, E. Miracle or Cruelty? The Sophomore Prospective Science Teachers’ Perspective of Chicken Embryonic Development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 575–581., (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.246. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. DeRosa, B. Is dissection necessary? Children and Animals, 10(3), 1–2., (1986). [Google Scholar]
  12. Fančovičová, J., Prokop, P., & Lešková, A. Perceived disgust and personal experiences are associated with acceptance of dissections in schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(3), 311–318., (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.938a. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hart, L. A., Wood, M. W., & Hart, B. L. Why dissection? Animal use in education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press., (2008). [Google Scholar]
  14. Holstermann, N., Ainley, M., Grube, D., Roick, T., & Bögeholz, S. The specific relationship between disgust and interest: Relevance during biology class dissections and gender differences. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 185–192., (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. The influence of emotion on students’ performance in dissection exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 43, 164–168., (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hug, B. Re-examining the practice of dissection: What does it teach? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 91–105., (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270701484746. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lieb, M. J. Dissection: A valuable motivational tool or a trauma to the high school students? (Master’s Thesis, The Foster G. McGraw School of the National College of Education)., (1985). [Google Scholar]
  18. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] Responsible use of live animals and dissection in the science classroom. NSTA Position Statement., (2005) [Google Scholar]
  19. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] Responsible use of live animals and dissection in the science classroom. NSTA position statement., (2008). [Google Scholar]
  20. Oakley, J. Science teachers and the dissection debate: Perspectives on animal dissection and alternatives. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7(2), 253–267., (2012). [Google Scholar]
  21. Oakley, J. Under the knife: Animal dissection as a contested school science activity. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 1(2), 59–67., (2009). [Google Scholar]
  22. Pekrun, R., Götz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48., (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pekrun, R., Götz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. Academic emotions in students’ selfregulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research., (2002). [Google Scholar]
  24. PETA. How animals are collected and killed for dissection and the alternatives you can choose, The PETA Guide to Animals and the Dissection Industry. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, VA., (2004). [Google Scholar]
  25. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Dissection Alternatives. Retrieved November 21, 2013, (2013) from http://pcrm.org/research/edtraining/dissectionalt [Google Scholar]
  26. Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Wüst-Ackermann, P. The influence of perceived disgust on students’ motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839–2856., (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.654518. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Randler, C., Wüst-Ackermann, P., Vollmer, C., & Hummel, E. The relationship between disgust, state-anxiety and motivation during a dissection task. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 419–424., (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.