Improved Photography Leads to Improved Learning
By Marykay Marks, MACUL Grant Recipient
DISSECTION LABS PRESENT UNIQUE CHALLENGES In high school biology and anatomy courses the use of dissection has been relied on to provide students with authentic learning experiences. Overwhelmingly, students regard dissection as one of the most interesting components of these classes (Downie & Meadows, 1995). One of the challenges a classroom science teacher faces when employing dissection is translating an authentic experience like dissection into a summative assessment of actual student learning. Science teachers have long relied on a written report to assess student laboratory learning. A dissection lab, however, does not fit the classic framework of a typical science lab report where hypothesis are tested, data is collected and analyzed, and conclusions are drawn.
One means to address this disparity may be found in the utilization of electronic technology. Teachers worldwide are finding innovative ways to apply technology and enhance student learning (Marshal, 2002). Furthermore, just as students perceive dissection as improving their learning, they also report that technology is an important tool for their school success (Hitlin & Rainie, 2005).
Using technology to enhance student learning is not a new innovation. The infusion of technology in today’s classroom is widespread (Marshal, 2002). What remains for educators as they improve, update and move forward with technology in the classroom is a consistent evaluation of the effectiveness that improved technology has on the ultimate goal – improving student learning (Baker, 1994).
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS MAY PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS
This study focused on a high school science course taught in a district that had previously made a significant commitment to applying technology in the classroom. Science teachers were already utilizing this technology to address the issue of developing a lab format that would be more compatible with dissection labs. Two technologies, PowerPoint Presentation and Digital Photography, were being implemented with apparent success. Unfortunately, the anatomy teacher came to believe that the extent of student learning was limited by the quality and detail of the digital pictures students took. To address this deficiency a grant was written to procure a classroom set of high- resolution digital cameras.
METHODS
Four sections of a high school Anatomy & Physiology course were given the grant cameras to use during the 2009-2010 school year. This course was arranged systematically, beginning with an overview of all the human body systems and then in depth study of each body system separately. Dissection was included with the following units/systems: Overview ~ Fetal Pig; Musculoskeletal
MACULJOURNAL |
Systems ~ Dogfish Shark; Nervous System ~ Sheep Brain; Special Senses ~ Beef Eyes; and Capstone ~ Adult Cat. Each dissection lab had a detailed set of lab directions that guided students system-by-system or layer-by-layer through each organism.
Working in cooperative groups students designated a partner to be photographer, reader, recorder, and dissector. (This ensured all students a purposeful responsibility in lab. Groups rotated responsibilities with each
lab.) Each group was assigned 1 laptop computer, 1 memory card, and 1 memory card reader. The 3 digital cameras were shared in the room between lab tables – memory cards were “popped out” as groups shared the camera. The lab report was worked on during the lab with all group members contributing.
Lab Reports were produced using PowerPoint and included components of a traditional science lab report: Introduction, Methods, Materials, Data, Results, Analysis, Conclusions, and Critique for Errors. Data and Results included digital photographs with specified organs/features labeled. Analysis consisted of a detailed comparison of similarities and differences between the animal dissected and human anatomy. Final Lab Reports were presented in class for peer/group/teacher evaluation.
MEASURING SUCCESS
Student achievement from these four sections was compared to student achievement from the preceding (2008-2009) school year. Three measures were compared: 1) Class average test scores, 2) Average number of correctly identified anatomical structures per lab report, and 3) Average number of analysis points students made when comparing similarities and differences.
Table One UNIT Overview
Skeletal System Nervous System Special Senses Capstone (Cat)
CLASS AVERAGE TEST SCORE COMPARISON 2008 - 09 78.66 77.97 76.86 73.77 81.28
2009 - 10 79.61 82.55 79.03 71.28 88.28
% Improvement 0.95% 4.58% 2.17% -2.49% 7.00%
“Improved Photography” continued on page 33 Spring/Summer 2011 | 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36