![]() Supported by researchĮxcerpt from thesis submitted by Kenneth R. The Digital Frog also encourages squeamish students who may otherwise avoid biology and science. The Digital Frog focuses the student on the study of structure and function, rather than on the process of dissection. ![]() The Digital Frog eliminates the need for frog dissection to teach anatomy, protecting a diminishing species. Biology teachers put a lot of effort into ensuring that wet labs are safe and effective, but the focus is often on the dissection, at the expense of anatomy and physiology. As one beta tester remarked, cutting up digital frogs is much safer because "then I don't have to dodge the scalpels of the kid behind me". The Digital Frog 2.5 engages students with an interactive, virtual dissection, allowing the student to learn each of the cuts necessary by doing it themselves - virtually. Virtual dissection means safer dissection The purchase and disposal of preserved frogs (which should be treated as biohazardous waste due to the potential carcinogenic nature of the preservatives) is becoming increasingly expensive. Savings increase dramatically with more students. These savings are based on one class of 30 students. #Frog dissection manual license#The PCRM (Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine) cost comparison indicates that a school can save $1488 over five years by purchasing a Building Site License for The Digital Frog 2.5 instead of dissecting preserved frogs. The conclusion was that not only was the virtual frog dissection program more effective, but the learning was accomplished in 44% less time. study compared the effectiveness of wet labs to the use of a virtual frog dissection program. In essence, you can keep rewinding a procedure until you’re good at it.” So why not in high school biology? It's effectiveĪ recent Ph.D. says “A virtual environment is very forgiving, You can practice all you want you can fumble all you want you can kill a ‘patient’ repeatedly, learning from your mistakes. Alan Liu, Ph.D., a research scientist for virtual reality at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) in Bethesda, Md. Nancy Harrison, a practicing pathologist in California asserts that cutting up preserved frogs bears little relation to cutting human flesh and is therefore of no educational value for aspiring doctors.Įven medical schools are embracing virtual training. Interestingly, many doctors are also opposed to dissection in schools. ![]() ![]() Proponents of traditional dissection often lose sight of the reason for dissecting in the first place-to learn anatomy and physiology, not to learn dissection skills. While that may be true for a small number of students, mounting evidence suggests that virtual dissection programs such as The Digital Frog are just as good, if not a better way to learn anatomy and physiology than tradtional dissections. Many biology teachers believe that dissection is still the best way to learn biology. You'll miss the smell of formaldehyde A virtual dissection as good as, or better, than the real thing A virtual frog dissection so close to the real thing, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |