Rat Dissection Alternatives in Biology Education: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/Keywords:
rat dissection alternatives, humane education, rat dissection, dissectionAbstract
Despite the importance of both rat dissection and alternatives for rat dissection, proponents for these alternatives became more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemically. Humane education, whereby 3R, reduction, replacement or refinement are urged to be incorporated into the Malaysian education system, aligning with the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs). Utilising technology is an essential component of any 21st-century learning. Therefore, this study was carried out to explore the need for alternatives in rat dissection that provide both a high learning experience and feasibility using the systematic literature review (SLR). PRISMA technique is employed. The examination of selected literature revealed a substantial positive effect on the student's learning experience in terms of perception, task performance, exam performance, and motivation. It is found to be either superior or equivalent to the intended outcomes. This study has also identified the feasibility aspects of the alternatives of rat dissection in relation to the USE model. They were classified into sustainability (usefulness), affordability (ease of use), availability (ease of learning), and motivation (satisfaction). This study delves into the need for alternatives in rat dissection redesigning in 21st-century learning with high usability that is readily available, affordable, sustainable and motivating. Innovation and reform are required to ensure better education through ICT integration, aligning with the Malaysian Digital Education Policy. Besides that, cognitive and motivational models should be incorporated into these alternatives' designs. Thus, it can be concluded from the SLR that the ideal alternative for rat dissection is of virtual anatomy tools and three-dimensional (3D) models.
Downloads
References
[1] A. Mager, “Redesigning dissection lessons: Considerations for a meaningful 21st century learning experience,” Learn. to Teach, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 124–129, 2019.
[2] S. G. Kalthur, A. K. Pandey, and S. Prabhath, “Benefits and pitfalls of learning anatomy using the dissection module in an Indian medical school: A millennial Learner’s perspective,” Transl. Res. Anat., vol. 26, pp. 1–6, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tria.2021.100159.
[3] M. A. Zemanova, “Attitudes toward animal dissection and animal-free alternatives among high school biology teachers in Switzerland,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, no. May, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.892713.
[4] S. Z. Y. Ooi and R. Ooi, “Impact of SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic on the future of cadaveric dissection anatomical teaching,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 2–4, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1823089.
[5] Omar Amahmid et al., “Animal use in life sciences education: Current status, teachers’ and adolescents’ attitudes and alternatives,” Anatol. J. Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 69–80, 2019, doi: 10.29333/aje.2019.428a.
[6] Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, “Al-Kafi #414: Hukum membedah katak bagi tujuan belajar,” Al Kafi li al-Fatawi. 2016, [Online]. Available: https://muftiwp.gov.my/artikel/al-kafi-li-al-fatawi.
[7] E. Ormandy et al., “Animal dissection vs. non-animal teaching methods: A systematic review of pedagogical value,” Am. Biol. Teach., vol. 84, no. 7, pp. 399–404, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1525/ABT.2022.84.7.399.
[8] J. D. Sack and K. C. Suder, “Getting nerdy with Mel and Gerdy: Scienstructable 3D dissection models, paper & digital,” Am. Biol. Teach., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 178–178, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1525/ABT.2023.85.3.178.
[9] Muhamad Shakir Saad, Che Jamaliah Abd Manaf, Nor Hayati Samsudin, and Noor Nadhirah Omar, “Keberkesanan penggunaan Padlet dalam proses pembelajaran amali tikus terhadap motivasi bahan pengajaran pelajar,” in Konvensyen Penyelidikan, Professional Learning Communities dan Inovasi Pendidikan Program Matrikulasi KPM Kali Pertama Tahun 2021, Oct. 2021, pp. 187–201, Accessed: Apr. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/konppi1-2021/home.
[10] K. Y. Chan, “The need for humane education in school curricula,” Free Malaysia Today (FMT), Petaling Jaya, Dec. 15, 2022.
[11] F. A. de Oliveira and M. M. Gomes, “School practices in the office of the Natural History/Biology teaching laboratory at Colégio Pedro II (1960-1970),” Brazilian J. Hist. Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–24, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.4025/rbhe.v23.2023.e255.
[12] Malay Mail, “One-year Madani govt: Education ministry prioritises humane education, accessible learning, says minister,” 2023. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/12/04/one-year-madani-govt-education-ministry-prioritises-humane-education-accessible-learning-says-minister/105693 (accessed Sep. 15, 2024).
[13] M. A. Zemanova and A. Knight, “The educational efficacy of humane teaching methods: A systematic review of the evidence,” Animals, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ani11010114.
[14] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement,” J. Clin. Epidemiol., vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 1006–1012, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
[15] M. Gusenbauer and N. R. Haddaway, “Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources,” Res. Synth. Methods, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 181–217, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1378.
[16] M. Gusenbauer, “Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases,” Scientometrics, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 177–214, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.
[17] E. von Elm, D. G. Altman, M. Egger, S. J. Pocock, P. C. Gøtzsche, and J. P. Vandenbroucke, “The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies,” Int. J. Surg., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1495–1499, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013.
[18] D. G. Dewhurst, J. Hardcastle, P. T. Hardcastle, and E. Stuart, “Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption,” Adv. Physiol. Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 95–104, 1994.
[19] J. R. Downie and J. I. Meadows, “Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 187–194, 1995, doi: 10.1080/00219266.1995.9655444.
[20] M. de T. Durand, C. B. A. Restini, A. C. D. Wolff, M. Faria Jr., L. B. Couto, and R. B. Bestetti, “Students’ perception of animal or virtual laboratory in physiology practical classes in PBL medical hybrid curriculum,” Adv. Physiol. Educ., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 451–457, 2019, doi: 10.1152/advan.00005.2019.
[21] J. Fančovičová and P. Prokop, “The effects of 3D plastic models of animals and cadaveric dissection on students’ perceptions of the internal organs of animals,” J. Balt. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 767–775, 2014, doi: 10.33225/jbse/14.13.767.
[22] D. M. Guimarães, B. Valério‐Gomes, R. L. de Araújo, C. de Oliveira Cudischevitch, and D. Uziel, “Practical anatomy classes: An alternative to improve the learning of middle school students,” Anat. Sci. Educ., Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1002/ase.2246.
[23] C. Haspel, H. K. Motoike, and E. Lenchner, “The implementation of clay modeling and rat dissection into the human anatomy and physiology curriculum of a large urban community college,” Anat. Sci. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 38–46, 2014, doi: 10.1002/ase.1369.
[24] M. Humpenöder et al., “Alternatives in education - evaluation of rat simulators in laboratory animal training courses from participants’ perspective,” Animals, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1–26, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ani11123462.
[25] H. L. Leathard and D. G. Dewhurst, “Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a computer assisted learning program,” ALT-J, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 118–125, 1995.
[26] M. Predavec, “Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 75–80, 2001, doi: 10.1080/00219266.2000.9655746.
[27] J. G. Cromley, T. Perez, A. Kaplan, T. Dai, K. Mara, and M. J. Balsai, “Combined cognitive-motivational modules delivered via an LMS increase undergraduate biology grades,” Technol. Mind, Behav., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi: 10.1037/tmb0000020.supp.
[28] A. M. Lund, “Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire,” Usability interface, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3–6, 2001.
[29] D. Lai, S. L. Lew, and S. Y. Ooi, “Modified TPACK framework for teachers’ efficiency, students’ performance and students’ engagement,” in Proceedings of Sixth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, 2022, vol. 235, pp. 827–835, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-2377-6_76/COVER.
[30] D. I. Lewis, The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the Biological Sciences, 1st ed., vol. 1. York: The Higher Education Academy, 2014.
[31] S. S. Pokale, “Animal dissection: Effective instructional aid than alternative methods,” Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 210–213, 2019, Accessed: Apr. 03, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://ijrar.com/.
[32] T. Sekiguchi and M. Makino, “A virtual reality system for dissecting vertebrates with an observation function,” in International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication, 2021, pp. 13–16, doi: 10.1109/ICEIC51217.2021.9369824.
[33] S. Elmali, “Reflections of hands-on dissection and virtual dissection experiences of pre-service science teachers,” J. Biol. Educ., 2022, doi: 10.1080/00219266.2022.2058984.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhamad Ikhwan Mat Saad, Rosmilah Misnan, Mohamad Termizi Borhan, Yoke Seng Wong , Lee Hoi Yeh, Teoh Chern Zhong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
