Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FROG ANATOMY 1
MET Program
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of augmented reality vs traditional
dissections on the learning and retention of knowledge related to frog anatomy. Subjects are
420 grade 9 secondary students from 7 schools in Vancouver School District in British
post-unit assessment control group design is used in the study. Student performance will be
(MANCOVA) statistical technique. The results of the study are expected to indicate that the
moderate learning increases and may appeal to teachers and students for various practical
The use of Augmented Reality (AR) technology is poised to be the next big step
AR has many unique affordances to offer to education, including the ability to interactively
model virtual learning objects into the real world and allow groups of students to interact
with these objects collaboratively. One possible application of this new technology is in the
science lab for secondary education. Most science labs in America still teach anatomy and
biology by having students perform a dissection on an animal cadaver, however, there are
cost, ethical, safety and personal challenges to using animals for this purpose in the classroom
(Osenkowski et al, 2015). In many cases, technology is being used to replace animal
dissections in the lab, including the use of video and mobile apps with animated 3D images.
Many teachers and students report that these technologies often do not provide an authentic
replacement of animal cadaver dissection, however (Cross & Cross, 2004; Osenkowski et al,
2015). AR technology affords the students with information and experiences that are not
possible in an animal cadaver dissection, such as seeing how the living organs operate, while
blending of a virtual learning object with appended learning materials has the potential to
provide a more robust learning experience for the students than a real dissection can afford.
The purpose of this study will be to measure and compare the academic performance, in pre-
unit assessment, post-unit assessment and delayed post-unit assessment, of students who
received the AR-based animal dissection unit against students who performed a traditional
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 4
dissection, within the curriculum of 9th grade students from 7 schools of the researchers
district.
Research Questions
2. Will students retain more knowledge, within the AR group, as opposed to the
Hypothesis
Ninth grade students who receive the AR dissection unit will demonstrate a moderate
increase in academic performance over students who received the traditional dissection unit,
based on post teaching assessment. Additionally, students who received the AR dissection
unit will demonstrate moderately higher rates of retention, based on the delayed assessment.
Assumptions
and cost-effective AR platform, similar to the popular Frog Dissection (2011) app
or V-Frog (2011).
HoloLens.
3. Students and teachers will receive instruction on how to use the technology.
learning. However, recent concerns have led some educators to develop alternative methods.
Technologies allowing for virtual dissections have been developed, but studies of their
effectiveness have produced inconsistent results (Lalley, Piotrowski, Battaglia, Brophy, &
Chugh, 2010). Augmented Reality (AR) technologies offer a new viable direction to develop
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 5
limited.
(Montgomery, 2008), however there are cost, cultural, religious, ethical, safety, and personal
challenges to using animals for this purpose in the classroom (Osenkowski, Green, Tjaden, &
Cunniff, 2015). The use of Virtual Reality (VR) to replace animal dissections in science labs
often do not provide a unique and authentic experience (Montgomery, 2008; Osenkowski et
al., 2015). Additionally, that students and teachers attitudes lean towards mostly positive
experiences with actual dissections. In contrary, some advantages for alternative teaching
methods include reduction in teaching times, cost associated with purchasing animals,
increased opportunities for students to practice skills, greater flexibility in terms of time
management and ethical concerns of harming animal will be removed (Lalley et al., 2010;
Due to the issues of ethics and cost listed above, educators sought alternate methods to
cadaver-based dissections. One of the earliest methods utilized VR-based technology. Cross
& Cross (2004) examined the efficacy of using VR-based dissections for AP biology students
and found that students who received VR-based instruction performed significantly worse
than the control group in a cadaver-based practicum but equivalent in a VR-based practicum.
Montgomery (2008) compared the VR-based dissection against cadaver-based dissection and
found that there was no significant difference between the two conditions on the general
knowledge test posttest, but there was a significant difference on the lab practicum test. It is
important to note that, like Cross & Cross (2004), the lab practicum was conducted using a
cadaver as the test subject. These results were also analyzed in relation to gender, grade level,
and ethnicity. In regard to these three variables, no significant differences between related
subgroups were noted. Lalley et al. (2010) found that students who performed virtual
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 6
dissection had higher scores on the immediate post-test. They also advocate that virtual
dissection provides additional learning opportunities because students can use the virtual tool
multiple times, whereas physical specimens can only be used once. Lalley et al. (2010),
concluded, the implication for teaching is that virtual dissection is a viable alternative to
physical dissection, and that using both virtual and physical dissection would likely produce
Within our search for literary references we discovered that there were numerous
papers on the effectiveness of AR within a science curriculum. Each area of research found
that AR provided a similar or more beneficial environment for student learning. Hung, Chen,
and Huang (2016) found that AR learning for fifth grade students on the topic of bacterial
knowledge produced beneficial learning results and an increase in learning motivation. Prez-
Lpez & Contero (2013) identified that the use of AR learning systems for digestive and
circulatory topics were on par with traditional learning but produced more pronounced results
for long-term retention. Kk et al. (2016) observed that learning anatomy for medical
students with AR as opposed to traditional textbooks produced better assessment results and a
and Barcia (2015) also identified overall positive results for AR learning for medical students
in the area of anatomy learning. These papers provide a starting point for AR learning in
dissection alternative. While some research of virtual methods has demonstrated benefits, the
results overall have been inconsistent. AR offers a promising new teaching tool for
dissections but current research of its effectiveness is limited to comparisons with traditional
teaching methods such as the use of textbooks and lectures. Research needs to be conducted
to determine ARs educational value with regards to its effectiveness of teaching dissections.
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 7
Description of Methods
Design
assessment control group design will be used in the study to examine whether AR teaching
methods. A delayed post-unit assessment will measure knowledge retention between the two
groups. The independent variable for the study will be the two different types of teaching
method (AR-based dissection or traditional dissection). The dependent variables are the
The experimental group will use ARbased teaching methods for dissection and the
control group will use the traditional teaching method on dissection. Students will be
randomly assigned to either group following the same grade 9 curriculum unit to complete
three, 45 minutes long lessons on frog dissection. Prior to the study, all students will be
given a pre-unit assessment on the contents of the lesson and immediately after the lesson
students will be given the a post-unit assessment. A delayed post-unit assessment will be
administered 1 week after the post-unit assessment. All assessments will be similar but not
identical, this is to prevent students from memorizing the questions or copying the answers.
Participants
The study group will consist approximately 420 grade 9 secondary students from 7
schools in Vancouver School District of British Columbia, Canada. The research will use
population subgroups was studied. The students will be from secondary schools that are from
a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds. 60 students within 2 courses (30 students per) at each
school will be randomly selected to participate in the study. Those students will then be
Instrumentation
For the implementation of our AR-based virtual dissection we will use pre-established
technologies for the core of the technology. The most promising and flexible framework is
the ARToolKit (2017). This toolkit will allow us to create a customized environment that will
simulate the frog dissection. With the combination of the ARToolKit, specialized frog
dissection content, visual markers, and multiple computing platforms we will deliver a unique
learning experience for our research. Since our AR approach is custom built, a period of
Data Analysis
The collected data will be analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science
be used. The statistical differences on the multiple dependent variables will be assessed by
the independent grouping variable, and the pre-unit assessments will be used as the covariate.
Students and guardians will be given informed consents statements approved by the
University of British Columbia. The researcher will receive permission from each participant
(including instructors, students and school administration) to collect quantitative data. Data
researchers. Each assessment will cover content related to the life cycle, anatomy, and organ
function of the frog. The post-unit and delayed-post unit assessments will be similar, but not
identical to the pre-unit assessment. This will be to prevent students from memorizing
questions or copying down answers for later use and thus potentially contaminating the
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 9
results of the study. All assessments will be scored, compiled according to method of
We have found through our extensive literary reviews that there is a correlation
between between using technology for biology/anatomy lessons and student performance
(Cross & Cross, 2004; Lalley et al., 2010; Kk, 2016; Montgomery, 2008; Prez-Lpez &
Contero, 2013). The expected results for our proposed research experiment in AR and frog
dissection will fall in line with the previous conclusions from different but related research
topics. Student learning and knowledge retention will see a significant increase using AR
versus a control group. We also anticipate that the further development of AR platforms and
environments will cultivate an even larger variance in data results once the learning method
matures. Our research will fill a void in the area of research around using AR for hands-on
science learning that has yet to be explored. The results of our research will support the need
Educational Significance
environment. The blending of virtual and physical learning materials has the potential to
methods providing educators with greater flexibility in addressing cost, cultural, religious,
ethical, safety, and personal challenges related to physical dissections (Osenkowski, Green,
Tjaden, & Cunniff, 2015). Students would also have an increased opportunity to engage in
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 10
potential.
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 11
References
https://artoolkit.org/
Cross, T. R., & Cross, V. E. (2004). Scalpel or mouse? A statistical comparison of real &
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Emantras.Frog.Dissection
Ferrer-Torregrosa, J., Torralba, J., Jimenez, M. A., Garca, S., & Barcia, J. M. (2015).
Frog Dissection (2011). Virtual Frog Dissection Educational App [Computer software].
Hung, Y., Chen, C., & Huang, S. (2016). Applying augmented reality to enhance learning: A
doi:10.1111/jcal.12173
Kk, S. (2016). Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement
and cognitive load. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(5), 411; 411-421; 421.
Lalley, J. P., Piotrowski, P. S., Battaglia, B., Brophy, K., & Chugh, K. (2010). A comparison
Liou, W., Bhagat, K. K., & Chang, C. (2016). Beyond the flipped classroom: A highly
016-9606-8
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AR VS TRADITIONAL DISSECTION ON LEARNING FROG ANATOMY 12
Osenkowski, P., Green, C., Tjaden, A., & Cunniff, P. (2015). Evaluation of educator &
student use of & attitudes toward dissection & dissection alternatives. The American
Prez-Lpez, D., & Contero, M. (2013). Delivering educational multimedia contents through
http://www.tactustech.com/vfrog/