Action research implemented to improve Zoology laboratory activities in a

freshman biology majors course

by

Jennifer Leigh Myka

Thomas More College

and

C. Dianne Raubenheimer
North Carolina State University

Introduction
Traditional zoology laboratory activities include observation of slides,
observations of living and preserved organisms, and dissections of preserved
animals. While these activities are valuable, they have not consistently included
higher levels of intellectual challenge. For the zoology laboratory course studied,
learning was typically evaluated by performance on written laboratory reports and
on an end of the semester laboratory practical exam, where students essentially
had to regurgitate rather than use and synthesize information. However, Bloom’s
taxonomy suggests that the development of cognitive ability is hierarchical,
progressing from simple understanding to application and synthesis of that
knowledge, and that performance tasks undertaken by students should reflect
the range of cognitive skills (Reed & Bergemann, 2001). This led us to reconsider
how the zoology laboratory section was taught, using an action research
approach.
Effective teaching involves enabling students to develop a deep
understanding of the materials they are studying. This can be achieved through a
variety of thought-demanding tasks (Levin & Nolan, 2000), including having
student explain concepts in their own words, making predictions, doing drawings,
finding exemplars in new contexts and applying concepts to new situations
(Brandt, 1992). Zuber-Skerritt (1992a) concurred, stating
So far we have arrived at the position that the most appropriate mode of
learning and teaching in higher education is that of the alternative
paradigm which may be characteri zed by learner-centered, problem-
oriented, interdisciplinary, process-centered, and using an open, critical
approach. (p. 147)

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

One way to encourage students to achieve a deeper understanding of course
materials is to facilitate higher levels of learning by increasing the intellectual
challenge of the tasks requested in student assignments and activities. This can
be achieved by the use of Bloom’s taxonomy, where the use of activities that can
be associated with specific verbs correlate with higher levels of intellectual
challenge, such as the use of “find”, a knowledge term, versus “classify,” an
analysis term with a higher expectation of intellectual challenge.
Studies of student learning in higher education in the United States have
tended to focus on learning-oriented behaviors and their relationship to grade
and performance-oriented behaviors (Cross & Steadman, 1996). In contrast,
there is a rich body of research by scholars in the United Kingdom and Australia
that have concentrated on studying deep and surface approaches to learning by
students (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). A surface approach is characterized by an
attempt by learners to reproduce information, a concern for grades and course
requirements, and is characterized by minimal mental effort. In contrast, a deep
approach relies on relating new information to existing knowledge, the application
of new information to new contexts and on the creation of meaning (Cross &
Steadman, 1996). This deep approach correlates to Bloom’s taxonomy, in that
moving tasks beyond a knowledge level to application, comprehension, analysis
and synthesis will encourage learners to move beyond that surface approach.
There is a clear relationship between teaching strategies and student
learning, with students adopting deep approaches in classrooms that are more
student-centered (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Students with a deep approach to
learning and who were shown to have a solid initial grasp of subject matter
tended to be more successful than students with poor initial conceptual
development who used a deep approach, or groups that used a shallow
approach to learning (Prosser, et al, 2000). Students’ conceptual knowledge was
determined using open ended questions and a concept mapping activity both
done before and after instruction. These were scored quantitatively. Approaches
to study were assessed using Biggs’s Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs,
1987), which is a validated questionnaire developed to determine if a student
uses a deep or surface approach to learning. Using these techniques, Kember, et
al (1997) examined student approaches to learning in three courses redesigned
to promote a deep approach to learning, at a University in Hong Kong. Their
results showed that when students are engaged in integrating theory and
practice and in reflecting on learning, they are more likely to develop a deep
approach. To achieve these effects, instructors must move away from lecture-
based teaching to more participative approaches that include real-life
applications of learni ng, such as the increased involvement of students in
experimental design and in the construction of dichotomous keys implemented in
the redesigned activities in this study. In comparison, traditional courses using
traditional approaches lead to a decline in deep approaches to learning (Kember,
et al, 1997).
In addition to our concern about student engagement in learning, past
poor student performance on the laboratory practical raised the question as to
whether or not the laboratory activities performed were useful for the students’

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

learning experience. While exploration of the connection between laboratory
activities and student success in the course was the driving motivation for this
study, the authors also began to wonder whether or not dissections added to
student learning , given the current trend away from dissection activities. For
instance, Akpan (2002) investigated whether traditional dissections were as
effective as computer simulated dissections and found that students learned
more when simulation preceded actual dissections.
The basic design of the project used action research to explore the effects
of specific changes in the laboratory curriculum for four laboratory activities.
Students participated in both the previously scheduled laboratory activities for
most of the semester, and in the four redesigned activities for the Annelid,
Mollusc, Arthropod, and Echinoderm laboratory sessions.
Carr & Kemmis (1986) made a significant contribution to understanding
and implementing action research. They envisioned the following steps in the
process, (a) analyzing the problem, (b) planning strategies and interventions to
remedy the problem, (c) evaluation of the course of action, (d) reflection on the
results, and (e) repetition(s) of the cycle. In summary, action research is an
iterative process involving successive cycles of question generation, planning,
action, observation, and reflection, with the latter being termed the four moments
of action research (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992b; Hopkins, 1993). In this paper we
present information from our first cycle of action research over a two -year period.
Action research is a qualitative research technique (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000), using methods including observation, field notes, interviews,
questionnaires, sociometry, archival data (e.g. documents), artifacts, and self-
reporting (e.g. journal entries) (Hopkins, 1993; Mills, 2000). The basic
assumption is that people learn and create new knowledge out of personal
experiences through reflection, then formulate abstract conceptions and
generalizations. These are then applied to new contexts and situations (Zuber-
Skerritt, 1992b). Action research then is about developing an understanding of
praxis, the dialectical relationship between formal theory and the theories
generated in a particular context (Hadfield & Bennett, 1995). “Action research
projects are always case studies” (Hermes, 1999, p. 203) because they focus on
local context and action, and thus any generalizations relate only to that situation.

Methods
Participants
The participants were 36 students (10 males, 24 females, 2 not reported),
enrolled in two different semesters of a freshman undergraduate Zoology course
in a small, private university of around 800 students. Data concerning prior
experience in college laboratory courses or prior knowledge of zoology was not
collected in this study. These students participated in the study as a part of the
normally scheduled laboratory, of which there is only one section offered in the
spring semester of each academic year.
Project Design
Due to past poor performance on the lab practical, Myka asked
Raubenheimer to help improve the zoology laboratory course. One of us,

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

Raubenheimer, was the participant observer in the study attending all sessions,
making and recording observations and making suggestions. The other, Myka,
was the lead instructor teaching the class. We met prior to each session to plan
the revisions to the laboratory handouts.
In this action research, four laboratory activities were redesigned to
include higher levels of intellectual challenge in two semesters of an
undergraduate Zoology laboratory. Previous laboratories throughout the
semester had included observations of slides and preserved specimens, as well
as group dissections of preserved animals. Laboratory activities for study of the
Annelids, Molluscs, Arthropods, and Echinoderms were altered to include animal
behavior experiments, a dichotomous key activity, construction of tables of
structures and function, classification exe rcises, and a model building activity, in
addition to the traditional laboratory observations and dissections.
In year two, while Myka was on leave of absence, another veteran
instructor taught the course, using the same laboratory activities in the same
laboratory setting, and we also gathered data from this class for comparative
purposes.
We analyzed the laboratory handouts with regard to two points: a) the
level of intellectual challenge as indicated by the level of verbs as per Bloom’s
taxonomy and b) the relationship of each activity to the goals for the course. We
chose to revise four specific laboratory handouts, leaving alone other activities in
the course that were similar to the original non-revised laboratory activities.
A survey was constructed to analyze student perceptions of learning and
enjoyment for laboratory activities performed throughout the entire semester, not
just the redesigned activities. The intention of the survey was to compare student
learning and enjoyment for all types of activities performed throughout the
semester to determine if student enjoyment and student learning were correlated,
with the intention of looking for discrepancies, i.e. activities which students
enjoyed but did not feel that they learned from, or activities which students did
not enjoy but did learn from, so that future activities could be modified to
capitalize on student enjoyment to help increase learning. The results of the
survey were compared with the results of a lab practical exam for one semester
to determine if student impressions of learning were associated with
performance. Additional information was collected to determine both student
feelings and student learning from dissections, to begin to address whether the
format of dissection activities was effective. A preliminary study of the lab
practical was performed to determine whether student learning was improved on
items related to the redesigned activities as compared to the original activities
Survey results were analyzed statistically using Kendall’s coefficient of
concordance and Spearman’s rank order correlation and qualitatively by
examination of student comments. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was
used to assign an overall order to combined student rankings of learning and
enjoyment, i.e. to determine which activity students learned the most from, even
though not every student’s ranking was identical. Spearman’s rank order
correlation was used to determine if there was a correlation between activities
that students indicated they enjoyed and those they felt resulted in the most

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

learning (see attached survey in appendix 1 for the variables used). Students
were also asked to comment on the laboratory activities, and these responses
were coded with regard to whether they gave no response, a neutral response,
or a response indicating that they felt the activity either helped or didn’t help
learning.
A preliminary analysis of the 2002 lab practical was performed to
determine if there was an increase in student performance on questions relating
to the revised activities versus the original activities. Ten questions based on
original lab activities and five questions based on revised activities were
analyzed. Finally, the authors discussed their findings, and formulated a list of
recommendations for future action research cycles and future improvements to
the course.
Analysis of Laboratory Activity Handouts
Myka had taught the original lab activities for the four years preceding the
start of this study. After the laboratory activities and handouts were redesigned
to include more intellectually challenging activities, both the original and
redesigned laboratory handouts for the four redesigned activities were content
analyzed for the tasks that students were required to undertake by counting the
number of times particular verbs were used. Content analysis is a method of
determining the purpose and meaning of text (Bernard & Ryan, 1998). In this
case, the content analysis focused on the level of Bloom’s taxonomy (Reed &
Bergmann, 2000) of the verbs used in the handouts for the lab activities. We
wanted to determine the level of intellectual challenge according to Bloom’s
taxonomy in the original lab activities, so we could increase the challenge in the
redesigned activities. We hoped that increased challenge would result in deeper
learning, and would correlate to an increase in student learning and performance
on the lab practical.
Verbs with the same intent were combined into one common group. For
example, the group labeled ‘observe’ includes words such as see, look, note,
observe, and notice, while the category ‘manipulate’ includes words like cut, pull,
remove, raise and split – words used during dissections. Using Bloom’s
taxonomy, the total range of tasks (i.e. verbs used in the laboratory handouts) in
the four redesigned activities were classified into the six levels in Bloom’s
taxonomy: (a) knowledge, (b) comprehension, (c) application, (d) analysis, (e)
synthesis, and (f) evaluation. Based on these findings (which are presented in
more detail in a later section), we found that laboratory materials typically
focused on lower order tasks, and so, four laboratory sessions were redesigned
to include more cognitively demanding tasks. The original and redesigned
laboratories are described and content analyzed in the Results section.
Materials and Activity Summaries
Laboratory activities for each lab session were included in a laboratory
handout. The handout included some background material on the animals to be
studied, as well as protocols and directions for each laboratory observation or
activity. Four laboratory activities (annelid, mollusc, arthropod, and echinoderm)
were analyzed for this project. Myka taught the original activities once each
spring semester beginning in 1998. These activities were originally put together

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

by a veteran instructor and were used by Myka with a few variations that mainly
included the introduction of diagrams from various texts for students to reference
while in lab. In each case, activities were altered or added to improve the level of
intellectual challenge, as determined by the increased level in Bloom’s taxonomy.
Note that in both semesters a group vertebrate dissection project, in which
students selected a particular animal to dissect as a group, was also completed
and presented by them by the end of the semester.
Survey
A survey was given to each group of students at the end of the semester
in both 2002 and 2003 (see appendix 1). Students were asked to rank 15
laboratory activities, first by learning and then by enjoyment. They were asked
two questions about dissections in general, to begin to gauge students’ feelings
about dissections, as Myka had been considering implementing non-dissection
alternatives for both philosophical and economic reasons. Finally they were
asked to rate each activity for learning by whether they agreed or disagreed with
a statement such as “Looking at dissections helped my learning,” and asked to
provide comments to explain their choices. Results were collated and analyzed
descriptively and statistically. Because students individually ranked both their
preferred learning activities and their enjoyment of laboratory activities, Kendall’s
coefficient of concordance was used to determine the degree to which the
rankings of preferred learning activities were similar for all students. This
analysis was repeated for the rankings of student enjoyment. Next, Spearman’s
rank order correlation was applied to determine if there was a correlation
between student learning preferences and student enjoyment of activities.
Spearman’s rank correlation was also applied to compare the 2002 and 2003
student rankings for both the preferred learning activity and preferred activities
for enjoyment, particularly because the courses were taught by two different
instructors. The survey results led to several recommendations for future cycles
of action research in this course.
Qualitative Analysis of Student Work
As a part of the survey instrument, students were also required to provide
a qualitative response as to how the various activities had helped or not helped
their learning. These were coded as (a) helpful for learning, (b) not helpful, (c)
neutral, or (d) no response. The response rate for the qualitative portion of the
survey in 2003 was very low at only 50% and so only data for 2002 is reported.
These data were also examined to determine if the activities that students felt did
not help their learning were more or less cognitively challenging than activities
they felt were helpful.
Finally, students were surveyed for their feelings and learning from
dissection activities. Specifically, students were asked to explain what they
learned from dissections and how they felt about doing them. These qualitative
responses were analyzed by coding for emerging themes (Merriam, 1998) to
determine what students felt that they gained from doing dissections . Data for
both years are combined because the responses were similar in both years.
Again results were examined for potential changes in the course for the next time
it was offered.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Results
Comparison of laboratory activities and tasks
Content analysis, specifically text analysis, is a systematic method used in
the social sciences for analyzing the purpose and meaning of text (Bernard &
Ryan, 1998). Textual documents portray insights into the thinking and intentions
of the authors and are therefore a valuable source of information about the
author’s intended purposes and philosophy. There are different approaches to
content analysis, including word counts in which the incidence of particular words
are counted in a text to indicate the emphasis adopted by the author, and this
approach was used in this project in the following manner. Each of the four
laboratory handouts were content analyzed for the tasks that students were
required to undertake by counting the number of times particular verbs were
used. Words with a similar intention were categorized together. For example,
‘set it on a sheet of wet paper towel’, ‘run your finger along its sides’, ‘feel’, ‘put’,
‘touch’, and ‘turn it over’ are all examples of “manipulate.” Based on the results
of the content analysis, the number of times a verb in a category was used in the
laboratory handout was plotted for each original and redesigned laboratory
activity. The original labs are labeled # 1 and the redesigned labs are labeled # 2.
These lab activities, both original and redesigned, are described below and the
results of the content analysis are presented in Figures 1 though 4.

Comparison of original and redesigned Comparison of original and redesigned

Annelid labs Mollusc labs

70.0 70.0
60.0 60.0
50.0
50.0
40.0
40.0
30.0
30.0 20.0
20.0 10.0
10.0 0.0

0.0
an find

m lan
m ure
po te
rve

ze e
lat

hy nica

fy
aly siz
co as

e in t
se

y lat
ipu

rve ntif te pla rimen sti

an the
e
ob

/ju
ica
u

se ide ipu ex
ob un
m

n e
m

a m p
m m ex
co
Annelids 1 Molluscs 1
type of activity
Annelids 2 Molluscs 2
type of activity

Figure 1. Verb content analysis for Figure 2 . Verb content analysis for
Annelid activity. Mollusc activity.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Comparison of original and redesigned Comparison of original and redesigned
Arthropod labs Echinoderm labs
70
70.0
60
60.0
50
50.0
40
40.0
30
30.0
20
20.0
10
10.0
0
0.0

rve find ulate ize cate ey

rve ulate ssify atch entify ale del key se s i ble
se
ob anip cla nd m id o sc mo uct ob nip the un ct k t ta
t t str ma hypo omm nstru struc
m a re uc
list
asu onstr con c co con
me c Athropods 1 Echinoderms 1
type of activity Athropods 2 type of activity Echinoderms 2

Figure 3. Verb content analysis for Figure 4. Verb content analysis for
Arthropod activity. Echinoderm activity.

In all cases, the redesigned labs contained a greater range of tasks and
categories, while the original labs focused on some form of observation or
manipulation of the animals.
We then used the levels in Bloom’s taxonomy and associated verbs (Reed
& Bergmann, 2001) as the basis for further textual analysis, counting the number
of times particular verbs were associated with a particular level in the taxonomy.
Using Bloom’s taxonomy the total range of tasks (i.e. all the verbs used in the
laboratory manual in all four laboratory sessions) were classified into the six
levels in Bloom’s taxonomy, namely (a) knowledge, (b) comprehension, (c)
application, (d) analysis, (e) synthesis, and (f) evaluation. For instance, the
“manipulate” examples were then included in Bloom’s “application” category.
These data were transformed into percentages. These results are presented in
Figure 5.

Comparison of original and redesigned labs

Percentage of labs

93.7
100.0
80.0 72.5

60.0 Original
40.0 Redesigned
20.0 10 8.3
4.0 2.4 2.5 3.3 3.3
0.0
is
n

sis

on
ge

es
tio
n

aly

ati
led

sio

ca

nth

alu
An
ow

en

pli

Sy

Ev
Ap
reh

4.
Kn

5.

6.
mp

3.
1.

Co
2.

Bloom's classification

Figure 5. Comparison of original and redesigned lab tasks based on

Bloom’s taxonomy.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 As illustrated in Figure 5, in general, in the four laboratory handouts, there
is a change in frequency of direct observation (Bloom’s level 1) with a
concomitant increase in the range of tasks, including planning, experimenting,
hypothesizing, analyzing data and constructing models and tables, from a total of
6.4% Bloom’s levels 2 and 3 in the original activities, to a total of 18.3% for
Bloom’s levels 2 and 3 plus 9.1% in Bloom’s levels 4, 5, and 6 in the redesigned
activities. Also, there is a decrease in the manipulative skills required, because
there was a reduction in the number of dissections, but a concurrent increase in
other tasks.
For example, in the redesigned arthropod laboratory session, little
attention was given to direct observation only (Bloom’s level 1; 10% as compared
to 61.1% in the original arthropod activity). Rather students were required to use
their observations to identify (Bloom’s level 1; 30%) and classify (Bloom’s level 2;
10%) animals and use this knowledge to construct both arthropod models
(Bloom’s level 5; 10%) and a classification key for the models (Bloom’s level 5;
10%). This represents a much broader application of knowledge to new
contexts.
Therefore, the percentage of lower order, Bloom’s level 1 tasks decreased
by more than 20%, from 92.7% to 72.5%, with a concomitant increase in higher
order tasks, up 21% overall, with a addition of activities in the top three levels of
Bloom’s taxonomy where none had been present in the original activities. While
the percentage of level 4, 5, and 6 tasks is still relatively low, this is because
these individual tasks were complex. For instance, constructing a key contains
many sub-skills (e.g. compare and contrast), but the verb construct was only
counted once for each time students were required to create a key.
Original Activities
1.) Original Annelid activity
The original annelid activity included observations of live earthworms
(Lumbricus lumbricoides) organized by leading questions in the lab handout.
Students were directed to design, but not carry out, a simple experiment to
determine if the earthworms were attracted towards gravity or not, i.e., if the
worms were positively or negatively geotactic. In a separate exercise, students
anesthetized, examined, and then dissected earthworms. An earthworm cross-
section slide was observed by light microscopy and demonstration materials and
preserved specimens of other annelids were observed by students. The original
activity consisted mainly of observation (48.6%) and manipulations (32.4%), both
at Bloom’s taxonomy level 1 (Figure 1).
2.) Original Mollusc activity
The original mollusc activity included observations of live aquarium snails,
dissection of a preserved freshwater clam, and observations of demonstration
materials and other preserved specimens. The original mollusc activity consisted
mainly of observation (54.5%) and manipulation (39.4%), both at a Bloom’s
taxonomy level 1 (Figure 2).
3.) Original Arthropod activity

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 The original arthropod activity included observations of dried horseshoe
crabs, slides of whole spiders, ticks, mites, and Daphnia. Students dissected a
crayfish, and observed a preserved grasshopper, as well as other preserved
specimens and demonstration materials. As shown in Figure 3, the activity
consisted of exclusively observations (61.1%) and manipulations (38.9%), both at
Bloom’s level 1.
4.) Original Echinoderm activity
The original activity included a dissection of a common sea star (Asterias
forbesi), observations of live brittle stars, and observations of preserved
specimens and demonstration materials. This original lab consisted primarily of
Bloom’s level 1 with 60% observe and 30% manipulate, with 10% hypothesize
(Bloom’s level 3) (Figure 4).

Redesigned Activities
1.) Redesigned Annelid activity
The annelid activity tested in this action research project led the students
through a series of observations of live earthworms, a cross-section slide,
demonstration materials, and preserved specimens. However, the redesigned
activity included a directed experiment on worm behavior, followed by a student-
designed experiment that resulted in a written laboratory report due one week
later. As shown in Figure 1, the redesigned activities led to a decrease of 8.1%
in explanations, but an increase of 8.9% in communication, both with a Bloom’s
taxonomy of level 2. However, the addition of the directed experiment was
particularly valuable in that the manipulations (Bloom’s level 1) were reduced by
15.7%, while experimentation (Bloom’s level 6) was 6.8%. A dissected
earthworm was on demonstration, and was observed by students, and a plastic
model was also available. These alternatives to student dissection were
implemented for two reasons: a.) the earthworm dissection was never very
successful in that the anaesthetized earthworms were difficult for students to
accurately dissect and they usually were not able to visualize the features
discussed in the lab handouts, and b.) we wanted to see if student performance
would be affected if they did not perform the dissection themselves, but used
alternatives to visualize specific features.
The original annelid activity directed students to observe living and
preserved earthworms and other annelids, and to design a simple experiment,
“DESIGN A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT that would show whether the
worm is positively or negatively geotactic (gravity). You need not
be able to do the experiment; just design it.”
In addition, the original activity asked students to anesthetize and dissect
a living earthworm. Myka had noted that the anesthetizing did not work
consistently, and that students often seemed disturbed by trying to vivisect the
earthworm in order to see the hearts beating. Indeed, Myka noted that only one
student group had actually been able to make this observation during the
previous five semesters in which it had been attempted; usually the worm died
before the students could dissect enough to observe the heart. In addition,
students often could not visualize the noted features in their own dissections, and

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

most students actually identified all of the structures on an instructor-dissected
earthworm or from a photographic atlas.
The revised annelid activity greatly expanded the experiment, by asking
students to perform one experiment to observe earthworm locomotion, and a
second experiment which they designed, to test a hypothesis of their own:
“a.) DESIGN A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT that would test a hypothesis
of your own construction concerning earthworm behavior. Be sure
to include an appropriate control group of earthworms, and an
appropriate control for the variable that you test. b.) Check with the
instructor to ensure that your experiment can be done in our
laboratory, and that your controls are sufficient so that you can
collect meaningful data on earthworm behavior. c.) Set up and
carry out your experiment in lab today. Take sufficient notes on
your observations so that you can submit the results of this
experiment in a written lab report due next week in lab.”
To address the concerns that students were not able to observe the
desired features in the anesthetized earthworm, and to address concerns about
dissecting a still living animal, the revised activity asked students to make the
same observations but provided a dissected preserved earthworm and a plastic
earthworm model, both on demonstration. The text of the observations remained
the same as before.
2. Redesigned Mollusc activity
The redesigned mollusc activity (Figure 2) included the same observations
of live aquarium snails, as well as observations of a dissected freshwater clam, a
plastic model, and other preserved specimens on demonstration leading to no
significant change in observations (-0.5% in redesigned lab). However, the
addition of a directed gastropod experiment led to decreases in Bloom’s
taxonomy level 1, with a decrease of 6.1% in finding and of 22.4% in
manipulations. In addition, there was a strong increase in Bloom’s levels of
intellectual challenge in the following activities, up from 0% in the original: +7%
communicate (Bloom’s level 2); +5% and +7% in hypothesize and plan,
respectively (Bloom’s level 3); and +7% analyze/justify (Bloom’s level 4).
Students measured the distance traveled by a snail in five replicates of one-
minute observations. They determined the question being addressed, the
hypothesis tested, and how to process the data for clear communication. The
students then designed an independent gastropod experiment based on their
experiences in the directed experiment. They were directed to determine the
question being addressed, the hypothesis tested, the variables involved in their
experiment, and a conclusion based on the data they collected.
For example, the original mollusc activity asked students to observe live
aquarium snails:
“Place your snail on a BIOLOGICALLY CLEAN slide. Allow it to
attach firmly, then examine it upside down under a dissecting
microscope or hand lens. Note the mouth opening and the mode of
locomotion. Its gliding movement is the result of waves of muscular
contraction passing over the foot.”

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

The revised activity included these identical observation activities, but added a
directed gastropod experiment followed by an independent experiment, which
enhanced the intellectual challenge of the investigations by students:
“Using your experiences in the Directed Gastropod Experiment,
design and execute a simple experiment regarding gastropod
behavior. … Before you begin your experiment, answer the
following questions: a. What is the general question being
addressed by this experiment? b. Record the hypothesis you wish
to test. c. Identify the variables, both experimental and controlled,
in this experiment. d. Analyze the data to come to a conclusion as
to whether or not the data supports your hypothesis.”
3.) Redesigned Arthropod activity
The redesigned arthropod activity included the study of preserved
arthropods to classify a set of arthropod photographs, diagrams, and specimens
into arthropod classes. Students prepared a structure/function table of 5 external
features for the grasshopper, spider, and crayfish, and 5 internal structures of a
dissected crayfish on demonstration, with a list of the functions for each
structure. Students formed small groups of 2-4 and chose the name of an
arthropod from a hat, and constructed a model of that arthropod to illustrate the
characteristic features of that arthropod. Finally, students constructed a
dichotomous key that could be used to distinguish between the models made by
each group. As shown in Figure 3, while observe and manipulate were reduced
by 51.1% and 38.9%, respectively, identify and measure to scale, also Bloom’s
level 1 activities increased by 30% and 10%, respectively. However,
considerable gains were made by the addition of 20% list and match (Bloom’s
level 3), 10% construct model (Bloom’s level 5), and 10% construct key (Bloom’s
level 5).
The original arthropod activity included examination of preserved
horseshoe crabs, spiders, ticks, mites, Daphnia, crayfish, other crustaceans,
grasshoppers, and other insects, with some slides of the smaller arthropods. A
dissection of the crayfish was also included. Typical observations were
accompanied by instructions such as the following for the grasshopper
observations:
“3. Subphylum Uniramia a. Grasshopper (Romalea): Insects
constitute the most diverse, largest, and most widespread class of
arthropods, so spend some time looking at the external anatomy of
the representative insect provided at your table. Insects are
distinguished from other arthropods by a combination of the
following characteristics in adults:
– body divided into three segments (head, thorax, abdomen)
– one pair of antennae
– three pairs of legs
– (usually) two pairs of wings”
In contrast, the revised activity did not lead students through these specific
observations, but instead directed them to determine for themselves which were
the characteristics of different arthropods. For example:

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 “Your task for today is to first study the animals and specimens on
demonstration and then use your knowledge and available
resources to a.) classify a set of arthropod photographs,
diagrams, and specimens into their appropriate arthropod
classes or groups. …
Using the information you obtain by your examination of
these three arthropods, b.) prepare a table which lists 5 external
features for each animal and 5 internal features of the crayfish.
For each feature, list the function the structure provides for each
animal.
… You need to identify the main characteristics for the
arthropod you are assigned and used this information to c.)
construct and arthropod model using paper, scissors, tape, etc.”
Therefore, with the revised activities, students were able to determine on
their own that, for example, insects had 3 pairs of legs and a body made of three
segments, rather than being told that these were distinguishing characteristics of
insects, leading to a deeper understanding of the classification of arthropods.
Interestingly, Myka noted that at the lab table whose members usually left lab
early and did not generally seem particularly engaged during other lab activities,
the students became very involved in the arthropod model construction,
constructing a very detailed and accurate scorpion model, and actually left the
lab last for the only time during the semester.
4.) Redesigned Echinoderm activity
The redesigned activity included a similar dissection and observations of
live animals, preserved specimens and demonstration materials. In addition,
students were directed to prepare a structure/function table including 10
echinoderm structures of their choice from one echinoderm example and a list of
the function of each structure. Students also prepared a dichotomous key to
distinguish between the five echinoderm classes studied. These changes
resulted in a decrease of 15.6% in observe and an 11.5% decrease in
manipulate, but the addition of 11.1% in find, all at Bloom’s level 1, with a slight
increase of 1.1% in hypothesize (Bloom’s level 3) (refer to Figure 4). However,
communicate was 7.4% (Bloom’s level 2), and construct key and construct table
were both 3.7% (Bloom’s level 5).
The original activity contained instructions for studying echinoderms, such
as the following for observations during the sea star dissection:
“The mouth is on the aboral side and opens into a short
esophagus which leads to a large two -chambered stomach that
fills most of the central disk. ...”
The revised echinoderm activity included the entire lab, including the
above instructions, with the following addition:
“a.) Observe the living and preserved echinoderms in the lab.
Prepare a table with 10 structures from one echinoderm example
of your choice and list the function of the 10 structures that you
choose. … b.) Prepare a dichotomous key to distinguish
between organisms in five echinoderm classes we have studied

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 today: Classes Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea, Crinoidea, Holothuroidea,
and Echinodea.”
Again, the revised activity directed students to determine for themselves
which structures were characteristic of a class, and to learn to distinguish
between organisms for themselves.
Student ratings of activities
Student average ranks for learning preference and enjoyment preference
are listed in Table 1 for 2002 and Table 2 for 2003.
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance showed that there is an overall
similarity between student ranking of preferred learning activities (W = .491, p =
0.000), as well as for activities rated for enjoyment (W = .325, p = 0.000).

Table 1. Ranking of activities for 2002.

Learning mean S.D. Enjoyment mean S.D. n
Activity preference preference
rank rank
Looking at dissections 3 4.11 3.01 3 3.72 2.82 18
Observing live animal
behavior 1 3.33 3.05 1 2.56 1.54 18
Looking at plastic models 11 9.17 3.87 9 8.78 3.02 18
Designing and conducting
own investigation on live
animals 4 5.11 2.85 4 4.89 3.36 18
Drawing observations 5 7.33 3.85 6 7.11 3.68 18
Observing specimens in
bottles 15 10.2 3.97 7 7.39 3.63 18
Looking at professionally-
prepared microscope slides 8 8.33 4.65 12 10.3 4.2 18
Constructing models 6 7.89 4.51 5 5.56 3.52 18
Looking at photographs and
diagrams 7 8 3.18 8 7.67 3.4 18
Classifying animals into
classes 12 9.5 3.6 14 11 3.45 18
Doing own dissections 2 3.78 3.54 2 2.94 3.15 18
Observing using the light
microscope 14 9.89 3.31 10 9.44 3.82 18
Constructing dichotomous
keys 10 8.83 4.3 15 11.6 3.91 18
Constructing tables of
structure and function 9 8.72 3.16 13 10.7 4.13 18
Looking at self-prepared
microscope slides 13 9.5 4.18 11 10.1 3.7 18

The first four rankings are the same for both the activities preferred for
learning and those selected for maximal enjoyment. These are (a) observation of
live animals, (b) doing own dissections, (c) looking at dissections, and (d)
designing and conducting investigations on live animals. Spearman’s rank order
correlation showed that the overall ranking of the two categories is significantly
correlated (ρ = .729, p = 0.01).
The data for 2003, presented in Table 2 also showed a there is an overall
similarity between student ranking of preferred learning activities (W = .255, p =
0.000), as well as for activities rated for enjoyment (W = .339, p = 0.000).

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

Table 2. Ranking of activities for 2003.
Learning mean S.D. Enjoyment mean S.D. n
Activity preference preference
rank rank
Looking at dissections 2 4.2 4.0 2 4.6 4.1 18
Observing live animal
behavior 3 5.2 4.0 3 4.9 4.1 18
Looking at plastic models 9 8.2 4.3 8 8.3 4.1 18
Designing and conducting
own investigation on live
animals 4 6.1 4.6 5 5.9 4.2 18
Drawing observations 8 8.0 3.2 13 10.2 3.6 18
Observing specimens in
bottles 6 7.1 4.5 6 6.3 4.3 18
Looking at professionally-
prepared microscope slides 11 8.8 3.8 11 9.4 3.6 18
Constructing models 7 7.8 3.4 7 7.4 4.4 18
Looking at photographs and
diagrams 5 6.3 3.5 4 5.7 3.4 18
Classifying animals into
classes 13 8.9 4.5 13 10.2 4.8 18
Doing own dissections 1 3.5 4.3 1 3.2 4.3 18
Observing using the light
microscope 14 9.3 3.4 9 8.7 3.5 18
Constructing dichotomous
keys 15 10.8 4.5 15 11.4 4.0 18
Constructing tables of
structure and function 10 8.3 3.6 13 10.2 2.8 18
Looking at self-prepared
microscope slides 13 8.9 4.5 10 9.1 3.9 18

The first three rankings are the same for both the activities preferred for
learning and those selected for maximal enjoyment. These are (a) doing own
dissections, (b) looking at dissections and (c) observation of live animals. The
overall ranking of the two categories is also significantly correlated (Spearman’s
rank order correlation, ρ = .877, p = 0.01). The high correlations showed that
overall students felt they learned more from activities they enjoyed, and
conversely, that they learned less from activities they did not enjoy.
While the overall rank orders differed between 2002 and 2003, there is a
strong correlation between the two years for both rank preferences of activities
for learning (Spearman’s rank order correlation, ρ = .749, p = 0.01) and activities
enjoyed (Spearman’s rank order correlation, ρ = .877, p = 0.01). Therefore the
instructor change between 2002 and 2003 did not significantly alter student
rankings.
In terms of items for course improvement, we looked explicitly at activities
in which there was not an overall correspondence between enjoyment and
learning because these highlighted areas for improvement. For instance, in 2002,
‘observing specimens in bottles’ ranked 15th for learning preference but 7th for
enjoyment. This meant that in terms of learning potential we were not capitalizing
on the inherent interest students had in observing preserved specimens. This
indicated an area for future development. Other discrepancies were found in

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

both years were ‘observing using the light microscope’ and ‘constructing tables of
structure and function’.
Qualitative Student Responses
Student explanations of which activities helped their learning show that
overall they found constructing dichotomous keys the least helpful for learning,
followed by observing preserved specimens and observing self-prepared slides
(see Figure 6). Several students also did not find the following activities useful
for learning; (a) making structure and function tables, (b) classifying animals
using a key, (c) observing professionally prepared slides, and (d) conducting their
own investigations. It is interesting that most of these activities that students did
not find helpful are the more cognitively demanding tasks. In the future action
research cycle, comparisons will be made to student’s learning style and whether
they students adopt a surface approach or a deep approach to learning.

Coded qualitative responses

100% No
Percentage of students

90% response
80%
70% Neutral
60%
50%
Didn't help
40% learning
30%
20% Helped
10% learning
0%

ns als els s s
ion ns els als ns pe
e ctio anim mod ation rvat e lides mod ms anim ectio osco les ke
ys
iss ve ic ig se cim es ng gra n g iss ic r ab us
t t
t d g li plas ves g ob spe cop truct i i d t
dia sify n t m on mo
ga in in in d s s nd las g ow g ligh uncti hoto
okin serv ing a own raw erve icro Con hs a C in in f
d gd ic
Lo Ob ook ting D res al m rap Do Us an
L uc in g p ssion otog tu re tuctin
nd rv e h c ns
Co se Prof gp str
u
Co
Ob w n
i
king
Vie Ma

Category of activity

Figure 6. Qualitative results coded for emerging themes.

The majority of students (85.7%) were very positive about doing

dissections (Figure 7). Two (4.8%) were slightly positive, expressing concern for
the dead animal, one (2.4%) was neutral stating that s/he had no problem with
them, and two (11.1%) were slightly negative saying that they “stink” (smell) or
that they hate the write-ups accompanying them. Only one student (2.4%) was
more negative stating that s/he “did not enjoy the dissections.” Explanations
given for their positive views towards dissections were (a) that they enhanced
learning (33.3%), (b) that they like/love doing them (41.7%), and (c) that they
enjoyed the hands-on dimension (25%) (Figure 8).

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Attitudes about dissections
Percentage of students

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Very Slightly Neutral Slightly More
positive positive negative negative

Category of opinion

Figure 7. Student attitudes towards dissections.

Positive reasons reported for dissections

25%
33% Hands-on
Enjoyment
Enhanced learning
42%

Figure 8. Positive student responses regarding dissections.

More students cited a lower order cognitive task, that of identifying

structure and location, as the reason they learned from dissections (Figure 9).
Fifty-six percent of the students cited that dissections were important to learn
about the structure of organisms, 39% that they helped with locating structures,
25% that they were valuable for associating function with structure, and 14% that
dissections helped to develop important skills, like accuracy, following directions
and making incisions.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Percentage of students Areas of learning from dissections

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
structure location function skills
Category of learning

Figure 9. Areas of student learning from dissections.

Preliminary Analysis of the Practical Exam

The lab practical final exam was analyzed for 2002. For the analysis, te n
questions were selected which were based on the original lab activities, and five
questions were selected that were based on redesigned lab activities.
Preliminary analysis of student answers on the 2002 lab practical indicated that
students performed better on redesigned activities with 73% correct responses
than on original activities with 62% correct responses. While this 11% increase
appears equivalent to a grade increase from a D to a C, in the next cycle of
action research, the lab practical exam will be redesigned to reflect the 15 types
of activities more closely. This will be the focus for the second cycle of action
research.

Discussion
As is the intention of an action research process, our findings have
highlighted a number of changes that need to be made in instruction in order to
enhance student learning. A discussion of the results and the changes
suggested by the data follows.
Our results indicate that the revised activities asked students to perform
tasks with a higher level of intellectual challenge, as indicated by the increase in
higher Bloom’s taxonomy verbs determined by content analysis of the original
and revised activities (refer to Figures 1 through 5). Additionally, there was a
decrease of 21.2% in the use of terms from Bloom’s level 1, the knowledge
terminology. It may be possible to further increase the use of higher levels of
intellectual challenge, and further reduce the reliance on knowledge terms
(93.7% of original activities) by revising other activities in the semester-long
laboratory course. However, it should be noted that part of learning a subject like
zoology is to learn the “language” of zoology, and the authors do not suggest that
tasks at Bloom’s level 1 should be abandoned. Students need to be led through
the levels, so that they can learn and build upon what they learn, and they would
not be well served by eliminating this first step.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 In addition, the survey results from the ranking of activities by student
enjoyment and student learning indicated a strong correlation between student
enjoyment and student learning, suggesting that students felt that they learned
the most from activities which they enjoyed the most. However, the rankings
also indicated areas where activities could be improved to increase student
learning. For example, in 2002, student learning for observing specimens in
bottles was ranked last at 15th, while enjoyment was ranked 7th, suggesting an
area for improvement. In support of this conclusion, in 2003, the year the course
was taught by a nother instructor, both learning and enjoyment were ranked at 6 th,
and this instructor often gave quiz questions pertaining to the specimens in
bottles, which the first instructor had not done. To benefit from these results, in
the next cycle of this action research project, learning will be enhanced with
directed activities involving specimens in bottles. For example, to study the
Phylum Arthropoda, the students will view a collection of specimens in bottles,
along with dried specimens and photographs. The students will be asked to
construct a table that identifies each organism by taxonomic class and describes
the distinguishing characteristics that the student used to make the classification.
This activity is expected to increase interest in the specimens in bottles, as well
as increase the learning potential based on student observation followed by
classification of the organisms.
From the qualitative survey results, there were several areas where
students indicated that specific activities did not help their learning. For example,
39% of students felt that using a light microscope did not help their learning, and
16.5% also felt that observing professional microscope slides did not help their
learning. Considering that many biologists use a light microscope regularly in
their research, and that students are expected to learn from microscope slides,
this result indicates that activities involving light microscopy could be modified to
increase student learning from this valuable activity. For example, to increase
student learning from slides, in the next cycle digital images from each
microscope slide will be made available to students, and these images will be
reviewed prior to each laboratory activity to highlight key content and concepts,
including microscopy, followed by assignments tailored to ensure student
comprehension of slide images.
Another finding from these qualitative results is that some of the activities
which were higher in Bloom’s taxonomy and were more cognitively demanding
were ranked by students as not being helpful to their learning. Overall, students
did not enjoy classifying animals into classes or preparing dichotomous keys.
For example, students ranked their learning from constructing dichotomous keys
and classifying animals into classes at 10 and 12 out of 15 in 2002, and at 15
and 13 out of 15 in 2003, respectively. The qualitative responses indicated that,
in 2002, while 44.5% and 55.5% of students felt that the keys and classification
were helpful, respectively, 44.5% and 17% felt that they did not help learning,
respectively. Paradoxically, in 2002 students ranked learning based on
dichotomous keys at 10th out of 15, while ranking their enjoyment last at 15.
Again, since these are both higher order tasks, and important in the study of
biology, these data suggest that the activities and/or preparation of the students

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

for these activities should be modified to increase the perception of learning by
the students. To increase student learning from these activities, they will be
introduced much earlier in the semester, with a dichotomous key activity in the
protist lab. With more practice and guidance in these activities, it is hoped that
their learning, and also their enjoyment, of these new activities will increase.
However, it is possible that students simply did not appreciate the increased level
of intellectual challenge involved in these activities, and this may be difficult to
change. Again, monitoring their preferred approach to learning, whether deep or
surface, will help establish the extent to which this was a factor.
Finally, the survey results concerning dissection showed that students
appeared to have very positive attitudes concerning dissections (90.5% indicated
very or slightly positive ) (Figure 7). Of their reasons for this positive attitude,
students indicated that they enjoyed dissection, that they liked the hands-on
nature of the activity, and that they felt it enhanced their learning (Figure 8).
However, more students cited the lower order cognitive task of identifying
structures (56%) and their locations (39%) as the reason that they learned from
dissections, while only 25% cited associating function with structure, and only
14% cited that dissections helped to develop important skills such as accuracy,
following directions, and making incisions. These data indicate that while
students enjoyed this activity, the dissection activities could be improved to
enhance higher order tasks.
Cormas (2004) makes the case that the dissection of an organism is a
qualitatively greater learning experience than are the many other dissection
alternatives. This was not the initial sentiment of the instructor, who felt that
dissections were often meaningless activities. However, the students surveyed
overwhelming ranked “doing own dissections” and “observing dissections” very
highly. While encouraging, these data must be interpreted in the context of the
entire course, including the very popular independent group-project vertebrate
dissection, where each group selected a vertebrate, did a thorough dissection,
and presented their dissection, plus information concerning the natural history of
their vertebrate in both oral and poster or slide format. The students have always
seemed to really enjoy this activity, and their presentations typically showed a
great deal of learning from the dissection and their research. This study intended
to analyze student learning from dissections, and indeed students performed
poorly on practical performance on questions where dissected animals were
used. Since the survey did not distinguish between dissection activities as a part
of each topic, such as the sea star dissection, and the final vertebrate dissection,
it is possible that the students were not referring to the semester dissections in
their responses. This flaw needs to be addressed in future surveys, before the
authors can make a decision as to the role that dissections should play in this
laboratory course. It may turn out that the smaller invertebrate dissections do not
lead to greater student learning, but the vertebrate dissection project does, in
which case the lab activities could be altered accordingly. However, to increase
student learning from dissections in this course, a pre-dissection activity will be
added to each dissection scheduled.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Akpan (2002) found that the addition of a computer-simulated dissection
activity prior to actual dissections increased the quality of and student learning
from the dissections. In addition, the authors noted that most student dissections
were of poor quality such that they could not identify many structures that they
were dissecting to observe. Therefore, a CD-ROM with a series of images
showing students the specific stages for each of the dissections to be done will
be prepared and distributed to students at the beginning of the semester. With
this resource, the students will know what their specimen should look like after
each incision, and they will be able to refer to these images in the laboratory
during their actual dissection as we ll. This resource it is hoped will assist
students in doing a more precise dissection, therefore allowing students to
observe and identify all structures noted in the lab handout. In this manner, the
quality of student dissections is expected to improve, with the result that more
students can use their own specimens for their learning, and rely less on the
instructor demonstrations. The instructor will briefly go over the images in the
preceding lab, and a homework activity will be added to ensure that students
have studied these images prior to starting the dissection activity in the following
lab session.
In conclusion, because action research is an iterative process, and to
further reap the benefits of this study, the next cycle of our action research will
include the following objectives. First, because we are interested in encouraging
deep learning, through the use of the validated Study Process Questionnaire
(Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001) we will establish students’ approach to learning,
whether deep or surface, and then look at the relationship between the approach
adopted and the outcomes of student learning. Second, in order to better
understand the role that dissections should play in this laboratory course, we will
focus on identifying the skills and knowledge acquired through animal
dissections. We will also alter our survey instrument to distinguish between
dissection activities and the vertebrate group dissection project. Our goal is to
monitor and improve student learning from dissections so that students relate
structure to function and learn the location and structure of organs in the context
of the entire animal. Third, to quantitatively assess student learning at the end of
the semester, we will redesign the lab practical final examination to reflect the
skills presented during laboratory activities. This is important in that our goal is to
promote higher-order cognitive processes and skills, and therefore must
specifically test the learning of students with regard to those processes and skills
to ensure that the modified activities are achieving this goal. This data will also
be correlated with results from the Study Process Questionnaire to achieve the
first objective just listed. Finally, we believe that student enjoyment is correlated
with student learning. To determine if there is indeed a link between enjoyment
and learning, we will correlate student rankings with student achievement on the
lab practical mentioned above, and also on other activities such as the
dichotomous key and written lab reports. Our goal is to capitalize upon student
motivation, and if student enjoyment and student learning can be enhanced
simultaneously, the increased intellectual challenge that we desire will be better
received by the students.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Michele Morek, OSU
for her help and support of our work at Brescia University.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 REFERENCES

Akpan, J. P. (2002). Which comes first: Computer simulation of dissection or a

traditional laboratory practical method of dissection. Electronic Journal of
Science Education, 6.

Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (1998). Text analysis: Qualitative and quantitative
methods. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural
Anthropology (pp. 595-629). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne,

Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study
process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
71, 133-149.

Brandt, R. (1992). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with Howard

Gardner. Educational Leadership, 50, 4-7.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and
action Research. London: The Falmer Press.

Cormas, P. (2004). The importance of dissection: A knowing and learning

approach. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of
Teachers of Science (AETS) Annual International Conference, Nashville,
7 – 10 January, 2004.

Cross, K.P., & Steadman, M.H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the
scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hadfield, M., & Bennett, S. (1995). The action researcher as chameleon.

Educational Action Research, 3, 323-335.

Hermes, L. (1999). Learner assessment through subjective theories and action

research. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 197-204.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.).

Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott, V. (1997).
Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study
process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 23, 141–157.

Levin, J. & Nolan, J.F. (2000). Principles of classroom management: A

professional decision-making model. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in

education. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding and learning in teaching: The
experience in higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Waterhouse, F. (2000). Students’
experiences of studying physics concepts: The effect of disintegrated
perceptions and approaches. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 15, 61-74.

Reed, A. J. S., & Bergemann, V. E. (2001). A guide to observation, participation,

and reflection in the classroom, 4th ed. Boston: McGrawHill.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992a). Professional development in higher education: A

theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992b). Action research in higher education: Examples and

reflections. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

 Appendix 1
Zoo logy Laboratory Survey

Intended
Major:___________________ Level: Fre Sop Jun Snr

Gender: Male Female

We are intere sted in finding out about your learning experiences during the General
Zoology BIO102L laboratory sessions. Please complete the following questionnaire
to help us enhance student learning in the future.

1. Rank preference: Learning 2. Rank preference: Enjoyment

Please rank 1 – 15 which activities you Please rank 1 – 15 which activities you
learned the most from. 1 should be your enjoyed the most. 1 should be your first
first preference and 15 the activity you preference and 15 your least favorite
learned least from. activity.

Rank Activity Rank Activity

Looking at dissections Looking at dissections
Observing live animal behavior Observing live animal behavior
Looking at plastic models Looking at plastic models
Designing and conducting own Designing and conducting own
investigation on live animals investigation on live animals
Drawing observations Drawing observations
Observing specimens in bottles Observing specimens in bottles
Looking at professionally-prepared Looking at professionally-prepared
microscope slides microscope slides
Constructing models Constructing models
Looking at photographs and Looking at photographs and
diagrams diagrams
Classifying animals into classes Classifying animals into classes
Doing own dissections Doing own dissections
Observing using the light Observing using the light
microscope microscope
Constructing dichotomous keys Constructing dichotomous keys
Constructing tables of structure Constructing tables of structure
and function and function
Looking at self-prepared Looking at self-prepared
microscope slides microscope slides

3. Dissections

Explain what you learn from doing dissections yourself.

Explain how you feel about doing dissections.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

4. Rating activities for learning

For each of the activities listed, please circle the appropriate answer. Please provide a written response for
your ratings.
SA = strongly agree; A = agree; DN = don’t know; DA = disagree; SDA = strongly disagree.
a) Looking at dissections helped my learning. i) Looking at photographs and diagrams helped my learning
SA A DN DA SDA SA A DN DA SDA

b) Observing live animal behavior helped my learning j) Classifying animals into classes helped my learning
SA A DN DA SDA SA A DN DA SDA

c) Looking at plastic models helped my learning k) Doing my own dissections helped my learning
SA A DN DA SDA SA A DN DA SDA

d) Designing and conducting my own investigation on live l) Observing using the light microscope helped my learning
animals helped my learning SA A DN DA SDA
SA A DN DA SDA

e) Drawing observations helped my learning m) Constructing tables of structure and function helped my
SA A DN DA SDA learning
SA A DN DA SDA

f) Observing specimens in bottles helped my learning n) Constructing dichotomous keys helped my learning
SA A DN DA SDA SA A DN DA SDA

g) Looking at professionally-prepared microscope slides o) Looking at microscope slides that I prepared myself helped my
helped my learning learning
SA A DN DA SDA SA A DN DA SDA

h) Constructing models helped my learning p) Please provide any additional comments in the space below.
SA A DN DA SDA

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005

About the authors…

Dr. Jennifer Leigh Myka is an Associate Professor of Biology at Thomas More College
in Crestview Hills, Kentucky, where she currently teaches undergraduate courses in
Genetics, Molecular Genetics, Developmental Biology, Nutrition, and Anatomy and
Physiology. With a background in molecular/cellular biology and genetics, Jennifer has
also taught a variety of other undergraduate biology courses such as Zoology, Botany,
Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Advanced Cell Biology, and non-majors courses such
as Introduction to Biology. Her research interests include science education research
with the goal of improving instruction in science courses at the undergraduate level and
in outreach activities for K-12, and also basic science research in chromosome
organization and genome structure in the relatives of the domestic horse in the Family
Equidae.

Dr. C. Dianne Raubenheimer is Director of Assessment in Academic Affairs in the

College of Engineering at NC State University and Adjunct Assistant Professor in the
Department of Adult and Higher Education in the College of Education, where she
teaches graduate courses in Evaluation and Assessment; and Instructional Strategies.
With a background in teacher education, Dianne has taught undergraduate methods
courses, specifically in science and mathematics education, as well as graduate
courses in educational research and educational technology. She has assisted
numerous faculty in different locations in developing and implementing action research
plans to assess their courses and the impact on student learning. Her research interests
focus on teaching, learning and assessment in higher education.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, June 2005