Educators’ Views on the Use of Dissection and Dissection Alternatives in American Biology Classrooms

Abstract

Animal dissection remains a common practice in American biology classrooms, despite the availability of dissection alternatives to study anatomy and physiology. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence in the literature suggesting that the use of alternatives leads to the greater achievement of learning objectives, as compared to dissection. To better understand the current use of and attitudes toward dissection and alternatives, a nationwide survey of (mainly high-school) biology teachers (n = 2687) was conducted. Most educators believed that learning objectives related to biology subject content could be met through the use of alternatives, yet they preferred the hands-on experience of dissection. Most educators allow their students to use alternatives if requested, although few teachers ask students about their preference for using an animal specimen versus an alternative. Educators cited student engagement as the main factor driving their decision to choose between dissection specimens and alternatives, and felt that cost is the biggest barrier to implementing alternatives at their schools. Additional perspectives on dissection and alternatives were shared by survey participants. Since alternatives can be used to meet learning objectives associated with dissection, we recommend their use as replacements for traditional animal specimens, in line with the replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use in education, according to the Three Rs principles.