
A. K. MOHAPATRA
parison to the average scores of control group (19.1 for MCQ
and 18.6) and experimental group (23.4 for MCQ and 26.2 for
OEQ) for first subtopic i.e. structural organization of the cell
membrane. This shows that the process part is harder for stu-
dents to understand than the structural part. Nevertheless, here
too, the computer animations significantly increased trainees’
understanding. As mentioned in the introduction, researchers
suggested that dynamic computer animation can be used to give
an accurate and rich picture of the dynamic nature of cellular
processes, which are often very difficult to understand from
text-based presentations of information (Rotbain et al., 2008).
Similar findings in life sciences have also been reported by
Stitch (2004), Mcclean et al. (2005) and O’Day (2006). Stitch
(2004) carried out a study in which, after a lecture on apoptosis,
one group of 31 students who viewed an animation on apop-
tosis was compared to a group of 27 students who did not.
While the students who saw the animation obtained signifi-
cantly higher test scores than those who didn’t, it can’t be ruled
out that the extra few minutes of exposure to the topic alone
could explain, at least in part, the improved grade. McClean et
al. (2005) used animations for teaching protein synthesis to one
group of students while another group of students were taught
without animations. The group viewing the animations obtained
significantly higher test scores than the group that didn’t. Wil-
liamson and Abraham (1995), who explored the effect of an-
imations on college chemistry students, found that instruction
with animations may increase conceptual understanding by
promoting the formation of dynamic mental models of the par-
ticulate nature of matter. In this type of instruction, animation
provided more scientifically correct visual models for sub-
microscopic processes.
In the individual interviews, trainees reported on three major
advantages of using computer animations. The first one is that
the animation activities helped the students to visualize the
abstract concepts and processes of membrane transport by rep-
resenting the topic in a concrete manner. Trainees said: “The
computer animations helped us very much. It demonstrated the
process, since we can’t really see it. It was like we c ould see it
in front of our eyes and visualize the processes”. The second
advantage that trainees raised was how this enables them to
work individually in their own time, to run the animation over
and over as much as they needed. Trainees commented: “it
helped me more than the le sson in the class, since I could run it
over and over as many times as I wanted”. Another advantage
trainees mentioned was the contribution of the activities to the
diversification of the lessons. Trainees said that the animation
activities “broke the routine” of the traditional lecture format.
They said that they enjoyed the activity very much and would
like to have such activities in other biology topics too. Similar
feed back of students have also been reported by Rotbain et al.
(2008) in their study while teaching molecular biology by using
computer animation.
The findings of the present study concerning the advantages
of animation activities over the traditional lecture method in
terms of learning the dynamic process accord with Schnotz and
Kulhavy (1994), Van Sommeren et al. (1998), Mathewson
(1999), Ametller and Pinto (2002), Kozma (2003) and Mar-
bach-Ad et al. (2008). An effective teaching makes student
more aware of their own knowledge and cognitive processes, as
well as aware of how compatible these processes were with a
given learning situation. Integration of computer animations
appeared to allow trainees to achieve this, compared with being
passive recipients of information as in lec tu re s.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that the
use of computer animation, a type of instructional strategy that
is capable of transforming students from passive receptacles of
information into active learners, should be used to teach biology
and other science subjects. Teachers are exposed to new and
emerging techniques that are relevant for the class room and
can motivate students, and thereby increase their achievement.
REFERENCES
Abimbola, I. O. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions of important and diffi-
cult biology content. Journal of Funct io na l Education, 1, 10-12.
Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images
of energy at secondary school level. International Journal Science
Education, 24, 285-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078914
Barnett, L., Brunner, D., Maier, P., & Warren, A. (1996). Technology
in teaching and learning: A guide for academics. Eastleigh: Green-
tree press.
Buckley, B. C. (2000) Interactive multimedia and model-based learning
in biology. Internati onal Journal of Science Education, 22, 895-935.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848
Friedler. Y., Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1987). High school students’ diffi-
culties in understanding osmosis. International Journal of Science
Education, 9, 541-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069870090504
Gorodetsky, M., & Gussarsky, E. (1986). Misconceptualization of the
chemical equilibrium concept as revealed by different evaluation
methods. Europea n J o urnal of Science Educat i o n , 8, 427-441.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080409
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the
comprehension of scientific text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mo-
senthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume 2 (pp. 641-668). New York: Longman.
Ige, T. A. (2001). Concept mapping and problem solving teaching
strategies as determinants of achievement in senior secondary ecol-
ogy. Ibadan Jour nal of Educational Studi e s, 1, 290-301.
Johnstone, A. H., & Mahmond, N. A. (1980). Isolating topics of high
perceived difficulty in school biology. Journal of Biological Educa-
tion, 14, 163-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1980.10668983
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations
and their cognitive and social affordances for science learning.
Learning and Instruction , 13, 205-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X
Locke, J., & McDermid, H. E. (2005). Using pool noodles to teach
mitosis and meiosis. Genetics, 170, 5-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.104.032060
Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer
animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’
achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45, 273-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20222
Marek, E. (1986). Understandings and misunderstandings of biology
concepts. The American Biolog y Teacher, 48, 37-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4448184
Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science
overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33- 54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<33::AID-S
CE2>3.0.CO;2-Z
McClean, P., Johnson, C., Rogers, R., Daniels, L., Reber, J., Slator, B.
M., Terpstra, J., & White, A. (2005). Molecular and cellular biology
animations: Development and impact on student learning. Cell Biol-
ogy Education, 4, 169-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0047
Nzewi, U., & Osisioma, N. U. I. (1994). The relationship between
formal reasoning ability, acquisition of science process skills and sci-
ence achievement. Journal of the Science Teachers’ Association of
Copyright © 2013 Sci Res.
644