fl

. L 1“.

J: ‘

.- "S i

, I

-\~—~_— .. _ l

 

 

 

m Exwmmfn may it;
COMHME1H£mmwumALuummAnnw
AND MOOIFIID- oemousrunm
METHODS FOR TEACHING F000

‘ PREPARATION

Mforthcbogud‘k; ‘
‘chmusutscoum'

M530»,
;1952

 

.;. ‘
‘ ’ '0
»‘r_‘
.+ .-
- .MQ‘

 

      
  
  
 
 
 

 
 
 

‘i "W‘inF-Ib'i if”

m.

‘“ ' '““’" 'i‘V‘: ’Tir‘n’fi'k’fl '7:

. 11‘s. A I

 

t ,.

«:YI‘ did; " i
” M43123»; ',

 
 
   

f
4/9: 51"): WE}

.'. I; :1 ‘
r. l
ill-'3‘ .I'I 'w

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

An experimental study to compare the individual
and modified demonstration methods for teaching
food preparation.

presented by
May Stiles Bay

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

14.3

. degree in Foods and Nutrition

chflzaao/M

Major professor

m... 7/14; 2.5. ”In.

0-169

 

«1
‘ ll -“,‘ 'M
‘13}! T‘" RV Pr,

2 >9 .. v
'«r .. y/
‘3‘ ,' J“’":: 3‘ «~-."

 

 

 

I
I
i
.
l
l
1

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGE-3N1:

The writer wishes to eXpress her sincere appreciation to Dr.
Dena Cederquist for her expert guidance and valuable assistance,
and to Miss Margaret Ann Wallace who helped in the instruction, and
without whose willing 000peration this study could not have been
possible.

Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Dr. Pauline Paul for her
help in judging the laboratory practical tests, and to Dr. William
Baten and Dr. Wilma Brewer for their skilled guidance in carrying
out the statistical analysis of the data.

The writer is also indebted to Miss Doris Smith, Dr. Elizabeth
Osman, 4r. Lewis Mayhew, and Mr. Robert Jackson for their assistance

in the construction and analysis of the final written test.

279567

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
METHODS AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Teacher factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
General school factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
PUpil factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Cost of Food Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Organization for Later Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Evaluation of Group Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Evaluation of the final written test. . . . . . . . . . 40
Other Results of the Teaching Methods . . . . . . . . . . 48
Comparison of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
REFERENCES CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

APPEIIDIX O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 62

Number

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

LIST OF TABLLS

Title Page

Distribution of Students Participating

in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Distribution of T-Scores of Students Partici—

pating in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Mean Scores and Ranges of the Final Grades of

Students Participating in the Study. . . . . . 54
Analysis of Variance of the Final Grades of

Students Participating in the Study. . . . . . 55
Mean Scores and Ranges of the Laboratory

Practical Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Comparison of Final Letter Grades Earned in

Two Food Preparation Courses . . . . . . . . . 59
Analysis of Discriminating Items in the Final

Written Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Comparison of Costs of Food Supplies for

One Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Mean Scores and Ranges of the Final Grades

and Scores on Written Tests by Terms . . Appendix 62

INTRODUCTION

INTRCDUCTICN

An examination of the curricula of secondary schools, colleges,
and universities suggests that there is some lack of agreement among
educators concerning the subject matter taught in the various educational
institutions. Furthermore, the method of teaching these subjects is, in

.
many cases, a controversial issue and varies considerably with both
teachers and the subjects taught. Progressive teachers in any field are
continually trying to improve their techniques of instruction and to be
alert for methods, as well as materials, through which their teaching
may be more effective.

The method or methods best suited to produce maximum develOpment of
all pupils remains an Open question. dost educators will agree that
there is no one perfect method. Teacher preferences and personality, as
well as teacher capabilities, play an influential part in determining
the effectiveness of instruction. Only when sound training and knowledge
are supplemented with genuine interest and enthusiasm on the part of the
instructor will his teaching become a form of educational guidance throuth
which students gain not only knowledge and skills, but personal deveIOp-
ment as well.

The use of demonstration in teaching is not new, and many instructors
recognize the suitability of this technique for effecting genuine learning.
In laboratory courses in home economics and other sciences, the demonstra-
tion method has been used successfully to teach particular units of work,

as well as the entire content of some courses. The effectiveness of this

technique in accomplishing the basic aims of education has been studied
by several investigators.
In the fall of 1950 it was decided in the department of Foods

and Nutrition to use the teacher-demonstration method to instruct

several classes in beginning food preparation. Delay in completing the
remodeling of two foods laboratories necessitated this decision, and
ultimately the work of one entire quarter, with the exception of the
laboratory practical test, was taught by this method. The units of study
were not changed from those usually included in the beginning classes;
only the method of presentation was altered to fit the existing situation.
At the end of the quarter the four teachers instructing these classes
suggested that the demonstration method had shown advantages which had
not been evident in previous classes. Since the prosram had not been-
carried out under controlled conditions, the findings were purely sub-
jective. Therefore, it seemed desirable to obtain more concrete
information concerning this problem and to apply eXperimental methods for
comparing the effectiveness of the demonstration method with the method
ordinarily used in this department for teaching beginning food preparation
to students in home economics and hotel administration.

Several of the instructors doubted the advisability of substituting

teacher-demonstration alone for the individual laboratory method. It
was felt that in order to understand fully and make application of factual
knowledge, a student must also acquire at least the basic manipulative
skills and techniques in this particular field of study. Therefore, it
was decided to modify the teacher-demonstration method to include indivi-

dual laboratory exserience in at least half of the scheduled periods.

x);
O

The methods to be compared were defined as follows.

Individual laboratory method: units of work assigned for pre-

 

liminary study; written and verbal instructions given at the berinning
of each laboratory class; preparation of various food products by
individuals or by pairs of students; judging products and class

discussion.

Modified-demonstration method: units of work assigned for pre-

 

liminary study; written and verbal instructions given in each laboratory
class in addition to utilizing, as often as possible, the teacher-
demonstration method for presenting the lessons, and combining this

with supervised practice periods for individual eXperience in at least
half of the scheduled periods; class discussion combined with the
demonstrations and periods of judging products.

The terms "Method C" and "Method D" have been given to the indivi-
dual laboratory and modified-demonstration methods reapectively.

Additional instruction using the lecture method‘was given both
groups at the same time. Review sections were also held two hours each
week for all students; however attendance at the review periods was not
required. '

This study seemed useful from several standpoints. Primarily, it
was desirable to compare the effectiveness of the two methods in terms
of: (l) the understanding and application of the principles involved
in the preparation and use of the foods included in the course with

emphasis placed on the physical and chemical properties of these foods,

and (2) the quality of products prepared during and at the end of the

instructional period with reference to develOpment of specific skills
and abilities considered important in food preparation.

Moreover, it was desirable to determine the extent to which the
cost of supplies could be reduced or more effectively proportioned throuyh
the use of the modified-demonstration method. The School of Home
Economics has a relatively high cost per student enrollment compared to
other schools at Michigan State College. Although there are several
justifiable reasons for the existing financial situation, this department
has found, as have all schools, that increased budgets seldom Keep up
with increasing costs. It is understandable, then, that any means by
which costs can be reduced without sacrificing the caliber of instruction
should be considered worthwhile.

In addition to the purposes listed above, it was also hOped to
develop the problem in such a way that further evaluation of these
students might be made when they were enrolled in succeeding food courses.
In this way it might be possible to test further the validity of the

results observed in this study.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

REVIEH OF THE LITERATURE

Many studies comparing the demonstration and the laboratory methods
of teaching have been done in areas other than home economics, and only
a few have been carried out using college students. Nevertheless, many
of the techniques employed in these investigations might easily be applied
to laboratory work in home economics, and particularly to food preparation;
therefore, they will be reported here. In the field of foods and nutrition
only one research study comparing the two methods was available (1,2).
However, several home economists have published information on this
subject (5,4,5).

Various factors have contributed to the interest in this topic. Some
of the earlier studies were conducted after World War I when greatly
increased high school enrollments necessitated teaching large numbers
of students, often in large classes. The increased cost of science instruc-
tion for these larger numbers of students was often prohibitive. In
many secondary schools double laboratory periods were being reduced to
single periods for uniformity in scheduling classes. In the depression
years of the 1950's, school administrators again found it difficult to
provide adequate facilities, equipment, and supplies from their limited
budgets. During World War II the availability, as well as the cost, of
equipment and materials resulted in renewed interest concerning the use
of demonstration as an effective substitute for individual laboratory
work. The question of the greater effectiveness of one method over the
other in particular areas of study, or for accomplishing certain objectives,

has been the basis of several investigations.

In 1955 Comley (1,2) studied the teaching of meal planning and
service to students who had had a beginning course in food preparation.
Eighth grade girls, paired by intelligence quotients and scores on a
pre-test, studied the same number and types of food products. Each
student in the control group prepared an example of each type; in the
demonstration group the teacher prepared family size amounts of several
different food products of each type. The demonstration students had no
laboratory eXperience in this course prior to the practical examination.
Evaluation was done by written tests and a practical test which consisted
of planning, preparing, and serving a luncheon which met certain require-
ments regarding the types of foods included. Ratings were made of both
products and management.

The results favored the demonstration group. Although the mean
scores on the written pre—test were almost identical, the mean score of
the demonstration group was significantly higher on the final written
test. This group also made greater gains during the period of instruction
as measured by the difference between pre-test and final test scores.

In the preparation of the luncheons, the scores on the food products were
almost identical for the two groups, but the demonstration group was
distinctly superior in the management of their luncheons.

Comley concluded that "after girls have developed a fair amount of
skill in food preparation the demonstration method may be used with as
great or greater success than the laboratory method."

In 1941 Bloye and Long (5) reported results of a study made as part
of a foods and nutrition curriculum planning program. Because the kind

and amount of home making education varies prior to entering college,

students enrolled in food preparation classes were sectioned according
to their ability and previous eXperience. Proficiency standards were
defined for freshmen students which, if met, allowed the girl to choose,
for the following foods course, between instruction by the conventional
laboratory method, or by the demonstration method. This latter method
was similar to that which the author has termed "modified—demonstration
method", because one-half of the three hour laboratory period was taught
by demonstration, the other half was used for practice.

This study showed that the choice of method produced no measurable
difference in the average test scores earned by either group. The high
scores were equally divided between those in the demonstration group
and those in the conventional group. No results were given on the
distribution of low scores.

The data from this study, although extensive, having covered over
450 students enrolled in freshman and sophmore foods classes, had been
discarded and were not available for more critical study.1

A common criticism of the use of the demonstration method is that
students do not get adequate eXperience in manipulative skills. Shultz
(4) stated that the use of the demonstration method should be followed
by pupil performance, the teacher "commending what is good and correcting
what is wrong." Student-demonstration in place of teacher-demonstration
was used by Stackhouse (5) to insure pupil experience. Under teacher

supervision each boy enrolled in a second course in food preparation

 

1Personal communication from Amy I. Eloye, Head of Department of
Foods and Nutrition, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.

lO.

practiced in preliminary laboratory periods, and then demonstrated a
particular type of food product. Each student had eXperience through

his own work plus assisting another student, but since each pupil did not
prepare every product there was considerable saving of money. In addition,
the author stated that there was greater interest and greater learning
stimulus both in preparing for and observing the demonstrations than
groups taught by other methods had shown. Cooke (6) reported that a
rotating system of student-demonstrations gave sufficient laboratory
practice in chemistry to insure experience in manipulative techniques.

He also felt that this method resulted in better attention and retention
by students than teacher-demonstration seemed to produce. Boretz (7)
concluded that pupil-demonstration effected better learning, as well as
more efficient management of time. Pepkin (8) found that, in addition

to the advantages mentioned above, the student-demonstration gave valuable
experience in the problems involved in the preparation and organization

of lessons. Lankford (9), on the other hand, reported that pupil—
demonstrations are likely to prove less effective than those by the teacher
unless the teacher supervises the student-demonstrations very closely.

One of the earlier investigations was made in 1924 by Anibal (10)
teaching natural science. In many instances the results favored the
lecture-demonstration group; however, the difference in information gains
was not large enough to be conclusive. Cunningham (ll) criticized this
study for the lack of reliability of testing measures and for the limited

number of students used in each group.

11.

In 1927 Knox (12) made a study in high school chemistry. Some of
his results may be summarized as follows: (1) the demonstration method
was superior to the laboratory method in teaching mentally heterogeneous
groups for the purpose of retention in high school chemistry; (2) the
demonstration method was better suited for presentation of information
for relatively permanent retention than the individual laboratory program;
(5) the demonstration method was equal if not superior for the purpose
of imparting scientific attitudes and training in methods of attack.
However, Knox found that poorer students learned better through use of
the laboratory method. This is in agreement with Anibal (10) and Horton
(15), whereas Kahn (14) and Payne (15) reported that students of lower
mental ability profited more by use of the demonstration method than
when working individually.

Carpenter (16) and Nash (17) found no decisive differences between
the two methods and concluded that students did equally well by using
either technique. Goldstein (18) reported no significant difference in
the learning of the subject matter covered in a high school science
course, but the students taught by demonstration had much lower scores
on tests determining resourcefulness.

The results of three studies in teaching high school chemistry made
by Horton (15) favored the use of the laboratory method. This investi-
gator contended that this method was superior particularly with respect
to laboratory skills. Schlesinger (19) stated that, although the
teacher-demonstration method is an effective technique, it disregards
the superiority of the laboratory method in develOpment of motor skills,

attitudes, and interests.

12.

Those claiming that students profit more through the use of
demonstration include Kahn (14), Hunt (20), Pugh (21), and Selberg (22).
The results of a study made by Chester (25) also favored demonstration,
but he modified the method by using a teacher-demonstration lecture at
the same time each student dissected teacher-prepared biological material.
This study resulted in 50 per cent saving of student-time, although there
was no saving in costs. Teaching biolOgy under similar conditions,
Stathers (24) found 10 per cent superiority in learning by the demonstra-
tion group, as well as 50-70 per cent saving of time.

In addition to economy of time, financial savings have been considered
by many workers. Comley (1) reported 42 per cent less operating eXpense
for the demonstration group in meal planning and service. Anibal (10)
required only one set of equipment in teaching the demonstration group
as compared with 15 sets when the students did the work, thus effecting
considerable saving in equipment and laboratory furniture as well as
building space. Webb (25) reported the same economy, but pointed out
that effective demonstration may require larger size and often more
eXpensive equipment. Van Horne (26) using one set of equipment for the
demonstration group in chemistry, found the cost to be 4.4 per cent of
that required for the individual laboratory classes. If half of the
work had been done by each method, he estimated the approximate saving
would have been 47.8 per cent.

It has been stated that the demonstrttion method has sometimes been
used to serve larger numbers of students at one time. Many workers,

however, feel the size of the class is an important factor to control.

15.

Cunningham (11) and Fuller (2?) have warned that the class should be
small enoush to insure every student a clear view of the demonstration.
On the other hand Stuit and Engelhart (28) reported that the size of

the class "does not appear to be any educative factor." Kshn (14) and
Chester (25) limited their classes in biology to twenty students. Webb
(25) favored this number of students, or the use of large size equipment
which is often more expensive.

While some workers have obtained results favoring one method or
the other, many of them advocate the use of both methods for better
learning (ll,l4,l6,29,50,5l). Lankford (9), in summarizing this point
of view, has stated that: "(1) each method offers training in certain
knowledwes, skills, and habits not offered by the other; (2) in the
interests of economy, both time and money, it seems desirable to perform
more laboratory exercises by the demonstration than by the individual
method; (5) at the beginning of every laboratory course there should be
a sufficient use of the demonstration method to acquaint the pupils with
apparatus and with some of the accepted methods of eXperimentation.

The pupils should be allowed to perform some exercises individually in
order to acquire desirable manipulative skills and laboratory techniques
and habits."

Evaluation of achievement is part of the problem involved in any
study made of teaching methods. Cunningham (11) reported that later
studies were uniformly superior to earlier ones both in validity and
reliability of the tests and in the statistical procedures used in

handling the data.

14.

Several studies have been made on measuring achievement in food
preparation classes. Amidon (52) studied management in relation to
meal preparation. The results showed that, although there was a high
correlation between scores on an objective-type written test and time
management of the test meal, students' ability to prepare meals could
not be predicted with any degree of certainty on the basis of the
written test scores, or on the basis of intelligence tests. The relia-
bility coefficient of the written tests administered in this study was
only .5. (Theoretically, a perfect test would have a reliability
coefficient of 1.0.) This author also emphasized the advantages of
having more than one judge score each meal or food product.

Segner (5§), in studying the evaluation of student achievement in
seventh and ninth grade foods classes, used two objective-type written
tests and three of the check list variety. Over one-hundred teachers
used equivalent forms of the tests, one covering facts and principles
and the other based on application of these facts and principles. Both
were used as pre-tests and as final tests. The reliability coefficient
of both tests together was .85.

Comley (l) constructed equivalent forms of an objective-type test,
reliability .85 end .76, and also used rating scales evaluating the
practice meal separately for meal planninv, food products, and manage-
ment. The reliability of the rating scales ranged from .77 to .81. The
written tests, one used as a pre-test, the other as a final test,
attempted to measure not only factual knowledge, but also application

Of these facts.

Hatcher (54,55) used written test scores, scores of food products,
ratings of meals prepared, and dietary ratings to determine the
relative effectiveness of teacher-student planned course of study as
compared to the conventional teacher—planned method. Price (56), in
comparing sixty minute and ninety minute class periods for the
effectiveness of instruction in ninth and tenth grade foods classes,
used a written objective-type pre—test and final test plus two practical
tests on meal preparation.

Many investigators have criticized research studies in which out-
come was measured by tests for factual information only (28,29,57,58).
Horton (15) used individual performance tests for evaluating achievement
in high school chemistry classes. Goldstein (l8) attempted to measure
resourcefulness in students taught by the two methods. Confronted
with laboratory problems of varying degrees of difficulty, these students
were scored on the time it took to solve each problem. Stuit and
Engelhart (28) advocated repeating the final examination after a suitable
period in order to test for permanent retention.

Brown (59) stressed validity, reliability, and objectivity as
characteristic of good evaluation devices. Well constructed objective-
type tests are more reliable than essay-type tests, but if poorly
constructed they have only slight validity. She also stated that in
laboratory courses written tests should be supplemented by performance
tests whenever possible. However, while many writers have recognized
the importance of reliability and validity of the tests used, evidence
concerning these qualities is, for the most part, lacking. On the other
hand, absolute evidence which would prove that the tests were not

reliable is also lacking.

In conclusion, several summary articles were reviewed. The reports
of Riedel (57) and Downing (40) both stressed the inconclusiveness of
earlier studies. Stuit and Engelhart (28) concluded that the problem
“seems yet to be unsolved and as complex as ever," and "the objectives,
the preference of the teacher, the nature of the pupils, and the
facilities of the school will largely determine which method should be
used." Cunningham (11) recommended that both methods be used, favorable
consideration being given to the demonstration method when: "(1) the
learning involved is complicated and difficult; (2) the apparatus used
is complicated and difficult to manipulate or eXpeneive; (5) the
apparatus used is sufficiently large to be seen at a distance; (4) the
pupils are likely to make mistakes when working along; (5) a large
amount of subject matter must be covered in a limited time"; and the
laboratory method favorably considered if: "(1) the exercises are
short and easy, not complicated as to learning involved or apparatus
used; (2) one important objective is the development of laboratory.
skills; (5) one important objective is the development of ability to

solve laboratory problems."

METHODS AND PROCEDURE

METHODS AND PROCEDURE
Instruction

The students used in this study were primarily BOphmore and junior
home economics and hotel administration students enrolled in "Principles
of Foods Preparation 1". Prerequisites for this course included a
beginning course in nutrition and organic chemistry. Although it is
preferable to have completed the course in organic chemistry prior to
enrollment in the food preparation course, it may be taken simultaneously
with the foods course.

Four sections were taught: two by the author and two by a second
instructor. Each teacher employed the individual laboratory method in
one class and the modified-demonstration method in the other. The work
was repeated the following term by the same teachers using four new
sections, making a total of eight groups in the eXperiment. There were
approximately twenty students in each group. The sections used in this
study were taken from the regular enrollment of classes; two morning
and two afternoon sections were used each term. Supplementary
instruction by the lecture method was given by a third staff member to
all students enrolled in the course, many of whom were not in the
eXperimental laboratory sections.

Stuit and Engelhart (28) have stated that there are several
educative factors that influence the effectiveness of instruction and
the achievement of the students. Many of these were controlled in so

far as it was possible to do so.

19.

Teacher factors. Both staff members teaching the classes were

 

enthusiastic about the use of each method, and every attempt was made
to keep class room management similar in.both laboratory sections.
Each had had previous eXperience in teaching food preparation.

The control group was taught by the individual-laboratory method
(Hethod "0“). Units of work were assigned for preliminary study;
objectives of the lesson and written instructions in the laboratory
manual were reviewed briefly. In outlining the work for the period the
instructor stressed points where difficulties might arise. The students,
usually working individually, but occasionally in pairs, obtained
supplies from a central supply table and prepared the products. The
teacher assisted students when necessary and answered questions. After
the products were judged and discussed, the lesson was summarized and
correlated with the lecture and assignment material. Depending on the
length of time required for the actual preparation of products, the
period of discussion ranged from ten to thirty minutes.

The eXperimental group, referred to as the demonstration group,
was taught by the modified—demonstration method (Method "D"). Indivi-
dual laboratory practice was included in one—half of the class sessions.
As often as possible the teacher-demonstration method was used to
present the material. Each lesson so presented was carefully planned,
and if any part of the demonstration was prepared ahead of time that
part was thorOUghly reviewed. The teacher made careful explanation
of the work being done. Occasionally students assisted the instructor,

thus giving additional experience in laboratory procedures. Class

20.

discussion and questions were encouraged during the demonstration,

as well as later when the finished products, either teacher or student
prepared, were judged. The discussion, although conducted differently
in the control group, covered the same material. In the laboratory
periods when the students did not prepare products, a short inter-
mission was given about half way throush the period.

General school factors. The laboratory facilities and equipment

 

were the same for six of the eisht groups; one group each term used a
second laboratory. The equipment in this second classroom, although
not identical, was similar to that in the laboratory used by the
majority of groups. The periods were all one hour and fifty minutes

in length. Occasionally the class finished five or ten minutes ahead
of time and the teacher generally utilized this time for reviewing past
work. The size of the group, as has been stated, was approximately
twenty students, which was the capacity of the laboratory classrooms.

Pupil factors. The method of determining the groups has been

 

discussed at the beginning of this chapter. The students were not

aware that two methods of instruction were being compared. This was

done in order to prevent a feeling of rivalry, advantage, or disadvantage
from developing between the groups. No attempt was made to check extra—
curricular activities or course loads of the participating students.
Table I shows the distribution of students in each group participating

in the study.

DISTRIBUTION 0?

TABLE I

SiULZfiTS PAfiTICIPATIEG IN Thu SZUDY

 

 

Major Field of Study

Teacher A

Teacher B

 

 

 

 

 

Method Method Method Method
C D C D
Term I
Home Economics
majors 10 12 9 11
Hotel Administra-
tion majors 10 7 9 4
Other majors O O 2 0
Total 20 19 20 15
Term II
Home Economics
majors 15 8 14 15
Hotel.Administra-
tion majors 4 9 4 6
Other majors l l 1 0
Total 20 18 19 19
Total for experiment 40 57 59 54

 

22.

Other factors. The same material and sequence of presentation

 

WGTB‘Jsed for both groups.1 All students used the same textbook2 and
laboratory manual.5 A mimeosraphed sheet giving the outline of study
and assignments for the entire term was supplied each student at the
beginning of the course.

'The major objectives of the course, based on those used previously
in teaching this course, were refined to fit both methods of instruction.
They are as follows:

To understand the facts and principles involved in the
preparation and use of the foods included in the course of
study, with emphasis placed on the physical and chemical pro-
perties of these foods.

To interpret and apply facts and principles in terms
of the foods prepared in the laboratory.

To learn to prepare different types of food products,
with reference to: (l) the develOpment of specific skills
and abilities considered important in food preparation, and
(2) the recognition of the characteristics of products of

standard quality.
Testing Procedures

When considering the type of testing procedures to use in this study,
several reliable tests in the field of home economics and in foods and
nutrition were reviewed. None was available that was judged valid for

this particular work. This resulted in setting as one of the objectives

 

1 For more detailed lesson outlines, see Appendix, pp. 64-74.

2 M. Miller and M. Earnhart: Essentials of Food Preparation,
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1947.

5 E.H. Nason: Laboratory Manual for Foods and Nutrition. East

Tnncinn Minlrn' rrnno blink-11' tron Qic'ip flnllnnn Dwocc 10:“

' ‘8

4‘
Via.

.7198 01
r
g...

7 r;- r)

.t.
a, c.
an.
.L

t

1
1 r "l I
:3.

‘1
La!
,
A
_,..Q

r

A

(

’V‘.
149

‘

116." .17

._~..'

8 .

-i 'u.
ved
(11‘ ‘» Ill“: Q

1

4... 4‘.
$.1VUJ.
E, ' Q

v

-

Q
I—
. ,
0‘, 3' T7’
(VV.V
v-.‘ I“
nt or

8
v ri.

- r:
'C'

,l

q

fiat;

-.-1

o t 0:“. Che 1"

CC”.

V"
I.

'r
U

1

a4.

3”

a t

tats Co

'1
3‘
O J.
in
Q.
S

.3 t

i

\l
o
s v\
LL“ -

""n
. .

#751“
A-L-\.
(T

ment 0
)8

1"»
A" ‘-
L/J,‘

I.

me time when

01’
In

-nsist

n u

C .
‘Y‘ P -.

a—t

' - 1;" t. .5
1V
'3
9
._.t 0
93?".

I
\

t

ale
6? c
on
as

s

save

I
I
‘

L
S”
_..'l

:ce OUJLC
‘ is.

more réi

".

011C

.-
.-
I
.‘
.I‘

t

A Committee
There are

S?
to be
test.
'rrenara

lab

u 4 9 fl} ’ film
L a . "wt «a ~ at owl”
a H ._ . . 4. a. :(..
A f... n i 0 ml .r‘
.. c F. T r... a. K ..
l S H T C . A.
,e r. as ... a h.. u.h . i no no
a . .3 F G t. a... n.
n .. t. . l a. n 6
.1 .1 d v. r... .i . ,1. .C
n o mi 1. H f t .8
n a. C c. a , «a a ..
fi.~ .11“ 01 a C I n u
S .1. n n S 7. m... C C
o. r m... n... a 1” .x. in ya 7.
A O m... .l C t 8 . c.
l .I n. t 9 O a...“ a...
V) a... C t .I at u... v...
. n T; a. 9 O 1 t a i S
.1. O .1; T i. .1. C a...
l .l a. r c. . .. a n w."
t 1. u 0 Dc. Ps C 3L.
n C .1 C r n .t r t
e e O P 9 O .r... C
r... .f .3 .3 .w. f .3 e
C. r ._. L C S r. j.
E O C. .9. n r. .Q (J t . ,.
r C .H S n. E n n. w S “r.
a. -. a... .w .— ....i. 2 l S
a e t t. "I
.h S V 0... u 8 t O a“
h ._ i .1 .i P, C 9. C
.1 .l t H a .1 S Q
S 0 C Q a. O t C e
c... .Q .n . E .3 e .1
e. n e .. . e d C S a... O
,... a a. n .i n: .l . O t.
+u e a. .l e a. so
9 a. a. I a. C
S .. ”w. c . V n; m... e n
. n ‘13“ O - cl Sf!“ a Ila
S C n m e r t S t n
u .1 ._ a o .z n .1
a.) I. S r T U. C m. a.
w C S O t. o n .1. n .. s
.5. .L C e t .l .w
.l .1 n. v t l 0 a. X .
.2 . C. . .. P. n..._ .b T 9 .l a;
.w. o... .1 .3. e .... l
P 9 f u t .l w. G. t e.
a c an n n
l C C a i E S .I O .,
a .n t t e r .m 0 .l
," +u c e e r we
a . 8 8 .I 9 .3 r. 9 S
C r... Hl w i ..,. a .l 9 t. 9
n .I u s n .0 .I n
e i s m e .1 t m A Q.
r r .2 .1 t S u
a ”.2 t ,3 . u a.“ n. n f
._.... .3 f .l n t o O
S c... t r .l e n
m... n n .u ..... l t. C r
O... by e «U ._. H .1 .. i— 9.» .7 an.
t C .1 a... T an .3 t .n:
.1 n n. t .0 C .1 P m
.l .C. C 8 S v... n m. n
e e e .1 o O .l n
c.. .60 r r V 4.... \I/ r m...
a- r r nw av ; a e
a. n... O C a... S a. I a 1 . , h
«I w- t C m n1 ( nfl or. a .z

.
'.L('2..-

21+.

on the basis of the amount of class time which had been devoted to
studying a certain tOpic, or preparing a particular type of food
product. In this manner it was hOped to have adequate representation
and proportionment of the subject matter. Twice as many questions
were submitted as would ultimately be needed in order to enable
committee members to eliminate test items about which there was lack
of agreement. After preliminary editing by the committee, the questions
were reviewed by the testing technician who further refined them from
the mechanical standpoint. The test in revised form was again sub-
mitted to the committee. rAwkward sentence structure and other factors
which tend to confuse students were eliminated, in addition to writing
adequate directions for taking the test. These measures help to
increase the reliability of the test. The test was resubmitted to
the committee for final approval. This test was taken as the final
written examination by all students enrolled in the course both terms,
including those students in sections not participating in the study.1

After the test had been administered for two terms it was analyzed
with respect to: (1) item difficulty--the percentage of students that
miss the item, (2) item discrimination—-how the item differentiates be-
tween the good and poor students, and (5) reliability. The coefficient
of reliability was determined by the use of the Kuder-Richardson
formula (41).

Other testing procedures used were of the type employed in teaching

the course previous terms. These included two one-hour written tests,

 

1 For a copy of the final written test, see Appendix, pp.76-95.

five short, unannounced tests, a written laboratory test, and a
laboratory practical test.

The two one-hour written tests consisted of questions requiring
short discussion-type answers. The papers of the students partici—
pating in the study were graéed by the two laboratory instructors.

The key was made as objective as possible, with values for each
question determined before the test was administered. One teacher
graded the first half of the papers of all students; the second teacher
graded the remaining questions. Thus, the same teacher graded the same
questions on all papers. Only one question was graded at a time,
completing that item on all papers before another questions was graded.
Brown (42) has stated that use of the above techniques materially
increases the accuracy of scoring this type test.

The five unannounced tests, approximately fifteen minutes in length,
were given-in all laboratory sections. These were graded with a pre-
determined key on the basis of ten points each. The scores were
totaled at the end of the term and given a percentage value.

The written laboratory test consisted of four recipes given without
directions; the students were required to write the prOper procedures to
use in preparing the products and the reasons for each important step.
The recipes were selected to illustrate as many fundamental principles
of food preparation as possible. The two laboratory instructors graded
these with a pre—determined key in the same manner as the hour tests.

The laboratory practical test involved the preparation of two
products, the recipes for which listed the proportions of ingredients,

but no directions for procedures. The assignment was drawn by chance

from the list of products studied in class. The products were judged
by a skilled member of the foods staff and by the laboratory instructor

"Minnesota Food Score Cards"

using objective score cards based on the
(45). Only the scores of the outside judge were used in the final
treatment of the data since she did not know which method had been used
in teaching the respective proups and the instructor might have been
biased accordingly in her judgement. The same outside judge assisted
throughout the eXperiment. In addition to preparing the products, the
students wrote out full directions for the recipes, giving reasons for
each important step. They also graded their products in terms of a
standard product. Therefore, the final grade on the laboratory
practical test was composed not only of the product scores, but also

on the directions and reasons piven for the procedure, and the ability
to judge a standard product. No talking was allowed throughout the
period of examination.

In addition to the scores on the tests mentioned above, the students
earned "product grades“ throughout the course. While these were
considered to be subjective judvements on the part of the instructor,
the grades were based on the qualities listed for standard products on
the above mentioned food score cards. Although a letter grade was
assigned for each product, these grades were converted to a numeriCal‘

value at the end of the term; use of a numerical grade facilitated the

determination of final grades.

27.

The final total score for each student was derived from the

following scores, all given as percentages.

Average of two one-hour tests X 1
Two—hour final test X 2
Fifteen minute tests X 1
Laboratory written final test X 2
Laboratory practical test X 1
Product grades X 2

Final total

Final total % 9 : Final percentage grade
Treatment of Data

The analysis done on the objective-type final written test has been
discussed previously in this chapter.1 The other scores and grades
assigned each student were treated in the following manner.

'Analysis of variance was carried out on the final grades, on the
scores on the final written examination, and on the average scores of
the two one—hour tests. The scores on the laboratory practical test
were analyzed for significant differences using the Fisher t test.

The number of students in both groups for each teacher was equalized
for carrying out the analysis of variance. This was done by omitting
the data of three foreign students, four students for whom no T—scores

were available, and the rest selected at random.

 

For a c0py of the final written test, see Appendix, pp. 76-95.

28.

Cost of Food Supplies

Since one of the objectives of the study was to determine the extent
to which the cost of supplies could be reduced or more effectively
proportioned through use of the modified-demonstration method, a record
was kept of the cost of food supplies used for the series of lessons.

The market orders were the same for all the demonstration sections and
for all the control sections, and identical for both terms. These were
cost accounted using the prices in effect at the time the foods were
purchased. If large quantities had been purchased for departmental use,

the unit cost of the amount used in a particular laboratory lesson' was

correspondingly reduced.
Organization for Later Use

As was previously stated, this course is the first of a two term
sequence. Enrollment in the succeeding course, "Principles of Food
Preparation II", is necessary in order to complete all the units of
study in the food preparation series. This second term's work is usually
followed by a third course in which meal planning and service is studied.

It was planned to record the data from this study in such a way
that it might be supplemented with similar data on the same students
when enrolled in the succeeding food preparation classes. Thus, a more
complete picture of possible differences between the two methods of
instruction could be obtained.

Also, if the objective-type test constructed for the final written

examination proved to be reliable, it was intended to refine and improve

the test for use in later classes as a final written test, and possibly
for use as a pre-test for students transferring from other schools when

it is desirable to evalu te previous instruction in food preparation.

29.

RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION

RESULTS sKD DISCUSSION

Since the purpose of this study was to determine whether two
different methods of teaching would result in significant differences
in achievement by students taught by the methods, the data have been
analyzed statistically to demonstrate any differences which might
exist between the groups.

It has been stated that the groups used in this study were taken
from the regular enrollment of classes. The groups in some investi-
gations have been equated by using intelligence quotients, pre—tests,
or similar means, but none of these methods was used in this study.

It did, however, seem advantageous to check the equality of the pairs
of groups instructed each term. The measure used to compare the groups
,was the T-score based on the college entrance examination scores for
each student 5 Derived from the sums of other scores, the T—score is a
measure of general college ability. This score was not available for
a small number of students, and the data for those students were-not
used in later analyses. In addition, the data for three foreign
students were considered atypical and were omitted for that reason.
The groups used in this eXperiment, therefore, have not been selective,
but the data used for statistical analyses have been limited to some
extent for the reasons given above.,

I The distribution of T-scores is shown in Table II. There appears
to be little difference between three of the four pairs of groups.

1-.

However, the term I demonstration group of Teacher a had a mean value

of 7.0 for the T-scores, and the control group had a mean value of
4.7. It would seem that the demonstration group, in this case, was
composed of students of slightly hisher ability than the control
group.

TABLE II

DISTRIBUTION OF T-SCORES 0F STU EXTS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY

52o

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Enrolled Term I Students Enrolled Term II
T—Score Teacher A Teacher B Teacher A Teacher B
Method Method Method Method Method Method Method Method
C D C D C D C D
10 l 0 l l l l l O
9 5 5 O 5 2 l 0 l
8 1 2 l 0 fi 2 l 4
7 l l 2 2 2 2 5 2
6 4 5 1 4 5 5 l 4
5 5 2 5 1 1 1 5 1
4 1 5 5 1 1 5 2 2
5 l 2 l 0 l l l 2
2 5 2 0 l 0 l 5 l
l 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 2
Average 5.8 5.6 4.7 7.0 6.2 6.0 4.7 5.4

 

Evaluation of Group Achievement

In order to compare the results of the two methods of teaching,
the final grades and the scores on several tests were analyzed
statistically to indicate whether any significant differences resulted
from the use of the two teaching methods.

The final grades and the scores on separate written tests were
treated statistically using analysis of variance. Preliminary
analyses carried out on the data for each term showed there were no
significant differences between the two methods of teaching, as
indicated by the averages of the final grades and also the scores on
separate written tests. In addition, there were no significant
differences in the results achieved by the two teachers.. In 12 out
of 16 comparisons the mean score of the demonstration group was
slightly higher than the mean score of the control group of the same
teacher. However, in no case was this difference significant. The
data used for these analyses may be found in Table IX in the
Appendix.1

The final grades for all the groups used in the study have been
combined, as shown in Table III. The analysis of variance carried

out on these data is given in Table IV. The weighted averages and the

standard errors of the mean were obtained from the data for both terms.

 

1See Appendix, p. 62.

"0

.~
-A "-JL‘-bb

rr-pwm

N:“.'

LI

”‘1'

.31"

'\

.‘N‘A
,‘U .~

L

1.
‘l

MEAl

PATI

;'. I "7‘
-. a.“

I ‘p,
I'A-i

- --.- .
.3." P

“I

L

”hiehted

A135 ‘7 (5"

1“ ‘..- _‘-§.-._

‘

 

- -—fi—“ H-~_.—_._..

L

VIP-unrav-

A

F. 7". TL.“ 9

921}.

f
0

I,

"—— _———.——.——v~-

of
Studengg

 

Lf\ "(1
(T\ (j \

"‘ ‘{‘\

r»rn
PW li\

O o
r: H
44 +'
C“ C\
ar\ r“.
bl) K)

M)K\
r4r~

C.“

 

 

 

.111 D 8 r

 

377-.
. I

 

9.3

‘

Ran

ixé‘éfln

\ .

 

<5 -
b- O

"\U\\
o o

p4r4
+'+l
Ulr4

0
f‘- (\l
U» 1',

 

 

 

a—uM -- ~¢ -. ‘-

I

.1

FYI.

-..-H..-.-i.......__¢Stmimmta_...-

m

eacher A
Teacher B

m

 

TnfinII

("i

‘ '5
(I)
E 4

323 e

W“"*.‘ w -aW-u—JL.'--

“a

S-
K

or of the mean,

PG

55-

TABLE IV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE FINAL GRADES OF
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sums of lean -
Variation Freedom Square Square F-value
Total 157 4,479
Between
method
averages (M) 1 49 49 1.468
Between term
averages (T) 1 6 6 .18b
Between teacher b
averages (t) 1 10 10 .50
Interaction
T x M l 27 27 .80
Interaction
T x t 1 h 4 .12
Interaction
M x t l 14 14 .42
Interaction
M x T x t l l l .05
Error 150 4,565 55.6

 

aAn F - value of 5.91 would be needed to indicate a
significant difference at the five per cent level.

bAn F - value of 254 would be needed to indicate a
significant difference at the five per cent level.

\N

The weighted average of all the control groups was 82.7‘t .70,
and the weighted average for all the demonstration groups was
85.9't .70. The weighted averages for all groups of both teachers
were 85.5 t .71 for term I and 85.1 t .69 for term II which indicates
a close agreement between terms.

The analysis did not show any significant differences between the
two methods of teaching as indicated by the averages of the final
grades. In addition, the use of this statistical technique indicated
that there were no significant differences between the results achieved
by the two teachers, or between terms. There were no significant
interactions between the averages of the teaching methods, the teachers,
or the terms.

The scores of only one judge were used in analyzing the scores
for the laboratory practical test. This person did not know the
students, or the method of instruction used with each group. While it
would have been desirable to have scores of more than one judge, it
was felt that the scores of the instructors might be biased, as they
would be acquainted with the students and their work. The final scores
were eXpressed on a percentage basis, because all products were not
scored on the same number of points. Table V presents the mean scores
and ranges in the practical test for each group.

It will be noted from this table that the mean scores of the
demonstration groups were, in all cases, slightly lower than the mean
scores of the control groups. However, this difference was not statis-
tically significant according to the Fisher t test. The range of scores
in three out of four cases was greater in the demonstration group than in

in the control group.

*3

TV“

{‘33le

KEAN SCORES AID RAKQLS ON THE LABORATCRY PRACTICAL TEST

57.

 

 

_—.—..--——.- —--* —

 

 

Method 0 agzaaa D
Number Number
of {can Range of Mean Range
Students Students
Term I
Teacher A 18 87.1 t 2.288 69-100 18 85.1 t 2.26 67-97
Teacher B 18 82.3 t 1.75 75 ‘ 95 14 79.6 t 2.58 61-92
Term II
Teacher A 15 86.4 t 2.58 72-97 15 84.0 t 2.00 71-100
Teacher B 19 85.8 t 1.92 69-100 19 81.2'* 2.48 61-100

 

 

 

8Standard error of the mean

Teacher B stated that there was a noticeable difference between
term II groups in the time taken to complete the practical test; the
demonstration group required more time than the control group did.

It would appear from these data that any advantages in demonstrst-‘
.ing laboratory procedures did not result in higher scores by the
demonstration group on the laboratory practical test. On the other
hand, the additional eXperience obtained by students in the control
groups did not appear to result in significantly greater achievement
on the same test.

’A review of the data derived from the final grades and other test
scores would seem to indicate that on the basis of the measurements used
in this study, there were no significant differences between the levels
of achievement attained bv the groups taught by the two methods./

For a further comparison of the students participating in this
study, the final letter grades earned in Principles of Foods Preparation
II were obtained for as many of these students as possible. The method
of instruction in the second course is similar to the control method
in this study. The comparison of the final letter grades earned in the
two courses is shown in Table VI.

It will be seen that the majority of students received the same
letter grade in both courses, and a small number of students earned a
higher grade in the second course. Thirty-eight. per cent of the students
from the control groups, as compared to 11 per cent of the students from
the demonstration groups, earned lower grades in the second course than

in the beginning course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF FINAL LETTER GRADES EARHED
IN TfiO FOOD PREFARATICN CCURoES a
W W W W W " " ELLLJJWW W W ‘3‘ £224.13?
Number Percentage Eumber Percentage
Cases in which the 1 5 5 11

student earned a
higher grade in
course II than in
course I

Cases in which the 17 59 22 78
student earned the

same grade in both

courses

Cases in which the 11 58 5 11
student earned a

lower gr de in

course II than in

course 1

J

a The grades of the students of both teachers have been considered.
Grades of ten students were not available.

While this observation.might suggest a difference in the retention
of knowledge by the two groups, more detailed measurements would have
to be made in order to determine any real difference resulting from

the use of the two methods of instruction.

Evaluation 9f the final written test. One of the objectives of the

 

 

study was to construct an objective-type test suitable for use as a
final examination. The questions were based not only on factual know-
ledge, but also on application of facts and on an understanding of the
principles involved in food preparation. After the test had been
administered to 184 students, the answer sheets were analyzed to
determine the effectiveness of the individual items in the test. From
these date two coefficients were computed for each test item: an index
of difficulty, and an index of discrimination. These values are
incorporated in the copy of the final examination included in the
Appendix.1 In addition, the coefficient of reliability for the test
was determined by use of the Kuder-Richardson formula (41). This

and other statistical data are given below:

Total number of points 125

Mean raw score 107.61
Standard deviation 8.55
Mean percentage score 86.09
Reliability coefficient .82

Because these data concerned the characteristics of the test itself,
the answer sheets for all students taking the test were used for the
analysis. The analysis was carried out under the direction of a

representative of the Michigan State College Board of Examiners.

 

1
See Appendix, pp. 76-95.

41.

Generally, the test items are validated by comparing the performance
of the good and poor groups of students as shown by test scores. In
actual practice it is a long procedure to compute the validity of an
item on this basis when the group contains one hundred or more. It is
possible to compute accurately the validity of items on the basis of
total test scores using an equal proportion of papers of good and poor
students, such as the hirhest and lowest thirds or fourths.’ Papers for
those fifty students having the highest scores and for those fifty
students having the lowest scores were used in this analysis. Fifty
represents 27 per cent of the total 184. The terms high and low groups
refer to the good and poor students whose papers were used in the
analysis.

I The analysis was done by the Graphic Item Counter attached to one
of the IBM test scoring machines. A tabulation was made of the number
of students in each group who answered each item correctly. -From.these
data the coefficients for each item were computed, The index of diffi-
culty represents the percentage of students in the combined groups who
missed the item. The index of discrimination is an indication of the
extent to which an item discriminates between the good and poor students.
The complete item analysis serves as a basis for the examiner to judge
the usefulness of each item, and is also used in determining the
coefficient of reliability.

Reliability is one characteristic of a good evaluation device. This
term is often used in conjunction with another characteristic, validity.

According to Brown (59) "validity of a test indicates the degree to which

42.

it measures what it claims to measure, whereas, the reliability of
a test indicates the accuracy and consistency with which it measures
whatever it does measure." Validity of a test as a whole is not easily
measured, for it requires correlating the scores made on the test with
other outside criteria. Reliability, on the other hand, depends on
several factors some of which are inherent in the test itself, such as
the number and difficulty of test items. [The reliability estimate of
this test was computed to be .82.! Brown (42) has stated that a
reliability coefficient of .80-.89 is adequate for group measurement.
Since most achievement tests are restricted in length by the
available time, it is important that every test item adds to the value
of the test. 'It is the purpose of an item analysis to indicate the
poor items so that they can be revised or discarded.“ It is obvious that
any item on an achievement test that is passed or failed by everyone
contributes nothing to the results of the test. Therefore, the items
of zero or one-hundred per centdifficulty should be discarded. uuestiona
65, 64, 72, 88, and 89 on this test had an index of zero, and ten
additional questions had values of one or two for this index. All
items of low difficulty need not be discarded from the test, because
easy items will help differentiate between poor students, whereas,
difficult items will effectively discriminate between good students.
It is evident, then, that the use of both easy and difficult items
is desirable. The indices of difficulty on the items in this test

ranged from zero to 57.

450

A study of the indices of difficulty revealed that this test was
composed of fairly easy items. Eighty per cent of the questions had
an index of difficulty below 25, and an index of over 50 was computed
on only one item. In general, the matching items were more difficult
than the multiple choice questions.

The fact that this test was composed to a larce extent of items
of low difficulty was also reflected in the mean score. The mean of
107.61 from 125 possible points is comparable to a percentage score of
86.09. A test composed of easy items will group the scores at the
high end of the scale, and one composed of difficult items will result
in a majority of scores at the low end. However, if one aim of the
course is that the students should have a knowledge of all the material
given in this test, then a low mean score and high indices of
difficulty could indicate faulty instruction or an invalid test.

A study of the distribution of scores on the final written test,
as shown in Figure 1, reveals that the curve is skewed toward the higher
scores. It has, however, some resemblance to the normal distribution
curve.

It has been stated that the index of discrimination is an indication
of the extent to which an item differentiates between good and poor
students. Discrimination can be classified into three grOUps: positive,
zero, and negative. If an item has a positive index, more good students
answer the item correctly than poor students. A discrimination index
of zero indicates that an equal number of both groups answer the item

correctly, and a negative value shows that more poor students than good

(‘J

for \‘v F [‘1

1

gay

1 H

l‘

g

5rd

and
deviati

Q6-
8.4

(‘1
(I.

if

     

0%

9o

#2:

  
  

‘Tg‘I‘S‘b: ,' .a

‘VI

1, 1
~.,.

ye...

v

70

T0

1 score
cents
score

1")“;

I I—Iv
‘n

&-\1

45.

answer the item correctly. The degree of discrimination depends upon
the difference in correct responses by the upper and lower groups.
For ‘ most tests a discrimination index above .20 will be
satisfactory.

A study of the discriminating power of the various items, as
shown in Table VII, indicates that the multiple choice items were less
discriminating than the matching questions, since 72 per cent of the
questions of multiple choice type had satisfactory indices, as compared
to ninety per cent of the matching questions. Seventy—five per cent
of all items proved to differentiate satisfactorily between the good
and the poor students. If an index of .15 is accepted as the standard,
which was the value used by Seaner (55) in studying achievement in food
preparation, eishty per cent of the items on this test would have a
satisfactory index of discrimination. Brown (42) has stated that an
index of even less than .15 may be retarded as a sufficient difference

in the case of very easy or very difficult items.
TABLE VII

ANALYSIS OF DISCRIXINATING ITEMS IN THE FIRAL WRITTEN TEST

 

Discriminating Itema

 

 

Type of Question Total Number
I
Of “tens Number Per cent
Multiple choice 104 75 72
Matching 21 19 90
Both 125 94 75

 

“V

a Index of discrimination .20

 

1 Personal communication from Mr. Robert Jackson, Office of Board of
Examiners, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan.

In this test a total of 51 items has an index of discrimination
below .20. Of these, five had a negative index and eight had a value
of zero. If these items should be revised or replaced this should,
in turn, raise the discrimination index for the whole test. Simply
omitting these items would raise the reliability coefficient for the
remaining group of questions. On this test fifty per cent of the
discriminating items had an index between .20 and .40, and eighty per
cent of the items had an index below .50. The ranse of index values
was -.11 to .70. In aeneral, a greater percentage of the matching
questions had higher disciminating power than did the multiple choice
questions. In practice a discimination index of 1.00 will never be
obtained.

It should be recognized that easy test items andchfficult test
items can both be discriminating. The difference lies in the fact that
the easy questions differentiate between the poor students and the
difficult questions between the good students. Examples of easy
questions having a high index of discrimination are numbers 21, 25,
and 45. Test items may, however, be of greater difficulty and still
not discriminate well between good and poor students. ;uestions 18,
57, and 100 are examples of this type. It is desirable to have some
items which are both highly discriminating and of greater difficulty in
order to bring out differences between students in the higher levels.

Examples of this type are questions 25, 66, and 59.

47.

Item analysis carried out on test items is valid only for the
group whose papers were included in the analysis. Difficulty and
discrimination will vary with different groups. However, it is
useless to perform an item analysis unless the test items are to be
used again. Only after such examination as this can achievement tests
be made to measure more accurately the knowledse which it is intended
that they measure.

If further use is made of this test, the following measures are
recommended to improve it. (1) Discard or rephrase the items of very
low difficulty. Replacing these items with questions of greater
difficulty would help to increase the discrimination between good
students. (2) Discard or rephrase the items having an index of dis-
crimination below .20. This would increase the discrimination index
of the test as a whole and raise the coefficient of reliability. (5)
After selecting the good items, tabulate the individual reaponses to
each item. Revise or replace incorrect choices that attracted no one.
(h) Place the items according to difficulty. Ebel (44) has stated that
placing the items of less difficulty at the beginning of a test will
encourage the students when starting the test.

As a result of this revision the test would be a more effective

device for evaluating achievement of students enrolled in the beginning

course of food preparation.

Other Results of the Teaching Methods

Interest is one factor which is difficult to measure, and yet it has
a definite influence on both the teacher and the student. Generally
speakinc, the students in both groups appeared to be interested in the
work beinc done. However, teacher B eXpressed difficulty'in keeping
the attention of three :r four students in the second term demonstration
section. Lack of interest on the part of these particular students
did not continue longer than the first two weeks of work, although
this instructor stated that the attention of the entire group was more
difficult to hold then that of her previous demonstration group.

An interesting comparison was made between the unexcused absences
by students in both groups. Only absences from the laboratory were
counted. Almost twice as many absences were incurred each term by
the students in the control groups as in the demonstration groups.
Whether there is a relationship between student-interest and student-
absences is not known. It should be recognized that the time of day
at which the class met may have been a contributing factor.

Clarity of directions is another factnr difficult to evaluate.
Both teachers observed that, in many instances, the use of verbal and
written directions preceeding individual laboratory work was less
effective in teaching food preparation than when demonstration
preceeded practice eXperience. This was especially true when different
types of ecuipment were used, as in the preparation of beverages; or
when alternative methods of procedure were involved, as in the prepara-

tion of white sauce. Devonstrnticn rather than lecture may be more

meaningful to the student when more than one correct method of
procedure may be used.

The demonstration method has the advantage of helping pupils

see how things are done, and helping them understand the reasons
for following certain methods of procedure. A single teaching
demonstration may serve many pupils, whereas individual laboratory
assistance is more time consuming and meets the needs of fewer students.
Both teachers stated that the practice time for students in the
modified-demonstration group should not be reduced. EXperience in
"doing'I is important in this area of study. While the results of this
study do not indicate significant differences between the levels of
achievement on the part of the modified-demonstration group when
compared to the students in the control group, it is possible that any
less time in laboratory experience might have resulted in greater
differences, especially on the scores of the practical test. It is
believed that time and work efficiency will, in some respects, be
related to eXperience, and reducing the laboratory practice time for

the modified-demonstration group mirht result in less proficient work

being done in succeeding courses.
Comparison of Costs

A record was kept of the cost of the food supplies used in one
laboratory section of each type for one term. The orders were the
same for all the demonstration groups and for all the control sections,
and identical for both terms. Table VIII gives the comparison of the

costs of the food supplies for the series of lessons.

TABLE VIII

COMPARISON OF COSTS CF FOOD SUPPLIES USED FOR CRT TERM

 

 

 

 

Control Modified- Difference
Lesson Group Demonstration in
Group Cost
Salads 3 5.87 $ 5.50 3 .57
Gelatin products 2.02 .82 1.20
Flour and gluten .19 .19
iuffins-variations in
mixing 2.26 .47 1.79
White sauce, cheese 1.85 1.76 .07
Cereal dishes 4.5 1.60 2.75
Beverages 1.67 1.16 .51
Breakfast eggs 4.26 1.15 5.11
Custards 2.55 .74 1.59
Omelets 1.64 ,.27 1.57
Souffles 5.51 5.51 .
Puddings 2.57 2.57
Leavenings - baking
powder 2.45 .56 1.87
Leavening - baking soda 1.67 .50 1.57
Muffins - standard
products 5.80 5.80
Fruits 1.78 1.12 .66
Candies 2.45 2.45
Practical test 5.62 5.62
Total $46.05 $29.17 $16.86

 

51.

The total cost for one term for the group taught by the
individual laboratory method was $46.05; the total cost for the
modified—demonstration group was $29.17 for one term. The difference
in cost of the food supplies for the two groups was $16.86, which
constitutes a 22 per cent saving in the demonstration group. Since
four yroups were taurht by the modified-demonstration method, the
saving for this study was approximately seventy dollars. When one
considers that three to six sections of this course are taught every
term, the difference in the cost of the two methods assumes consider-
able importance. Other factors which will influence costs are the
size of the classes and the ability of the teacher to plan and order
supplies. However, the saving effected by the use of the modified-

demonstration method merits attention and consideration.

USICN'

Yu

N
C
ab

C

CARY AND

P.
u

SUl‘

SUMMARY AND CCNCLUSICHS

The author and a second teacher employed two teaching methods to
instruct eight aroups of college students enrolled in a beginning
course in food preparation. Four groups were taught throuph use of
the individual laboratory method; the other four groups were instructed
through use of the modified—demonstration method. The individual
laboratory method consisted of student preparation of food products
after preliminary instruction had been given. The modified-demonstra-
tion method utilized teacher-demonstration for presenting the material,

combined with supervised practice periods for individual eXperience
in half of the scheduled periods. Additional instruction was given
both groups through lecture classes and review sections. Educative
factors were controlled in so far as it was possible under ordinary
school conditions. The experimental factor was the teaching technique
employed in the laboratory classes.

Evaluation of student achievement was made on the basis of scores
on written tests, product grades, and a practical laboratory examination.
The data were analyzed statistically to see if any differences resulted
from the two methods of instruction.

An objective-type test was constructed for use as a final
examination. The papers of L;? students were analyzed statistically
and the data were used to compute the index of difficulty and the
index of discrimination for each test item; the coefficient of

reliability for the test was also determined.

54.

A record was kept of the cost of food supplies used in the
laboratory in order to determine the difference in cost between the
two methods of instruction.

Under the conditions of this eXperiment there was no statistically
significant difference between the groups on the basis of either the
final grades, the scores made on the final written test, or the
average scores of the two one-hour examinations. Analysis of variance
carried out on these data indicated that there was no significant
difference between the results obtained through use of the two methods
of teaching, and also no significant difference between the results
achieved by each teacher.

The results of the analysis of the scores on the laboratory
practical test, as determined by use of the Fisher t test, indicated
that there was no statistically significant difference between the
groups. In all cases, however, the mean score of the modified—
demonstration group was lower than the mean score of the control group
of the same teacher.

The test constructed for use as a final test proved to be a fairly
good measure of the students' knowledge of this subject. If an index
of discrimination of .20 is used as the standard, 75 per cent of the
items satisfactorily differentiated between the good and poor students.
The reliability coefficient for the test was computed to be .82.

Recommendations have been made to improve the test in order that
it might be a more effective device for evaluating achievement in

beginning food preparation.

The cost of the modified-demonstration method was over 22 per
cent less than that of the individual laboratory method. Since
several laboratory sections of this course are taught each term,
considerable saving of money would result through the use of the
modified-demonstration method.

Under the conditions of this eXperiment it is questionable
whether the students learned more through the use of one teaching
method than through use of the other. However, the results of this
study have indicated that the individual laboratory method is not the
only effective way for students to learn food preparation. The
extent to which teacher-demonstrations can substitute for practical
eXperience in a beginning food preparation course, and at the same
time allow the student to gain necessary eXperience in manipulative
skills and techniques, is not definite. More analytical work will
be necessary to decide the circumstances under which, and the units
of study for which, each method will be most successful. The use of
the modified-demonstration method, as it has been carried out in this
study, has been judged to be no less effective as a teaching
technique than the conventionally used individual laboratory method.

In addition, it has resulted in considerable saving of money.

REFERENCES CITED

10.

11.

12.

REFERENCES CITED

Comley, K.: A comparison of the demonstration and the laboratory
method teaching meal planning and serving. Master's Thesis,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1955.

Comley, K., and Brown, C. M.: Demonstration and laboratory
methods of teaching meal planning and serving. J. Home. Ec.

28: 28, 1956.

Bloye, A. I., and Long, A.: An eXperiment in teaching food
preparation to college freshmen. J. Home Ec. 55: 470, 1941.

Shultz, H.: The I'll show you technique. Prac. Home Ec. 26: 519,
1948.

Stackhouse, D.: Demonstration lessons for the boys' class. Prac.
Home Ec. 15: 552, 1957.

Cooke, R. L.: Demonstration versus laboratory once saain. J. Chem.
Educ. 15: 592, 1958.

Boretz, N.: Individual eXperience versus pupil demonstration methods
in high school general science. Master's Thesis, New York
University, New York, 1950.

Cited from: Cunningham, H. A.: Lecture demonstration versus
individual laboratory method in science teaching--a summary.
Sci. Educ. 503 70, 1946.

Popkin, R. B.: The student demonstration. Ind. Arts. & Voc. Educ.

_Lankford, F. G.: Individual versus demonstration method of teahhing

science. J. Chem. Educ. 20: 257, 1945.

Anibal, F. 0.: Comparative effectiveness of the lecture-demonstra-
tion and individual labor tory method. J. Educ. Res. 15: 555,
1926. ‘

Cunningham, H. A.: Lecture demonstration versus individual
laboratory method in science teaching--a summary. Sci. Educ.

50: 70, 1946.

Knox, W. W.: The demonstration versus the laboratory method of
teaching high school chemistry. School Rev. 5: 576, 1927.

15.

14.

150

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

24.

25.

E93

Horton, R. E.: Measured outcomes of laboratory instruction. Sci.
Educ. 15: 511, 1929; 14: 415, 1950.

Kahn, P.: EXperimental study to compare the laboratory method of
instruction with individual demonstration in elementary college
biology. Sci. Educ. 26: 51, 1942.

Payne, V. F.: The lecture-demonstration and individual laboratory
methods compared. J. Chem. Educ. 9: 1277, 1952.

Carpenter, W. W.: A study of the comparison of different methods
of laboratory practice on the results obtained on tests of
certain classes in high school chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 5: 798,

1926.

Nash, H. 3., and Phillips, M. J. W.: A study of the relative value
of three methods of teaching high school chemistry. J. Educ. les.

Goldstein, P.: Student laboratory work versus teacher demonstration
as a means of develOpins laboratory resourcefulness. Sci. Educ.

21: 185, 1957.

Schlesinger, H. 1.: Important criteria in evaluating laboratory
work. Educ. 56: 595, 1956.

Hunt, H.: Demonstration as a substitute for laboratory practice
in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 12: 5, 1955; 15: 29, 1956.

Push, D. 8.: A comparison of the lecture-demonstration and the
individual-laboratory method of performing chemistry eXperiments.
Penn. School J. 77: 599, 1929.

Cited from Stuit, D. B., and Engelhart, M. D.: A critical summary
of the research on the lecture-demonstration versus the individual
laboratory method of teaching high school chemistry. Sci. Educ.

16: 580, 1952.

Selbers, E. M.: A plan for developing a better technique in giving
science demonstrations. Sci. Educ. 16: 417, 1952.

Chester, W.: Laboratory by demonstration. J. Higher Educ.

93 52: 19580

Stathers, A.: The micro-projector with the individual microscope
in teaching high school biology. Sci. Educ. 17: 59, 1955.

Webb, C. S.: The teaching of advanced science using the demon-
stration method. Sch. Sci. & Math. 58: 20, 1958.

26.

27.

28.

51.

52.

55.

55.

56.

57.

59.

Van Horne, D.: An eXperimental comparison of demonstration and
individual laboratory methods in high school chemistry. Master's
Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1929.

Cited from Cunningham, H. A.: Lecture demonstration versus
individual laboratory method in science teaching-—a summary.
Sci. Educ. 5o: 70, 1946.

Fuller, R. H.: Demonstration of individual laboratory work for
high schools. J. Chem. Educ. 15: 262, 1956.

Stuit, D. B., and Enselhart, M. D.: A critical summary of the
research on the lecture-demonstration versus the individual
laboratory method of teaching high school chemistry. Sci. Educ.

16: 580, 1952.

Elder, A. L.: The lecture-demonstration method versus individual
laboratory work in chemistry. Sci. Educ. 25: 209, 1959.

Bucham, w. 8.: An endeavor to contact objectives with method in
the teaching of science. Sch. Sci. & Math. 56: 610, 1956.

Karnes, H.: The demonstration. Ind. Arts & Voc. Educ. 51: 525, 1942.

Amidon, E. P.: The development of a method of evaluating ability
in meal preparation. Master's Thesis, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, 1927.

Segner, E. F.: An evaluation of student achievement in the foods
units of the proposed course of study for home economics in
Wisconsin.' Master's Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,

1956.

Hatcher, H. H.: An eXperimental study to determine the relative
effectiveness at the secondary level of two methods of instruction.
J. EXP. Educ. 10: 41, 1941.

Hatcher, H. M., Brown, C. M., and Callahan, H. P.: Effective
teaching in homemakinq. J. Home Ec. 54: 295, 1942.

Price, H. H.: Studying achievement in foods classes. J. Home

Ec. 45: 265, 1951.

Riedel, F. A.: What, if anything, has been proved as to the
relative effectiveness of demonstration and laboratory methods
in science? Sch. Sci. & Math. 27: 512, 620, 1927.

41.

42.

45.

60.

Gramet, C. A.: Demonstration lessons in biology. Sci. Educ.

188 55: 1954.

Brown, C. M.: Evaluation and Investigation in Home Economics.
New York: Appleton Century Crofts Inc., 1941.

Downing, E. H.: Shall laboratory work in the public schools be
curtailed?--a criticism. Sch. Sci. & Math. 29: 411, 1929.

Kuder, G. F., and Richardson, M. W.: The theory of the estimation
of test reliability. Psychometrika 2: 151, 1957.

Brown, C. H.: Syllabus for Home Economics Education 192, Part A.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1958.

Brown, C. M., and others: Minnesota Food Score Cards. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, 1946.

Ebel, R. L.: Chap. 7. Writing the test item. Lindquist, E. F.,
Editor. Educational Measurement. American Council of Education,
Menasha, Wisc., Banta Pub. Co., 1951.

APPENDIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
   
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

  
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
   
   
 
   

. 1
. a
1 11
. 1
.
1 v 11 1 L . 1
1. . . , 1 _ 1 ..
x A I l
. .1 . 1 « .. 1
1 _ . 1 + + 1 + + 1 11 1
1 . 1 + + + 1 +1
. 1 1 11. -_ 1
v a. . 4 . . .
1. 1 1 . .. 1 .
. . . 4
1.1 . . 1 11
. . h 1 1 1. 1 1 . .
. , , . 1 . . 1 . . 1
. 1 1 1 . . 1 n \
. . 1 L . 1 1 .1 1.
3 .. 1 .1 . . .
1 1‘ V
1 . 1 . 1.
. . .1 . . . . . 1 . u .
,1 1. 1 . 1 . 1
M 1 1 . . s 1 1 H . . 1. . 1
1 1 1 1 1 11
H + + + 1 . +1. +. +1 + .
1.1 1 . . 1. . 1 .. . .1 , .
. .. . 1 . 1 1 1... .
1 . 1 .11 1. U 1 . . . .1 .. . 11 . 1 . . v
.:.1 _ , 1 . .1 ,1 1 1 1
H. 1 1 1. _ . .11 r
r 1 5 . 1 1 a
. . a a 1
.1 11 .1. . 1 1 1
.1 . 11
1 1 _ 1 . . 1 .1 . 1 1 . . 11 ._ .1
1 . . 1 m .1 .1 .11 1 1 1. 1 .. 1.
n 1 . .v .w . 1 . . 1 r .1 s . .
1 . . . L. .1 >
1 . 1 . 1. a ..
. 1» 1 1 1 _ ..J
1 1 V . V _
1 1 1 . 1 , .
1 1 _ 1 1
. y . 1 f. 1 1 r1 1 1 . 1 .1... 1
1 1 . 1 a .,1 1 . .1. 1,. 1
1 1 . . 1 . .1. 1.. 11 11.1. 1
1 1 .. l w a 1 1 . ._ z . . a .R v
1 1 1| .1, a 1 1 . i 3. 1 1
1 1 1 H 11 1 . m ,
. .1 m + + +1 +1 1 “1. . .1 +11 +1 +11 +1 1 n...
1. . . 1 H :11 1:
1 . 1 1 1 1 . .1. 1.1.. 1, . 1 . 1 1 1 1.“ r O .1 1.1
. 1 1 . 1 11 . 1 1 1 11 11 1 1. u 1 a 5..
.. 1 1 W 1H . . .1 1 . 1 . 1 1 . 1
. 1 . . ,. ”1 at .. 1V1
. . 1 1 1 i
.1 1 . 1 .11...
vv 1 1 11 . . .4...
1 . . w 1. 11 1
1 1 1 < V 1 1 11m. .71 h 1....
1 _ 1 m1 ., 1L 1. 1 . 1 T. n a...
. . 1 J; y. . v1 a”
1 1 . .9 .7 . _ . , 1
1 11. .1 1.1 . . 1 1.. M 1”.
. 1 .1 . u 1;. . 1H 1. . 1 1 1s
1 m . E .1 1 .1 7 1 T
M. 1 . r .1 ,1 .11 .. 1 .. .31.
_ 1 m 11 1 . H . .
. 1 1 1 .1 :1 1 1 1L
1 1 . ,1 1 _ 1 . : d ,
H 1 a m P. .21
. 1 11 m .
,1 ,1 . . 1 nu 1.44..
1 . 1 1 . 2 f.
. 1 1 . 1 1 x,
. , . t
. w . . a
1 1x 1 M1 1 if.
1 . H 1.: 1 , 0:.
1 . 3 a 1.
1.1 1 . .. 1
hr. 1. a

 
  

LESS ON OUTLINES

Modified
Control Demonstration

Introduction la

 

Introductory discussion Introduction - Same
- The course

- The laboratory

Salads and Salad Dressings lb
(Individual preparation)

Discussion - Characteristics of Discuss - Same
good salads
- Preparation and
service of good

salads
- Preparation and use Demonstrate - Preparation and use
of of
- Salad greens - Salad greens
- Tomatoes — Tomatoes
- Citrus fruits — Citrus‘ fruits
- Peel and - Peel and
section . section
— Salad examples
-ant
- Tossed
Prepare - Salads (Individuals) Prepare - Same
Judge products Judge products
Discuss - Emulsions Discuss - Same
- Types
- PrOperties
- Salad dressings Demonstrate - French dressing
- French dressing . - Mayonnaise
-Mayonnaise Discuss - Cooked dressing

- Cooked dressing

Control

65.

Modified
Demonstration

Gelatin 2a

Discuss — Hydration and dis-
solution of gelatin

Prepare - Gelatin products
(Groups of two)
- Whi p8
- Sponges
- Bavarian creams
— Jellied vegetable
salad
- Tomato aspic

Judge products

Discuss Recipe differences
- Solutions
- Colloidal systems
- Gelatin gels
- Foams

- Esa

- Cream

Discuss Gluten formation
Gluten balls
(Individuals)

- Different flours
- Added sugar

- Added fat

Prepare

Factors affecting
gluten formation

— Techniques of measuring

- Flour

- Liquid

- Fat

- Brown sugar

Discuss

—_-(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Hydration and dissolu-

tion of gelatin

- Gelatin products using
basic lemon jelly

— Same, except tomato
aspic

Judge products

Discuss - Same, plus tomato aspic

recipe

Gluten 2b

WC.—

(Individual preparation)
Discuss - Same

Prepare - Same

Discuss - Same

Demonstrate - Techniques of measuring
- Same

Control

0\
O\
O

Kodified
Demonstration

Muffins--Mixina 5a

 

Discuss — Mixing
— Muffin method
- Variations in

amount

Huffins
(Individuals)

Prepare -

Judge products

Discuss - Overmixing
- Ingredients
- Purpose
- Variations
- Changes in
baking

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate — Mixing

- Muffin method
— Variations in amount
- Variations in ingredients

Judge products

Discuss - Same

White Sauce - Cheese Cookery 5b

Discuss Combining starch with
liquid
- Cold
Hot

- Effect of heat on cheese

White sauce
(Individuals)

- Welsh rarebit with

half of white sauce

Prepare

Judge products

Discuss - White sauce proportions
- Starch cookery and
gelatinization
- Separation of starch
granules
- Methods
— Uses
- Factors affecting
e Cheese cookery

(Individual preparation)

- Combining starch with
liquid
— Cold
— Hot
— White sauce
- Effect of heat on cheese
— Welsh rarebit

Demonstrate

Prepare - White sauce
( Individuals)

Judas products

Discuss - Same

Control Modified
Demontration

Cereal Dishes 4a
(No individual preparation)

 

Discuss - Methods of combining Demonstrate - Methods of combining
cereal with liquid cereal with liquid
- Swelling - Swelling
- Rinsing - Rinsing
Prepare - Kacaroni, spahetti - Cooking rice with cream
and rice products; of tartar
(GrOups of two) - Spanish rice
- Spaghetti with meat
sauce
Judge products Judge products
Discuss - Rice with cream of Discuss - same
tartar
- Cereal cookery
- Finish starch cookery
Beverages 4b

(No individual preparation)

Discuss - Beverage equipment Demonstrate - Use of equipment
- Ingredient preportions - Ingredient prOportions
- Coffee
Prepare - Beverages - Four methods
(Individuals) - Iced
- Coffee , - Tea
- Tea Two methods
— Cocoa - - Iced
- Chocolate * - Cocoa
Judge products Judge products by types as prepared
Discuss - Coffee, tea, cocoa, Discuss - Same plus
chocolate * chocolate recipe
- Composition
— Brewing

* May prepare cocoa at previous
lesson (cereals) to shorten
lesson.

Control

Modified
Demonstration

Breakfast Ears 5a

Discuss - Temperature of egg
cookery
- Methods
Prepare - Breakfast eggs

(Individuals)
- Creamed egg

or
EU: in nest

Judge products

(Group preparation)

Discuss - Same

Demonstrate - Groups of two

- Two methods each for:
hard cooked
soft cooked
poached
scrambled
fried eggs

- Egg in nest

Judge products as prepared

Discuss - Same

Custard 5b

Discuss - Egg cookery
- Grading of eggs
- Aging of eggs
Prepare - Baked custard variations

(Individuals)

- Stirred custard

Judge products

Discuss - Use of dried milk
- Egg gels
- Formation
- Factors affecting

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Use of dried milk

- Baked custard variations
- Ingredients
- Temperature
- Water bath

- Stirred custard
- Stages of coagulation
- Standard product
- Cvrrcooked

Judge products

Discuss - Same

Control

Discuss — Omelets
- Puffy
— Plain

Prepare - Puffy omelets
(Individuals)

Judge products

Discuss - Review egg foams
- Review ea? cookery
- Souffles for next
lesson

Prepare - Souffles
(Individuals)

Judge products

Discuss - Review
- Bag cookery
- Foams
- Starch cookery
- Cheese cookery

Omelets

Modified
Demonstration

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Cmelets

- Puffy
- Plain

Judge products

Discuss - Same

Souffles

(Individual preparation)

Prepare - Same

Judge products

Discuss - Same

59.

6a

6b

Control

Puddings

Discuss - Principles of
starch cookery
eqq cookery

Prepare - Puddings
(Individuals)
Apply starch and
erg cookery prin-
ciples

Judge products

Discuss - Application of
principles of starch
and cam cookery

- Review for hour test

Muffins.

Modified
Demonstration

(Individual preparation)

Discuss - Same

Prepare - Same

Jugs products

Discuss - Same

— Bakinv Powder

 

 

Demonstrate - Different types of
baking powder
reactions

Prepare - Muffins with baking
powder variations
- Types
- Amounts
(Individuals)

Judge products

Discuss - Baking powders
- Types
- Ingredients
- Reactions

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Same

— Muffins with baking

Judge products

Discuss - Same

powder variations
- Types
- Amounts

70.

7a

7b

Control-

710

Modified
Demonstration

Muffin Variations 8a

Prepare - Standard product
muffin variations
(Individuals)

Discuss - Leavening

— Review baking powders

- Baking soda

(Individual preparation)

Prepare - Same

Baking Soda Products 8b

Discuss - Baking soda reactions

Prepare - Batters of different
pH (Individuals)
- Chocolate cup cake
- Gingerbread
- Cottage pudding

Judge products

Discuss - Effect of pH of batter
on:
Color
Texture
Tenderness
Flavor
- Neutralization

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Baking soda reactions
— Cold
- Heat
- Acid
- ffect of changes in
pH of batters on
chocolate cup cakes

Judge products

' Discuss - Same plus other acid and

basic batters

Control

Modified
Demonstration

Cooked Fruits 9a

 

Prepare - Cooked fruits
(Individuals)
- Sauces
- Baked apples
- Stewed fruit

Judge products

Discuss - Fruit cookery:
preservation of

flavor

shape

nutrients
- color

- Sucar solutions and'
osmotic pressure
differences as applied
to fruit cookery

(No individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Sauces — three methods
- Baked fruit
- Apples
- Pears
~ Bananas
- Stewed - two methods

Judge products

Discuss - Same

9b

Vacation

Control

Prepare — Fudge, standard

Modified
Demonstration

Crystallization
(Individual preparation)

Demonstrate - Fudge

products

- Variations in Discuss - Variations in preparation
preparation
- Optimum cookinc, Prepare - Standard product

beaten immediately
- Undercooked, cooled
before beaten
- Overcooked, cooled
before beaten

Judge products

Judge products

Discuss - Theory of crystal- Discuss - Same

lization
- Factors affecting

Practical Test-

750

10a

10b

Control

Review and Laboratory Written Test

 

Review - One hour Same

Written Test - Approximately
45 minutes

— Principles of
laboratory

preparations.

\Modified
Demonstration

74.

11A

OBJECTIVE-TYPE FINAL TEST

OBJECTIVE-TYPE FINAL TEST

202 C Final Test

READ CAREFULLY

 

Tear this sheet off if you wish but:

1.

2.

5.

Please use this sheet for any calculations. 29 not mark the
test Questions.

 

 

Check the directions at the beginning of each section. (Is there
one or more than one right answer?)

 

Mark the answer sheet with heavy black lines.

 

Before leaving this room turn in:

(a) Your answer sheet

(b) Your c0py of the test questions
(0) This calculation sheet

(d) Pencil

The test will be scored as follows:
Total number (125) minus number wrong.

Authors note: The analysis of each test item is recorded at
the left of each item using the following key:

a' b
I d

C

m
I

_ Number of high fifty students who marked the item correctly.

0‘
I

_ Number of low fifty students who marked the item correctly.

_ Item difficulty (percentave of students missing the item).

0
I

Q.
I

_ Index of discrimination.

For questions 1 thru 95 select the one best answer.

77-

202 0
Final Test

Blacken the

 

appropriate space on your number sheet.

1.

so 48
2 .25
2.

48 4A
8 .25
5.

1+9 1
20 .61
4.
$1.49.-
2 O
5.
£2.29.
19 .15
6.
4.9 a
2 0

Which of the following is NCT a characteristic of a
Quality A egg?

1.
2.
5.
i

A "stand-up" yolk
Small air cell

Firm vitelline membrane
Thin white

Processed cheese is less apt to separate upon heating than
is unprocessed cheese because

kw Mir—J
0

an emulsifier has been added.
it is creamier.

it contains less fat.

it contains less protein.

Acid decreases the thickening power of cornstarch because

v43 41‘ \N NIH
D o
(D

broiler-4

it hydrolyzes the starch.

it raises the boiling point of the mixture.

it takes up some of the water necessary for maximum
gelatinization.

it hydrates the starch.

emulsifying agent in mayonnaise is

oil.
vinegar.
sag.
spices.

An example of a gas—in—liquid colloidal system is

bwlm H

Era

”>me
O

singer ale.
whipped cream.
foa.

steam.

white functions as a foaming agent because

it contains a large amount of water.

its water content traps the incorporated air.

its protein becomes overcoasulated.

its protein forms an elastic film around the air bubbles.

10.

20 .57
11.

5%}?

12.

50 41

9 .51

What characteristic of a muffin batter accounts for the
difference in tunnel formation when using different types
of baking powder?

Moisture content
Viscosity
Porosity
. Sweetness

bMNH

During the mixing of a muffin batter the protein of flour is

hydrated.

hydrolyzed.
solubilized.
. decomposed.

kw NIH

Before measuring flour you should sift it

not at all.
once.
twice.
three times.

by!” H

*3

he use of which baking powder tends to delay tunnel formation?

Tartrate type
Phosphate type
S.A.S. type

. None of these

Jrkuruoa

Overcoaaulation of ear rotein is characterized b
\ 3‘- p y

. shrinkage of protein.

. eXpansion of protein.

. tenderization of protein.
. gelatinization of protein.

#‘W NIH

Which of the following ingredients is NOT found in all types
of baking powder?

Acid ingredient
Starch

Sodium bicarbonate
Calcium acid phosphate

IJ?}NIvOH

Syneresis is the cause of

lump formation in a white sauce.

separation of liquid from solids in a custard.
staling and deterioration of coffee.

tunnel formation in muffins.

.t-wln: H
O O

16.

50 40

17.
so as

W

18.

20.

l-.ll

The chief function of milk in a muffin batter is to

. give structure.

. tenderize.

. act as a solvent and suspension medium.
. sive flavor.

#MNr—l

The constituent of flour which is present in the largest
amount is

starch.
water.
protein.
fat.

.t-w NIH
O O 0

What effect will sugar in a better have on the gluten formed?

‘1. It peptizes the gluten.

2. It overcoagulates the gluten.

5. It hydrolyzes the gluten.

4. It gelatinized the gluten.

The chief function of fat in muffins is to make them

1. light in texture.
g. tender.

5. brown better.

4. firm.

The prOperties of a colloidal system are due chiefly to which
of the following characteristics of the dispersed phase?

1. Solubility

2. Hardness

2, Surface area

4. Acidity

If cheese is cooked long or fast

it is smooth and creamy.

it is easily blended into a product.
it is rubbery and stringy.

its flavor is enhanced.

fflvun)rd

Egg acts as a thickening agent because

1. it forms a true solution.

2. it incorporates air.

5. the fat in it is highly emulsified.

4. the protein in it undergoes coagulation.

1::
x0

17

21.

4a

6‘756

22.

.50

25.

50 51
19 .67

26.

SO 49

1

.11

Which of the following baking conditions would be most
suitable for baking custard?

1. 5900?.
g. 55OOF. using a water bath
5. 5500?.
4. 4OOOF. using a water bath
5. 400°F.

Which of the followins temperature ranres would be best for
baking bran muffins?

1. soc-5250?.
2. 550-575°F.
E. 400-425OF.

. 450-4750F.

In the preparation of a white sauce the starch gel is
stablized by

. the application of heat in the presence of liquid.
. the application of heat in the presence of fat.

. fat.

. liquid.

kw NIH

After cooking cereal products such as rice, noodles, macaroni
or spashetti, one should

1. leave the cereal in the hot cooking water until ready
to serve.

. drain off the hot water and set cereal aside until served.
. rinse with running water and reheat, if necessary, before
serving.

lit-w l\)

One-fourth cup contains,

1. 1 tablespoon.

2. 2 tablespoons.
5. 5 tablespoons.
fl. 4 tablespoons.

The thickening of a white sauce is completed when the liquid
reaches the boiling temperature because

the milk needs no further cooking.

. maximum swelling of the starch granules has occurred.
the fat has completely melted.

the salt has completely dissolved.

:r\NH01~
O

. drain off the hot water and place in the oven to keep warm.

80.

29c
44 46
8-.09
50.
SO 41
5 .50
51.

52 .42

52.

40 26
51+ .51

81.

Which of the following methods would
a creamy fudge?

be MOST apt to produce

1. Sirup cooked to soft ball state; beaten immediately.
2. Sirup cooked to hard bell stage; beaten immediately.
5. Sirup cooked to soft ball staae; cooled and beaten.
4. Sirup cooked to hard ball stage; cooled and beaten.

Which of the following would be the LEAST important reason
for cooking fruits?

1. To improve or change the flavor.

2. To soften the texture and perhaps increase the digestibility.
5. To intensify the color.

4. To preserve the fruit for future use.

The principle structure of a fluffy omelet is

1. an egg gel.

2. a starch gel.

5. an emulsion.

‘4. a coasulated egg white foam.

Starch lumps in a white sauce thickened with cornstarch cannot
be removed upon further heating because

1. a layer of coagulated gluten forms around the raw starch in
the center of the lump which cannot be penetrated by water.

2. water cannot penetrate the layer of gelatinized starch
surrounding the raw starch in the center of the lump.

5. water cannot penetrate the layer of overcoagulsted egg
surrounding the raw starch in the center of the lump.

4. the starch will be hydrolyzed.

Which of the following constituents in coffee and tea is NOT
readily soluble in water of simmering temperature?

1. Caffeine
2. Caffeol
2. Tannins
. Caramelized products

The primary cause for the soapy flavor produced in baked
products containing excess baking soda is the reaction of
sodium carbonate residue with the

1. sugar.
2. liquid.

g. fat.
. flour.

54.
he 28

52 .27

55.

23 .54

‘56.

16 .56

57.

I:

14 .15

'3:-
.L‘
H

J—‘W NIH

82.

An emulsifying agent whould

I. raise the boiling point.

2. lower the boiling point.

5. raise the surface tension.

‘4. lower the surface tension.

The chief reason for cooking cereal products such as

noodles, macaroni, etc., is to

. gelatinize the starch.
. improve the flavor.

. increase the volume.

. hydrolyze the starch.

Jz-u NIH

During the baking of a muffin batter, starch does NOT undergo
which of the following changes?

. Hydration

. Dextrinization
. Evaporation

. Gelatinization

J—‘MNH

Invert sugar is composed of

1. glucose. (dextrose)

2. fructose. (levulose)

%. glucose and fructose.
. glucose and‘maltose.

Cold water is added to dry gelatin before combining it with
hot liquid in order to

. hydrate the gelatin.

. dissolve the gelatin.
. peptize the gelatin.

. hydrolyze the gelatin. \
What temperature water should be used when preparing coffee
or tea in order to extract the optimum amount of desirable
constituents and a minimum of undesirable constituents?

Boiling temperature

Slightly below boiling temperature
Just above boiling temperature
Lukewarm water

bWIN H
O O

590
0 1+2
8 .

40.
1+0 141

42.

85.

Which of the following methods would be best to use for
preparing cocoa from the following recipe:

2 t. cocoa

2 T. sugar

1/4 cup water
few grains salt
3/4 cup milk

Mix all ingredients together and heat over direct flame.
Make a sirup of the sugar, cocoa, salt and water; boil

for 1-2 minutes stirring continuously; add milk, mix well
and heat to serving temperature in a double boiler.
Dissolve sugar and salt in hot liquid; add cocoa; mix well
and heat over a double boiler.

Mix suyar, cocoa, and salt; add hot liquid and boil gently
for one minute.

Which of the followins ions must be furnished by baking poweder

in

IbWNH
C O 0

order to produce leavening?

Hydrogen ion / tartrate ion.
Hydrogen ion # acid phosphate ion.
Bicarbonate ion / sulfate ion.
Bicarbonate ion % hydrogen ion.

From which constituent of flour is gluten develOped?

«tr-w NIH

In

Protein
Fat
Starch
Sugar

the preparation of starch thickened sauces mixing starch

with which of the following substances is the LEAST effective

in

IbWNH

separating starch granules?

Melted fat

Sugar

Cold liquid
Hot liquid

Caramel cornstarch pudding is often more difficult to prepare
than chocolate cornstarch pudding because

[hwmloid
O 0 O

the
the
the
the

organic acids present hydrate the starch.
extra sugar makes the pudding sticky.

caramel syrup causes the starch to form lumps.
organic acids present hydrolyze the starch.

84.

Which of the following factors does NOT affect crystal
formation in the preparation of crystalline candies?

The temperature at which it is beaten

The addition of non-crystalline substances

The viscosity of the sirup

The amount of stirring during cooking after the
ingredients are completely dissolved

”>me
O O O

In preparing a molded gelatin salad which of the following
combinations of ingredients will cause the GREATELT DECREASE
in stiffness of the jelly?

 

. Grated cabbage, carrots, and celery

. Pieces of fruit including lemon juice for tart flavor
. Whipped cream, nuts and marachino cherries

. Cottage cheese, sliced olives and nuts

kwIN H

The constituent of coffee which is primarily responsible for
flavor in coffee is

. tannin .

e caffeine.

. caramelized products.
. caffeol.

I.¥>\J-INH

How much flour should be used per cup of liquid in making a
medium thick white sauce?

. One tablespoon

. Two tableSpoons

. Three tableSpoons
. Four tableSpoons

bwlm H

When using buttermilk and baking soda in a recipe what
proportion of baking soda would you use for one cup in
buttermilk?

. 1/4 teaspoon

. 1/2 teaspoon

. 1 teaspoon

. 1-1/2 teaspoon

bwlN H

Cheese dishes, such as Welsh Rarebit, are cooked at low
temperature because eheese

is protein in nature and easily overcooked.
. is porous.

melts faster at low temperature.

is largely fat.

kw NIH

50.

Bfiuigé

29 .56

85.

A caramel custard, baked under conditions prOper for plain
custard exhibits synsresis. Why?

The eggs were "old".

It wasn't baked sufficiently.

The acids in the caramel sauce raise the coagulation
temperature.

. The acids in the caramel sauce lower the coagulation
temperature.

It \NNH

Which of the following colloidal systems describes a gelatin
jelly?

l. Liqu'd-in—solid
2. Solid-in—liquid
5. Gas-inéliquid
4. Gas-in—solid

The constituent of flour which is responsible for thickening
white sauce is the

protein.
starch.
water.
fat.

waN H
O O O

Tenderness in a muffin may be increased by the addition of more

1. fat.
2- egg.
5. flour.
4. water.

Compared with a staidard product an over-nixed muffin is apt
to Wave a top that is

l. flatter.
g. more peaked.
5. rougher.
4. browner.

What could be substituted in an ice-cream freezer to mix with
the ice to be put around the freezing container if salt were
not available?

1. Egg protein
2. Fat

5. Starch

fl. Sugar

56.

41 .23

60.

he 25
22 .54

61.

Excess sugar may decrease the thickening power of cornstarch
because

it hydrolyzes the starch.

it lowers the boiling point of the mixture.

it takes up some of the water necessary for maximum
gelatinization.

it hydrates the starch.

The best method for cooking macaroni is in

l. a small amount of rapidly boiling water.

g. a large amount of rapidly boiling water.

5. a small amount of water kept at simmering temperature.
4. a large amount of water kept at simmering temperature.
Which one of the following ingredients does NOT help to
thicken chocolate pudding?

1. Starch

2. Egg

5. Sugar

4. Chocolate

Which of the following substances does NOT interfere with
crystal formation in the preparation of crystalline candies?

l-L‘UNH

Invert sugar
Corn sirup
Acid

Salt

Which of the following INCREASES the stability of a whipped
gelatin foam? ‘

In

Sugar

Acid

Cold temperature
Warm temperature

preparing cream sauce which order of combining ingredients

would be best to use?

Melt fat in the milk; add flour and seasonings.

Mix flour and seasoning; add to hot milk; add fat.

Add fat, flour and salt to scelded milk.

Add flour and seasonings to melted fat; add milk slowly.

62.
=0 44
6 .43
65.
0 so
0 o
64.
so so
0 o
65.
so 45
5 .40
66.
A4 23
55 048
67.
48 so
22 .54

87.

Contamination of esg whites with some egg yolk prevents a
stiff foam from forming because of the presence of what
constituent of the yolk?

1. Protein

2. Water

2. Fat

4. Vitelline membrane

Tunnels in muffins are caused chiefly by excessive

1. fat.

2. sugar.

5. oven temperature.
.3. mixing.

Essentially the muffin method of mixing is to

1. beat the erg and fold in the remaining ingredients.

2. cream the fat and susar, add the milk, flour and other
dry inoredients.

‘2. mix the combined liquid inyredients with the combined
dry incredients.

4. mix the flour and milk; add the remainina ingredients.

One tablespoon contains
1. one teaspoon.

2. two teaspoons.

2. three teaspoons.

4. four teaspoons.

When cooked the specified length of time a lemon pie filling
(thickened with corn starch) did not seem to be thick enourh;
cooking was therefore continued. Instead of thickening however,
it grew thinner. This was the result of

.l- hydrolysis of the starch.

2. hydration of the starch.

5. dehydration of the starch.
4. hydrogenation of the starch.

Invert sugar is formed by hydrolysis of

glucose.
fructose.
maltose.
sucrose.

Icflmtura
O O

$0
45
22 .54
69.

E

25 .24
70.

as 44
8 .25
71.

6 .50

72.
so so
0 0

75.
46 4A
10 .09

bWIM-H

88.

What is the chief cause for softening of fruit during cooking?

.1 Hydrolysis of the sugar

. Hydrolysis of pectic substances
. Caramelization of the sugar

. Peptization of the protein

When using S.A.S. type baking powder in the presence of a
liquid, approximately what proportion of carbon dioxide may
be liberated at room temperature?

1. None

.2- Approximately 1/5
5. Approximately 2/5
1+. All

Which of the followinr descriptions is NOT characteristic of
a good salad?

1. The ingredients, dressing, and plate are cold.
2. The food has an unhandled appearance.

.2. The texture of the body of the salad is soft.
4. The salad is colorful and the colors harmonize.

In preparing the gravy for a stew which order of combining
ingredients would be best to use?

“-4
0

Mix flour and seasonings with enough cold liquid to make
a smooth, thin mixture, add mixture to the hot liquid of
the stew.

Add the hot stew liquid to flour and seasonings.

Add flour and‘salt to the hot liquid of the stew.
Sprinkle flour over hot liquid of the stew.

#WN
o.

The structure of a baked custard is due to

coagulated milk proteins.
. coagulated sag proteins.
the presence of egg fats.
the presence of sugar.

tflwuurd
0

Gel formation is a property characteristiCr of

colloidal solutions.
true solutions.
coarse dispersions.
no solution.

#r\Nth4
0 O 0

74.

E
O‘\

79.

1+6 1+0
14 .25

What is

the chief reason for the difference in rate of

reaction in the i general types of baking powder?

1 . The
2. The
2. The
4. The

rate or ionization of the baking soda
action of heat on baking soda

rate of ionization of the acid ingredient
amount of starch present

To prepare grapefruit for an orange and grapefruit section
salad how would you remove the skin from the grapefruit?

l.
2.

if

Cut through the skin in quarters and peel.
Peel indiscriminantly.

Pare the
All of these methods are satisfactory.

skin with a knife.

Most cereal products such as rice, macaroni, etc., when
cooked will

hwxrohd
O O

0-3

he

bwlm l—-'

increase in volume 2-5 times.
increase in volume 4-5 times.
remain the same volume.
decrease in volume.

principle structure of a white sauce is

. an ewg gel.

. a starch gel.

. coagulated gluten.
. an emulsion.

Which method is preferred in cooking fruit in order to
retain its shape and keep it from falling apart?

1. Cook in a large amount of boiling water.
2. Cook in a small amount of boiling water.
Cook in a sugar syrup.

E:

Cooking

by any of these methods is equally effective.

To cook in a liquid at a temperature of about 185-2OOOF.
(85—9500.) is called

1
2
5.
9.

. baking.

. sauteing.
boiling.

. simmering.

15 .42

82.

so 41

85.

46 26
28 .51

85.

is 5
7 .19

The increase in volume due to expansion of gases or steam
in a product when it is heated is called

coagulation.
peptization.
hydration.
leavening.

ltfiwtura
O 0

The process of absorption of water is called

. coagulation.
. hydration.

. hydrolysis.
. syneresis.

£>\NW0+4

The change in the structure of an egg-milk mixture, such
as soft—custard, when the temperature progresses beyond the
cosmilation point is called

 

. carsmelization.
. curdling.

. gelatinization.
. hydration.

bWIN H

A disperion in which the particles do not affect boiling or
freezing points is called a

saturated solution.

supersaturated solution.

true solution.
Icolloidal solution.

l£>\ur0t4
. O O

The hydrated protein ofvfinat and rye flour is called

1. stabilizing agent.
2. leavening agent
%. gluten.

. starch.

A solution containing particles which cannot be seen under
the ultramicrosc0pe is called

1. a colloidal solution.
2. an emulsion.

5. a gel.

4. a true solution.

86.
5L5.
16 .55

57.
so 4:

7 .46

as.
0 so
0 o

89.
so so

0 o

90.
1} .45

91.
EC 44

6 .45

The process of rendering protein insoluble upon application
of heat to form a gel is called

. leavening.

. coagulation.

. gelatinization.
. syneresis.

Jz-wlm H

The hydration and swelling of starch granules resulting in
an increase in viscosity and development of translucency
in starch is called

pelatinization.
coagulation.
hydrolysis.
curdling.

4:“): NIH
O O

P]

he resistance to flow of liquids is called

1. hydration.

2. hydrolysis.

5. caramelization.

fl. viscosity.

To heat sugar or food containing sugar until a brown color

and characteristic flavor deve10ps is called

. caramelization.
. peptization.

. hydration.

. gelatinization.

cfiwtvha

A solution to which the addition of a crystal of solute
will cause precipitation is called

1. an unsaturated solution.
2. a saturated solution.

5. a supersaturated solution.
4. a colloidal solution.

To allow a substance such as tea to stand in liquid below
the boiling point for purpose of extracting flavor, color,
or other qualities is called

hydration.
scalding.
searing.
steeping.

|.l:-\N m ,_.
O

92.

Questions 94 throurhe99‘

92.

To heat milk or other liquid to below boiling
called

point is

. steeping.

. marinating.
. scalding.

. hydrating.

¢+letd

A suspension consisting of a liquid dispersed
with which it is immiscible is called

in a liquid

1. a foam.
2. a gel.
‘2. an emulsion.
4. gluten.

Study the statements in List A. Then

 

List A. (Statements)

(2)

94.

‘J‘
\N
0
\NM
W0

\0
\fi
0

“I: a

H.::-
(120
.L:\O
83 O\
O

\o
~q
0

Ni?"
$‘fi‘
o
\.N
NM

‘0
CD
0

Farr
\nch
m
\n

‘0
\O
O

as
all.

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

select the statement in List B which
you feel is most applicable to each
condition described in List A. Blacxen
the appropriate blank on your answer
sheet.

List B

There will be
a decrease.

If soda in a recipe is increased, 1.
what will be the result on tender-

ness of chocolate cup cakes?

2. There will be
2) The presence of sugar has what a increase.
effect upon the coagulation tempera-

ture of egg mixtures?

 

5. There will be

little or no
A hich concentration of egg has what change.
effect upon the coarulation tempera-

ture of egg mixtures?

 

If the susar concentration of a sirup
is increased, what will be the result
on the boiling temperature of the sirup?

 

If the suear in a recipe is increased
what will be the effect on tenderness
of a white cake?

 

If soda in a recipe is increased, what
will be the result on redness of color
of chocolate cup cakes?

 

100. What change in temperature should be made when baking
chocolate cake in a loaf pan as compared to individual
cup cakes baked in muffin tins?

56 24 1. Use a higher temperature.
40 .26 g. Use a lower temperature.
5. Make no change.

101. Compare the content of protein in cake flour to that in
all-purpose flour.

48 55 1, There is less in cake flour.
19 .49 2. There is more in cake flour.
5. There is the same in both flours.

In the following matching questions, each item in List B may be used
MORE than once, but it is NOT necessary to use all the items in the
B. Lists. '

Questions 102 throush 104: Select the correct term in List B
which best describes the principal
function of egg in each of the
products given in List A.

 

 

List A (Products) List B (Functions of egg)
50 4K 102. (5) Mayonnaise l. Thickening agent
5 .50 I
40 41 105. (2) Lemon snow pudding 2° Foaming agent
10 .45

5. Emulsifying agent
so 45 104. (1) Chocolate pudding .
5 . o

94'.

gpestions 105 through 110: Select from List B the primary
chemical composition of the food
products given in List A.

 

 

 

 

List A (Food Products) List a (Chemical
Composition)

20 2 105. (5) Cereal products
57-«06 1. Carbohydrate
42 24 106. (2) Gelatin 2. Protein
54 .40
52__2§. 107. (2) Gluten 5. Carbohydrate /
15 .55 - Protein
42 52 108. (4) Whole egg 4. Protein / Fat
19 .09
44 ZZ 109. (5) All-purpose flour 5. Fat
29 .41
5Q 24 110. (4) Cheese

\»
—q
\x
\u

Questions 111 through 1153 Study the two custard recipes given
below. Answer the following
questions by using the key on the
right hand side.

 

Custard A Custard B £31
1 cup milk 1 cup milk 1. The statement applies to
2 eggs 1 egg custard A.
2 T. sugar 2 T. sugar 2. The statement applies to
1/2 t. vanilla 1/2 t. vanilla - custard B.
5. The statement applies to both
custards.
4. The statement applies to neither
custard.

41 21 111. (1) Will be most likely to show syneresis.
58 .45

F0 52 112. (1) Will coagulate sooner.
18 .66

42 20 115. (2) Will be more tender.
55 .47

48 52 114. (1) Will form a firmer gel.
15 .58

49 4 115. (5) The egg functions as a thickening agent.
9 .40

In the following set of questions choose the best T30 answers.

Black

Th0 Spaces on your answer sheet for each question.

116.

50 41
9 .51

119.

M
10 .55

120.

Author's note:

In preparing which two products would quality A eggs
by necessary?

 

1. Cake ' 50 46
'2. Saute egg 4 .55
5. Scrambled eras

4, Poached egg

Which two products listed in #116 could be prepared
satisfactorily from B or C quality eggs?

1. 1-5 5p 4:

Which two of the following will weaken the stability of
an egg white foam?

‘1. Overbeating 42 42

2. Thick egg white 9 .

5. Fat

4. Salt

Which $39 of the following statements are the main
principles of egg cookery? '

1. Cook at hish temperature. 42 55

2. Cook at low temperature. 16 .55

5. Cook a long time.

4. Cook a short time.

Which two prOperties of eggs enables them to be used as an
emulsifying agent?

. Forms a foam. 48 41
. Lowers surface tension. 11 .55

Soluble in both liquids.

I-C'WIN H

The total number of questions is 125;

questions 116 through 120 require two answers for each.

Soluble in one liquid and insoluble in the other liquid.

j.

g

:1 .11 "‘

a
u
.
1
-
J. :.F. J..J‘£A. h._.lll. In. a“! .,u)14.‘r(.u 1H,-»

A- -,_-._