-- w A.

  

ll

   

WNW

‘lf

\ \
\

 
 

WI?

9

   

h

l
J

   

HINIHWHU

   

I}

W

l

I
w
H

   

'—1_._‘ I
Ioooo I
gnome

 

{I 774636

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Outcomes of a Nutrition and Gardening Education Program:

A Qualitative Study

presented by

Charissa Townsend

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Resource Development

 

 

 

Mfior Profes'fl's Signature

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

“I, v —v ' ~' v—fi—fi ———. m... _.. __

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/CIR' C/DateDuel-i'ndd-pJS

 

OUTCOMES OF A NUTRITION AND GARDENING EDUCATION PROGRAM:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY

BY

Charissa Townsend

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

2005

ABSTRACT

OUTCOMES OF A NUTRITON AND GARDENING EDUCATION PROGRAM:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY

By
Chan'ssa Townsend

The incidence of overweight and obesity in the United States is a concern
for all income groups. This issue is more prevalent and more difficult to resolve in
low-income communities. Traditional nutrition education programs often show
community members ways to access healthy food and increase physical activity,
but do not foster behavioral change. One program that focuses on health
behavior change is the Growing Healthy Program, a community-based hands-on
gardening, nutrition, and cooking program based in Washtenaw County,
Michigan. The purpose of this research was to examine how the Growing
Healthy Program was developed and implemented, and what changes
participants made as a result of completing the program.

Qualitative in-depth interviews and participant observation were used to
understand the program outcomes and implications for future research from the
perspective of both the instructors and participants. The outcomes included
increased knowiedge related to health, behavioral changes, and increased self-
efficacy, achieved through transformative and conscious Ieaming that included
discourse and hands-on activities. Participants were empowered to make
decisions and take actions to better their health. Recommendations for future
research and program development include improving components of the

program design and class logistics.

Dedication

For Ken

iii

Acknowledgment

Graduate school is not an easy experience, but the people involved in the

experience can make it enriching. I would like to thank the following for making

this experience valuable:

My committee, Dr. Michael Hamm, Dr. Kimberiy Chung, and Dr. Frank
Fear for making this experience enriching through their support and
guidance while writing this thesis, as well as through courses I have taken
with them.

The “Hammsters” for their insight and thoughtful discussions — inside and
outside of our weekly meetings. It has been an honor to be a part of the
OS. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems.

George Moyer for his assistance with transcriptions and other tasks
related to this thesis.

My family, friends, and husband for their support and patience, even when
they were not sure exactly what I was studying. This includes the friends I
have made in this graduate program who have inspired me throughout
writing this thesis.

The USDA’s Food Stamp Program and the Department of CARRS for

funding this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview of Situation .................................................................. 1
1.2. Purpose of Study ........................................................................ 5

. Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................ 7
2.1 Nutrition Education ....................................................................... 7
2.2 Transtheoretical Model

2.2.1 Transtheoretical Model — Stages of Change ............................... 8
2.2.2 Transtheoretical Model — Self-efficacy ...................................... 8
2.2.3 Transtheoretical Model — Processes of Change .......................... 9
Consciousness Raising ................................................. 9
Social Liberation ....................................................... 13
Helping Relationships ................................................ 15

. Chapter 3: Methods .......................................................................... 19
3.1 Program Description ................................................................... 19
3.2 Researchefs Role in Program ...................................................... 22
3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................... 22
3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................ 25
3.5 Validity ..................................................................................... 28
3.6 Limitations of the Study ............................................................... 30

. Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ...................................................... 31
4.1 Outcomes of the Program ............................................................ 31

4.1.1 Development of Nutrition Education ......................................... 31
4.1.2 Outcomes of Knowledge, Behavior, and Self-Efficacy .................. 33
4.2 Aspects of the Program that Aided the Outcomes .............................. 37
4.2.1 Processes of Change - Consciousness Raising ......................... 37
4.2.2 Processes of Change — Social Liberation .................................. 40
4.2.3 Processes of Change - Helping Relationships ........................... 41
4.3 Implications for Future Programs ................................................... 45

. Chapter 5: Conclusion ...................................................................... 48
5.1 Summary of Results .................................................................... 48
5.2 Proposals for Future Research ...................................................... 52
5.3 Lessons Learned ........................................................................ 53

Afterword ............................................................................................ 55
Appendix ............................................................................................ 57
Literature Cited .................................................................................... 73

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Empowerment Structure in Community-Based Nutrition Education ..... 43

vi

Cha ter 1
Introduction

1 .1 Overview of the Situation

The increasing rate of overweight and obesity in the United States can be
seen in all racial groups and in both sexes (Headley et al., 2004). In a review of
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey completed in 2001-2002,
Hedley et al. (2004) noted that 65.7% of US. adults are overweight or obese.
This is a cause for national concern due to risks of developing cardiovascular
disease, certain cancers, and diabetes, as well as an exacerbation of diseases
like hypertension, gallstones, dyslipidemia and musculoskeletal disorders (Field
at al., 2001 ).

The risk is even higher in low-income communities. Diet modifications and
increased physical activity are the primary ways to reverse overweight and
obesity. However, these changes in lifestyle are difficult for individuals living in
low-income situations. Communities with higher poverty rates have fewer
physical activity opportunities (Powell et al., 2004). In addition, there is a lack of
grocery stores with an adequate supply of fresh produce and other healthy
options at affordable prices (Kantor, 2001; Morland et al., 2002). Although many
individuals in these communities may qualify for the Federal Food Stamp
Program, Oberholser and Tuttle (2004) note that using food stamps does not
automatically ensure food security. Many homes still report not having enough to

eat even when participating in the food stamp programs, and not having enough

opportunities to access fresh produce and other healthy foods (Oberholser and
Tuttle, 2004).

One way to combat this problem is to provide programs that teach
community members other ways of accessing healthy food and increasing
physical activity. Cerqueira (1991) notes that traditional nutrition education
efforts have focused on an information dissemination model with information
formatted for the general public. This model has a “sender-oriented,” “nutrient-
based" approach which is based on the scientific perspective of the nutritionist
developing the program. While programs with this focus may change knowledge,
they typically do not have an effect on behavior change (Cerqueira, 1991 ).

Some maintain that nutrition education program developers should focus
more on understanding the process of behavior change that those in low-income
communities must go through (Kennedy et al., 1998; Cerqueira, 1991). By
focusing the program on the perspective of the participant, program developers
make the program more “receiver—oriented” to “stimulate critical thinking in the
receivers and to respond to their information needs" (Cerqueira, 1991: 2). In
doing this, programs must be developed based on the needs and wants of
community members. Programs should also be interactive and interesting to the
participants, with a space for open discussion between instructors and
participants allowed.

Nutrition educators should also know the barriers to change health
behaviors for low-income individuals. Kennedy et al. (1998) argue that it is

barriers, not ignorance, that prevents low-income families from adopting healthy

eating habits. Some barriers for low-income individuals include access to healthy
food; limited cooking skills, lower literacy levels, and getting the entire family (not
just the person attending the program) to also change behaviors (Kennedy et al.,
1998; Macario et al., 1998).

To combat the problems of overweight and obesity, some grassroots
partnerships focus on developing receiver-oriented programs that facilitate
behavior change. These programs are built using the programs designers'
understanding of what community members want to learn and the areas they
would like to develop skills. They also have established trust with community
members because of other work they have done in the community. While these
programs are not formed with a scholariy,‘ theoretical-based structure, they are
based on a professional theory, which has been developed through practice.
This study examines one of these programs, the Growing Healthy Program‘, to
understand how these programs meet their goal in aiding community members to
change health behaviors.

Growing Healthy is a hands-on gardening, nutrition, and cooking program
that took place in Washtenaw County, Michigan. This program is a collaboration
of a local gardening assistance organization and the Michigan State University
Extension Family Nutrition Program (MSUE FNP) in Washtenaw County. Unlike
traditional programs, this program was designed specifically for the food stamp
applicants and participants in Southtown, a city in Washtenaw County. The

instructors based the program on what they understood to be the needs and

 

' Pseudonyms are used for the program, city, and participants of the study.

wants of community members. The idea of this program was to focus on
behavior changes by providing information and demonstrations to increase skills
and to provide access to healthy food. While this program was aimed at families,
the study will only analyze outcomes for the adults in the program.

In the gardening section of the program, low-income adults in Southtown,
Michigan are taught basic principles of gardening to ensure that they would
become more inclined to integrate produce into their diet and would a have low-
cost way to supplement tight grocery budgets with fresh food. This program also
provided a way of increasing physical activity since gardening for 30-45 minutes
meets the recommendations of the US. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) for daily exercise.

In the cooking and nutrition section, participants were shown how to cook
food in a manner consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans provided
by DHHS. This included cooking fresh vegetables, using herbs in place of other
seasonings, and cooking meat without added fat.

This program was partially funded by Food Stamp Nutrition Education
(FSNE), which is also known as the Family Nutrition Program (FNP). FSNE is a
component of the Food Stamp Program, the nutrition assistance program
operated under the Food and Nutrition Service of the US. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The goal of FSNE is to “improve the likelihood that persons
eligible for the Food Stamp Program will make healthy food choices within a

limited budget and choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and USDA Food Guidance System" (Food and
Nutrition Service, 2005).
There are four core education elements to FSNE which are:

1. “Assist food stamp households to adopt healthy eating and active
lifestyles that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
and the Food Guide Pyramid (Dietary Quality);

2. Enhance practices related to thrifty shopping and preparation of
nutritious foods by food stamp households (Shopping Behavior/Food
Resource Management);

3. Insure that food stamp households have enough to eat without resorting
to emergency food assistance and making sure people eligible for the
FSP but not participating are made aware of its benefits and how to
apply for them as part of nutrition education activity (Food Security);

4. Improve food stamp households' safe handling, preparation and storage
of food (Food Safety)” (US. Department of Agriculture, 2005).

The program in this study focused on food resource management, food security,
and food safety.
1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine a community-based nutrition
education program that was designed to be receiver-oriented and promote
behavior change. The following questions were examined:

1. What are the outcomes of the program?

2. What aspects of the program aided these outcomes?

3. What are the implications for planning future programs?
The outcomes of the program and aspects of the program that aided these
outcomes will be examined through participants” statements. Instructors’
statements on how the program was developed and implemented will be used to
support the information from those statements. The findings of this study can
support the improvement of the Growing Healthy Program and other FSNE

programs seeking to take this approach.

Cha ter 2

Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is to provide background on the

theoretical concepts that are related to how the Growing Healthy Program was
developed and implemented. These concepts include nutrition education that
focuses on behavior change, self-efficacy, the Transtheoretical Model, and
concepts of adult education. The Transtheoretical Model describes how these
changes occur through the stages of change and the processes of change
constructs. This is done while adhering to principles of adult education.
2.1 Nutrition Education

Contento et al. (1995) define nutrition education as “any set of Ieaming
experiences designed to facilitate the voluntary adoption of eating and other
nutrition-related behaviors conductive to health and well-being“ (p. 279).
According to Contento et al. (1995), properly designed and implemented nutrition
education interventions that focus on behavior changes can be effective at
improving diets. However, the traditional structure of nutrition education
programs has been didactic and authoritarian using lectures or one-on-one
sessions as the delivery method (Abusabha et al., 1999). This method, referred
to as the information dissemination model, is not effective in changing health
behavior (Contento et al., 1995; Cerqueira, 1991). Interventions that are
effective in promoting behavior change rely on “combinations of various
psychosocial and community models and theories” (Contento et al., 1995: 288).

These include models of individual behavior change, models of community

change, and models that integrate both individual behavior change and
community change concepts.
2.2 Transtheoretical Model
The Transtheoretical Model is an example of a model that combines
behavior change and community change concepts. The Transtheoretical Model
incorporates stages of change constructs with the concept of self-efficacy and
processes of change from across several major health behavior theories and
interventions (Prochaska et al., 2002).
2.2.1 Transtheoretical Model — Stages of Change
The stages of change construct looks at behavior change as a process

over time. Of the five stages (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation,
action, and maintenance), participants may be in any one of the latter four.
Participants in the precontemplation stage do not intend to take action to change
health behavior in the next six months and generally are not ready for an
intervention such as a nutrition education program. However, those in the
contemplation stage (intending to take action in the next six months), preparation
stage (has made some advancements to healthy behavior), action stage (has
changed health behavior for less than six months), and maintenance (has
changed overt behavior for more than six months) would be appropriate
candidates for nutrition education.
2.2.2 Transtheoretical Model — Self-efficacy

Once participants have completed a nutrition education program, it is the

hope of many program instructors that participants have the self-efficacy to

practice the concepts learned from the program. Self-efficacy is the confidence
one has that they are able to complete behaviors necessary for a particular
outcome. It is at this point where participants in nutrition education programs are
empowered to make decisions and or change behavior due to their increase in
knowledge.
2.2.3 Transtheoretical Model - Processes of Change

Processes of change are the activities that guide individuals through the
stages of change (Prochaska et al., 2002). While there are ten processes of
change classified within the Transtheoretical Model, intervention programs may
only use the processes that relate to their goal. The three that are closely related
to the approach taken by Growing Healthy are consciousness raising, helping
relationships, and social liberation.
Consciousness Raising

Consciousness raising is a process where the participant leams about new
information and skills that will aid them in their behavior change (Prochaska et
al., 2002). Involved in this Ieaming is an “increased awareness about the
causes, consequences, and cures for a particular problem behavior" (Prochaska
et al., 2002: 103). Two concepts in adult education literature that support
consciousness raising are transformative Ieaming and conscious Ieaming.
Transforrnative Learning Theory looks at how we transform our frame of
reference or mind set. This transforming of mind set can include elaborating on
existing frames of reference, Ieaming new frames of reference, transforming

points of views, or transforming habits of mind (Mezirow, 2000). These tie in with

the goals of nutrition education depending on what stage the participant is in the
stages of change construct. Conscious Ieaming, or conscientization is similar.
Merriam and Caffarella (1999) quote Freire calling conscientization “in which
men, not as recipients, but as knowing subjects achieve a deepening awareness
both of the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and their capacity to
transform that reality" (p.27).

Both Mezirow and Freire state that Ieaming should be done through
discourse. Through discourse, participants and instructors come to a common
understanding of various concepts presented in programs. Moving towards this
common understanding gives participants a foundation from which they are able
to transform their mindset to move to the next stage in the stages of change
(Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). Interactive, hands-on Ieaming can provide a
context for this discourse and thus the process of transforming. Kennedy et al.
(1998) and Levy and Auld (2004) illustrate this through new concepts of cooking
and Morris and Zidenberg-Cherr (2002) show this through gardening techniques.

Cooking classes are often used to demonstrate how to prepare fresh
foods, as well as to expose participants to foods they may not try on their own.
Kennedy et al. (1998) describe a United Kingdom program similar to the version
of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) called Friends
with Food. EFNEP operates under the auspices of the US. Department of
Agriculture and trains community people to work with low-income individuals in
identifying and cooking nutritious foods. In the Friends with Food program, two

different community workers lead ten weekly tvvo-hour sessions. The program

10

consists of cooking demonstrations that show alternative cooking methods to
frying, and recipe modification of familiar dishes to reduce fat and increase
carbohydrate content. The study showed that participants learned to make
positive changes in their diet through applying new cooking and food preparation
methods, using a wider range of recipes, increasing consumption of
cereals/starchy vegetables, and decreased consumption of fat. These changes
were the results of “practical knowledge gained during hands-on activities” where
participants were “allowed free experimentation with unfamiliar foods,
preparation, or cooking methods” (p. 93).

Levy and Auld (2004) investigate whether cooking classes increase
knowledge and improve attitudes and behaviors toward cooking. They found that
subjects who were part of an intervention group that had hands-on cooking
experience had a more positive shift in knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-
efficacy than a group that attended cooking demonstrations only.

Of the scarce literature available on gardening and nutrition education,
most of it refers to nutrition education directed at children (Morris and Zidenberg-
Cherr, 2002; Carson et al., 1999). Morris and Zidenberg-Cherr (2002) show that
fourth-graders who received classroom-based nutrition education and those who
received classroom-based nutrition education combined with hands-on gardening
activities showed a significant improvement in nutrition knowledge in comparison
to the control group. These improvements remained stable when tested during a
six-month follow-up. For vegetable preference, again the nutrition education

group and the group that had nutrition education with hands-on gardening group

11

showed significant improvements over the control group. However, at this follow-
up, the group that had the hands-on and nutrition education experience retained
their preference level for three of the vegetables used in the study while the
group that had only nutrition education retained preference for one only
vegetable.

In terms of access to food, Kempson et al. (2002) show that having a
garden can increase food security by decreasing the likelihood of hunger. This is
a vital point since access to affordable, fresh vegetables is low in urban and rural
areas — areas where low-income individuals reside (Morland et al., 2001;
Eisenhauer, 2001). The USDA and the National Gardening Association contend
that a ten by 20 foot garden plot can yield between $70 and $540 worth of
vegetables per season (Kantor, 2001).

In addition to hands-on Ieaming, discourse should also produce a
meaningful Ieaming experience. In a review of videotapes developed for a
teleconference to train WIC educators in New Mexico, Abusabha et al. (1999)
discuss how facilitated discussions by a nutritionist with WIC participants
empower the participants. They note:

“During this process, a shared context of meaning is created because the

solutions are a result of the full participation of all the group members. At

the end of group discussion, group members feel committed to the
solutions adopted, because they have shared the responsibility of arriving

at these final decisions” (p. 75).

Meaningful Ieaming requires “well organized relevant knowledge structure” and

high commitment to seek relationships between the new and existing mind sets

(Novak, 2002: 5). However, before this can happen, Novak proposes that

12

Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies (LIPH) be confronted within
individuals. LIPH is where a learner does not have enough information or has
inaccurate information on a particular topic. An example of this in nutrition
education would be if a participant knows that they need to eat vegetables for a
healthy diet, but does not know how many servings a day to eat, or if that
participant has inaccurate information on how many servings a day to eat.

Once LIPH are confronted, participants have an opportunity to have a
meaningful Ieaming experience because they are transformed from a place of
poweriessness to a powerfulness where they are able to “act in a socially
emancipatory way which can be through decision making, changing behavior,
and/or other social actions” (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999: 326).
Social Liberation

After having a Ieaming experience that provides hands-on and meaningful
Ieaming, participants of nutrition education programs can experience social
liberation. Social liberation increases opportunities and choices for individuals
who are usually deprived or oppressed (Prochaska et al., 2002). One way of
facilitating social liberation for low-income individuals is through community-
based Ieaming opportunities. Merriam and Cafarella (1999) describe this as
Ieaming opportunities that focus on improving some part of the community.
Instructors of these programs use education and training as tools in assisting
participants to make positive changes in their lives (Merriam and Cafarella,

1999)

13

Most nutrition education courses funded through FSNE can be described
as community-based Ieaming opportunities. In the Growing Healthy Program,
program directors designed the program using a community building approach.
An important concept in community building in the context of nutrition education
is empowerment (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2002; Cerqueira, 1992). Minkler and
Wallerstein (2002) define empowerment as a “social action process for people to
gain mastery over their lives and the lives of their communities” (p. 288). They
explain this as happening at multiple levels: psychological empowerment,
organizational, and community-level. Through psychological empowerment, the
individuals in the community have a perceived control over their lives that allows
them to be critically aware of their social context and therefore able and willing to
make changes. Organizational empowerment is where an organization’s
process and outcomes influence social change. Community empowerment is
where the community as a whole is able to reduce problems that it encounters.

This is an important concept for community-based nutrition education
because nutrition educators help community members make informed decisions
about their diet; they are empowering them to make behavior changes that will
benefit them health wise (Abusabha et al., 1999). Once positive health behavior
changes are made, health disparities that disproportionately affect those in low-
income communities can be diminished, therefore improving the community as a

whole (Kennedy et al., 1998; Contento et al., 1995).

14

Helping relationships

Helping relationships, according to Prochaska et al. (2002) assists the
program participant with social support, but is still empowering. In order to have
participants reap the benefits of a community-based nutrition education program,
participants must feel that they have control over their lives (Abusabha et al.,
1999). In the traditional model, nutrition educators give information to the
participants without first understanding what information is wanted or needed, or
if the information is presented in a way that is appropriate for the participants.
Minkler and Wallerstein (2002) describes this as a “power over" context, thus
making participants powertess to make their own decisions that will help them
make behavior changes. Participants are made to become dependent on the
nutrition educators instead of themselves.

Effective nutrition education has a “power with” approach. This allows
educators and participants to have an equal share of power in how the program
is developed and implemented. Usually the educator comes into the partnership
with more power, so it is essential that the educator be willing to relinquish this
power in order for discourse to happen (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2002). This is
done by understanding what participants already know, their values, their
experiences, and their problems; tailoring the message to the particular audience
they are working with (whether that be a particular ethnic group or age group);
and communicating with genuineness and respect.

Instructor characteristics play a vital role in participant Ieaming, and in

retention rates for programs. While participants need to have their own

15

motivation to learn (Novak, 2002) instructors should also create a space where
participants can actively learn. Hurst (2001) describes three ways that students
must actively be involved that ties in with Transforrnative Learning Theory and
Vella's Twelve Principles of Effective Adult Leaming. First is to gain the student’s
attention. One way of doing this is by finding out about and building on their
schemata, then building upon their experiences. This is important in the context
of Mezirow’s (1991) notion that “a learner can express only interests or needs
defined within his or her current meaning perspective” (p. 202). Second is
sticking to the basics of your plan through the use of minilessons. This is an
important concept, especially for adult education where a lot of instances call for
adults to transfer Ieaming into “real world” practice right away. Vella (2002)
describes this as the eighth principle in the Twelve Principles for Effective Adult
Learning: immediacy, or the ability to apply new concepts right away. Finally,
Hurst states that planning an activity to enhance comprehension is vital. Hurst
offers the example of having an instructor and students read quietly, and then
discuss what was just read by having the students and the instructor take turns
asking questions. Vella would describe this as praxis. Praxis is “doing with built-
in reflection” (p. 14).

In addition to knowing how to engage students or participants, instructors
should be approachable. In the Friends with Food study, Kennedy et al. (1998)
noted that one of the two session leaders was more successful in delivering the
program. Participants perceived the successful leader as approachable,

someone with an understanding of their life circumstances, and someone who

16

was much more interactive. In contrast, the other session leader interacted less
with participants, did not make links between nutrition messages being presented
and the activity (cooking), created fewer Ieaming opportunities, and was much
less responsive to participants. In order to prevent the unsuccessful scenario,
Kennedy et al. suggests two things: first, health professionals should examine
their attitudes toward and understanding of low-income populations and how their
food situation is dictated by their social and financial condition. Second, instead
of focusing solely on how to communicate their message, health professionals
should also understand the process of behavior change among low-income
groups. Cranton and Carusetta (2004) would describe the “successful” session
leader as being authentic. They describe authenticity in adult teaching as “being
genuine, showing consistency between values and actions, relating to others in
such a way as to encourage their authenticity, and living a critical life” (p. 7).

In addition to being authentic, the successful instructor guided the class, but
was not strict in her approach. Cohen (1994) suggests accomplishing this same
balance through group work. Establishing a group work environment includes
clearly describing the task that needs be completed; allowing students to
complete the task without managing, but acting as a support structure; managing
any conflict that may arise; and holding students accountable for the task that
needs to be completed. Once the task is completed and students present what
they have done, feedback given to provide a Ieaming connection between the
task and the concepts.

The developers of the Growing Healthy Program did not use these theories

17

and concepts in developing and implementing their program. However, these

theories and concepts are closely related to what was practiced in the program.

18

Chapter 3
Methods

The purpose of this study is to examine a nutrition education program that
was designed to be receiver—oriented and promote behavior change. To improve
a program, an in-depth, detailed analysis of the program should be performed. In
this examination of the Growing Healthy program, it was important to gain an
understanding of the instructors' and participants' experiences in order to
understand the program from the participants’ perspective. Qualitative methods
are often used in this type of research because they tell "the program’s story by
capturing and communicating the participants' stories" (Patton, 2002). The
participants’ “stories” explain how the program helps them address health issues
and it is helping them make behavioral changes.

3.1. Program Description

This program was created through a partnership of several agencies
within Washtenaw County Michigan: Sprouting Dreams; Michigan State
University Extension's Family Nutrition Program (MSUE FNP); Washtenaw
County Public Health; and the Southtown Health Coalition. Sprouting Dreams is
a non-profit organization in Washtenaw County dedicated to improving lives and
communities through gardening. MSUE FNP offers a food and nutrition
education program for persons eligible for or receiving food stamps that provides
education based on community needs and decisions. The mission of
Washtenaw County Public Health is to prevent disease, prolong life, and promote

public health through organized programs; prevent and control health problems

19

of particularly vulnerable population groups; and develop and regulate health
care facilities and health service delivery systems. The Southtown Health
Coalition is a coalition of health care providers and community members in
Southtown dedicated to improving community based health initiatives.

The program originated from a partnership between a Sprouting Dreams
gardening instructor and a MSUE FNP nutrition instructor. The two instructors
have worked in the Southtown community for some time before beginning this
project and have a shared understanding about the issues the community faces.
They also share a similar philosophy that focuses on program development
specifically based on community members’ needs and wants, aiding people in
making the changes they want to make, and then having the community
members use the information they learned to help others.

The partnership began when the two instructors decided to combine their
programs into a single class. Through this partnership, the instructors saw the
positive feedback from community members and partnered with the agencies
mentioned above to continue combining their efforts into a six-week program that
would focus on gardening, cooking, nutrition, and food safety information.

In addition to the gardening and nutrition instructors, the program also
included an extension educator who was responsible for conducting the food
safety portion of the program. These three served as the main instructors of the
program, with two other Extension employees and five volunteers (including this

researcher) assisting with program development and implementation.

20

The purpose of this program was to provide a creative solution to
unhealthy eating and lack of physical activity among residents of the underserved
south side of Southtown. The program was advertised for three weeks prior to its
beginning through various community outlets (community health clinics, street
fairs, etc.) and targeted families (although many participants did not bring their
children). The program was free and was created for low-income families eligible
for or receiving food stamps. It was held on Monday evenings from 6:00 pm to
8:30 pm from July 19, 2004 to August 23, 2004 at a church in Southtown.
Activities consisted of demonstrations of gardening techniques, plants, and tools;
and cooking demonstrations where participants aided in the preparation of the
meal. There also were explanations of nutritional content of meals, of how to
access different food, and food preservation and safety skills. In addition to
these activities, all of the participants shared the meal that was prepared that
evening.

Approximately ten weeks after the course ended, a potluck style
community dinner was held and all of the participants were encouraged to
prepare dishes that incorporated concepts learned in class. All participants were
invited to bring family and friends to the event. At this time, participants were
rewarded with cooking tools, which had been requested by them. There was
also a reunion dinner held 10 months after the original program was held to
decide how and if the cohort would continue meeting. (Two participants decided

to commit to continue meeting.)

21

3.2 Researcher Role In Program

This researcher made initial contact with the program instmctors
approximately two months before the program began to Ieam about the work
they do, the community of Southtown, and the plans for the Growing Healthy
Program. In addition to attending planning meetings for the program, this
researcher also aided in advertising the program and served as a volunteer
during the program.

This allowed the researcher to build relationships with the program
instructors and some community members who would later become program
participants prior to data collection. Patton (2002) describes this building of
relationships as an important part of qualitative inquiry. He notes: “this makes
possible description and understanding of both externally observable behaviors
and internal states (worIdviews, opinions, values, attitudes, and symbolic
constmcts)” (p. 48).

3.3. Data Collection

While the researcher participated in the entire program, data collection did
not begin until the fifth class due to University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) approval not occurring until thatpoint (UCHRIS # 04—
548). Data collection for this study included participant observation and semi-
structured, in-depth interviews. Patton (2002) describes “participant observation”
as an observation that takes place by engaging in the activity or program. This
researcher’s role as a participant observer was as a volunteer with the program,

interacting with participants during each class as activities were completed and

22

as participants talked among themselves. The researcher attended all of the
classes, arriving before class began to assist with planning and set up, and
staying after class for clean up. The set up and clean up times allowed the
researcher to further interact with the instructors.

Field notes were taken during the fifth and sixth classes, at the community
celebratory dinner, a video “reenactment” of the program, and at the reunion
dinner. Teaching styles of the instructors, participant Ieaming styles, and
interactions between participants, instructors, and volunteers were recorded as
notes throughout the program in order to understand how people were Ieaming.

Rubin and Rubin ( 1995) state that qualitative interviewing designs should
be “flexible, iterative, and continuous.” Incontrast to quantitative methods, which
measure responses from a large number of people, qualitative methods provide
detailed information from a smaller number of people, but gain a more in-depth
look at the phenomenon being studied.

A total of 13 people were interviewed for this study: 10 were program
participants and three were program instructors. Before the interviews began,
interview guides were constructed to assist the researcher in focusing on
particular topics. Separate interview guides were developed for the participants
and the instructors (see Appendix for interview guides).

Open-ended interviews were conducted with the participants of the
program. As the interviews progressed, the interview guide served only as a
prompt for the researcher to ask about certain occurrences. The guide was

adjusted when it was determined that more information was needed from

23

participants to understand particular concepts and themes. These interviews
brought forth information on: what participants gained from the course in terms of
knowledge about cooking; gardening and food safety; how they would possibly
apply this knowledge; and how Ieaming occurred for them.

Follow-up interviews were conducted with the participants to understand
what changes (if any) had been made in regards to gardening and cooking since
completing the program, to gain a better understanding of how Ieaming occurred,
and to understand what encouraged them to return to each class in the program
series. Separate interview guides were developed for each participant as it was
necessary to follow-up on information provided in the first interviews. These
guides were developed after reading the initial interviews and deciding what
needed to be further explored.

The initial participant interviews began approximately one month after the
program ended. Originally, only nine participants were located for the initial
interviews. The tenth participant was located during the follow-up interviews.
Follow-up interviews began nine months after the program ended. Only eight
participants were located for follow-up interviews.

Interviews were also conducted with the instructors of the course. These
interviews were aimed at documenting the initial goals of instructors, their
evaluation of program implementation, and their perceptions of how the program
could be improved.

All of the interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim.

24

3.4 Data Analysis

After reading through each of the interviews, codes were developed based
on questions from the interview guide and common concepts that emerged
throughout the interviews. Each important concept was associated with a
particular code. Codes were defined and rules developed to determine when the
code would be applied. A codebook was developed to ensure that the data
were coded systematically. Several iterations were needed to finalize the code
book. Two colleagues assisted in the development of the interview guide and
read through transcripts to assist with the development of the code book.
Colleagues helped test the codes by attempting to apply them to the interview
transcripts. It was determined that some codes were not appropriate and were
deleted, combined with other codes due to repetitiveness, or they were
redefined.

Once the codebook was finalized, each interview was carefully read,
searching for evidence associated with the important concepts identified above.
When a concept was located, the researcher marked the transcript with the
appropriate code. All interviews were “coded” in this way for important concepts.
Field notes were coded in a similar manner.

At this point it was necessary to synthesize information across the various
data sources. To do this, a “memo“ was created for each data source (direct
observation and interviews). Memos are “any writing that a researcher does in a

relationship to the research other than actual field notes, transcription, or coding”

25

(Maxwell, 1995: 11). A memo allows the researcher to record, and then organize
thoughts into a form that aids in identifying concepts and themes.

Memos were developed for each interviewee to organize the coded
information from the interview transcripts. These memos contained the
interviewee name and listed all the quotes from that interviewee’s transcript that
corresponded with each code. The memos therefore represented a list of
important quotes sorted by code for each participant.

Memos were developed for each direct observation to organize the coded
information from the field notes. These memos contained the observation date,
codes, and text from the field notes that corresponded with the codes.

It was important to understand how the data collected through participant
observation correlate with the data from interviews. To do this, information from
the observation memos were combined with the interviewee memos. This was
done by transferring coded information that contained information pertaining to a
participant interviewee from the observation memos to the corresponding
interviewee memos. These “combined memos” strengthened the information
collected from the interviews. Information from the observation memos that did
not relate to a particular interviewee was kept in a separate “general information”
memo.

At this point, it was important to develop the coded information into
broader themes. Displays were made to organize the coded information for
analysis. According to Maxwell (1995), displays serve two key functions in data

analysis: “data reduction and presentation of data or analysis in a form that

26

allows it to be grasped as a whole” (p. 80). The displays were created in a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel so that all of the information could be viewed at
once. One display was created for each interview question. The interviewee
names were displayed along the column and the code names were along the
rows. For the first research question, what were the outcomes of the program, it
was essential to understand the knowledge and skills participants gained from
the program, as well as other positive effects the program had on them. A
display was created with the following codes along the rows:

0 knowledge change,

0 behavior change,

0 exposure to new concepts that aided in behavior change,

0 increased self-efficacy,

. sharing information with others,

a other effects of the class.
This question only applied to participants, so there were only participant names
in this display. A summary of the information from the combined memos was
placed in the cell for the corresponding interviewee name and code.

For the second research question, which aspects of the program
determined the outcomes, it was important to understand how participants
experienced the program and what the instructors’ intentions were for the
program. A display was created with the following codes along the rows:

. what participants wanted out of the program,

. what kept participant there,

27

. what was responsible for Ieaming/teaching,

0 understanding of culture,

. working with asset-based approach,

0 understanding partnerships,

. food/diet philosophy.
This question applied to both participants and instructors, so all of the
interviewee names were included. Again, information from the combined memos
was placed in the cell for the corresponding interviewee name and code.

Finally, for the third research question, it was important to understand
what areas of the program could be improved from the perspectives of the
participants and instructors. A display was created with the codes “areas for
improvement” and “what will be done/suggestions for next time.” In this instance,
since the information under these codes was so similar across interviewees, the
columns were not separated by name. Instead, a table was made with “areas for
improvement" and “what will be done/suggestion for next time” listed at the top,
and information from the corresponding codes under each title.

To establish broader themes, information in each display was then
summarized and further analyzed. Information from the “general information”
memo was added to these summaries to provide complete information.

3.5 Validity

Maxwell (1995) refers to validly as the credibility of an account. He

describes the threats to validity according to a typology of three kinds of

understanding: description, interpretation, and theory. A threat to a valid

28

description is “the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the data" (Maxwell, 1995: 89).
To prevent this, all of the interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim.
Immediately after each observation, this researcher audiotaped what was
observed and thoughts about each interaction.

A threat to interpretation is “imposing one’s own framework or meaning,
rather than understanding the perspective of the people studied (Maxwell 1995).”
In the second interviews with participants and during interviews with instructors,
member checking was performed. Member checking is a way of getting
feedback about data collected from the people being studied (Maxwell, 1995).
This was done by asking questions related to information from field notes or
previous interviews to get a clearer understanding of particular concepts. Also,
this researcher had to confront her own biases before and during the research in
order to not impose her own meaning into particular concepts. This was done by
using the assistance of colleagues to develop and define codes.

A threat to theory development is not having an understanding of the
phenomenon being studied. In this study, the threat would be not fully
understanding the situation in the community of Southtown. To counteract this,
the researcher attended planning meetings for the program, met with various
partners of the program, did some work in the community and met some of the
community members, helped with recruiting for the program, and familiarized
herself with FSNE. This was to better understand the community, the people,

and the policies associated with the program.

29

3.6 Limitations of the Study

Some information used in this study will not be generalizable outside of
similar community-based nutrition and gardening education programs due to the
unique characteristics of the Growing Healthy Program (although theories related
to the program and methodology would be).

Another threat is that participants self-selected themselves into the
program. They may have been more motivated to make healthy behavior
changes than those who heard about the program but decided not to attend. A
lot of the participants were attempting to better their lives in other areas (higher
education, trying to find better jobs, etc.) so there may have been characteristics
about them that made it easier to make behavior changes or have increased self-

efficacy.

30

Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

A formative evaluation of the Growing Healthy Program showed how the
program was designed to be receiver-oriented and how it promoted behavior
change - two important concepts needed for an effective nutrition education
program. Text from interviews and participant observation describe the
outcomes of the program, the aspects of the program that aided these outcomes,
and implications for future programs. Below are the results and a discussion on
how they relate to the literature.

4.1 Outcomes of the Program
4.1.1 Development of the Nutrition Education

The instructors of this program, while working with various partners, based
their goals on three of the core elements of Food Stamp Nutrition Education
(FSNE) in order to improve the community of Southtown: food security, food
safety, and food resource management.

In the area of food safety, all three instructors wanted to increase access
and availability to healthy food, with two of the instructors specifying access to
fresh, locally grown food. This was to be done by providing information and
increasing skills in gardening and cooking. Through gardening, participants
would have a way to access fresh vegetables. Increasing cooking skills would
provide knowledge in how to prepare vegetables from the garden, and how to
cook more healthfully in general. While none of the instructors specified what

cooking healthily meant in the interviews, participants describe how one

31

instructor showed them alternative methods of cooking food that were described
as “healthier" such as baking instead of frying, removing excess fat from meat
before cooking and using herbs in place of salt.

In addition to cooking in a more healthful manner, instructors of the
program also wanted participants to know how to prepare food safely. This
corresponds with the FSNE core element of food safety, which focuses on
keeping food and food areas safe from bacteria.

Instructors also wanted participants to Ieam how to save money through
food resource management. One way of doing this was introducing gardening
and growing food as a way to save money on vegetables and herbs. Instructors
also explained to participants how to use food that they already have in their
cupboards to make meals instead of buying food from restaurants, where to
purchase inexpensive food, and utilizing food banks.

Instructors stated that these were all methods to increase participants’
confidence in gardening and cooking, therefore increasing their confidence in
leading healthier lives. At the end of the six-week program, instmctors gave
away cooking equipment that participants wanted and needed to aid them in their
cooking efforts. They also wanted participants to see that through gardening,
cooking and eating together, they would have a way to spend more time with
their families. Instructors showed this through having everyone in each class
share a meal with the food that was prepared that day together. Kennedy et al.
(1998) discuss how families of those who participate in nutrition education

programs do not always eat the healthier meals that they prepare. By involving

32

the family in the actual nutrition education program through cooking the food and
tasting, family members may be more likely to try the healthier meals.
4.1.2 Outcomes of Kngwledge, Behavior and Self-Efficacy

In proper community-based nutrition education, it is important for
educators to respect the learners’ desires and needs and make sure that the
message is tailored correctly for the audience to which it is directed (Abusabha et
al., 1999). Instructors of the Growing Health program did this by building the
program based on what various community members communicated to them. As
a result, participants increased knowledge, made behavior changes, and had an
increased confidence in their ability to complete certain health related behaviors.

Of the nine participants who discussed their motivations for attending the
course, five said it was to improve their cooking skills in order to cook healthier.
One person in this group also stated that she wanted to Ieam how to cook in low-
cost ways, or ways that would save her money.

The two areas where participants Ieamed the most regarding cooking
were: cooking skills and techniques and Ieaming about new foods which were
accessible and affordable to cook and consume. The skills and techniques
included how to use kitchen equipment, healthy methods of cooking, and keeping
food areas safe. An example of using kitchen equipment was how to use knives
more efficiently. This is an important concept for participants to know in order to
use fresh vegetables more often. This concept was taught through cooking
demonstrations and hands-on practice, and through the food safety portion

where participants Ieamed how to keep cutting boards and other food areas

33

clean. Participants also Ieamed about baking foods as opposed to frying them
and removing the skin from chicken to reduce the fat content.

Participants Ieamed about new foods such as meat substitutes, new
vegetables, herbs, and olive oil. By being introduced to these new foods, they
Ieamed how to create healthier meals or healthier versions of meals they’ve
prepared for their family before. One example of this is the use of less meat and
more tuna or meat substitutes, such as beans and tempeh. Said one participant:

“I think we did tuna, and took cherry tomatoes, and basil I believe and mixed
it with some olive oil. . .So it was things Iha ve here at home everyday that I
could have made a nice appetizer, without going out. And it’s a nice healthy
appetizer without buying anything extra and spending extra money. ” - Sasha
Participants also talked about Ieaming to use olive oil in place of other oils and
herbs to season food in place of salt. Many participants mentioned enjoying
Ieaming about herbs they never heard of before and their uses. Being
introduced to different vegetables also had an impact on Ieaming as participants

Ieamed about new vegetables through cooking and tasting them.

“But we didn’t even know what chard was. So I Ieamed about chard. We
didn’t know about lettuce and we Ieamed about that. ” —Delanie

Learning new cooking skills and techniques and new foods to cook and
consume led to behavior changes in participants who were interested in
increasing their cooking skills. In the area of new cooking skills and techniques,
some participants stated that Ieaming about using knives and cutting boards
properly has prompted them to use them more. They also talked about roasting
and baking food more. In regards to food safety, participants talked about

keeping food areas clean and storing food within the appropriate amount of time

34

at home. In follow-up interviews nine months after the class ended, some
participants talked about experimenting with other low-fat, low-calorie recipes.

In the area of new foods to cook and consume, participants changed the
types of food they were eating and how to prepare them. Over half of all the
participants mentioned using tuna, beans, and tempeh in place of meat in meals.

“T he tempeh! You work with it! [Laughs] It has the texture of meat. . .It

was in the freezer for about a month, but I thawed it out and cooked it.

And I did it just like they did in class with the olive oil and the garlic and

mushroom, and I made like a gravy with it and put it on rice and put some

spinach on the side.” -Delanie

“I made the hummus. There was the chickpea and tune with parsley and
olive oil. . .And I did pasta with tuna — the really simple ones.” - Tammy

“It was interesting to see how you could use different stuff like Paul did for
the cooking class and make it tasty, like guacamole and hummus. And
having a lot of meals without meat - that was pretty good. ” — Jessie
Many of the participants talked about how they are enjoying using herbs in many
dishes that used salt and other seasonings before. Learning about different
types of herbs in class helped them with and encouraged them to try herbs that
were not introduced in the program.
“And now I know the difference between fresh herbs and non. Like I’ve
been buying fresh herbs. When I made the greens, it made me feel good.
I remember how they smelled and l was like ‘Oh, yeah!’ It made me want
to try different things.” —Tammy
Another thing many of the participants talked about was the use of more
vegetables due to exposure to different vegetables and how to cook them. In
follow up interviews nine months after the class was over, in addition to

consuming more fresh food in general, some participants continued to cook and

consume more vegetables.

35

“Yeah most of things that I use now are using the greens, you know? And

I take greens because I know that you have to have the vegetable, you

know? Cook your stuff healthy and, you know. And I really like it, all

vegetables now. Before, I don’t eat that many.” - Mary

Not all participants who had a change in knowledge had a change in
behavior. Some mentioned still having barriers to cooking that included time and
available space to cook. Two participants in the study lived in a group home
setting and were not able to buy a lot of groceries or have the space to cook.
One participant mentioned not having the time to cook.

Of the nine participants who answered what their motivations were for
attending the course, four of the participants said that they came to increase their
gardening skills. One of these participants mentioned that she wanted to
improve her health through gardening. Another mentioned using gardening to
save money by growing her own food.

Participants mentioned Ieaming about basic concepts of gardening and
how gardening is a way to access food. In particular, participants mentioned how
they Ieamed about using natural pesticides, nourishing the soil, growing herbs,
and using a container garden made from a bucket. Learning this led to many of
the participants continuing to tend to the bucket gardens and use the natural
pesticides made in class.

“They did a container garden and I had gotten one of those. It was

radicchio lettuce, tomato, and holy basil. Well, I was drying out the holy

basil and I used some of the leaves fresh. I 've gotten three tomatoes off
the plant. And the lettuce, I've gotten leaves off of there several times but
it ended up dying because of the cold weather. But with that container

garden in a 5 lb. pail, l was able to get a salad out of that, you know! I had
the lettuce, I had the basil, and I had the tomatoes out of that!” -Sasha

36

Only one participant had a garden at home before beginning the course. She
mentioned how the course helped her with her garden, specifically the natural
pesticides and Ieaming about the nourishing the soil.

While many of the participants felt they Ieamed gardening concepts and
have the confidence to use them, two mentioned that they have not started a
garden on their own due to space constraints at their home. Once they have a
different living situation (Le, a house instead of an apartment) they intend to start
a garden.

“. . .Because gardening is actually one of my goals, but right now it’s not

really possible for me, it's not really possible. I mean so I just know that it

is a possibility when the time is right. ” — Tia
There were two other participants who came to the course as a way to spend
more time with their families. These two participants mention how the program
allowed this to happen and how they try to make this happen more now that the
program is over. Another participant said while she enjoyed Ieaming in the
course, but she enjoyed watching her thirteen-year-old son Ieam as well. She
said that the course has given him the confidence that he can be a chef when he
grows up.
4.2 Aspects of the Program that Aided the Outcomes
4.2.1 Processes of Change - Consciousness Raising

As described in the literature review, processes of change are what guide
individuals through the stages of behavior change. Consciousness raising began
with experiences participants had brought to the course with them. Many had

experiences in gardening that served as a foundation for what they Ieamed in the

37

course. They talked about watching their parents and grandparents garden and
they were now at a point in their life where they wanted to garden. Reasons for
this included wanting to eat healthier and wanting to use gardening as a way to
relieve stress.

“Because when I grew up, my grandmother had a garden. Then I grew up

and l ...she had all kinds of stuff in that garden. Plus I think it’s therapeutic.

That’s what I like about gardening. ” — Jessie
Those who were interested in cooking also had experience watching their
parents cook, but also enjoyed to cook and just wanted to know more about
healthy cooking.

“. . .It was kind of like my dad used to make. He ’d go in the cabinet and he

could find hot tamales and he could find tomato sauce and he would make

something. You ’d go, God, this is good, and it would be like the worst

looking goulash you’d ever seen, but it was the best tasting thing, and it was

kind of like that. It was like Paul would find all kinds of stuff and put it

together and you ’d be like ‘what is it’ and you ’d be afraid to eat it. It would

look ridiculous, but it’d be so good. ” — Tammy

These previous experiences are connected to what participants said they

Ieamed. Participants gained information that built off of past experiences through
hands-on activities. The activities included cooking, participating in gardening
activities, and the hand washing demonstration. In the cooking activities,
participants mentioned how actually participating in the food preparation,
cooking, and then tasting the food was important for them in retaining information
taught during the food demonstrations.

“Well, I think it’s more like, what do you call it? You get hands on experience

instead of just observing. You might learn a little bit more by doing instead of
just observing. ” - Cathy

38

Participants also mentioned how Ieaming the recipes in class encouraged them
to try class recipes at home and other recipes that they would have normally not
tried. This experience also influenced the change in eating behaviors (meatless
dishes and increase in eating vegetables). The demonstrations also showed
them how to use the cooking equipment. As one participant stated:
“And Paul was really a good hands on instructor. He kind of just let you go in
and dive in and that was better than just sitting and watching him. . .If you
didn’t chop [the right way], he would say, 'Well let me show you an easier
way to do it’ and he wouldn't do it all for you. ”—Tammy

Most of the participants mentioned the class on herbs and how they
enjoyed it the most. They talked about being able to touch, smell and taste herbs
as well as use the salves made from herbs that the guest speakers brought. The
class encouraged many of them to use herbs at home.

For the gardening portion, only a few participants mentioned hands-on
activities used to help them Ieam. Of those mentioned, making and tending to
the container gardens had the most impact.

In terms of food safety, the hand washing activity stood out the most for
participants. Many stated that they still say their ABCs and tell their children to
say their ABCs to know when they’ve washed their hands long enough.

While the hands-on Ieaming helped many participants retain information,
the information and skills that participants gained was also relevant and
meaningful to them. They Ieamed skills and information relating to what they
needed and wanted to Ieam about. This helped them transform from one mind

set to another through discourse. As instructors provided information and

demonstrated activities, participants were able to ask questions and make

39

comments to the instmctor and each other. Participants talked about how they

enjoyed hearing about ways to do things not just from the instructors, but also

from other participants.
“ I thought Paul was wonderful. He was patient, his instructions were
clear. . .If you didn’t chop, he would say ‘well, let me show you an easier
way to do it” and he wouldn ’t do it for you. . .there were certain participants
that always in the kitchen. . . We would talk about certain things. Like it!
came into the kitchen after sitting out and listening to the lecture about
safety concerns and that and said what are you guys doing, they would
easily say — and it wouldn ’t be Paul who would respond it would be them
who would say ‘ok, this is what we ’re doing and if you do this and Paul

said if you do this, ’ so they really shared the information and that was
helpful. " —Tamm y

4.2.2 Processes of Change - Social Liberation

The new skills and information the participants received fostered social
liberation. According to Minkler and Wallerstein (2002), gaining knowledge and
skills that one needs to improve their situation in life is empowering. This
empowerment gives people a choice in how to move forward with new
information they have (based on transformative Ieaming). Some people will
definitely take action to make changes (based on conscientization).

Many of the participants had many things they were involved in that
included: working full time, looking for work, raising children by themselves,
attending college, trying to regain custody of children, financial struggles, and
battling clinical depression. The “Ieaming village” atmosphere of the class gave
them an escape each week from other pressures and empowered them in one
controllable aspect of their life. Some talked about how the program made them
feel better about themselves because they were Ieaming how to improve certain

facets of their lives.

40

“It made me feel better about myself. I used to be a lot healthier; when l

was in Chicago I think I felt like I had more options. And since I’ve moved

here I’ve started to lead a more sedentary lifestyle, and it made me have a

better outlook because I do want to eat healthier, I do want to exercise

more and I do want to practice healthier living and so the class
encouraged me to change my lifestyle. So I have been working out more,
and with working out I, the class has helped with that, I work out, I drink
more water, and with me cooking better it’s helped change my lifestyle.” -—

Tammy
Other areas where the class empowered some of the participants was through
shopping tips and through the food given away each week because of they now
knew how and where to buy food that was inexpensive. They knew what the
food tasted like so they wouldn’t feel like they would waste their money.

4.2.3 Processes of Change — Helping Relationships

The Ieaming environment was a co-Ieaming, “power-with” environment.
The participants Ieamed through the instructors open style of teaching that
allowed discourse. Many participants returned to as many classes in the
program as they could because the Ieaming was meaningful, they connected
with other people, it was a relaxing environment, and they had fun.

During the last class in the six-week program, one participant described
the class in terms of the African proverb of it taking a village to raise a child. She
felt that the class was a “village” that helped each individual Ieam and grow as a
person (psychological empowerment), which made the whole group stronger
(community empowerment). Other participants talked about a group

cohesiveness that the made the process of Ieaming more enjoyable.

“Yeah, just enjoying each others company and Ieaming something and
then afterwards we got to eat together. ” — Rita

41

“It’s the ambiance, you know. It’s like the community Ieaming, you know.

You have in other classes, you don’t feel comfortable. But when you

come to a class like that, everybody welcomes you, and it was like ‘wow.’

Everyone knows you, and like it was just like a big family, yeah. People

make you feel comfortable.” -Mary

This bonding experience combined with meaningful Ieaming made the
program a relaxing, stress free environment.

The instructors wanted participants to have the positive experiences. The
three instructors of this program have worked with low-income populations
through other programs that they administer. Through this experience, they have
developed an understanding and empathy for low-income groups. They
understand the challenges and barriers that these groups face when it comes to
accessing healthier, culturally appropriate food and attempt to address these
barriers. However, they do this in a way that is respectful, focusing on the
positive attributes and assets of a group. They also focus on what the group
needs and wants instead of what they think the group needs. The instructors
then developed programs based of these needs and wants.

“So, if we can conduct our programs in such a manner that they speak, they
address the real needs of people then we have a chance of activating them
to take part in broadening the impact of that thrust, whatever it may be. We
deal with the underclass; we deal with low-income people, that’s what FNP is
about. We ’ve got to deal with low-income people, food stamp eligible people
specifically now. Many of those people, we do seniors, we do at risk kids,

we do people who are in-between that. ” -Paul

All three instructors note that it was the partnerships they developed that
helped them put the program together and deliver it. Two of the instructors,
Anna of Sprouting Dreams and Paul of Washtenaw County MSUE FNP had a

history of collaborating with each other and other groups throughout the county.

42

They, along with Susan, the third instructor also with Washtenaw County MSUE
FNP, found value in working with other groups who shared their goals of building
the Southtown community by focusing on the assets of the community.
“Establishing the partnership with [Sprouting Dreams], FNP, and being able
to look at the next one and say OK, now we know a little bit more and this is
how we can do this one and it will work even better, let's hope. Just that
partnership - I value that. ”- Susan
This connects to Minkler and Wallerstien’s (2002) idea of organizational
empowerment. The partnerships between all of the organizations that made
Growing Healthy possible has been empowered because of their partnership and
what has come out of it, and because of their ability to allow a space for the
people in Southtown to become empowered. By meeting their goal of building
the community through increasing food access and opportunities for healthy
diets, they allow empowerment for themselves and the participants they serve in

their programs, and the community as a whole. Figure one below illustrates this.

Figure 1. Empowerment Structure in Community-Based Nutrition Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community

Empowerment
Organizational Psychological
Empowerment Empowerment
(Organizations ‘— » (Participants)
that partnered to
produce Growing
Healthy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increasing food access and
opportunities for healthy diets +
develop partnerships with
organizations with the same goal

Nutrition Education based
on behavior change +
Adult Ieaming principles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

The instructors’ belief of access to healthy, affordable food for all people is
rooted in a larger social justice belief. They believe in equal rights for all groups
and feel that people in low-income groups do not have the same opportunities as
those in higher-income groups. Their work includes providing opportunities for
low-income groups for this reason. In addition to improved diet and health, they
want to help community members improve other aspects of their lives.

“I see the resources that higher income populations have and you know

the cooking classes and the cooking schools and I just have not much

interest in putting my energy there. It's important to have all members of
society helped, but there are certain populations that are a lot more
vulnerable. Not that l’rn there to save them, but if I’m going to put my
energy and resources into a particular part of the community, that is the
part I'd rather work with. And it’s a social justice issue. I come from an
environmental justice background. Not everyone has the same access to

resources. Not everyone has access to a house with a big garden or a

fancy grocery store with fresh produce or whatever. ” —Anna
One example Paul gives is working with a woman who attended one of his
nutrition education and cooking classes who went to start working on a degree in
culinary arts. Two of the participants in the course talked about how their
children have taken a stronger interest in cooking as a career due to participating
in the Growing Healthy program.

Paul developed a “three phases of community development” plan that the
other two instructors agree with and work with. The first phase is to educate.
This, again, should be based on what participants want and feel they need, not
what community educators feel they want and need. Community educators
should not have what Paul describes as an expert, “I’m hereto help you and I

know more” attitude. Programs should be built based on what participants want

to accomplish. When done in this manner, phase two is more likely to happen.

44

Phase two is getting the participants to use what they’ve Ieamed on their own.
Many of the program participants talked about eating more healthy food and
experimenting with healthier recipes since the program ended.

The final phase is sharing the information Ieamed with others. Ideally,
Paul would like to see this happen by participants creating programs on their
own. Participants form the Growing Healthy program talked about sharing the
information they Ieamed with family, friends and neighbors, and even getting
others to try the recipes they Ieamed in the program. Many also mentioned how
they would like to have another course similar to the Growing Healthy program.

This correlated with Freire’s ideas of social action and praxis (Meniam and
Caffarella, 1999). While Mezirow states that one can choose whether to act,
Freire is more insistent in the notion that social action must be taken. One
participant told a story at the reunion dinner that connects with this. She stated
that because she has started gardening and sitting outside more, her neighbors
are sitting outside more and taking care of their front lawn and starting gardens of
their own. They come to her to ask questions about gardening and through this,
more people have their own vegetables and they are communicating with their
neighbors. The participant has stated that this has led to a reduction in loitering
and drug trafficking in the public housing complex where she lives. Paul hopes
that the class has a similar effect on other participants in this capacity.
4.3 Implications for Future Programs

Both participants and instructors had ideas for improving the program

design and class logistics. In the area of program design, the main areas that

45

need to be improved upon are the cooking demonstrations, making better use of
volunteers, time of year the program is done, and making the instruction and
discussions more participant-led. For the cooking demonstrations, Paul felt very
overwhelmed instructing and cooking for such a large number of people (class
size went up to 30 people at times). The instructors agreed that next time they
will have participants take turns cooking with only a few people in the kitchen at a
time. Anna also felt ovenrvhelmed in her duties of obtaining all of the food and
material needed for the night, developing and teaching the gardening material,
and doing a lot of the program coordination. She felt that making better use of
volunteers would counter the problem of the instructors feeling so ovenrvhelmed.
This will also help when instructors plan the time of year the program will happen,
coordinating with the Michigan growing season.

To make the program more receiver-oriented, instructors wanted to
have the participants present what they did to the rest of the class (such as those
who cooked presenting what they cooked and how they cooked it) and let
discussion develop around that. Another suggestion from a participant and an
instructor was to have more participants bring in their own recipes to use for
class.

Participants also suggested having more focused activities for children
too young to help in the garden or kitchen. Instructors decided that they would
have focused activities for the adults, focused activities for the children, and then

bring everyone together to share a meal at the end.

46

Suggestions for improving class logistics were to start on time
regardless of everyone being there or not and to organize things somewhat
differently. A few participants suggested having a sign-up sheet for activities:
cooking, gardening, and clean up. This way everyone could have a chance to
participate in and have responsibility for engaging in all parts of the class. They
also suggested that one person be in charge of distributing food each night to
make sure each person got an equal share.

Instructors were concerned about people starting the class after the start
date and that the class included people without families. For future programs,
instructors plan to work with specific groups such as families with children in

Head Start and Habitat for Humanity families.

47

Chapter 5

Conclusion

This study examined the outcomes of the Growing Healthy nutrition
education program in Southtown, Michigan. This program employed nutrition,
cooking, food safety, and gardening principles in order to increase access, skills,
and knowledge in terms of healthy food. The program was designed to not only
empower the participants with knowledge and opportunities to change their diet,
but to also help eventually change the health status of Southtown. The purpose
of this study was to understand how receiver-oriented nutrition education
programs such as Growing Healthy are developed and implemented and what
participants take away from them.

A successful nutrition education program is one that increases self-
efficacy and produces behavior changes in the participants. This is what the
Growing Healthy program aimed for. Traditional nutrition education programs
use an information dissemination model aimed at the general public and are
based on what program designers believe should be changed in the community.
If any changes are made with this model, it usually produces only knowledge
change. Programs that produce behavior change adhere to the needs and wants
of the community instead of that of the program designer and are usually
designed for that particular audience.

5.1 Summary of Results
The instructors of this program worked with partners throughout the

county to develop the Growing Healthy program based on community needs and

48

wants while working within three Food Stamp Nutrition Education core elements:
food security, food safety, and food resource management. Food safety goals
were to increase access and availability to healthy food with an emphasis on
fresh, locally grown food. Food safety goals focused on keeping food and food
areas safe from bacteria and cross-contamination. Food resource management
focused on gardening as a way to save money on vegetables and herbs,
explaining where to purchase food inexpensively, and how making meals at
home instead of purchasing food from restaurants. All of these things can be
done as a family, therefore increasing the time families spend together.

The participants of the program had motivations for attending the program
that were similar to the instructors’ goals. Participants listed their motivations as
primarily to increase cooking and gardening skills, with some mentioning using
these skills to better their health, save money, and spend time with their families.

For those who came to the course to increase their cooking skills, they
mentioned that their cooking skills were increased and they Ieamed new cooking
techniques. They also Ieamed about new foods to cook and consume. Cooking
skills and techniques that were Ieamed were how to use kitchen equipment,
healthy methods of cooking, and keeping food areas safe. New foods that they
Ieamed about were meat substitutes, different vegetables, herbs, and olive oil.

Learning about these cooking methods and foods led to behavior
changes. Participants mentioned not only using the skills and techniques
Ieamed, but some also began using other low-fat, low calorie recipes and

experimenting with cooking in other healthy ways. Some mentioned eating more

49

varieties of vegetables since the course ended. Others mentioned how they
were not able to cook or try some of the things they Ieamed in the course at
home due to barriers that still existed such as time to cook and full access to a
kitchen. However, they felt that when these situations change, they intend to use
the skills and techniques Ieamed in the program. This shows that even where
behavior didn’t change, there was a self-efficacy increase.

For those that came to the program to increase their gardening skills, they
mentioned Ieaming about basic gardening concepts and how gardening was a
way to access food. Gardening concepts that were Ieamed were about using
natural pesticides, nourishing the soil, growing herbs, and using a bucket garden.

Some of the participants mentioned using the food produced from their
garden. Only one participant had a garden before attending the course and she
mentioned how concepts Ieamed in the course helped her with maintaining her
garden as this was the first year she had a garden of her own. Others mentioned
how they did not have the space to garden due to living in apartments, but would
like to have a garden of their own once they move into a house. This, again,
showed that where there were not behavior changes, there were increases in
self-efficacy. Other increases in self-efficacy were shown in spending time with
families.

Participants Ieamed these things due to a co-leaming, “power-with”
environment. This was due mainly to the fact that discourse between instructors
and participants was allowed to happen in an open, non-lecture environment that

allowed transformation and conscientization. Participants brought experiences

50

with them to the course regarding cooking and gardening, and the instructors
accepted these experiences as valid and meaningful. Through Ieaming skills
and concepts that were relevant and meaningful to them as people trying to
change their food situation, participants were able to move from one way of
thinking to another. Learning this in an interactive, hands-on way helped
participants retain this information.

This made the experience an empowering one for participants. Being
given knowledge and skills to change their food situation gave participants the
ability to change things for themselves instead of being dependent upon
structures they may have been dependent upon before. They now had more
options on how to improve their diet.

This is consistent with what instructors wanted participants to receive from
the program. By partnering with other groups in the community that had the
same community building, social justice goals that they had, the instructors
designed this program so that participants could feel like they had control over
their lives. By working in the community, listening to and adhering to what
community members wanted to Ieam about, and feeling a need to give the low-
income residents in Southtown the same opportunities as those in higher income
neighborhoods, instructors and the partners of this program designed a quality
program that changed health behaviors and increased self-efficacy.

However, as with most programs there are opportunities for improvement.
Both instructors and participants identified areas in the program design and in

class logistics that could be improved. With the program design, these things

51

included a better way to conduct cooking demonstrations, making better use of
volunteers, conducting the program during the time of year that is consistent with
the growing season, and having the instruction and discussion more participant-
led. Areas regarding class logistics included starting the program on time
(whether all of the participants were there or not) and organizing things
somewhat differently. Ideas for improving the organization were to assign
activities and duties to each participant so that everyone has a chance to
participate in each activity, and making sure that food given away at the end of
the night was distributed equally by having one person divide everything equally.

In the future instructors plan to work with specific groups such as Habitat
for Humanity and Head Start to make sure that all of the participants are within
the target audience (low-income families).
5.2 Proposals for Future Research

Programs like Growing Healthy are vital for changing healthy behaviors in
low-income communities. These changes in health behavior lead to an improved
health status for the many people in these communities who are more likely than
those in higher-income neighborhoods to have conditions associated with a poor
diet. For this reason, it is important to continue research in the area of improving
nutrition education programs.

One way of doing this is by looking at what grassroots organizations are
doing around the country. By working in communities, many who implement
programs are the ones who see firsthand if a program is working or not and have

come up with ways to change programs. In the Growing Healthy Program, Paul,

52

a Program Associate with MSUE developed a way to get appropriate nutrition
education to the target audience he works with. It would be beneficial for
researchers and program designers to look at how those “on the ground” are
making changes in communities not only to design programs more efficiently, but
also to publish this information so that other organizations can benefit from it.

In this study in particular, one interesting concept was the self-selected
group of participants. Many participants in this group were very busy people who
were trying to improve their lives in other areas such looking for a higher paying
job, starting a business, or attending college. It would be interesting to see if
these people were naturally highly motivated to make changes in all parts of their
life, and this, along with other reason listed in this study, is what encouraged
them to attend the program. This would also be helpful in understanding how to
recruit others who were less motivated to attend and stay in the program.

5.3 Lessons Learned

Nutrition Education is an important tool in changing health behavior. An
important component of the Growing Healthy Program that led to its success was
the supportive environment created by the instructors and embraced by the
participants. Instructors respected participants as people who had qualities and
experiences outside of being food stamp recipients. They aided participants in
building on these experiences, particularly the cooking and gardening
experiences, through a non-didactic relationship where participants shared their

existing knowledge of cooking and gardening concepts.

53

This was possible through an atmosphere of open dialogue set by the
instructors. By working together on hands-on activities, participants and
instructors had an opportunity to discuss different ways of cooking and
gardening, as well as food safety information. One example of this was during a
food safety discussion of what the appropriate time was for food to be put away.
When the instructor leading this discussion brought this up, many of the
participants stated that they did not adhere to this and wondered about the
reason for doing this. Discussion ensued and an understanding was had by the
instructor on why food may have been left out longer, and by participants on why
it may be a good idea to refrigerate food in a shorter amount of time.

Another component of the program that led to its success was the
relationship building between the researcher and the instructors of the program
before and during the program. The three instructors and the researcher worked
together in a non-hierarchal relationship. The researcher aided the instructors
with various aspects of the program including aiding with the advertisement of
the program to the community by distributing flyers, helping with set and clean up
of the program, doing shopping for the program when the other instructors got
very busy, and working within the instructors philosophy and vision for the
program. This helped establish trust with the instructors, therefore strengthening
their working relationship.

This study focused on nutrition education. However, these are all
important lessons for any researcher wanting to work with others in other

community-based Ieaming settings.

54

Afterward

Since this study ended, the instructors and one participant of the Growing
Healthy Program have continued to move forward on the things they have
Ieamed from the program
Instructors

The instructors of the Growing Healthy Program have completed another
six-week program in a different location and have more programs planned for the
future. The instructors plan to take recommendations from this study to continue
to build the future programs.

The Instructors have also decided to interview current and future
participants of the program in the fashion that the researcher interviewed
participants of the program in the study. One instructor mentioned that through
interviewing participants, the program was able to continue to build a relationship
with them and work with them in other efforts. All of the instructors mentioned
being appreciative of this and wanted to perhaps have another graduate student
go through this process.

Participants

One of the participants of the program mentioned how the program has
taught her and her family a lot of valuable information, but this information has
had other effects on her and her community. She stated that since she has
began gardening at her residence in a public housing complex, she has noticed
that others have started garden and have started to take better care of their living

areas. This has resulted in a reduction of criminal activities in the housing

55

complex because there are people outside more, as wells as more
communication between neighbors due the exchange of information on
gardening tips.

The initial process of building partnerships and relationships around a
single goal of improving the health of Southtown has encouraged outcomes
beyond what the program instructors planned for. By continuing with their
approach and improving the program where necessary, the Growing Healthy

Program will likely have the same results in the future.

56

Appendix

57

Participant Interview
Home-Grown Health

Guide Version Date: 9/5/04
First Interviews

Goals of Interview:
0 Understand what they wanted to get out of the course and what they actually got
out of the course (1)

0 Understand what was Ieamed (2)
0 Understand what they have done and/or will do with what they have Ieamed (2)
0 Understand who was instrumental in helping them Ieam (3)
0 Understand why this program was successful for them (3)
Questions

How did you first hear about Home-Grown Health?

When you decided to attend, what were you hoping to Ieam about the most?
-What about this was important for you?

Cooking
Let’s talk about the cooking portion of the course.

Were the cooking demonstrations and information useful?
What part was usefitl?
What was useful about that?
(Will ask to elaborate on examples — some probes:
I Remind me of how that went.
' Who helped you the most with this?
' Are you applying this now. . .or no? Tell me a little about that.

Gardening
In this course, the instructors tried to show the ties between gardening and cooking
through the information sessions and activities.

We’ve already talked a little about the cooking portion, now tell me what you thought
about the gardening portion?
What part was useful?
What was useful about that?
(Will ask to elaborate on examples — some probes:
I Remind me of how that went.
' Who helped you the most with this?
' Are you applying this now. . .or no? Tell me a little about that.

58

A few people talked about waiting until the spring and getting started with a gardening
project. Is that something you think you might do. . .or no?

Class in General
How did you feel about our group in general — the participants, instructors and
volunteers?

-How did having a group like this help you Ieam?

What about where the class took place? How did you feel about our location?

What made this program successful?
-What makes that important for you?

If this course is done again, what parts need to stay for it to be successful? What needs to
be added to the program?

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

59

Instructor Interview Guide
2-3-05

I. Goals of Interview

1.1. Understand the instructor’s objectives for course (brief—as relates to FNP)
1.2. Understand the group’s objectives for the course (brief—as relates to FNP)
1.3. Understand the teachers Ieaming/teaching philosophies

1.4. Understand how lessons/activities are connected to her Ieaming philosophy

11. Questions

1. What do participants to get out of the course?
[ FNP Learning outcomes]

2. Could you tell me a little bit about how you 3 came together on this
project?

0 What made you all decide to combine the gardening, cooking & food
safety

3. Let’s talk about some of the individual lessons and activities...

0 What lessons or activities do you think really “worked”? Tell me about
one.

[get a stog. . .what happened?. . .what about this worked for you?]

0 What did you hope the students would learn from it?

0 As a teacher, what was important to you about doing it this way?

[Refers to the process of Ieaming]
[Probe about their assumptions about what is effective teaching, the situations

under which people Ieam best, and HOW they know that as teachers (i.e.
probably comes from their experiences as teachers or leamers--)stories|.

60

[Probe when you references to:

0 Collaborative learning (i.e. students working together) read the refs I gave you
before the interview)

Experiential

Respect of culture/previous beliefs

Conducting adult learning “in the community”

The "I really want to change something now” aspect of adult learners ]

OOOO

[try to get specific examples, get them to tell the story with all the details, and explain what was it
that worked. Here we are trying to understand what they identify as ‘good’ teaching/learning
situations]

[Trying to understand :

0 what the different components/activities of the program was (as they describe it)

0 what they hoped to achieve with it (specific learning objectives)

0 why they chose that particular way to present and teach the material (learning
philosophy ]

0 Repeat for other activities [same thing]

4. Were there any that you thought didn’t work? Tell me about that. . ..(repeat)

[try to get specific examples, get them to tell the stogy with all the details, and explain what was it
that worked. Here we are trying to understand how they adapt as teachers to the situation they
have---)creating comfortable environments, do they adapt to leamers?]

o What happened? What did you do?

[what came of it, how did they adjust? Did they adapt to meet the objectives? was it good, bad, a
Ieaming experience]?

. Does this change how you do this/teach this in the future?

5. Overall, is there anything that you Ieamed from your experience with the course?
0 About teaching FNP concepts

i. Does your experience with this course change plans for future
courses?

61

0 About teaching in general?

. Personally?

6. Overall, do you think it was a success? How so?

62

Interview 1.2 Guide

Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Delanie

Goals:

What was it about instructors that helped her Ieam
How learning experientially helped her

Herbs section

What made her keep coming back

Questions

You mentioned how watching Paul put meals together helped you learn other ways of
putting together healthy meals at home. For instance, you told me about the tempeh and
how you used that in meals. Was it important that we actually cooked the food or could
we have just received recipes?

Tell me more about that.
Was it important that we ate it?

Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we learned in class? (I ask
because I know I’m not!)

OK, now lets talk about the herb class. I remember how you and just about everyone else
really seemed to enjoy that class. What made it so enjoyable?

[point of this section is to
1.) get at how instructors helped her learn
2.) experiential Ieaming examples]

Finally, what kept you coming back each week? Realistically, you could have done other
things on your Monday nights for six weeks, so what about the class kept you coming
back?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

63

Interview 2.2 Guide
Home Grown Health
Interviewee: Tia

Goals:

Ways class helped in way do things
Ways class helped change knowledge
What made her keep coming back

Questions:
Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we Ieamed in class? (I ask
because I know I’m not!)

You said that you came to the program because you wanted to Ieam to cook low-
cost healthy things? How’s that coming? [examples]

Another thing you talked about is how Paul taught you to “think outside the box” with
food combinations for meals. Was it important that we had demonstrations showing how
to do that or would it have been OK for him to just talk about it?

Was it important that you actually tasted some of the combinations?

What about the food bags? I remember you saying you liked those. Have you had a
chance to purchase anything that you may have taken home and tried?

What would you say was one of the most important things you learned from the class?
What makes this important?
Other things? What makes that important

When we talked before, you sounded like you had a lot of things going on such as trying
to focus on a job search and care for your children. Seeing how you could have used
your Monday nights to do other things, what kept you coming to the class?

Last time, you mentioned getting out in the community and supporting the community
was what made the class success for you? Tell me a little more about how this is
important to you?
You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

64

Interview Guide 3.2
Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Tamara (or Sandra)

Goals:

How did Ieaming (experiential) take place
What made you decide to keep coming back
Herbs

Questions
Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we Ieamed in class? (I ask

because I know I’m not!)

Last time you talked a lot about the gardening and how you Ieamed about the new things
as well as why your grandparents taught you certain things. Was it important that we had
a garden and garden supplies and were able to actually do some of those things?

[do this with the roasting vegetables example as well]

Ok, now let’s talk about the herb class. I remember how you and just about everyone
else really seemed to enjoy that class? What made it so enjoyable?

I know that you’re a busy person with your job and you could have used Monday nights
for other things. What was it about the class that that kept you coming?
You mentioned how you found support for your interest in healthy eating and a
healthy lifestyle in the class. What was it about the class that made you feel like
this?

You mentioned wanting to go through the class again. What makes you want to
do this?

65

Interview Guide 4.2
Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Sasha

Goals:
Understand why else came - and stayed (said was bored)
Learning — from who and how

Questions:
Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we Ieamed in class? (I ask

because I know I’m not!)

Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we Ieamed in class? (I ask
because I know I’m not!)

Last time you talked about how Paul showed you the “right way” to do things, such as
how to proper chop so you don’t have to keep picking up the knife. Was it important that
he showed you and then allowed you to do it, or could he have just told you about? Tell
me more about that.

[get information about “seeing it live” and container gardening as well]
Now I remember you saying you were bored and that’s what made you decide to initially
attend the class. But really, you could have done other things with your time off of work.

What was it that drew you to the class each week?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What makes
you want to do it again?

66

Interview Guide 5.2

Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Jessie

Goals
Herbs — so enjoyable?
Co-learning

“Looked forward to Monday’s” — why
Questions:

Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we learned in class? (I ask
because I know I’m not!)

Last time you talked about how you enjoyed the hummus recipe and how you made it at
home and even made it better! Was it important that we actually made the hummus in
class, or could you have done this just with a recipe?

Was it important that we ate it?

OK, now let’s talk about the herb class. I remember how you and just about everyone
else really seemed to enjoy that class? What made it so enjoyable?

In our last interview, you said that you “looked forward to Monday’s.” What was it that
drew you to the class each week? You were working full time and trying to finish you
degree, yet you still came each week!

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

Last time you talked about a “bond” that developed between people in the class.
Tell me more about that.

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

67

Interview Guide 6.2

Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Mary

Goals:

Change in confidence in cooking American food?
How Ieaming occurred for her

What made her keep coming back

Questions:
So, it’s been nine months since the class. I remember you saying you wanted to learn
more about cooking American food. Has the class encouraged you to experiment more
with different ingredients?

What are some other things you are doing from the class?
Last time you mentioned how you really enjoyed learning about cooking different types
of vegetables, removing skin off of chicken, and cooking different dishes with tuna.

What activities or lessons helped you Ieam about these things?

Was it important that we actually cooked the food or could we have just gotten a
recipe? Tell me more about that.

Was it important that we ate the food that we cooked?

Finally, what was it about the class that made you want to keep coming back?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

68

Interview Guide 7.2
Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Tammy

Goals:

Role food bags played with exposure to new things
Understanding importance of “hands on”
Experimenting more?

What made her keep coming back

Questions:
Last time you mentioned how the class encourages you to experiment more, like how you
decided to try the greens recipe you got from B. Smith’s restaurant. In the nine months
since the class, have you had a chance to do more experimenting?

Are you doing any other things Ieamed from the class?
You also mentioned how you were able to replicate a few of the recipes with ingredients

from the food bags everyone received after class. Have you had a chance to buy more of
those ingredients and use the recipes more or maybe even come up with new things?

Another thing you mentioned last time is the fact that you liked how the class was hands
on and how it would have been harder if you were just handed a recipe. Could you give
me an example of a hands on activity?

What was important about the hands on aspect?

Was it important that we actually made the food and ate it?

There were some days you didn’t work in the kitchen, but you said last time you
knew what they were doing. How were you able to know?

Finally, what made you keep coming back? You have a busy schedule with you kids and
school and could have done so many other things with the few minutes a free time you
have. What was it about the class that kept you coming back?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What makes
you want to do it again?

69

Interview Guide 8.2
Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Lori

Goals:

Parents gardened, reason wants to garden — Ieam about this
How learning occurred for her

Herbs — what made so enjoyable

What made her keep coming back

Questions:

You mentioned last time the fact that your parents gardened when you were growing up
and this has influenced you to garden. Can you tell me a little bit about watching them
garden and any role you had in this?

[Understand previous experience and a better understanding of what may have
motivated her to join class]

Since the last time we talked, are doing any of the things we learned in class? (I ask
because I know I’m not!)

Last time you mentioned how you really enjoyed the gardening section and how you
Ieamed about differences between dirt, natural pesticides, and how to start a garden.
What activities or lessons helped you learn about these things?

Was it important that we had a garden and garden supplies and were able to
actually do some of those things?

OK, now let’s talk about the herb class. I remember how you and just about everyone
else really seemed to enjoy that class! What made it so enjoyable?

Finally, what made you keep coming back? You have a busy schedule with you kids and
work and could have done so many other things with the few minutes a free time you
have. What was it about the class that kept you coming back?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You also mentioned how you enjoyed the set up of the class and how you were
able to mingle. Tell me more about that.

70

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

71

Interview Guide 9.2
Home Grown Health Class
Interviewee: Cathy

Goals:

How used food bags

How able to use information from class

What made her keep coming back — mentions “everybody participating together and
cooking a meal, fixing a meal together, everybody cleaned up,” Peter explaining things —
what about this was attractive?

Questions:

Well, first, I’d like to talk about the stuff you learned in the class. You mentioned that
you focused mainly on the cooking portion. How have you been able to use some of the
information you Ieamed from class in these nine months since the class ended?

You mentioned how you leaned about cooking nutritiously through the cooking in the
class, like with the pasta dish we made and the pudding dish. Was it important that we
actually made those dishes or could Peter just have told us about the dishes and gave us
recipes? Tell me more about that.

Was it important that we ate it?

What about the food that was given away. I know you said last time that you found that
useful. Have you gotten any more of the food from those bags and used those ingredients
— whether it be replicating a recipe or just using them in other things?

Which ones and how did you use them?

Last time I asked you what was it about the class that made you want to come back and
you said “ it was the fact that everybody was participating together and cooking a meal,
fixing a meal together, everybody cleaned up,” and you though Peter did a good job of
explaining things. What about all of this was so attractive to keep coming each week?

You seemed really comfortable in the class. Is that true? What made is so
comfortable?

You mentioned the fact that you wouldn’t mind doing this class again. What
makes you want to do it again?

72

Literature Cited

Abusabha, Rayane, Jane Peacock, and Cheryl Achterberg. 1999. How to Make
Nutrition Education More Meaningful Through Facilitated Group
Discussions. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 99 (1): 72-76.

Carson, Katherine L. 1999. Children are “Growing Healthy” in South Carolina.
Journal of Nutrition Education. 31 (4): 235-236.

Cranton, Patricia, and Ellen Carusetta. 2004. Perspectives on Authenticity in
Teaching. Adult Education Quarterly. 55 (1): 5-22.

Cerqueira, MT. 1991. Nutrition Education: A Review of the Nutrient-based
Approach. In Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture: Nutrient Requirements, ed.
J. L. Albert. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. www.fao.orgl/docrep/U5900T/u5900t06.htm (accessed July 23,
2005).

Cerqueira, MT. 1992. Nutrition Education: A Proposal for a Community-Based
Approach. In Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture: Nutrient Requirements, ed.
J. L. Albert. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. www.fao.orgldocrep/U8050t/u8050t07.htm (accessed July 23,
2005)

Cohen, Elizabeth. 1994. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous
Classroom. 2“6 ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Contento, l., Balch, G.l., Brenner, Y.l., Lytle, L.A., Maloney, S.K., White, S.L.,
Olson, CM, and Swadener, SS. 1995. The Effectiveness of Nutrition
Education and Implications for Nutrition Education Policy, Program, and
Research: A Review of Research. Journal of Nutrition Education. 27 (6):
275-422.

Eisenhauer, Elizabeth. 2001. in Poor Health: Supermarket Redlining and Urban
Nutrition. GeoJournal. 55 (2): 125-1 33

Field, A.E., Coakley, E.H., Must, A., Spadano, J.L., Laird, N., Dietz, W.H., Rimm,
E., and Colditz, GA 2001. Impact of Overweight on the Risk of
Developing Common Chronic Diseases During a 10-Year Period. Archives
of lntemal Medicine. 161: 1581 -1 586.

Food and Nutrition Service. Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. 2002.
Nutrition Education in FNS: A Coordinated Approach for Promoting
Healthy Behaviors. Alexandria, VA.

Hedley, A.A., Ogden, C.L., Johnson, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, LR. and Flegal,

73

KM. 2004. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among US Children,
Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 291 (23): 2847-2850.

Hurst, Beth. 2001. ABCs of Content Area Lesson Planning: Attention, Basics,
and Comprehension. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 44 (8):
692-693.

Kantor, Linda Scott. 2001. Community Food Security Programs Improve Food
Access. Food Review. 24 (1): 20-26.

Kempson, K.M., Keenan, D.P., Sadani, P.S., Ridlen, 8., and Rosato, NS. 2002.
Food Management Practices Used by People with Limited Resources to
Maintain Food Sufficiency as Reported by Nutrition Educators. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association. 102 (12): 1795-1780.

Kennedy, Lynne A., Clive Hunt, and Pat Hodgson. 1998. Nutrition Education
Program Based on EFNEP for Low-Income Women in the United
Kingdom: “Friends with Food.” Journal of Nutrition Education. 30 (2): 89-
99.

Levy, Joshua, and Garry Auld. 2004. Cooking Classes Outperform Cooking
Demonstrations for College Sophomores. Journal of Nutrition Education
and Behavior. 36(4): 197-202.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Macario, E., Emmons, K.M., Sorensen, 6., Hunt, MK, and Rudd, RE. 1998.
Factors Influencing Nutrition Education for Patients with Low Literacy
Skills. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 98 (5): 559-564.

Meloche, Joanna. 2003. Cooking with Class: Participant Soars with Hands-on
Learning and Take-Aways. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.
35: 1 07-1 09.

Merriam, Sharan B., and Rosemary S. Caffarella. 1999. Learning in Adulthood: A
Comprehensive Guide. 2"d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Mezirow, Jack. 2000. Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of
Transformation Theory. In Learning as Transformation: Critical
Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, ed. Jack Mezirow, 3-33. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

74

Minkler, Meredith, and Nina B. Wallerstein. 2002. Improving Health Through
Community Organization and Community Building. In Health Behavior and
Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Karen Glanz,
Barbara K. Rimer, and Frances Marcus Lewis, 279-311. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass Publications.

Morland, Kimberly, Steve Wing, and Ana Diex Roux. 2002. The Contextual Effect
of the Local Food Environment on Residents' Diets: The Atherosclerosis
Risk in Communities Study. American Journal of Public Health. 92 (11):
1 761 -1 767.

Morris, Jennifer L., and Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr. 2002. Garden-enhanced Nutrition
Curriculum Improves Fourth-Grade School Children’s Knowledge of
Nutrition and Preferences for Some Vegetables. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association. 102 (1 ): 91-93.

Oberholser, Cheryl, and Cynthia Reeves Tuttle. 2004. Assessment of Household
Food Security Among Food Stamp Recipient Families in Maryland.
American Journal of Public Health. 94 (5): 790-795.

Novak, Joseph D. 2002. Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for
Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies
Leading to Empowerment of Learners. Science Education. 86 (4): 548-
595.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3'‘1
ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Powell, Lisa M., Sandy Slater, and Frank J. Chaloupka. 2004. The Relationship
Between Community Physical Activity Settings and Race, Ethnicity and
Socioeconomic Status. Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine. 1 (2): 135-
144.

Prochaska, James 0., Colleen A. Redding, and Ken-y E. Evers. 2002. The
Transtheoretical Model and Stages of Change. In Health Behavior and
Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Karen Glanz,
Barbara K. Rimer, and Frances Marcus Lewis, 99-120. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass Publications.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of
Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

US. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. Food Stamp

Program. 2005. Food Stamp Nutrition Education Plan Guide: Federal
Fiscal Year 2006. Alexandria, VA.

75

Vella, Jane. 2002. Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue
in Educating Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publication.

76

  
   

 

m s IVE 5
I

will lllllllllilillllllil

93 02736 6677