A STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR DEMONSTRATION

LABORAIOIIY METHOD III. AN INDIVIDUAL *§-3i;;fl:r;'fif

LABORATORY METHOD IN A BEGINNING
COLLEGE FOODS counsa ’

Thom IN» Ila Dag-m of M D. g:j_
MICHIGAN SUITE WWII“! " .
Mary C Coleman 7 .5?ij i:‘

‘ “ 1966 -----

THESIS

   
   

 

LIBRARY "

  
    

(0, (,1. »
Mgdligan Sun
:Jm,
This is to certify that the
thesis entitled ‘
I
A Student - Instructor Demonstration Laboratory 5
Method Vs. An Individual Laboratory Method f
In A Beginning College Foods Course .
presented hg
Mary C. Coleman
i
- has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for
PhoD. degree in Foods
0

\ ~~‘ , /
)fié j ‘ i
/ Major professor

Date February 14. 1966

0-169

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR DEMONSTRATION LABORATORY
METHOD VS. AN INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY METHOD
IN A BEGINNING COLLEGE FOODS COURSE

by Mary C. Coleman

The study described in this thesis was designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of an experimental approach
(Student-Instructor Demonstration) to the laboratory instruc-
tion in a beginning food preparation course at Michigan
State University.

Students were stratified on the basis of their University
Entrance Examination scores then randomly assigned to two
concurrently scheduled laboratory sections. The method of
laboratory instruction and assignment of instructor were
determined randomly for the groups of students participating
in the study fall term, 1965. The instructor and teaching
method used for the student groups studied winter and spring
terms, 1964 were established to replicate the fall term
design. A total group of 104 students originally qualified
for the study. Students from the larger laboratory sections
were randomly excluded from the study to produce samples
of equal numbers for statistical analyses. The final samples

studied totaled 88 students.

Mary C. Coleman

The EN 200 Pretest and Questionnaire provided data con-
cerning the non-numerical characteristics of the samples
studied as well as an indication of proficiency in areas
related to food preparation at the onset of the course.

The Student Evaluation of EN 200 form was used as a measure

of student attitude toward the course. The EN 200 Final

 

Examination was employed as the measure of student achievement
at the completion of the course. An analysis of variance
factorial design was used to analyze student scores on the

two latter instruments.

Hypotheses Tested and General Findings

The First Hypothesis of the Study was:

A ”Student-Instructor Demonstration Method” is at
least as effective as an "Individual Method” of
laboratory instruction in achieving common course
objectives in a beginning foods preparation course
for students of both above and below median general
ability.

The statistical tests and numerical data indicate no
significant differences (5% level) attributable to method of
instruction or other factors investigated with the exception

of ability level in the winter—spring, 1964 samples.

The Second Hypothesis of the Study was:

Student attitudes toward a "Student—Instructor Demon—
stration Method" are at least as favorable as are
student attitudes toward an "Individual Method” of
instruction in the laboratory portion of a beginning
food preparation course.

Mary C. Coleman

The statistical tests and numerical data indicate no
significant differences (5% level) attributable to method of
instruction or other factors investigated.

Under the conditions of the study, there were no indi-
cations that the Individual Method of laboratory instruction
was superior to the Student-Instructor Demonstration Method.
When individual laboratory and teacher—demonstration (lecture-
demonstration) laboratory methods of instruction have been
compared in recent studies in science courses (1,2,5,4), no
significant differences have been reported between the two
methods of instruction on the basis of the criteria used.

If real differences, attributable solely to method of in—
struction, do exist, it may be possible that suitable instru—
ments for their measurement have not yet been developed.

It is also possible that the method of instruction has only

a minor influence on the outcome of studentsI experience in

a course. Verification of the latter postulation would
indicate that the method of instruction could be freely
alternated to meet the interest of the course instructor or

needs resulting from expanding student populations.

REFERENCES

1. Bradley, Robert L. Lecture Demonstration vs. Individual
Laboratory Work in a Natural Science Course at Michigan
State University. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, College
of Education, Michigan State University, E. Lansing) 1962.

 

 

2. Dearden, Douglas M. An evaluation of the laboratory in a
college general biology course. J. Experi. Ed. gg: 241
(1960).

5.

Mary C. Coleman

Bay, May S. An Experimental Study to Compare the Indi-
vidual Laboratory and Modified Demonstration Methods for
Teaching Food Preparation. (Unpublished Masters Thesis,
School of Home Economics, Michigan State College, E.
Lansing) 1952.

Trotter, Virginia Yapp. A Comparison of the Laboratory
and the Lecture-Demonstration Methods of Teaching Survey
of Food Preparation for Freshmen Home Economics Students
at the University of Vermont. (Unpublished Ph.D. Disser—
tation, The Ohio State University, Columbus) 1960.

A STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR DEMONSTRATION LABORATORY
METHOD VS. AN INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY METHOD

IN A BEGINNING COLLEGE FOODS COURSE

BY

Mary CL Coleman

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Foods and Nutrition

1966

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to acknowledge Professor Joe L. Saupe
for converting the task of writing this dissertation into
an exciting learning experience. She wishes to thank
Barbara B. Deskins for assisting in the many facets of
developing and teaching FN 200, thus making this study a
more valid one. A special thanks is extended to Professor
Dena C. Cederquist for making unusual adjustments in teach-
ing and course schedules to accommodate the requirements of
the study. Her warm interest, encouragement and patience
have been appreciated.

Gratitude is extended to Professors Grace A. Miller,
Bernard S. Schweigert and Pearl A. Aldrich for assisting in
planning a program of graduate study and critically reading
the manuscript. Special recognition is paid to Rosann
Bongey for her assistance in typing and to Dorothy Arata,
supervisor in charge of thoughtful encouragement. Thanks is
extended to General Foods Corporation for providing funds
which made this study possible.

ii

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE . . . . . .

The Need for Research on Teaching Methods

Background of the Study . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . .
Population . . . . . . . . . .
Prospectus . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Research on Teaching Methods .
Laboratory Instruction . . . .

Individual vs. Teacher—Demonstration

‘ Laboratories . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN, PROCEDURE, AND INSTRUMENTS

Design . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . .
Instruments of Measurement . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . .

Preliminary Results . . . . . .
Statistical Tests Employed . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .

Specific Hypotheses Investigated
Method of the Study . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . .
General Conclusions . . . . . .
Recommendations for Future Study
General Discussion . . . . . .

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

\IOUOUIPCNP I-\

a)

15
17

18

18
20
25
52

55

55
47
6O

62

62
65
64
65
65
66

68

74

Table

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Instructors and Methods of
Laboratory Instruction for Three School Terms
and Two Class Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specifications of the EN 200 Final Examination.

 

Selected Characteristics of the Student Samples
Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medians and Ranges of CQT-T Scores of the Four
Groups from Which the Student Samples were
Selected in a Study of Two Methods of Labora—
tory Instruction in EN 200 . . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of CQT—T Scores
of the Student Samples Studied . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of CQT-T Scores
for Above and Below Median Students for Three
School Terms and Two Class Meeting Times. . . .

Frequency Distribution of EN 200 Pretest Scores

 

Frequency Distribution of Student Evaluation of

 

EN 200 Scores (N = 88). . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Item Difficulty for the EN 200
Final Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Distribution of Item Discrimination Indices for
the FN 200 Final Examination . . . . . . . . .

 

Frequency Distribution of EN 200 Final Exami—

 

nation Scores (N = 88). . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of EN 200 Final Exami—
nation Scores as Influenced by Time of Day,

 

Ability Level, Method of Instruction and

Instructor. Fall Term, 1965 . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

20

52

55

56

58

59

4O

45

44

44

46

49

LIST OF TABLES — Continued

Table

15.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Analysis of Variance of EN 200 Final Exami-

nation Scores as Influenced by Ability Level

School Term and Method of Instruction—
Instructor. Winter and Spring Terms, 1964 . . .

The Means of the FN 200 Final Examination Scores
for the Student Sample Studied Fall Term, 1965 .

 

The Means of the FN 200 Final Examination Scores
for the Student Sample Studied Winter and Spring
Term, 1964 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

Analysis of Variance of Rating Scale Scores for
the Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form, Fall Term,
1963 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C

 

Analysis of Variance of Rating Scale Scores for
the Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form, Winter
and Spring Terms, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

The Means of the Rating Scale Scores for the
Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form for the

 

Student Samples Studied Fall Term, 1965. . . . .

The Meansof the Rating Scale Scores for the
Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form for the

 

Student Samples Studied Winter and Spring Terms,
1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Summary of Student Responses to Four Open-End
Questions Used as a Portion of an Evaluation
Form in a Beginning Foods Course (N = 88). . . .

A Summary of Mean Scores of the Student Samples
Studied in an Evaluation of Two Methods of
Laboratory Instruction in a Food Preparation
Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

49

51

52

55

55

54

55

56

59

APPENDIX

A.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Laboratory Outline FN 200, Fall, 1965.
(Individual Method of Laboratory Instruction)

Laboratory Outline FN 200, Fall, 1965.
(Student-Instructor Method of Laboratory
Instruction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FN 200 Pretest and Questionnaire . . . . . .

 

Student Evaluation of EN 200 form. . . . . .

 

vi

Page

75

Chapter I

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The primary purposes of Chapter I are to indicate the
need for research on teaching methods and to present the

background and purposes of this study.

The Need for Research on Teaching Methods

 

The selection of a method of instruction is often based
on tradition rather than the current objectives of the
.course. Enarson (1) has said:

The time is ripe for searching analysis and sweeping

innovations in course content and method. The young

teacher emulates his own instructors rather than
seeking out the most appropriate methods and tools

for a given teaching situation.

It has been suggested by Eckert (2) that the teacher's job
is to structure the situation in such a way as to stimulate
and aid the learner in acquiring the needed competencies.
Teaching methods must be chosen in terms of the ends sought.

A comment by Buxton (5) describes the spirit of many
additional articles which have sought to give greater
direction to research on teaching:

It is difficult to analyze the research on teaching

at the college level. It is relatively scanty and
often not very well done.

The following prediction by Hannah (4) is particularly
relevant to the methods selected to provide learning experi—
ences for students in laboratory courses:

We probably will have twice as many students on campus

in 1975 as today (1965). We shall have none too much

time to teach the why, leaving much of the training in
techniques to business and industry and other segments
of the economy which employ the college graduate.

Many college food courses are heavily weighted with in—
dividual laboratory work. This traditional pattern is based
on the philosophy that appreciable time must be devoted to
the development of food preparation skills and techniques.
Such a method of instruction is costly in terms of student
time, faculty teaching time, laboratory space, equipment,
and food expenditures. With particular reference to the
teaching of food preparation, Sweetman (5) has said:

I believe that we must move rapidly in the direction

of reducing laboratory time to a minimum and using

the time we do retain for demonstrating principles.

Her views have been re—stated by a number of home
economists in higher education with the specific directive
that we carefully evaluate our current methods of instruc—
tion (6,7,8,9,10).

From the foregoing comments, it seems clear that the
laboratory portion of a college foods course must be evalu—

ated in terms of 1) use of student—faculty time and 2) func—

tion in implementing the objectives of the course.

The Background of the Study

Foods and Nutrition 200 (EN 200) is a five-credit,
beginning, food preparation course consisting of two one—
hour lectures and three two—hour laboratories per week.
The course carries an organic chemistry prerequisite.

The university catalog issued for 1965—64 describes the
course as follows:

Scientific principles of food preparation with special
emphasis on the physical and chemical changes involved.

At the time this study was conducted, the course was
required in the programs of students majoring in the follow-
ing areas:

Dietetics

Foods

Hotel, Motel and Club Management

Institutional and Hospital Management

Research in Foods and Nutrition

Restaurant Management

The course could be elected by students majoring in
other programs providing the students had taken the pre—
requisite course in organic chemistry. This latter group
represented a very small proportion of the total course
enrollment.

During spring term, 1960, six members of the Foods and
Nutrition Staff at Michigan State University met as a com—
mittee to reconsider the objectives and methods of instruc—

tion in FN 200. At this time the following objectives were

adopted for the course:

1. To develop an ability to recognize good or poor
quality in representative food products and to
understand the reasons for these quality differ—
ences. j‘

2. To learn the function of ingredients, the effects
of the ratio of ingredients, and the influence of
the kind and extent of manipulation on the prepa—
ratiOn of representative food proddcts.

5. To acquire an understanding of the application of
chemical and physical principles to food prepa—
ration.

4. To acquire an understanding of and ability to use
the terminology relevant to the science of food
preparation.

In an effort to utilize the laboratory portion of the
course as effectively as possible in achievement of course
objectives and use of student—faculty time, modifications
in the traditional method of laboratory instruction were
investigated by two instructors in the Foods and Nutrition
Department. After three school terms of pretesting, labora—
tory lessons that appeared to be most effectively presented
as demonstrations by the instructor were identified. The
remaining laboratory lessons were modified so groups of
students were responsible for the preparation of demonstra-
tions. This method of instruction has been identified as

the ”Student-InstructoriDemonstration” method of laboratory

instruction and is defined more precisely below.

Definitions

 

Student—Instructor Demonstration Laboratory Method

 

(Experimental Method)--For the purpose of this study the

above term is defined as a method in which the instructor
presents approximately one—third of the experiments as
lecture—demonstrations. The remaining two-thirds of the
laboratories are conducted as student—prepared demonstrations
with a summarizing discussion led by the instructor. Stu-
dents are required to evaluate a series of food products of
varying quality as a final laboratory measure of students“
ability to critically appraise food products. These food
products are not prepared by the student.

Individual Laboratory Method (Control Method)—~For the

 

purpose of this study the above term is defined as a method
by which individual students or pairs of students perform

an experiment with a final summarizing discussion led by the
instructor. Students are required to prepare and evaluate

a series of food products as a final laboratory measure of
their ability to critically appraise food products.

The instructors involved in the formulation of the

teaching by the ”Student-Instructor Demonstration Laboratory
Method” postulated that this method provided a laboratory
experience for students which more rigorously implemented
the first three objectives of the course. Favorable stu-
dent attitude toward the course was also encouraging.
These subjective appraisals were difficult to interpret as,
concurrent with the development of this modified method of
laboratory instruction, admission requirements to the uni—
versity were providing a potentially more able group of

students.

Purpose of the Study

 

It has become the purpose of this\study to compare,
as objectively as possible, the "Student-Instructor Demon—
stration Laboratory Method" with the more traditional
"Individual Laboratory Method” in a beginning, college, food
preparation course. To nurture this purpose the following
objectives are pertinent:

A. To provide an experimental test of the two hypothe-
ses stated below:

1. A "Student-Instructor Demonstration Method" is
at least as effective as an "Individual Method"
of laboratory instruction in achieving common
course objectives in a beginning food prepae“
ration course for students of both above and
below median general ability.

2. Student attitudes toward a "Student—Instructor
Demonstration Method" are at least as favorable
as are student attitudes toward an "Individual
Method" of instruction in the laboratory portion
of a beginning food preparation course.

B. To investigate the following additional factors as
they might condition variations in student achieve-
ment and attitude under the two laboratory methods
of instruction:

1. Student factors: Sex, academic major and
previous food preparation experience.

2. Scheduling factors: Academic term, class hours,
and laboratory instructor.

Population

 

It was the intent of this investigation to study a
sample of students that would be representative of current

enrollments in a beginning food preparation course (FN 200)

at Michigan State University. We.assume that the conclu—
sions reached concerning the laboratory portion of the
course in question will have application to future enroll—
ments in the course as long as the student population which

the course services undergoes no major change in composition.
/’

Prospectus

 

The following chapter contains a review of criticisms
of the procedures that have been used to study and compare
methods of teaching. It also describes methodological
studies concerning laboratory instruction in general college
science courses as well as in college food preparation courses.
The design of this study, description of sample selection
procedures, treatments, and instruments are found in Chapter
III. Chapter IV reports preliminary results concerning the
sample and instruments along with a report of the statistical
techniques used in testing the hypotheses. The results of
these analyses are reported and discussed. The final chapter
is a summary of the findings and conclusions of the study

with recommendations for future investigation in the area.

Chapter II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter reports on three areas of the literature
which are relevant to the study under consideration. First
are those articles which question past research on teaching
methods. The second part of the review relates to those
reports which evaluate the function of the laboratory in
the learning process. The final part of the chapter reports
on comparative studies between "individual" and "teacher—
demonstration” laboratories in natural science at the college

level of instruction.

Research on Teaching Methods

The role of research in teaching has been thoughtfully
stated by Campbell and Stanley (11):

The experiment is the only means for settling disputes

regarding educational practice, the only way of veri-

fying educational improvements, and the only way of

establishing a cumulative tradition in which improve-

ments can be introduced without the danger of faddish

discard of old wisdom in favor of inferior novelties.

A number of subject matter specialists and administrators
in higher education support the spirit of this directive by

strongly encouraging the study of teaching methods (12,15,14,

15,16,17). There are others (18,19,20) who indicate that the

primary emphasis of educational research should be the
analysis of content and basic studies of learning. The
authors, whose thinking has made the greatest contribution
to the present study, are those convinced of the need for
evidence concerning methods used in instruction, but have
identified inherent weaknesses in many of the ”methods of
teaching" studies reported.

Good (21) has concluded that, in a number of studies
on teaching methods, the sample size was too small and the
experimental period too brief to provide a firm basis for
a generalization of results. Biased sampling and lack of
suitable control groups have been identified as deficiencies
in the design of many studies of teaching methods (22,25).
Bias has been introduced into studies when a single in—
structor is responsible for teaching by the two or more
methods of instruction being compared (24,25). Stanley (26)
and others (27,28) encourage greater use of factorial de-
signs in methodological studies to allow several variables
to be studied simultaneously. The use of randomization to
establish comparable study group, rather than matching, has
been difficult for many educational researchers to accept
(29).

On the basis of these criticisms it may be concluded
that a well designed study of teaching methods should in—
volve replication and randomization. Control measures,

including the involvement of at least two persons in teaching

10

by each method of instruction being studied, should be
undertaken. While the number of students in the sample
should be large, the sample should be representative of the
usual number of enrollments in the course. A statistical
test which is both powerful and capable of analyzing more
than one variable at a time should be used.

An experimental teaching method may be deemed equivalent
or superior to a traditional method as a result of an in-
creased effort made by students because they are aware of
being in an experimental group (50;51,52;55)._ Students'
motivation for passing or earning excellent grades may com-
pel them to study harder when ineffective teaching methods
are being used; thus obscuring difference resulting from
methods of instruction (54,55). Teaching methods conducive
to optimal achievement for some students may be detrimental
to the achievement of others, thus making the comparison of
teaching methods difficult to evaluate (56,57).

Informing both the experimental and control groups that
they are participating in an experiment may reduce any dif—
ference related to a "Hawthorne" effort on the part of some
students by chance discovery of their participation in a
study. The use of other measures, in addition to course
examinations, should reduce the bias imposed by extra study
on the part of students being instructed by a less effective

method.

11

Laboratory Instruction

Tyler (58) has listed four questions which he feels
must be answered in developing any curriculum or plan of
instruction:

1. What educational purposes are to be attained?

2. What educational experiences can be provided

that are likely to attain these purposes?

5. How can these educational experiences be effec—

tively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes

are being attained?
Theoretically and traditionally laboratory instruction has
been well justified as an educational experience which
assists in attaining the objectives of science courses.
It has attempted to accomplish this function by providing
students with an opportunity to practice careful observa-
tions of outcomes prior to drawing conclusions. It has
also been useful in acquainting students with the methods
and materials of the specific area of science in question.
In a historical review of the purpose and character of
laboratory instruction, Blick (59) writes that laboratory
work has been one of the most important and commonly used
procedures for science instruction since the beginning of
the twentieth century. Both Blick (40) and McKeachie (41)
support the view that laboratory instruction provides first
hand experience in observation and manipulation of the
materials of science, a method superior to others in meet—

ing such course objectives as development of understanding

and appreciation. The laboratory is a means to an end and

12

not an end in itself. McKeachie (42) points out:

One would not expect laboratory teaching to have an

advantage over other teaching methods in the amount of

information learned. Rather we might expect the dif-
ferences to be revealed in retention, in ability to
apply learning or actual skill in observation or manipu-
lation of materials.

Kruglak (45) does not believe it is possible for stu—
dents to understand what science is without some first—hand
experience with the objects, tools and methods of science.
He lists the following objectives for laboratory instruction:

1. To illustrate and give meaning to lectures discus—

sions and text books.

2. To develop skill in accurate, independent and

orderly observation.

5. To demonstrate relationship between fact and

inferences.

4. To provide practice in planning and carrying out

an experimental problem.

An opposing view is taken by Ginsberg (44) and McGrath
(45) who both indicate that the important concepts in any
science field can be and have been taught without formal
laboratory classes. Ginsberg (46) and Blick (47) deplore
the many laboratory courses which simply keep the student
occupied with "busy—work."

If the science laboratory has a unique contribution to
make in implementing the objectives for a given course, and
if Kruglack's (48) objectives for laboratory experience are
valid, then an experience which provides demonstrations
using the methods and materials of the science in question,

combined with student participation, may be expected to pro—

vide an educational experience at least as valuable, in

15

terms of student attitude and achievement, as an individual

laboratory experience.
Individual vs. Teacher-Demonstration Laboratories

Cunningham (49) evaluated 54 studies which purported to
compare the effectiveness of the individual laboratory with
the teacher—demonstration technique. The studies included
unpublished Masters and Ph.D. theses as well as published
research reports. He encountered violations of good experi—
mental design such as lack of random sampling, lack of suit-
able control groups and lack of replication. These violations
made the generalization of results impossible in many of the
studies reviewed. When Cunningham pooled the conclusions of
the authors of the studies, he found twenty investigators
favoring the teacher-demonstration method, six favoring the
individual laboratory and two that found no difference be—
tween the two methods of instruction. He did not report any
conclusions reached by the remaining six studies. Cunningham's
findings reflect the criticisms of methodologies reported
earlier in this review.

Bradley (50) compared lecture—demonstration with indi—
vidual laboratory work in a general education, natural
science course at Michigan State University. His sample con-
sisted of eighty students during spring term, 1960 and 82
students during spring term, 1961. His study appears to have

many criteria of a well designed research study. Questionable

14

aspects of his study would include: the use of term-end
examination grades as the only criterion and the assumption
that his sample was equivalent for two consecutive school
years. A measure of any difference in student attitude
toward the course, or natural science, as a result of method
of instruction would have strengthened his study. He found
that the two methods of laboratory instruction did not result
in student achievement which was significantly different.
Dearden (51) studied the complete class of 924 University
of Minnesota general biology students in an evaluation of
four laboratory treatments. The laboratory treatments were
designated as: individual (traditional), demonstration,
workbook exercise, and term paper (submission of a single
term paper in lieu of any other laboratory participation).
Students were stratified on the basis of college and sex,
and were randomly assigned to one of the four types of labora-
tory treatments. Scores on standardized tests of general
biological knowledge, scientific thinking and biological
attitudes were used as measures to compare the influence
exerted by the laboratory method. Dearden concluded that no
one laboratory treatment was superior to another in increas—
ing the scores of students on the three tests administered
at the end of the course or when students were re-tested
three months later. No one method of laboratory instruction
was more effective than the others in promoting higher test

scores among students evaluated as being of high, medium or

15

low academic ability. Dearden made no attempt to study any
interaction effect due to instructors participating in the
study. All students attended lectures which were assumed
equivalent in content. The factors controlling students‘
performances on the measures used in this study may have
been influenced greatly by the common lecture portion of
the course.

A study reported in 1941 by Bloye and Long (52) compared
a conventional (individual) laboratory with one taught by the
teacher-demonstration method in a beginning college food
preparation course. Students were familiarized with the dif—
ferences between the two laboratory methods at the onset of
the course. They were then encouraged to enroll in the
laboratory best suited to their past experience in food
preparation. Examination scores were used as criteria but
no report was made of statistical comparisons. The authors
concluded that both methods of laboratory instruction were
equally effective when measured by student achievement in
the course. Lack of any evidence of randomization, repli—
cation or control make a generalization of these conclusions
impossible.

A similar study was initiated at Michigan State Univer—
sity in 1952 (55). When examination scores were used as
criteria, no significant differences were observed between
an individual method and a teacher—demonstration method of

laboratory instruction in a beginning college foods course.

16

Once again lack of randomization and replication in the study
make the results difficult to apply to other teaching situ-
ations.

Trotter (54) compared the individual laboratory and
lecture-demonstration methods of instruction in a beginning
food preparation course at the University of Vermont. She
matched two groups, each containing fourteen students, on
the following basis:

. College Entrance Exam Board"Scores
Spitzer Study Skills Test Score
Critical Thinking Test Score
Listening Comprehension Test Score
High School Home Economics Experience
4-H Club WOrk

. Home Experience
. Employment Experience

(DxlOBU'HP-CNNP:

Each of the two matched groups of students was taught
four units of laboratory work by the individual laboratory
method, than four units by the lecture-demonstration method.
The same instructor was responsible for all the teaching in
the course. The examination scores in the course were used
as criterion. The same examination was used as a pretest
and as a final examination. In addition, portions of the
examination were used as tests after each unit of work.

A practical laboratory examination was also used as cri—
terion. Students were requested to evaluate the course;
however, the precise procedure for this evaluation was not
described. No significant differences were observed between
the two teaching methods as determined by examination scores.

The lack of replication, small sample size (N = 28), and lack

17

of reliability data for the practical laboratory examination
must be questioned since students had experience with the
same questions on a pretest and unit tests during the course.
Conclusions concerning the effectiveness of the lecture-
demonstration laboratory method are to be questioned further
since only four laboratory units, during the semester course,

were taught by this method.

Summary

In spite of a well identified need for methodological
research, conclusions of past studies are difficult to gen-
eralize to other teaching situations. They lack one or more
of the requisites of self—contained experiments, namely:
randomization, replication and control.

There is evidence and opinion to support the theory that
some form of laboratory instruction aids in meeting the
objectives of science courses. The specific nature of this
laboratory experience has not been adequately defined.

When individual laboratory and teacher—demonstration
(lecture—demonstration) laboratory methods of instruction
have been compared in recent studies (55,56,57,58) no sig—
nificant differences have been reported between the two

methods of instruction on the basis of the criteria used.

Chapter III

DESIGN, PROCEDURE, AND INSTRUMENTS

The purpose of Chapter III is to describe the design,
procedure and instruments used to gather data for this
study. Johnson (59) lists the following requirements for
a self—contained experiment: control, randomization, and
replication. His directives have provided the structure
for building the design and procedure used. The purpose

and population of the study have been described in Chapter I.

Design

The original design of the study may be described as
a pretest—posttest control group design (60). With this
design, a pretest is used to indicate the level of proficiency
of a student, in a course of study, at the onset of the course.
The pretest score is then used as a control variable in ana—
lyzing the student's posttest score with the analysis of
covariance. After observing the poor correlation (r = 0.19)
between pretest and final examination scores, it was concluded
that the performance of a student on the_EN 200 pretest was
not related to his score on the final course examination.

The pretest was used in the study as an indicator of a

18

 

19

students knowledge of selected principles of chemistry and
food.preparation at the onset of the course but it was not
used as a control variable in the statistical test employed.
The final design of the study may be more precisely referred
to as a posttest-control group design (61).

Students were stratified on the basis of their College
Qualification Test—Total (CQT-T) scores, then randomly
assigned to two concurrently scheduled laboratory sections.
The method of laboratory instruction and assignment of in—
structor were determined randomly for the groups of students
participating in the study fall term, 1965. The instructor
and teaching method used for the student groups studied
winter and spring terms, 1964, were established to replicate
the fall term design for the 10—12 class time.

Each term, students taught by the two methods of labora—
tory instruction attended common lectures and were compared
by two criteria. These criteria were, attitude toward FN
200 as determined by their score on the Student Evaluation of
EN 200 form and achievement in the course, as reflected in
their score on the FN 200 Final Examination. A summary of
the teaching methods, instructors and time distribution of

the design are presented in Table 1.

20

Table 1. Distribution of Instructors and Methods of Laboratory
Instruction for Three School Terms and Two Class
Times

 

Instructor School Terms Class Time Method of Instruction

 

A Fall, 1965 10—12 Student-Instructor Demon—
stration

A Fall, 1965 2—4 Individual

B Fall, 1965 10—12 Individual

B Fall, 1965 2-4 Student—Instructor Demon—
stration

A Winter, 1964 10—12 Student—Instructor Demon—
stration

B Winter, 1964 10—12 Individual

A Spring, 1964 10—12 Student—Instructor Demon—
stration

B Spring, 1964 10—12 Individual

Procedure

The Sample*

Samples, consisting of 48 students, were selected from
the total course enrollment of FN 200 fall term, 1965. All
students enrolling in a laboratory section for whom CQT—T
scores were available were originally selected. This group

consisted of 58 students. Students were randomly deleted

 

*The patience of the reader is requested when reference
is made to the term "sample." In some contexts, the term
refers to 104, 102, 88, 48, 40, 6, or 5. When the sample
size is larger than five or six, the term will be used in the
plural.

21

from the study in the larger class sections to provide
sections of equal numbers of students (six above and six
below median) for statistical treatment. This adjustment,
to numerically equate laboratory sections, resulted in
samples of 48 students.

Samples, consisting of 40 students, were selected from
the total course enrollment of EN 200 winter and spring
terms, 1964. All students enrolling inna laboratory section
which met concurrently with another section, and for whom
CQT—T scores were available, were originally selected.

This group consisted of 46 students. Students were randomly
deleted from the study in the larger class sections to pro-
vide sections of equal numbers of students (five above and
five below median) for statistical treatment. This adjust—
ment, to numerically equate laboratory sections, resulted

in samples of 40 students.

Assignment to Laboratory Sections

Prior to randomization, the CQT—T median score was
determined for students enrolled for a given school term.
Students were randomly assigned to either the two concurrently
scheduled laboratory sections in a manner which assured an
equal number of above and below median CQT—T score students
in each laboratory section. The name of each student was
written on a separate slip of paper which was folded and
placed in a container designated as above median or below

median CQT—T score. A random selection of folded papers was

 

 

 

 

22

made from the containers to determine the composition of each
laboratory section.

The two laboratory sections, scheduled to meet at the
same time of day, were designated to be taught by the
"Individual" and "Student—Instructor Demonstration" method by
the flip of a coin. The assignment of instructors to labora—
tory sections was also determined by the flip of a coin for
fall term. The instructors and teaching methods for winter
and spring terms were assigned to provide a replication of

the fall term design.

Treatments

 

Laboratories—~Each student was provided with a labora—
tory manual (62,65) specifically designed for the laboratory
situation to which he was assigned (Individual or Student—
Instructor Demonstration). The matched laboratory lessons,
outlined in the two manuals, were governed by common course
objectives and identical review questions were at the end
of each laboratory lesson. The manuals differed only in
their instructional approach to meeting the objectives out—
lined for each laboratory session. The content of each
manual had been pretested with previous EN 200 classes to
insure adequacy of directions and appropriateness of the
experiments. The laboratory manuals were co-authored by
Barbara B. Deskins and this writer. The Laboratory outlines

are presented in the Appendix.

25

The physical arrangement of the two laboratory rooms
was similar but not identical. Both classrooms were equipped
with individual.work units for twenty students. In neither
laboratory were facilities excellent for conducting the
Instructor Demonstrations. The Classrooms were equally
accessible to supply and storage rooms.

The Instructor Demonstration laboratories required ad-
vance preparation which was unnecessary for the Student
Demonstration and Individual laboratories. A graduate student
assisted in the advance preparation required for the Instructor
Demonstration sessions and class members shared in the re-
sponsibility of post-laboratory ”clean-up”.

On the nine occasions when the instructor performed a
demonstration in the Student-Instructor Demonstration
laboratories, class time was reduced from the usual two hour
period to approximately one to one and one-half hours.

Instructors-—The two instructors, who shared equally in

 

the lecture and laboratory instruction in FN 200 throughout
the study, had similar previous experience in teaching food
preparation courses. Pertinent factors in the academic
background of each instructor were as follows:

Instructor A - B.S. degree in Nutrition from Michigan
State University in 1951. M.S. degree in Nutri—
tion from the State University of Iowa in 1955.
Completion of a minor in Food Science as a
partial requirement for a Ph.D. degree at Michi-
gan State University.

Instructor B - B.S. degree in Food from Cornell Uni-
versity in 1951. M.S. degree in Foods from the
University of Wisconsin in 1955.

24

.Examinations--Two one-hour examinations, using objective
questions, were administered in the lecture portion of the
course each term. Although the examinations covered the same
areas of content each term, the questions differed. Each
term four fifteen— to twenty-minute laboratory quizzes were
given. The discussion questions used for the quizzes dif;
fered each term but covered identical areas of course content.
The same final examination was used throughout the study and
will be reported fully in the section of this chapter devoted
to instruments of measurement.

Additional Control Measures-—To control all phases of
the study, other than the variables compared, the following

measures were observed:

1. At the first course meeting, students were informed
that they were participating in a study "aimed at
determining the most effective method for teaching
the course." This procedure was followed to allow
any student bias, related to being a participant
in the study, to be equally dispersed throughout
the groups. The specific nature of the study was
not described to students, but they were informed
that the methods being studied had been tested with
other classes and would not place any students in
a disadvantaged position in the course or in their
professional training.

2. The two instructors responsible for the laboratory
instruction shared equally, and in the same sequence,
in the preparation and delivery of course lectures.
Both instructors were closely related to the de—
velopment of the Student-Instructor Demonstration
Method of presenting the laboratory portion of
FN 200. They shared the responsibilities of develop—
ing the laboratory manuals, the quizzes and hour
examinations throughout the study.

5. Mimeographed course outlines and reading lists were
in identical sequence for the three terms of study.
These materials were distributed to students at the
first class meeting of each school term.

25

4. The same textbook was used throughout the study.

01

The number of class meeting times per term was held
constant during the study.

6. Hour examinations and laboratory quizzes were given
at the same interval in the course each of the
three terms.

7. The same two foods laboratories and lecture room
were used.

8. Neither of the instructors participating in the
study was absent from a scheduled laboratory or
lecture meeting of the class.

to

Laboratories and lectures were held on the same days
of the week throughout the study. The time of day
when lectures were held did differ each term (1pm,
11am, 10am, fall, winter, spring respectively).
Laboratories were held at either 10—12 noon or 2=4
pm.

 

10. The school terms studied were consecutive thus mini—
mizing differences in the sample that could have been
possible due to differences in University entrance
requirements.

11 An equal number of above and below median College

Qualification Test-Total score students were assigned

to each of the concurrently scheduled laboratories.

This procedure was intended to control any influence

the general ability level of the class may have had

on individual student performance in the course.

Instruments of Measurement

The instruments, described in this section, were designed
and/or selected on the basis of the two hypotheses associated
with the study. A secondary, but very important, purpose
for the instruments was to provide the instructors who taught
EN 200 with a better understanding of the competence and
potential of the students as well as providing a partial

basis for evaluating their performance in the course.

26

College Qualification Test (CQT)

 

Since 1957, the present form of the COT (64) has been
administered to all freshmen and transfer students entering
Michigan State University as an indicator of general scholas—
tic ability. The 80—minute test measures verbal ability and
numerical reasoning as well as information from a broad
range of subject matter areas. The reliability of the test
is reported (65) to be in the mid 0.90's for the total score
and from the high 0.70's to the low 0.90“s for the subtests.
The COT—Total (CQT—T) scores are assumed to provide a more
adequate estimate of student ability than grade point average due
to the variation in the class level of students comprising

the samples (66).

EN 200 Pretest and Questionnaire,

Theoretically, the most precise method of measuring the
achievement of a student during his enrollment in a course,
is to compare his scores on a single, highly reliable and
valid instrument at the beginning and completion of the
course. Smith and Tyler (67) support this theory with the
statement:

Practice effects of taking a test once will probably

not be a serious factor influencing the scores on a

second administration of the test several months later.
They did not support their theory with evidence from research
findings. Their theory was rejected in the study being re—

ported here for the following reasons:

 

1.

27

The ten—week period between pretest and final exami-
nation provided a very short interval for any prac-
tice effects from completing the pretest to be
eradicated uniformly among participating students.

The use of an identical final examination throughout
the study was considered a necessary control measure.
Possible communication between students concerning
the identical nature of the pretest and final exami-
nation could have lowered the "security" on the final
examination.

Smith and Tyler suggested (68) that a pretest should
be based on basic concepts and principles without
unduly discouraging the student with unfamiliar
terminology or formulation. The comprehension and
application of principles appropriate for use at the
completion of FN 200 may have discouraged or stimu—
lated some students. In either case, differences

may have resulted which were attributable to the pre-
test rather than the method of laboratory instruction.

The considerations important in the construction of the

EN 200 Pretest were:

1.

The questions should be based on principles of chem—
istry and food preparation considered to be of im—
portance in FN 200.

The pretest should be brief enough to administer at
the introductory lecture in the course and prior to
any formal course instruction.

The pretest should provide an estimate of students
knowledge of selected principles of chemistry and
food preparation at the onset of the course.

A nineteen~item multiple-choice pretest was constructed to

meet the above considerations. A copy of the EN 200 Pretest

 

and Questionnaire is available in the Appendix.

In

addition to sampling the proficiency of students in

Specific areas of chemistry and food preparation, the pre-

test was designed to serve as a supplementary means of intro—

ducing students to the nature of the course. The total class

 

28

performance on the pretest provided the course instructors
with information concerning general areas of strengths and
weaknesses of student knowledge of selected principles of
food preparation and chemistry. The latter was useful in
selecting more appropriate levels of instruction for several
portions of the course.

The individual student scores on the pretest were not
studied or recorded until the final course grades for stu—
dents were submitted. This prevented instructor bias toward
students with high or low pretest scores.

The questionnaire portion of this instrument was con—
structed to obtain the following information from each
student enrolled in EN 200:

name of student

student number

grade level

specific college major

previous food preparation experience
The previous food preparation experience, indicated by stu—
dents completing the questionnaire, was difficult to evaluate.
The type and duration of experience in: high school, 4H-Club,
armed forces, restaurant, hotel, resort, as well as other
areas--for which the student was requested to list the
specific experience, was recorded. A student was classified
as having previous food preparation experience if he listed

one or more months of experience in any of the areas specified

above.

29

Student Evaluation of FN 200

 

The two considerations in constructing the Student
Evaluation of EN 200 form were:

1. To provide an instrument for measuring student
attitude toward FN 200.

2. To provide one means of identifying strengths and
weaknesses in the course which have been useful in
the on-going re—evaluation of EN 200 course content.

To meet these objectives, a sixteen item rating scale
was constructed after examining several rating scale for—
mats (69,70,71). A copy of the evaluation form used in
this study is available in the Appendix. The instrument
also contained four "open—end” questions which were designed
to obtain specific comments from students concerning the
best liked and least liked portions of the course lecture
and laboratory.

Lehmann (72) encourages the use of student rating scales
of attitude toward a course as a method of evaluating in—
struction. Although he discusses several types of rating
scales, he indicates no preference for one format of con—
struction over the others he describes. The rationale for
measuring student attitude toward the course was discussed
earlier.

The Student Evaluation of EN 200 form was administered
to each laboratory group in the next to the last laboratory
session each term. The form was completed by students and
returned to a box in the laboratory at the end of the

laboratory period. The lesson presented concurrent to the

 

50

completion of the evaluation form provided ample time for
this assignment.

Students were requested to express their true opinions
and not sign their names to the evaluation form. To make
possible a comparison of the responses of above and below
median ability students, students were requested to list a
code letter on their evaluation form. The name and code
letter of each student in a laboratory section was posted
for the class period when evaluation forms were filled out.

The following code was used:

x = above median CQT-T score students
y = below median CQT-T score students
2 = students for whom CQT—T scores were

unavailable.
The possibility of a student attaching an incorrect code
letter to his evaluation form was considered less serious
than the bias which may have resulted by having the student

identify the appraisal form with his name.

FN 200 Final Examination

 

A 156 question, objective, comprehensive examination
was prepared by four members of The Foods and Nutrition
Department at Michigan State University. The four authors
were teaching EN 200 at the time they prepared the exami-
nation. This writer was not one of the authors of the
examination.

The examination was composed of fill—in—the-blank,

matching, and multiple—choice questions. The questions were

51

subjected to an item analysis for three school terms prior
to being used in this study. All questions demonstrating
a negative discriminating power were deleted or improved
during this pretesting period.

The content validity of a test refers to the adequacy
of its items, or parts, in sampling a specific domain of
content and behavior (75). The use of four specialists in
the area of foods instruction as authors of the EN 200 final
examination assisted in providing the test with content
validity. The breadth and depth of items comprising the
examination were determined independently by two instructors
familiar with the objectives and total content of the course.
These data are recorded in Table 2. With the exception of
the rather large number of questions dealing with leavening,
the distribution of questions for each area of course con—
tent reflects the emphasis given to each area in the body
of the course. The classification of questions according
to four levels of learning (knowledge, comprehension, appli—
cation and analysis) is thought by this author, to be repre—
sentative of levels of learning necessary for the achieve—
ment of the course objectives described in Chapter I. The
degree to which students have achieved the objectives of
the course should therefore be indicated by their scores on

the final examination.

 

Table 2.

 

52

Specifications of the EN 200 Final Examination

 

Numbers of Examination Questions

 

 

 

 

Course Content Knowl- Compre- Appli- Analy—

edge hension cation sis Total
Meat, Poultry, Fish 11 10 9 0 50
Milk and Cheese 5 5 1 0 9
Eggs 6 6 0 0 12
Baked Products 7 6 5 0 18
Leavening 12 4 2 0 18
Fats and Oils 7 6 4 1 18
Sugar 2 1 2 0 5
Starch 11 6 5 1 21
Fruits and Vegetables 9 5 1 1 16
Beverages 6 1 0 0 7
Food Sanitation 0 0 1 0 1
Measuring 0 0 0 1 1
Total 74 50 28 4 156
Percent (47.4) (52.1) (17.9) (2.6) (100)

Summary

The posttest control—group design used in this study

has been described. Replication of this design was carried
out for two consecutive school terms on samples of FN 200
students. This chapter has also described the control
measures employed throughout the study as well as the prom
cedures for assigning students to laboratories. Laboratories,
instructors, and instruments used for testing the hypotheses

of the study have also been described.

 

Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The testing of the hypotheses concerning the effective-
ness of two methods of laboratory instruction, as stated in
Chapter I, constituted the major purpose of this study.

The present chapter reports the methods used in testing
these hypotheses as well as the results of the tests and a
discussion of these results. Preliminary results, describ-

ing the student sample and instruments used, are also pre-

sented and discussed.

Preliminary Results

Sample

For the duration of the study, records were kept of
each of the 88 students comprising the samples. The follow—
ing information was recorded for each student on separate
pages of a bound notebook:

Name

Student Number

CQT—T Score

FN 200 Pretest Score

EN 200 Final Examination Score
Specific Major

Previous Food Preparation Experience
Sex

Terms of Enrollment

55

54

FN 200 Laboratory Section

Name of Laboratory Instructor

Class Level

Grades in the Following Courses Taken at Michigan

State University:

American Thought and Language (ATL 111, 112,

Naturilsécience (NS 181, 182, 185)

Introductory Chemistry (Cem 101, 102, 105)
Some characteristics of the student samples are recorded in
Table 5. The randomization procedures used appear to have
been effective in attaining an equitable distribution of
college majors, sex, students with previous food preparation
experience. The differences in mean grade point averages for
the two groups in the selected courses must be attributable
to chance factors.

There was a higher proportion of senior class level
students in the fall term group than in the winter—spring
term group (16 vs. 4). This may be explained, in part, by
the fact that FN 200 is a prerequisite for a second foods
course for the large majority of students enrolling in the
former. If a student reached senior classification prior
to enrolling in FN 200, it would simply be a case of good
schedule planning to complete this course early in the
senior year. The close, positive correlation between major
and sex may be explained by the predominance of female stu—

dents in Home Economics and the predominance of male students

in Business Administration.

 

‘

Ao.enavewumasnmo

.mm ommm .HHH

HwDQMSO CH cw>Hm mum moocwflungm mo mQOHpmHHUme

meB Suemnm>flcb weepm cmmflnoflz um mwmnsoo ommnu Uwuwamfiou 0:3 mucmpoum Sago

 

A.¢.m.ov ommuo><

DQHQN oUMHuo

.wwHDOU mflu. CH UQOEHHOHQO

ou Hoaum mocoHHoQXo mo whoa Ho QDGOE moo msflpnomou unconoum How Umpnooou mm3 :mmhz <

 

"wocoflummxm mpoom mDOH>me

.moum hoswm HOSME m UonHUmU pow Doc Um:

053 wuchSDm HDOM pan

ucmndmumom pom

.QOHDMOSUM mUHEocoom wEom CH HonmE wco UOUDHUCH msoum mHQB

.unofiommcmz

.ucmemmcmz Hmuflmmom tam HMCOHDSUHuwGH

~HVHH

05

Q

“omeuo

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

Immmcmz QSHO one .Houoz .HouomIIGH muonmE popoaocfl moonm mflnfi "QOHumuumHQHEU< mmocwmsm
.noumomwm
soapflnusz paw mooom use .mooom .mUHDoDoHQIIcH mnoflmE UDUDHUQH moonm mHSB ”moHEocoom oEoE

uwmoaaoom
NN.N mm.m mm.m m Sm we om Sm am mm MN m mm SH Hmuoa
mm.N wm.m «m.m m we mm w Sfi ma om oa m mm S mcfluamu
Iuopcaz

. mponpwz Swom

am.m mm.m mm.m 0 mm 0N ma om ma mm Na 0 mm oa Hamm . IIHMDOB
wfi.m mm.m HN.N a ma mm oa we we mm m a mm S Hmuoe
mH.N mm.N mfi.m a S we m S Ofi ma m a me e mcflumm
I ,Immucflz

Sfi.m mw.m mm.m 0 ea ma S fie m ON a 0 am m Hamm Hm5©H>HUQH
Sm.m Sm.m mm.N N we mm OH we we am we a om oa HMDOB

coaumupm

om.m mm.m mN.N N m oa a OH m we m a ma m moflumw . IcoEwQ

Iuoucflz HODUSHDmCH

mN.N mm.m mw.m 0 ea ma m m m ma m 0 Sa S Hamm IDQoUSDm

Emu mz 99¢ mom 02 02 wow .Hm .Hb .0m 2 m Hwauo .EU¢ .om Emma COHDUSHpmcH

Ummmusoo Q.mxm mpoom w50H>on Ho>oq mmmHO xmm .msm oEom Hoogom mo ponuoz

sz .¢.m.w MAHOSMEV omoaaoo
Umatdum moHQEmm Dempspm orp mo moapmflnouomumnu popooamm .m wanna

56

Instruments

 

Each of the following instruments has been described in
Chapter III. The function of the following portion of this
chapter is to report the results of tests the data collected
from the instruments were subjected to, as well as the gross
results obtained by administering the instruments to the

student samples.

College Qualification Test—Total Score (CQT-T)

Median and range CQT—T scores for the four groups of
students, for which scores were available (N = 104), are
presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Medians and Ranges of CQT-T Scores of the Four
Groups from Which the Student Samples Were

Selected in a Study of Two Methods of Laboratory
Instruction in FN 200.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of CQT—T Scores
Term Time Students Median Range
Fall, 1965 10—12 noon 29 154 97~175
Fall, 1965 2~4 pm 29 156 .88~167
Winter, 1964 10—12 noon 21 159 94-165
Spring, 1964 10-12 noon 25 155 99—165
Total 104

 

The median scores appear to be homogeneous although no
statistical procedure was used to verify this observation.
When the median CQT-T scores for FN 200 students were com—

pared to the fiftieth percentile scores (74) of the total

57

freshmen classes of which the majority of these students

were members, these FN.200 students appeared to have slightly
higher numerical.scores than the students with whom they
entered the University. The samples of FN 200 students were
potentially as "able” as the students comprising the total
freshmen classes with whom they entered the University when
CQT-T scores were used as criterion.

The means and standard deviations of the CQT—T scores
of the student samples of 88, randomly drawn from the group
of 104, are recorded in Table 5. Although the numerical
differences are slight, and presumably due entirely to the
randomization procedure used, it is interesting to note
that slightly more able students may have been drawn into
the Student—Instructor Demonstration Laboratories, fall
term, 1965 while the reverse situation took place during
winter-spring terms, 1964. When the method of laboratory
instruction is disregarded, it appears that the sample of
students Spring term may have been slightly more able than
students studied fall and winter terms.

One facet of this study was observing any differences
in student performance and attitude toward EN 200 attributr
able to the potential ability of students as indicated by
their CQT—T scores. The means and standard deviations of
the students classified as above or below median ability
(using CQT-T scores as criterion) are recorded in Table 6.

From these data, the groups of students studied spring term

58

Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of CQT—T Scores of
the Student Samples Studied

 

 

 

 

 

Method of School Number of CQT—T Scores
Instruction Term Students Mean S.D.
Student— Fall 24 157.4 18.78
Instructor
Demonstration Winter-
Spring 20 151.9 18.25
Total 44 154.6 18.54
Individual Fall 24 128.7 19.97
Winter—
Spring 20 157.6 19.05
Total 44 155.1 19.85
Total Both Fall 48 155.1 19.41
Methods
Winter 20 155.1 19.44
Spring 20 156.1 12.90
Total 88 155.9 19.20

 

appear to be more homogeneous than the groups studied fall

and winter terms.

FN 200 Pretest and Questionnaire

A frequency distribution of student scores on the FN 200
Pretest are presented in Table 7. In the original design of
the study, this writer postulated that the performance of
students on a pretest, given prior to any formal instruction

in the course, would measure their knowledge of selected

 

9
5

.mQOHDMH>mU Unmpcmum ohm monogpamumm CH mHGQEDZU

.mucmpspm m Umnflmucoo mdoum 30mm

Q

.mpcmpdpm w posemucoo msoum sowmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm Hence
Amm.mvm.mma xom.mavm.mae Aam.eavo.maa Amo.mvs.mea ea cmflemz Boamm meoeums euom
Aao.mvs.mea Amfi.mva.ema Amm.aavm.ama ASm.mvm.mea we cmflemz m>on< Amuoe
we Hmuoe
Amm.m VN.SNA Amm.mava.mfia Amm.muvm.aoa AeN.mvS.mafi emaemz onmm
lam.0Hve.mefi Aom.mve.mma Amm.oevs;mea Amm.mvm.seu anaemz m>ona Hmsefl>flecH
we Hmuoe
Aom.mvm.mmu Amw.mavm.m0H Aem.muvm.mea Amm.mvS.omfi cmflems onmm aOADAAumeosmo
Aam.avo.mefi Amm.Svm.mae Amm.mavm.amuuxSm.mvm.omfi cmflemz m>ona AooosuomeH
upcmesum
.Q.m com: .Q.mr and: .Q.m cmmz .Q.m smog mpchSDm ouoom coepusuumcH
coon NHION zoos mfiuoa em «IN coon NAIOA mo 9.506 No eoeumz
gamma .meflumm emmfi .Amucas enema «game Amnssz

Q

 

 

mpcmospm CMHUGZ Bonm paw m>ofl< How monoom BIBOO mo mQOHDMH>oQ onmncmum Ugo mcmoz

mmEHB mcfluomz wmmHO 039 Ugo mEHmB Hoonom mmHSB Mom

.@ OHQMB

40

Table 7. Frequency Distribution of EN 200 Pretest Scores

 

 

Score Number of Students

14 1
15 6
12 10
11 9
10 9
9 17
8 11
7 14
6 8
5 7
4 8
5 0
2 1
1 1
Total 102

Mean 8.42

Standard Deviation 2.79

Reliability (Kuder—Richardson #20) = 0.54

 

principles of chemistry and food preparation at the onset
of the course. It was assumed that high or low pretest
scores would correlate with high or low final examination
scores and that pretest scores could, therefore, serve as
a control variable in the statistical analysis. When the
pretest and final examination scores were compared by
Pearson's Product Moment Coefficient of Linear Correlation
(75), a correlation of 0.19 was found between the two
tests. A further study of the pretest revealed a reli—

ability (Kuder—Richardson #20) of 0.54 while the reliability

 

at

41

of the final examination [Cronbach (76), Coefficient Alpha]
was 0.88. The relatively low reliability of the pretest
and the low correlation between the tests indicated that
using the pretest scores as a control variable in the final
examination analysis would be pointless. The main function
of the pretest throughout the study was as an indicator of
students' proficiency in selected principles thought to be
of importance in food preparation.

The questionnaire attached to the pretest provided
the major portion of information, reported on Table 5,
concerning selected characteristics of the student sample.

These data have been discussed earlier in Chapter 4.

Student Evaluation of EN 200

 

A group of 99 students, from the total of 104 students
for which CQT—T scores were available, submitted evaluation
forms. Evaluation forms were randomly eliminated from
larger laboratory sections to provide an equal number of
evaluations from each laboratory group for a given statisti—
cal test.

The sixteen questions which formed the rating scale
portion of the instrument were graded to determine a
numerical score for each evaluation form. The four cate—
gories provided for reSponding to the rating scale items

were weighted as follows:

 

42

Category Marked Points Awarded

Greatly
Moderately
Little
None

l—‘NCNIP

The reliability (77) of the rating scale was calcu-
lated to be 0.88, indicating that the scale was consistent
in its measurement. The mean score for the evaluation was
51.8 with a range of scores from 50-61 (out of a possible
range of 16—64). A frequency distribution of student
scores on the evaluation form rating scale is presented in
Table 8.

The content validity is evaluated as satisfactory by
this writer because the items on the rating scale are di—
rectly related to the specific objectives outlined for
FN 200. A copy of the Student Evaluation of EN 200 form
will be found in the Appendix. The four open-end questions,
which formed a portion of the questionnaire, will be dis—

cussed later.

FN 200 Final Examination

The 104 examination papers, of all students for whom
CQT-T scores were available, were subjected to a test of
reliability formulated by Cronbach (78). The computed
reliability was 0.88. Anastasi (79) stresses the fact
that any reliability coefficient derived from a single
administration of a single form of a test is more precisely

designated as a coefficient of internal consistency.

 

45

Table 8. Frequency Distribution of Student Evaluation of
FN 200 Scores (N = 88)

 

 

 

 

Score Range Number of Students
60—64 1
55-59 26
50—54 59
45—49 15
40—44 5
55—59 0
50—54 2
Mean 51.8
Standard Deviation 5.08

Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) 0.88

 

A reliability coefficient of 0.88 indicates that the final
examination used in this study was consistent in its measure—
ment.

Feldt (80) reports the most valid method for conducting
an item analysis consists of selecting the examination papers
having the highest 27% and the papers having the lowest 27%
of the scores and analyzing them using a procedure described
by Truman (81). This procedure was followed. The mean
percentage of correct responses by both high and low groups
was used to determine the difficulty level for each question
(82). The discrimination index for each question was de—
termined by using Flanagan's Coefficient Table (85). The
frequency distributions of item difficulty and discrimination

will be found respectively in Tables 9 and 10.

44

Table 9. Distribution of Item Difficulty for the EN 200
Final Examination

 

 

Percentage of Students Number of
Answering Correctly Items
90-100 56
80—89 45
70-79 28
60-69 19
50—59 14
40—49 6
50—59 6
20—29 4
Total 156
Mean 74.98

 

 

Table 10. Distribution of Item Discrimination Indices
for the EN 200 Final Examination

 

 

Discrimination Indexa Number of Items
.70—.79 2
.60—.69 10
.50—.59 14
.40—;49 24
.50—.59 51
.20—.29 21
.10—.19 26

0—.09 19
—.01— —.10 5
—.11— —.20 5
—.51— -.40 1

Total 156
Mean 0.29

 

aComputed from Flanagan’s Coefficient Table in Walker,
H. M. and J. Lev Statistical Inference. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston (1955) Table XIII, pp. 472—75.

 

45

The mean difficulty level for items used on the final
examination was 74.98% correct responses. Saupe (84)
reported that items with a difficulty level of fifty percent
are more precise than items of a higher or lower difficulty
level in estimating the relative standing on the character—
istics tested. The high reliability coefficient (0.88)

for FN 200 Final Examination would indicate that, in spite

 

of questions which were comparatively easy for students to
answer correctly, the test was consistent in its measure—
ment.

Tolerance of the instrument for a rather high proportion
of "easy” questions, without a consequent loss of reliability,
may be directly related to the large number of items used.

The mean index of discrimination for the items on the
final examination was 0.29, with 65.4% of the items having
an index above 0.19. In a discussion of the discrimination

indices of test items, Ebel (85) has proposed the following

 

classification:
Index of Discrimination Item Evaluation
0.40 and greater very good
0.50—0.59 reasonably good but
subject to improvement
0.20—0.29 marginal items
below 0.19 poor items

Ebel also suggests that if low discrimination items are not
due to technical weaknesses, and if there are good reasons
for including them, they may be used. In future revisions

of the EN 200 Final Examination, the number of questions

46

with a discrimination index of under 0.19 obviously must
be re—evaluated. However, their low discrimination indices
did not seriously detract from the reliability of the test.
A frequency distribution of FN 200 Final Examination
scores is reported in Table 11. The mean score of the
student samples on the examination was 267.5 (77.02% cor—
rect). Scores ranged from 200 to 514. The highest possible
score on the instrument was 547.

Table 11. Frequency Distribution of FN 200 Final Examination
Scores (N = 88).

 

 

 

 

Interval Number of
Score Students
511—520 1
501—510 5
291-500 4
281-290 12
271—280 18
261—270 16
251~260 10
241—250 12
251—240 7
221-250 2
211-220 0
200~210 1
Total 88
Mean 267.5
Standard Deviation 21.1

Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) 0.88

 

Although the validity of FN 200 final examination can-

 

not be expressed in terms as tangible as its reliability,

47

its content validity was considered satisfactory for three
reasons. First, the examination represented the combined
efforts and judgment of four specialists in the area of
teaching college food preparation courses. Second, the
examination was pretested and revised for three school
terms prior to its use in the study to eliminate negatively
discriminating and/or ambiguous questions, as described in
Chapter 5. The third support for evaluating the content
validity of the examination as satisfactory is reflected

in its specifications as summarized in Table 2. The classi—
fication of the examination questions has been discussed in

Chapter 5.

Statistical Tests Employed

 

The hypotheses, concerning differences in learning out—
comes associated with methods of laboratory instruction,
were tested by means of an analysis of variance factorial
design (86). A five percent (0.05) critical region was used
in testing each hypothesis. The assumption necessary for
the use of the analysis of variance technique [normal
population with equal variance (87)] was thought to be valid.
The randomizing procedure presumably produced groups of
equivalent normalcy. The ”Fmax” test (88), designed to
determine whether equivalence of variance between groups
exists, was employed. Results of this test indicated that,
at the five percent level of significance, the groups were

equivalent in variance.

48

The First Hypothesis of the Study was:

A "Student—Instructor Demonstration Method” is at

least as effective as an "Individual Method” of

laboratory instruction in achieving common course

objectives in a beginning foods preparation course

for students of both above and below median general

ability.

Indication of achievement of common course objectives was
determined by the scores of students on the FN 200 Final
Examination. Students were classified as above or below
median in ability, on the basis of their CQT—T scores, in
relation to the median score for their comparison group.
An analysis of variance of the final examination scores
was completed for the fall term samples. These data are
reported in Table 12. The analysis of variance data for
the winter—spring term samples are reported in Table 15.
The results of these statistical tests indicate no signifi—
cant differences in student achievement in EN 200 as a
result of the two methods of laboratory instruction em—
ployed.

The lack of significant difference in final examination
scores among students of above and below median ability fall
term (Table 12) was unexpected. Although the randomization
procedure could be expected to disperse the above and below
median students equitably throughout the groups, the small
number of students in each group may have resulted in a less
than equitable distribution. This may account for the lack
of significant differences in final examination scores

among the above and below ability students fall term.

 

49

Table 12. Analysis of Variance of EN 200 Final Examination
Scores as Influenced by Time of Day, Ability Level,
Method of Instruction and Instructor. Fall Term

 

 

 

 

1965

Degrees of Sum of Mean F a
Source Freedom Squares Square Ratio F 95
Ability 1 867.00 867.00 1.469 N.S.b
Time 1 0.09 0.09 < 1.00 N.S.
Instructor 1 541.54 541.54 < 1.00 N.S.
Method 1 850.09 850.09 1.440 N.S
Ability x Time 1 596.74 596.74 < 1.00 N.S.
Ability x Instructor 1 1.55 1.55 < 1.00 N.S.
Ability x Method 1 1140.75 1140.75 1.907 N.S.
Within (error) 40 25614.55 590.56
Total 47 27211.67
aF (1 40) = 4 08

.95 ’ '

bN.S. = Not significant (5% level)

Table 15. Analysis of Variance of FN 200 Final Examination
Scores as Influenced by Ability Level, School Term
and Method of Instruction — Instructor. Winter
and Spring Terms, 1964

 

 

Degrees of Sum of Mean F a
Source Freedom Squares Square Ratio F 95
Ability 1 2608.22 2608.22 10.68 S.b
Term 1 15.22 15.22 < 1.00 N.S.C
Method-Instructor 1 15.22 15.22 < 1.00 N.S.
Ability x Term 1 172.25 172.25 < 1.00 N.S.

Ability x Method-

 

Instructor 1 442.25 ,442.25 1.81 N.S.
Method—Instructor x

Term 1 508.05 508.05 1.26 N.S.
Ability x Term x

Method-Instructor 1 70.22 70.22 < 1.00 N.S.
Within (error) 52 7817.60 244.50
Total 59 11444.97
aF 95 (1,30) = 4.17
bS. = Significantly different (5% level)

CN.S. = Not significant (5% level)

50

Group means of the final examination scores, for the
samples studied fall term, are recorded in Table 14.
Similar data for the samples studied winter—spring terms,
1964 are recorded in Table 15. There was a slight numerical
superiority in total examination scores for the laboratory
sections instructed by the Student—Instructor Demonstration
method, fall term, 1965. Any difference, attributable to
teaching method, during winter and spring terms, 1964 appear
numerically negligible. Determining whether observed numeri-
cal differences were due to method or the student samples
was impossible. However, numerical differences were not
significant when these data were subjected to the analysis

of variance technique (Tables 12 and 15).

The Second Hypotheses of the Study was:

 

Student attitudes toward a "Student—Instructor Demon—
stration Method" are at least as favorable as are
student attitudes toward an "Individual Method” of
instruction in the laboratory portion of a beginning
food preparation course.

Student scores on the rating scale portion of the Student

Evaluation of FN 200 were used as indicators of student atti—

 

tude toward the course. An analysis of variance of these
scores was completed for the fall term samples and is re-
ported in Table 16. The analysis of variance of the evalu—
ation scores for the winter—spring term samples are reported
in Table 17. The results of the statistical tests employed
indicate no significant differences in student attitude
toward EN 200 as a result of the method of laboratory in—

struction employed.

 

51

Table 14. The Means of the EN 200 Final Examination Scores

for the Student Samples Studied Fall Term, 1965

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method of Above Median Below Median
Instruction Students Students Total
Instructor Student-
A Instructor
Demonstration a
(A.M.) 268.2(6) 274.8(6) 271.5(12)
Individual
(P.M.) 275.2(6) 250.8(6) 265.0(12)
Total 271.7(12) 262.8(12) 267.2(24)
Instructor Student—
B Instructor
Demonstration
(P.M.) 268.2(6) 264.0(6) 266.1(12)
Individual
(A.M.) 265.8(6) 251.7(6) 257.8(12)
Total 266.0(12) 257.8(12) 261.9(24)
Sub—Totals A.M. 267.0(12) 265.2(12) 265.1(24)
P.M. 271.7(12) 257.4(12) 264.5(24)
Student—
Instructor
Demonstration 268.2(12) 269.4(12) 268.8(24)
Individual 269.5(12) 251.2(12) 260.5(24)
Grand Total 268.9(24) 260.5(24) 264.6(48)

 

aNumbers in parentheses indicate the number of student scores

comprising the mean.

Table 15.

 

The Means of the FN 200 Final Examination Scores

for the Student Samples Studied Winter and Spring
Terms, 1964

 

 

 

 

Method of School Above Median Below Median
Instruction Term Students Students Total
Student- Winter 279.6(5)a 265.6(5) 271.6(10)
Instructor
Demonstration Spring 282.0(5) 252.4(5) 267.2(10)
(Instructor A)
Total 280.8(10) 258.0(10) 269.4(20)
Individual Winter 271.2(5) 265.2(5) 267.2(10)
(Instructor B)
Spring 279.4(5) 268.4(5) 275.9(10)
Total 275.5(10) 265.8(10) 270.0(20)
Total Winter 275.4(10) 265.4(10) 269.4(20)
Spring 280.7(10) 260.4(10) 270.5(20)
Total 278.1(20) 261.9(20) 270.0(40)

 

aNumbers in parentheses indicate the number of student scores

comprising the

mean .

Group means of the rating scale scores for the fall term

and winter—spring

19 respectively.

Individual Method

Individual Method

The two lower mean scores (Table 18,

of Instruction,

of Instruction,

Instructor A,

Instructor B) were,

term samples are presented in Table 18 and

and Table 19,

in

each case, the result of a single low score rather than a

group tendency.

..

55

 

 

 

 

Table 16. Analysis of Variance of Rating Scale Scores for the
Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form, Fall Term, 1965
Degrees of Sums of Mean F a
Source Freedom Squares Square Ratio F.95
Ability 1 46.06 46.06 2.270 N.S.b
Time 1 42.25 42.25 2.081 N.S.
Instructor 1 17.55 17.55 < 1.00 N.S.
Method 1 46.06 46.06 2.270 N.S.
Ability x Time 1 12.96 12.96 < 1.00 N.S.
Ability x Instructor 1 49.19 49.19 2.424 N.S.
Ability x Method 1 62.98 62.98 5.104 N.S.
Within (error) 40 811.52 20.29
Total 47 1088.55 1
I
aF (1,40) = 4.08
.95

bN.S. = Not significant (5% level)

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Analysis of Variance of Rating Scale Scores for the

Student Evaluation of EN 200 Form, Winter—Spring

Terms, 1964

Degrees of Sum of Mean F a

Source Freedom Squares Square Ratio F.95
Ability 1 0.02 0.02 < 1.0 N.S.b
Term 1 0.22 0.22 < 1.0 N.S.
Method—Instructor 1 50.62 50.62 1.05 N.S.
Ability x Term 1 42.05 42.05 1.41 N.S.
Ability x Method-

Instructor 1 11.05 11.05 < 1.0 N.S.
Term x Method 1 15.65 15.65 < 1.0 N.S.
Ability x Term x

Method—Instructor 1 24.02 24.02 < 1.0 N.S.
Within (error) 52 950.9 29.72
Total 59 1074.57
aF (1,30) = 4.17

.95
bN.S. = Not significant (5% level)

54

Table 18. The Means of the Rating Scale Scores for the
Student Evaluation of EN 200 Form for the Student
Samples Studied Fall Term, 1965

 

 

 

 

 

Method of Above Median Below Median
Instruction Students Students Total
Instructor Student—
A Instructor
Demonstration a
(A.M.) 51.6(6) 52.5(6) 51.9(12)
Individual
(P.M.) 44.5(6) 51.8(6) 48.1(12)
Total 48.1(12) 52.1(12) 50.1(24) I
Instructor Student-
B Instructor
Demonstration
(P.M.) 52.0(6) 50.6(6) 51.5(12)
Individual
(A.M.) 50.6(6) 51.8(6) 51.2(12)
Total 51.5(12) 51.2(12) 51.2(24)
Sub—Totals A.M. 51.1(12) 52.0(12) 51.5(24)
P.M. 48.2(12) 51.2(12) 49.7(24)
Student—
Instructor
Demonstration 51.8(12) 51.4(12) 51.6(24)
Individual 47.5(12) 51.8(12) 49.6(24)
Grand Total 49.7(24) 51.6(24) 50.6(48)

 

aNumbers in parentheses indicate the number of student scores

comprising the mean.

55

Table 19. The Means of the Rating Scale Scores for the
Student Evaluation of FN 200 Form for the Student
Samples Studied Winter and Spring Terms, 1964

 

 

 

 

 

Method of School Above Median Below Median
Instruction Term Students Students Total
Student— winter 52.4(5)a 54.0(5) 53.2(10)
Instructor
Demonstration Spring 54.0(5) 54a6(5) 54.5(10)
(Instructor A)
Total 55.2(10) 54.5(10) 55.7(20)
Individual Winter 51.4(5) 54.0(5) 52.7(10) j
(Instructor B) I)
Spring 55.6(5) 49.0(5) 51.5(10) {
Total 52.5(10) 51.5(10) 52.0(20)
Total Winter 51.9(10) 54.0(10) 52.9(20)
Spring 55.8(10) 51.8(10) 52.8(20)
Total 52.8(20) 52.9(20) 52.8(40)

 

aNumbers in parentheses indicate the number of student scores
comprising the mean.

"Open—End" Questions on the Student

 

Evaluation of FN 200 Form

 

The responses to the four "open—end” questions on the

Student Evaluation of EN 200 form are summarized in Table 20.

 

The responses to the "open—end" questions indicate little

difference attributable to method of laboratory instruction.

There does appear to be a discrepancy of ”no response"

to the questions which dealt with what the students liked

most and least about laboratory.

A total of twenty—one

ICOEon HQCUCHumCHIUCooduw ou oUCoHommH UHNHUomm

UmmeHUCH no MCCHQ oommm pmoH H mmCommom OZ “COHDmCmeHm ooow CHHB
I90 mo SDHHMHO

 

.UOCCoE huoumqumH HMCUH>HUCH Ho COHumnbw
H COCqu mCHCUmoB auCon>H5vw wCu Ho :mCHCDOC:
CUCoHHoaxm .ww>Huoofl

.quuCOU mmMSOU n HmquoHHouCH mmmmHU mo mumnmmofium poMHHmHU Ho poxHH .%53 mo

COHDMCmmem 0C CCH3 HODUSHumCH MO me500 waHHme no UmMHH H HmCoHuoEm ammem CDOC .moNNHsv

.memHU mCHCmmB

.HwCuHmm SHODCHOQCH

.osao

.HmHnoumE mo COHumNHCmmHO Ho CoHumngoHQ H HMOHCCUoB
.SHOHCHOQCH oCm ouspomH CCOQ usonm unmoH oCm umoE UmMHH SoCu DMCS poxmm mHoS mquosum

,Q

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

HN OH HH w m m mmCommom OZ

0 o o N H H 0>Hpmmoz

om mH mH Nm wH mH o>HuHmom HmsuooHHopCH

N H H H o H o>Hummoz

H H m m m m w>HuHmom HCCOHDOEM

mN mH NH mN HH NH o>Hummoz

H m H H H m o>Hanom HmoHcrome

o o o a H m o>Humooz Bored:

N H H m m o o>HpHmom mCHCOCoB SHODMHOQMH

mH S w NH m w mmCommom OZ
6
5 m H a o m a o>Honooz

NN MH m SH m w 0>HCHmom HmsuooHHopCH

H o H N N o o>Huwmoz

H m H o O o ®>HDHmom HCCOHDOEM

mm mH «H mm NH mH o>Hooooz

m N S NN HH HH o>HuHmom HCUHCCUoB onsuooq
Hopoe CoHowE CmHUoE HMDOB CoprZ CmHowz QomCommwm OHQOB

Bonm o>ofi< soHom o>ofl<
HCCUH>HCCH COHumnumCoEoo MOCUSHDmCHIpCooCCm
COHDUCHmeH SHODCCOQMH mo porno:
ANN H Zv ownsoo mooom mCHCCHmom m CH Euom COHumon>m
Cm mo COHuHom m we tomb mmCoHumoCO UCMICoQO noon on momCommom uCoooum mo SCCEESm < .ON wHQMB

57

students taught by the Individual method of Instruction did
not respond, or listed "nothing" or its equivalent, to

these questions compared with eight students taught by the
Student-Instructor Demonstration method of laboratory in—
struction. One of the twenty—one ”no responses” by students
in the former group was in answer to the question: "The one
thing I liked most about laboratory was?" The other twenty
"no responses" by students taught by the Individual method,

as well as the eight "no responses" by students taught by

J)

the Student—Instructor method, were in answer to the question:

*-

”The one thing I liked least about laboratory was?” It might
be inferred from the latter response that the students could
think of nothing they disliked about laboratory.

"Lack of adequate discussion time” and ”washing dishes"
were the most frequently mentioned responses to: "The one
thing I liked least about laboratory” by students taught by
both laboratory methods. Reference was infrequently made,
to the instructor demonstrations, by the students when dis-
cussing either the most or least liked part of their labora—
tory experience.

There appears to be a definite lack of a more positive
attitude, attributable to method of laboratory instruction,
on the part of groups instructed by either of the two methods
of laboratory instruction. This observation supports the
results of statistical analyses on the rating scale portion

of the Student Evaluation of EN 200 form.

 

58

Student Samples

A summary of pertinent data concerning the student
samples is presented in Table 21. The CQT—T mean scores
were numerically higher for the student sample taught by
the Student—Instructor Demonstration method of laboratory
instruction fall term, 1965 and lower for the sample taught
by this method winter-spring, 1964 than were the mean scores
for students taught by the Individual method. The lowest

CQT-T mean score, reported for fall term students taught

by the Individual method, may partially account for their I
numerically lowest FN 200 final examination mean score.

The differences between the CQT-T means of above and
below median ability students in a given laboratory section
fluctuated (Table 6). In addition, there appeared to be
less variance among the group taught by the Student—
Instructor Demonstration method spring term with 21.2 CQT—T
score points differentiating the above and below median
averages that term. There were 42.0 points difference
between the above and below median averages in the laboratory
section taught by the Individual method winter term. This
observation supports the premise that the randomization
procedure among small groups may not have resulted in an
equitable distribution of ability levels among the groups

studied.

Pretest
It may be noted, in Table 21, that the mean pretest

scores for students randomly assigned to the Individual

 

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

m.Hm M.SmN H.m m.MMH mCowz UCCHO
m.om m.mwN m.m H.MMH C802
O.Nm S.OSN m.w N.SMH mCHHQm
IHopCHB
S.mH H.0mN N.m S.®NH HHom HCDUH>HUCH
S.Nm H.mwN N.S ©.HMH Com:
m.mm «.mwN H.S «.HMH mCHHQm
IHmDCHZ COHDMHDmCOECQ
CODUSCDmCH
©.Hm w.me H.S H.SMH HHmm Iprpspm
wHOUm OON Zm mo wuoom COHDmCHmem muoum unwound onoom EACH COHDUDHmeH
COHDCDHm>m DCoUDDm HnCHm OON Zm OON Zm BIBOU Hoonom mo UOCDGS

 

COHponmmHm Uoom CH COHDUCCCmCH SCODCHOQCA no moonuoz
039 MO COHumnHm>m Cm CH UoHUCDm monEmm uCoUSDm 0CD No mouoom Coos mo wnmfifism N .HN oHQMB

60

method of laboratory instruction were numerically higher
than the mean scores for students assigned to the Student—
Instructor Demonstration method of laboratory instruction.
These data suggest that, throughout the study, students
assigned to the Student—Instructor Demonstration method of
laboratory instruction may have had less knowledge of
measures tested by the pretest than students randomly
assigned to the Individual method of laboratory instruction.
Numerical differences in mean pretest scores between
the two methods of laboratory instruction did not appear
to be paralleled by differences in previous food preparation
experience or in differences in grade point averages (Table 5).
These numerical differences suggest that students taught by
the Student—Instructor Demonstration method, for reasons not
known, had less knowledge about selected principles of
chemistry and food preparation at the onset of the course
than did their counterparts taught by the Individual method
of laboratory instruction. The low correlation (0.19) between
the pretest and final examination scores for the samples of
students suggest that any differences in performance on the
final examination, attributable to a slightly higher pretest
score, were not likely to be responsible for differences

noted in final examination scores.

M

This chapter has presented the results of the statistical

tests of the two hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of

 

61

two methods of laboratory instruction in a beginning food
preparation course. Descriptive characteristics of the
measuring instruments and student samples were also pre—
sented.

Hypothesis one, dealing with student achievement on
the EN 200 Final Examination, indicated no significant dif—
ferences, attributable to teaching method, under the con-
ditions of the test. From these results it may be inferred
that the Student-Instructor Demonstration method of labora—
tory instruction is as effective as the Individual method,
as measured by students' achievement on the FN 200 Final
Examination.

Hypothesis two, concerning student attitude toward
EN 200, indicated no significant differences under the con—
dition of the test. From these results it may be inferred
that the Student—Instructor Demonstration method of labora—
tory instruction is as effective as the Individual method
in producing favorable attitude toward the course among

student samples studied.

Chapter V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The study described in this dissertation was designed
to evaluate the effectiveness of an experimental approach
(Student-Instructor Demonstration) to the laboratory in—
struction in a beginning food preparation course. Studies,
appraising the effectiveness of instruction, especially in
courses heavily weighted with laboratory time, are in need

of careful evaluation.

The Specific Hypotheses Investigated

 

The two hypotheses tested in conjunction with this study
are stated explicitly in Chapter I. The first hypothesis
concerned the achievement of students of above and below
median ability when subjected to two methods of laboratory
instruction. The statistical tests and numerical data
indicate no significant difference attributable to method
of instruction or other factors investigated with the ex—
ception of ability level in the winter—spring, 1964 samples.
The second hypothesis dealt with the attitude of students
toward their experience in EN 200 as influenced by method
of laboratory instruction. Again, no significant differences
attributable to method of instruction or other factors
investigated were observed.

62

 

65

Under the conditions of the study, there were no indi—
cations that the Individual method of laboratory instruction
was superior to the Student-Instructor Demonstration method.
These conclusions are based on the outcome of the students'
achievement on the EN 200 Final Examination and the students'
attitude toward the course as measured by the rating scale

in the Student Evaluation of EN 200 form.

 

The Method of the Study

 

‘ '4‘

Students were stratified on the basis of their CQT—T
scores, then randomly assigned to two concurrently scheduled
laboratory sections. The method of laboratory instruction
and assignment of instructor were determined randomly for
the groups of students participating in the study fall term,
1965. The instructor and teaching method used for the
student groups studied winter and spring terms, 1964 were
established to replicate the fall term design.

A total group of 104 students originally qualified for
the study. Students from the larger laboratory sections
were randomly excluded from the study to produce samples of
equal numbers for statistical analyses. The final samples
studied totaled 88 students.

Two instructors, with equivalent experience in teaching
food preparation courses, shared equally in the lecture and
laboratory instruction in the course throughout the study.

The instructors had worked together prior to the study to

64

pretest and establish suitable laboratory experiences for
both Student-Instructor Demonstration and Individual labora—
tory instruction groups.

The CQT-T scores were used to determine the classifi—
cation of the student samples as above or below median in
general ability. The EN 200 Pretest and Questionnaire pro—
vided pertinent data concerning the non—numerical character-
istics of the samples studied as well as a slight indication
of proficiency in areas related to food preparation at the

onset of the course. The Student Evaluation of FN 200 form ‘

 

was used as a measure of student attitude toward the course.
The EN 200 Final Examination was employed as the measure of

student achievement at the completion of the course.

Limitations of the Study

 

The FN 200 Final Examination was not designed to
measure the course objectives specifically associated with
the laboratory portion of FN 200. It is possible that the
lecture material in the course related more closely to the
items on the final examination than did the laboratory
portion of the course. The development and use of a reliable
and valid laboratory practical examination might measure the
outcome of the students laboratory experience more precisely.
The FN 200 Pretest, as previously discussed, appeared
to relate poorly to the performance of students in EN 200.
A more adequately designed pretest may provide a more precise

teaching and experimental tool.

65

Larger numbers of students in each group studied would
provide a more favorable situation for the effective opera—
tion of the randomization procedure described earlier. The
procedure would have a better opportunity to produce a

truly equitable distribution of student characteristics.

General Conclusions

 

In general, this study was an attempt to gain a better
understanding of the effectiveness of the laboratory portion
of a beginning food preparation course. The intent of this
study was to weigh carefully any attributes of an alternate
approach to the instruction against the effectiveness of a
traditional method of instruction. The following general
conclusions appear to be justified:

1. The Student—Instructor Demonstration method of in—
struction was as effective as the Individual method
in student achievement, when compared statistically,
using student scores on the FN 200 Final Exami—
nation as criterion.

2. The Student—Instructor Demonstration method of in-
struction was as effective as the Individual method
in producing a favorable attitude toward FN 200,
when compared statistically, using student scores

on the Student Evaluation of FN 200 form as
criterion.

Recommendations for Future Study

 

The design of this study did not provide for an evalu—
ation of the comparative effectiveness of the Student vs.
the Instructor demonstrations. It may be possible that

varying the distribution of these two demonstration techniques

 

66

could produce results quite different from those observed
in this study.

The development of a pretest, which demonstrated a
stronger relationship to the students' "readiness" for work
in FN 200 could make possible a stratification of students
in future studies, which might provide more precise statisti—
cal testing than stratification according to CQT—T scores.

This study was initiated in a fashion far too naive.

A future study might simply attempt to establish the
relationship between course objectives, course content and
course evaluation procedures. This would, in itself, be

no small task.

General Discussion

 

It is pertinent to compare the results of this study
with those reported by others who have studied the effective—
ness of methods of instruction at the college level. When
individual laboratory and teacher—demonstration (lecture—
demonstration) laboratory methods of instruction have been
compared in recent studies in science courses (89,90,91,92),
no significant differences have been reported between the
two methods of instruction on the basis of the criteria
used.

It is interesting to contemplate the possible reasons
for the lack of significant differences in measured student

traits even when such different approaches to teaching, as

67

the traditional laboratory vs. a single term paper, were
compared (95). If real differences, attributable solely to
method of instruction, do exist, it may be possible that
suitable instruments for their measurement have not yet been
developed. It is also possible that the method of instruction
has only a minor influence on outcome of students' experience
in a course. Verification of the latter postulation would
indicate that the method of instruction could be freely
alternated to meet the interest of the course instructor or
needs resulting from expanding student populations. I
Most basic to the determination of the climate most
effective for learning, is the need for a precise understand—
ing of the learning process itself. This need, for under-
standing the learning process, is as basic to educational
practice as is the working knowledge of intermediary metabol—

ism to an understanding of the function of nutrients.

N
I

6.

\1
O

10.

11.

12.

15

14.

LI TERATURE CI TED

Enarson, Harold L. Innovations in higher education.
J. Higher Ed. 54: 495 (1960).

Eckert, Ruth E. Improvement of college teaching.
J. Home Econ. 41: 750 (1955).

Buxton, Claude E. College Teaching: a Psychologist's
View. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. (1956) p. VI
(Preface).

 

 

Hannah, John A. Education for the jet age. J. Home Econ.
55: 745 (1965).

Sweetman, Marion D. To think like home economists.
J. Home Econ. 55: 7 (1961).

Ayers, Irma. New directions in action. J. Home Econ.
52: 499 (1960).

Hussemann (Strong), D. L. Food and nutrition teaching in
ferment. J. Home Econ. 49: 94 (1957).

Brown, Sara A. in Harris, Chester W. (ed.) Encyclopedia
of Educational Research, 5rd. ed., New York: Macmillan
Co. (1960) p. 670.

 

Eppright, Ercel S. College teaching of foods and
nutrition. J. Home Econ. 41: 595 (1955).

Failing, Jean. Report of the committee on the improve-
ment of instruction in Am. Assn. of Land—Grant Colleges
and Univ. Proceedings, 69th Annual Convention, E. Lansing,
Mich. (Nov. 1955) p. 277-78.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. in Handbook of
Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage (ed.) Chicago: Rand
McNally and Co. (1955) p. 172.

 

Sweetman, Marion D., loc. cit.
Hussemann (Strong), D. L. loc. cit.

Eppright, Ercel S., loc. cit.

68

 

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

(1'

Failing, Jean, loc. ci

Enarson, Harold L., loc. cit.

 

Schuller, H. The madness of method in higher education.
J. Higher Ed. 55: 90 (1951).

Coladarci, Arthur. Towards more rigorous educational
research. Harvard Ed. Review 59: 5 (1960).

Dressel, Paul L. and Mayhew, Lewis B. General Education:
Explorations in Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Am. Council
on EduCation (1957) p. 51.

 

Travers, Robert. A study of the relationship of psycho—

logical research to educational practice, in Training

Research and Education, Robert Glaser, ed. Pittsburg:

U. of Pitt. Press (1962) Chapt. 17. pp. 525—58. I

 

Good, Carter V. Colleges and universities, methods of
teaching, in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Monroe,
Walter S. (ed.). New York: Macmillan Co. (1950) pp.
275—79.

 

McKeachie, W. J. Research in teaching at the college
and university level in Handbook of Research on Teaching,
Gage, N. L. (ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. (1965)
p. 1122.

McKeachie, W. J. Procedures and techniques of teaching,
in The American College: A Psychological and Social
Interpretation of the Higher Learning, Sanford, Nevitt
(ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons (1962) pp. 512-64.

 

 

Ibid.

McKeachie, W. J., in The American College: A Psycho—
logical and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning,
loc. cit.

 

 

Stanley, Julian C. Controlled experimentation in the
classroom. J. Experi. Ed. 55: 195 (1957).

Bowers, Norman D. and Soar, Robert S. Studies of human
relations in the teaching—learning process: V Final
Report; Evaluation of Laboratory Human Relations Training

for Classroom Teachers. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt

U. Press (1961) p. 122.

McKeachie, W. J. The improvement of instruction. Review
of Ed. Research 55: 551 (1960).

29

50.

51.

52.

55.

54.

55.

56'

57.

58.

59.

40.

41.

42.

45.

44

45.

46.

47.

70

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C., loc. cit.

 

Good, Carter V., loc. cit.

 

Eckelberry, R. H. Editorial comment. Ed. Research
Bulletin _2_5: 24 (1944).

McKeachie, W. J., in Handbook of Research on Teaching,
loc. cit. I

McKeachie, W. J., in The American College: A Psycho—
logical and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning,
loc. cit.

McKeachie, W. J., in Handbook of Research on Teaching,
loc. cit.

McKeachie, W. J., in The American College: A Psycho—
logical and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning,
loc. cit.

 

Ibid.

Stanley, Julian C., loc. cit.

 

Tyler, Ralph W., Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction (Syllabus for Ed. 560). Chicago: U. of
Chicago Press (1950).

Blick, David J., The purpose and character of laboratory
instruction. J. Chem. Ed. 55: 264 (1955).

Ibid.

McKeachie, W. J., in Handbook of Research on Teaching,
pp, cit., p. 1144.

 

Ibid.

Kruglak, Haym, in Accent on Teaching, French, Sidney J.
(ed.). New York: Harper and Bros. (1954) pp. 184-88. '

Ginsberg, Benson E. To what extent should laboratory
requirements be part of science education for non—science
majors? Current Issues in Higher Ed. (1960) pp. 70—72.

 

McGrath, Earl J., et al. Toward General Education.
New York: Macmillan Co. (1948) p. 96.

Ginsberg, Benson E., loc. cit.

 

Blick, David J., loc. cit.

 

48.

49

50.

51.

52.

55.

54.

55.
56.
57.
58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

71

Kruglak, Haym, loc. cit.

Cunningham, H. A. Lecture-demonstration vs. individual
laboratory method in science teaching-—a summary.
Sci. Ed. 59: 70 (1946).

Bradley, Robert L. Lecture Demonstration vs. Individual
Laboratory Work in a Natural Science Course at Michigan
State University. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
College of Education, Michigan State University,

E. Lansing) 1962.

 

 

Dearden, Douglas M. An evaluation of the laboratory in
a college general biology course. J. Experi. Ed. 55:
241 (1960).

Bloye, Amy I. and Long, Alma. An experiment in teaching
food preparation to college freshman. J. Home Econ.
55; 470 (1941).

Bay, May S. An Experimental Study to Coppare the Indi—
vidual Laboratory and Modified Demonstration Methods for
Teaching Food Prgparation. (Unpublished Masters Thesis,
School of Home Economics, Michigan State College, E.
Lansing) 1952.

 

 

 

Trotter, Virginia Yapp. A Comparison of the Laboratory
and the Lecture—Demonstration Methods of Teaching Survey
of Food Preparation for Freshmen Home Economics Students
at the University of Vermont. (Unpublished Ph.D. Disser—
tation, The Ohio State University, Columbus) 1960.

 

 

 

Bradley, Robert L., loc. cit.

 

Dearden, Douglas M., loc. cit.

Bay, May S., loc, cit.

 

Trotter, Virginia Yapp, loc. cit.

Johnson, Palmer 0. Statistical Methods in Research.
New York: Prentice Hall, Inc. (1949) p. 282.

 

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C., pp. cit.,
p. 185.

 

Ibid., p. 195.

Coleman, Mary C. and Deskins, Barbara B. A Laboratory
Manual for Introductory Food Prgparation: FN 200, I
(Individual method of instruction). E. Lansing:
Michigan State University Mimeographing and Printing
Dept. (1965).

 

 

65.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

75.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

72

Ibid., II (Student—Instructor Demonstration method of
instruction).

 

Bennett, George K., et al. College Qualification Tests.
New York: The Psychological Corp. (1961).

 

Froehlich, Gustav J., in The Fifth Mental Measurements
Yearbook, Buros, Oscar K. (ed.). Highland Park, New
Jersey: The Gryphon Press (1959). Entry No. 520, p.
445.

 

Chansky, Norman M. A note on the grade point average
in research. Ed. and Psyc. Measurement 54: 95 (1964).

Smith, E. R. and Tyler, R. W. Appraising and Recording
Student Progress. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc.
(1942) p. 155.

 

Ibid.] pp. 238—59.

, Learning Appraisal Form. Oregon State Uni—
versity. Copyright, 1961.

. Student Opinionnaire. Michigan State University.
Undated document.

Smalzried, N. T. and Remmers, H. H. A factor analysis
of the Purdue rating scale for instructors. J. Ed. Psyc.
54: 565 (1945).

Lehmann, I. F., in Evaluation in Higher Education, Paul
Dressel (ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. (1961)
p. 357.

 

Saupe, Joe L., in Evaluation in Higher Education, Paul
Dressel (ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. (1961)
p. 447.

 

Warrington, W. G. Report to the Board of Trustees.
E. Lansing: Michigan State University, Jan. 10, 1964.
Mimeographed document. Table 1, p. 5.

 

Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph, Statistical Inference.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (1955) pp.
255—56.

 

Cronbach, Lee J. Coefficient Alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika 45: 297 (1951).

Ibid.

Ibid.

 

79.

80.

81.

82.

85.

84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.

95.

75

Anastasi, Anne, Psychological Testing, 2nd. ed.
New York: The Macmillan Co. (1961) pp. 105-54.

 

Feldt, Leonard S. Note on the use of extreme criterion
groups in item discrimination analysis. Psychometrika
_55: 97 (1965).

Truman, L. Kelly, The selection of upper and lower
groups for the validation of test items. J. Ed. Psyc.
5Q: 17 (1959).

Ebel, Robert L. Measuring Educational Achievement.
New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc. (1965) pp. 559-60.

 

Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph, pp. cit., Table XIII,
pp. 472—75.

Saupe, Joe L., pp, p4p., p. 451. I
Ebel, Robert L., pp. p45., p. 564. l
Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph, pp. p4p., p. 551.

4545., p. 201.

4545., p. 192.

Bradley, Robert L., loc. cit.

 

Dearden, Douglas M., loc. cit.

 

Bay, May S., loc. cit.

 

Trotter, Virginia Yapp, loc. cit.

 

Dearden, Douglas M., loc. cit.

‘I(|.‘ II)‘ “||r

APPENDICES

74

APPENDIX A

FN 200——Food Preparation
Fall Term, 1965
Laboratbry Outline I

 

 

Date Experiment Reading Assignment Quiz
Fri. Sept. 27 Food Measurement Text pp. 74-94
and Scoring Handbook of Food Prepa—
ration p. 18
Mon. Sept. 50 Crystallization Text pp. 475—486
Wed. Oct. 2 Vegetables I Text pp. 229-246
Fri. Oct. 4 Vegetables II
Mon. Oct. 7 Fruits
Wed. Oct. 9 Salads X
Fri. Oct. 11 Starch I Text pp. 516—529
pp. 597—600
Mon. Oct. 14 Starch II
Wed. Oct. 16 Effect of Heat
on Protein x
Fri. Oct. 18 Eggs I Text pp. 557—560
Mon. Oct. 21 Eggs II
Wed. Oct. 25 Gelatin Text pp. 428-452
Fri. Oct. 25 Foams I Text pp. 560—567
Mon. Oct. 28 Foams II Text pp. 514—521
Wed. Oct. 50 Milk Cookery Text pp. 509-514
Fri. Nov. 1 Cheese Text pp. 521-528
Mon. Nov. 4 Meat, Poultry,Fish

dry heat cookery Text pp. 402—416

75

 

76

 

Date Experiment Reading Assignment Quiz

 

Wed. Nov. 6 Meat,Poultry,Fish
moist heat cookery Text pp. 416—428

Fri. Nov. 8 Baked Products
gluten development X

Mon. Nov. 11 Baked Products
function of ingre— Text pp. 545—545,

dients 556—557
Wed. Nov. 15 Baked Products Text pp. 557—562,
manipulation 601—602

Fri. Nov. 15 Baked Products
steam leavening

 

Mon. Nov. 18 Baked Products
air leavening

Wed. Nov. 20 Baked Products Text pp. 595—596,
C02 leavening 605-615
(chemical)

Fri. Nov. 22 Baked Products Text pp. 585—594
C02 leavening
(yeast)

Mon. Nov. 25 Fats—-shortening
power Text pp. 554-556

Wed. Nov. 27 Special Assignment
Fri. Nov. 29 Holiday

Mon. Dec. 2 Fats—-emulsions
+ shortening power x

Wed. Dec. 4 Fats——deep fat
cookery

Fri. Dec. 6 Laboratory Final Exam

 

96
Classes cancelled (President Kennedy's Funeral)

 

77

 

HNMIHHm .Qm uNoB N HH mamom mN .uoo .Coz
SNMIOmm .mm meB N H mEmom mN .uoo .HHm
NMHINNH .mm uNoB N CHpmHomIImemeoHCB CHououm mN .Coo .poz
N mammIImuoCoNUHCB Cpronm HN .uoo .Coz
ONMISmm .mm uNoB N mmmm NH .uoo .Hum
N N CHououm Co Comm mo poommm NH .uoo .003
N HH roumpm HH .uoo .Coz
mNmImHm .mm pNoB N H Counpm HH .uoo .Hnm
N N mpmHmm m .qu .pw3
N muHsum S .uoo .uoz
N HH moHCmoomo> H .uuo .Hum
onIomm .CC uxoe x H moanouooo> N .600 .663
mmHImSH .mm HNdB N COHCCNHHHmCmNHO on .mem .COZ
NH .m COHumHmmoum
poom mo Nooanmm mCHCoom
HmIHS .mm pNoB N pCm uCoEmHCmmoz poom SN.Dmom .Hum
COHumuuw CoHme
NHSO quECmHmw< mCHpmwm ICoEwQ- Immoum NHODMHOQCH opmo
Hosomoe uCopdum

 

 

HH oCHHCSO NCODCCOQCH
mme .ECoB HHmm
ConmHomon COOMIIOON Zm

m NHQmem¢

78

 

AHCHQCCN m.>poCCmN pCopHmonv pmHHmUCmo mowmmHU NuHme>HCD
*

 

uCoECmHmm< HCHoomm SN .>oz .po3
OONISmm .wmmlemm .Qm uNoB N C®3om mCHCopCOCmIImumm mN .>oz .COE
Ix.

HmmImmm .Qm uNoB N humoohv mCHCo>moH moo
mpospoum poxwm NN .>oz .Hum

MHmImom .mmmImmm .mm pNoB AHCUHECCUV mCHCo>ooH moo
muonpoum poxmm ON .>oz .poB

N mCHCo>ooH CHM
muospoum poxmm wH .>oz .Coz

N mCHCo>m®H Eoopm
muosponm poxmm mH .>oz .Hum

NONIHON .NwmISmm .Qm DNoB N COHDCHSQHCCE .

mpospoum poxmm MH .>oz .poz

Smmemm .memlmem .mm uNoB N mpCoHponCH mo COHCOCCN
mpodpoum poxmm HH .>oz .Coz

N N pCoEmoHo>op CopsHm
muospoum poxmm w .>oz .HHm

mNHImHH .mm DNoB N NHwNooo Coo: pmHoE
CmHm pCm NHCHDON .Dooz w .>oz .poz

mHHINOH .md uNoB N Suwxoou umoC Sup
CmHm pCm NHDHCOC .pooz H .>OZ .Coz
NNMIHNM .mm uNoB N omoono H .>oz .Hnm
HHMIoom .oa axes x Sunrooo AHA: om .noo .663

COHDmHum COHDCH
NHCO uCoECmHmm< mCHpmom ICoEoQ Immoum Snowmnofloq opmm

Hmsomma qupCum

 

poSCHuCoo I m NHQZMNNN

79

 

 

 

mem HCCHm NHOpmquoq m .000 .Hum
N NH0MOOO Cow Q00pllmpom w .O0Q .p03
N N H030m mCHC0DHOCm
+ wConHCE0IImumm N .000 .C02
mooHHom om .>oz .Hum
COHummpm COHumH
NHDO DC0ECmHmm¢ mCHpo0m ICOE0Q Iom0nm NCODCHOQCH 0Com
H0C000B CC0USDm

 

 

p0DCHDCOU I m NHQmemd

APPENDIX C

FN 200
Pretest and Questionnaire
III—B

Introductory Note: The primary purpose of this pretest is
to help your instructors determine which
subject matter areas planned for EN 200
may need special emphasis for the mem—
bers of your class. RESULTS OF THIS TEST
WILL NOT BE USED IN THE DETERMINATION OF
YOUR FINAL GRADE IN THE COURSE.

Directions: In each of the following multiple—choice
questions there is only ppp correct answer
listed. Record your answers on the scor—
ing sheet provided. If you are not sure
or do not know the answer to a specific
question, indicate it by marking number 5
(Do Not Know) on your scoring sheet. Be
sure to record only one answer for each
question. When you have completed the
test, check your scoring sheet to be sure
you have recorded a total of 19 answers.

 

 

1. The commercial process used for converting edible oils
into solid fats is known as:
1. Hydrogenation
2 Oxidation
5. Hydrolysis
4. Saponification
5. Do not know.

2. Which of the following is an example of a disaccharide
1. Glucose
2. Cellulose
5. Galactose
4. Sucrose
5. Do not know.

5. When organic acids combine with glycerol to form glycerol
esters, the resulting product is generally referred to as:
1. A starch or sugar
2. A fat or oil
5. A protein
4. An amino acid
5. Do not know.

80

Ip.

CD

9.

81

An example of a material composed largely of polyhydroxy
aldehyde and ketone molecules is:

1 Vitamin A

2. Sugar

5. Butter

4. Amino Acid

5. Do not know.

The term “pH" is used to express:
1. Specific gravity
2. Hydrolysis
5. Ions in solution
4. Acidity and alkalinity
5. Do not know.

A Centigrade temperature measurement may be easily con—
verted to its Fahrenheit equivalent by the following
formula:

1. (9/5 x 0c) — 32
2. (5/9 x 0C) - 32
3. (9/5 x 0c) + 32
4. (5/9 x 0c) + 32
5. Do not know.

To reduce cooking losses (shrinkage) in meat, poultry or
fish which of the following is an advisable procedure?
1. Cook at a low temperature for a long time
2. Cook at a high temperature for a long time
5. Cook by charcoal broiling
4. Cook in a pressure saucepan
5. Do not know.

A rib roast that has a round purple stamp on the exterior
fat stating (in part) "InSpected and Passed" indicates:
1. The animal that produced the roast was healthy at
the time of slaughter
2. The roast has been inspected by the local Board of
Health
5. The roast is of U. S. Prime Grade
4. The roast should be cooked by a moist heat method
(such as stewing)
5. Do not know.

A basic factor to consider when choosing a cooking method
for a piece of meat, poultry or fish is:

The type of bone present in the cut

. The type of connective tissue present in the cut
The type of fat present in the cut

. Whether the cut is fresh or frozen, then thawed

Do not know.

1
2
5
4
5

 

10.

11.

12.

15.

14.

15.

82

Which one of the following foods would be the best source
of high quality protein (protein composed of the amino
acids essential for growth)?

1. Enriched bread

2. Navy beans

5. Gelatin

4. Eggs

5. Do not know.

To delay or prevent rancidity a product high in fat, such
as corn oil, should be stored:

1. In a humid atmOSphere

2. In a air-tight container

5. In a copper lined container

4. At a temperature of 800E or above

5. Do not know.

To minimize the amount of fat absorbed by a food during
the frying process:
1. Use a fat such as margarine to fry food in
2. Use a fat such as butter to fry food in
5. Use a fairly high cooking temperature (5600 F)
4. Use a moderate to low cooking temperature (212
5. Do not know.

OF)

In a baked product, such as cake, which of the following
ingredients functions as a tenderizer for the product?

. Sugar

. Eggs

. Milk

. Flour

. Do not know.

O'II-PCNNH

A reaction whereby starch molecules are broken into shorter
chains may occur when:
1. Starch is heated (such as in boiling potatoes)
2. Starch is subjected to dry heat (such as in toasting
a slice of bread)
5. Starch (present in flour) is used in preparing
bread dough
4. Starch is used in making chocolate pudding
5. Do not know.

The formation of large crystals of sugar in a cooked
fudge frosting, giving a "gritty" texture, may result
from:

1. Beating the frosting after some cooling ($00 OF)

2. Beating the frosting while it is hot (212 F)

5. Using cream of tartar in the recipe

4. Using corn sirup in the recipe

5. Do not know.

85

16. When making gravy, a smooth product may most easily be
produced by

1. Cooking the gravy at a lower temperature (2120 F)

2 Cooking the gravy at a high temperature (5500 F)

5. Adding liquid to the meat drippings in the pan,
stirring then adding flour and stirring until
thickened

4. Adding flour to meat drippings in the pan, stirring,
then adding liquid and stirring until the mixture
has thickened

5. Do not know.

17. To prevent undesirable bacterial growth in food:

1. Be particularly cautious when storing foods largely
of fatty composition

2. Be particularly cautious when storing foods largely
of carbohydrate composition

5. Use 150-1700F as a steam table temperature for hold—
ing foods to be served to customers

4. Use 100—1200F as a steam table temperature for hold-
ing foods to be served to customers

5. Do not know.

 

18. One tablespoon is equivalent to:
1. 2 teaspoons
2. 5 teaspoons
5. 4 teaspoons
4. 5 teaspoons
5. Do not know.

19. Three—fourths (5/4) of a cup is equivalent to:
1. 11 tablespoons
2. 12 tablespoons
5. 15 tablespoons
4. 14 tablespoons
5. Do not know.

84

Questionnaire

1. Name

 

2. Student Number

 

5. Grade Level (please check):

Sophomore Junior Senior

Other (please specify)

 

4. Specific Major (please check):
Dietetics
Foods

Hotel, Motel and Club Management

 

Home Economics Education
Institutional and Hospital Management
Research in Foods and Nutrition
Restaurant Management

Other (please specify)

 

5. Previous Food Preparation Experience (please check):
Type of Experience Length of Experience (in months)
High School ———
4-H Club——
Armed Forces ———
Restaurant —-
Hotel or Resort——

Other (please ppecify)-——

APPENDIX D
Student Evaluation of FN 200

Date

 

Laboratory Section

Code Letter

Note: By the use of check marks (x) indicate for each item

whether "greatly," "moderately,” "little,” or ”none"
best expresses what you have gained through your ex-
perience in FN 200.

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME.

 

Greatly Moder— Little
ately

None

 

As a result of my experience
in EN 200, my over all knowl-
edge of foods has increased.

 

FN 200 has contributed to my
vocational preparation.

 

My knowledge of important
facts and terms in foods has
increased.

 

The clarity of the EN 200
course objectives (what I
have been expected to learn)
has contributed to my
progress in the course.

 

The examinations and quizzes
in EN 200 influenced my atti—
tude concerning the course.

 

My previous work in chemistry
contributed to my understand—
ing of EN 200.

 

My ability to make practical
applications in the area of
foods has increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

86

APPENDIX D - Continued

 

Greatly

Moder—

ately

Little

None

 

The lecture portion of EN 200
has increased my understand—
ing of the basic principles
of food preparation.

 

LO
0

The laboratory portion of
EN 200 has increased my under—
standing of the basic princi—
ples of food preparation.

 

10.

The lecture portion of FN 200
has caused my interest in
foods to grow.

 

11.

The laboratory portion of
FN 200 has caused my interest
in foods to grow.

 

12.

I have enjoyed the lecture
portion of FN 200.

 

15.

I have enjoyed the laboratory
portion of EN 200.

 

14.

Demonstrations, presented by
the instructor, increased my
satisfaction with the labora—
tory portion of EN 200.

 

15.

Laboratories involving student
preparation of products, in-
creased my satisfaction with
the laboratory portion of

EN 200.

 

16.

As a result of my experience
in EN 200, my interest in tak—
ing more foods courses has
increased.

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE WRITE IN YOUR COMMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

17. The one thing I 44ked most about lecture was

 

 

 

87

18. The one thing I liked most about laboratory was

 

 

19. The one thing I disliked most about lecture was

 

 

 

20. The one thing I disliked most about laboratory was

 

 

 

   

“'IIII'IIIIIIIIILIIIII'IIIIIIII'IIIIIIIII’II“