View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Research Study on an Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development Course for College Sophomores

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Research Study on an Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development Course for College Sophomores
Language: English
Authors: Condrasky, Margaret D. (ORCID 0000-0002-6364-196X), Weeks McCay, Alexa, Darby, Duncan, Sharp, Julia L., Griffin, Sarah F.
Source: Journal of Food Science Education. Apr 2018 17(2):66-71.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 6
Publication Date: 2018
Sponsoring Agency: US Department of Agriculture
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Industry, Undergraduate Students, Student Research, Program Effectiveness, Control Groups, Experimental Groups, Comparative Analysis, Interdisciplinary Approach, Foods Instruction, Nutrition, Manufacturing, Experiential Learning, Food, Knowledge Level, Skill Development, Questionnaires, Student Attitudes, Teamwork
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4329.12135
ISSN: 1541-4329
Abstract: This research compares the industry readiness, product development skill level, and overall knowledge gains of students taking an undergraduate research course (treatment) to those who did not (control). This 2-semester Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development (AIPD) course for sophomores brought together interdisciplinary teams of food science, nutrition, and packaging science students in a hands-on setting to create healthy food products for children, complete with retail packaging. A Subject Knowledge Assessment (SKA) was used to evaluate the mean percent difference value (MPDV) of food science, nutrition, packaging science, and general product development knowledge gained through the course. SKA results indicated that the MPDV were significantly different (a = 0.05) between the treatment and comparison groups in the overall score and in every subject area score except packaging science. Data from an Exit Questionnaire (EQ) was used for evaluation of attitudes pertaining to product development knowledge and skills, department engagement, and pedagogy. EQ results indicated that mean scores between the treatment and comparison groups were significantly different (a = 0.05) in 7 of the 9 statements on product development knowledge and skills, both statements pertaining to pedagogy, and the statement pertaining to department engagement. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores at the University. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores in the Food, Nutrition and Packaging Science department at Clemson University. The student-lead teams were held to a greater degree of accountability for their success in terms of education gleaned and value of experience gained as metric for the University and other IFT Accredited programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1176221
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHLECuQ3cMWgMHY6lNXNZKLAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAVnVJeaRWTVrFzgggIBEICBmwDusQbeVE5pGksL3Z1DUsyLpNEQ-3wlpvc_AJpvBIQxVHYU5_KxRq6UyQ05PkTh8HVcjBIpF1SXdYnh8O1SUX0FqeZ429prwmuPrAPohhRENqlkbI5qSQCa9f1Q8I31Fw-7T9lEfbzCNM3Egm0fG2ARdeVTGlz4o0R8fX386Gl_GZ4XMAiE4cEhswhCj6vqC-RhvciST52rBpkw
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0129102981;[2yg1]01apr.18;2018Apr18.11:16;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0129102981-1">Research Study on an Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development Course for College Sophomores </title> <p>Abstract: This research compares the industry readiness, product development skill level, and overall knowledge gains of students taking an undergraduate research course (treatment) to those who did not (control). This 2‐semester Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development (AIPD) course for sophomores brought together interdisciplinary teams of food science, nutrition, and packaging science students in a hands‐on setting to create healthy food products for children, complete with retail packaging. A Subject Knowledge Assessment (SKA) was used to evaluate the mean percent difference value (MPDV) of food science, nutrition, packaging science, and general product development knowledge gained through the course. SKA results indicated that the MPDV were significantly different (<italic>α</italic> = 0.05) between the treatment and comparison groups in the overall score and in every subject area score except packaging science. Data from an Exit Questionnaire (EQ) was used for evaluation of attitudes pertaining to product development knowledge and skills, department engagement, and pedagogy. EQ results indicated that mean scores between the treatment and comparison groups were significantly different (<italic>α</italic> = 0.05) in 7 of the 9 statements on product development knowledge and skills, both statements pertaining to pedagogy, and the statement pertaining to department engagement. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores at the University. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores in the Food, Nutrition and Packaging Science department at Clemson University. The student‐lead teams were held to a greater degree of accountability for their success in terms of education gleaned and value of experience gained as metric for the University and other IFT Accredited programs.</p> <p>food science; education; packaging; sensory attributes</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-2">Introduction</hd> <p>This 2 semester course on product development for sophomore students in the Food, Nutrition and Packaging Science (FNPS) department at Clemson Univ. is a uniquely designed course titled: Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development (AIPD) for Sophomore Students. The term “applied” refers to the hands‐on learning the students experience when they create their own food products. Students are held accountable for the success of their product, which can result in a greater sense of achievement and empowerment (Kayes [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>] ). This course is interdisciplinary, involving both students and professors in each of the disciplines of food science, human nutrition, and packaging science. Interdisciplinary teaching and education provide students an opportunity to glean new or greater understanding of one's own and other disciplines (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>] ). It also actively shows a student the ways in which their chosen discipline can interact with other disciplines. One way in which the majors of food science, nutrition and packaging science interact in the industry is in product development. As common discipline of all of these majors and the largest area of employment among food scientists (BLS [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>] ), it is important that students have some experience with product development before entering the industry. Food science students at the University are required to take a product development class, as a senior capstone course. By introducing the subject earlier on, such as in the AIPD course, students are able to build upon their knowledge of product development throughout their academic career, and will be 1 step ahead for their senior‐level product development course. With respect to the packaging sciences and human nutrition students who take the AIPD course, product development is not incorporated into their required courses making the AIPD course a unique and beneficial experience for them. Sophomores are the students targeted to take the AIPD course in order to help them feel engaged with the department at a time in their college career called the “sophomore slump,” characterized by feelings of uncertainty about their major or career path, dissatisfaction with the college experience, and disengagement with the university (Tobolowsky and Cox [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>] ). At the time sophomores take the product development class, they will have only had introductory courses. The AIPD course is therefore one of the first courses they will take in their major concentration.</p> <p>The inquiry‐based structure of the course was designed to promote student self‐efficacy in both product development and undergraduate research. Self‐efficacy is a component of Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and is defined as one's beliefs in producing certain desired effects by their own actions (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>] ). The student‐ led teams were held to a greater degree of accountability for success of education gleaned and value of experience gained as metric for the University and other IFT Accredited programs.</p> <p>The initiation of this course was made possible by the United States Dept. of Education Challenge Grants Program, and the Creative Inquiry (CI) undergraduate research program at the University. The USDA Higher Education Challenge (HEC) grant led to addressing the national need of developing possible solutions for declining childhood nutrition (USDA [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>] ). The CI program concentrates on encouraging student and faculty participation in engaging activities for students in all disciplines and allows undergraduates to participate in research opportunities that would normally not be accessible to them. The goal of the project is to more clearly demonstrate why new product experience is important. Groups create a child product with key outcomes to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) increase discipline knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>) hone communication and presentation skills, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>) increase level of student engagement in the FNPS department, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>) increase positive experiential learning leading to higher levels of industry readiness.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-3">Methods</hd> <hd id="AN0129102981-4">Course description</hd> <p>The course was taught over 2 semesters. During the first semester students met once per week for 50 min, and class material included introductory lectures on food science, childhood nutrition, sensory evaluation, basic culinary skills, packaging science, materials, and product development. Students also participated in semi‐weekly 3‐h laboratory experiences. Labs were focused on activities such as culinary and packaging lab tours, a visit to a local elementary school to experience the daily menu as well as tour the food service kitchen, an evaluation of current products marketed towards children, cooking demonstrations, industry visits, and practice ideation activities. During the ideation activities, students were placed into interdisciplinary groups of 3 or 4 to work through a theoretical scenario. For example, in 1 ideation activity, students were to think as if they were the owners of a new food truck, and had to decide upon a cuisine to serve. With this in mind, students considered the food science, nutrition, packaging science as well as marketing aspects that would come into play if they were to make this theoretical scenario into a reality.</p> <p>During the 2nd semester, the students were placed into groups to develop products that focused on childhood nutrition. Each group of 4 to 5 students consisted of at least 1 food science (nutrition), food science (Culinology), and packaging science student. Each week, the product development groups would meet for 50 min, working throughout the semester to develop an original, healthy children's food product along with a point of purchase package for the product. Students also learned about and experienced the sensory evaluation process by taking their products to a local elementary school and conducting focus groups. The children gave the product development groups feedback on their products, which was useful to remake and re‐formulate the products to improve each product's acceptability. All groups were required to complete a final product report, which included a market analysis, gold standard recipe, commercial formula, nutrition profile (nutrition facts panel, ingredient declaration, allergens, nutrient claims), packaging information (design, graphics, materials), focus group results, and a product photo. The course was team‐taught by 3 professors in the Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science Dept. at the University. Other members of the department often participated as consultants for the groups during the second semester product development.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-5">Participants</hd> <p>In order to recruit participants, short presentations about the course were given in introductory courses within the Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science Dept. at the University. The presentations outlined the goal, activities, and benefits of the course. Students were asked to provide contact information if they were willing to participate. Students who expressed interest were divided into 2 groups; the treatment group who participated in the AIPD course and the control group who did not take the course but served as a comparison. The purpose of the control group was to compare the survey results from the control group to the survey results of the treatment group in order to determine if the 2 groups exhibited significantly different knowledge and confidence gains, based on the results from the student surveys. The learning objectives of the control were the same as for all students enrolled their curriculum of choice. This group still took courses in the curriculum, just not the creative inquiry course with many meetings. Research participants were required to be enrolled in the department with a declared major in either food science (with an emphasis in human nutrition or Culinology®) or packaging science. At least 70% of both the test and control groups were required to be sophomore‐level (second year) undergraduate students.</p> <p>There were 37 students in the treatment group and 31 students in the control group. Significant differences did not exist (α = 0.05) between the treatment and control groups based on major (P = 0.4210), class standing (P = 0.9510), gender (P = 1.0000), age (P = 0.8580), ethnicity (P = 1.0000), or grade point average (P = 0.4880) based on Fisher's Exact Test.</p> <p>Participants in the control group met twice each semester for a brief social event and to reconfirm participation. Each control group student met individually with the graduate research assistant at the beginning of the first semester and again at the end of the second semester to complete evaluation surveys. This research study was approved by the Clemson Univ. Office of Research Compliance Institutional Review Board IRB2012_249 (PPN2012001075). During the course of research 2 cohorts of students participated over a 3‐y period including 2 control groups and 2 treatment groups.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-6">Subject knowledge assessment</hd> <p>All research participants completed the Subject Knowledge Assessment (SKA) before and after the course. The SKA consisted of 30 multiple choice and 15 free response questions on food science, nutrition, packaging science, and general product development topics. The test‐retest reliability of the SKA was measured before the course began. For the test, Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR‐20) was 0.64. For the retest, KR‐20 was 0.75. The participant scores on the SKA did not count toward overall course grades. Prior to analysis, the normality assumption was verified. Participants in both the treatment and control groups completed the SKA before the course (pre‐) and after the course (post‐). The difference between the pre‐ and postscores was determined by subtracting the prescore from the postscore for each individual participant. The mean percent difference value (MPDV) represents the average difference in scores for each group and subject area. The MPDV was used as the primary measurement of performance comparison between the 2 groups. The differences between the treatment and control groups’ MPDV for each subject area were analyzed using a Paired Sample Satterthwaite t‐test (α = 0.05).</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-7">Exit questionnaire‐quantitative</hd> <p>At the conclusion of the course, all of the research participants completed an Exit Questionnaire (EQ). The EQ consisted of 2 sections. The first section measured the level of agreement (where 1 = “strongly disagree,” 3 = “neither disagree or agree,” and 5 = “strongly agree”) with statements pertaining to product development knowledge and skills, pedagogy, department engagement, and industry readiness. The difference between the treatment and control groups’ level of agreement with each statement was analyzed using a two‐sided Wilcoxon rank‐sum t‐test (α = 0.05).</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-8">Exit questionnaire‐qualitative</hd> <p>The second section consisted of free response questions regarding motivation for participation and feedback on the course structure and design. This qualitative data was analyzed and coded by 3 trained reviewers. An Associate Professor in Public Health Sciences at Clemson Univ., trained the reviewers through a workshop, which included practice coding. During the primary analysis, the reviewers identified key codes for responses to each question. During the next phase of analysis, 2 reviewers coded each response independently and then compared their coded responses. The inter‐rater reliability scores of the 3 reviewers were determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient. If reviewers were in disagreement about codes for a response, they would discuss all possible codes and come to a consensus together on the final code. The inter‐rater reliability scores were 0.72, 0.72, and 0.86, which were deemed acceptable. Consensus on a final code was reached by each pair of coders for all responses.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-9">Results and Discussion</hd> <hd id="AN0129102981-10">Subject knowledge assessment</hd> <p>The Mean Percent Difference Value (MPDV) and standard error in the overall scores as well as the scores for each subject area of the SKA are shown in Table . The MPDV represents the average percent difference in scores from pretest to posttest out of a total score of 100%. Significant differences existed (P < 0.05) between the treatment and control groups MDV for the overall SKA and in all subject areas except for the packaging subject area. The general knowledge subject area exhibited the largest standard error for both groups. The only area that showed a decrease in score was the central group's food science scores. Since control students were sophomores and had not yet taken any food science courses, students most likely completed the SKA using random guessing, which could be the cause of the unexpected decrease in scores.</p> <p>Mean percent difference values (MPDV) and standard error of overall and subject area scores of treatment and control groups—exit questionnaire quanti</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tr><th /><th>Mean difference values (MDV)</th><th /></tr><tr><th>Subject area</th><th>Treatment (%)</th><th>Control (%)</th><th>P value</th></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td>14.66 ± 1.38</td><td>3.98 ± 1.86</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Food Science</td><td>21.34 ± 2.27</td><td>–4.07 ± 3.21</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Nutrition</td><td>17.41 ± 2.55</td><td>7.96 ± 2.92</td><td>0.0178</td></tr><tr><td>Packaging</td><td>9.37 ± 2.64</td><td>10.75 ± 3.05</td><td>0.7341</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>13.06 ± 3.24</td><td>0.81 ± 3.31</td><td>0.0102</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *MPDV were significantly different (α = 0.05).</p> <p>Figure shows a graphical representation of the MPDV in the overall SKA and individual subject area scores of the treatment and control groups. The error bars shown on the graph represent the standard error for each category. The food science subject area scores for the control group presented the only negative MDV for either group or subject area.</p> <p>The results of the SKA were mostly consistent with expectations. The MDV were significantly different between the treatment and control groups in the overall score and in every subject score area except packaging science. Although the MDV for both groups in this subject area was not significantly different, both groups showed improvement in packaging science knowledge. By the end of their sophomore year, packaging science students will have taken 6 courses in the department, many of which include experiential elements such as labs. It is possible that the packaging science information that was presented as part of this course was reiterative and therefore did not yield a significant increase in the packaging science knowledge of the treatment group over the control group, especially those enrolled in packaging science. The relatively small proportion of packaging science students in both groups (and the small total sample size) may have played a role in the level of packaging science knowledge as well.</p> <p>Although nutrition and Culinology® students gained competency in packaging subject knowledge through the AIPD course, they are cognizant of the limitations of their knowledge, even at the conclusion of the course. Many were aware that they were not yet fully competent in the packaging science component of product development.</p> <p>The greatest increase in mean score occurred in the food science subject by the treatment group. In this same subject area, the only negative MDV was observed in the control group score. By the end of the sophomore year, food science students will, at most, have taken 3 classes within the department. Some food science participants in the treatment group stated that they had no prior courses focused on nutrition or Culinology®. For them, this course served as an introduction to both subject areas as well as packaging science.</p> <p>The second greatest gap in MDV occurred in the general knowledge subject area. This section included questions specific to product development. The product development courses currently offered in the FNPS Dept. are offered at the junior‐ and senior‐level. For students in both majors, the course served as an introduction to the product development, which could explain the substantial gap in MDV between the treatment and control groups.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-11">Exit questionnaire‐quantitative</hd> <p>The EQ consisted of 2 sections. Shown in Table are the results of the first section, which are the mean scores for the level of agreement (where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”) with statements pertaining to product development skills, pedagogy, department engagement, and industry readiness for both the treatment and control groups. Results indicated that treatment group students felt significantly more confident than the control group at generating ideas for new products (P = 0.0025), collecting marketing information and conducting a market analysis (P ≤ 0.0001), developing a gold standard recipe (P ≤ 0.0001), developing a formula (P ≤ 0.0001), applying changes to a recipe or formula to make it healthier (P ≤ 0.0001), collecting commercial ingredients and/or commercial materials (P = 0.0003), developing healthy food products for children (P = 0.0001), and collaborating with students in other fields of study (P ≤ 0.0001).</p> <p>Means scores for level of agreement to EQ quantitative statements by treatment and control groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tr><th>Exit questionnaire (EQ) statements</th><th>Treatment group**</th><th>Control group**</th><th>P value</th></tr><tr><td>I feel confident generating ideas for new products.</td><td>4.27 ± 0.70</td><td>3.61 ± 0.92</td><td>0.0025</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident collecting marketing information and conducting a market analysis.</td><td>4.08 ± 0.81</td><td>2.90 ± 0.94</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident developing a gold standard recipe.</td><td>4.11 ± 0.75</td><td>2.55 ± 1.03</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident developing a formula.</td><td>4.17 ± 0.79</td><td>2.61 ± 0.92</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident applying changes to a recipe or formula to make it healthier.</td><td>4.53 ± 0.51</td><td>3.58 ± 1.09</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident collecting commercial ingredients and/or commercial materials.</td><td>3.94 ± 0.79</td><td>2.94 ± 1.03</td><td>0.0003</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident estimating cost for a new product.</td><td>3.03 ± 1.03</td><td>2.77 ± 0.96</td><td>0.3505</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident designing packaging for new products.</td><td>3.19 ± 1.17</td><td>2.94 ± 1.15</td><td>0.3916</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident developing healthy food products for children.</td><td>4.53 ± 0.51</td><td>3.26 ± 1.29</td><td>0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I learn more from hands‐on experiences than lectures.</td><td>4.81 ± 0.47</td><td>4.35 ± 0.71</td><td>0.0035</td></tr><tr><td>I feel confident collaborating with students that are not in my major or field of study.</td><td>4.75 ± 0.55</td><td>4.16 ± 0.52</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>I feel connected to the Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science department.</td><td>4.81 ± 0.40</td><td>4.10 ± 0.65</td><td><0.0001</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 *EQ responses for treatment and control groups were significantly different (α = 0.05). **1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.</p> <p>The treatment group also felt significantly more connected to the Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science Dept. (P ≤0.0001) and more able to learn from hands‐on experiences (P ≤ 0.0035).</p> <p>No significant difference existed between the treatment and control groups in terms of level of confidence in estimating cost for a new product (P ≤ 0.3505) or designing packaging for new products (P ≤ 0.3916).</p> <p>Although results for statements pertaining to industry readiness (‘I feel confident interacting and networking with industry professionals’, ‘I feel confident that I will meet the expectations of my future employer’, and ‘I feel confident being an advocate for my industry and/or field of study’) were not significantly different between the groups, the means for both groups tended towards agreement with these statements.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-12">Exit questionnaire‐qualitative</hd> <p>The second section of the EQ provided meaningful insights into the course design and implementation, results of which are shown in Table and . Treatment group participants gleaned a substantial amount of knowledge in the areas of product development, childhood nutrition, and the research process. However, many students did not deem the amount of packaging science that was incorporated into the curriculum and activities as sufficient.</p> <p>Key themes found in control participant responses—EQ qualitative</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="1"><tr><th>Key themes</th></tr><tr><td>Motivation for Participation</td></tr><tr><td>Provide assistance for department, faculty, graduate researcher, and/or research project</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement in the department and/or college</td></tr><tr><td>Resume builder</td></tr><tr><td>Department Engagement</td></tr><tr><td>Able to contribute information for department, graduate researcher, and/or research project</td></tr><tr><td>Able to interact with department and faculty members</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Key themes found in treatment participant responses to the EQ qualitative</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="2"><tr><th>Key themes</th><th>np</th></tr><tr><td>Motivation for Participation</td></tr><tr><td>To gain knowledge in product development, healthy cooking, food industry, or other fields of study</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>To gain hands‐on experience in product development</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interact with faculty and students in other majors</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Department Engagement</td></tr><tr><td>Able to interact with department members and students</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Able to gain knowledge in other fields of study</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Able to gain hands‐on experience in culinary and packaging labs</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Advantages as a Sophomore Student</td></tr><tr><td>Able to gain experience in one's own field of study and career opportunities</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to prepare for future courses or future application</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Able to gain a competitive advantage over other sophomore students in terms of overall knowledge</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Disadvantages as a Sophomore Student</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of prior knowledge or applicable courses</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits of Interaction with Students in Other Majors</td></tr><tr><td>Gained knowledge in other fields of study</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Gained experience collaborating and/or working on a cross‐functional product development team</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits in Terms of Overall Gains in Knowledge</td></tr><tr><td>Gained knowledge in the product development process</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Gained knowledge in nutrition, especially children's nutrition</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits of Course in Terms of Overall Gains in Product Development Experience</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Gained knowledge in product development process, resources, and methods</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Gained cross‐functional and problem‐solving experience</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Suggestions for Course Improvement</td></tr><tr><td>More clarity in terms of course description, goals for the course, and time commitment</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>More information and hands‐on experience in packaging science</td><td>7</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The response to working in interdisciplinary teams was exceptionally positive. In general, students embraced the 2‐semester course format and experiential elements. Some students commented on the desire for more structure, greater clarity in objectives, and well‐defined deadlines for each portion of the final project. To provide such structure would be counter intuitive to the inquiry‐based experiential learning structure. The aim of this type of learning is to allow the students to define their own path in order to solve a problem or address a scenario.</p> <p>It was very revealing to observe the overwhelming number of control group students that were motivated to participate in the research project because of a genuine desire to provide assistance and information for the sake of research. It is encouraging to see students in the agricultural field actively supporting research without compensation. Many control group participants also felt a greater sense of engagement with the department through interaction with the graduate researcher and the faculty members conducting the research.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-13">Discussion</hd> <p>The Exit Questionnaire (both the qualitative and quantitative sections) provided insights pertaining to the success of the pedagogical techniques as well as the efforts to increase student engagement with the Food Nutrition and Packaging Sciences Dept. at the University.</p> <p>Another evaluation tool, the Subject Knowledge Assessment (SKA), denoted the substantial growth in food science subject knowledge and knowledge of the product development process as well as improvements in packaging science subject knowledge. Reflections from students involved in the course showed that they liked being able to interact with department faculty and staff as well as students from other disciplines that they normally would not have interacted with at all. Working with these interdisciplinary teams of undergraduate students, the faculty was allowed to hear new ideas, help with new challenges and be challenged themselves. Another study about the relationship between undergraduates and their academic department found that student‐faculty interaction beyond lectures, especially intellectual‐focused conversations, increased a student's satisfaction with their department (Cho and Auger [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>] ). This supported the outcomes of this study as well.</p> <p>The students also enjoyed the ability to gain knowledge in other fields of study and hands‐on experience in culinary and packaging labs, which are not included in other courses in the department. This experience of interacting with different fields as well as working in other labs prepares students for future careers when they are not limited to 1 department, but must work with all of the departments to achieve a final product.</p> <p>Some suggestions for modification included that students would have liked more information and hands‐on experience in the packaging discipline. With the unique interdisciplinary focus of the course, students in the nutrition and Culinology® disciplines wanted to work closer with the packaging team member and department on that aspect of the final product. They were able to take a tour of the lab and make decisions about the packaging, but wanted a larger role in actually creating the package, as they believed it would be beneficial to their future careers. More nutrition‐related speakers were also requested by the students. In the current curriculum, nutrition topics and trends are introduced by professors and many of the first semester activities include nutrition as a topic. The idea of hearing from the USDA or nutritionists that work with the National School Lunch Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program enforces the importance of nutrition for children. The goals of these programs are to provide healthy and nutritious snacks or full breakfasts and lunches to children and adults (USDA [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>] ). Helping these programs with the products from this course is a more obtainable goal than the grocery store shelf. Bringing in speakers who work under the regulations and take on the trends of lowering sodium and increasing whole grains every day will bring nutrition goals to the forefront of students’ minds better than a book.</p> <p>The food science and technology degree program in the Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science Dept. at Clemson Univ. is accredited by both the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) and the Academy for Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). The Culinology® emphasis track is also approved by the Research Chefs Association (RCA). These accreditations and approvals give Clemson Univ. more opportunities to develop courses like this one and in turn, increase the industry readiness of students. A recent study surveyed graduates and employers in the food science discipline on graduate industry readiness based on IFT core competencies (Saad [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>] ). Employers stated that knowledge outside of the classroom and beyond the transcript was more important, including oral communication, written communication, public speaking, motivating and managing others, and effective group leadership. Using projects to challenge students in problem‐solving, writing, and analytical reasoning and to apply their classroom knowledge to real world problems, is valued more by employers and noted by graduates as one of the most beneficial learning styles once they entered the industry. The study also found that incorporating group projects into classes should be done more in the food science curriculum so that graduates learn to work with varying group dynamics before entering industry (Bohlscheid and Clark [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>] ). Clemson Univ.'s AIPD course focuses on all of these competencies and many of the common EQ responses from the treatment group focused on these competencies as well. It is reassuring to learn that participants are recognizing these important competencies in the AIPD course of incorporating group work, writing, analytical reasoning, and problem solving while working on the real world problem of developing healthy products for children.</p> <hd id="AN0129102981-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>At the onset of the research project, 4 key outcomes for the treatment students were outlined for this research project: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>) increase discipline knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>) hone communication and presentation skills, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>) increase level of student engagement in the FNPS department, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>) increase positive experiential learning leading to higher levels of industry readiness. Each of these outcomes was observed during this initial phase of the research project. The second outcome will be measured after the students complete their undergraduate degree. These positive outcomes indicated the success of AIPD as an innovative interdisciplinary pedagogy for engaging students in food and agricultural sciences and as a means to increase undergraduate skills pertaining to the product development process. The sophomore year was the plan for the project with 1 cohort. As the research team continues to review and meet with students and faculty we anticipate continuing the creative inquiry course as an offering within the curriculum.</p> <p>The knowledge gleaned through this research project will extend beyond the walls of the FNPS Dept. and Clemson Univ. Outcomes of this research will be of significant interest to professional organizations such as the Research Chefs Association (RCA), the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), and the North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA). Dissemination of the successful pedagogy and lessons learned through this research project will continue to be presented in the coming years. As the course is continued at Clemson Univ., results and lessons learned will aid in the continued development of materials that will be distributed to other universities for implementation into their own agricultural education programs. Videos and online modules can be made from current lectures that can be easily accessed online for other programs to pull from or use to start their own interdisciplinary course. A pilot study using this online dissemination method was run at a southeastern land grant university and yielded favorable results, suggesting this as a viable option for other universities in the future. In the view of our research team, the concept could be considered in other academic areas, but the results of this study are not generalizable to other academic areas. Lessons learned through these courses may be applied to future research concerning student engagement, recruitment of students into the agricultural education pipeline, and enhancing student competency in the area of childhood nutrition.</p> <ref id="AN0129102981-15"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Project supported by a USDA Higher Education Challenge Grant. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0129102981-16"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibtext>Bandura A. 1998. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health 13:623–49. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>BLS and United States Department of Labor. 2013. Occupation employment and wages. Food Scientists and Technologists Available from: <ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes191012.htm">http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes191012.htm</ulink>. Accessed 2014 June 15. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Bohlscheid J, Clark S. 2012. Career preparedness survey outcomes of food science graduates—a follow‐up assessment. J Food Sci Educ 11:8–15. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Cho M, Auger G. 2013. Exploring determinants of relationship quality between students and their academic department: perceived relationship investment, student empowerment, and student–faculty interaction. Journal Mass Commun Educat 68:255–68. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Hayes C. 2002. Innovations in interdisciplinary teaching. Westport, CT: Oryx Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Kayes DC. 2002. Experiential learning and its critics: preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Acad Manag Learning Educ 1:137–49 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Saad E. 2010. Synthesis of opinions from the food manufacturing industry, academia representatives, and undergraduate students reviewed to highlight the skills, knowledge and attitudes applied to the product development process [MS thesis]. Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Tobolowsky BF, Cox B. 2007. Shedding light on sophomores: an exploration of the second college year. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First‐Year Experience & Students in Transition. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Higher Education Challenge (HEC) Grant Program. Available from: <ulink href="http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/highereducationchallenge.cfm">http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/highereducationchallenge.cfm</ulink>. Accessed 2014 June 15. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref12" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Available from: <ulink href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program">http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program</ulink>. Accessed 2014 June 15. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Mean difference values (MPDV) and standard error of overall and subject area scores of treatment and control groups.</p> <aug> <p>By Margaret D. Condrasky; Alexa Weeks McCay; Duncan Darby; Julia L. Sharp and Sarah F. Griffin</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1176221
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Research Study on an Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development Course for College Sophomores
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Condrasky%2C+Margaret+D%2E%22">Condrasky, Margaret D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6364-196X">0000-0002-6364-196X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weeks+McCay%2C+Alexa%22">Weeks McCay, Alexa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Darby%2C+Duncan%22">Darby, Duncan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sharp%2C+Julia+L%2E%22">Sharp, Julia L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Griffin%2C+Sarah+F%2E%22">Griffin, Sarah F.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Food+Science+Education%22"><i>Journal of Food Science Education</i></searchLink>. Apr 2018 17(2):66-71.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: US Department of Agriculture
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industry%22">Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+Groups%22">Experimental Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foods+Instruction%22">Foods Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nutrition%22">Nutrition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Manufacturing%22">Manufacturing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Food%22">Food</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1541-4329.12135
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1541-4329
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This research compares the industry readiness, product development skill level, and overall knowledge gains of students taking an undergraduate research course (treatment) to those who did not (control). This 2-semester Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development (AIPD) course for sophomores brought together interdisciplinary teams of food science, nutrition, and packaging science students in a hands-on setting to create healthy food products for children, complete with retail packaging. A Subject Knowledge Assessment (SKA) was used to evaluate the mean percent difference value (MPDV) of food science, nutrition, packaging science, and general product development knowledge gained through the course. SKA results indicated that the MPDV were significantly different (a = 0.05) between the treatment and comparison groups in the overall score and in every subject area score except packaging science. Data from an Exit Questionnaire (EQ) was used for evaluation of attitudes pertaining to product development knowledge and skills, department engagement, and pedagogy. EQ results indicated that mean scores between the treatment and comparison groups were significantly different (a = 0.05) in 7 of the 9 statements on product development knowledge and skills, both statements pertaining to pedagogy, and the statement pertaining to department engagement. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores at the University. Overall, the research project was considered a successful intervention for educating sophomores in the Food, Nutrition and Packaging Science department at Clemson University. The student-lead teams were held to a greater degree of accountability for their success in terms of education gleaned and value of experience gained as metric for the University and other IFT Accredited programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1176221
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1176221
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1541-4329.12135
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 66
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Industry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experimental Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foods Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nutrition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Manufacturing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Food
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Research Study on an Applied Interdisciplinary Product Development Course for College Sophomores
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Condrasky, Margaret D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weeks McCay, Alexa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Darby, Duncan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sharp, Julia L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Griffin, Sarah F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1541-4329
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Food Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1