View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Food Science Lessons in High School Biology Curriculum in Comparison to High School Chemistry Curriculum

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Food Science Lessons in High School Biology Curriculum in Comparison to High School Chemistry Curriculum
Language: English
Authors: Stringer, Elizabeth I., Hendrix, Jasmine D., Swortzel, Kirk A., Williams, J. Byron, Schilling, M. Wes (ORCID 0000-0002-4907-9202)
Source: Journal of Food Science Education. Jan 2019 18(1):21-28.
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: 8
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foods Instruction, Chemistry, High School Students, Science Instruction, Knowledge Level, Student Interests, Pretests Posttests, Biology, Required Courses, Scores, Integrated Curriculum, Teaching Methods, Comparative Analysis, Instructional Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4329.12153
ISSN: 1541-4329
Abstract: Historically, high school chemistry has been the predominate venue for the introduction of food science curriculum to students. With the current decline in chemistry as a required course for graduation, the possibility of exposure to food science in high school could equally decline. The purpose of this research was to determine if high school students in a biology class without a chemistry background could comprehend eight basic food science principles equally as well as students in a chemistry class that were taught the same principles. This study assessed baseline knowledge of high school students, determined the effect of food science-based lessons on baseline knowledge and level of understanding, and determined the effect of food science-based lessons on students' awareness of and interest in food science. Baseline knowledge and awareness of food science was low. Food science-based instruction resulted in higher posttest scores. Results indicated no differences in students' knowledge base and level of understanding between biology and chemistry classes and supported the idea of further incorporating a food science curriculum into high school biology.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 13
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1201852
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFfluzrvJjsUyjzgXVU4oA8AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIXSxD6eeeym0ib5DwIBEICBm9LH0N6JFThLJYiO6ZN-KWIErfajdHmzvl6qTTJVF5U_mOsO79ZFDeIye12Wj_tQWwAtZACvZt6uhEb32soArvSGpzWdNM71ZpdIMyZsrIfB10DqeUvGmQoEADFXMKTxCTBjTnFw-8d3amHQe3K4ga2DfpC3P6TFHXuUMYKp-eVt9Uo8STyoyNZRaBNWfngY_A6GKo0z3AJRJnqM
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0133988373;[2yg1]01jan.19;2019Jan09.09:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0133988373-1">Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Food Science Lessons in High School Biology Curriculum in Comparison to High School Chemistry Curriculum </title> <p>Historically, high school chemistry has been the predominate venue for the introduction of food science curriculum to students. With the current decline in chemistry as a required course for graduation, the possibility of exposure to food science in high school could equally decline. The purpose of this research was to determine if high school students in a biology class without a chemistry background could comprehend eight basic food science principles equally as well as students in a chemistry class that were taught the same principles. This study assessed baseline knowledge of high school students, determined the effect of food science‐based lessons on baseline knowledge and level of understanding, and determined the effect of food science‐based lessons on students' awareness of and interest in food science. Baseline knowledge and awareness of food science was low. Food science‐based instruction resulted in higher posttest scores. Results indicated no differences in students' knowledge base and level of understanding between biology and chemistry classes and supported the idea of further incorporating a food science curriculum into high school biology.</p> <p>Keywords: biology; chemistry; curriculum; food science education</p> <p>Recent advances in food science and technology have made the food industry one of the fastest growing industries of the twentieth century, both domestically and worldwide. With the increasing demand for nutritious food that is more convenient, there is a growing demand for trained food professionals to develop and produce safe food products that are healthy and an enjoyable eating experience (Lo, Gdovin, Stankiewicz, Appezzato, & Garvey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]). The United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) reported that college level programs across the United States would not produce enough graduates with majors in natural resources, agriculture, and food science to fill the job demands from 2015 to 2020 (Goecker, Smith, Fernandez, Ali, & Theller, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]). Therefore, food science has a surplus of job openings where many other disciplines have job shortages. There are many factors contributing to the current shortage, including the fact that food science is not well recognized or understood among high school educators and there is a general unawareness of the career opportunities among guidance counselors, students, peers, and parents (Roberts, Robbins, McLandsborough, & Wiedmann, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]). Historically, postsecondary education has been the only venue for developing and refining a food science curriculum (Napoleon, Freedman, Seetharaman, & Sharma, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]). However, opportunities exist to develop and implement food science programs for secondary education.</p> <p>By implementing a food science curriculum in secondary education environments, students are given the opportunity to increase their understanding of basic scientific principles and math skills through real world applications including food. By combining these basic principles with a familiar subject such as food, students are more likely to better understand and retain the taught concepts. Students are also provided a potential new career path with the prospect for continuing education in a field that ensures the safety and security of the global food supply, develops innovative products, and helps solve future problems in all parts of the food supply chain while improving sustainability of production agriculture.</p> <p>Chemistry requirements for high school graduation vary across the states. Some states mandate that chemistry is taken along with biology and physics, whereas others consider it an elective (Education Commission of the States, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]). For example, a student is required to take three science courses to meet high school graduation requirements in Mississippi. Biology is a mandatory course whereas Chemistry is classified as an elective. In addition, Biology is required and chemistry is an elective in many southern states including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee. In contrast, Florida and Texas require students to take both Biology and Chemistry. With the various elective choices, it is possible that a student will graduate without taking chemistry (Education Commission of the States, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Introducing students to food science before they have entered college is critical to growing enrollment in food science programs and filling the need in the job market. Although current methods led by The Institute of Food Technologists have seen a recent boost in the enrollment of food science programs (Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]), research is needed to elucidate other methods for the introduction of food science to high school curricula. Therefore, research was conducted to determine if students in biology, with no background in chemistry, could comprehend food science principles. In addition, it was determined if exposure to food science principles increased their awareness and interest in food science. The objectives of this research were to determine and compare: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>) the baseline knowledge of food science in high school students between biology and chemistry classes, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>) the effect of food science‐based instruction on high school student's baseline knowledge of food science in biology and chemistry classes, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>) the level of understanding and long term memory of food science–based instruction between biology and chemistry students, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>) the effect of food science‐based instruction on high school students' awareness of food science in both academic and career opportunities in the field.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-2">Materials and Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133988373-3">Participants</hd> <p>Students (<emph>n</emph> = 73) from a private school in Mississippi with an enrollment of approximately 709 students served as the participants in this study. A signed form was obtained from the school to conduct this research during the school year from January 2016 to May 2016. An initial research announcement email was sent out to the school to recruit teachers and their classes to implement this study. Two teachers volunteered their classes to serve as the subjects for the study. Students were enrolled in either one of three biology classes or one of three chemistry classes taught during the spring semester of 2016.</p> <p>Student placement was random and not due to prior academic performance or standardized test results. Of the biology classes, two periods served as the treatment groups and one group served as the control. The first period biology class (<emph>n</emph> = 11) consisted of three males and eight females. The fourth period biology class (<emph>n</emph> = 18) consisted of fourteen males and four females. The seventh period that served as the control for biology (<emph>n</emph> = 12) consisted of eight males and four females. There were a total of 41 biology students in the study. None of the students had previously taken chemistry nor were repeating biology. The second period chemistry class (<emph>n</emph> = 12) consisted of six males and six females. The fourth period that served as the control for chemistry (<emph>n</emph> = 12) consisted of seven males and five females. The sixth period chemistry class (<emph>n</emph> = 8) consisted of seven males and one female. There was a total of 32 chemistry students. All of the chemistry students had previously taken biology. In total, there were 49 students in the treatment groups and 24 students in the control groups for a total of 73 students. All participants signed an assent form with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval stamp and had their parents or legal guardians sign a consent form with the IRB approval stamp.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-4">Food Science–Based Instruction</hd> <p>Students participated in a series of lessons, activities, and experiments over 8 weeks that presented eight core food science principles (Table 1). Each lesson that was presented had an accompanying activity or experiment to further explain the topic and provide a hands‐on approach (Table 1). Each lesson had at least one objective that aligned with the 2010 Mississippi Science Framework (Bounds & Sewell, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]). Lessons were implemented weekly for a 60‐minute period on Thursday or Friday for eight weeks. The eight principles covered included water activity and food spoilage, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, dairy, preservation, enzymes, and sensory evaluation. These eight specific topics were chosen as they align with some of the topics covered in many food science curricula across the nation (Hartel & Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Food science‐based instructional lessons (n = 8) that were used to introduce food science to high school Biology and Chemistry students (n = 49 students) at a private school in Mississippi</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Lesson</th><th align="center">Core study</th><th align="center">Description</th><th align="center">Activity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Properties of Water</td><td>Water activity <italic>A</italic><sub>w</sub></td><td>Students will learn basic water and food spoilage principles by measuring the water activity of five different foods with varying water activities.</td><td>Students will use the Aqua Lab water meter to measure the amount of free water in various food products. The assignment involves students forming a hypothesis on expected moisture content, testing the product, and then comparing the results.</td></tr><tr><td>Building Blocks of Food</td><td>Proteins</td><td>Students will learn how to identify proteins in a food item, the effect salt has on proteins, and how the industry uses salt to make meat tender.</td><td>Students will complete two experiments in this lesson. The first is a chemical test to determine the presence or absence of proteins in a food. The second is a cooking experiment to determine the ideal salting time for eggs. Students will also be shown a visual demonstration of how pulling a vacuum affects the marinating process.</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrates of Carbon</td><td>Carbohydrates</td><td>Students will explore the differences in water based on the type of sweetener added and how it affects flavor and sweetness intensity. An introduction to a wide variety of liquid, granulated, and alternative sugars will be covered. Students will also learn about the chemical structure of sugar and how that structure affects its functionality in foods by comparing fudge made using ingredient and processing variations.</td><td>Students will explore the differences in fudge based on the type of sweetener added and how it affects flavor and level of sweetness. Students will be provided various fudge pieces that differ by changing one variable that affects crystal formation.</td></tr><tr><td>Edible Emulsion</td><td>Lipids</td><td>Students will be introduced to various terms pertaining to lipids in food. Students will discover the differences in solid and liquid fats and what makes them that way. They will experience how emulsions mix fat and water and will also perform</td><td>Students will experience how fat and water can be mixed in an emulsion and perform sensory analysis on various fats through their interaction in a baked shortbread cracker.</td></tr><tr><td>Major Components of Milk</td><td>Dairy</td><td>In this lesson, students will be introduced to a large portion of dairy products made from milk. Students will learn about the components in milk, products that can be made from milk, and how to make butter at home.</td><td>Students will make butter using a mason jar with a secure fitting lid, one cup of heavy cream, and two marbles to experience how butter is made.</td></tr><tr><td>To Infinity and Beyond</td><td>Preservation</td><td>In this lesson students will learn about the various ways different foods are preserved to extend shelf life and provide a year‐round food supply.</td><td>Students will compare fresh foods to their preserved counterparts to examine flavor and texture differences.</td></tr><tr><td>Jiggly Jell‐O</td><td>Enzymes</td><td>This lesson explains the science behind the fresh pineapple warning on JELL‐O boxes; specifically the effect of enzymes on proteins and how methods of preservation affect them.</td><td>Students will explore the differences when fresh, frozen, and canned pineapple are used to make Jell‐O.</td></tr><tr><td>How We Eat</td><td>Sensory</td><td>This lesson introduces students to how taste is perceived and how taste tests are conducted, the components of flavor, and how our five senses affect the perception of flavor. Sensory analysis was conducted on various fats and their outcome on a baked good.</td><td>Students will participate in a difference from control test to experience how industry uses people to determine if a difference exists between one or more samples and a control and to estimate the size of any such differences. Students will also participate in an acceptability test to experience how product researchers determine how well it is liked by consumers.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0133988373-5">Data Collection</hd> <p>A two‐part instrument was used in this study for pre‐ and post‐assessment of student knowledge. Part one of the instrument was designed to collect students' knowledge of food science with eight subscales, one per principle. Each principle (sub‐scale) had four to six accompanying questions for a total of 40 questions (Table 2). Part two of the instrument included five "open‐response" questions that comprised of two subscales. Of the five, two were designed to gauge students' awareness of food science (sub‐scale 1) and three were designed to gauge interest in food science (subscale 2; Table 3). All questions for the survey were multiple choice, true false, or fill in the blank. The survey was tested on 60+ college students to test for feasibility and grammatical errors. The college students were asked to review the survey, check for any errors, and make comments or suggestions. Some of the changes made following the review included rewording of some questions for better understanding and changing some answer options to reduce the chance of picking the correct answer based on deductive reasoning. The final survey instrument was distributed and collected by the participating teachers 1 week prior and 1 week post‐lesson implementation. No grades were given to students based on worksheet completion for the eight lessons or the posttest survey.</p> <p>Food science‐based principles (n = 8) that were used to introduce food science to high school Biology and Chemistry students (n = 49 students) at a private school in Mississippi and their accompanying questions on the survey</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Questions</th><th /></tr><tr><th>Principle</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Water Activity</td><td>What is the definition of water activity?</td><td>Which water activity level in food would lead to high perishability?</td><td>Decreasing the moisture content increases the product's shelf life.</td><td>Every food item has its own unique moisture content.</td><td>Water is usually a _______ portion of the foods we eat.</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Proteins</td><td>Cuts of meat under vacuum pressure ________.</td><td>Many meat products, such as hotdogs, would not be possible without _______.</td><td>________ soluble proteins help tenderize meat when exposed to marinades.</td><td>Proteins are affected by pH changes.</td><td>Which is not a source of protein?</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Carbohydrates</td><td>If you want to make gummy worms, you need to heat the solution to as high a temperature as when you make lollipops.</td><td>A sugar/water solution that is heated to make lollipops has more sugar in solution than normally possible. This is called _________.</td><td>Which of the following is <bold>not</bold> a functional property of sugars?</td><td>Starch is a large number of glucose units joined together by glycosidic bonds.</td><td>Crystal formation in sugar solutions decreases due to all of the following except _________.</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Lipids</td><td>The number of ___________ and ____________ influences the melting point of some common fats/oils.</td><td>During frying, fat replaces the water in the product near the surface.</td><td>The melting point of all fats/oils are the same.</td><td>Which of the following is considered a saturated fat?</td><td>Oil and water can be mixed when _________ is added.</td><td>Fatty Acids are also known as _______.</td></tr><tr><td>Preservation</td><td>Canning preserves foods by:</td><td>All of the following are examples of foods made from fermentation except:</td><td>The products produced after yeast fermentation are _________ and ___________.</td><td>Which method is not a method of preservation?</td><td>What is the definition of an acidic food?</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Enzymes</td><td>Adding fresh pineapple to a Jell‐O recipe will keep the Jell‐O from setting up.</td><td>Certain enzymes can denature proteins.</td><td>Enzymes are deactivated by freezing.</td><td>Papain is the main enzyme in ________.</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Sensory</td><td>What human factor(s) comprise perception of taste?</td><td>Horseradish, peppermint, chili pepper, and wasabi are examples of foods that provide a ___________.</td><td>If we cannot smell our food, we cannot properly taste our food.</td><td>All people have the same sense of taste.</td><td>Which taste is not detectable by everyone?</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Questions comprising sub‐scales in part two of the survey that was given to high school Biology and Chemistry students (n = 73 students) at a private school in Mississippi both before and after eight instructional lessons on Food science</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Subscale</th><th align="center">Question</th><th align="center">Answer options</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Awareness</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. Are you familiar with the term "food science?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>2. Food science is the same as nutrition.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>A.  Yes</p></list-item><list-item><p>B.  No</p></list-item><list-item><p>C.  Maybe</p></list-item><list-item><p>D.  Not sure</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>2. Interest</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. I am interested in food science.</p></list-item><list-item><p>2. Do you want to learn more about food science?</p></list-item><list-item><p>3. I would consider a college degree in food science.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>A.  Yes</p></list-item><list-item><p>B.  No</p></list-item><list-item><p>C.  Maybe</p></list-item><list-item><p>A.  Not sure</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0133988373-6">Research Design</hd> <p>A two by two mixed factorial design (school subject<sups>*</sups> food science curriculum) was used. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 for Microsoft Windows (IBM, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]). Means and standard deviations were calculated for part one and part two of the survey and for each individual item for pre‐ and post‐evaluations. Comparisons were made through the use of <emph>t</emph> tests, cross‐tabulations, frequencies, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The interaction effects were also evaluated to determine if the treatment effect differed between school subjects. Statistical comparisons were made based on the four objectives of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-7">Objective one</hd> <p>Part one of the instrument focused on evaluating whether there was a difference in the baseline knowledge of food science in high school biology and chemistry students. The following five comparisons were made: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>) pre‐score means of biology and chemistry were compared for all groups; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>) pre‐score means of just the treatment groups of biology and chemistry were compared; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>) pre‐score means of just the control groups of biology and chemistry were compared; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>) pre‐score means of all treatment groups were compared to all control groups; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>) pre‐score means of males and females were compared.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-8">Objective two</hd> <p>Five comparisons were made to determine and compare the effect of food science–based instruction on high school students' baseline knowledge of food science in chemistry and biology. Part one of the instrument focused on answering this objective. (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) Post‐score means of biology and chemistry were compared for all groups; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) post‐score means of just the treatment groups of biology and chemistry were compared; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) post‐score means of the biology and chemistry control groups were compared; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>) post‐score means of all treatment groups were compared to all control groups; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>) post‐score means of males and females were compared.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-9">Objective three</hd> <p>Cross‐tabulations were conducted on each question from the pre‐ and postsurveys to determine and compare the level of understanding and long‐term memory of food science–based instruction between biology and chemistry students. Frequencies were also used to determine which questions were answered correctly the most and the least.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-10">Objective four</hd> <p>Cross tabulations, frequencies, and Chi‐square were used to determine the effect of food science–based instruction on high school students' awareness of food science in both academic and career opportunities in the field. Part two (Questions 41 to 45) of the survey focused on answering this objective.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-11">Results and Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133988373-12">Objective one</hd> <p>There was no difference (<emph>P</emph> >.05) on the presurvey between the biology (21.6 ± 4.2) class and the chemistry class (19.7 ± 4.7; Table 4). Students' results in the treatment group of biology (21.9 ± 4.3) also did not differ (<emph>P</emph> >.05) on the presurvey compared to the students in the treatment group of chemistry (19.3 ± 5.0; Table 4). No difference (<emph>P</emph> >.05) existed between the control groups of biology and chemistry on the presurvey (Table 4). In addition, there was no interaction between science class and treatment for the pre‐ or postsurvey. Therefore, <emph>t</emph>‐tests were used to evaluate treatment effects and class effects.</p> <p>Overall means for presurvey results by class: all students (n = 73) in biology and chemistry, treatment students in biology (n = 29) and chemistry (n = 20), and control students in biology (n = 12) and chemistry (n = 12), and by gender: male student and female students in the study by overall (n = 73), by treatment (n = 49), and by control (n = 24)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Group</th><th align="center">Type</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">Students development</th><th align="center">SEM</th><th align="center">Significance level (two‐tailed <italic>t</italic>‐test)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Class</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>All</td><td>Biology</td><td>41</td><td>21.6<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.2</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>32</td><td>19.7<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.7</td><td>0.86</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Treatment</td><td>Biology</td><td>29</td><td>21.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.3</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>20</td><td>19.3<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.0</td><td>1.11</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Control</td><td>Biology</td><td>12</td><td>20.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.3</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>12</td><td>20.3<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.9</td><td>1.41</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>All</td><td>Male</td><td>45</td><td>20.0<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.4</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>28</td><td>21.6<sup>A</sup></td><td>2.7</td><td>0.51</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Treatment</td><td>Male</td><td>30</td><td>20.1<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.5</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>19</td><td>21.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>2.7</td><td>0.63</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Control</td><td>Male</td><td>15</td><td>19.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.3</td><td>1.36</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>9</td><td>21.8<sup>A</sup></td><td>2.7</td><td>0.89</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>31215340001 Means with the same letter (A) are not different (<emph>P</emph> >.05) within either overall, treatment, or control.</item> <item>31215340002 SEM: Standard Error Mean.</item> </ulist> <p>Test scores from the presurvey ranged from a minimum of 9 to a maximum of 30 correct answers, out of 40 questions (Figure 1). Overall, the average number of correct answers was (20.6 ± 4.5) with a cluster of students (<emph>n</emph> = 38) having 20 to 24 correct responses on the pretest. Ten students answered 25 to 30 questions correctly and twenty five students only answered 9 to 19 questions correctly. This finding provided baseline data describing students' existing food science knowledge. Such data can be useful in identifying starting points for educators (Moreno et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). Overall means for presurvey results between the treatment groups and control groups indicated no difference (<emph>P</emph> >.05; Table 5).</p> <p>GRAPH: Distribution of presurvey results for Biology and Chemistry students (n = 73). Students were given this survey with 40 multiple choice and true false questions prior to receiving eight food science instructional lessons over an eight week period.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan19/jfs312153-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jfs312153-fig-0001.jpg" title="image_n/jfs312153-fig-0001.png" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Overall means for pre‐ and postsurvey results of all students in the treatment groups (n = 49) and students in the control groups (n = 24), of biology students in the treatment groups (n = 29) and the control group (n = 12), and of chemistry students in the treatment groups (n = 20) and the control group (n = 12)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Type</th><th align="center">Group</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">Students development</th><th align="center">SEM</th><th align="center">Significance level (two‐tailed <italic>t</italic>‐test)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Overall</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Treatment</td><td>49</td><td>20.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.7</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Control</td><td>24</td><td>20.6<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.5</td><td>0.92</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Post</td><td>Treatment</td><td>49</td><td>25.3<sup>A</sup></td><td>6.2</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.0001</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Control</td><td>24</td><td>18.8<sup>B</sup></td><td>5.8</td><td>1.19</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Treatment</td><td>29</td><td>21.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.3</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Post</td><td /><td>29</td><td>25.5<sup>B</sup></td><td>3.9</td><td>0.74</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Control</td><td>12</td><td>20.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.3</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Post</td><td /><td>12</td><td>20.1<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.7</td><td>1.64</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Treatment</td><td>20</td><td>19.3<sup>A</sup></td><td>5</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Post</td><td /><td>20</td><td>24.9<sup>B</sup></td><td>8.5</td><td>1.91</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Control</td><td>12</td><td>20.3<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.9</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Post</td><td /><td>12</td><td>17.6<sup>A</sup></td><td>6</td><td>1.73</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>31215350001 Abbreviation: SEM, standard error mean.</item> <item>31215350002 Means with the same letter (A and B) are not significantly different (<emph>P</emph> >.05) within either pre‐ or posttest.</item> </ulist> <p>Presurvey means between male and female students for all groups, male and female students for treatment groups, and male and female students for control groups, were not different (<emph>P</emph> >.05; Table 4). Overall, no significant differences were found among any of the groups on any presurvey measures. This indicates that all students had a similar baseline competency of food science at the beginning of the experiment.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-14">Objective two</hd> <p>Teachers administered the posttest 1 week after the final lesson. The questions and order were identical to the pretest that was taken in January. No review or study materials were provided to any of the students. Postsurvey the treatment group (25.3 ± 6.2) scored higher (<emph>P</emph> <.05) than the control group (18.8 ± 5.8; Table 5). This finding suggests that students exposed to food science principles increased their overall knowledge of food science. Other researchers have reported similar results (Hovland et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]; Wagner, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]). Students involved in the FoodMASTER curriculum significantly increased (<emph>P</emph> <.001) their test scores pre‐ to posttest suggesting an increase in their multidisciplinary science knowledge related to food (Hovland et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the biology class, the treatment group scored higher (<emph>P</emph> <.05) on the posttest. When compared to the pretest no difference existed (<emph>P</emph> >.05) for the biology control group with respect to the pre‐ and posttest (Table 5). Chemistry treatment groups also experienced an increase (<emph>P</emph> <.05) on the posttest (24.9 ± 8.5) in comparison to the pretest (19.3 ± 5). No difference existed (<emph>P</emph> >.05) between the control group pretest (20.3 ± 4.9) and posttest (17.6 ± 6) for chemistry classes (Table 5). Overall among the treatment groups, there was an average increase of an additional 4.6 questions answered correctly, a 22.7% increase knowledge base. If student participation and worksheet completion had affected their grade in the class, there may have been more of an average score increase.</p> <p>To address the overall research question "Can high school students in a biology class without a chemistry background comprehend eight basic food science principles as well as students in a chemistry class taught the same principles" comparisons were made between the biology class and the chemistry class. No differences (<emph>P</emph> >.05) were found between biology and chemistry classes on the postsurvey for all students, for treatment groups, or the control groups (Table 6). These results suggest that students enrolled in high school biology with no chemistry background have the ability to comprehend these eight basic food science principles as well as high school chemistry students. Postsurvey means between male and female students were not different (<emph>P</emph> >.05) for all groups (Table 6).</p> <p>Overall means for postsurvey results of all students by class: all students (n = 73) in biology and chemistry, treatment students in biology (n = 29) and chemistry (n = 20), and control students in biology (n = 12) and chemistry (n = 12), and by gender: male and female students in the study by all groups (n = 73), by treatment (n = 49), and by control (n = 24)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Group</th><th align="center">Type</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">Students development</th><th align="center">SEM</th><th align="center">Significance level (two‐tailed <italic>t</italic>‐test)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Class</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Overall</td><td>Biology</td><td>41</td><td>24.0<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.1</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>32</td><td>22.1<sup>A</sup></td><td>8.4</td><td>1.49</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Treatment</td><td>Biology</td><td>29</td><td>25.5<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.0</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>20</td><td>24.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>8.5</td><td>1.91</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Control</td><td>Biology</td><td>12</td><td>20.1<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.7</td><td>1.63</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Chemistry</td><td>12</td><td>17.6<sup>A</sup></td><td>6.0</td><td>1.73</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>All</td><td>Male</td><td>45</td><td>23.0<sup>A</sup></td><td>7.6</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>28</td><td>23.4<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.2</td><td>0.98</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Treatment</td><td>Male</td><td>30</td><td>25.4<sup>A</sup></td><td>7.2</td><td>1.32</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>19</td><td>24.9<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.2</td><td>0.95</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Control</td><td>Male</td><td>15</td><td>18.0<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.8</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td>9</td><td>20.2<sup>A</sup></td><td>5.9</td><td>1.96</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>31215360001 Abbreviation: SEM, standard error mean.</item> <item>31215360002 Means with the same letter (A) are not significantly different (<emph>P</emph> >.05) within either overall, treatment and control.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0133988373-15">Objective three</hd> <p>Four questions were answered correctly by more than 75% of all students. Question 8 was answered correctly by 82% of all students. Question 24 was answered correctly by 89% of students, and 88% of students answered questions 32 and 36 correctly on the presurvey. All four questions had a 50/50 chance of being answered correctly due to the nature of being true or false questions. There was a total of 12 true or false type questions on the survey.</p> <p>Four questions were answered incorrectly by more than 75% of all students. Question 10 was answered incorrectly by 75% of the students on the presurvey, whereas 77% of students incorrectly answered questions 11 and 28. Question 26 was answered incorrectly by 80% of the students. All four questions were fill‐in‐the‐blank with four choices with neither of those questions be considered common knowledge among high school students.</p> <p>To determine level of understanding and any effects of lessons implemented on the aforementioned questions, postsurvey responses of only the treatment groups were compared to the presurvey responses. The number of questions answered correctly increased from four to ten questions, more than doubling the amount of questions answered correctly by 75% or more of the students. These 10 questions included all principles covered in the lessons with the exception of lesson 5, Major Components of Milk.</p> <p>Postsurvey results indicated that students incorrectly answered question 7 82% of the time, question 11 78% (which was a 1% increase from the presurvey) of the time, question 13 80% of the time, and question 28 80% (which was a 3% increase from the presurvey) of the time. Questions 10 and 26 were answered correctly by at least 25% of the students on the postsurvey. Questions 7 and 13 covered principles from preservation and carbohydrates. This change may be due to the fact that the information that posed these two questions was not reflected in the activity that accompanied those principles. To better explain the definition of an acidic food (question 7), pH measurements could have been taken by the students for multiple common foods. Question 13 pertained to sugar crystal formation, but due to time constraints students were not actively involved in the process of making the fudge to explain this principle. If the students had experienced these principles hands‐on, the basis of the concept may have been better understood.</p> <p>Test scores from the postsurvey ranged from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 40 correct answers, out of 40 questions (Figure 2). It was apparent from Figure 1 and 2 that some students did not improve their score but there was a large subset (<emph>n</emph> = 35) that increased from 20 to 24 to 23 to 30. There was also a small group (<emph>n</emph> = 7) that scored greater than the highest pretest score and one student that answered every question correctly.</p> <p>GRAPH: Distribution of postsurvey results for Biology and Chemistry students (n = 49). Students were given this survey with 40 multiple choice and true false questions after receiving eight food science instructional lessons over an eight week period.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan19/jfs312153-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jfs312153-fig-0002.jpg" title="image_n/jfs312153-fig-0002.png" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133988373-17">Objective four</hd> <p>Questions 41 to 45 were compared pre‐ and postsurvey for the treatment groups. Students in the treatment groups that answered "yes" to question 41, "Are you familiar with the term "food science" increased significantly (<emph>P</emph> <.05) from 43% on the presurvey to 76%, a positive increase of 77%. Although the answers "no" at 20% and "maybe" at 31%, both decreased to 10% postsurvey. A possible explanation as to why 100% of students did not answer yes on the posttest may be that the definition of the term was discussed at the beginning of the first lesson and not specifically addressed after that. Each lesson was referred to as a food science lesson however students may not have made the connection that each lesson was considered a part of the whole term food science.</p> <p>The percent of students that answered "no" to question 42, "Food science is the same as Nutrition" increased from 35% to 55% postsurvey. There are two possible explanations as to why students did not answer "no" 100% postsurvey. The first is that the definition of "nutrition" was never provided to the students. It was assumed students would have a better baseline understanding of the term "nutrition" compared to "food science." In hindsight, it may have helped to provide the definition at some point during the lessons. The second possible explanation is based on the assumption and anticipation that the students would determine food science and nutrition are not the same on their own accord after comparing the lessons to their understanding of nutrition.</p> <p>Answers to question 43, "I am interested in food science" increased in the percentage who answered "no" from 27% to 43% postsurvey. Such an increase may be due to several factors. One possible explanation could be that after exposure to food science, students realized that they were not interested in the subject but were unsure in the beginning. This may be because most high school students are unaware of what food science is (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]). Another explanation may be that some students did not enjoy the methods in which the lessons were taught which could have had an impact on their interest. In addition, students may have felt the topic was covered in depth and did not wish to investigate the subject any further. It will be important to reevaluate the curriculum to make sure that it is designed to stimulate student interest in food science. Questions may need to be phrased differently or have more response options since asking students a yes or no question on something that they are unfamiliar with such as food science may not be an accurate method for measuring interest. In addition, this may indicate that elementary school or middle school may be better venues for introducing food science. Whatever the reason, it is imperative to make sure that the introduction of food science to curriculum does not decrease interest in food science.</p> <p>The largest change for question 44, "Do you want to learn more about food science" was a decrease in the number of students who answered "not sure" from 20% to 4% pre‐ to postsurvey. These eight students were evenly split between answering "yes" and "no" postsurvey. However, the majority of students, <emph>n</emph> = 22, remained unchanged in their answer of "maybe."</p> <p>Question 45, "I would consider a college degree in food science" saw the least amount of change for all answers between pre‐ and postsurvey responses, however the answer "maybe" increased from 12% to 22%. The increase in "maybe" should be considered a positive effect as these students are now aware of food science as an option and may consider it when planning for their future. While there was not a significant change overall in the number of students that would consider a college degree in food science, it should be noted that these students can now make a more informed decision before entering the workforce or college. Although previous research indicated that incorporating food science lessons into high school science classes presented great potential to increase the number of students enrolling in food science programs, this study did not have the same outcomes (McEntire & Rollins, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>Results support the idea of further incorporating a food science curriculum into high school biology. Although there was a difference overall for pre‐ and postsurvey results, there may have been a larger difference had all lessons and activities not been voluntary and the frequency of the lessons occurred more than once per week. Students were not graded on any of the assignments nor did participation affect their grade in the class. Student awareness of food science was low. There was a large increase in the percentage of students that demonstrated awareness of food science. However, the percentage of students that were interested in food science decreased by 29% following the lessons. There was a 2% decrease in the number of students that would consider a college degree in food science. Yet, there was a 10% increase in students that answered "maybe." Because awareness of food science presurvey was low, these results potentially indicate that students may have answered yes even though they did not know what food science was. By introducing high school students to food science, there is the potential to increase the supply of interested and qualified individuals and foster a well informed decision. Overall, students' increased awareness of food science and academic opportunities in food science stands to benefit university food science programs and the food industry.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-19">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This project of approved for publication by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The authors would like to extend their appreciation to Mississippi State Univ.'s Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion Dept., and The School of Human Sciences for their support in conducting this research. A special thanks is extended to Starkville Academy's Science Dept. (Mrs. Susie Wall, Mrs. Sarah Smith [Biology] and Mrs. Deborah Mitchell [Chemistry]) who joyfully and willingly collaborated for the success of this project.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-20">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>Authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0133988373-21">Authors' Contributions</hd> <p>Elisabeth I. Stringer conducted the research study, collected and analyzed the data, and constructed the thesis. Jasmine D. Hendrix drafted the manuscript. Dr. Kirk A. Swortzel contributed to preforming the statistical analysis and drafting the manuscript. Dr. J. Byron Williams supported the writing of the thesis and drafting the manuscript. Dr. M. Wes Schilling contributed to establishing the research design, thesis, and drafting the manuscript.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplementary Information</p> <ref id="AN0133988373-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bounds, H. M., & Sewell, B. (2008). 2010 Mississippi Science Framework Mississippi Science Framework 2010 State Superintendent of Education. Retrieved from https://techoutreach.extension.msstate.edu/sites/techoutreach.extension.msstate.edu/files/strategies_grade8.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Education Commission of the States. (2018). 50 State Comparison: High School Requirements: Science. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest3NE?rep=HS08">http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest3NE?rep=HS08</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Fernandez, J. M., Ali, R., & Theller, R. G. (2015). Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, and the environment United States, 2015–2020. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/">www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Hartel, R.W., & Gardner, D. (2006). Making the transition to a food science curriculum based on assessment of learning outcomes. Journal of Food Science Education, 2 (2), 32 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Hovland, J. A., Carraway‐Stage, V. G., Cela, A., Collins, C., Díaz, S. R., Collins, A., & Duffrin, M. W. (2013). Food‐based science curriculum increases 4 th graders multidisciplinary science knowledge. Journal of Food Science Education, 12 (4), 81 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> IBM Corp. Released (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY : IBM Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Lo, Y. M., Gdovin, S. L., Stankiewicz, J. B., Appezzato, L., & Garvey, E. M. (2002). A dynamic food science internship program: Integration of problem‐based learning and student‐centered mentoring. Journal of Food Science Education, 1 (3), 45 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> McEntire, J. C., & Rollins, M. (2007). A two‐pronged approach to promote food science in U.S. high schools. Journal of Food Science Education, 6 (1), 7 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Moreno, N. P., Denk, J. P., Roberts, J. K., Tharp, B. Z., Bost, M., & Thomson, W. A. (2004). An approach to improving science knowledge about energy balance and nutrition among elementary‐ and middle‐school students. Cell Biology Education, 3 (2), 122 – 130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Napoleon, L., Freedman, D., Seetharaman, K., & Sharma, P. (2006). An Educational needs assessment of Pennsylvania workforce: Opportunities to redefine secondary career and technical education to meet food industry needs. Journal of Food Science Education, 5 (2), 19 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, A. J., Robbins, J., McLandsborough, L., & Wiedmann, M. (2010). A 10‐year review of the food science summer scholars program: a model for research training and for recruiting undergraduate students into graduate programs and careers in food science. Journal of Food Science Education, 9 (4), 98 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, C. D. (2016). Toward determining best practices for recruiting future leaders in food science and technology. Journal of Food Science Education, 15 (1), 9 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, M. K. (2015). Food 4 thought provides students STEM opportunities in food science. Journal of Food Science Education, 14 (1), 7 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elizabeth I. Stringer; Jasmine D. Hendrix; Kirk A. Swortzel; J. Byron Williams and M. Wes Schilling</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1201852
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Food Science Lessons in High School Biology Curriculum in Comparison to High School Chemistry Curriculum
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stringer%2C+Elizabeth+I%2E%22">Stringer, Elizabeth I.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hendrix%2C+Jasmine+D%2E%22">Hendrix, Jasmine D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Swortzel%2C+Kirk+A%2E%22">Swortzel, Kirk A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Williams%2C+J%2E+Byron%22">Williams, J. Byron</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schilling%2C+M%2E+Wes%22">Schilling, M. Wes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4907-9202">0000-0002-4907-9202</externalLink>)
– 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>. Jan 2019 18(1):21-28.
– 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: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– 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="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foods+Instruction%22">Foods Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chemistry%22">Chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Required+Courses%22">Required Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Curriculum%22">Integrated Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1541-4329.12153
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1541-4329
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Historically, high school chemistry has been the predominate venue for the introduction of food science curriculum to students. With the current decline in chemistry as a required course for graduation, the possibility of exposure to food science in high school could equally decline. The purpose of this research was to determine if high school students in a biology class without a chemistry background could comprehend eight basic food science principles equally as well as students in a chemistry class that were taught the same principles. This study assessed baseline knowledge of high school students, determined the effect of food science-based lessons on baseline knowledge and level of understanding, and determined the effect of food science-based lessons on students' awareness of and interest in food science. Baseline knowledge and awareness of food science was low. Food science-based instruction resulted in higher posttest scores. Results indicated no differences in students' knowledge base and level of understanding between biology and chemistry classes and supported the idea of further incorporating a food science curriculum into high school biology.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 13
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1201852
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1201852
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1541-4329.12153
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foods Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Required Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Food Science Lessons in High School Biology Curriculum in Comparison to High School Chemistry Curriculum
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stringer, Elizabeth I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hendrix, Jasmine D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Swortzel, Kirk A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Williams, J. Byron
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schilling, M. Wes
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1541-4329
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Food Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1