SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

ABSTRACT:  Secondary science teachers who integrate food safety (FS) into curricula can provide FS knowledge and skills to youth while reinforcing science skills and concepts. National science education standards and the Biological Science Curriculum Study 5E Inquiry-based Learning Model were used to design an online training, Food Safety FIRST. The training has 3 modules, each with 15 h of web-based instruction, interactive discussion, and tools to conduct experiments or critical evaluation projects. A CD-ROM, web site (http://foodsafetyfirst.org), and lab kit were developed to accompany module activities. Seventy-one teachers registered for the program; 38 matched pretest/posttest evaluations were analyzed. When asked their intention to teach FS in the next year, enrollees responded “definitely” (60.5%) or “possibly” (34.2%), reaching potentially 3570 students. Participants found the training very valuable (71.1%) and were significantly more comfortable teaching FS at posttest (3.6 ± 0.5 on a 4-point Likert scale) than at pretest (2.8 ± 1.0; P < 0.0001, n= 35). Self-reported FS practices also improved from pretest (24.8 ± 5.7 out of a possible 35) to posttest (27.7 ± 4.8; P < 0.001, n= 32). On 4-point Likert scales, teachers were confident answering FS questions (3.4); confident that if they did a good job teaching this topic, students would be interested in FS (3.4); and confident FS concepts taught would meet national science standards (3.4). They found the program satisfactory for demonstrating inquiry-based learning (3.8). Most agreed that they would change FS habits (3.2). Using 5-point scales, participants agreed that they felt more able to critically evaluate FS information on the Internet (4.2) and that the training was enjoyable in an online format (4.3).


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

Roughly 6 million children aged 5 to 14 y are regularly left to care for themselves (Overturf Johnson 2005) and may be responsible for home food handling and preparation. Rising numbers of women in the work force result in more children cooking (Kinsey 1994; Wolf 1995) and teens food shopping (Blumenthal 1990). In a survey of middle and high school students in Minnesota, 49.8% shopped for groceries and 68.6% assisted in preparing dinner (Larson and others 2006). Moreover, youth are frequently employed as cooks or wait staff. Eating establishments were the most common worksites for 31% of males and 33% of females aged 15 to 17 y (US BLS 2000). In July 2006, 22% of employed youth worked in the leisure and hospitality industry, which includes food services (US BLS 2006). When youth prepare food in or outside the home, they may place themselves and others at risk for foodborne illness.

Teenagers can lack food safety (FS) knowledge (Endres and others 2001; Comer 2002; Guion and others 2004; Haapala and Probart 2004) and lower age appears to correlate with poorer food handling practices (Patil and others 2005; Towns and others 2006). This potential to infect others while holding poor FS knowledge, attitudes, and practices supports the need for enhanced FS education for youth, who are consumers and current and future foodservice employees, and at risk for foodborne illness themselves. Youths aged 10 to 20 y have higher incidences of E.coli O157:H7 infections than adults (Buzby 2001). From 1997 to 2003, in the United States there were 151 reported cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome in those aged 5 to 14 y (CDC 2006). Shigella infections reported in 2003 were found more frequently in youth aged 5 to 19 y (33.9% of 15951 isolates) than other age groups (CDC 2005).

Secondary education science teachers can serve as gateways to pass FS knowledge and skills to children and their families. Haapala and Probart (2004), in their assessment of Finnish middle school students' FS knowledge, perceptions, and self-reported food handling practices, found that 69% of students in their study were interested in FS. Guion and others (2004) found similar results in a survey of 4-H youth in Florida, finding that 62% of those surveyed said they would attend a FS education program. Thus, students would be open to teachers' efforts to present lessons on FS at school.

When designing professional development programs to assist science teachers as they integrate FS education into their classrooms, it is important to consider the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996), which aim to improve science education and enable students to achieve scientific literacy. Furthermore, FS educators must consider barriers to integrating FS education into classrooms, such as teachers' attitudes toward FS, lack of FS knowledge (Endres and others 2001), and lack of time and limited awareness of resources to teach nutrition-related topics such as FS (Perez-Escamilla and others 2002). Science teachers may also be reluctant to instruct on FS if they do not believe that instruction will meet state and national science standards.

Other potential barriers to FS training are teachers' lack of time for professional development and limited availability of local FS professional development programs. Internet-based instruction is an emerging method for professional development (Cohen and others 1999), as it is convenient and current. Computer-based training in FS for food handlers has been shown to be as effective as face-to-face instruction in improving knowledge and attitudes about FS (Fenton and others 2006) and easier to implement (Costello and others 1997). Web-based college-level FS instruction was shown to be as effective as lecture to improve FS knowledge (Pintauro and others 2005). Teachers can use the Internet to communicate or collaborate with peers, keep current on research, and access classroom resources. Online professional development in FS should model effective science teaching that includes emphasis on learning science content through investigation, expanding skills in accessing further knowledge, ongoing reflection on the nature of inquiry, and collegial and cooperative learning, while providing opportunities to use scientific literature and technology (NRC 1996).

This paper describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of a web-based program in FS for secondary science teachers, Food Safety FIRST, which included inquiry-based learning and collaboration as directed by national standards for professional development of science teachers (NRC 1996).

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

An interdisciplinary team of faculty and staff with expertise in nutrition education, FS, web design, graphic design, and distance education was created to develop online modules for an Internet-based training program entitled Food Safety FIRST (Food Science, Inquiry, Resources, Science Education Standards, Teaching Critical Thinking). In addition, an advisory group comprised of secondary science teachers, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) representatives, and university FS specialists provided input throughout the project. Food Safety FIRST contained 3 online modules, entitled Bacteria Are Everywhere, Food Handling Is a Risky Business, and Current Controversies in Food Science. Each module was designed to be completed in 5 wk with approximately 15 h of web-based instruction. Based on our prior research on motivation (Beffa-Negrini and others 2002) and success and satisfaction in online instruction for undergraduate students (Miller and others 2001; Beffa-Negrini and others 2002), we designed FS education modules that engaged participants by providing a variety of activities, including interactive asynchronous discussions; directions and tools to conduct food science experiments in school laboratories or classrooms; and critical evaluation projects. Laboratory activities were adapted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center For Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and NSTA curriculum “Science and Our Food Supply” (FDA/NSTA 2001) to encourage inquiry, experimentation, and use of theory. Participants were able to choose any or all of the modules, and were not compensated for completing the modules, although those who finished all 3 modules were eligible to receive graduate credits by completing additional activities in an independent-study format.

A companion CD-ROM was developed, which included video segments demonstrating proper laboratory techniques, interactive FS activities, lab reports for teachers to use with students, and PowerPoint presentations for teachers to use in their classrooms. In addition, a web page with links related to FS, inquiry-based learning, and science education standards was made available to the teachers, along with a lab kit containing supplies to complete the module activities (http://www.foodsafetyfirst.org).

Inquiry-based learning is student centered, is less focused on “what we know” and more on “how do we know this,” and uses active involvement of students in engaging problems (NRC 1996, 2000). One of the cornerstones to inquiry is posing scientific questions to help identify and examine information and consequences, while gaining a view of how scientists investigate the natural world (NRC 2000). Many approaches for applying inquiry-based learning in teaching have been described (Krajcik and others 1998; NRC 2000; Martin-Hansen 2002; Eisenkraft 2003; Volkman and Abell 2003; Wu and Hsieh 2006). When designing Food Safety FIRST we followed the recommendations of our advisory panel and used the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate) Instructional Model (BSCS 2006), thus modeling inquiry-based learning for the participants. Furthermore, the asynchronous weekly discussions afforded many opportunities for teachers to discuss ideas for using inquiry to instruct on FS and microbiology. Examples of inquiry-based activities for 1 wk of the Bacteria Are Everywhere module are shown in Table 1.

Table 1—.  Example of inquiry-based activities during week 4 of the Bacteria Are Everywhere module for the Food Safety FIRST program
Name of activityType of activityType of inquiry addressedaDescription
Activity 10—Don't Cross Me Lab• ReadingEngageParticipants are engaged by thinking about surfaces or items in classrooms that may harbor pathogens. Participants explore by reading about the Don't Cross Me experiment and watching a demonstration of the lab on the CD. Participants use the supplies in the FSFIRST lab kit to carry out a hands-on experiment on cross-contamination at home or in the classroom.
• Food Safety FIRST CD-ROM video demonstration of techniques for the labExplore
• Hands-on experiment 
Activity 11—Discussion: Don't Cross Me Lab•Asynchronous discussionExplainParticipants explain and are evaluated by hypothesizing on the lab outcome and stating which of the 12 Most Unwanted Bacteria might grow on the Petri plates prepared during Activity 10. Participants elaborate and are evaluated by sharing ideas for inquiry-based learning strategies and how they might adapt or expand the lab for their own students.
Elaborate
Evaluate

Approximately monthly, teachers were recruited for the Food Safety FIRST program using emails, teacher listservs, NSTA newsletters, or flyers distributed at NSTA national and regional conferences. The Univ. of Massachusetts Human Subjects Committee approved the research protocol. Pretests were administered online before the start of each module and online posttests were requested immediately following each module.

Pretest and posttest surveys contained measures of comfort (4-point Likert scale; 1 = not at all comfortable to 4 = very comfortable) in teaching FS and assessment of FS practices. FS practices were measured using a 7-item scale addressing principal behaviors associated with control of pathogens, including cooking thoroughly, avoiding cross-contamination, and keeping foods at safe temperatures (Medeiros and others 2001b). Ten statements on how often the respondent followed key FS behaviors were developed based on behaviors highlighted from Medeiros and others (2001b) and items adapted from the Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Survey 2001 (CSFAN 2001), using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = all the time) similar to one used in a validated consumer FS questionnaire developed by Kendall and others (2004). Survey items were reviewed for content validity by an advisory group comprised of science teachers, NSTA staff members, and university FS educators. The items were administered in a needs assessment survey to 221 science teachers. Three statements were eliminated based on lack of distribution of responses, resulting in 7 items remaining. Pretest and posttest FS practices were scored by summing the 7 questions, using transposed items so that 5 represented the most positive practice.

Teacher self-efficacy for teaching FS was evaluated based on a validated Nutrition-Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (Brenowitz and Tuttle 2003). Three items addressing teacher confidence in teaching FS were adapted from this survey, using a similar 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all confident; 4 = very confident), and were administered during the posttest. The posttest survey also contained items measuring participant satisfaction that the course demonstrated inquiry-based learning and agreement that the course helped them change their FS habits, evaluate Internet resources, and that they enjoyed the online format of the program. Intention to teach FS in the next year and the value of the professional development provided were also assessed, and open-ended comments were solicited. All questions were reviewed for content validity by the advisory group of science teachers, NSTA staff, and university FS educators. Teachers completed 1, 2, or 3 modules in a sequence that fit their personal schedule. We were able to match 38 participants' 1st module pretest with their last module posttest, which were used for this analysis.

Data submitted online were converted from text to column in Excel for further evaluation. Frequency distributions for responses to all questions were generated. Paired t-tests were performed to measure the impact of the training from those teachers who completed both pretest and posttest measures of comfort teaching FS and FS practices.

Results and Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

Results

From April 2004 to May 2005, 71 teachers registered to participate in Food Safety FIRST. Participants went through the modules in cohorts of approximately 10 to 20, interacting online with one another, discussing course assignments, and sharing instructional strategies for integrating FS education into their science lessons. Forty-six teachers completed one or more modules for a 64.7% completion rate and we were able to match pretest and posttest surveys from 38 of these completers. Twenty-eight of these teachers provided feedback on how much time on average they spent each week on the program. Responses ranged from 1.5 to 8 h, with an average of 3.5 h.

Some teachers completed more than 1 module. Looking at each module separately, 47 individuals enrolled in Bacteria Are Everywhere and 35 completed for a 74.5% completion rate. For Food Handling is a Risky Business, 50 enrolled and 31 (62.0%) completed while 22 of 40 (55.0%) completed Current Controversies in Food Science.

The Food Safety FIRST program appealed to a wide variety of teachers. Of the 38 teachers who completed both pretest and posttest surveys, when asked to choose their major teaching area, most reported biology (55.3%), life science (31.6%), or physical science (26.3%). A smaller number reported teaching family and consumer sciences (13.2%) or health (5.7%). There were also participants who taught chemistry (18.2%), earth science (13.2%), or physics (13.2%). Half of the teachers were instructing at the high school level, while others taught in middle (18.4%), junior high (7.9%), or elementary (7.9%) schools.

Overall, participation in Food Safety FIRST increased teacher comfort in teaching FS. On 4-point Likert-type scales, from 1 being not comfortable to 4 being very comfortable, participants reported at posttest that they were comfortable (45%) or very comfortable (54%) teaching their students about FS. Table 2 shows that participants were significantly more comfortable teaching FS at posttest (3.6 ± 0.5 on a 4-point Likert scale) as compared to pretest (2.8 ± 1.0; P < 0.0001, n= 35).

Table 2—.  Differences in teachers' perceived comfort teaching food safety and self-reported food handling practices after participating in the Food Safety FIRST modules
MeasurePossible scorePretest mean (STD)Posttest mean (STD)Mean differencet-value
  1. aOne question with 1 =“not at all comfortable” to 4 =“very comfortable” teaching food safety.

  2. bSum of 7 questions about practicing safe food handling with 1 =“never” and 5 =“all the time”.

  3. *Significantly different from pretest, paired t-test, P < 0.001.

  4. **Significantly different from pretest, paired t-test, P < 0.0001.

Comfort (n= 35) 4a 2.8 (1.0) 3.6 (0.5)0.85.20**
Practices (n= 32)35b24.8 (5.7)27.7 (4.8)2.83.67* 

Responses to self-reported pretest–posttest questions on FS practices (washing hands after opening eggs, using food thermometers, rinsing cantaloupe before consuming, thawing meat on the counter, serving red or medium rare ground meat, leaving food on the counter to cool, and using sanitizing solutions on kitchen surfaces) showed significant improvement from pretest (24.8 ± 5.7 out of a possible 35) to posttest (27.7 ± 4.8; P < 0.001, n= 32; Table 2).

Table 3 shows further results from the 38 teachers who completed both pretest and posttest evaluations. On 4-point Likert scales, at posttest most teachers reported feeling confident answering their students' FS questions (3.4 ± 0.7), confident that if they did a good job teaching FS their students would be interested in FS (3.4 ± 0.6), and confident that they would be able to teach FS concepts that fit into the national science standards (3.4 ± 0.6). They found the program satisfactory for demonstrating inquiry-based learning (3.8 ± 0.4). Overall, participants agreed that after the program they would change their FS habits (3.2 ± 0.6). On 5-point Likert scales, the participants agreed that after the program they felt more able to critically evaluate FS information on the Internet (4.2 ± 0.7) and agreed that the Food Safety FIRST program was enjoyable in an online format (4.3 ± 1.1).

Table 3—.  Posttest evaluation of the Food Safety FIRST program (n= 38)
ItemMean ± SD
  1. aBased on 4-point Likert-type scales, 1 = not confident to 4 = very confident.

  2. bBased on 4-point Likert-type scales, 1 = very unsatisfied to 4 = very satisfied.

  3. cBased on 4-point Likert-type scales, 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree.

  4. dBased on 5-point Likert-type scales, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Confidence answering students' food safety questionsa3.4 ± 0.7
Confidence that students would be interested in food safetya3.4 ± 0.6
Confidence that they would be able to teach food safety concepts that fit into the national science standardsa3.4 ± 0.6
Satisfied that the program demonstrated inquiry-based learningb3.8 ± 0.4
Agreed they would change their food safety habitsc3.2 ± 0.6
Agreed they were able to critically evaluate food safety information on the Internetd4.2 ± 0.7
Agreed program was enjoyable in an online formatd4.3 ± 1.1

When asked their intention to teach FS in the year after the program, participants responded “yes, definitely” (60.5%) or “yes, possibly” (34.2%). In total, the teachers expected to reach a potential 3570 students with FS education.

Teachers were queried about the value of the Food Safety FIRST Program and modules, and participants responded “very valuable” (71.1%) or “valuable” (23.7%). When asked to share any suggestions or comments that would help to improve the module or program for use with secondary teachers, 24 participants provided written comments on the posttests. Thirteen teachers provided positive comments about the course or instructor such as, “I found it very useful as it is. The Science and Our Food Supply curriculum is terrific”; “Excellent program, I got many ideas”; “No comments; they seem grade appropriate and aligned with science standards”; “This course was very well done and well organized”; “FYI the discussions and sharing among participants is great. Don't lose it!” Four responses related to the time frame that the modules were offered. Two teachers taking the program during the school year recommended to “Offer at other times of the year, especially summer,” while another 2 teachers taking the modules during the summer found the pace to be too slow saying “During the summer I think that a teacher could complete this course in a shorter amount of time.” Three teachers expressed difficulty getting used to the online nature of the course. Comments included “I found the discussion format difficult to get used to. This was my 1st online class and I spent way too much time going over and over the information to feel ‘knowledgeable’ enough to respond. My hang-up.” and “It seemed like I had to jump around to figure out what all I needed to do, but once I got the hang of it, it was okay.”

Discussion

Food Safety FIRST was designed to provide science teachers with online professional development on the topic of FS so they could feel comfortable and confident to integrate FS education into their science curriculum. Comfort and confidence could be considered subsets of self-efficacy, which Bandura (1997) defined as a belief in one's own abilities to carry out a task or achieve a desired goal. Our study showed a significant increase from pretest to posttest in teachers' comfort teaching FS, while confidence in answering students' questions about FS and confidence that students would be interested in FS were high after completing Food Safety FIRST modules. This outcome is similar to the findings of Watson (2006), who found that teachers' self-efficacy improved following online professional development to train K-12 teachers on integrating the use of the Internet into mathematics and science courses. Furthermore, his study reported that self-efficacy remained elevated even 7 y following online teacher trainings. Brenowitz and Tuttle (2003) also found that teachers who integrate some nutrition into their teaching had higher nutrition-teaching self-efficacy scores than those who did not teach nutrition.

The Internet can be a useful tool to help teachers keep up-to-date and continue to confidently use online FS information in the classroom. The topic of FS can complement many subject areas in health, family and consumer science, and science, and we found that the Food Safety FIRST program attracted teachers from these and other disciplines. Training science teachers in FS can provide them with resources, expertise, and tools to integrate this information into biology, life science, physical science, chemistry, earth science, and physics curricula. However, if science teachers do not believe that FS concepts address National Science Education Standards it could be a barrier to integrating FS into their science lessons. Our results show that after completing Food Safety FIRST participants felt confident that they would be able to teach FS concepts that addressed the standards.

One of the major outcome objectives for developing the Food Safety FIRST program was to promote and enhance FS education for teachers and youth. Medeiros and others (2001b) recommend that researchers organize FS education and evaluation instruments for FS education around 5 types of practices: practicing personal hygiene, cooking foods adequately, avoiding cross-contamination, keeping foods at safe temperatures, and avoiding food from unsafe sources. A meta-analysis of 20 studies showed that young adults have poor FS practices for skills such as hand washing, washing fruits and vegetables, preventing cross-contamination, and proper methods of defrosting (Patil and others 2005). The Food Safety FIRST program specifically addressed these issues and teachers self-reported that they improved in regard to these practices.

After the Food Safety FIRST modules, participants felt better able to critically evaluate FS information on the Internet. As well as staying current, it is important for teachers to put FS knowledge into practice and demonstrate these practices in front of students. Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (1986) posits that adults, including teachers, can influence young people's behaviors through role modeling. Role modeling healthy eating behavior in the school environment has been noted as an important factor for promoting lifelong healthy eating for youth (CDC 1997). Teachers with more health-related education have been shown to model more positive classroom food practices, such as not using candy for rewards, than teachers with less health-related course work (Kubik 2002). Similarly, teachers educated about FS can practice safe food handing skills in front of youth, and thus be positive role models to students. Subsequent to this online program, teachers stated that they improved their personal FS habits, such as proper hand washing or washing fruits before eating. It is possible that these teachers will model positive FS habits learned in the Food Safety FIRST program in the presence of their students, in turn supporting their students' own safe food handling behaviors.

FS practices evaluated in our study were self-reported and this is a limitation (Medeiros and others 2001b). Given the online nature of this program, with teachers participating from all over the United States, actual observations of FS practices were not feasible.

The occurrence of foodborne illness remains high despite declines in the incidence of several foodborne diseases (CDC 2007). FS training certification for kitchen managers has been found to be important for preventing outbreaks of foodborne illness in restaurants (Hedberg and others 2006). Several research studies cite the importance of teacher training for enabling school-based nutrition education. Teachers who attend inservice training are more likely to teach nutrition than those who do not (Penner and Kolasa 1983; Stang and others 1998). Similarly, trained teachers are more likely to utilize health curricula than those who are not (Connell and others 1985; Smith and others 1993). Research suggests that, while teacher training in nutrition does not guarantee effective classroom instruction, it is likely to improve teacher interest in nutrition, attitudes toward teaching nutrition, and time spent for nutrition education (Contento and others 1992). Britten and Lai (1998) noted that teacher training was indirectly related to the amount of time spent teaching nutrition. One can assume that teacher training in FS would likewise improve teachers' interest in FS, improve attitudes toward teaching FS, and increase the amount of time teachers spend instructing on this topic. In our study, 95% of participating teachers reported at posttest that they were definitely or possibly intending to teach FS the following year.

In our evaluation of Food Safety FIRST, we found that the program can assist teachers in integrating FS into science instruction and help teachers design lessons that meet national education standards. One important section of the national science education standards describes and promotes the teaching of science as inquiry (NRC 1996), resulting in students having skills to do scientific inquiry and understand how scientific inquiry works. Furthermore, Standard A of the Standards for Professional Development for Teachers of Science requires that teachers themselves learn science content through inquiry-based methods (NRC 1996). Overall, our evaluation showed that the participants felt Food Safety FIRST was successful in demonstrating inquiry-based learning. It is possible that by experiencing inquiry-based learning and reflecting on ways to use it to teach FS, teachers will continue to effectively instruct on the topic of FS using an inquiry-based approach. However, even though inquiry-based science education has been recommended since the 1960s, barriers such as lack of training, lack of time, lack of materials, and lack of support impede the use of inquiry-based science instruction (McBride and others 2004). An inquiry-based program in physics for teachers has been shown to improve student achievement and enthusiasm about science (McBride and others 2004) and another study demonstrated that students' inquiry skills improved after completing inquiry-based learning activities (Wu and Hsieh 2006). More research is need to determine if our inquiry-based FS training for teachers results in transfer of inquiry-based FS education to classroom instruction and improvements in students' inquiry skills.

Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

Overall, Food Safety FIRST was found to be a valuable professional development experience based on national science standards and inquiry-based learning methods. Participants enjoyed the online format of Food Safety FIRST as shown through comments such as “…of the six or so online classes I've taken, I think that this one and the way you monitor the websites, provide feedback and assistance and resources ranks right up on the top. You really do a great job.” and “Just want to let you know I've fallen in love…with this on-line course! I hope I'm not becoming addicted!” By participating in the Food Safety FIRST online professional development program, teachers improved self-confidence and skills to teach and model FS practices in the future, which may potentially improve children's FS practices and help to safeguard the public health.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

Food Safety FIRST was developed by the Univ. of Massachusetts Extension Nutrition Education Program in cooperation with the Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst Depts. of Nutrition and Food Science, the STEM Education Institute and the Center for Computer-Based Instructional Technology (CCBIT), and the National Science Teachers Association. The web site and project products were designed along with Lynne Thompson and Andy Slocombe, UMass Extension and Matthew Mattingly of CCBIT. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Rita Brennan Olson to this project. This project was funded in part by USDA CSREES Grant no. 2002–51110-01501.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix
  • Bandura A. 1986. Social foundations for thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall. 617 p.
  • Bandura A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York : W. H. Freeman and Co. 604 p.
  • Beffa-Negrini PA, Cohen NL, Miller B. 2002. Strategies to motivate students in online learning environments. J Nutr Educ Behav 34(6):33440.
  • Beffa-Negrini PA, Miller B, Cohen, NL. 2002. Factors related to success and satisfaction in online learning. Acad Exch Qtr 6(3):10514.
  • Blumenthal D. 1990. When teens take over the shopping cart. FDA Consumer. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00078.html Accessed May 4 2006.
  • Brenowitz N, Tuttle CR. 2003. Development and testing of a nutrition-teaching self-efficacy scale for elementary school teachers. J Nutr Educ Behav 35(6):30811.
  • Britten P, Lai MK. 1998. Structural analysis of the relationship among elementary teachers' training, self-efficacy, and time spent teaching nutrition. J Nutr Educ Behav 30(4):21824.
  • [BSCS] Biological Science Curriculum Study. 2006. BSCS 5Es. Available from: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?pageid0|31|95|96 Accessed May 4 2006.
  • Buzby JC. 2001. Children and microbial foodborne illness. Food Rev 24(2):327.
  • [CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. Guidelines for school health programs to promote lifelong healthy eating. J Sch Health 67(1):926.
  • [CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. Bacterial foodborne and diarrheal disease national case surveillance. Annual report, 2003. Atlanta, Ga.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 29 p.
  • [CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. FoodNet Surveillance Report for 2004 (Final Report). Atlanta, Ga.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 18 p.
  • [CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. Preliminary FoodNet data on the incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—10 states, 2006. Morb Mort Wkly Rep 56(14):3369.
  • [CFSAN] Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 2001. Food safety survey 2001: final questionnaire. (unpublished).
  • Cohen NL, Beffa-Negrini P, Cluff C, Laus MJ, Volpe SL, Dun AT, Sternheim MM. 1999. Nutrition science online: professional development of secondary science teachers using the Internet. J Fam Consum Sci 17(1):2533.
  • Comer MM. 2002. Food safety for healthy Missouri families: evaluation of program effectiveness. Extension 40(4). Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/rb3.shtml . Accessed April 30 2007.
  • Connell DB, Turner RR, Mason EF. 1985. Summary of findings of the school health education evaluation: health promotion effectiveness, implementation, and costs. J Sch Health 55(8):31621.
  • Contento IR, Manning AD, Shannon B. 1992. Research perspective on school-aged nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 24(5):24760.
  • Costello C, Gaddis T, Tamplin M, Morris W. 1997. Evaluating the effectiveness of two instructional techniques for teaching food safety principles to quick service employees. Foodserv Res Int 10(1):4150.
  • Eisenkraft A. 2003. Expanding the 5E model: a proposed 7E model emphasizes “transfer of learning” and the importance of eliciting prior understanding. Sci Teach 70(6):569.
  • Endres J, Welch T, Perseli, T. 2001. Computerized kiosk in an assessment of food safety knowledge of high school students and science teachers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 33(1):3742.
  • [FDA/NSTA] Food and Drug Administration/National Science Teachers Association. 2001. Science and our food supply: investigating food safety from farm to table. New York : JMH Educational Marketing Inc.
  • Fenton GD, LaBorde LF, Radhakrishna RB, Brown JL, Cutter CN. 2006. Comparison of knowledge and attitudes using computer-based and face-to-face personal hygiene training methods in food processing facilities. J Food Sci Educ 5(3):4550.
  • Foodborne Illness Education Information Center. 2005. Available from: http://www.nal.usda.gov/foodborne/index.html Accessed Oct 25 2006.
  • Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2006. Food Safety Education. Available from: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FoodSafetyEducation/index.asp Accessed Oct 25 2006.
  • Guion LA, Simonne A, Easton J. 2004. Youth perspectives on food safety. J Ext 42(1). Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004february/rb5.shtml . Accessed April 30 2007.
  • Haapala I, Probart C. 2004. Food safety knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors among middle school students. J Nutr Educ Behav 36(2):716.
  • Hedberg CW, Smith SJ, Kirkland E, Radke V, Jones TF, Selman CA, and the EHS-NET Working Group. 2006. Systematic environmental evaluations to identify food safety differences between outbreak and nonoutbreak restaurants. J Food Protect 69(11):2697702.
  • Kendall PA, Elsbernd A, Sinclair K, Schroeder M, Chen G, Bergmann V, Hillers VN, Medeiros, LC. 2004. Observation versus self-report: validation of a consumer food behavior questionnaire. J Food Protect 67(11):257886.
  • Kinsey JD. 1994. Food and families “socioeconomic status”. J Nutr 124: 1878S85S.
  • Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Bass KM, Fredricks J, Soloway E. 1998. Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. J Learn Sci 7(3&4):31350.
  • Kubik MY, Lytle LA, Hannan PJ, Story M, Perry CL. 2002. Food-related beliefs, eating behavior, and classroom food practices of middle school teachers. J Sch Health 72(8):33945.
  • Larson NI, Story M, Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D. 2006. Food preparation and purchasing roles among adolescents: associations with sociodemographic characteristics and diet quality. J Am Diet Assoc 106:2118.
  • Martin-Hansen L. 2002. Defining inquiry: exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. Sci Teach 69(2):347.
  • McBride JW, Bhatti MI, Hannan MA, Feinburg, M. 2004. Using an inquiry approach to teach science to secondary school science teachers. Phys Educ 39(5):4349.
  • Medeiros LC, Hillers VN, Kendall PA, Mason A. 2001a. Food safety education: what should we be teaching to consumers? J Nutr Educ Behav 33(2):10913.
  • Medeiros L, Kendall P, Hillers V, Chen G, DiMascola S. 2001b. Identification and classification of consumer food-handling behaviors for food safety education. J Am Diet Assoc 101:132632, 1337–9.
  • Miller B, Cohen NL, Beffa-Negrini PA. 2001. Factors for success in online and face-to-face instruction. Acad Exch Qtr 5(4):410.
  • [NRC] National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. In: Standards for professional development for teachers of science. Washington , D.C. : National Academies Press. p 5573.
  • [NRC] National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington , D.C. : National Academies Press. 200 p.
  • Overturf Johnson J. 2005. Who's minding the kids? Child care arrangements: winter 2002. In: Current population reports.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. p 70101.
  • Patil SR, Cates S, Morales R. 2005. Consumer food safety knowledge, practices, and demographic differences: findings from a meta-analysis. J Food Protect 68(9):188494.
  • Partnership for Food Safety Education. 2006. FightBAC!®. Available from: http://www.fightbac.org/index.php Accessed May 4 2006.
  • Penner KP, Kolasa KM. 1983. Secondary teachers' nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practices. J Nutr Educ Behav 15(4):1415.
  • Perez-Escamilla R, Haldeman L, Gray S. 2002. Assessment of nutrition education needs in an urban school district in Connecticut: establishing priorities through research. J Am Diet Assoc 102(4):55962.
  • Pintauro SJ, Krahl AG, Buzzell PR, Chamberlain VM. 2005. Food safety and regulation: evaluation of an online multimedia course. J Food Sci Educ 4(4):669.
  • Smith DW, McCormick LK, Steckler AB, McLeroy KR. 1993. Teachers' use of health curricula: implementation of growing healthy, project SMART, and the teenage health teaching modules. J Sch Health 63(8):34954.
  • Stang J, Story M, Kalina B. 1998. Nutrition education in Minnesota public schools: perceptions and practices of teachers. J Nutr Educ Behav 30(6):396404.
  • Towns RE, Cullen RW, Memken JA, Nnakwe NE. 2006. Food safety-related refrigeration and freezer practices and attitudes of consumers in Peoria and surrounding counties. J Food Protect 69(7):16405.
  • [US BLS] US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2000. Trends in youth employment: data from the current population study. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/opub/rylf/pdf/rylf2000.pdf Accessed Nov 9 2005.
  • [US BLS] US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2000. Trends in youth employment: data from the current population study. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/opub/rylf/pdf/rylf2000.pdf Accessed Nov 9 2005.
  • [US BLS] US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Employment and unemployment among youth summary. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm Accessed April 25 2007.
  • Volkmann MJ, Abell SK. 2003. Rethinking laboratories: tools for converting cookbook labs into inquiry. Sci Teach 70(6):3841.
  • Watson G. 2006. Technology professional development: long-term effects on teacher self-efficacy. J Tech Teach Educ 14(1):15165.
  • Wolf ID. 1995. Home food handling: a timely scientific status summary. Food Tech 49(4):28.
  • Wu H, Hsieh, C. 2006. Developing sixth graders' inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. Int J Sci Educ 28(11):1298313.

Appendix

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results and Discussion
  6. Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  9. Appendix

Appendix: Survey Questions

Pretest only questions:

  • • 
    Where do you teach?
  • • 
    What is your major teaching area?

Questions on both the Pretest and the Posttest:

  • • 
    How comfortable do you feel teaching your students about food safety (1 = not comfortable to 4 = very comfortable)?
  • • 
    On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = never to 5 = all the time), how often do you:
  • a. 
    Wash your hands after opening eggs?
  • b. 
    Use a food thermometer to cook food such as hamburger, meat, poultry, or fish?
  • c. 
    Wash or rinse cantaloupe before you prepare or eat it?
  • d. 
    Leave meat on the counter to thaw?
  • e. 
    Serve ground meat that is red inside or cooked medium rare?
  • f. 
    Leave hot food on the counter to cool?
  • g. 
    Use a sanitizing solution such as bleach to sanitize kitchen surfaces?

Posttest only questions:

  • • 
    On average, how many hours did you spend each week completing this Food Safety FIRST module?
  • • 
    How satisfactory was this program in demonstrating Inquiry-based Learning? (1 = very unsatisfactory to 4 = very satisfactory)
  • • 
    Overall, how would you rate the value of this module to you? (1 = not valuable to 3 = very valuable)
  • • 
    As a result of the program do you plan to teach food safety in the next year? If yes, how many students do you expect to reach?
  • • 
    How confident are you (1 = not at all confident to 4 = very confident) that
  • a. 
    You can answer your students' food safety related questions?
  • b. 
    If you do a good job teaching about food safety, your students will be interested in food safety?
  • c. 
    You would be able to teach food safety concepts that fit into the science standards?
  • • 
    On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) how strongly do you agree with the following statements about food safety education?
  • a. 
    I enjoyed learning about food safety in an online format.
  • b. 
    As a result of this course, I feel more able to critically evaluate the food safety information found on the Internet.
  • • 
    After completing the program I will change my food safety habits (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree).
  • • 
    Please share any suggestions or comments that would help us improve this module or program for use with secondary teachers.