Progress 07/01/19 to 06/30/23
Outputs
Target Audience:Over the course of the project, the target audience has been the participating project faculty and (PI and co-PIs), as well as the students who participated in the modified courses at the six participating institutions. Initial project efforts were focused on developing the common course project across courses, while also providing the project team professional learning in the development and use of active learning strategies, including the use of undergraduate Learning Assistants (LAs), in their Food Processing (FP) and Food Engineering (FE) courses. Subsequent years focused on implementing the common project and these active learning strategies, as well as offering Industry Panels to students (described below). The last year of the project has ramped up publication and dissemination efforts, including presentations, seminars, and manuscript writing (described below and in the Products section). With the funding period officially closed, the team is now turning attention to sharing the group project that has been developed with other Food Science faculty, as well as looking ahead to future grant opportunities to continue to expand upon the current work. Changes/Problems:The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on education systems internationally was the biggest hurdle to overcome in this project. Initial implementation of the common group project was slated for Fall of 2020; however, due to shifts to remote instruction, this was delayed until Fall of 2021. Further, baseline data collection from courses running in Spring 2020 was also impacted by the pandemic. Some participating courses were still implementing a mix of in-person and remote learning during the 2021 - 2022 academic year as well. Due to staffing challenges, a Spring 2022 course at UMaine resulted in the instructor teaching remotely while the students gathered in-person with the support of an in-class undergraduate Learning Assistant. Although not ideal, this model offered additional data and support for the utility and success of LAs in Food Science classrooms. Overall, despite these challenges, the project team was able to persist in accomplishing project goals, meeting all stated objectives with the help of a no-cost extension to the project timeline. Another challenge that was overcome was evolving project personnel in the early years of the grant, including the naming of a new PI, new co-PIs joining as faculty at various institutions, and shifted teaching assignments by the co-PIs. Again, through strong organizational practices and a truly committed team, the project team was able to accomplish project goals and objectives. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Throughout all years of the project, multiple opportunities for professional learning and training have been provided for both faculty and students alike. Beginning in Summer of 2020, professional learning sessions coordinated and facilitated by the RiSE Center and UMaine's Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL) introduced food science faculty to a variety of active learning strategies that could be employed in their classrooms. Discussions centered around student engagement and increasing the relevancy of course content, particularly with applying learned concepts in practice. Project Industry Panels were held each year, in which industry experts shared their perspectives and experiences around workforce preparedness and what skills and proficiencies they look for in early-career hires. These panels were synchronously offered to students from all participating institutions. Subsequent summer sessions in 2021 and 2022 also focused on active learning strategies in-depth, particularly as faculty began to pilot strategies such as clicker questions, think-pair-share, and the common group project in their classrooms in the intervening academic semesters. The June 2021 session was especially centered around active learning discussions, with several sessions offered across a variety of strategies, as well as specific sessions discussing the use of undergraduate learning assistants (LAs) in classrooms for active learning, and the common group project. The August 2022 session followed up on these themes, with additional reflections and discussions on active learning strategies that project faculty had tried in their courses, as well as more reflection and discussion on the use of LAs, including successes and challenges faced by the project faculty member who was able to employ LAs in their classroom in the 2021 - 2022 academic year. A panel discussion from UMaine faculty, staff, and graduate students who had either incorporated LAs into their classes, or had served as LAs themselves, helped faculty to consider practical tips and strategies for those who had piloted LAs in their course, as well as for those who were still trying to recruit LAs. Other professional learning offered to faculty during the 2022 summer session involved conversations with physics and math education researchers from the Maine Center for Research in STEM Education (RiSE Center) at the University of Maine to help anticipate and navigate common student difficulties with topics common to FP and FE courses. In Fall 2022, Professional Learning Specialists from the RiSE Center met regularly with a project co-PI who delivered in-person active learning experiences during a Friday lab block to students enrolled in an online FE course through WSU/Idaho's joint program. Informal surveys of students' reactions to these active learning sessions revealed that they were very helpful, as they tended to struggle with the online format of such a technical and content-heavy subject. Students involved in this project also received training and professional learning opportunities throughout their semester. Following the success of the first Industry Panel organized for the project team in Summer 2020, subsequent Industry Panels were organized and held for students enrolled in the participating FE and FP courses in October 2021, March 2022, and November 2022. All Industry Panels were offered to students enrolled in courses associated with the project (University of Iowa and Virginia Tech in Fall 2021; University of Maine in Spring 2022; University of Iowa, Virginia Tech, and WSU/Idaho in Fall 2022), but were also advertised more broadly to program participants across all participating institutions, including extracurricular groups such as Food Science clubs on the various campuses. The Fall 2021 panel was attended by 73 students; 35 responded to the exit slip survey regarding their experience. 54.3% of respondents reported that the October panel reinforced what they were learning in their Food Processing or Food Engineering classes by "A lot," and 65.7% reported that the panel answered questions that were important to them. Additionally, 48.6% of responding students reported that the October panel helped them in thinking about their career plans. The success of the October panel, both in survey and anecdotal student responses, resulted in project leadership prioritizing a second panel for the following spring semester and again in November 2022. Due to only one faculty member from the project team running a course in Spring 2022, only 10 students attended the Industry Panel that semester; 3 students responded to the exit slip survey, but all three reported that the panel reinforced course topics in Food Processing and Food Engineering courses and that the panel helped them think about their future career plans. Anecdotally, it was reported that the students from the University of Maine course found the panel extremely helpful for planning for their future careers and selecting summer internships. The Fall 2022 panel had ~39 students in attendance; exit slip data from the 9 respondents continued to exhibit positive feedback for this event, echoing previous semesters' data. The common group project itself offered students an authentic context within which to develop and refine important workforce skills that are identified as core competencies in IFT-accredited Food Science programs in their FP and FE courses. Beyond just technical content, several project rubrics included factors aligned with IFT's HERB (Higher Education Review Board) Success Skills, including clarity of written and oral communication, professionalism, teamwork, and contributions to the group. Finally, the undergraduate Learning Assistant model employed at University of Maine and Virginia Tech gave these undergraduates important exposure and training in serving as peer mentors and tutors, while also offering professional learning opportunities to refine their own teaching strategies. LAs were not included at some of the participating institutions since the class sizes were very small and it was difficult to find qualified undergraduates to hire as LAs. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Presentations regarding this project include the following: Adedeji A. A. (2022). Practical-Systemic Approach to Teaching Engineering Contents to a Broad-Based Student Population. Invited talk by the Biological Systems Engineering and Food Science and Technology Departments at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. April 25, 2022. Siddons C., Skonberg D., and McKay, S. (2022). A Six-Institution Partnership to Deepen Student Understanding and Engagement with Food Processing and Food Engineering Concepts: Preliminary Results of a Pilot Implementation of Research-Based Active Learning Strategies in Three Courses. Poster presented at "Integrating Research and Practice: Working Together to Support Robust Student Learning in STEM", a conference at the University of Maine. June 27, 2022. Adedeji, A. A. (2023). Summary of findings from USDA-HEC Research: UMain, IowaSt., UK, UIdaho, Vtech & WSU. Chalk Talk presented to the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, USA. March 23, 2023. Huang, H. (2023) Designing Active Learning Experiences for Food Processing and Food Engineering Courses: A Cross-Institutional Collaboration. Invited presentation at the 2023 IFT Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. July 16th-July 19th, 2023. Siddons, C. (2023) Education Research in STEM. Invited talk as part of IFT's Education, Extension & Outreach Division 2023 Summit Series: Navigating the Path to Publication: Open Discussion on Publishing Education Articles in the Journal of Food Science. May 25, 2023. Davis, K., Fronczak, J. with Skonberg, D. and Smith, S. (2023) Implementing Project Based Learning in a Multi-University, Collaborative Setting. Poster presented at "Integrating Research and Practice: Engaging Students with Authentic Research and Problem Solving in STEM", a conference at the University of Maine. June 26 - 27, 2023. Manuscript preparation is well underway and continuing beyond the official grant end date, with the current project team all members all formally committing to publication work beyond the grant. Manuscripts include: (1) a practitioner-focused publication documenting the experience of faculty in implementing more active learning strategies in Food Processing and Food Engineering courses (plannedfor Fall 2023 submission), (2) a synthesis of student attitudes data, both from surveys and HRI's evaluation data, to assess course impacts and alignment with workforce development skills, and (3) an analysis of selected pre-instructional content survey questions across all project years to identify what concepts students are struggling with as they enter FE/FP courses in order to offer insights and recommendations for faculty to ameliorate those challenges. Faculty have also been informally sharing and/or implementing successful strategies at their home institutions beyond the originally targeted FE/FP courses. At Virginia Tech, co-PI Huang has introduced active learning strategies employed in his course to colleagues, especially the use of Learning Assistants. Co-PI Chen, with the support of the course instructor, also took an opportunity to bring active learning into a Food Engineering lab block for 20 minutes each Friday during the Fall 2022 semester to support students who were enrolled in an online version of the lecture component. We anticipate that such opportunities and expansions of the current scope of the project will continue in the future. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Obj. 1: Both attitude and content surveys, as well as HRI evaluation data, informed the project team of areas of struggle for students. Attitude survey questions were drawn from the literature and remained consistent across project years. Content survey questions were refined each year as data was analyzed to ensure questions (1) targeted content that was being included in all classes and (2) were worded clearly and concisely for reliable results. Initial data helped the project team pinpoint target areas to address through the common group project and active learning strategies employed in the FE and FP courses. Content surveys in Years 2-4 of the project probed student struggle areas initially identified in Year 1 (phase changes, math, reasoning skills). The final versions of the content survey deployed in the 2022 - 2023 academic year reflected rounds of refinements targeting the concepts most informative for faculty to assess at the start of the semester to gauge students' understanding. Analysis of all pre-instructional survey responses is ongoing by a smaller working group, with the aim to better understand if deficiencies in expected student performance may be addressed through ensuring explicit connections are made by FE/FP faculty between previously learned concepts in other courses (e.g. thermodynamics from prerequisite physics courses) that are applied in FE/FP courses. Initial attitude data gathered from participating institutions revealed that students generally provided more expert-like views of food processing and food engineering after instruction, but revealed female students experienced less positive outcomes in terms of increasing their interest and problem solving skills than their male counterparts. Findings from subsequent years are detailed under Obj. 4, below. Obj. 2: Active learning strategies (clicker questions, think-pair-share, discussion prompts, etc.), undergraduate Learning Assistants (LAs), and the common group project were developed, piloted, evaluated, and refined to various degrees across participating classrooms. Major learning outcomes included increasing student engagement while also requiring students to demonstrate an understanding of (1) process design, (2) mass balance equations, (3) process modifications to increase sustainability and efficiency, and (4) ensuring food safety at each step. Project piloting occurred in the 2021 - 2022 academic year; the team met frequently throughout to discuss successes and challenges. Edits to the common group project documentation and rubrics occurred at the August 2022 retreat to incorporate feedback from students, and to clarify document language around expectations and deliverables. Evaluation data from the Fall 2022 semester indicated these edits and changes paid off: 74% of respondents agreed that criteria for grading the project were clear, up from 55% in Fall 2021, and the percent of students who agreed that project instructions were clear doubled from 35% to 71% between the two years. Faculty also found that intentionally keeping group sizes smaller (e.g. 3 students instead of 4-5) ensured more equitable engagement and participation across project tasks. During the final in-person May 2023 meeting at University of Maine, the team dedicated time to refining the final draft of common group project documents, including the project description, timeline, and rubrics. These documents will be posted on a RiSE Center website for public availability and use. One of the manuscripts that we are preparing, which we plan to submit this fall to the Journal of College Science Teaching, describes the development and implementation of the common group project. Obj. 3: See the following section for a full description of the various professional learning experiences offered and topics covered. Obj. 4: Assessment of the impacts of program activities alone on students' learning and engagement in FE/FP courses was made difficult due to the fact that implementation of active learning strategies and the common group project coincided with major instructional upheavals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The attitudes survey instrument employed (CLASS) is sensitive to small sample sizes, which also influenced the ability to make meaningful comparisons between male and female students' attitudes within years as course enrollment remained predominantly female across institutions and years. Combining all matched student responses across years revealed that females (n = 101) showed more significant shifts towards expert-like thinking across multiple categories (including Personal Interest and Problem Solving), contrary to early survey results, whereas no significant shifts were observed in the pooled male responses (n = 47). This may be due to the difference in sample sizes and/or to slightly higher (i.e. more expert) baseline scores among male participants when compared to female baseline scores. Despite variable within-year results, our preliminary aggregated CLASS analysis suggests that the modified classroom activities either had a neutral or slightly positive impact on student attitudes towards their FE/FP courses. Evaluation data from HRI support this; in their final report, they note: "Students described several aspects of the group project they enjoyed, including working with fellow group members, exploring the sustainability content, being assigned groups based on interest, and finding accurate data for their calculations of input and output. As one student explained: It helped [that] I was in a group that got along really well. I really liked the sustainability part and how we were challenged to find ways to make something more efficient or sustainable. A couple internships that I've had, that's something they're pushing for in the industry. It felt really relevant to the industry and what we would do in our potential careers." Content surveys were continually refined throughout the course of the project, adding some complexity to the analysis process. Two versions of the content survey were implemented in Fall 2022: Version 1 (V1) that matched the survey deployed in 2021 - 2022, and Version 2 (V2) that had refined question and answer choice wording, revised some open-response questions to be multiple-choice or have simplified scoring rubrics, cut some questions due to inconsistencies in addressing content across courses, and included new questions that drilled down on common content like energy balance. Student performance between Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 was similar, with both years showing improvement in performance overall from pre to post instruction (2021 n = 38, p = 0.007; 2022 n =21, p < 0.001). While only a handful of individual questions in either year showed statistically significant improvement, scores generally increased from pre- to post-instruction for each question across both years. Version 2 of the survey deployed in Fall of 2022 had 20 matched student responses, with mixed results in terms of student performance. As a few questions were being piloted for the first time, we had anticipated some variation in student results. However, we also saw that even for questions that remained essentially unchanged from V1, scores were mixed on whether they improved or decreased from pre- to post-instruction. We will continue to investigate individual questions in more depth to see if we can elucidate patterns in student thinking. Despite mixed results, however, HRI survey data from Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 indicated that a majority of students felt that group project work helped (1) apply what they were learning in their courses (65% and 74% agreement, respectively) and (2) reinforce that learning (65% and 66%, respectively). Thus, despite challenges with content survey implementation and analysis, it appears that the common group project was helpful for student learning in their FE/FP courses.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/21 to 06/30/22
Outputs
Target Audience:The primary target audience for Year 3has been students participating in the modified courses at three of the six participating institutions. This year was the first year of implementing the comon group project in courses, in addition to other modifications like clicker questions and the use of undergraduate Learning Assistants. Students in the modified courses tookprojectsurveys, participated in two industry panels organized by the project team, and participated in feedback surveys and focus group interviews with the external project evaluator, Horizon Research, Inc. Additionally, the group of Co-PIs and Senior Personnel, including food processing and food engineering faculty across the 6 institutions, will be the primary target audience for the upcoming summer workshop to share lessons learned and best practices in preparation for iterating the group project and other active learning strategies for the second year of course modifications, as well as focusing on writing publications for dissemination. Changes/Problems:A challenge that arose this year with piloting the common project across institutions came from personnel and enrollment issues that resulted in a limited pool of courses that were able to be modified. By extension, this shrank the pool of students who were enrolled in such modified courses considerably. Personnel changes at Washington State University resulted in a postdoc instructor teaching the WSU courses that were slated for modification for the first time; thus, the team felt that adding an additional layer of responsibility via the common project was an unrealistic request. Additionally, the course generally offered in the fall at University of Kentucky had low student enrollment which resulted in the class being canceled; thus, no data could be collected there either. Combined with challenges that arose from COVID delaying the implementation of the common project by a year, this has resulted in a smaller dataset than originally anticipated. We are optimistic, however, that we will be able to collect data from the modified course at WSU this fall and spring, and will definitely be able to collect data from both Iowa State and Virginia Tech for comparison to Year 3 piloting data. The no-cost extension year provides additional time to collect and analyze data, and prepare publications of findings. This data will provide valuable comparisons of impacts of the first implementation (2021-2022) and the 2022-2023 one, which will include refinements developed at the summer workshop. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two Industry Panels were organized in Year 3, one each for the Fall (October 2021) and Spring (March 2022) semesters. Both Industry Panels were offered to students enrolled in courses associated with the project (University of Iowa and Virginia Tech in Fall 2021; University of Maine in Spring 2022), but were also advertised more broadly to program participants across all participating institutions, including extracurricular groups such as Food Science clubs on the various campuses. Five panelists across several different areas of expertise attended the October panel, moderated by former Project Leader Helen Joyner, with 73 students attending across four different institutions (University of Idaho, Iowa State, Virginia Tech, and Washington State University). Of these 73 students, 35 responded to the exit slip survey regarding their experience. 54.3% of respondents reported that the October panel reinforced what they were learning in their Food Processing or Food Engineering classes by "A lot," and 65.7% reported that the panel answered questions that were important to them. Additionally, 48.6% of responding students reported that the October panel helped them in thinking about their career plans. The success of the October panel, both in survey and anecdotal student responses, resulted in project leadership prioritizing a second panel for the following spring semester. The March Industry Panel, moderated by Project Leader Denise Skonberg, had five new panelists across five different industries, with a diversity of experience and perspectives to offer students. Because there was only one course associated with the project being offered, attendance was smaller despite advertising to the wider campus communities. About 10 students, both undergraduate and graduates, attended the panel, including all students from the University of Maine course and a few from Virginia Tech. Only 3 students responded to the exit slip survey, but all three reported that the panel reinforced course topics in Food Processing and Food Engineering courses and that the panel helped them think about their future career plans. Anecdotally, it was reported that the students from the University of Maine course found the panel extremely helpful for planning for their future careers and selecting summer internships. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Past and future presentations regarding this project include the following: Adedeji A. A. (2022). Practical-Systemic Approach to Teaching Engineering Contents to a Broad-Based Student Population. Invited talk by the Biological Systems Engineering and Food Science and Technology Departments at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. April 25, 2022. Siddons C., Skonberg D., and McKay, S. (2022). A Six-Institution Partnership to Deepen Student Understanding and Engagement with Food Processing and Food Engineering Concepts: Preliminary Results of a Pilot Implementation of Research-Based Active Learning Strategies in Three Courses. Poster presented at "Integrating Research and Practice: Working Together to Support Robust Student Learning in STEM", a conference at the University of Maine. June 27, 2022. Planning for publication continued in the past year and will be a major focus of Year 4 activities. Papers in preparation for submission in Year 4 are : (1) a practitioner-focused publication documenting the experience of faculty in implementing more active learning strategies in Food Processing and Food Engineering courses, and (2) exploring similarities and differences between student misconceptions and reasoning in Food Science and physics education research literature, as preliminary results from student content surveys suggest students struggle with concepts that are fundamentally applied physical science concepts. Due to the success of the previous year's two industry panels, additional industry panels - one per semester - will be offered again in the coming academic year. Efforts will be made to continue to expand the reach of the panel by advertising to students in campus clubs, organizations, and other courses, not just those students enrolled in the modified courses. Anecdotal data from University of Maine faculty indicated that the Spring 2022 panel sparked student interest in product development internships, and thus the project team considers the panels a key offering for expanding the reach of the project beyond the initial target student population of the grant. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In August of 2022, a second summer professional workshop will be held with project faculty. The major aim of this workshop is to modify the common project implementation as needed in order to re-run the project in the 2022 - 2023 academic year at three institutions (Iowa State, Virginia Tech, and the University of Idaho/Washington State University joint program). As the University of Maine Food Engineering course is an even-year spring semester course, there will not be an additional opportunity to implement the common project in that course prior to the grant completion. Student survey and focus group data will inform this modification to project timelines and communication to students in order to improve shared understanding of project expectations, and successes and challenges that faculty faced in the previous year will be discussed as a team. Strategies for the recruitment and hiring of Learning Assistants will also be a topic of focus, especially for those institutions where the modified courses are typically taken by upper-level students and therefore may not have a wide pool of qualified undergraduate Learning Assistants to choose from. Additionally, the project team will sharpen their focus on publication writing and dissemination, splitting into working groups to tackle different publications. University of Maine faculty and staff from the RiSE Center will lend their expertise to the practitioner-focused publication, whereas the other faculty will offer expertise and insights into the student outcomes paper. Faculty who are not involved in teaching during the school year will spearhead publication organization, planning, and writing.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Obj. 1:We continued to probe students' content knowledge gains in FP and FE and their abilities to apply mathematics concepts and procedures in this context. Students continued to struggle with problems involving applications of ideas of density and phase transitions (latent heat). Additionally, while most students demonstrated knowledge of simple mathematical procedures used in FP and FE, about 20% continued to be limited in their abilities to solve more complex problems. Discussion of these findings and development of common ways to support students with insufficient mathematical preparation will take place during the August faculty workshop. Obj. 2:Year 3focused onpiloting active learning strategies to provide more opportunities for student engagement in FP/FE courses. A common group project, in which students designedall aspects of a sustainable production process, was implemented at Iowa State University, Virginia Tech, and University of Maine. Student learning outcomes for the common project included demonstratingunderstanding of (1) process design,(2) mass balance equations, (3) process modificationsto increase sustainability and efficiency, and (4) ensuring food safety at each step.? Other modifications included "clicker questions" through the Top Hat platform, in-class discussions, and the use of undergraduate Learning Assistants (LAs) to support student group work and discussion. LAs participated inworkshops throughout the semester modeled after theprogram run by the Maine Center for Research in STEM Education (RiSE Center) at the University of Maine. Common project deliverables includeda group report and 10-minute group presentation, each with a comprehensive rubric.A rubric for individual assessments of teammate contributions to project work was also developed. Final student presentations at the end of each semester were available to view via Zoom for members of the project team; students from other institutions were also invited to view but logistical and time zone differences proved challenging for full participation. Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI), the external evaluation team for the project, completed student focus group interviews, student surveys, and faculty interviews about the project implementation at the conclusion of each semester (see Obj. 4). This model of involving faculty from across different institutions brought shared expertise to the development of active learning strategies and the common project. It enabled the faculty piloting these new elements in their courses to learn from each other and problem solve together. Common assessments enabled faculty to see how their students were doing and which concepts are emphasized more in one institution than another. The inclusion of the Industry Panels, available to students across institutions,were particularly valuable for all participants. In summary, this model demonstrates how faculty across institutions can work collaboratively and effectively to support more engaging and deeper learning experiences for their students. It is challenging for faculty to make these kinds of changes as they teach, and this model provided invaluable support for them during this process. Obj 3:A faculty workshop is currently being planned for August 2022, in-person at UMaine. Goals for this professional workshop are to incorporate feedback from HRI, student content and attitude surveys, and faculty experiences to iterate and improve upon the common project content and implementation. Professional learning will target several areas of challenge for those faculty involved in the pilot implementation, including best ways to support student learning using undergraduate LAs, the creation and use of discussion questions that promote deeper understanding and foster engagement among students, and ways to structure the common project so that expectations are clear and student groups receive regular feedback and communication throughout the semester. The faculty group will also review the content questions and consider whether changes should be made to this survey to better reflect the important concepts and skills being taught across the participating institutions. It will also consider ways to support the ~20% of students who struggle with mathematics involved in problem solving in these courses. Obj. 4: Three project team meetings were held with the entire faculty and leadership team to discuss student data and faculty experience during the modified course implementation in order to inform next steps in the project iteration and professional learning planning. In April 2022, the RiSE Center and HRI presented student survey and focus group interview data from the Fall 2021 semester to the project team. Attitude (n = 34) and content(n = 38) survey data was analyzed for two institutions for the Fall 2021 semester. Small sample sizes resulted inmixed results on pre-post attitude questions targeting novice versus expert approaches in problem-solving, sensemaking, and conceptual understanding.Questions targeting student confidence in Engineering and 21st Century skills were much more stable, reflecting well-developed and persistent beliefs in these areas. Nine of the fourteen multiple-choice content questions saw improvement in student performance from pre- to post-instruction;three of thesesignificantly(p= 0.010,p= 0.010, andp< 0.001). Preliminary analysis revealed that some students still struggle with certain concepts such as density and mathematical reasoning. Onequestion regarding liquid flow rate through two different diameter tubes was particularly challenging for students:~77% of students recognized a tube with twice the diameter would allow for faster flow, but only ~29% correctly answered on either the pre- or post-instruction surveys that the flow rate would be four times as fast. Open-response and Spring 2022 content analysis is still ongoing. Content survey questions and student data will be revisited in the summer faculty workshop to incorporate any necessary modifications to instruction in order to better support student learning and reasoning. Due to space constraints, key takeaways from the Fall 2021 Course memo from HRIare summarized below: Overall, students had positive feedback on how group collaboration and teamwork went over the course of the semester. Students cited the need for clearer project criteria and more frequent deadlines to stay on track, with instructors largely in agreement on these points as well. Students found lecture to be the most helpful strategy to assist their learning, followed by clicker questionsand Think-Pair-Share. Students found practice problems and small group discussions were also helpful. Instructors had positive feedback in regards to incorporating active learning strategies, but there were challenges they faced as well. One instructor recognized the importance of active learning for fostering deeper student understanding, but also noted that it was a bigger instructional "lift" for them to be able to effectively plan and implement such strategies in the classroom in addition to an alreadyheavy workload that most faculty face. Only one Fall course was able to implement an LA. However, the course instructor emphasized the need to make time in the summer workshop for project faculty to collaborate with one another on effective strategies for using LAs in the in order to maximize the benefits of LAs. An undergraduate LA was also employed in the Food Engineering course taught in Spring 2022. Due to personnel constraints, this course was taught by an adjunct instructor remotely, with students enrolled in the class meetingin-person on campus with the course LA. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this instructional model emphasized the importance of the LA as a key figure in facilitating communication between the course instructor and students, as well as supporting student learning and success in a course that presents challenging content.
Publications
|
Progress 07/01/20 to 06/30/21
Outputs
Target Audience:So far, the primary target audience for this project has been the group of Co-PIs and Senior Personnel, including food processing and food engineering faculty across 6 institutions,who have been working to inform themselves about best practices in teaching using data, research, and new collaborations including organizing and participating in an industry panel. In addition, students in the participating instructors' courses across the 6 institutions have taken the project surveys and contributed baseline data to the project. In the coming year, the primary target audience will be students in the participating courses. Changes/Problems:Due to the pandemic we were not able to hold an in-person retreat last summer or to implement course modifications over the past year, as all of the participating institutions experienced disruptions to normal instruction. We were also unable to gather some of our post-instruction data in spring, 2020 when students were sent off-campus due to the pandemic. Instead, we met virtually during summer 2020 and gathered additional baseline data during the 2020-21 academic year. In summer 2021 some faculty were able to meet for an in-person session, while others joined remotely due to the pandemic. We hope to be able to implement course modifications and gather data without disruptions due to the pandemic in the coming year. Because of the delay we experienced during the pandemic, we will be requesting a no-cost extension so that we can iterate course modifications in summer 2022 and implement a second round of course modifications and data collection during the 2022-23 academic year, so that we have an opportunity to test and learn from refinements. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Professional development for faculty is a significant focus of our project and in the past year we have provided many opportunities including nine, 1.5-hour summer sessions in 2020 via Zoom (due to the pandemic) including an industry panel discussion and three, 8-hour in-person sessions (with some participants joining remotely due to the pandemic) in 2021, in addition to four, 1-hour academic year meetings. During these meetings faculty had opportunities to review and analyze data, discuss findings and implications of the data, learn about active learning strategies from University of Maine faculty with expertise in that area, and participate in an industry panel in which members of industry shared their perspectives on workforce needs and current challenges. Faculty also collaborated to design course projects and rubrics for assessing the projects. These sessions will continue through this summer in preparation for the fall semester. Below are excerpts from our Year 2 External Evaluation Report by Horizon Research, submitted to PI Susan McKay in June 2021 by P. Sean Smith. The report provides an overview of project activities, including professional development activities. We are not able to provide the full external evaluation report here due to space constraints. Summer 2020 Project Activities Beginning June 24, 2020, the project met six times over the summer, typically one to two weeks apart, concluding on August 3rd. Holding those meetings required considerable effort and commitment, as it entailed shifting from the original plan (a weeklong face-to face meeting) to a series of online meetings. COVID-19 was responsible for the shift, but it was not the only challenge the project faced. During the same period, project leadership was in transition, and much credit is due to those who stepped in and made the summer meetings happen. The PI team could easily have postponed them for a year, but by forging ahead with a modified schedule, the project put itself in a much better position for the June 2021 retreat. Although the team probably would have preferred to meet in person (without a pandemic), the spaced meetings had some advantages over the weeklong format. Most notable was the opportunity to reflect between meetings and complete homework assignments. Throughout the summer, the PI team considered several potential influences on the design work: assessment data, attitude data, active learning strategies, and industry perspectives on student competencies. The team also made good progress on the content assessment. They reached consensus on scoring rubrics and identified topics common to all courses and important to assess, among them mass and heat transfer. Doing so enabled the group to remove some unnecessary questions. The team also considered attitude data, which revealed disparities between female and male students. Most students in the surveyed courses were female, and the data show they entered courses with generally more positive attitudes than their male counterparts. However, the data suggest that male students made larger gains, narrowing some gaps and reversing others. In discussing the data, members of the PI team who are also faculty made two observations. First, they generally perceive their male students as more engaged in class than female students. Second, as female students progress through their major, faculty see them gravitating toward food processing and away from food engineering. Both observations concerned the PI team and further motivated their interest in revising the courses. The summer meetings included one session on active learning strategies, facilitated by the executive director of UM's Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning. The purpose of the session was to explore possibilities rather than reach consensus on changes. Consistent with this purpose, the discussion considered instructional strategies at varying grain sizes (e.g., think-pair-share, field trips, use of learning assistants) and curriculum (e.g., projects, case studies), with the two overlapping at several points. A theme that ran throughout the session was how to increase student engagement by making course content more immediately relevant. Some faculty commented that although courses provide students with fundamental concepts needed for their careers, opportunities to integrate those concepts in practice are lacking. There was some discussion of course experiences that would afford such opportunities. On a smaller scale but related to the need for more integrative experiences, some faculty described a disconnect between their lectures and the labs students do. The summer series concluded with an industry panel assembled by one of the co-PIs. The panel was diverse both demographically and in terms of experience. Discussions focused largely on (1) what the panelists look for in new employees and (2) the gaps they see between these competencies and the new employees who come to them with degrees in food processing or food engineering. Consistent with faculty perceptions described above, panelists saw new graduates coming to them with knowledge but lacking experiences and ability to integrate that knowledge. They encouraged faculty to think about more integrative course experiences so that students would know, as one panelist put it, "what it takes to put a product on the shelf." Panelists also described a need for candidates who can mediate between food scientists and food engineers, two groups that panelists perceive as approaching problems with different mindsets. June 2021 Retreat The project convened for an in-person retreat at the RiSE Center and remotely by Zoom June 14-16. The three themes of the meeting--active learning strategies, use of LAs, and a common course project--are discussed below, but several retreat-level observations are discussed first. The decision to convene face-to-face was made only after ensuring that everyone was comfortable traveling to Maine and meeting in one room. Those who attended remotely did so because of schedule constraints, not because of pandemic-related concerns. The first agenda item was establishing group norms for the meeting, and among these was ensuring that Zoom attendees (four participants) were fully included. RiSE Center staff who organized the retreat managed the technology and facilitation consistent with this norm. Due to their efforts and commitment of the Zoom participants (some of whom were in other time zones and had to start their day quite early), the hybrid approach to the meeting worked well. After establishing norms, facilitators set the stage by reviewing retreat goals, available data, project challenges, and strategies for addressing those challenges. Readings circulated prior to the meeting allowed discussions to begin more quickly than would have been possible without them. Work on the three themes was interspersed throughout the three days. By varying the work in this way, participants were able to sustain an intense pace throughout the three days without losing focus. Transitions between sessions were efficient, even with the added technology demands of participating remotely. In short, the retreat was well designed and well run, resulting in no wasted time and high productivity. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Due to the pandemic, we have not had opportunities to disseminate results at this time. We plan to do so in the coming year. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the next reporting period, we will continue preparing for and will implement course modifications, including course projects and incorporating undergraduate learning assistants into courses. We will also gather content and attitude data at the start and end of each semester and will analyze the data to inform evaluation and iteration of our course modifications. We also plan to work next summer to revise the course modifications for the next school year and to disseminate results from our work.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Impact Statement: Over the past year the project analyzed data gathered during Year 1 and used findings from the data to guide professional learning opportunities for participating food processing and food engineering faculty. Data sources included data gathered through institutional research offices and data gathered from surveys we designed and administered in Year 1, then revised and administered again in Year 2. Institutional data included demographic information, SAT scores, and course grades for food processing and food engineering students. Survey data included student responses to pre-and post-instruction content and attitude questions to investigate student learning of pre-requisite and core concepts in food processing and food engineering, as well as student attitudes toward the discipline. We used the data to inform our understanding about areas where we could better support students by modifying aspects of our food processing and food engineering courses. Some of the key areas that we identified as needing improvement included the following: (1) Improving student performance on core food processing/food engineering content: Many students in food processing and food engineering courses had difficulties with core food processing and food engineering courses even after course instruction. For example, 30% of students (N=56) from two participating institutions responded after instruction with a fully correct answer to an open-response question about how temperature and energy changes during cooling and freezing of water. (2) Supporting improvements in student reasoning and clarifying expectations for reasoning: Many students in food processing and food engineering courses had difficulties with demonstrating the type of reasoning expected by faculty, even after instruction. In addition, faculty members demonstrated a wide range of expectations with regard to the type of reasoning students should demonstrate. On one reasoning question, faculty members scored between 11% and 53% of responses as fully demonstrating the reasoning that they expected students to provide. (3) Addressing a gender gap in attitudes and outcomes: Attitude data gathered from participating institutions showed that, in general, students provided more expert-like views of food processing and food engineering after instruction. However, female students (who comprise the majority of the food processing and food engineering students in the partnering institutions) experienced less positive outcomes in terms of increasing their interest and problem solving skills than their male counterparts. Also of concern is a workforce gap that was identified by industry partners through an industry panel organized by the project, with female graduates being under-represented in food engineering careers. (4) Addressing difficulties with mathematics: Institutional data analyzed by the project showed that students entering food processing and food engineering majors with lower SAT scores in mathmatics, had less favorable outcomes than other students in terms of course grades, course completion, and graduation. This concern was also reported by faculty who noted that some students were entering their courses without pre-requisite mathematics skills. We tested this concern through our content assessment and found that up to 30% of the students were unable to correctly input given variables into a mathematical equation to generate a correct algebraic result.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Adedeji, A. A. (2020). Challenges and discovery of best practices for teaching engineering to food science majors my experience over my first five years at the University of Kentucky. Journal of Food Science Education Letter to the Editor 19(1), 7-9. Accepted October 31st, 2019.
|