Comparing Online Soybean Processing Module Including a Laboratory Component to On-Campus Module
Soybean Processing Module with Laboratory Exercise
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.141Keywords:
soybean products, online learning, laboratory exerciseAbstract
Hands-on learning activities enhance course outcomes in college courses based on increased exam scores and student satisfaction; however, online courses pose challenges for creating hands-on learning opportunities. The objective of this study was to compare online and on-campus students’ perception and performance on a soybean processing and products module with a laboratory component. The modules included identical lectures and discussion board questions. Students then participated in a hands-on laboratory exercise at home or on-campus investigating the effect of added soy protein at various levels on muffins physical and sensory properties. Baking kits were mailed to online students. All students were given detailed written instructions on how to prepare muffins for the exercise. Upon completion of the laboratory exercise, students wrote a scientific abstract on their findings. At the end of the module, all students (n=194) completed an assessment survey about their perception of the module. Seventy-two percent of online students met or exceeded expectations on the abstract assignment while 92% of on-campus students met or exceeded expectations. In both courses, ninety percent of students agreed or strongly agreed the laboratory improved their ability to apply knowledge to practical issues. Regarding knowledge gained, students reported an increased awareness of products that contain soy and methods for processing soybeans into ingredients. A common response was that students would be more likely to try soy products in the future because they were less concerned with off flavors and interested in the nutritional benefits of soy products.
Downloads
References
Annor, G., Ma, Z., & Boye, J. (2014). Crops—Legumes. In Food Processing: Principles and Applications: Second Edition (pp. 305–337). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846315.ch14
Chang, J. B., Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2012). Consumer valuation of health attributes for soy-based food: A choice modeling approach. Food Policy, 37(3), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.001
Hartel, R. (2001, October 1). IFT Revises its Education Standards. Food Technology Magazine, 55(10). https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2001/october/features/ift-revises-its-education-standards
Heermann, M. L., Getty, K. J. K., & Yucel, U. (2020). Application of a rolled cookie laboratory exercise as a method for students to gain undergraduate research experience in food science. Journal of Food Science Education, 19(3), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12185
Hollis, F. H., & Eren, F. (2016). Implementation of Real-World Experiential Learning in a Food Science Course Using a Food Industry-Integrated Approach: Real-world experiential learning Journal of Food Science Education, 15(4), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12092
Hughes, G. J., Ryan, D. J., Mukherjea, R., & Schasteen, C. S. (2011). Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Scores (PDCAAS) for Soy Protein Isolates and Concentrate: Criteria for Evaluation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59(23), 12707–12712. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf203220v
International Food Information Council. (2021). 2021 Food and Health Survey: International Food Information Council. https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IFIC-2021-Food-and-Health-Survey.May-2021-1.pdf
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education 2021. National Center for Education Statistics.
McWilliams, M. (2001). Foods: Experimental perspectives (4th ed). Prentice Hall.
Morgan, M. T., Ismail, B., & Hayes, K. (2006). Relative Importance of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Core Competencies—A Case Study Survey. Journal of Food Science Education, 5(2), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2006.tb00080.x
Peckenpaugh, D. J. (2020, March 18). Kodiak Cakes, our 2020 ‘Bakery of the Year,’ is redefining bakery categories across the board. Snack Food and Wholesale Bakery. https://www.snackandbakery.com/articles/94350-kodiak-cakes-our-2020-bakery-of-the-year-is-redefining-bakery-categories-across-the-board
Petrine, J. C. P., & Del Bianco‐Borges, B. (2021). The influence of phytoestrogens on different physiological and pathological processes: An overview. Phytotherapy Research, 35(1), 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.6816
Schmidt, S. J. (2020). Exploring the influence of course elements and emotional connection to content on students’ approaches to learning in an introductory food science and human nutrition course. Journal of Food Science Education, 19(2), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12180
Sloan, E. (2020, April 1). The Top 10 Functional Food Trends. Food Technology Magazine, 74(3). https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2020/april/features/the-top-10-functional-food-trends
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) & Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) (2021). Commercial Item Description for Muffins, Fresh or Frozen (A-A-20139B; p. 11).
Yew, E. H. J., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-Based Learning: An Overview of its Process and Impact on Learning. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.004