Food Protection Trends - May/June 2020 - 170

colony counts using the two techniques was high and positive
(P < 0.05). Although the agreement beyond that due to
chance (kappa) between colony count reads between the two
types of enumeration techniques was slight, concordance was
fairly high, as shown by the large concordance correlation
coefficients and non-significant P-values for the F-test of
equality of means and variances (Table 3). Overall, there
was no statistical difference between the two enumeration
methods (P < 0.05). During the final presentation, students
offered several creative solutions to food safety challenges;
one group suggested the use of hot sauce for microwaved
chicken wings stored over time, and another group proposed
the application of a garlic spread on bread. This experience
stimulated their creativity in thinking of practical solutions
for everyday problems. Students had the opportunity to
use logical reasoning skills and creativity, expanding their
appreciation for STEM disciplines.
Final course feedback
Near the end of the course, students provided feedback to
questions regarding the activities during the semester, and
learning outcomes were assessed. By the end of the semester,
79% (46/58) of undergraduate students had learned about
foodborne pathogen characteristics, identified possible
contamination vehicles through case studies and in-class
discussion, and conducted a research project (Table 1). In
comparing learning outcome #2, we observed that 40%
(21/52) and 61% (39/63) met or exceeded expectations in
2016 and 2017, respectively, when few or no engagement

activities were used. However, in 2018, when all three
engagement activities were incorporated into the class, we
observed an increase to 79% (46/58). Similar improvements
were also observed by Freeman and collaborators (4),
in whose study active learning activities helped students
improve their performance, especially in small classes.
Examples of pre- and post-semester questionnaires and
general course feedback are given in Table 2. At the end of
the 3 years of study (2018), in the year in which all three
engagement strategies were implemented, 95% (55/58) of
the respondents answered that in this class they had learned
about food safety and microbiology, and 72% (42/58)
responded that they usually enjoyed coming to class. Further,
the laboratory manual was judged to be a useful tool to help
students understand and follow experiment protocol and
methodology by 78% (45/58) of students. The data collected
in this study suggest that creative engagement strategies
are beneficial for supporting students' learning in food
microbiology and food safety.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank Dr. Karen Schmidt for her help with
manuscript editing, the department of Animal Science and
Industry at Kansas State University for the undergraduate
research support, and USDA National Institute of Food and
Agriculture Hatch/Multi-state project 1014385. A special
thanks also to Dr. Natalia Cernicchiaro for her statistical
expertise and guidance.

REFERENCES
1.	 Bohn, D. M., and S. J. Schmidt. 2008.
Implementing experiential learning activities
in a large enrollment introductory food
science and human nutrition course. J. Food
Sci. Educ. 10.1111/1541-4329.12077.
2.	 Carroll, K. C., M. A. Pfaller, M. L. Landry,
A. J. McAdam, R. Patel, S. S. Richter, and
D. W. Warnock. 2018. Scientists and
bioartists create stunning microbial
artworks in ASM's 4th Agar Art Contest.
Am. Soc. Microbiol. Washington, D.C.
10.1128/9781555819842.
3.	 Department of Homeland Security. 2016.
STEM Designated Degree Program List.
Available at: https://www.ice.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/Document/ 2016/
stem-list.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2019.
4.	 Floros, J. D., R. Newsome, W. Fisher, G. V.
Barbosa-Cánovas, H. Chen, C. P. Dunne,
J. B. German, R. L. Hall, D. R. Heldman,
M. V. Karwe, S. J. Knabel, T. P. Labuza,
D. B. Lund, M. Newell-McGloughlin, J. L.
Robinson, J. G. Sebranek, R. L. Shewfelt,
W. F. Tracy, C. M. Weaver, and G. R.
Ziegler. 2010. Feeding the world today and
tomorrow: The importance of food science
and technology. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food
Saf. 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x.

170

Food Protection Trends May/June

5.	 Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough,
M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and
M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning
increases student performance in science,
engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10.1073/pnas. 1319030111.

11.	 National Center for Education Statistics,
and U.S. Department of Education. 2019.
Undergraduate Enrollment. Cond. Educ.
2019. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/
programs/coe/pdf/coe_cha.pdf. Accessed 25
August 2019.

6.	 Hardy Diagnostics. EMB Agar M317. Available at: https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.
com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/EMBAgar.
htm. Accessed 23 September 2019.

12.	 National Science Board. 2018. Science &
Engineering Indicators 2018. Available
at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/
nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf. Accessed 28
March 2019.

7.	 Institute of Food Technologists. 2019. IFT
Approval of Undergraduate Programs in Food
Science and Food Technology. Available at:
http://www.ift.org/ community/students/
approved-undergrad-programs.aspx.
Accessed 25 August 2019.
8.	 Institute of Food Technologists. Learn About
Food Science. Available at: http://www.ift.
org/knowledge-center/learn-about-foodscience.aspx. Accessed 23 September 2019.
9.	 Kreber, C. 2001. Learning experientially through
case studies? A conceptual analysis. Teach. High.
Educ. 10.1080/13562510120045203.
10.	 Morris, J., and S. Adkins. The Art of
Microbiology: an Agar Art Microbiology Lab
CURE. Birmingham, AL. Available at: https://
serc.carleton.edu/curenet/ collection/216123.
html. Accessed 25 August 2019.

13.	 Schmidt, S. J., D. M. Bohn, A. J. Rasmussen,
and E. A. Sutherland. 2012. Using food
science demonstrations to engage students of
all ages in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). J. Food Sci. Educ.
10.1111/j.1541-4329. 2011.00138.x.
14.	 Zimbro, M. J., D. A. Power, S. M. Miller, G. E.
Wilson, and J. A. Johnson. 2009. Difco & BBL
manual. Second Edition. Becton, Dickinson
and Company, Sparks, MD. Available at:
https://legacy.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/
misc/ difcobblmanual_2nded_lowres.pdf.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cha.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cha.pdf https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/EMBAgar.htm https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/EMBAgar.htm https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/EMBAgar.htm https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf https://www.ift.org/community/students/undergraduate-programs https://www.ift.org/community/students/undergraduate-programs https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/missouri-population/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/missouri-population/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/missouri-population/ https://www.ift.org/career-development/learn-about-food-science.aspx https://www.ift.org/career-development/learn-about-food-science.aspx https://www.ift.org/career-development/learn-about-food-science.aspx https://legacy.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/misc/difcobblmanual_2nded_lowres.pdf https://legacy.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/misc/difcobblmanual_2nded_lowres.pdf https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection/216123.html https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection/216123.html https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection/216123.html

Food Protection Trends - May/June 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2020