| Title of Project: | Web-Based Product Development Learning Programs for Food Industry Professionals | |
| Project Director: | Lamartine F. Hood | |
| Applicant Organization: | The Pennsylvania State University |
The goal of this project is to empower current and future food processing industry professionals to be effective product development team players, problem solvers and decision makers, and communicators.
Five universities and a spectrum of food industry professionals will partner to offer undergraduate course(s) in product development. In addition, decision cases and other components of the university courses will be integrated with distance learning technologies to assist companies in creating the expertise to develop and market new products. Web-based decision cases and other approaches will be used in active and collaborative learning environments. The impact of these learning approaches will be evaluated using objective assessment instruments and subjective analyses. This investment in human capital will enable food companies to develop new products and ultimately be more competitive in the global marketplace.
The net result will be a model interdisciplinary multiinstitutional learning system that utilizes an agricultural communications network to transcend disciplines, place and time.
| Name: | Robert Killoren | |
| Email: | osp@psu.edu | |
| Phone Number: | ( 814) 865-3396 | |
| FAX Number: | ( 814) 865-3377 | |
| Address: | Office of Sponsored Programs, 110 Technology Center | |
| University Park, PA 16802 |
| IRS Number: | 24-6000376 | |
| Congressional District Number: | 5th | |
| Period of Proposed Project Dates: | 09/01/1999 to 08/31/2000 |
| Name: | Lamartine F Hood | |
| Email: | Lhood@psu.edu | |
| Phone Number: | ( 814) 865-0115 | |
| FAX Number: | ( 814) 865-1068 | |
| Address: | 106 Agricultural Administration | |
| University Park, PA 16802 |
| Name: | Spiro E Stefanou | |
| Email: | ttc@psu.edu | |
| Phone Number: | ( 814) 863-8635 | |
| FAX Number: | ( 814) 865-3746 | |
| Address: | 208 Armsby | |
| University Park, PA 16802 |
Five universities are sharing and coordinating human and physical resources to address substantive undergraduate and extension education needs in a cost effective manner. The net result will be that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Students will be better prepared for the challenges in the workplace and companies will be more competitive in the global marketplace. Furthermore, enhancing food company capabilities to develop and market new food products has the potential to heighten the demand for U.S. agriculture products as ingredients in these products.
The relationships between the identified program objectives and our proposal are addressed further in Section 3.
This proposal spans the Type I and II described in the RFP. Its primary emphasis is the development of educational programs for future and current food industry professionals. In order to accomplish this, we will enhance and utilize an agricultural communications network. Because the program will be developed and shared by several institutions and food companies, it requires the integration of the two types of projects. Therefore, we believe our proposal is a Type II project that "contributes to the development and utilization of an agricultural communications network" (Type I).
In fall 1997 and 1998, Penn State (PSU) developed and offered a problem-based interdisciplinary capstone learning experience designed to improve career-enhancing skills (critical thinking, decision making and problem solving, team work, communication) in the context of industrys approach to developing new and improved food products. Computer-based learning technologies and the Web were used in a variety of ways (http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/casover/aefs497/main.html). New IBM laptop computers with network connectivity were issued to each of the students, faculty, assistants and mentors involved in the course. The computers were loaded with Windows 95, Office 97, Inspiration (for concept mapping) and communications software (Eudora, Netscape, First Class, WebCT).
USDA funded a Challenge Grant in 1997 to prepare Web-based decision cases based on industry food product development experiences and to incorporate them into the course. Two cases were completed and incorporated in the fall 1998 course. Two others were developed and a third is under construction.
In the chronological study of the decision cases in fall 1998, students viewed the cases on the Web, made their comments via WebCT, "discussed" them within their teams on the group software, and communicated with the course facilitators on the groupware or via email. This active and collaborative learning approach enabled students to understand and integrate the concepts of food product development, while simultaneously fostering critical thinking, problem solving, team building and communication skills. Their increasing "experience-base" prepared them to more effectively analyze subsequent cases and product opportunity statements. As a result, they performed at an increasingly higher level of thinking as the semester progressed.
A summary of the PSU fall 1998 course follows.
Title: Food Product Development: A Web-based Case Study Approach
Objectives: a) To comprehend the fundamental principles, generalizations and theories of product development; b) to understand the specific skills, competencies and points of view needed by product development professionals; c) to appreciate the interdependencies of finance, formulation, marketing, packaging, process engineering, production and quality assurance in the development of food products; d) to understand how food company managers gain knowledge about the process for developing food products; e) to develop the skills necessary to be a contributing member of a team; f) to enhance oral and written communication skills; g) to analyze ill-defined problems and develop strategies to resolve them.
Format: The first third of the course was devoted to facilitating team work and analyzing an industrial food product development case study. Subsequently, students were organized into 4-5 person teams. Each team examined a new product opportunity and prepared a comprehensive plan for developing the product. Written and oral reports were made to a simulated management group consisting of the class and food industry professionals. In addition, each team analyzed a decision case.
Resources: Professors Lam Hood (agricultural sciences), Spiro Stefanou (agricultural economics), Swamy Anantheswaran (food science) and Barry Zoumas (Warehime Professor of Agribusiness) were the course coordinators and facilitators. Industry mentors from Hershey Foods and Procter and Gamble provided a professional perspective to the teams product development learning experiences. Other faculty and food industry professionals (e.g. ingredient suppliers, research and development scientists, brand managers, packaging specialists, production managers) served as resources. Student assistants (graduate and undergraduate) and staff specialists integral to the course included: Julian Hernandez and Ellen Taricani, Ph.D. candidates in instructional systems; Karen Peters, instructional design specialist and Ph.D. candidate in workforce education; Nicole Grande, Stephanie Hazle and Mike Spade, undergraduate assistants (who took the course in fall 1997).
Expectations of Students: Students were evaluated and the course grade assigned based on: written and oral reports (e.g. progress, subject matter, fiscal), peer evaluation of team participation, mentor assessment, and class attendance and participation. A students grade was based on their individual and team performance, weighted 50 percent for each.
Class Schedule:
CLASS DATE:DAY TOPICS/ASSIGNMENTS
1b 8/26:W Course overview, computer distribution/familiarization, learning styles inventory. Assignments:
Pretest on prod dev process(due 9/1, 5 pm, email or paper to SS , LH, SA, BZ); Pretest on computer literacy(due 8/28, 5 pm, email to ET, LH, SS, SA, BZ); Mini resume (due 8/27, 5 pm to SS)
2a 8/31:M Team formation, computer tutorial, Fresh-Cut Fruit (FCF) case introduction/discussion.
Assignment: Read and analyze case (due 9/8, 9am to LH, SS, SA, BZ)
3a,c 9/2:W Team building. Assignment: Social contract (due 9/8, 5pm)
4b 9/9:W Team role playing with the FCF case
5a 9/14:M Concept mapping the case (ET)
6b 9/16:W Focus groups (Dawn Zimmara), assign opportunity statements,
7 9/21:M Brand marketing (Chris Hood, Procter and Gamble)
8b 9/23:W NG,SH,MS describe last years class projects, Team projects
9b 9/28:M Product development (Stephanie Hanford, Hershey Foods)
10a,c 9/30:W Whats driving the industry? (Ned Dunn, Barry Zoumas)
11b 10/5:M Quality assurance (Kelly Dietz, Verdelli Farms)
12a 10/7:W Team projects, decision case
13b 10/12:M Team projects, decision case
14b 10/14:W Team projects, decision case
15a 10/19:M Packaging (Doug Peck, International Home Foods)
16a,c 10/21:W Industry case study (George Latella and Joe Bauer, Tasty Baking Co.)
17b 10/26:M Ingredients (Andy Hoefler, Hercules)
18b 10/28:W Sensory Evaluation (NG, SH, MS)
19b 11/2:M Regulatory (Catherine St. Hilare, Hershey Foods)
20b 11/4:W Team projects, decision case
21b 11/9:M Production (Craig Mayer, Hershey Foods)
22a,c 11/11:W Industry case study (Bob Drane, Oscar Meyer)
23 11/16:M Project progress reports w/ dinner (5:30-8:30 PM, Johnston Commons)
24b 11/18:W Team projects, decision case
25a 11/23:M Team projects, decision case
26b 11/30:M Team projects, decision case
27b 12/2:W Team projects, decision case
28 12/7:M Final oral project reports w/ dinner (4-8 PM, Johnston Commons)
29a,c 12/9:W Final oral project reports (5-7:30 PM, 3 SJU, 1 PSU)
-------------
a Class meets in 228 Ag Admin Building
b Class meets in 118 ASI Building
c Video and Web-based conference with product development class at St Josephs University (SJU)
A partnership was formed with Dr. John Lords food product development course at St Josephs University (SJU) in fall 1998 in order to synchronously share access to industry specialists and to initiate cross-institutional teamwork. Five PicTel-mediated and Web-based sessions focused on teamwork development, industry case study presentations and student team project reports (Note footnote c in class schedule above).
Our experiences with these innovative approaches to product development education over the past two years suggest multiple additional opportunities. This proposal delineates a plan for addressing the Program Objectives (Section 1) and identified needs of higher education and the food industry.
PROPOSAL
Our vision is to create and provide (via an agricultural communications network) collaborative interdisciplinary interinstitutional product development learning programs for future and current food industry professionals.
We will build on the experiences gained and lessons learned in the fall 1998 semester interactive venture with SJU. Three other ADEC institutions [University of California-Davis (UCD), Texas A&M University (TAMU), Instituto Tecnologico Y De Estudios Superiores De Monterrey (ITESM)] will collaborate with PSU and SJU in offering all or components of the course (Appendix: University collaborator letters). In addition, the decision cases and/or modules of the course will be key elements of a distance learning program for small and medium size food processing companies. The net result will be a model learning system that utilizes an agricultural communications network to transcend disciplines, place and time.
Distance learning techniques and technologies will be blended to achieve hybrid solutions that facilitate synchronous and asynchronous learning. Turgeon et al. (1996) emphasized that "technologies employed to engage the distance students must allow for two way, real time (i.e. synchronous) interaction."
OBJECTIVE 1. To prepare future food processing industry professionals (i.e. university students) to be effective team members in developing new and improved food products.
There are two SUBOBJECTIVES: A. Enhance collaboration with SJU, and B. Develop collaboration with UCD, TAMU and ITESM.
Appropriate technologies and interactive mechanisms will be selected on the basis of participating institutional needs and capabilities. Common class sessions will be linked via PicTel or satellite. Students will utilize the Web to access decision cases, assignments and related study materials. Electronic mail will be used for dialogue between faculty and students as well as student to student discussions. Software will be selected that will function across platforms. CourseInfo and/or other appropriate software (e.g. CourseTalk, WebCT) will provide user access to data, link to files, and on line threaded discussions and testing. Video conferencing (e.g. PicTel, Big Picture Video Phone) among faculty at the respective institutions will be utilized extensively in the planning and implementation of the collaborative programming.
We will focus on the principles of successful collaboration and course delivery: a) Effective communication between/among universities throughout the project design, development, implementation and analysis; b) A thorough design plan delineating steps, processes, responsibilities and coordination efforts; and c) Technical support for PicTel, Web CT/CourseInfo/CourseTalk and laptop computers at all locations.
SUBOBJECTIVE A. We will continue to develop the successful collaborations initiated between PSU and SJU in fall 1998. Cross-institutional teams will analyze, discuss and role play the Web-based cases. Using this approach, students, faculty and/or industry specialists can view, comment on and discuss the cases via appropriate software (e.g. CourseTalk, CourseInfo, WebCT).
The decision cases are partitioned into several subcases. Teams will be challenged to discuss subcases and to develop hypothetical solutions to the problems embedded in them. They will be encouraged to consult other human, library or Web-based resources. After completing a subcase, they will consider the subsequent subcase.
The adaptation and dependence on technology is driven entirely by our interest in promoting student learning. In addition to using decision cases as a learning methodology, we intend to incorporate concept mapping as another supporting instructional instrument into the course. Students will learn to use concept mapping as a technique for representing knowledge in graphs. Knowledge graphs are networks of concepts. Networks consist of nodes and links. Nodes represent concepts and links represent the relations between concepts. Each map will be constructed from simple to more complex thoughts. As the students compose their maps, feedback will be provided.
Concept mapping has several attributes. It can be used to generate ideas (brain storming, etc.), design a complex structure, communicate complex ideas, aid learning by explicitly integrating new and old knowledge, and assess understanding or diagnose misunderstanding. Concept maps will be a useful instrument to promote both learning and the assessment of learning within the web-technology environment we will create.
We anticipate scheduling 8 to 10 collaborative sessions during the class time (Wednesday, 1:25-3:20). Topics will be industry specialists, decision case studies, concept mapping, and project reports. In addition, students from PSU and SJU will discuss decision cases at other times via the Web. PSU (http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/casover/aefs497/main.html) and SJU (http://www.sju.edu:81) course Web sites will be accessible from the CourseInfo/CourseTalk/WebCT site.
SUBOBJECTIVE B. In the case of our new partners (UCD, TAMU, ITESM), we will establish synchronous interactive sessions similar to those with SJU in fall 1998 semester. Selected class topics can originate at any of the five institutions and will be offered simultaneously to "resident" students and by interactive technologies (Web combined with video conferencing, satellite) through ADEC and/or the Internet to partner institutions. (Appendix: University collaborators letters)
Dr. Norman Haard offers a new food product development course (FST 159) in the fall quarter at UCD. He does not have access to case studies and has expressed interest in collaborating with us. Heretofore, he has not involved faculty from other disciplines in his course. Faculty in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UCD have indicated interest in participating. Dr. Haard will schedule his course for the morning so that the discussion of decision cases can be synchronous, utilizing Pic-Tel, the Web and/or satellite.
Dr Ralph Waniska teaches a product development course (FST 401) in the fall semester at TAMU. He will synchronize his class meeting time to coincide with the common time of the PSU and SJU courses (Wednesday, 1:25-3:20 pm eastern time). The case studies are of particular interests although he believes that his students would benefit from the presentations of food industry specialists at PSU and SJU.
Professor Leticia Bravo Gutierrez will utilize the industry specialists and Web-based case studies for her students at the ITESM. The ISESM is one of the most respected agricultural sciences educational institutions in Mexico. Partly because of NAFTA, they are anxious to forge closer ties with U.S. universities. Although she has assured us that the language differences will not be a problem because all of her students speak English, we are fortunate to have Mr. Julian Hernandez, a native of Puerto Rico and an instructional design graduate student, working with us on the project. We will experiment with offering all or part of our course at the ITESM in fall 1999.
PSU has recently signed an institutional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the ITESM. The initial collaborations are between the respective business and the engineering colleges. Our project would be the first one in the agricultural sciences. We are very excited about this pending international collaboration with the ITESM, an ADEC affiliate.
OBJECTIVE 2. To enable current food processing industry professionals to develop new and improved products.
The success achieved in the "classroom" with problem-based interdisciplinary learning is transferable to the food processing industry. Small to medium size food companies realize that new and improved products are critical to their growth and prosperity. However, they have great difficulty developing new products due to the lack of experience, the complexity of the process involved and the interdisciplinary nature of the process. In many of these firms, product development is a hit or miss activity with no plan to guide individuals through the process.
Several companies have expressed interest in learning how to organize for and execute product development (Appendix: Industry collaborator letters). PSU and SJU will survey these and other Pennsylvania companies to discern their specific interests in product development-oriented education and training programs. Educational offerings will be devised accordingly. Although we are proposing to pilot this approach with small to medium size Pennsylvania food processing companies during the project year, it is anticipated that this model will be applicable in other states in the future.
Decision case studies and other components of the PSU and SJU courses will be integrated with distance education technologies to assist companies in creating the expertise to carry out food product development. Sessions will be organized using technologies to share resources from the two universities. Short courses, seminars, learning modules from our courses, CDs of decision cases, video tapes of specialist presentations, and workshops will be the primary vectors. Educational programs will be customized to address the interests and needs of the targeted participants. CDs and video tapes will also be made available to companies to augment distance education technology. The latter will afford those companies the option of developing their own instructional programs "in house" that are based on the case studies. In addition, a product development course may be structured and offered in conjunction with PSUs College of Agricultural Sciences Executive Program in Agribusiness.
The web-based decision cases can stand alone as separate learning modules. With the development of discussion and decision notes for the facilitators use, web-based cases can be delivered in an outreach format. Special attention will be given to designing outreach curricular initiatives recognizing that the undergraduate resident education format may not be totally appropriate for the adult education setting.
The design of an instructional activity for both undergraduates and outreach audiences has the objective to apply pre-existing and new knowledge to the problems, issues and challenges related to the food product development process. However, an outreach audience and an interdisciplinary group of undergraduate students will necessarily have different starting points entering into the learning experience. The outreach audience comes to the learning opportunity with more diverse knowledge and an advanced set of practical experiences to build on.
Several program delivery options are possible. Short courses (one or more sessions) can be offered at company facilities, at Penn State Cooperative Extension offices or at Penn State campuses, and/or at the SJU campus in Philadelphia. PSUs Berks-Lehigh Valley and York campuses, the Lancaster and Montgomery County Extension offices, and SJU all have the full spectrum of distance education equipment and the requisite technical support personnel. With large enrollment commitments, companies could opt for a customized course, delivered synchronously on site. Project personnel will be present at the receiving sites to facilitate active and collaborative learning. Alternatively, companies could enroll their personnel in an on-line asynchronous version which could be a joint offering from PSU and SJU. Laptop computers loaded with the necessary software will not be provided by the universities, but could be leased by the companies.
Linking undergraduate and extension education is an often talked about, but seldom achieved, concept. Our approach seeks to address a food industry need and simultaneously to serve as a model for utilizing common educational programs for diverse audiences.
1) Universities seeking to enhance their current product development course offerings.
2) Universities that do not currently offer product development coursework, but who want to provide the opportunity for their resident students.
3) Faculty, staff and administrators at participating universities who are currently involved in distance learning.
4) Faculty, staff and administrators at participating universities who are not currently involved in distance learning and are skeptical about its value and effectiveness.
5) Other food industry professionals (public and private sector) who will learn about our approach through publications, conference presentations and personal discussions with project directors, collaborators and beneficiaries (see 1-4 above).
6) Food companies whose global competitiveness will be improved with the enhanced capabilities of employees and increased probability of new product successes in the marketplace.
FOOD COMPANIES: Commitment letters from Classic Carmel Co.; Del Grosso Foods Inc.; Furman Foods Inc.; Tasty Baking Co.; Verdelli Farms Inc. Additional companies have informally expressed interest.
Respective roles are explained in Section 3.
Large food companies have the requisite expertise and experience to develop and market new products. However, small and medium size companies generally do not have these capabilities nor do they possess sufficient knowledge of the overall product development process to enable them to aggressively target emerging market opportunities.
Academic-industry partnerships will be essential in effectively addressing this need. Universities have the two fold responsibility to prepare students to be viable participants on industry product development teams, and to assist industry in developing the necessary competencies to expand their product lines. Food companies, in turn, must share their product development experiences and expertise with universities so they can prepare relevant case studies for the educational programs.
Collaboration among universities will certainly enrich each of their courses. In addition, collaboration affords the opportunity to share resident and food industry specialists, and promotes cross-institution student interactions. The latter is particularly valuable with case studies.
See the beginning of Section 3 for more on the project rationale.
The utilization of educational programs for multiple audiences is cost-effective. Specifically in our case, the preparation of web-based product development case studies is a time consuming expensive process requiring as a prerequisite the establishment of functional industry-academic relationships. Utilizing these cases in undergraduate and extension/outreach education programs maximizes their value and return on investment. This benefit is multiplied by the capability to incorporate them into programs in other states and countries. Obviously, it would be much more expensive and impractical if the individual universities were to attempt this approach independently.
The involvement of resource persons external to our respective institutions (e.g. food industry specialists) is a key element of this proposal. Scheduling, travel costs and distances are frequently impediments to involving these types of individuals in university educational programs. For example, a marketing specialist at a Philadelphia food company may not be able to travel to Davis, CA (or even State College, PA) to make a presentation to a class. They would be more likely to make the presentation to a class at St. Josephs in Philadelphia. The technologies and approaches we have described will enable the "distance" sites to have access to these unique resource people.
The web-based techniques, employing supporting aspects of more recent distance learning technologies, will facilitate our commitment to creating a student-centered learning environment. The Web will serve as a tool for instruction allowing information to be delivered asynchronously in an innovative and timely manner. This format provides for rapid integration of new information or ideas into the learning environment and opens the doors for a wider audience to participate with the faculty from the collaborating institutions. This approach is designed to provide flexibility for the students to work at their own pace and have discussions with other students independent of the class time. The cases on the Web provide examples of actual events taking place during the food product development process. Students can use the cases as a tool to learn and interact with the information. This is especially useful as they prepare their product plans and think through the processes involved in development.
There is an opportunity-cost to not having the types of educational programs we have described at multiple locations. University and industry "students" will not be exposed to the materials (e.g. web-based cases) and resource people (e.g. faculty, industry specialists). Thus the quality of the educational experience will be relatively inferior.
Additional perspectives on the impact of the project on the Agricultural Communication Network development and/or integration are provided in Sections 3 and 9.
Formative and summative assessment/evaluation will be carried out. Formative evaluation is used to assess ongoing routine pedagogical practices in order to correct problematic behaviors before they become detrimental to teaching effectiveness and the learning process. Summative evaluation is used to reflect over the previous educational program and make recommendations for necessary changes in current programming (Hedges, 1989).
A number of assessment instruments are needed to address both formative and summative assessment. Five formative assessment instruments and a pre-test essay, and four summative assessment instruments were developed and piloted in PSUs fall 1997 and 1998 course. They are summarized below.
We will work with our partner institutions in fall 1999 to utilize these evaluation instruments as appropriate. In particular, we will focus on the impact of the web-based cases and industry specialist presentations, offered on our telecommunications network, on student learning at all locations. In addition, we will continue to explore incorporating concept maps as an instrument to represent changes in students knowledge structures over the course of the semester and as a tool to assess learning (Novak and Gowan, 1984; Pendley et al., 1994; Novak, 1998). The fall 1998 course introduced concept maps for the purpose of providing feedback to the students. The final map accounted for 10 percent of the students grade.
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Formative assessment provides feedback and is undertaken for the benefit of both students and faculty facilitators. Multiple instruments will be used to measure student content knowledge and understanding, team collaboration behavior, and issues relating to practical aspects of the courses progress.
Assessment Pre-Test: This assignment is presented the first day of class and students are given five days to complete it. Students are asked to describe the food product development process for a specific opportunity statement. This provides the faculty facilitators with a baseline for what students know coming into class. The other purpose of this exercise is to get the students to start thinking critically about the issues surrounding the decisions that need to be made in the food product development process. This essay is not part of the final grade but is used to assess the courses value-added to the students understanding of the food product development process. This activity would also be effective as a concept map rather than an essay. The concept maps can be easier to score and may provide some students with a readily summarized knowledge structure. The essay has the advantage of providing students with an opportunity to write-to-learn and can be an effective means to enhancing written communication skills.
Peer Evaluation Assessment: This form asks students to rate their team members on eight different statements and then asks them to offer an overall weight by assigning the portion of a $10,000 bonus to be distributed to each team member. Self-evaluation is also requested to provide a base line. This evaluation is done twice during the semester and at the end of the semester. This instrument provides data for final course grade assignment.
Peer Evaluation Feedback: This form summarizes the results of the statements and the bonus assignments. Each student receives the feedback. This form also mentions how the weighting of this performance evaluation increases as the semester progresses.
Peer Evaluation Collaboration Scoring: This form presents a measure of collaboration as a number. The idea is to sum the score over all eight statement categories divided by the maximum possible score and use the bonus assignments as weights. The students receive the frequency distribution overall scores and their own score.
Oral Report Evaluation Form/Progress Report: This form is used to provide an assessment of the student teams progress in developing its food product development plan and the presentation of its plan.
Interim Course Assessment Instrument: This is mid-semester instrument asks students to provide feedback to the faculty instructors and course assistants. Students are questioned on the effectiveness of the course facilitators, the team work aspect of the course and the assignments. This form is executed once during the semester. If a problem area does arise, the form can be used again to see if improvements are being realized.
SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Summative assessment instruments will be employed to measure how much value the course has added to the students understanding of the food product development process and will serve an accountability purpose.
Assessment Post-Test: This assignment mirrors the pre-test task by asking students to describe the product development process for a specific problem (but different from the pre-test problem). It is a graded assignment. As concept maps are used for assessment, the pre- and post-test concept maps can be evaluated for metering the gain in student knowledge about the food product development process.
Scaling (Rubric) for Essay Evaluation: This presents a scaling procedure articulating a well-defined set of criteria to be used to grade essays. The rubric assesses the students ability to 1) identify and elaborate on the framework describing the continuum of the product development process; 2) identify and elaborate on appropriate issues within stages (e.g. food safety, quality assurance, business plan, etc.). This rubric can be used for the evaluation of the pre- and post-test assessment essays and the concept maps.
Oral Report Evaluation Form/Final Report: This form provides an assessment of the student teams progress in developing its food product development plan and the presentation of its plan.
Final Course Assessment Instrument: This builds on the interim assessment instrument with the addition of a few more categories such as the role of outside specialists, the use of the computer as a learning tool, and self-rating the students progress on understanding the food product development process and how food product development specialists work. This form can be amended to address the value of the distance learning activities.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: PSUs fall 1997 and 1998 courses had a positive impact on student learning outcomes. The application of the scaling rubric to the pre- and post-assessment tests provided a formal opportunity to assess student learning. The final student assessment of the course covered the effectiveness of the course facilitators, the learning value of the team and the team project, the efficacy of the assignments, the learning value of the industry mentors and specialists, and the impact of the laptop computer on the quality of the final team project. In addition, each student was asked to rate the progress he or she made in this course compared with that made in other courses taken at PSU. We anticipate that this methodology (or derivatives of) will be useful for assessing student learning as a result of our collaborative programs.
DISSEMINATION
The experiences gained and lessons learned from the multiple applications and audiences will be shared, publicized and distributed using a variety of approaches and mechanisms.
Offering a food product development course simultaneously at land-grant and private universities in different time zones will be a model for the application of distance learning technologies to enhance undergraduate student learning. We are committed to seeking and responding to opportunities to inform others about our experiences.
PSU, TAMU and UCD are charter members of ADEC while ITESM is an "affiliate" member. All of our institutions, including SJU, have been committed to fostering the success of distance education networks. Hopefully, this project will result in the involvement of additional collaborators. (While preparing this proposal, an inquiry has been received from the University of Maine.)
A Website to publicize and disseminate PSUs food product development decision cases has been created (http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/casover/aefs497/main.html). SJUs product development course is at http://www.sju.edu:81. The Clearinghouse for Decision Case Education at the University of Minnesota (http://www.decisioncase.edu) will facilitate timely sharing of results and solicitation of feedback.
The annual regional USDA teaching workshops provide a natural opportunity to share the results of the project and to seek collaborators for future offerings of the course.
The Education Division of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) provides a logical forum for sharing the decision case-distance education philosophy, approach and experiences with other food science professionals. A poster describing our 1997 experience generated substantial interest at the 1998 IFT annual meeting. Presentations will be made at future national and regional IFT meetings.
Distance education conferences (e.g. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) and decision case study forums (e.g. Annual International Conference on Case Method Research and Application sponsored by the World Association for Case Method Research and Application) provide outlets for the results of this project.
We plan to participate and present our findings at regional and national academic assessment conferences sponsored by the American Association of Higher Education and the Assessment Institute, and more general forums such as the American Educational Research Association.
The many publications of our respective institutions afford multiple opportunities for informing diverse audiences about this unique project. For example, it will be highlighted in the PSU College of Agricultural Sciences Industry Newsletter and the periodic magazine, "Penn State Agriculture." The newsletter of the Food System Professions Education (FSPE) program that has wide distribution throughout the food system and will be another useful vehicle.
As a member of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, PSUs College of Agricultural Sciences will have multiple opportunities to inform and engage business and industry leaders, and to seek their suggestions and involvement.
The state and federal governments will be informed about this initiative and the valuable impact it is having on education and the food industry. We expect that this will have positive benefits for higher education.
Our proposal will establish a foundation for an agricultural telecommunication network among public and private universities and the food industry. The multiuniversity, interdisciplinary team of collaborators will provide leadership in developing and incorporating case studies into active learning situations on their respective campuses and at a distance. The team will utilize the financial resources provided for this project as seed funds to develop pilot approaches that can be demonstrated and evaluated in multiple applications.
The project described in this proposal is the first phase of a long term program. In the next phase, we will broaden the program to include other companies and universities.
We are enthusiastic about the utilization of an agricultural telecommunications network to link higher education institutions in North America and beyond. The Wagingen Agricultural University in the Netherlands has expressed interest in future participation..
It is our intent to seek significant additional funds to continue and expand this pilot project. For example, the Kellogg Foundation-funded FSPE program is a potential source. The ADEC funding will enable the project team to initiate the development of several viable concepts that will be attractive funding opportunities for the FSPE program. Other potential sources of funding for the continuation and expansion of our project include the USDA Challenge Grants program, World Bank, FAO, sources within our respective institutions (e.g. the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and the Division of Continuing and Distance Learning at PSU), food company foundations (e.g. General Foods Foundation, Agway Foundation, Hershey Foundation), and individual food companies.
The PSU College of Agricultural Sciences is funding a stipend and tuition for an instructional design graduate assistantship (Julian Hernandez) for a three year period. This assistantship will be available through December 2000, thus assuring continuity and sustainability. We intend to seek funds for additional assistantships from other university and granting sources. The PSU Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning provides grants to faculty teams for innovative learning projects. Partner institutions may have access to unique and different sources of funding.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE BASE
The proposed project employs a problem-based learning approach to provide a context for students to integrate knowledge about the diverse components of the food product development process. In this setting, faculty serve as learning facilitators. The appropriate role of the student is to think and make judgements as he/she seeks a viable solution to problems. Students come to appreciate that knowledge is uncertain and speculative, and that they must learn to critically analyze problems and make judgements in an imperfect environment. The problem-based learning approach employed in the this course adopts a learner-centered perspective. This approach is in stark contrast to the traditional model of teaching where the base of knowledge rests with the instructor presenting the right answers and the students assuming a passive role of receivers of information.
Additional contributions are highlighted in Sections 3 and 8.
WOMAN, UNDER REPRESENTED MINORITIES, DISABILITIES
Our project will broaden the participation of woman, under represented minorities and persons with disabilities. The open access to discussions and information on the Web provides timeless and seamless opportunities for all students regardless of their life situations and location. Thus, gender and status of the students are not factors or hindrances for learning.
In the fall 1997 and 1998 PSU course, 61 percent of the students were woman. The SJU class was 56 percent woman in 1998. Woman are in the majority in most undergraduate food science programs. Thus, this project effectively embraces the participation of woman. Furthermore, these female students will have better critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills than the students who do not take the course. These career-enhancing skills will improve their potential for success in the food industry.
Small and medium size food companies in Pennsylvania employ significant numbers of minorities, particularly Hispanics and Latinos. Their upward mobility in these companies is impaired by lack of understanding about the food product development process. This project has the potential to enhance their capabilities and thus to make them more effective employees. The net result will be the promotion of more employees from under represented groups into leadership and management positions.
Many of the graduates of ITESM are employed in multinational food companies. This project will enhance their professional preparation and subsequent effectiveness. The net result will be under represented minorities in the food industry whose potential for success will be increased by their experiences with this course.
JUL-AUG 99-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 1: Planning (via written correspondence, phone, email, video conference) for fall 1999 collaborations between PSU and the four partners. (Hood and Stefanou will initiate. Will involve all the project participants. If project funds are available, Hood and/or Stefanou will travel to each of the partner sites to make detailed site-specific plans for the fall.)
SEPT-DEC 99-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 1: Implement plans for collaborative learning that involves food industry specialists and Web-based cases. Conduct evaluation and assessment. (All projects participants)
NOV-DEC 99-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 2: Planning for Jan -Aug 2000 learning programs for Pennsylvania food companies. Focus on one or two companies or delivery sites initially. (Hood, Stefanou, Hernandez, Taricani, Zoumas, Peters, Lord, industry partners)
DEC99-FEB00-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 1: Critique and evaluation of fall 1999 experiences. Plan for subsequent collaborative programs. Seek additional collaborators in North America and beyond. (All project participants)
JAN-AUG 00-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 2: Implement plans for offering Web-based product development learning programs for Pennsylvania food companies. (Hood, Stefanou, Hernandez, Taricani, Zoumas, Peters, Lord, industry partners)
JAN-AUG 00-PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE 1: Disseminate project results and experiences at professional society meetings (e.g. Regional USDA-sponsored teaching workshops; IFT; International Conference on Case Method Research and Application; Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning), and through ADEC, universities, USDA, NASULGC, and chambers of commerce publications, etc. (All project participants)
AUG 00-: Continue and enhance collaborative program with existing partners. Identify new partners, particularly ADEC members. Disseminate results of the project within and beyond our respective institutions. Provide leadership through ADEC for stimulating other Web-based programs. Seek long term support for the project from the public and private sector, including foundations. (Hood, Stefanou, Lord, Haard, Waniska, Gutierrez)
Spiro Stefanou (18%) Provide leadership in project; develop and offer undergraduate and extension education programs; program evaluation and assessment.
Julian Hernandez (50%) Provide instructional design expertise; Web-based decision case development.
Ellen Taricani (10%) Provide technical and technological support for undergraduate and extension education programs; instructional design; Web-based decision case development; manage distance learning technologies; facilitate concept mapping.
Barry Zoumas (5%) Contribute to undergraduate and extension education programs.
Al Turgeon (5%) Provide expertise on Web-based learning.
.
Elizabeth Hawthorne (5%) Interface with PSUs World Campus; assist in decision
case teaching.
Karen Peters (5%) Provide technology support.
John Lord (10%) Partner with PSU in developing and delivering undergraduate and extension education programs; incorporate Web-based decision cases into SJU product development class; collaborate with other project partners.
Norman Haard (5%) Incorporate Web-based decision cases into UCD product development course; collaborate with other project partners.
Ralph Waniska (5%) Incorporate Web-based decision cases and industry specialist presentations into TAMU product development course; collaborate with other project partners.
Leticia Bravo Gutierrez (5%) Incorporate Web-based decision cases and industry specialist presentations into ITESM product development course; collaborate with other project partners.