ABSTRACT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND LEARNING...

ABSTRACT

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND LEARNING DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS

REGISTERED IN ONLINE VERSUS IN-SEAT GENERAL

EDUCATION NUTRITION CLASSES

By

Anna Cahn

August 2015

With the increase in demand for higher education, colleges and universities across

the country are adapting and providing alternative ways for students to receive a college

degree. This includes providing sections of classes purely online as well as in-seat. The

purpose of this thesis was to investigate knowledge, motivational and behavioral changes

among students enrolled in an in-seat, face-to-face introductory nutrition course

compared to students enrolled in an online version of the same course. A pre- and post-

semester survey were distributed and results showed that overall there were no significant

differences in knowledge, motivation and behavior between the in-seat and online

students during the pre- and post-surveys (p > 0.05). Both groups showed improvement

overall in nutrition knowledge learned and nutrition related behaviors and slight

decreases in overall motivation a result of being enrolled.

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND LEARNING DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS

REGISTERED IN ONLINE VERSUS IN-SEAT GENERAL

EDUCATION NUTRITION CLASSES

A THESIS

Presented to the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences

California State University, Long Beach

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Nutritional Sciences

Committee Members:

Virginia Gray, Ph.D. (Chair) Doris Derelian, Ph.D. Nancy Dayne, Ed.D.

College Designee:

Wendy Reiboldt, Ph.D.

By Anna Cahn

B.S., 2012, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

August 2015

Copyright 2015

Anna Cahn

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

! iii!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank the Family and Consumer Sciences department chair

and college designee Dr. Wendy Reiboldt Ph.D for everything she taught me about the

research process and for helping guide myself as well as my peers in our research. I

would also like to thank Dr. Reiboldt, for introducing me to one of my committee

members Dr. Nancy Dayne Ed.D. Through Dr. Dayne’s research and experience, she has

helped me in this thesis process.

I would also like to thank the chair of my thesis Dr. Virginia Gray, Ph.D, RD, for

her patience throughout this process. Thank you for taking me as a student early on, even

before I was sure what I wanted to do. I appreciate all your insight and work you have

done to help me succeed.

A special appreciation goes to my other committee member Dr. Doris Derelian,

Ph.D, JD, RDN, FADA, FAND. During my senior year in college at Cal Poly, San Luis

Obispo I took your nutrition education course and realized what I ultimately wanted to do

with my career. Thank you for showing me that there is a life after my sport and for

guiding me in this path. I never thought that I would get this far but you have always

been there, and I will never be able to repay you for what you have done for me.

To my parents Mary and Larry and my brother Norman. Thank you for your

constant support and for always letting me follow my dreams. Thousands of hours have

been spent out on the field, but thank you for always telling me that my education is what

matters most. Thank you for making me strive for greatness both on the softball field and

! iv!

in the classroom. I love you three so much. Thank you. Lastly to my puppy sister

Buddy. Even though you are just a dog, you are such an important part of my life.

! v!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem........................................................................... 3 Purpose Statement...................................................................................... 3 Hypotheses................................................................................................. 4 Definition of Terms.................................................................................... 4 Limitations ................................................................................................. 5 Assumptions............................................................................................... 5 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................... 6 In-Seat Learning......................................................................................... 6 Online Learning ......................................................................................... 7 Reasons for Choosing In-Seat or Online Classes ...................................... 9 Differences in Knowledge Attained in In-Seat Versus Online Classes..... 11 Motivation and Behavioral Differences..................................................... 12 Nutrition Class Studies .............................................................................. 14 Summary .................................................................................................... 15 3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 17 Sample ....................................................................................................... 17 Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 18 Procedure and Data Collection .................................................................. 19 Statistical Analysis..................................................................................... 20 4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 21 Participant Characteristics ......................................................................... 21

! vi!

CHAPTER Page Hypotheses................................................................................................. 23 Summary .................................................................................................... 31 5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... 32 Discussion .................................................................................................. 32 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 35 Implications................................................................................................ 35 Limitations and Future Research ............................................................... 36 Summary .................................................................................................... 37 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 38 A. PRE AND POST SEMESTER ONLINE SURVEY ....................................... 39 B. SURVEY CONSENT FORM .......................................................................... 45 !REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 48

! vii!

!

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page 1. Student Demographics ...................................................................................... 23 2. Independent Samples t-Test of Pre-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related To Foods Containing Protein........................................................ 24 3. Independent Samples t-Test of Pre-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related to Plate Proportions....................................................................... 24 4. Independent Samples t-Test of Post-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related to Essential Nutrients.................................................................... 25 5. Most Improved Nutrition Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 In-Seat ........................................................................................................ 25 6. Most Improved Nutrition Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Online......................................................................................................... 26 7. Mean Values for Motivation Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Both In-Seat and Online............................................................................. 27 8. Mean Values for Behavior Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Both In-Seat and Online............................................................................. 28 9. Independent Samples t-Test of Both Pre- and Post-Survey Results for Question:

“If given the choice, would you rather take a class in-seat or online?”.. 29 10. Mean Values for All Questions for Both In-Seat and Online Students for Pre- and Post-Survey Results ............................................................................ 30 !

!1!

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

In recent years technology has changed the way both students and teachers view

education. In grades leading up to high school graduation, students traditionally learn

from educators face to face in classrooms. After finishing high school, many students

look forward to attending colleges and universities and participating in higher education.

Colleges and universities traditionally offer in-person classes, similar to those previously

taken by students. Demands for higher education have increased drastically over time

while funding has decreased. To combat growing demand and lower funding, schools are

accepting more students each year and student-impacted classes are a concern.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, enrollment of eighteen to

twenty four year olds in higher education rose from 36% in 2001 to 42% in 2011 (2013a).

With increased enrollment in institutions of higher education, schools are

implementing new ways to provide quality education to a larger population. A cost-

effective way to do this is by providing courses online, where many more students can

enroll. Students are able to access the course anywhere at any time, allowing the use of

outside resources to aid in learning as well as giving students the freedom to be in control

of their education (Illinois Online Network, 2014). The Internet has given students the

freedom to receive a quality education from anywhere around the world.

!2!

Online education was not the first form of distance education. In 1892,

Pennsylvania State University offered education by mailing students the curricula, which

later in 1922 evolved to classes offered through radio. By 1925, more than 200 colleges

and universities were granted radio-broadcasting licenses and were offering classes to

people around the country (Educase, 2005). In 1968, Stanford University initiated the

Stanford Instructional Television Network for part-time engineering students to complete

courses away from Stanford University campuses (Stanford, 2007). These forms of

distance education were the first of their kind, distributing information to many. Since

then, distance education has evolved. The most common instruments used are

technologies including the Internet, email, interactive software and video (Educase, 2005).

An increase in the demand and use of online education has led to criticism from

those who value traditional learning. Many students take online courses for various

reasons including but not limited to convenience and flexibility, regardless of personal

learning styles. After enrolling, some students may see that online learning is not a

sufficient match to their learning style and drop the class as a result. Making sure

students choose the course modality according to their learning styles is important for

academic success (Romanelli, Bird, & Ryan, 2009). Even though online classes reduce

the amount of classroom space and time required, the effectiveness of teaching

information to students is what is most important (Mirakian & Hale, 2007). Currently,

there are no national standards to assess online education though it is important to assess

and evaluate the educational outcomes of online forms of education compared to in-seat

courses.

!3!

At California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), Introductory Nutrition

(NUTR 132) is a general education, lower division nutrition course offered both online

and in-seat. This class teaches students about essential nutrients for human life, food

sources for an adequate diet, nutritional needs, food additives and consumer protection

(CSULB, 2014). This class is offered to all students as either part of their core

curriculum or as a general education requirement for degree completion. Since both

online and in-seat versions of this class are available, it is vital to look at the differences

of nutrition knowledge gained as well as how this course affects motivation and

behavioral changes towards nutrition over a semester.

Statement of the Problem

Since online education is a relatively new way of teaching and learning, its

effectiveness of teaching students facts to the same quality as in-seat learning needs to be

investigated. Learning style and schedule may be factors when choosing between online

and in-seat learning. Therefore, investigation of behaviors and knowledge to assess

course effectiveness is necessary. This information will help university administrators

see how different types of courses affect students’ learning.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this thesis was to investigate knowledge, motivational and

behavioral changes among students enrolled in an in-seat, face-to-face introductory

nutrition course (NUTR 132) compared to students enrolled in an online version of the

same course. Specifically this study investigated the differences in (a) nutrition

knowledge, (b) motivation to lead a healthy lifestyle and (c) behavior associated with

class enrollment and participation.

!4!

Hypotheses

H01: There is no significant difference in changes of learned nutrition knowledge

between students taking NUTR 132 online versus in-seat.

H02: There is no significant difference in motivation to lead a healthy lifestyle


H03: There is no significant difference in behavior to lead a healthy lifestyle


Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:

Asynchronous learning: A form of education, instruction and learning that does

not occur in the same place or at the same time, most commonly digital and online

learning from prerecorded videos (Asynchronous learning, 2013).

Blended learning: Practice of using both online and in-seat learning experiences

when teaching students, also called “hybrid learning” (Blended learning, 2013).

Entry level class: A class that does not require prior knowledge or prerequisites

to enroll.

Massive Open Online Course (MOOC): Courses that are offered either through

universities or open forums where users are allowed to participate and learn with

unlimited access (Allen & Seaman, 2013)

Online learning: Sometimes referred to as e-learning, a form of distance

education, delivered over the Internet, accessed from a computer with a Web browser

(e.g., Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, etc.; Keystone College, 2014).

!5!

Self-regulated learning (SRL): Learning that comes from the influence of

students’ self-generated thoughts, feelings, strategies, and behaviors, which is oriented

toward the attainment of goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998).

Synchronous learning: A form of education, instruction and learning that occurs

at the same time, but not in the same place, most commonly online learning in real time

(Synchronous learning, 2013).

Traditional learning: Any form of instructional interaction that occurs “in

person” and in real time between teachers and students or among colleagues and peers

(In-person learning, 2013). Today, this is also referred to as “in-seat” learning.

Limitations

This study is limited to a single course at one university in Long Beach,

California. This sample may not be an appropriate representation of any other students in

California or the United States or in subjects other than nutrition. The results are based

on information from a self-reported questionnaire at the beginning and end of a semester,

not from objective measures.

Assumptions

It was assumed that students understand the questions asked and answer them

truthfully and accurately. It is also assumed that the questionnaire is an accurate measure

of nutrition knowledge gained throughout the semester, of motivation to consume a

healthy diet, and of nutrition-related behavior change.

!6!

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE







In-Seat Learning

The most common vehicle for education on all levels is traditional learning.

Traditional learning is also known as in-seat or in-person learning which is usually taught

by an instructor in a classroom setting with students physically present (In-person

learning, 2013). Other forms of this learning include research and laboratory courses in

science and technology that cannot be taught online. Lab courses require students to be

participating in experiments, which cannot be performed physically online. This “learn

by doing” practical experience is crucial for fields like science and technology where

hands-on learning is crucial for future career success (Bonvillian & Singer, 2013).

In-seat learning is important not just for knowledge accumulation, but also for

social and communicative interactions that regularly occur. Students develop the ability

to ask questions, share their opinions and agree or disagree with points of view. There is

!7!

interaction between students and instructors that stimulate conversation, discussion and

sometimes debate that help clarify new concepts and help students solidify their learned

knowledge (Ya Ni, 2013). Student-to-student interaction is also important because it

helps in the development of communication and teamwork skills. These experiences are

hard to attain through online education, and are important factors when assessing when

online learning can be substituted for in-seat (Bonvillian & Singer, 2013).

In recent years online education has burgeoned while classroom education has

decreased (Allen & Seaman, 2013). One study started in 2003 looked at trends in online

higher education in the United States. It found that the number of students solely

enrolled in traditional classes was 88.3%. Eight years later in 2011 this same study found

that national enrollment solely in traditional classes decreased to 68% (Allen & Seaman,

2013). This study showed that students are enrolling in classes with some online learning

component more frequently than ever. According to the National Center for Education

Statistics, 21 million students are expected to be enrolled in and attend American colleges

and universities in Fall 2014 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014b). This

means that 14.3 million (or fewer) students will be enrolled in solely traditional education

in this coming year, and 32% or more students will be enrolled in at least one online

course (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

Online Learning

As online learning increases, in-seat learning decreases. Online education is defined

as a form of distance education delivered over the Internet, accessed from a computer

with a Web browser (Keystone College, 2014). Most online learning opportunities occur

!8!

through the Internet, either from college or university websites or via e-mail (Allen &

Seaman, 2013). Some classes may combine online and in-seat aspects together to form a

blended or hybrid class experience. These classes deliver content online such as online

discussions, online test or quizzes and more, which reduces the number of or eliminates

face-to-face meetings altogether (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

Online classes not only reduce physical interaction and presence, but also provide

flexibility to both students and teachers. Online education gives students free reign to

study from wherever there is an Internet connection. This freedom allows students to

work at their own pace and gives them control over their learning achievements (Allen &

Seaman, 2013). A large population of people enrolled in online courses are “non-

traditional” students, such as single parents and older adults who are updating their

knowledge and skills to stay competitive in the job market (Summers, Waigandt, &

Whittaker, 2005). Other students are seeking degrees which may have been unfinished or

were out of reach geographically.

There has been an increase in the offering of online classes. A national survey

looking at the frequency of online education found that in 2003, only 11.7% of students

enrolled in U.S. higher education were in at least one online class. This number

increased to 32% enrollment in at least one online class in 2011, or 6.7 million students

(Allen & Seaman, 2013).

While some students take both online and in-seat courses during their college

career, others obtain degrees solely online. These degrees give students freedom to study

and complete degrees without being present in a physical classroom. Online classes

!9!

achieve accountability by making participation in assignments such as discussion boards

required (Clayton, Blumberg, & Auld, 2010). These classes require self-motivation, self-

regulation and pacing, which should be compatible with learning styles when choosing to

enroll and participate in online education. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics (2014b), in 2012, 2.6 million US students were enrolled in online

degree programs.

Reasons for Choosing In-Seat or Online Classes

Students may choose to enroll in either online or in-seat classes for several

reasons. Some students prefer structured, face-to-face contact with an instructor (in-seat)

where others want the flexibility to learn by their own schedule (online). If given a

choice, students may pick based on factors such as convenience, availability, or learning

style. While student preferences differ, looking at specific factors to assess the needs of

current students is imperative.

One important factor to consider is the students’ learning style. Learning style is

defined as characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychosocial behaviors that serve as

relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the

learning environment (Romanelli et al., 2009). Some students may be able to discern

what learning style defines them based on past experiences. When students have

appropriately chosen classes that are right for them. Others may choose learning methods,

especially online education, based entirely by convenience without thinking about the

appropriateness for their individual learning style (Mirakian & Hale, 2007).

!10!

Everyone learns in a different way; some students learn better with a structured

classroom approach where an instructor is physically present and students must be

engaged for a certain period of time before leaving. Self-directed and self-motivated

students tend to be more successful in online courses compared to those lacking

motivation because online courses require diligence and consistency in participation with

coursework (Mirakian & Hale, 2007). When a student has not developed self-direction

and self-motivation qualities, it can be difficult to perform at a high level in online classes

(Mirakin & Hale, 2007). As a result, online courses have a higher level of attrition

compared to in-seat courses (Summers et al 2005). An English study (Clayton et al.,

2010) surveying 132 graduate student preferences for learning environments found that

73% of students preferred traditional classes, while 25% preferred hybrid classes, part in-

seat, part online; 2% preferred online only. When asked why students preferred

traditional learning, responses included consistency with learner-instruction match.

Students chose classes and instructors based on their learning style (60%), engaged

learning (29%) and familiarity (11%). These students were found to show a mastery goal

orientation and a greater willingness to apply learning strategies. When asked why

students preferred either hybrid or online learning, responses included: augmented

learning process (41%), learner-instruction match (29%) and lifestyle fit (26%). The

students that preferred hybrid or online learning were more confident they could manage

themselves in a non-traditional setting (Clayton et al., 2010).

!11!

Differences in Knowledge Attained in In-Seat Versus Online Classes

A key means of evaluating differences between in-seat and online learning is the

comparison of knowledge learned. Different students have various learning styles and

levels of self-direction, which may affect how well they achieve expected outcomes.

Many studies have looked at the differences between learned knowledge in in-seat

and online classes. Most findings show that there is no significant difference between

online learning and traditional learning in terms of student grades and test scores

(Machtmes & Asher, 2000). One 2007 study at Wichita State University looked at grades

of 224 students enrolled in either an online or in-seat undergraduate Clinical

Pharmacology course. Scores were similar between online and in-seat students (83.5%,

83.0%), meaning students learned similar knowledge in each class format (Mirakian &

Hale, 2007).

A 2009 study looked at the differences in achievement between students taking

online only, hybrid and in-seat learning. The 153 participants from Midwestern

University were enrolled in a required “wellness course.” The researchers gave a pre-

and post-test to assess attained knowledge. There were no statistically significant

differences in the mean for pre-test scores (p > .05). For post-test scores, the researchers

used a one-way ANOVA to look at mean differences between pre and post-tests among

the three groups. They found significant differences in student achievement among the

three groups (p < .01); specifically, students in the hybrid and online learning groups had

a significant higher achievement than the traditional learning group. There were no

significant differences found between the hybrid and online group (Lim, Kim, Chen, &

!12!

Ryder, 2009). These results show that some online modes of delivering may be

appropriate, but more research needs to demonstrate this effectiveness.

With an increase in online education geared towards students, instructors are also

weighing in on the differences in knowledge learned between in-seat and online learning.

A 2012 US national survey of more than 2,800 college and university academic leaders

found that 77.0% of them rated the learning outcomes in online education as the same or

superior to those of in-seat. Since online classes are heavily relying on student centered

learning, the standards should be geared more towards helping students teach themselves

where they will retain the information appropriately (Allen & Seaman, 2013). More

research into student centered learning and online learning in general needs to be done to

help with this issue.

Motivation and Behavioral Differences

Some courses not only involve learning knowledge but are also intended to

motivate changes in everyday life. For example, classes in nutrition not only provide

students with knowledge about the subject of nutrition but practical information to help

lead a healthier lifestyle. Students enrolled in classes related to their major may be

motivated to learn and perform better than those taking the same course as a general

education requirement. Motivation is intrinsic, but there are ways to guide a student to

increase motivation.

Five principles guide students to motivation to learn. The first principle is that the

learner’s curiosity is aroused due to a perceived gap in current knowledge. If students are

genuinely interested in a subject, they are more likely to engage in learning. The second

!13!

principle is that knowledge to be learned is perceived to be meaningfully related to a

learner’s goal. A student may not be motivated to perform at the level that is required in

a course if the information does not seem meaningful. Principle three is that the learner

believes he or she can succeed in mastering the learned task. When a concept or outcome

seems too difficult or confusing, a student loses motivation to learn. The fourth principle

is that the learner anticipates and experiences satisfying outcomes of a learned task. If a

student sees success, then he or she will become motivated to keep succeeding. The last

principle is that the learners employ volitional self-regulatory strategies to protect their

intentions. This principle is important especially in online learning where self-regulation

is necessary for success (Keller, 2008).

Motivation to perform at a high standard is important in the classroom setting as

well as online. When compared to in-seat learning, online classes have less student and

teacher physical interactions, requiring students to be self-reliant and “self-regulating” of

their cognition, motivation and behavior during courses (Artino, 2008). The 2012 U.S.

national survey of more than 2,800 college and university academic leaders cited earlier

found that 88.8% said that it is very important for students to be “self-disciplined” when

it comes to success in taking online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

One 2009 study looked at reasons students were motivated to perform

academically. The survey questioned 132 ethnically diverse students from two urban

public colleges in New York City. Students who preferred in-seat learning environments

(73%) showed significantly more of a mastery in goal orientation and a greater interest in

expending effort in class than students who preferred learning environments with an

!14!

online component (27%). The top answers for why students preferred in-seat learning

and were motivated to succeed were engagement learning between students and teacher,

learner-instruction match and familiarity. When students have a positive relationship

with their instructor and see positive results, they will be motivated to participate and

learn (Clayton et al., 2010).

These studies show that motivation is impacted not only by the learning style of

the student, but also the teaching style of the instructor. Each student must be able to

identify his or her learning style and tailor their learning experience based on that style.

Online learners must have strong self-regulating skills to perform well, while in-seat

learners must have strong interpersonal skills that will help them interact with other

students and instructors (Allen & Seaman, 2013). When learning is a positive experience

with increased success, motivation to continue to perform at a high level will continue

and students will achieve in both in-seat and online modes (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

Nutrition Class Studies

With a rise in the prevalence of online education, nutrition is a subject that has

joined the list of other subjects that can be offered both in-seat and online. Nutrition

courses are a good example of providing knowledge and skills that motivate behavior

change. Thus, the differences between these two types of teaching and learning should be

examined, and it is important to look at the effectiveness of nutrition classes in achieving

behavior change.

One 2010 study looked at the effect of nutrition education on college athletes: was

there a change in knowledge learned as a result of a nutrition class (Trumbo, 2010). Ball

!15!

State University sampled 78 student athletes. The athletes were asked a set of nutrition

knowledge questions as well as a food frequency questionnaire to see if the class had a

positive effect on behavioral changes to lead a healthy life. The same test was

administered before and after the nutrition education intervention. Results showed that

after a nutrition education intervention, student athletes increased their score of nutrition

knowledge from 72.6% on the pre-test to 86% on the post-test though no significance

value was stated. In regards to behavioral changes, a positive change in consumption of

fruits, vegetables, non-fat dairy and whole grains resulted (all p

!16!

being offered both in-seat and online. More research needs to look at the effectiveness in

teaching nutrition knowledge, and motivation and behavioral changes to lead a healthy

life. Therefore, it is relevant now to compare the knowledge, motivation and behavior

differences over a semester in a nutrition class that is taught both in-seat and online at

CSULB.

!17!

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY







Sample

Subjects for this study were gathered by convenience sampling. Participants were

students enrolled in NUTR 132 either traditionally or online at CSULB, for the Spring

2015 semester. The same instructor taught all surveyed class sections. The instructor

taught NUTR 132 courses in both modalities: face-to-face and online. This nutrition-

related course was chosen to examine the knowledge, motivational and behavior changes

not just of students going into health science fields, but of those taking this class for

general education units as well. Based on data collected from the Fall 2014 enrollment,

55 students enrolled in each in-seat NUTR 132 class taught and 30 students in each

online session (CSULB, 2014). The instructor for this study taught three in-seat sections

as well as two online sections. By instructor consent, 225 surveys were distributed

!18!

amongst these classes. The instructor stated that both the online and in-seat course

materials were identical in nature where the only difference was verbal lecturing for in-

seat students.

Instrumentation

An online survey containing questions pertaining to nutrition knowledge,

motivation to change and behavioral change was performed. The survey contained fill-in

questions for basic demographic information provided by the participant including year

in school and major. Other questions assessed nutrition knowledge learned over course

duration, as well as questions developed to look at behavioral changes and motivation to

change related to the information taught over the semester.

Multiple questions were developed by Lynn Grieger, RDN, CDE, based on the

2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Grieger, 2014). These questions were

developed to assess nutrition knowledge learned from an introductory nutrition course.

Use, validity and reliability of this instrument need verification because of the equation of

questions from various sources. Questions about nutrition behavior were also added from

the Ball State study looking at the effectiveness of nutrition education on student athletes

(Trumbo, 2010). Other close-ended questions regarding knowledge-based nutrition were

added and created by this researcher and are based on facts from the 2010 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans. These additional questions have not been tested for validity or

reliability. All knowledge-based questions were collected and scored on a right or wrong

basis with correct answers scored.

Other researcher developed questions looked at behavioral change and motivation

!19!

to change across the course semester. Several questions looking at fruit, vegetable, whole

grain, lean protein and other nutrition related consumption changes were created and used

(Trumbo, 2010). Questions assessing student motivation to perform well in the

classroom were added, as well as questions assessing motivation to lead a healthier life as

a result of enrollment in NUTR 132 (McCord, 2013). These questions have not been

tested for reliability or validity.

Procedure and Data Collection

During the fall semester 2014, all instructors teaching both in-seat and online

sections of NUTR 132 were contacted and were given explanation of the study as well as

an invitation to participate. The researcher looked at sections taught by the same

instructor to achieve standardization of information presented, teaching style and student

assignments given in lectures. There were approximately 165 students enrolled in in-seat

sections (55 in three separate sections) of NUTR 132, as well as two online sessions each

with 30 students.

Approximately 225 students were invited to participate in the survey before the

course began in January 2015. The instructor emailed students a brief synopsis of the

study, as well as a link to a YouTube video giving instructions. A link to the survey

hosted by Qualtrics was online only. Participation in the survey was not mandatory, and

students were given 10 points of extra credit for participating in each survey, giving them

20 points if they participated in the pre- and post-surveys. The students performed the

same survey before the start of the semester and the week preceding their final in May.

This research project was approved by the California State University, Long

!20!

Beach Institutional Review Board (IRB). Since this is a non-intervention, voluntary

project conducted with adults (18+ years), electronic consent and completion of the

survey is considered adequate and no additional consent forms were required by the IRB.

All course data were confidential and no names were associated with scores.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0 (IBM, 2012). First,

the data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. The data were then analyzed to

determine potential differences in knowledge, motivation, and behavior between online

and face-to-face students using independent samples t-tests, with a significance level of p

≤ 0.05. Independent t-tests were run to look at differences for all questions between the

groups of in-seat and online students that took the pre-survey and again at the post-survey.

Nutrition knowledge answers were coded as either correct or incorrect with values of 0 =

incorrect answer and 1 = correct answer. Behavior related answers were coded as 1 = I

don’t do and I don’t think about it, 2 = I think about it but do not do it, 3 = I feel ready to

start, 4 = I do this sometimes, 5 = I usually do this or 6 = I do this all the time.

Motivation-related answers were coded as 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree

nor disagree, 4 = disagree or 5 = strongly disagree. The researcher did not obtain any

identifying markers from participants so paired t-tests to look at individual change from

pre- to post-survey could not be analyzed. Thus, students were grouped into in-seat and

online groups due to their answer to the question “Are you taking this course in-seat or

online?”

!21!

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS







Participant Characteristics

Participants were pooled from five sections of Nutrition 132 for the Spring 2015

semester where a total of 228 students were invited to participate in both the pre and post

surveys (CSULB, 2014). They were given extra credit for participating. Table 1

contains all pertinent pre- and post-survey demographic information. During the pre-

survey process, some students were having trouble receiving their unique codes to verify

that they had completed the survey. In these cases, a few students complicated duplicate

surveys: the extras were discarded. A total of 168 surveys were completed during the

pre-survey process, 118 of those being students who said they were taking the class in-

seat (71%) and 49 who were taking the class online (29%). One hundred and fifty eight

participants (94%) in the pre-survey were between the ages of 18 and 25 and 10 students

!22!

were 26 years old or older (6%). Out of the 168 students that took the pre-survey, 55 of

them were first year students (33%), 49 were second year students (29%), 33 were in

their third year (20%) and 31 were in the fourth year or higher (18%). Students were

asked their major or expected major; there were 32 different majors identified. The

students were coded into majors relating to food and health science or into non-food and

non-health science related majors. The food and health science majors included:

biology/biochemistry, nutrition, health science, nursing, human development, kinesiology

and hospitality. All other majors were coded into the non-food and non-health science

major group. According to this division, 48 students were in health science related

majors while 119 were in non-health science related majors.

At the end of the semester, students were given an identical survey to the pre-

survey and were invited to participate receiving extra credit in return. A total of 153

students participated with 110 of them taking the course in-seat (72%) and 43 online

(28%). One hundred and forty five students were between 18-25 years of age (95%) and

eight students were 26 years old or older (95%). Out of the 153 students that took the

post-survey, 54 of them were first year students (36%), 42 were second year students

28%), 20 were in their third year (13%) and 36 were in the fourth year or higher (24%).

There were a total of 34 identified majors written by students during the post-survey. Of

the total of 153 written in answers, 41 students were in health science related majors

while 112 were in non-health science related majors.

!23!

TABLE 1. Student Demographics (n = 168, 153 pre, post respectively)

Variable n (%) pre- n (%) post- Enrollment In-seat 118 (71%) 110 (72%) Online 49 (29%) 43 (28%) Age 18-25 years 158 (94%) 145 (95%) 26+ years 10 (6%) 8 (5%) Year in school First year 55 (33%) 54 (36%) Second year 49 (29%) 42 (28%) Third year 33 (20%) 20 (13%) Four+ years (including grad students) 31 (18%) 36 (24%) Major Health science-related major 48 (29%) 41 (27%) Non-health science-related major 119 (71%) 112 (73%)

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be no significant difference in changes of

learned nutrition knowledge between students taking NUTR 132 online versus in-seat.

Since there were no identifying markers to follow individual surveyors pre- to post-

survey, paired t-tests were not run and changes in learned nutrition knowledge from pre-

to post-survey could not be individually tracked. However, for the pre-survey, results

showed that there was no significant difference between in-seat and online students for

the majority of the questions (p > 0.05). There were only two nutrition-related questions

where there was a significant difference at p ≤ .05 out of a total of 12 nutrition

knowledge-related questions. Table 2 shows the independent t-test results from the

!24!

question “Chicken, legumes, fish, soy foods and eggs are good sources of which

nutrient?” Table 3 shows the independent t-test results from the question “Use these

plate proportions for healthy meal planning” with only one correct answer out of four

choices.

TABLE 2. Independent Samples t-Test of Pre-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related to Foods Containing Protein Variable Mean SD t-value p* In-Seat .91 .292 -3.468 .001 Online 1.00 .000 *Significant at p ≤ .05. TABLE 3. Independent Samples t-Test of Pre-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related to Plate Proportions Variable Mean SD t-value p* In-Seat .61 .489 -2.041 .044 Online .77 .425 *Significant at p ≤ .05. When looking at the post-survey, there was no significant difference between in-

seat and online students for all nutrition knowledge related questions where all p > .05

except for one question. Table 4 shows the independent t-test results for the question

“Which foods provide more of the essential nutrients that we’re often lacking?” where

the hypothesis would be rejected at p ≤ .05. Besides this question, there were no other

significant differences found between the students who took the course in-seat or online

!25!

when looking at the post-semester survey for nutrition knowledge related questions.

TABLE 4. Independent Samples t-Test of Post-Survey Nutrition Knowledge Question Related to Essential Nutrients Variable Mean SD t-value p* In-Seat .90 .301 -2.076 .040 Online .98 .152 *Significant at p ≤ .05 Overall, students improved their nutrition knowledge related answers in both in-

seat and online classes. In-seat students performed better on all 12 nutrition related

questions from pre- to post-survey and raised their percentages of right answers by at

least 1% on each question. Table 5 shows the most improved percentages of correct

answers for students taking NUTR 132 in-seat with full questions in Appendix A.

TABLE 5. Most Improved Nutrition Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 In-Seat Question Pre-survey % correct Post-survey % correct Three Major Nutrients 79% 94% Foods in dairy group 73% 88% Healthy plate proportions 62% 76% Most calorie dense nutrient 61% 82% Heart healthy fat 39% 83% Whole Grains 81% 94% % Grains Dietary Guidelines 19% 35%

!26!

Similar to the in-seat students, online students improved their answers on all

nutrition knowledge related questions. The question “Chicken, legumes, fish, soy foods

and eggs are good sources of which nutrient?” yielded a perfect 100% for both the pre-

and post-survey results for online students. Table 6 shows the most improved

percentages of correct answers for students taking NUTR 132 online with full questions

in Appendix A.

TABLE 6. Most Improved Nutrition Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Online Question Pre-survey % correct Post-survey % correct Three Major Nutrients 80% 91% Chicken/protein 100% 100% Foods in dairy group 71% 84% Healthy plate portions 77% 88% Most calorie dense nutrient 65% 77% Heart healthy fat 42% 91% Whole Grains 88% 98% % Grains Dietary Guidelines 29% 35% Hypothesis 2 stated there would be no significant difference in motivation to lead

a healthy lifestyle between students taking NUTR 132 online versus in-seat. Since there

were no identifying markers to follow individual surveyors pre- to post-survey, paired t-

!27!

tests were not run and changes in motivation from pre- to post-survey could not be

tracked. However, there were no significant differences found between in-seat and online

students for all five motivation related questions where all p > .05 for both the pre- and

post-surveys. There were no significant differences found in either survey.

Even though results were not statistically significant, motivation decreased overall

from the pre- to post-surveys. Students were asked a set of five motivation-related

questions, and were asked to answer their questions using a Likert Scale. Table 7 shows

the means for each motivation-related question, with higher mean numbers meaning

lower motivation levels.

TABLE 7. Mean Values for Motivation Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Both In-Seat and Online Question Pre In-seat Pre Online Post In-seat Post Online Raise GPA 1.57 1.78 1.67 1.86 Quality of Life 1.5 1.33 1.53 1.56 Healthy Meals 1.59 1.45 1.61 1.7 Personal Interest 1.92 1.78 1.95 1.86 Important for Career 2.19 2.35 2.44 2.49 Answers were coded 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be no significant difference in behavior to

lead a healthy lifestyle between students taking NUTR 132 online versus in-seat. Since

there were no identifying markers to follow individual surveyors pre to post survey,

!28!

paired t-tests were not run and changes in behavior from pre to post survey could not be

tracked. However, there were no significant differences found between in-seat and online

students for all six behavior-related questions where all p > .05 for both the pre and post

surveys. There were no significant differences found in either survey.

Even though results were not statistically significant between in-seat and online

students for each survey, answers did change between each course type from pre to post.

Students were asked a set of six nutrition behavior questions with the answer choices: 1

don’t do and I don’t think about it, I think about it but do not do it, I feel ready to start, I

do this sometimes, I usually do this and I do this all the time. When compared to the

beginning of the semester, students said that they were improving their healthy nutrition-

related behavior at the end of the semester. Table 8 shows the means responses for each

behavior related question with higher mean numbers meaning increases in performing the

behavior.

TABLE 8. Mean Values for Behavior Related Questions for Students Taking NUTR 132 Both In-Seat and Online Question Pre In-seat Pre Online Post In-seat Post Online Healthy food 3.97 3.94 4.34 4.42 2-3 servings fruit 3.7 3.86 4.21 4.47 2-3 servings veg 3.64 3.96 3.92 4.02 Dairy 3.31 3.59 4.24 4.14 Whole Grains 3.76 4.14 4.29 4.72 Aerobic Activity 4.4 3.9 4.58 4.65 Answers were coded 1 = I don’t do and I don’t think about it, 2 = I think about it but do not do it, 3 = I feel ready to start, 4 = I do this sometimes, 5 = I usually do this, 6 = I do this all the time.

!29!

During both the pre- and post-surveys, students were given the opportunity to

write in the foods that they snack on most often. Some common snacks seen in both

surveys included: “piece of fruit” such as an apple, banana, berries, carrot sticks, peanut

butter and jelly sandwiches, pretzels, chips, cookies, candy and others.

One additional question added to the end of the survey addressed preference of

learning mode to students. There were statistically significant differences in preference

in learning mode, in-seat or online, between the students who took the class in-seat versus

online in both the pre- and post-surveys with the p < 0.001 for the pre-survey and

p = .001 for the post. Table 9 shows the results of the independent t-tests that were

performed when looking at this question. Table 10 also gives a summary overview of all

questions asked in the survey and the results for both the in-seat and online students.

TABLE 9. Independent Samples t-Test of Both Pre- and Post-Survey Results for Question: “If given the choice, would you rather take a class in-seat or online?” Variable Mean SD t-value p* Pre Survey In-Seat 1.17 .379 -6.567 .000 Online 1.67 .474 Post Survey In-Seat 1.24 .430 -3.646 .001 Online 1.56 .502 *Significant at p ≤ .05 Answers were coded: 1 = in-seat, 2 = online.

!31!

Summary

This chapter demonstrated the results of a survey administered to in-seat and

online students at the beginning and end of their semester in a general education nutrition

class. For the large majority of the survey questions, there were no significant

differences between the students who took the class in-seat or online. Since there were no

identifying markers to follow individual surveyors pre- to post-survey, paired t-tests were

not run and changes in individual learned nutrition knowledge, motivation and behavior

from pre- to post-survey could not be tracked. However, both in-seat and online groups

improved their nutrition-related knowledge over the course of the semester and stated that

they made healthier choices at the end of the semester. The overall motivation of

students decreased at the end of the semester. Students taking the course in-seat initially

preferred face-to-face learning, but this view decreased slightly at the end of the semester.

Students who took the course online overwhelmingly preferred online to in-seat if given

the choice during both the pre- and post-surveys. Even though the surveyors could not be

tracked from pre to post, results found that learned nutrition knowledge trended up,

motivation decreased and students produced healthier behaviors as a result of taking the

course. Thus, both in-seat and online versions of a general nutrition course are effective

in teaching students.

!32!

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS







Discussion

Since surveyors were not tracked between pre and post surveys, paired t-tests

could not be done and statistics looking at individual differences between pre and post

were not analyzed. The survey was offered as extra credit at the beginning and end of

semester where some students participated in one or both surveys. There were no

significant differences found for nearly all nutrition knowledge-related questions during

both the pre- and post-surveys. Students in both the in-seat and online course types

performed better at the end of the semester compared to the beginning. One 2007 study

at Wichita State University involving in-seat and online versions of a pharmacology

course found that there were no significant differences in the knowledge learned by either

group (Mirakian & Hale, 2007). Since online courses are still a relatively new form of

education, there are not many studies comparing the information gained of students

!33!

taking different versions of the same course. More research needs to go into this new and

emerging subject. Different combination types of learning need to be looked at as well.

Multiple course types including blended, in-seat and online courses are being offered

during the same term to give students choices in the way they learn.

There were no significant differences found for all motivation-related questions

for both the pre- and post-surveys. Even though there were no significant differences

between the in-seat and online students, there were differences in the motivational level

of students in both types of classes from the semester start to the end. There was no

statistical test performed to look at the differences between the pre and post surveys

because of the lack of identifying markers collected. Student answers indicated that they

were less motivated to perform well at the end when compared to the beginning of the

semester. This can be due to many factors. Some students may have been more

motivated to perform better at the semester start because of a reputation of the “easiness”

of the course by previous students, thus giving them a good grade and raising their GPA.

In the post-survey, over half the students answered that they at least agreed that they were

motivated to do well in this course to: raise GPA, improve quality of life, plan and

consume healthy meals, because of a personal interest in nutrition and the learning is

important for their future career. Even though there were slight drops in motivation,

students were still motivated to do well in the course no matter which type of course.

There were no significant differences found for all behavior-related questions for

both the pre- and post-surveys. Students who answered the post-survey improved in

comparison to answers given in the pre-survey. From answers given, participants had

!34!

better healthy behaviors at the end of the semester than at the beginning. Learning about

nutrition can help people start and improve their healthy habits that will help them lead a

healthy life. One study found that nutrition education to college students increased their

total dairy intake as a result of learning about the benefits of having dairy foods in their

diet, showing that nutrition education can increase positive outcomes (Poddar et al.,

2012). Another study found that after being enrolled and taking an internet-based

nutrition program, college students increased their fruit and vegetable consumption at the

end when compared to the beginning (Franko et al., 2008).!

Even though it was not an included hypothesis, the results of the question of

preference of course type proved interesting. The difference between type of class

preference was statistically significant (p < .0001). Initially over 75% of students who

were taking the class in-seat responded that they would rather take a class in-seat if they

had the choice. On the opposite end, more than 60% of the students who were taking the

course online stated that they would rather take a course online if they had the choice. At

the end of the semester, this opinion changed for a few, and some changed their mind into

wishing to take a class in-seat if they had a choice. Choice between type of course can be

due to many factors. Personal learning style, engagement of teacher and student and

accountability factors can all be part of a student’s decision to take a certain type of class

(Clayton et al., 2010). This may also show that in this thesis, students were able to

choose the course type thus matching their learning preference, allowing them to be more

successful.

!35!

Conclusion

It is becoming more prevalent for colleges to offer classes (especially introductory

level) both in-seat and online. Colleges are adapting to the technology age and are

making courses available for students to take at home or abroad away from a

conventional campus. Many students still do prefer in-seat, face-to-face learning due to

their learning style and other factors, while others prefer online learning. Younger

students are more adept to technology and may feel more comfortable with an online

course. Students taking a nutrition course at a college may be taking the course for

general education units or as part of their major. This study found that both in-seat and

online students learned nutrition information as a result of being enrolled and taking

either course, as well as increased their healthy behaviors as a result of taking the course.

Motivation to do well decreased slightly due to many possible factors that were not

measured. Overall, students who took the course in-seat preferred it during both the pre-

and post-survey and online students preferred the online course modality during both the

pre- and post-surveys.

Implications

This study helps show the importance and impact that a nutrition education course

can have on a student. Whether it be in-seat or online, nutrition education has helped

these students change their health- and nutrition-related behaviors over the course of a

semester. For both course types, students improved their nutrition knowledge.

Motivation slightly dropped over time which could be due to many factors. Students in

both course types improved their nutrition-related behaviors as a result of taking this

!36!

class as well. This may have been the first nutrition course that a student had taken,

which could help them lead a healthier life. Providing nutrition education for those who

want it as well as need it is vital to help reduce the prevalence of nutrition-related

diseases. Giving students the choice to take a course in-seat or online in order to ensure

greater student success is significant. When picking a course, it is important for a student

to choose using many factors. Including a students’ learning style is important to ensure

optimal success. This study showed the impact of nutrition education on the lives of

students. Therefore, it would be ideal if all students had to take at least one nutrition-

related course regardless of format to help them lead a healthier life.

Limitations and Future Research

Many factors limit the extrapolation of these results. The students were chosen

from five sections of NUTR 132 taught by the same professor. The classes were being

offered at CSULB. A limitation is that the questionnaire was sent only to these five

sections and not to all class sections. This researcher wanted to have some continuity in

the teaching of the course and that is why all students enrolled in NUTR 132 taught by

other professors were not asked. No identifying markers were taken from participants in

the pre-survey, and these were not able to be followed during the post-survey. Paired t-

tests looking at differences from pre- to post-survey for each student would have given

the researcher data to help accept or reject the hypotheses and give stronger results.

Some students participated in both surveys while others only participated in either one,

thus having the researcher eliminate participants’ data from only one survey. Another

limitation is that the research was taken from a small geographic area (students going to

!37!

school in Long Beach, California) and not on a national level.

Future research could look more in depth into the three main areas of this thesis:

nutrition knowledge, motivation and behavior. To look at nutrition knowledge-related

questions, a longer question set could be used to assess the knowledge learned over the

course of the semester. When looking at motivation, qualitative methods could

investigate factors that impact nutrition-related motivation among students in an

introductory nutrition class. To assess behavior, more health and nutrition related

questions can be used to assess the changes they have made. Also, this could be done on

a much larger scale. Many universities offer a basic general education nutrition class

both in-seat and online, so surveying nationally would yield more data and would give an

interesting outlook on the different course types. These factors could be assessed

regionally as well and differences could be generalized to a larger area.

Summary

Education in the University setting is evolving. With the increase in technology,

schools are accommodating students who would rather take courses away from the

university instead of in a classroom. When choosing a form of class (in-seat or online) a

student must recognize their learning style, picking what will be best for them. Many

people are skeptical as to the effectiveness of teaching students online, especially when it

comes to nutrition. Nutrition is a subject that is being offered both in-seat and online and

an online nutrition education course can foster similar gains in nutrition knowledge and

healthy behaviors compared to a class offered in-seat.

!38!

APPENDICES

!39!

APPENDIX A

PRE AND POST SEMESTER ONLINE SURVEY

!40!

Pre/Post Semester Online Survey

Please answer these questions about your every day life truthfully and to the best of your ability. Choose the answer that best fits you currently! I am able to improve the types of healthy food I eat a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time I eat 2-3 servings of fruit every day (1 serving of fruit = 1 medium fruit- size of a baseball, ½ cup chopped, cooked or canned or ½ cup 100% fruit juice) a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time I eat 2-3 servings of vegetables every day (1 serving of vegetables = 2 cups raw leafy vegetables, ½ cup cooked or raw vegetables, or ½ cup 100% vegetable juice) a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time I eat low-fat or nonfat dairy products or dairy alternatives (soy milk, almond milk, etc) every day a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time

!41!

I eat whole grain bread and cereal products daily (ex: 100% whole wheat bread, whole wheat tortillas, cereals like Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc.) a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time I get 30 minutes of some type of aerobic activity (walking, jogging, biking, elliptical machine, etc.) 5 times a week a. I don’t do and I don’t think about it b. I think about it but do not do it c. I feel ready to start d. I do this sometimes e. I usually do this f. I do this all the time When looking for a snack, what do you tend to grab for (ex: salty, sweet, fruit, vegetable, etc.) (fill in) These questions are nutrition questions based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Please choose only 1 answer that you think is most correct for each question. A healthy, balanced diet includes these three major nutrients (macronutrients): a. calories, fat, carbohydrate b. carbohydrate, protein, fat c. protein, fiber, fat d. calories, water, fiber e. I don’t know Which foods provide more of the essential nutrients that we’re often lacking? a. fruit, vegetables, and protein shakes b. seafood, whole grains, and gluten-free foods c. fruit, vegetables, whole grains and seafood d. I don’t know Bread, cereal, fruit and vegetables are the best source of which important nutrient? a. protein b. fat c. carbohydrate d. water e. I don’t know

!42!

Chicken, legumes (dried beans and peas), fish, soy foods and eggs are good sources of which nutrient? a. protein b. fat c. carbohydrate d. water e. I don’t know Which foods are part of the dairy group? a. milk, eggs and cheese b. milk, cheese and yogurt c. soy milk, eggs and cheese d. I don’t know Use these plate proportions for healthy meal planning: a. ½ protein, ½ vegetables b. 1/3 protein, 1/3 vegetables, 1/3 fruit c. ½ vegetables and fruit, ¼ protein, ¼ whole grains d. I don’t know Which nutrient has the most calories per gram of weight? a. carbohydrate b. protein c. fiber d. fat e. I don’t know Which type of fat helps promote a healthy heart and cardiovascular system? a. saturated b. trans c. mono-unsaturated d. partially hydrogenated e. I don’t know Which food components provide little nutritional value and can be harmful when we eat too much? a. salt, sugar, cholesterol b. sugar, saturated fat, whole grains c. salt, cholesterol, fiber d. I don’t know

!43!

Which of the following are sugar-sweetened beverages that provide little to no nutritional value? a. 100% fruit juice b. 100% vegetable juice c. fruit juice drinks d. I don’t know Which type of grain is the healthiest and contains the most natural nutrients? a. enriched grains b. refined grains c. multi-grains d. whole grains e. I don’t know According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, at least ____ of our grain intake (bread, cereal, rice, pasta, crackers) should be whole grains to support overall good health? a. 25% b. 50% c. 75% d. 100% e. I don’t know Please answer these questions about motivation to learn to the best of your ability. Please answer each question truthfully and honestly. I am motivated to do well in this course because it will raise my GPA. a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree I am motivated to do well in this course to learn how to improve my quality of life. a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree I am motivated to do well in this course to learn how to plan and consume healthy meals. a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree

!44!

I am motivated to do well in this course because of a personal interest in nutrition. a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree I am motivated to do well in this course because the information I am learning is important for my future career success. a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Neutral d. Disagree e. Strongly Disagree If given the choice, would you rather take a course in-seat or online? a. In-seat b. Online Are you taking this class in-seat or online? a. In-seat b. Online What is your major or expected major? (fill in) What is your age? a. 18-25 b. 26-35 c. 35+ What is your year in school? a. First year b. Second year c. Third year d. Fourth year e. Five plus f. Graduate student

!45!

APPENDIX B

SURVEY CONSENT FORM

!!

!46!

The!below!informed!consent!will!be!on!the!initial!page!of!the!survey!once!participants!click!on!the!link.!!They!will!be!given!the!choice!to!agree!and!continue!with!the!survey,!or!disagree!and!not!participate.!!

Behavioral changes and learning differences in students registered in online versus traditional general education nutrition classes

Students enrolled in NUTR 132 both traditionally and online in Spring 2015 semester

The purpose of this research project is to look at learned nutrition knowledge, motivation and behavioral differences in students enrolled in NUTR 132. This is a research project being conducted by Anna Cahn in the Family and Consumer Sciences Department at California State University, Long Beach. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are enrolled in NUTR 132 in the Spring 2015 semester at CSULB taught by Brooke Aschidamini. You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind and choose to not submit your responses. Participation or non-participation will not affect your grade or any other personal consideration or right you usually expect. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don't want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which in the opinion of the researcher warrant doing so. If you do choose to participate and complete the survey, you will receive 10 points of extra credit. The procedure involves filling an online survey that will take approximately 10-15 minutes and is approximately 30 questions. Your responses will be confidential and identifying information such as your name, email address or IP address will not be collected. The survey questions will be about nutrition behavior, nutrition knowledge and motivation. To help protect your anonymity, the surveys will not contain information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only. If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the researcher Anna Cahn at [email protected]. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Office of University Research, CSU Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840; Telephone: (562) 985-5314. eMail: [email protected]

!47!

This research has been reviewed according to California State University, Long Beach IRB procedures for research involving human subjects. ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. Clicking on the "agree" button below indicates that: • you have ready the above information • you voluntarily agree to participate • you are at least 18 years of age If you do not wish to participate in the research study, please decline participation by clicking on the "disagree" button.

!

!48!

REFERENCES

!49!

REFERENCES

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Available from http://sloanconsortium.org /publications/survey/changing_course_2012

Artino, A. R. J. (2008). Promoting academic motivation and self-regulation: Practical

guidelines for online instructors. TechTrends, 52(3), 37-45.

Asynchronous learning. (2013). In The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/asynchronous-learning/

Blended learning. (2013). In The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved from

http://edglossary.org/blended-learning/ Bonvillian, W. B., & Singer, S. R. (2013, Summer). The online challenge to higher

education. Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 23-30. California State University, Long Beach. (2014). Nutrition and dietetics. Retrieved

from http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/aa/catalog/current/chhs/nutrition_dietetics /nutr_ld.html

Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation,

learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 349-364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00993.x

Diaz, S.B., & Diniz, J.A. (2014). Towards an enhanced learning management system for

blended learning in higher education incorporating distinct learners’ profiles. Educational Technology & Society, 17(5), 307-319.

Educase (2005). The pocket guide to U.S. higher education. Retrieved from https://net.

educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub2201.pdf Franko, D. L., Cousineau, T. M., Trant, M., Green, T.C., Rancourt, D., Thompson, D…

Ciccazo, M. (2008). Motivation, self-efficacy, physical activity and nutrition in college students: Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based education program. Preventative Medicine, 47, 369-377.

!50!

Grieger, L. (2014). Nutrition basic pre and post-test for classes. Retrieved from http://nutritioneducationstore.com/blog/nutrition-basic-pre-and-post-test-for- classes/

IBM. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics information center. Retrieved from http://pic.dhe.

ibm.com/infocenter/spssstat/v22r0m0/index.jsp Illinois Online Network. (2014). Online education review. Retrieved from http://www.

ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/overview/strengths.asp In-person learning. (2013). In The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved from

http://edglossary.org/in-person-learning/ Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e^3-learning. Journal of

Distance Education, 29(2), 175-185. Keystone College. (2014). Online learning. Retrieved from http://www.keystone.edu

/academics/onlinelearning/onlinelearningdefined.dot Lim, J., Kim, M., Chen, S.S., & Ryder, C.E. (2009). An empirical investigation of

student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2) 113-119.

Machtmes, K., & Asher, J.W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of

telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27-46.

McCord, R. (2013). Developing an instrument to measure motivation, learning

strategies and conceptual change. Retrieved from American Society for Engineering Education website: http://ASEE_CAREER_Instrument _Development_final-2.pdf

Mirakian, E. A., & Hale, L. S. (2007). A comparison of online instruction vs. traditional

classroom instruction in an undergraduate pharmacology course. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita State University, 1,95-96.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). Enrollment. Retrieved from http://

nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b). Enrollment in distance education

courses, by state: Fall 2012. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2014/2014023.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014c). Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://

nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

!51!

Office of Disease Prevention and Health. (2015). Dietary guidelines for Americans. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2010.asp

Poddar, K. H., Hosig, K. W., Anderson-Bill, E. S., Nickols-Richardson, S. M., & Duncan,

S.E. (2012). Dairy intake and related self-regulation improved in college students using online nutrition education. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(12), 1976-1986.

Romanelli, F., Bird, E., & Ryan, M. (2009). Learning styles: A review of theory,

application, and best practices. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(1), 1-5.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to

self-reflective practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of

instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 132-40.

Stanford. (2007). Taking Stanford classes through SITN: Getting started. Retrieved

from http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~sjac/su-getting-started.html Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student

achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233-50.

Synchronous learning. (2013). In The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved from

http://edglossary.org/synchronous-learning/

Trumbo, K. C. (2010). The effect of sports-focused nutrition education among men and women collegiate athletes (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://cardinalscholar. bsu.edu/handle/123456789/194658?mode=full

Ya Ni, A. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning.

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.

ABSTRACT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND LEARNING...

Documents

Transcript of ABSTRACT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND LEARNING...