Motivation, Confidence, and Control; Unraveling Active Learning for Nutrition and Food Undergraduates

Abstract

Nutrition and food students at Sheffield Hallam University completed an “active learning” assessment as part of a final year module, Applied Nutrition 2. The purpose of the “active learning” assessment was to encourage and enhance learner autonomy. The assessment consisted of 5 main stages: a briefing, thought shower, oral business proposal presentation, a feedback stage, and Nutrition Fair. To assess learner autonomy, levels of motivation, confidence, and control were quantitatively and qualitatively monitored throughout the learning journey. The results showed that levels of confidence, motivation, and control increased following each stage and significantly across the learning journey. However, there were significant gender differences in terms of achievement of marks and in levels of motivation at various stages. On average, females achieved higher marks in certain assessments and they demonstrated higher levels of motivation after the initial briefing. Further, significant differences were also reported between different degree routes in terms of achievement of marks and levels of confidence, motivation, and control. “Active learning” has been shown to foster improved levels of confidence, motivation, and control in a cohort of nutrition and food students, contributing to overall learner autonomy. Graduates able to demonstrate such qualities will undoubtedly be welcomed by employers in the relevant sectors.

Integrated Contextual Learning and Food Science Students’ Perception of Work Readiness

“…Finally, class sizes in the capstone unit were less than 50 students with the consequence that it was possible to incorporate an active learning component into lecture settings. Although ICL has been used with large class sizes (Van de Veken 2008), Paxman and others (2011) note that in relation to food science active learning approaches are more challenging with large classes or where resources and class time are constrained.…”

“…Problem solving in ICL is similar to the category of active learning that Paxman and others (2011) designate “loosely structured experiential activities.” The loosely structured problems give students a high degree of control over their learning and require them to apply creatively what they have learned (Hamer 2000). Stinson (1990) includes in ICL elaborate simulations of industry where students must define a problem and work out how they will organise a group to perform a typical industry task.…”

“…A key element of work readiness is a growing sense of autonomy (Cassidy 2006). According to Paxman and others (2011) autonomous learners are able to diagnose problems, come up with solutions and manage time to complete complex tasks successfully. The achievement of these behaviors is related to learners’ motivation, their own perception of their competence and the degree of control they feel they have over their learning (Della and others 2001).…”

“…Dickinson (1995) found that students’ belief in their own abilities is enhanced when they perceive that they are responsible for and in control of their own learning. Similarly Paxman and others (2011) found that situations in which students have to come up with their own solutions to real life problems have a positive effect on confidence and motivation. Feelings of control, confidence and motivation are key elements of self‐efficacy, which contributes to students’ perception that they are ready to take on the challenge of independent learning and performance in the work place (Liceaga and others 2011; Cassidy 2006).…”

Effects of Collective Efficacy, Teamwork Attitudes, and Experience on Group Project Performance: Comparisons Between 2 Food Science Courses

“…Rather than seeking for ideals of team composition, we examined how key student characteristics—individually and in combination—affect project team performance. Specifically, we focused on characteristics shown in past research to be important predictors of student team project performance, namely: self‐efficacy (Chowdhury and others ; Williams and Coers ; Paxman and others ), teamwork experience (Tombaugh and Mayfield ), task knowledge (Blickensderfer and others ), and attitudes toward teamwork (Pfaff and Huddleston ). The objective of this article is to show how understanding these basic factors can help teams increase their chances of success.…”