Phase III

OBJECTIVES

• To survey food safety educators about teaching the food manager certification course, the exam, and the participants.
• To disseminate information and materials resulting from this study.

METHODS
Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect information about food manager certification courses and materials, the trainers and learners, as well as the exams that were adm inistered.

Measures
An on-line trainer survey was promoted and distributed through the National Registry of Food Safety Professionals (NRFSP) electronic newsletter.

Open-ended questions were used to assess respondents’ attitudes and opinions about course materials, the exam, and being a food manager certification trainer.

RESULTS
A total of 58 trainers completed the on-line survey. For some questions, more than one response could be selected.

Demographics

• Most (89.7%) respondents had food safety training experience, almost two-thirds (63.8%) had completed a food safety trainer course.
• Fewer than one-quarter (24.1% and 22.4%) of respondents had a degree in public health or were a registered sanitarian, respectively.
• Respondents had an average of 8.4 years of experience teaching food manager certification courses.

Teaching Styles
The three most common styles of teaching were:

• lecture (with or without PowerPoint)
• hands-on
• visual

The most difficult aspects of being a trainer were identified as:

• language barriers
• keeping information interesting and fresh
• dealing with the diversity of learners’ education, background, learning styles, and abilities

Exam
When asked to describe the exam they administer in relation to the extent to which it met specific criteria, respondents indicated the following. Response options were: Not at all – Somewhat – A lot – Very much):

• 50.2% of respondents thought their exam was a lot/very relevant to real life work situations
• 40.7% felt the exam was a lot/very culturally appropriate
• 49.0% said it was a lot/very straightforward
• 38.5% thought it was a lot/very much written in clear language
• 14.8% felt it was a lot/very understandable to non-English speakers
• 27.8% said it was a lot/very accommodating of different learning styles

Training Course
Most (86%) respondents said they evaluate the training course they teach. Most common evaluation methods were looking at test scores (75.4%) and exam pass rates (73.7%). Other evaluation approaches included participant surveys (59.6%), class participation/questions (50.9%), looking at students’ facial expressions (40.4%) and other observations (36.8%). Note: Respondents could select more than one answer; therefore, numbers do not add up to 100%.

Evaluation of Teaching Styles
Most (73.2%) respondents said they evaluate their teaching. Written surveys were the most common evaluation method, followed by assessment of exam pass rates, feedback and discussion from participants, review from peers and observations of their students during class.

Course Materials
When asked to describe the text they use in their course in relation to the extent to which it met specific criteria, respondents indicated the following. Response options were: Not at all – Somewhat – A lot – Very much):

• 84.3% of respondents thought the text was a lot/very relevant to real life work situations
• 60.8% felt the text was a lot/very culturally appropriate
• 91.8% said it was a lot/very straightforward
• 82.0% thought it was a lot/very much written in clear language
• 16.0% felt it was a lot/very understandable to non-English speakers
• 49.0% said it was a lot/very accommodating of different learning styles

Most (84.5%) respondents said they supplement the text with educational materials. Many used materials from their State Department of Health or from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (40% and 29.3%, respectively). However, most (62%) made their own supplemental materials. Note: Respondents could select more than one answer; therefore, numbers do not add up to 100%.

When asked to describe the supplemental materials they use in their training in relation to the extent to which they met specific criteria, respondents indicated the following. Response options were: Not at all – Somewhat – A lot – Very much):

• 85.7% of respondents thought the materials were a lot/very relevant to real life work situations
• 57.1% felt the materials were a lot/very culturally appropriate
• 89.4% said they were a lot/very straightforward
• 77.6% thought they were a lot/very much written in clear language
• 26.5% felt they were a lot/very understandable to non-English speakers
• 65.3% said they were a lot/very accommodating of different learning styles

Study outcomes were shared with the National Advisory Committee for consideration as a guide for national testing of the examination protocol and exam items, and incorporation of changes in instructional materials. 

Results of this study were also presented at annual meetings of the National Environmental Health Association (2004, 2005, 2006), the International Association for Food Protection (2006), the 5th Conference of the International Test Commission (2006), the Northeast Conference on Food Protection (2004, 2005, 2006) and the School Nutrition Association (2007).  The focus of these presentations was on: 1) increasing knowledge of effective teaching strategies for the target population; 2) improving teaching practices by increasing awareness of the need to use a variety of teaching styles to address the diversity of learning style needs; and 3) taking an in-depth look at the unique cognitive-based methodology used in the study. 

Instructional guidelines and materials produced as part of the study will be promoted through the School Nutrition Association and the National Environmental Health Association and publication of study results are being prepared for submission to peer-reviewed journals.