Implementation and Assessment of Food Safety

Educational Materials for Secondary

and Postsecondary Education
Adrienne E.H. Shearer, O. Sue Snider, and Kalmia E. Kniel

Abstract: Previous studies have reported on the inadequacy of youth knowledge and practice of food safety principles.
The formal high school science classroom environment presents an opportunity to stimulate interest and increase knowl-
edge in food safety with potential benefits to students in improved science literacy, development of life skills, and greater
awareness of career opportunities. Previously developed educational materials, Foodborne Illness Outbreak Investigations
for Food Safety Education, were evaluated for instruction by high school and community college science educators of
various subject matters including foods, microbiology, disease, and chemistry courses. Educator feedback was favorable
on measures of quality, implementation ease, and student engagement, with ratings greater than 3 on a 5-point scale
corresponding to “good” to “excellent.” A positive change in familiarity with food safety concepts for 4 groups of
students, representing approximately 77% of the participants, was demonstrated by an overall increase, ranging from 4%
to 14%, in correct responses to a test administered before and after exposure to the materials. There was variation in
degree of change and the topics positively impacted for student groups by subject matter.

Introduction educational efforts demonstrate positive impact on student and

Although foods are at risk for microbiological contamination at
every point during the food-handling chain, consumers have an
important role in foodborne illness prevention by properly prepar-
ing and storing foods. Survey and observational studies (Byrd-
Bredbenner and others 2007; Byrd-Bredbenner and others 2008;
Abbot and others 2009) have reported on the inadequacy of food
safety knowledge and/or safe food-handling practices of some con-
sumers, particularly among youth. Efforts to enhance food safety
awareness among secondary school-aged students have been re-
ported (Endres and others 2001; Lynch and others 2008; Richards
and others 2008; Winter and others 2009) with focus on teach-
ing safe food practices within consumer control, including proper
handwashing practices, cross-contamination prevention, adequate
cooking, and food storage. Various creative strategies, including
music-based (Winter and others 2009) and Web-based (Endres
and others 2001; Beffa-Negrini and others 2007) formats have
been employed to provide educators and students with food safety
educational materials that are engaging, memorable, support var-
ious learning styles, and support compulsory education content
standards. Outcomes of assessment studies associated with these
MS 20130325 Submitted 3/7/2013, Accepted 5/31/2013. Authors are with Dept. of a foodborne illness investigation is familiar due to food prod-
of Animal and Food Sciences, Univ. of Delaware, 044 Townsend Hall, 531 South uct recalls and illness outbreaks reported in the media, and the
College Ave., Newark, DE 19716-2150, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Kniel
(E-mail: kniel@udel.edu).
educator food safety knowledge (Lynch and others 2008) and ap-
plicability of food safety concepts across the curriculum (Richards
and others 2008).
Previously, we reported on the development of new educational
materials based on foodborne illness investigations for application
in secondary science education (Shearer and others 2013). The
educational materials, Foodborne Illness Outbreak Investigations for
Food Safety Education, included (1) a presentation on food micro-
biology, illness surveillance, and epidemiology, (2) 4 case studies of
foodborne illness outbreak investigations involving various etiolo-
gies, implicated types of food systems, and emphases on various
points of contamination and control strategies, (3) a video on the
laboratory phase of a foodborne illness outbreak investigation with
emphasis on principles of detection and identification, (4) Web-
based activities to reinforce concepts, (5) and supporting materials
including a poster for classroom display, glossary, and discussion
questions. Although there have been efforts to teach the prac-
tice of safe food handling within consumer control, these food
safety materials illustrate the connections of food safety and fun-
damental science, the basis of handling recommendations, and the
potential consequences of mishandling at all stages of production,
processing, retail, and consumer levels for safe food. The context
strength of the case approach in education has also been reported
(Herried 2005). These food safety educational materials were then



C 2013 Institute of Food Technologists
R

4 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12017

High school food safety education . . .
disseminated to high school science educators in a 1-d workshop,
and exposure of the materials during the workshop had a positive
impact on food safety awareness among participants. The materials
were well received by educators of biology, family and consumer
sciences, and chemistry.
The utilization of educational materials in the classroom re-
quires acceptance by educators as well as benefit to student learn-
ing; however, educators and students are not always engaged by
the same educational materials (Winter and others 2009). With
positive feedback from educators, the next question to explore
was the impact of these food safety educational materials on stu-
dent engagement in the topic and subsequent awareness of food
safety issues. In addition to a potential improved understanding of
concepts and importance of practicing safe food-handling recom-
mendations among youth, introduction in the high school class-
room affords the opportunity to reach a broad student body whose
members are at the life stage in which postsecondary education
and career selections are being made and self-reliance in daily
living is impending.
The objectives of this study were to collaborate with secondary
school science educators to implement the food safety educational
materials across the curriculum, measure the impact of the mate-
rials on high school students’ awareness of food safety, and gain
educator insight on how well the materials supported student en-
gagement and conceptual learning within logistical confines of
course structure in secondary education.
Materials and Methods
At the conclusion of the workshop to disseminate Foodborne
Illness Outbreak Investigations for Food Safety Education, an invitation
was issued for the educators (approximately 20) to participate in
an implementation study to further assess the utility of the food
safety materials for enhancing secondary school student awareness
of microbiological food safety concepts. The educators who agreed
to participate in the implementation study were expected to fulfill
the following responsibilities:
r To utilize at least 2 of the food safety educational components
for student instruction.
r To complete a questionnaire on the value of the educational
materials and implementation ease with the existing curricula.
r To administer a test prior to, immediately after use, and approx-
imately 1 mo after use of the educational materials to evaluate
impact on student knowledge and retention of concepts.
The educator questionnaire consisted of 25 questions of which
5 pertained to demographic information, and 18 questions were
to rate the materials on a 5-point scale on quality, challenge level,
complement to current curriculum, class time investment, im-
plementation ease, and student interest. Two additional questions
solicited comments and recommendations.
The student test consisted of 50 questions of multiple choice
and true/false formats. Eight of the 50 student test questions
were related to prior exposure to food safety topics, knowl-
edge of specific handling recommendations (refrigerator temper-
ature), self-assessment of knowledge of recommended practices,
and self-reported food-handling behaviors (handwashing, ther-
mometer use, and perishable leftover food storage). The remain-
ing 42 questions on the student test were objective measures of
familiarity with or understanding of food safety concepts. Ques-
tions addressed topics of microbiology, food contamination routes,
pathogen detection, safe food processing strategies, accountability
roles, and outbreak investigations. The questions varied in format
Available on-line through ift.org
Table 1–Implementation study participant demographics.
States represented DE, NJ, PA
Number of educators 6
Number of students 270
Student grade levels Number of studentsa
9th 7 (2.6%)
10th 52 (19.3%)
11th 89 (33%)
12th 71 (26%)
College 45 (16.7%)
Courses implemented Number of students
Emerging diseases 44 (16.3%)
Advanced foods 24 (8.9%)
Microbiology 74 (27.4%)
Food science 55 (20.4%)
Chemistry 28 (10.4%)
Clinical microbiology 45 (16.7%)
a Some students omitted a response to this question.
and potential degree of difficulty such that some sought recogni-
tion of hazards (anticipated to be of greater ease), whereas others
sought recognition of basic science concepts (anticipated to be
somewhat harder, but still factual reiteration). Other questions re-
quired application of concepts to the foodborne illness problem,
such as accountability, outbreak responses, and patient response
and might be anticipated to be least familiar to students. The as-
sessment questions were previously rated by the educators who
participated in the workshop to introduce the materials, and these
educators rated the questions 4.3 on a scale of 5.0 which corre-
sponded to “very good” to “excellent.” Time allotment for the
test was 25 min.
The investigators provided the educational materials in print and
electronic versions, answer forms for electronic scoring of student
test responses, and postage costs for returning answer forms and
questionnaires. Educators were responsible for providing copies
of materials for individual student use and any audiovisual equip-
ment and computer hardware and software necessary to access
and utilize the materials. Participating educators were informed
and data would be compiled among groups and shared with the
community of food safety professionals and educators. Participants
were assured the names of individuals, schools, and school districts
would not be made public. In recognition of the time involved for
self-preparation to teach the new materials and provide feedback,
a modest honorarium was provided for educators who returned
anonymous student test forms and completed questionnaires.
Results and Discussion
Implementation study participants
Five high school teachers and 1 community college instructor
participated in the implementation study (Table 1). The educators
utilized the materials in various science courses including applied
biology (emerging diseases), chemistry, AgriScience foods, fam-
ily and consumer sciences, and clinical microbiology of various
challenge levels from general to honors placement. Some teachers
used the materials for different sections of the same courses whereas
other teachers used the materials throughout the school year. Two
hundred seventy students were exposed to the food safety educa-
tional materials in the implementation study. The students’ grade
levels ranged from high school freshman through community col-
lege, though more than half were high school juniors and seniors.
The student populous of the schools was predominantly suburban
or urban. These data represent only the educators who formally
agreed to participate in the implementation study; it is unknown if
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 5
High school food safety education . . .

Table 2–Educational materials utilized. als were supportive of food science education content standards,
unit lessons on epidemiology and sanitation, and helped integrate
Educational Number of Number of
materials teachers students biology and chemistry. One teacher noted the relevance to cur-
Food microbiology presentation 5 238 rent events as an actual outbreak was unfolding in media coverage
E. coli O157:H7 case study 3 155 during utilization of the materials and became a class discussion.
Hepatitis A virus case study 4 201 Teachers rated student interest in the materials a 4 out of a possible
Clostridium botulinum case study 5 252
Cyclospora cayetanensis case study 3 186 5 points, a rating comparable to “very good,” though reactions
Video laboratory investigation 4 215 among individual students varied. The teachers indicated their
Web-based activities 2 142 intent to use the materials in the future, some with modifica-
Classroom poster 4 200
tions, and would, or already had, recommended the materials to a
colleague.
other educators who received the materials at the workshop used The teachers provided further insight on their experiences in
the materials in their courses. implementing the materials in their classes and offered some rec-
ommendations. One educator noted a “bit of a learning curve” in
Educator utilization and evaluation of educational using the materials but was pleased that the content “didn’t dumb
materials down” the science. The grade level challenge for their students
Of the educational materials provided, the teachers made great- was rated as “appropriate” to “somewhat challenging” (Figure 1),
est utilization of the presentation, hepatitis A virus and Clostridium and 3 educators [Family Consumer Science (FCS), AgriScience
botulinum case studies, video, and classroom poster (Table 2). Case /food science, and chemistry] provided students supplementary
studies were used as both homework assignments and in-class ex- information such as more basic descriptors for pathogen etiolo-
ercises with variation on whether students worked through case gies. The teachers also noted that the time investment to use the
studies independently before or after in-class introduction. The food safety materials was “appropriate” to a “little long”; 1 ed-
Web-based games were least utilized of the materials. The games ucator eliminated student interviews to shorten case studies (an
were mainly designed as exercises for reinforcement of concepts acceptable modification according to suggested guidelines for use
as opposed to materials to replace other educational formats such of the case studies). One teacher recommended slight reformat-
as lecture or problem-based learning. An additional problem was ting of case studies to position tables and figures more closely to
encountered with the games during the implementation study in the question to which they pertained, so students would not have
that 2 of the games (StudyMateTM and TileSorterTM ) that had to flip pages to figures at the end of a case study. One teacher
previously run on several browsers were no longer fully supported indicated that the case study on Cyclospora cayetanensis would not
on 1 browser and were inaccessible to some teachers. Utilization likely be used because the microorganism is not among those dis-
of another browser was not a simple solution as some teachers re- cussed in the class, thereby shedding light on the lack of emphasis
ported that their school districts require written permission to use on these types of microorganisms in this particular course. The
other browsers, and those study participants deemed the process video was used by 3 teachers, 2 of whom noted the students were
too involved and/or untimely to be worth the effort and instead engaged and another further described the video as “entertaining
opted to not use the games. as well as educational.” One teacher commented that the students
The educators rated the educational materials as “good,” “very benefited by repeated play of the video to more fully grasp con-
good,” or near “excellent” (Figure 1). They noted the materi- tent. Among the teachers who used the supporting materials of the

Figure 1–Evaluation of food safety educational materials by educators after utilization in instruction. Ratings are based on a 5-point scale with 1 =
poor, 3 = good, and 5 = excellent, with the exception of ∗ grade level appropriateness and class time investment for which a rating of 3 = appropriate
and 5 = too difficult or “too long”, respectively. Error bars represent standard deviation.

6 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 Available on-line through ift.org
High school food safety education . . .

Table 3–Self-described behavior and knowledge of recommended safe food-handling practices among students of various science courses.a

Emerging Foods Food science Clinical

diseases (FCS) Microbiology (AgriScience) Chemistry microbiology
Question (n = 44) (n = 24) v (n = 74) v (n = 38) (n = 17) (n = 43)
Prior exposure to 18.2% none 16.7% none 16.2% none 34.2% none 5.9% none 2.2% none
microbiology topics
75.0% some 66.7% some 79.7% some 60.5% some 76.5% some 26.7% some
4.5% a lot 4.1% a lot 2.6% a lot 5.9% a lot 64.4% a lot
Knowledge of safe food- 77.3% good 62.5% good 4% poor 21.1% poor 17.6% poor 2.2% poor
handling practices
1% excellent 20.8% excellent 73% good 44.7% good 52.9% good 17.8% good
2.3% cannot rate 13.5% excellent 2.6% excellent 29.4% excellent 6.7% excellent
9.5% cannot rate 2.6% cannot rate 66.7% cannot rate
Always wash hands after 79.5% 79.2% 77% 78.9% 88.2% 93.0%
toileting
Always wash hands prior to 72.7% 66.7% 64.9% 73.7% 41.2% 93.0%
cooking
Always use a thermometer for 20.5% 25% 21.6% 50% 23.5% 18.6%
meat doneness
Refrigerate perishable food 81.8% 75% 83.8% 60.5% 47.1% 97.7%
within 2 h
Know recommended 59.1% 95.8% 58.1% 47.4% 58.8% 72.0%
refrigerator temperature
a Pretest responses.

glossary and classroom poster, the teachers noted these materials
were still in use and served as a source for a glossary word wall.
Other suggestions were to add a hands-on laboratory component,
involve teachers school-wide to serve as mock illness victims for
students to interview, and consider the potential value of develop-
ing a video on a foodborne illness outbreak investigation from the
perspective of a field investigator.
Student test
The teachers presented the food safety educational materials to
270 students; however, pre- and posttest data are based on 237
students as either the pre- or posttest data were not provided by
the educators for 2 groups of students. The data were collected
by groups rather than by individuals. Some teachers eliminated
test data for students who were not present for both the pre- and
posttests, but this was not the case among all teachers. One teacher
eliminated test questions related to topics that were not covered
in the course; information on student knowledge of such topics
would have been useful, particularly in light of measuring changes
with or without exposure to the educational materials. Although
we originally requested the educators provide a 2nd set of posttest
data as a measure of knowledge retention among students, only 1
educator was able to do so due to the length of school marking
periods or semesters. Due to the small sample size, these data are
not reported.
Student self-reported characteristics and behaviors
Self-reported food safety behaviors and knowledge of recom-
mended food safety practices among the students are presented
in Table 3. Among high school students, the majority reported
“some exposure” to microbiology topics prior to use of the ma-
terials (ranging from 60% to 80% depending on subject matter),
while more than 64% of the college students studying clinical mi-
crobiology reported having “a lot of exposure” to microbiology
topics prior to use of the materials. Those who reported having
no microbiology exposure ranged from a low of 2% among mi-
crobiology college students to a high of 34% of the high school
food science students. Within each subject matter, the percent-
age of students who reported some prior exposure mirrored the
percentage of students who rated their knowledge of safe food-
handling recommended practices as good. Among self-reported
behaviors for safe food handling, handwashing after toilet use
was more consistently reported of the recommended practices
evaluated (higher than 75%) including handwashing just prior to
cooking. Use of a thermometer to measure the doneness of meat
in cooking was the least consistently reported recommended safe
food-handling practice by 19% to 50% of the students or members
of their households; however, previous studies have reported that
fewer than 5% of consumers follow this recommended practice
(Abbot and others 2009; Phang and Bruhn 2011; Hoelzl and others
2013).
Although over 60% felt they had good knowledge of safe food-
handling practices, those who reported practice of safe food-
handling recommendations varied from less than 30% to 80%
depending on the recommended practice. This apparent contra-
diction may be due to a misunderstanding of safe food-handling
recommendations and/or a case of knowledge not leading to de-
sired behavior. Other studies have concluded that young adults are
generally more likely to practice risky food-handling behaviors
than other age groups (Patil and others 2005; McArthur and others
2007) and that self-described behavior is typically better than what
is actually observed in practice (Abbot and others 2009). Outside
of the formal classroom, families of students may not serve as al-
ternative sources of accurate food safety information as knowledge
and practices among adults generally appear to be inadequate or at
least inconsistent (Harris and others 2006) while they may exhibit
similar patterns of self-confidence in their own practices in spite
of limited awareness of risks. The patterns of self-reported com-
pliance with various recommended safe food-handling practices
among this study group are consistent with those reported in a
previous study (Cody and others 2011).
Student test data—objective questions
Student responses to objective food safety questions are pre-
sented in Table 4. The percentage of correct responses before and
after exposure of the materials varied considerably depending on
the question topic and the course subject in which the materi-
als were utilized (Table 4). Questions to address familiarity with
fundamental food microbiology concepts included recognition of
defining characteristics of types of microorganisms, identifying the
type of organism by the genera of common foodborne pathogens,
various terms and concepts related to host illness, microbial
growth potential in food, and sensory indicators of pathogen con-
tamination. Among these concepts, students were more able to

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 7
High school food safety education . . .

Table 4–Student familiarity with microbiological food safety concepts before and after use of educational materials in various science courses.

Percentage of students providing correct responses to test questions

Test Food science
Test question administration Emerging Foods Microbiology (AgriSci) Chemistry Clinical
number and time regarding diseases (FCS) (n = 74 pretest; (n = 38 pretest; (n = 17 pretest; microbiologya
learning concept use of materials (n = 44) (n = 24) n = 65 posttest) n = 36 posttest) n = 12 posttest) (n = 40)
1 Definition of bacteria Before 72.1 45.8 73.0 34.2 41.2 69.8
After 40.9 72.7 65.3 27.8 16.7 80.0
Change − 31.2 26.9 − 7.7 − 6.4 − 24.5 10.2
2 Definition of virus Before 76.6 37.5 62.2 47.4 29.4 93.0
After 86.4 63.6 80.9 38.9 16.7 90.0
Change 9.8 26.1 18.7 − 8.5 − 12.7 − 3.0
3 Definition of parasite Before 18.6 8.3 35.1 13.2 5.9 65.1
After 27.3 27.3 48.8 11.1 6.7 75.0
Change 8.6 19 13.7 − 2.1 0.8 9.9
4 Definition of mold Before 60.4 25 59.5 42.1 23.5 58.1
After 52.3 36.4 62.4 30.5 0 75.0
Change − 8.1 11.4 3.0 − 11.6 − 23.5 16.9
5 Definition of yeast Before 55.5 33.3 62.2 52.6 41.2 67.4
After 59.1 40.9 70.3 36.1 8.3 75.0
Change 3.6 7.6 8.1 − 16.5 − 32.8 7.6
6 Definition of prion Before 39.5 20.8 40.5 2.6 47.0 Question eliminated
After 18.2 40.9 69.0 36.1 50.0 by educator
Change − 21.3 20.1 28.5 33.5 3.0
7 Classification of Before 81.4 45.8 70.3 39.5 70.6 93.0
Hepatitis A virus After 79.6 72.7 92.5 41.7 33.3 87.5
Change − 1.8 26.9 22.3 2.2 − 37.3 − 5.5
8 Classification of Before 88.5 66.7 64.9 57.9 76.5 81.4
Salmonella After 70.5 81.8 89.4 50 16.7 85.0
Change − 18.0 15.1 24.5 − 7.9 − 59.8 3.6
9 Classification of Before 18.6 29.2 12.2 10.5 5.9 Question eliminated
Cyclospora After 9.1 13.6 27.4 8.3 0.0 by educator
Change − 9.5 − 15.6 15.2 − 2.2 − 5.9
10 Classification of Before 9.3 16.7 58.1 15.8 11.8 32.6
Escherichia After 13.6 18.2 60.2 13.9 33.3 45.0
Change 4.4 1.5 2.1 − 1.9 21.5 12.4
11 Classification of Before 32.7 33.3 23.0 15.8 5.9 37.2
Saccharomyces After 22.7 31.8 26.4 13.9 0.0 37.5
Change − 9.9 − 1.5 3.4 − 1.9 − 5.9 0.3
12 Classification of Before 23.2 25.0 54.0 29 64.7 46.5
Clostridium After 20.5 27.3 71.0 25 41.7 57.5
Change − 2.8 2.3 17.0 −4 − 23.1 11.0
13 Definition of Before 60.4 37.5 63.5 21.1 11.7 60.5
incubation period After 95.5 36.4 95.8 36.1 8.3 77.5
Change 35.0 − 1.1 32.3 15.1 − 3.4 17.0
14 Bacteria growth Before 95.4 87.5 89.2 81.5 29.4 86.0
rate in food After 95.4 86.4 92.7 69.5 58.3 90.0
Change 0 1.1 3.6 − 12.1 28.9 4.0
15 Lack of viral Before 62.8 62.5 51.3 57.9 70.6 Question eliminated
replication in foods After 56.8 27.3 66.2 52.8 50.0 by educator
Change − 6.0 − 35.2 14.8 − 5.1 − 20.6
16 Lack of sensory Before 39.4 62.5 62.2 55.3 29.4 51.2
indications for After 47.7 54.5 64.6 41.7 33.3 60.0
pathogen presence Change 8.4 − 8.0 2.5 − 13.6 3.9 8.8
in food
17 Recognition of Before 97.7 95.8 95.9 81.5 41.2 83.7b
farm as potential After 100.0 95.5 97.1 80.6 41.7 77.5b
point of food Change 2.3 0.3 1.2 − 1.0 0.5 − 6.2b
contamination
18 Recognition of Before 97.7 95.8 97.3 94.8 52.9 See scores for question
manufacturing facility After 97.7 77.3 97.4 80.6 25.0 17. Concepts
as potential point of Change 0.1 − 18.5 0.1 − 14.2 − 27.9 combined—correct
contamination response indicates
recognition of all
potential points
of contamination.
19 Recognition of Before 100 83.3 97.3 97.4 82.4
restaurant as potential After 100 81.8 98.5 77.8 33.3
point of contamination Change 0 − 1.5 1.2 − 19.6 − 49.0
20 Recognition of home Before 97.7 91.7 95.9 100 70.6
kitchen as potential After 100 95.5 100 83.3 50.0
point of contamination Change 2.3 3.8 4.1 − 16.7 − 20.6
21 Recognition of thermal Before 76.8 75 82.4 71.1 23.6 Question eliminated
processing as food After 97.7 59.1 91.7 50 50.0 by educator
safety strategy Change 21 − 15.9 9.2 − 21 26.4
22 Recognition of water Before 48.9 41.7 40.5 36.8 70.6 Question eliminated
activity as food safety After 68.1 68.2 61.1 41.7 16.7 by educator
strategy Change 19.2 26.5 20.6 4.9 − 53.9
Continued.

8 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 Available on-line through ift.org
High school food safety education . . .

Table 4–Continued.

Percentage of students providing correct responses to test questions

Test Food science
Test question administration Emerging Foods Microbiology (AgriSci) Chemistry Clinical
number and time regarding diseases (FCS) (n = 74 pretest; (n = 38 pretest; (n = 17 pretest; microbiologya
learning concept use of materials (n = 44) (n = 24) n = 65 posttest) n = 36 posttest) n = 12 posttest) (n = 40)
23 Recognition of Before 83.9 50 56.8 34.2 29.4 Question eliminated by
irradiation as food After 81.8 59.1 72.1 50 16.7 educator
safety strategy Change − 2.1 9.1 15.3 15.8 − 12.8
24 Recognition of Before 60.4 45.8 70.3 57.9 17.7 Question eliminated by
high hydrostatic After 72.7 72.7 65.3 55.5 41.7 educator
pressure as food Change 12.3 26.9 − 5.0 − 2.3 24.0
safety strategy
25 Recognition of pH Before 74.4 45.8 73.0 68.4 76.5 90.7c
effect on bacteria After 90.9 63.6 82.8 66.7 25.0 95.0c
growth Change 16.5 17.8 9.8 − 1.7 − 51.5 4.3c
26 Recognition of Before 81.3 70.8 83.8 81.6 17.6 See scores for question 25.
oxygen availability After 95.4 90.9 97.1 72.2 33.3 Concepts combined—
on bacterial growth Change 14.1 20.1 13.4 − 9.4 15.7 correct response indicates
recognition of all pH,
oxygen, and temperature
as important on bacterial
growth.
27 Recognition of Before 95.3 87.5 91.9 94.7 58.8
temperature effect After 100 77.3 100 75 66.7
on bacteria growth Change 4.7 − 10.2 8.1 − 19.7 7.8
28 Recognition of Before 60.6 62.5 55.4 34.2 29.4 74.4d
metabolic traits as After 75 45.5 69.6 36.1 0.0 87.5d
pathogen detection Change 14 − 17 14.2 1.9 − 29.4 13.1d
principle
29 Recognition of Before 62.8 33.3 66.2 39.5 41.2 See scores for question 28.
antigenic structures After 72.7 50 82.9 50 25.0 Concepts combined—
as pathogen Change 10 16.7 16.7 10.6 − 16.2 correct response indicates
detection principle recognition of metabolic,
antigenic, and genetic
traits as bases for detection.
30 Recognition of Before 65 70.8 60.8 55.3 47.1
genetic material as After 81.8 63.6 78.0 63.9 66.7
pathogen detection Change 16.7 − 7.2 17.2 8.6 19.6
principle
31 Foodborne illness Before 57.9 41.7 52.7 21.1 11.7 65.1
attribution to After 68.2 27.3 65.3 50 16.7 72.5
microorganisms Change 10.2 − 14.4 12.6 28.9 4.9 7.4
32 Classification of Before 11.6 25 4.1 29 5.9 34.9
illnesses as After 47.7 81.8 84.0 63.9 16.7 27.5
outbreak Change 36.2 56.8 79.9 34.9 10.8 − 7.4
33 Foodborne illness Before 28 16.7 14.9 13.1 52.9 18.6
estimates in the After 54.6 22.7 44.4 11.1 8.3 27.5
United States Change 26.6 6 29.5 − 2.0 − 44.6 8.9
34 Recall of Before 37.1 29.2 35.1 36.9 29.4 34.9
implicated food and After 38.7 40.9 48.5 36.1 25.0 35.0
pathogen detection Change 1.6 11.7 13.4 − 0.8 − 4.4 0.1
35 Variability in host Before 90.9 70.8 91.9 68.5 82.3 76.7
illness response After 88.6 72.7 91.4 75.0 58.3 92.5
Change − 2.2 1.9 − 0.4 6.6 − 24.0 15.8
36 Vaccine Before 51.1 66.7 43.2 65.8 41.2 39.5
availability against After 61.3 50 60.7 69.4 50.0 32.5
foodborne Change 10.2 − 16.7 17.4 3.7 8.8 − 7.0
pathogens
37 Consistency in Before 53.6 58.3 36.5 47.4 47.1 58.1
import-export food After 38.6 72.7 54.7 41.7 58.3 40.0
safety regulatory Change − 15.0 14.4 18.2 − 5.7 11.3 − 18.1
requirements
38 Lack of food Before 21.1 25 25.7 44.7 52.9 27.9
warning label After 18.2 18.2 29.9 36.1 75.0 15.0
requirements for Change − 3.0 − 6.8 4.2 − 8.6 22.1 − 12.9
carriage of potential
pathogen
contamination
39 Accountable Before 13.9 8.3 12.2 13.1 17.6 Question eliminated by
organizations for After 18.2 50 84.0 8.3 16.7 educator
initiating food Change 4.4 41.7 71.8 − 4.8 − 1.0
recall
40 Accountable Before 16.4 25 8.1 18.4 5.9 Question eliminated by
organization for After 13.6 27.3 17.6 13.9 8.3 educator
safety of food sold Change − 2.7 2.3 9.5 − 4.5 2.5
to food service
Continued.

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 9
High school food safety education . . .

Table 4–Continued.

Percentage of students providing correct responses to test questions

Test Food science
Test question administration Emerging Foods Microbiology (AgriSci) Chemistry Clinical
number and time regarding diseases (FCS) (n = 74 pretest; (n = 38 pretest; (n = 17 pretest; microbiologya
learning concept use of materials (n = 44) (n = 24) n = 65 posttest) n = 36 posttest) n = 12 posttest) (n = 40)
41 Accountable Before 32.5 54.2 36.5 21.1 52.9 Question eliminated
organizations for After 36.4 36.4 18.7 30.5 16.7 by educator
safety of food sold Change 3.9 − 17.8 − 17.8 9.5 − 36.3
to grocery stores
42 Accountable Before 53.3 37.5 59.5 36.9 17.6 Question eliminated
organizations for After 88.6 40.9 61.8 30.5 41.7 by educator
determination of Change 35.3 3.4 2.3 − 6.3 24.0
outbreak vehicle
Average of all Before 57.2 48.7 56.4 46.2 39.1 60.3
questions After 62.0 54.1 69.9 44.8 29.9 64.1
Change 4.7 5.4 13.5 − 1.34 − 9.2 3.8
a Educator used unrevised version of test (with combined concepts) and eliminated other questions.
b Scores reflect combined question responses such that recognition of farm, manufacturing, restaurants, and home kitchens all as potential source of contamination was required for correct response.
c Scores reflect combined question responses such that recognition of pH, oxygen, and temperature as all important for bacterial growth was required for correct response.
d Scores reflect combined question response such that recognition of metabolic, antigenic, and genetic traits as all potential means to detect and identify microbes was required for correct response.
Responses to test questions 43 to 50 are presented in Table 3.

recognize the defining characteristics of bacteria and viruses than
that of fungi, parasites, or prions. There was also more correct
classification of Salmonella as a bacterium and hepatitis A as a virus
than correct classification of Escherichia, Cyclospora, Clostridium,
and Saccharomyces. Escherichia and Clostridium may have had more
recognition among students had they been presented with species
names and abbreviated genera. Potential points of contamination
at production, processing, food service, and home kitchen were
generally well recognized among students, with exception that
fewer than 50% of chemistry students recognized the farm as a
potential point of pathogen contamination of foods. Among con-
trol strategies for safe foods, students were most aware of the use
of thermal processing over irradiation, pressure, and water activ-
ity. The importance of temperature on bacterial growth was also
recognized more than other factors such as pH and oxygen avail-
ability. Concepts related to food product recalls, outbreaks, and
accountability in these situations as well as for preventative mea-
sures were not widely understood, and the number of illnesses
presumed to be attributable to foods was surmised by students to
be well below estimates given by the United States Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Students in the emerging diseases, microbiology, and clinical
microbiology classes generally gave more correct responses on the
pretest than other students. Students enrolled in the microbiology-
related classes responded correctly on the pretest to more than 55%
of the questions, whereas students in foods and chemistry classes
responded correctly to fewer than 50% of the questions on the
pretest. These students, along with the students in the FCS foods
course demonstrated the largest overall positive change in correct
responses after exposure to the materials, with an increase rang-
ing from approximately 4% to 13.5% of questions answered cor-
rectly. The particular questions for which each group of students
demonstrated improvement varied in topic and degree of change,
possibly reflecting different emphases given to concepts by the
educators. Emerging diseases students showed greatest improve-
ment on topics related to safe food strategies, detection principles,
and outbreak concepts. Microbiology high school students showed
greatest positive change in posttest results for concepts related to
basic microbiology, recognition of safe food strategies, detection
principles, and outbreak concepts. Question topics with the great-
est increase in correct posttest responses for foods (FCS) students
were in defining characteristics for microorganisms and safe food
strategies.
Posttest results for AgriScience/food science and chemistry stu-
dents who participated in the study had an overall negative change
from pre- to posttest results in consideration of all questions com-
bined, though there was positive change for some topics (Table 4).
It is unclear if some of the negative change in correct responses
is indicative of guessing among students for both the pre- and
posttests or if exposure to the materials contributed to greater
confusion among students as these groups also had less overall
initial familiarity with the concepts as measured on the pretest.
The chemistry teacher did not use as many of the materials as
some of the other educators, which may be a contributing factor,
but this was not the case for the AgriScience/food science edu-
cator. Some students from the group with the greatest negative
change on the posttest also provided demographic responses that
did not match class information provided by the educator, and
some students made extraneous markings on the response forms,
thus giving reason to question the general validity of responses by
some students.
In spite of efforts to recruit study participants, the impact of the
educational materials on student knowledge is limited by the par-
ticipation of 1 educator per subject matter, and thus the influence
of teaching styles or individual school or class dynamics cannot be
fully distinguished from factors related to the materials that may
impact student learning. However, one of the main objectives of
this study was to assess the appropriateness of the concepts and
format of the educational materials for application across the high
school curriculum. With positive feedback from educators from a
breadth of subject matters, and predominantly positive change in
familiarity of food safety concepts among student participants, a
generally favorable conclusion can be drawn on this approach for
science learning. Educator feedback on the quality of the materi-
als, the ease of implementation, overall student engagement, and
intent for future use support the utility of the materials for high
school science education. The teachers made use of the flexibility
given in study participation in choice of materials, timing in course
instruction, and method of administration. Although such varia-
tions may limit some correlations that can be made, this is deemed
a strength of the materials, as one of the key recommendations
given by an advisory board of educators during development of

10 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 Available on-line through ift.org
High school food safety education . . .
materials was to assure flexibility for tiered teaching and constraints
of time and other material resources.
Conclusions
Food safety educational materials centered on surveillance and
investigation of foodborne illness outbreaks were readily imple-
mented across the existing high school curricula as well as in
community college education. Student exposure to the materials
via educators positively impacted familiarity with microbiological
food safety among the majority of student participants. The food
safety concepts that were least familiar to students before expo-
sure to the materials varied by subject matter as did the concepts
of greatest change in familiarity after exposure to the materials.
Teachers reported favorably on the quality of the materials and
ease of implementation as well as their intention for continued use
of the materials in instruction.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the secondary school ed-
ucators who participated in the implementation study. The ma-
terials presented in this publication were prepared by the Univ.
of Delaware based upon work supported by the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, under Award No. 2009–38414–19698. Any opin-
ions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the view of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
References
Abbot JM, Byrd-Bredbenner C, Schaffner D, Bruhn C, Blalock L. 2009.
Comparison of food safety cognitions and self-reported food handling
behaviors with observed food safety behaviors of young adults. Eur J Clin
Nutr 63:572–9.
Beffa-Negrini PA, Cohen NL, Laus MJ, McLandsborough LA. 2007.
Development and evaluation of an online, inquiry-based food safety
education program for secondary teachers and their students. J Food Sci
Educ 6:66–71.
Byrd-Bredbenner C, Maurer J, Wheatley V, Schaffner D, Bruhn C, Blalock
L. 2007. Food safety self-reported behaviors and cognitions of young adults:
results of a national survey. J Food Prot 70(8):1917–26.
Byrd-Bredbenner C, Abbot JM, Wheatley V, Schaffner D, Bruhn C,
Blalock, L. 2008. Risky eating behaviors of young adults—
Available on-line through ift.org
implications for food safety education. J Am Diet Assoc 108(3):
549–52.
Cody MM, Gravani R, Smith Edge M, Dooher C, White C. 2011.
International Food Information Council Foundation Food and Health
Survey, 2006–2010, food safety: a web-enabled survey. Food Prot Trends
32(6):309–26.
Endres J, Welch T, Perseli T. 2001. Use of a computerized kiosk in an
assessment of food safety knowledge of high school students and science
teachers. J Nutr Educ 33(1):37–42.
Harris C, Knight A, Worosz MR. 2006. Shopping for food safety and the
public trust: what supply chain stakeholders need to know about consumer
attitudes. Food Safety Mag. June/July, 52–9.
Herried CF. 2005. Using case studies to teach science. An AtionBioscience.
org article. Available from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/
herreid.html#primer. Accessed December 10, 2008.
Hoelzl C, Mayerhofer U, Steininger M, Brüller W, Hofstädter D, Aldrian U.
2013. Observational trial of safe food handling behavior during food
preparation using the example of Campylobacter spp. J Food Prot
76(3):482–9.
Lynch RA, Steen DM, Pritchard T, Buzzell PR, Pintauro SJ. 2008.
Delivering food safety education to middle school students using a
web-based, interactive, multimedia, computer program. J Food Sci Educ
7:35–42.
McArthur L, Holbert D, Forsythe W. 2007. College students and awareness
of food safety. J Family Consum Sci 99:60–8.
Patil SR, Cates S, Morales R. 2005. Consumer food safety knowledge,
practices, and demographic differences: findings from a meta-analysis. J
Food Prot 68:1884–94.
Phang HS, Bruhn C. 2011. Burger preparation: what consumers say and do
in the home. J Food Prot 74(10):1708–16.
Richards J, Skolits G, Burney J, Pedigo A, Draughon FA. 2008. Validation of
an interdisciplinary food safety curriculum targeted at middle school
students and correlated to state educational standards. J Food Sci Educ
7:54–61.
Shearer AEH, Snider OS, Kniel KE. 2013. Development, dissemination, and
preimplementation evaluation of food safety educational materials for
secondary education. J Food Sci Educ 12:28–37.
Winter CK, Fraser AM, Gleason JB, Hovey SK, McCurdy SM, Snider OS.
2009. Food safety education using music parodies. J Food Sci Educ 8:62–7.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article at the publisher’s web site:
The presentation, case studies, video, games and supporting mate-
rials can be accessed at the Univ. of Delaware College of Agricul-
ture and Natural Resources website at Foodborne Illness Outbreak
Investigation, http://ag.udel.edu/foodinvestigation/.
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 11