Appendix U

1. This is a collaborative research project that I contributed to in EDU 508. Other contributors include: Jason Arnauckas, Sharon Calabrese, and Kathy Waddington.
2. This project demonstrates my understanding of the research process as it relates to education. Additionally, it shows my understanding and knowledge of sophisticated data analysis. Our results were inconclusive.
3. This appendix demonstrates my competency in NETS 4.A, 5A, 5B, CTTC 1.A 1.C, 3.C, 4.A, 4.B.

Student Perceptions of Newly Implemented School Lunch Program at Wells Road Intermediate School, Granby, Connecticut

For the past fifty years, Wells Road Intermediate School had no cafeteria.  Lunch was brought from home and eaten on temporary tables in the gym.  In September 2005, a newly renovated school reopened with a fully functional cafeteria.  The lunch period this year has been described by staff and students as chaotic, noisy, and too short. 

The purpose of this study is to conduct and analyze a survey of the student population of Wells Road Intermediate School to determine students’ perceptions of the school lunch process.  Analysis of survey results will indicate how students perceive meal choice, atmosphere, and the time allotted for lunch.  Allowing students a “voice” in the lunch process may produce a more comprehensive, less stressful and more efficient lunch period plan.  The following descriptive and relationship questions were used to guide the research process:  1.) How much time do students at Granby Elementary School perceive they are waiting in the lunch line? 2.) How does cafeteria atmosphere affect students’ lunch experience? 3.) Is there a correlation between perceived lunchroom atmosphere and grade level?      

LITERATURE

Past studies indicate there are three major complaints that students have towards the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in our public school system.  Although there are many documented issues pertaining to the NSLP, three recurring themes are variety of food, quality of food, and service/eating time.

Variety of food.  Research indicates that elementary students are more satisfied with the overall school food service than secondary students (Meyer, 2005).  One factor contributing to the increased negative perception appears to be the repetitive menu choices (Meyer, 2005).  Dr. Meyer concludes in her study of elementary students that, “Students were more satisfied overall and more pleased…when they perceived they had a choice” (2005).  In addition, a study conducted in eight Cincinnati public schools showed that students listed food items as their least favorite because they were offered too frequently (Marples, 1995).

Quality of food.  The most obvious variable affecting satisfaction is the quality of food.  When surveyed, as many as 2/3 of the nonparticipating students in the Cincinnati schools said they would participate if the quality of the plate lunch was improved (Marples 1995).  Dr. Meyer’s research indicates that, “students want school meals that look and taste like the convenience of the fast food they consume outside of school” (2005).  With high percentages of students (Marples 1995, Meyer 2005) rating food as poor quality, this aspect of the lunchroom experience warrants further investigation.

Service/eating time.  A major point of contention is the amount of time allotted for service/eating.  Since this is left to the discretion of the individual school systems, in order to boost class time, the average lunch period has shrunk from 30 minutes to 23.7 (Vaishnav, 2005).  However, students cite this more often than any other factor as contributing to their dissatisfaction with school lunch programs (Bergman, et al 2000).  Specifically, waiting in line and subsequent insufficient time to finish eating comprised a majority of the complaints (Marples, 1995, Bergman, et al 2000).

These concerns are echoed throughout the public school systems.  In an attempt to reverse these negative perceptions, studies such as ours are needed to pinpoint the major concerns so they can be addressed accordingly.

 METHODOLOGY

Participants

                        The participants in this study were selected by convenience sampling of intact classes drawn from third through sixth grade students in a public school.  The student body is primarily heterogeneously grouped, middle income and contains 99% Caucasian students.  There were 344 students who participated in the survey: 142 boys and 196 girls, with six students not indicating gender. 

Instrument

This is a cross-sectional study, based on survey design, to examine student opinions of current lunch practices.  The survey was developed electronically via a web based survey tool called Quia.  The study began on April 6, 2006 and ended on April 12, 2006.   Prior to the development of the questions, informal interviews were conducted with administrators, paraprofessionals and students.  Closed-ended multiple choice questions were developed based on these interviews.  Statistical analysis was done by coding the results of the survey into Microsoft Excel (Table 15), and then running the coded data through SPSS version 12.

Procedure

The questionnaire was comprised of three demographic questions, two preference questions, and

six questions dealing with lunchroom environment.  Students responded to questions prior to the start of their weekly technology classes at various times of the day.  The student survey was posted on the intra-school website.  Permission to administer an anonymous student questionnaire through the school website was granted by the school principal.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were run on each category using SPSS version 12.  SPSS automatically adjusted for the missing data, inserting the mean for any unanswered questions.  Pearson moment correlations were performed to determine the relationship between gender and favorite foods or grade and favorite foods.  A minimal correlation between gender or grade was found (Table 12).  Additionally, as seen in Table 11, there was a noteworthy correlation between grade levels and wait time.  This correlation was positive with an r=.308.  This was significant at the .01 level.  There was a correlation between grade levels and the noise level in the cafeteria.  It is a fairly weak negative correlation of -.118. This implies that as the grade level increases the perception of cafeteria noise lowers and visa versa.  There was no correlation of any consequence between gender and noise perception or gender and wait time (Table 11).  

Interestingly there are no significant correlations (Table 12) between gender and grade and their preferred food or their preferred plate, or their ability to finish on time.  Although this may seem obvious there is a negative correlation between the length of time a student spends in line and the ability to finish lunch in time.  This was a -.237 negative correlation (Table 13).  This implies the expected—the longer you wait in line the less likely you are to finish on time.  Finally, we can see that there was a correlation between being hungry and waiting in line.  This was a positive correlation of .163, suggesting there was a relation between students’ perceptions of hunger and wait time (Table 14).  An interesting finding was that there was no relationship of any consequence between students’ perception of being still hungry after lunch and students who perceived they had not been given enough time to finish their lunch.  Meaning that students that do not finish are no more likely to be hungry than students that do finish.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Past literature indicates problems with the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and this study indicates similar problems.  However, this study is limited in scope and relied on student perceptions rather than concrete evidence as to time spent waiting in line and whether students were finished eating.  Further research is needed to determine how much time is actually spent in the lunch line etc., in order to obtain conclusive results that could drive changes within the lunch process.  A qualitative study with administrators and paraprofessionals who monitor lunch might be compared to this study’s data analysis of student perception of the lunch process in order to define specific areas of weakness  and then to address those areas.

This study indicates a need to change or manipulate student perceptions of the lunch process and environment.  Strategies to address students’ negative perception of wait time and noise level should be explored in more depth.  This study, in correlation with the suggested additional study areas, could provide a solid scaffolding to improve the overall school lunch process for the general population.

 References

Bergman, E., Buergel, N., Joseph, E., Sanchez, A. (2000). Time spent by schoolchildren to eat lunch. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100 (6), 696.

Marples, C. (1995). Factors affecting students’ participation in the Cincinnati public schools lunch program. Adolescence (Fall).

Meyer, M. (2005). Upper-elementary students’ perception of school meals. The Journal of Child Nutrition & Management, 1 (Spring).

Quia Corporation, (n.d.). Where learning takes you. Retrieved Apr. 19, 2006, from http://www.quia.com.

Statisitcal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).  Student Version 12.0 for Windows.  
            SPSS Science, Inc., Chicago, IL.  http://www.spss.com.

Vaishnav, A. (2005). School lunches are no picnic: Longer student breaks advocated. The  

          Boston Globe, August 6.

Appendices

Appendice A

 Survey given to 344 students in grades three through six at Well Road Intermediate School, Granby, Connecticut

Survey

Top of Form

Student Survey on Lunch Satisfaction - (copy)

Tools

1. How long do you wait in line for lunch

1-3 minutes

4-6 minutes

7-10 minutes

10-15 minutes

15+ minutes

2. What meal do you like best?

cheese pizza

corn dogs

chicken nuggets

french toast sticks

turkey hotdog

pasta with meat sauce

italian dunkers

hamburgers

nachos

toasted cheese sandwich

3. What meal do you like least?

cheese pizza

corn dogs

chicken nuggets

french toast sticks

turkey hotdog

pasta with meat sauce

italian dunkers

hamburgers

nachos

toasted cheese sandwich

4. Which kind of plate would you prefer to eat your lunch on?

plastic plate

styrofoam tray

not important

5. How often would you like to change your assigned seats?

once a week

once every two weeks

once a month

never

6. How often are you still hungry after you eat?

not often

sometimes

always

7. Are you finished eating when it is time to line up?

never finished

sometimes finished

always finished

8. How noisy is the cafeteria when you eat?

not noisy

a little noisy

noisy

very noisy

9. In what town do you attend school?

Granby

Bloomfield

10. What grade are you in?

third

fourth

fifth

sixth

seventh

11. Are you a boy or a girl?

boy

girl

Bottom of Form

                                                          Table 1

How long do you wait in line?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1 - 3 minutes	69	20.1	20.7	20.7
	4 - 6 minutes	82	23.8	24.6	45.2
	7 - 10 minutes	100	29.1	29.9	75.1
	10 - 15 minutes	47	13.7	14.1	89.2
	more than 15 minutes	36	10.5	10.8	100.0
	Total	334	97.1	100.0
Missing	System	10	2.9
Total		344	100.0

                                    Graph 1

                                                        Table 2

                                                  What meal do you like best?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	cheese pizza	11	3.2	3.3	3.3
	corn dogs	36	10.5	10.8	14.1
	chicken nuggets	38	11.0	11.4	25.4
	french toast	51	14.8	15.3	40.7
	turkey hotdog	8	2.3	2.4	43.1
	pasta	11	3.2	3.3	46.4
	Italian dunkers	66	19.2	19.8	66.2
	hamburgers	13	3.8	3.9	70.1
	nachos	85	24.7	25.4	95.5
	toasted cheese sandwich	15	4.4	4.5	100.0
	Total	334	97.1	100.0
Missing	System	10	2.9
Total		344	100.0

Graph 2

Table 3

                                           What meal does you like the least?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	cheese pizza	37	10.8	11.1	11.1
	corn dogs	37	10.8	11.1	22.2
	chicken nuggets	11	3.2	3.3	25.5
	french toast	31	9.0	9.3	34.8
	turkey hot dogs	70	20.3	21.0	55.9
	pasta	28	8.1	8.4	64.3
	italian dunkers	36	10.5	10.8	75.1
	hamburgers	26	7.6	7.8	82.9
	nachos	16	4.7	4.8	87.7
	toasted cheese sandwich	41	11.9	12.3	100.0
	Total	333	96.8	100.0
Missing	System	11	3.2
Total		344	100.0

Graph 3

Table 4

                                            What kind of plate do you like?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	plastic	175	50.9	52.1	52.1
	styrofoam	53	15.4	15.8	67.9
	not important	107	31.1	31.8	99.7
	4	1	.3	.3	100.0
	Total	336	97.7	100.0
Missing	System	8	2.3
Total		344	100.0

Graph 4

Table 5

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	once a week	187	54.4	56.2	56.2
	once every other week	49	14.2	14.7	70.9
	once a month	41	11.9	12.3	83.2
	never	56	16.3	16.8	100.0
	Total	333	96.8	100.0
Missing	System	11	3.2
Total		344	100.0

                           How often would you like to change assigned seats?

Graph 5

Table 6

                                             How often are you still hungry?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	not often	75	21.8	22.3	22.3
	sometimes	177	51.5	52.5	74.8
	always	85	24.7	25.2	100.0
	Total	337	98.0	100.0
Missing	System	7	2.0
Total		344	100.0

                                                            Graph 6

Table 7

Are you finished when time is up?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Never	27	7.8	8.1	8.1
	sometimes	182	52.9	54.3	62.4
	always	126	36.6	37.6	100.0
	Total	335	97.4	100.0
Missing	System	9	2.6
Total		344	100.0

Graph 7

Table 8

How noisy is the cafeteria?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	not noisy	20	5.8	5.9	5.9
	a little noisy	65	18.9	19.2	25.1
	noisy	137	39.8	40.4	65.5
	very noisy	117	34.0	34.5	100.0
	Total	339	98.5	100.0
Missing	System	5	1.5
Total		344	100.0

                                                                                    How noisy is the cafeteria?

Graph 8

Table 9

                                                  What grade are you in?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	1	1	.3	.3	.3
	2	1	.3	.3	.6
	3	79	23.0	23.1	23.7
	4	76	22.1	22.2	45.9
	5	89	25.9	26.0	71.9
	6	92	26.7	26.9	98.8
	7	4	1.2	1.2	100.0
	Total	342	99.4	100.0
Missing	System	2	.6
Total		344	100.0

Graph 9

Table 10

                                                        What gender are you?

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	boy	142	41.3	42.0	42.0
	girl	196	57.0	58.0	100.0
	Total	338	98.3	100.0
Missing	System	6	1.7
Total		344	100.0

                                                        Graph 10

Table 11

                                                                    Correlations

		how noisy is the cafeteria	How long did you wait in line	what gender are you	what grade are you in
How noisy is the cafeteria	Pearson Correlation	1	.018	.030	-.118(*)
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.740	.585	.030
	N	339	330	335	339
How long did you wait in line	Pearson Correlation	.018	1	.083	.308(**)
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.740	.	.133	.000
	N	330	334	328	332
what gender are you	Pearson Correlation	.030	.083	1	.010
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.585	.133	.	.851
	N	335	328	338	338
what grade are you in	Pearson Correlation	-.118(*)	.308(**)	.010	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.030	.000	.851	.
	N	339	332	338	342

*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

                                                                                    Table 12

                                                                                                   Correlations

		What meal do you like best	What meal do you like the least	What kind of plate do you like	Are you finished when time up	What grade are you in	What gender are you
What meal do you like best	Pearson Correlation	1	.015	-.027	.008	.057	-.043
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.784	.629	.890	.301	.442
	N	334	331	331	328	332	328
What meal do you like the least	Pearson Correlation	.015	1	.069	-.006	-.023	-.044
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.784	.	.208	.920	.675	.429
	N	331	333	331	328	332	328
What kind of plate do you like	Pearson Correlation	-.027	.069	1	.104	-.033	-.057
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.629	.208	.	.059	.544	.297
	N	331	331	336	330	335	331
Are you finished when time up	Pearson Correlation	.008	-.006	.104	1	-.011	-.033
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.890	.920	.059	.	.848	.550
	N	328	328	330	335	335	331
What grade are you in	Pearson Correlation	.057	-.023	-.033	-.011	1	.010
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.301	.675	.544	.848	.	.851
	N	332	332	335	335	342	338
Wat gender are you	Pearson Correlation	-.043	-.044	-.057	-.033	.010	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.442	.429	.297	.550	.851	.
	N	328	328	331	331	338	338

Table 13

                                                                                                Correlations

		How long did you wait in line	Are you finished when time up	How noisy is the cafeteria
How long did you wait in line	Pearson Correlation	1	-.237(**)	.018
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.000	.740
	N	334	327	330
Are you finished when time up	Pearson Correlation	-.237(**)	1	.080
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.	.145
	N	327	335	333
how noisy is the cafeteria	Pearson Correlation	.018	.080	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.740	.145	.
	N	330	333	339

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 14

Correlations

		How often are you still hungry	How long did they wait in line	What grade are you in	What gender are you	Are you finished when time up
How often are you still hungry	Pearson Correlation	1	.163(**)	.082	-.041	-.062
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.003	.135	.450	.260
	N	337	329	337	333	333
How long did they wait in line	Pearson Correlation	.163(**)	1	.308(**)	.083	-.237(**)
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.003	.	.000	.133	.000
	N	329	334	332	328	327
What grade are you in	Pearson Correlation	.082	.308(**)	1	.010	-.011
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.135	.000	.	.851	.848
	N	337	332	342	338	335
What gender are you	Pearson Correlation	-.041	.083	.010	1	-.033
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.450	.133	.851	.	.550
	N	333	328	338	338	331
Are you finished when time up	Pearson Correlation	-.062	-.237(**)	-.011	-.033	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.260	.000	.848	.550	.
	N	333	327	335	331	335

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

                                                                                               Table 15                                                    

                                                     Sample of how the researchers coded the data in Microsoft Excel