International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Abstract:

Since the creation of Molecular Gastronomy (MG)as a scientific discipline in 1988 a variety of highereducation modules and programmes in thatdiscipline have developed around the world. Atthe Dublin Institute of Technology, MG has beentaught using an interdisciplinary approach sincethe academic year 2012/2013. A Culinary Sciencelecturer and a Culinary Arts lecturer work insynergy and teach an interdisciplinary group ofFood Science (FS) and Culinary Arts (CA)students. The students’ work is assessed, in eachacademic year, using summative methods i.e.written exam and a project assignment. In theacademic year 2016/2017 the assignment reportswere, for the first time, jointly written by a memberfrom each student group. The exam results in thatacademic year were compared and the discussionsections of the assignment reports were analysedfor word frequencies. An open-endedquestionnaire was also given to the students (n =28) to get their opinions about the structure andorganisation of the MG module. There was nosignificant difference in the total (exam +

assignment) results of the FS and CA students(p ≥ 0.05). An analysis of results for the module,pre-interdisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary, showsthat the CA students benefited significantly (p ≤0.05) from having FS students in the groupwhereas there was no significant difference inthe FS results when there were CA students inthe group (p ≥ 0.05). Almost all the FS studentscommented that they enjoyed the practicalapplication of MG. Each student said that havingan interdisciplinary teaching team added depthand made the module more complete. Resultsshowed that when writing the discussionsections of the assignment report, it would bemore beneficial for a CA student to write thediscussion section together with a FS student. Inconclusion interdisciplinary teaching andlearning within Molecular Gastronomy educationis beneficial for Culinary Arts and Food Sciencestudent participants.

Key words :Molecular Gastronomy, Interdisciplinary,Project-Based Learning, Team Teaching.

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 1

Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learningwithin Molecular Gastronomy Education:Does it Benefit Students?

Roisin Burkea*, Pauline Danahera

a School of Culinary Arts and Food Technology, Dublin Institute of Technology (D.I.T.), Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin 1, Ireland.

* Corresponding author : Email:roisin.burke@dit.ie Tel: +353-1-4024346

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Introduction

The term “STEM education” refers to teachingand learning in the fields of science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (Gonzalez andKuenzi, 2012). According to the Independent(2016), a newspaper in the UK, one aspect whichhas been incorporated into the field of STEM isthe Arts (STEAM). In many European Union (EU)member states there is unmet demand forgraduates in science, technology, engineering,(arts) and maths (STE(A)M) fields (EuropeanCommission, 2017a). The European Commission(2017b) will soon launch an up-scaled EUSTE(A)M coalition bringing together differenteducation sectors, business and public sectoremployers to promote the uptake of relevantSTE(A)M subjects and modernise STE(A)M andother curricula, including through multi-disciplinaryprogrammes and cooperation between relevantfaculties and Higher Education Authorities (HEIs).This will involve building on EU projects to date,including the EU STEM coalition. They state thatthe evolution from STEM to STEAM reflectsrecognition within higher education of theincreased importance of interdisciplinaryapproaches. The European University Association(EUA) is the representative organisation ofuniversities and national rectors’ conferences in47 European countries and plays a crucial role ininfluencing EU policies on higher education,research and innovation (EUA, 2017a). The EUAare convinced that STEAM is not an adequateconcept to include the unique contributions ofarts, humanities, and social sciences. They wouldprefer to see greater recognition of the value of adiverse disciplinary and interdisciplinarylandscape, including small and rare disciplines(EUA, 2017b). Higher education has a duty toensure that educational content is up to date,provide relevant study programmes in fieldswhere skills shortages exist and develop methodsof learning and teaching that allow students toacquire the breadth and depth of skills they need(European Commission, 2017b). A relatively new sub-discipline of Food Science,namely Molecular Gastronomy, was created in1988 (This, 2002). In the world of food science,

Molecular Gastronomy is a term which describesthe convergence of the two long-establishedcore food disciplines, i.e., food science and theart of the chef (Burke, This and Kelly, 2016).There are many examples of such aconvergence e.g. Hervé This the co-founder ofMolecular Gastronomy collaborates regularlywith his great friend, Pierre Gagnaire, one of themost influential chefs in the world (Iqemusu,2017). They publish their inventions online(Gagnaire, 2017). Another example of such acollaboration has been between moleculargastronomist, Professor Peter Barham, and chefHeston Blumenthal. Burke (2003) notes thatcollaborations with chefs are vital but thescientist has much to gain as well. According to This (This, 2009) there areeducational applications of moleculargastronomy: new insights into the culinaryprocesses have led to new culinary curricula forchefs in many countries such as France,Canada, Italy, and Finland, as well aseducational programs in schools. Many countriesaround the world have established MolecularGastronomy educational modules or fullprogrammes (This, 2017). A variety of teachingand learning approaches are used e.g. projects,online courses, use of a diary/journal andtheoretical development and oral and problembased learning (This, 2011; Risbo, Mouritsen,Bom Frøst, Evans and Reade, 2013). This paper will provide results and discussion ofan interdisciplinary approach, between foodscience and the culinary arts, which is used atthe Dublin Institute of Technology for theteaching and learning of Molecular Gastronomyat final year undergraduate level.

Methodology

Student groups: During the academic year2016/2017 there were two student groups whoparticipated in an MG optional module: (1) fifteenstudents were fourth years from a Culinary Artshonours degree programme who took anundergraduate module in Molecular Gastronomyand (2) thirteen fourth years from a Food

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 2

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Science honours degree programme who alsotook the same undergraduate module inMolecular Gastronomy.

Curriculum: The MG module ran for threeconsecutive hours, each week, over twelve weeksin one semester of the academic year (36 hoursclass contact). The module was delivered by ateaching team of a Culinary Science lecturer(theory and practicals) and a Culinary Arts lecturer(practicals). The main features of the undergraduate modulewere theoretical lectures and practical kitchenclasses that took place during the first eightweeks and a project-based learning assignmentthat ran over the last four weeks (12 hours). Thecurriculum included the chemistry and physics ofhydrocolloids, foams, and gels; scientific aspectsof culinary precisions (old wives tales); formalismsof disperse systems; molecular cuisine (anapplication of Molecular Gastronomy):ingredients, equipment (e.g. siphons, dehydrators,water baths, Thermomix®, Pacojet®) andmethods (e.g. Sous Vide); application of science(chemistry, physics and sensory) and gastronomyto create a novel food and/or drink.

Assessment of the students: (a) A two hour writtenExam, weighting 60 %; (b) PBL* assignment;weighting 40 % (Project-based learning andProblem-based learning can both be abbreviatedto PBL. However, for the purposes of this paperPBL will be used to abbreviate Project-basedlearning only. ). In the academic year 2016/2017 students wereasked, for the first time, to work on the PBLassignment in teams of two (or three max), atleast one student to be from a Culinary Artsprogramme and one from a Food Scienceprogramme. Prior to this each student wrote anindividual assignment report. The four assignment classes accounted for 40 %of the total mark for the module. Each teamdecided among themselves how they wouldachieve the aims of the assignment. They decidedif and when to hold meetings, who would developthe recipes and who would create which parts ofthe recipes. The students also decided what

results needed to be recorded and how thiswould be done and by whom. For example,informal sensory analysis was carried out eachweek if appropriate. Score sheets weredesigned, and results recorded. They alsodecided who would write which parts of thereport. It was to be written by all team membersand the ‘Table of Contents’ should be structuredto identify which student wrote which part. In thelast class the dish(es) were prepared,assembled and showcased for final sensoryanalysis and photographing. In this academic year the assignment brief wasto create a drink and a dish using one or moreseaweeds and/or seaweed extracts. Thefunctional properties of the seaweed(s) and/orextracts was be exploited to enhance thesensory properties of the drink and dish.Students were asked to submit a detailed reportincluding Aim, Materials and Methods, Results,Discussion, Conclusions and References as wellas a log book for the work carried out eachweek.

Evaluation of Exam and Project : The results ofthe written exam (weighted 60 %) werecombined with the results of the project (40 %)and a final percentage calculated (60 %+40%=100 %). In order to pass the module studentsmust have obtained an overall mark of 40 %

Questionnaire: Each student (n = 28) was askedto answer a series of open-ended questionsrelating to the MG module that they undertook.By using an open-ended questionnaire,emerging data can be collected with the primaryintent of developing themes from the data(Creswell, 2003). The initial questions weregeneral relating to prior qualifications and anywork experience. The following qualitativequestions were more detailed so thatparticipants opinions and observations could beuncovered. 87 % of Culinary Arts students and92 % of the Food Science students responded tothe questionnaire.

Statistical analysis : The final results of theCulinary Arts students (pre-interdisciplinary vs.

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 3

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

interdisciplinary) were compared, using a t-test atthe 0.05 significance level. Also in the academicyear 2016/2017 the undergraduate final results(exam + assignment) for the Culinary Arts and forthe Food Science students were compared andagain a t-test was carried out at the 0.05 level ofsignificance to determine if there was a significantdifference in the results obtained between the twodifferent groups of students (Excel, MicrosoftOffice 365 ProPlus).The t-test compares twomeans and tells you if they are different from eachother. The t-test also tells you how significant thedifferences are.

Content analysis : The discussion sections of theassignment report for the undergraduates andpostgraduate students were analysed for wordfrequencies using a word cloud. These (alsoknown as text clouds or tag clouds) work in asimple way: the more a specific word appears in asource of textual data (such as a speech, blogpost, or database), the bigger and bolder itappears in the word cloud. You can easily see thesimilarities and differences between two reports ata glance. Frequency of word use was analysedusing Wordcloud (Wordcloud, 2018).

Results and Discussion

Evolution of the MG module (since 2009 to thepresent time)

The MG module was run for the first time in theacademic year 2009/ 2010. Then the module wastaught only to Culinary Arts students by a CulinaryScience lecturer. In the academic years2010/2011 and 2011/2012 the module was co-taught by both a Culinary Science lecturer and aCulinary Arts lecturer to Culinary Arts studentsonly. Final year students from a Food Sciencedegree programme joined the Culinary Artsstudents in the academic year 2012/2013 until thepresent time. The module continues to be taughtby the teaching team. When only Culinary Arts students took the moduleand were taught by the teaching team, the meanresult (exam + assignment) for the module in

Figure 1.Mean results for CA students withoutFS students and CA students with FS students.Bars bearing different letters are significantly different, p ≤ 0.05.

2010/2011 and 2011/2012 (n = 30) was 52.3 %+/- 13.3. When the Food Science students joinedthe module in the academic years 2012/2013;2014/2015 and 2016/2017 the mean result forthe Culinary Arts students increased significantly(P ≤ 0.05) to 59.3 +/- 9.9 (n = 30). In theacademic year 2013/2014 only one Culinary Artsstudent took the module. The mean result for theFood Science students (n = 12) that year was65.3 +/- 8.4. There was no significant differencebetween the results of the Food Sciencestudents when there was only one Culinary Artsstudents in the class vs. the results of the FoodScience students (2014/2015 (n = 8); 2015/2016,(n = 22)) with Culinary Arts students in the class(n = 10, 5 in each academic year). In theacademic year 2016/2017 the ratio of CulinaryArts students to Food Science students wasclose to 50:50 (Figure 2) and it was the first timethat a member from each of the student groupsworked together on the assignment for themodule. Prior to this each student submitted anindividual assignment. A detailed analysis of theMG module which took place in 2016/2017 ispresented below.

Academic Year 2016/2017 Student groups taking the optional MGmodule

The number of students taking the MG moduleis given in Figure 2.

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 4

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Figure 2.Student groups taking modules in Molecular Gastronomy. The % represents the number of students in each group in relation to the total number of students.

Prior educational qualifications and workexperience

There has been a universal trend to increaseaccess to higher education (Jeffrey, 2009) andstudents accessing higher education havediverse social and academic backgrounds(Beylefeld, Hugo and Geyer, 2008). The term‘Advanced Entry’ is given to the route which isopen to an applicant with previous workexperience and/or educational achievementsthat are considered directly relevant tothe programme they wish to apply for. In such acase, it is possible to gain entry to the secondor subsequent year of anundergraduate programme. There were threeexamples of students with prior qualificationson the undergraduate MG module. Two of theCulinary Arts students had a ‘Higher Certificatein Culinary Arts’ whereas one of the FoodScience students had a ‘Higher Certificate inFood Science and Management’. All otherstudents had no prior third level qualifications. As part of their undergraduate programme,students normally complete a number ofmonths in a work environment. This is inaccordance with the policy of manygovernments where undergraduate studentsshould be encouraged to spend some time in awork or service situation, and formally

acknowledge such work through accreditationor inclusion in the student’s DiplomaSupplement. The Culinary Arts students hadcompleted three-month internships in year 3 oftheir 4 year programme and in some caseswere currently working part-time in Michelinstar restaurants, as pastry chefs, chef departie, wine retail, food styling, and in theCulinary and Hospitality sector. Similarly, theFood Science students had completed workplacements in year three of the four yearprogramme in New Food ProductDevelopment, Food Processing, Health andSafety and Food Safety.

Scientific learning prior to taking the UGmodule in Molecular Gastronomy Culinary Arts Students

Students of the four year B.A. in CulinaryArts had previously studied modules inFood and Life Sciences. In years 1 and 2they undertook core modules in CulinaryScience and Technology, in Nutrition and inFood Safety. In year 3 they studied FoodProduct Development (theory) and in year 4they apply that theory in the kitchen todevelop their own food product. In year 4they also studied Occupational Health andSafety and many had taken an optionalmodule in Nutrition.

Food Science Students

The scientific modules undertaken during thefour year programme were Biology, Chemistry,IT, Food Processing, Microbiology, Nutrition,Mathematics, Physics, Regulatory Affairs,Food Product R&D, Sensory Evaluation, FoodIngredients & Consumer Foods and FoodEngineering.

Assessment and evaluation of student’sknowledge and skills

Summative assessments enable tutors toevaluate, and assign a mark to their students'learning at a particular point in time (The

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 5

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

University of Manchester, 2017). Students ofthe undergraduate module in MolecularGastronomy were given two forms ofsummative assessment i.e. a two-hour writtenend of semester exam paper and a project-based learning assignment. The written examwas given to test the knowledge of theinterdisciplinary student population todetermine if they had achieved the learningoutcomes of the module. These were to (1)demonstrate the application of scientific andgastronomic knowledge and skills and (2)apply concepts, theories and analysis in thedevelopment of novel recipes, dishes and foodand beverage products. Lucas, Dippenaar and Du Toit (2014) stressthe importance of establishing methods offacilitating learning that will require students tomove towards a deeper level of learning andthus to acquire the knowledge, skills,competencies and attitudes that will enablethem to perform better at all levels assessed.Favouring the more traditional essay type‐exam is associated with greater generalknowledge, a deep learning style, andopenness (Furnham, Christopher, Garwoodand Martin, 2008). They explain that there is aclear negative correlation between surfacelearning style and preference for the essay‐type exam method. However, it was noted by Eilks andKapanadze (2012) that learning science,beyond cold memorization of facts andtheories, is never a passive diffusion ofknowledge. They further highlighted that if newinformation is presented, challenging the priorunderstanding of the learner, cognition will beaccommodated which will result in newknowledge. PBL was used to challenge thefacts and theories which were discussedduring the theoretical lectures of theundergraduate MG module as well as scientificknowledge acquired from previous studies.According to Klein (2005) truly interdisciplinarymodels restructure the curriculum withexplicitly integrative activities that are typicallytheme-based, problem-based, or question-based, and organised within a curriculum that

has a spine of required core coursesensuring attention is paid to interdisciplinarytheory, concepts and methods.

Figure 3.Mean results for the two student groups who took the undergraduate MG module in 2016/2017. Within project, exam and total, bars bearing different letters are significantly different, p ≤ 0.05.

As Figure 3 shows, in the academic year2016/2017 the mean final total percentagesfor the undergraduate Culinary Arts studentsand the Food Science students were 53.9 %+/- 8.5 and 49.7 % +/-6.7 respectively.Overall there was no significant differencesbetween the results for the exam, project orfinal totals of the two groups (p ≥ 0.05). Thedifference between coursework marks andexamination marks tends to be greater insome disciplines than others (Richardson,2015)

Undergraduate exam paper in January2017 The exam questions are shown in Table 1.The instructions are to answer three (3) of five(5) questions. Duration 2 hours. All questionscarry equal marks.As can be seen in Table 1 the students fromthe two programmes had different preferenceswhen answering some of the exam questions.This is understandable considering that theyhave different educational backgrounds. It wasimportant to design the exam paper to allowfor a balanced choice of questions.

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 6

aa

bb

cc

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Table 1.Exam questions and % answered by Culinary Arts (CA) students and by Food Science (FS) students.

Question %CA %FS

Discuss the chemical and physicalproperties of the following gellingagents: Agar; Gelatine; Low Acyl Gellanand High Acyl Gellan

86 39

Discuss the scientific approach youwould take to reduce the effect ofvariability when testing an old wivestale.

50 85

Write detailed notes on each of thefollowing: Sous vide; Hydrocolloids;Siphons; Centrifuges.

100 100

Describe: The chemical reaction whichcauses spherification to occur. The chemical reaction whichcauses reverse spherification tooccur.

43 31

Discuss Xanthan gum in detailunder the following headings: Source; Physical and Chemicalproperties; Uses and applications inthe kitchen; a recipe using Xanthangum.

71 54

Undergraduate PBL assignment

The students were asked to create a drink anda dish using one or more seaweeds and/orseaweed extracts. Larmer (2014) describes themain elements of project-based learning asmulti-subject, lengthy (weeks or months),following general variously named steps,creating a product and possibly using scenariosbut often involving real-world, fully authentictasks and settings. To comply with theassignment brief, the students had to applytheir knowledge of chemistry, physics, nutrition,sensory science, culinary science, culinary artsand gastronomy. The project ran over fourweeks, following defined steps, in an industrialkitchen setting and resulted in a finished drink

and dish. The students worked in pairs orthrees, with at least one student from CulinaryArts and one from Food Science. This meantthat they had to learn to work together andcommunicate with each other. Eilks andKapanadze (2012) observed thatcommunication and negotiation betweenlearners provokes meaning and making andshaping of concepts in their minds. Theyemphasize that student-active learning inscience should provoke various forms ofcommunication

Student evaluation of the modules Highlights of the MG modules

Each of the two student groups outlined, whatfor them were, the highlights of the modules.Both undergraduate groups enjoyed thekitchen practical classes. The Culinary Artsstudents also enjoyed developing their ownrecipes, and the classes on Sous-vide and theprecisions/old wives tales. Some of the FoodScience students found that through themodule they were able to experience the linksbetween science and food.

Figure 4.The main highlights of the undergraduate MG module

Improvements that can be made to themodules

According to O’Connor (2006) module designand development is a dynamic process and toobtain meaningful information and to improve

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 7

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

the module, evaluation mechanisms such asquestionnaires must be put in place. Thestudents of the modules were asked whatimprovements could be made. A few of theCulinary Arts students would have liked moretime to develop the product and to get morefeedback and another would have liked if moretime constraints could have been set. A few ofthe Food Science students suggested that inthe first class a basic introduction to the kitchenwould be ‘really helpful’.

Theoretical lectures before the practicalkitchen classes. Examples where thetheoretical knowledge helped in theunderstanding of the practical application.

The reality is that there is no shortage ofteaching strategies. However, the key issue formodule designers is selecting the strategiesthat are most likely to support the achievementof learning outcomes and are suitable for use inthe teaching context while considering theresources available (Donnelly and Fitzmaurice,2005). The most effective strategy was to havetheoretical lectures followed by the applicationof knowledge in practical kitchen classes. Thenin the last four weeks of the twelve-weekmodule the students could apply theirknowledge and skills in their projectassignment. Both the Culinary Arts and FoodScience students all agreed that learning aboutthe physical and chemical properties ofcompounds/ingredients such as maltodextrin,gels, xanthan gum ‘helped us to understandmore clearly how things work before applyingthe knowledge practically’. Another student saidthat they like to know beforehand why ‘ithappens’. It was suggested that a theory classon sensory analysis would be beneficial forCulinary Arts students while a basic cookingclass would be beneficial for Food Sciencestudents.

Team teaching

Team teaching can be applied in differentcourse contexts. It offers benefits such as

different explanations of the same concept bymultiple teachers or teacher developmentthrough mutual reflection on action (Liebel,Burden and Heldal, 2017). The responsesfrom the undergraduate students showed thatthey found team teaching allowed for classesthat had more depth and were more complete.They said that the scientific approach andpractical applications were reinforced as aresult. However, because of logistics thestudents were divided between two kitchensfor practicals and the PBL exercise, with thesame lecturer assigned to the same kitcheneach week. It would have been morebeneficial if the lecturers had alternatedbetween the kitchens.

Figure 5.Undergraduate student comments about team teaching

Clark and Button (2011) found that throughteam teaching, students were learning frominstructors, instructors were learning fromstudents, students were learning fromstudents, instructors were learning frominstructors, and all were learning and sharingknowledge with the greater community. TheCulinary Arts students commented that theylearnt from the Food Science students theimportance of accurate measurements andrecording all parts of the investigation(including time, temperature etc.). They alsolearnt how to report and formulate a theoryand how to recreate the recipe again.Additionally, they learnt how to design sensoryanalysis score sheets and how to use arbitrarynumbers to label sensory samples. All of the

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 8

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Food Science students commented that theylearnt about kitchen practices from the CulinaryArts students. This included food preparation,the use of equipment such as siphons andtechniques such as chopping and formingquenelles. They also learnt about temperaturecontrol, time management and team work.

Project-based learning assignment

When asked what they had learnt from doingthe PBL assignment, the majority ofundergraduate students wrote that they hadlearnt about flavours, versatility of seaweeds(including its use for vegetarian recipes) andrecipe development. They also mentioned thatthey had learnt about the application ofMolecular Gastronomy. The Food Sciencestudents learnt culinary skills and techniques.

Figure 6.What the students said they learnt from the module assignment on Molecular Cooking using seaweed and/or its derivatives

An analysis of the structure of the written PBLassignment reports of the undergraduatestudents revealed that all students followed thebrief and used the headings Aim; Materials andMethods; Results; Discussion; Conclusions andReferences. This written structure is typicallyused when writing a scientific laboratory report(Helmenstine, 2017). A further analysis of thereport contents focused on the discussionsection of all of the reports. As Borja (2014)noted, it is probably the easiest section to writebut the hardest section to get right because it isthe most important section. There were thirteen

undergraduate reports submitted and thediscussion section was either written by all twoor three of the students in the group (31 %); aFood Science student (39 %); a Culinary Artsstudent (15 %); or undetermined (15 %).

Figure 7 top left emphasises that, in thediscussion section, the Food Science studentsused words mostly relating to sensory analysissuch as sample(s), judges, texture, sensoryand colour. The Culinary Arts students hadprevious experience of writing lab reports forscientific practical classes in years one andtwo of their current degree programme. In theMG module they were able to use thisknowledge to help in their academic reportwriting. However, very few of the Culinary Artsstudents (15 %) wrote the discussion sectionof the assignment and those that did used

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 9

Figure 7. (top left) An example of the word frequency of four undergraduate student who were studying Food Science; (top right) An example of the word frequency of two undergraduate students who were studying Culinary Arts; (bottom) An example of a word frequency from three groups of students (CA +FS).

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

mainly processing and ingredient terms butincluded some scientific terms such as texture,analysis and mixture (Figure 7 top right). Anexamination of three of the reports writtenconjointly by Food Science and Culinary Artsstudents shows they mostly used both scientificand culinary related words such as sensory,analysis, recipe, aperitif, mixture, texture,gastronomy and flavour. The results of the wordcloud in Figure 7(bottom) indicate that in orderto strengthen the scientific content of thediscussion section, it was more beneficial for aCulinary Arts student to work together with aFood Science student rather than alone. Holley (2017) states that given the multiplechallenges facing 21st-century society, thequestion of interdisciplinarity is urgent. Howknowledge is defined and disseminated; howand what students learn; and how highereducation can be responsive to its externalenvironment are crucial issues facingeducators. Overall the results of this study show that theinterdisciplinary teaching and learningapproach used in the MG module wasbeneficial for the student participants but indifferent ways. The module grades for theCulinary Arts students improved by havingFood Science students in the class. As MG is ascientific sub-discipline of Food Science it islogical that the knowledge gained in the modulewould be scientific rather than socially-scientific. Appleby (2015), explains that critical thinkingskills are used and developed as students lookacross disciplinary boundaries to consider otherviewpoints and also begin to compare andcontrast ideas and concepts across subjectareas. Such interaction is in support of theconstructivist paradigm which allows for newknowledge construction and a deeperunderstanding of ideas than in disciplinarystudy. Almost all the Food Science studentsfound the practical kitchen classes to be themain highlight of the module. These classestogether with the assignment kitchen classesallowed them to develop their culinary skills andtechniques which helped them to be more

creative. Interdisciplinary knowledge andapplication of different disciplines can lead togreater creativity (Appleby, 2015). It wasimportant that creativity would be nurturedduring the MG module so that, throughscientific knowledge and culinary skills,students could develop innovative drinks anddishes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the studentsof the MG modules who participated in theopen-ended questionnaire.

References

Appleby M. 2015. What are the benefits ofinterdisciplinary study? http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/what-are-the-benefits-interdisciplinary-study (accessed 2018-04-03].

Beylefeld AA, Hugo AP, Geyer HJ. 2008. MoreLearning and Less Teaching? Students’Perceptions of a Histology Podcast. SouthAfrican Journal of Higher Education, 22 (5):948–956.

Borja A. 2014. 11 steps to structuring ascience paper editors will take seriously.https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously (accessed 2017-12-10).

Burke M. 2003. Cooking with chemistry.https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/cooking-with-chemistry/3001121.article (accessed2017-12-09).

Burke R, This H, Kelly AL. 2016. MolecularGastronomy: An Introduction. ReferenceModule in Food Science. Elsevier.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081005965033849 (accessed 2017-12-07).

Clark B, Button C. 2011. Sustainability

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 10

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Transdisciplinary Education Model: Interface ofArts, Science, and Community (STEM).International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, 12(1): 41-54.

Creswell JW. 2003. Research Design:Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodApproaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Donnelly R, Fitzmaurice M. 2005. CollaborativeProject-based Learning and Problem-basedLearning in Higher Education: A Considerationof Tutor and Student Role in Learner-FocusedStrategies.http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/donnelly-fitzmaurice-Collaborative-Project-based-Learning.pdf (accessed 2017-07-28).

Eilks I, Kapanadze M. 2012. Student ActiveLearning in Science (SALiS)-The Theoreticaland Organisational Framework of a TEMPUSIV Project. Collection of Papers SALiS, FinalConference 29-30 August, Tbilisi, Georgia: 6-10.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262972407_Student_Active_Learning_in_Science_SALiS (accessed 2017-07-28).

European Commission. 2017a. Communicationfrom the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the European Economicand Socil Committee and the Committee of theregions on the Mid-Term Review on theimplementation of the Digital Single MarketStrategy. A Connected Digital Single Market forAll. COM 228. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM %3A2017 %3A228%3AFIN (accessed 2017-12-07).

European Commission. 2017b. Communicationfrom the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Socil Committee and theCommittee of the regions on a renewed EUagenda for higher education. COM 247.https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-com-2017-247_en.pdf (accessed 2017-12-07).

EUA. 2017a. EUA, European UniversityAssociation. http://www.eua.be/ (accessed2017-12-07).

EUA. 2017b. EUA’S response to the renewedEU agenda for higher education.http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/euas-response-to-the-renewed-eu-agenda-for-higher-education (accessed2017-12-07).

Furnham A, Christopher A, Garwood J, Martin,NG. 2008. Ability, Demography, LearningStyle, and Personality Trait Correlates ofStudent Preference for Assessment Method.Educational Psychology, 28 (1), 15-27.

Gagnaire P. 2017. Pierre & Hervé: LeConstructivisme Culinaire. http://www.pierre-gagnaire.com/pierre_gagnaire/travaux/1(accessed 2017-12-09).

Gonzalez HB, Kuenzi JJ. 2012. Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) Education: A Primer. CRS Report forCongress.https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf(accessed 2017-12-07).

Helmenstine AM. 2017. How to write a labreport. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-write-a-lab-report-606052 (accessed 2017-12-10).

Holley K. 2017. Interdisciplinary Curriculumand Learning in Higher Education.http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-138 (accessed 2018-04-04).

Independent. 2016. STEM vs. STEAM: Howthe sciences and arts are coming together todrive innovation. http://www.independent .co.uk/student/student- life/Studies/stem-vs-steam-how-the-sciences-and-arts-are-coming-together-to-drive-innovation-a7047936.html(accessed 2017-12-07).

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 11

International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy(Int J Mol Gast)

Iqemusu. 2017. Pierre Gagnaire.https://iqemusu.com/en/pierre-gagnaire-note-by-note-cooking/ (accessed 2017-12-07).

Jeffrey LM. 2009. Learning Orientations.Diversity in Higher Education, 19(2) 195–208.

Klein JT. 2005. Integrative learning andinterdisciplinary studies. Peer Review, 7(4) 8–10.

Larmer J. 2014. Project-Based Learning vs.Problem-Based Learning vs. X-BL. Edutopia.George Lucas Educational Foundation. [online].http://www.edutopia.org/blog/pbl-vs-pbl-vs-xbl-john-larmer (accessed 2017-07-28).

Liebel G, Burden H, Heldal R. 2017. For Free:Continuity and Change By Team Teaching.Teaching in Higher Education 22(1) 62-77 .

Lucas KC, Dippenaar SM, Du Toit PH. 2014.Analysis of Assessment Practice andSubsequent Performance of Third Year LevelStudents in Natural Sciences.http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/45249/Lucas_Analysis_2014.pdf;sequence=1(accessed 2017-07-28).

O’Connor C. 2006. Implications of MassEducation on Higher Chemistry Education.Level 3, 4. http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue4/christine_oconnor_paper_1/oconnor1_1.htm(accessed 2017-07-28).

Richardson JTE. 2015. Coursework VersusExaminations in End-of-Module Assessment: ALiterature Review. Assessment and Evaluationin Higher Education, 40(3) 439-455 .http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2014.919628 (accessed 2017-07-28).

Risbo J, Mouritsen OG, Bom Frøst M, Evans,JD, Reade B. 2013. Culinary Science inDenmark: Molecular Gastronomy and Beyond.Journal of Culinary Science and Technology,11(2) 111-130.

The University of Manchester. 2017. Types ofSummative Assessment. http://www .humanities.manchester.ac.uk/studyskills/assessment_evaluation/assessment/summative.html (accessed 2017-07-28).

This H. 2017. A Portal For MolecularGastronomy. http://www.agroparistech.fr/-A-Portal-for-Molecular-Gastronomy-.html(accessed 2017-07-28).

This H. 2011. Molecular Gastronomy inFrance. Journal of Culinary Science &Technology, 9 (3) 140-149.

This H. 2009. Molecular Gastronomy, aScientific Look at Cooking. Accounts ofChemical Research, 42(5) 575–583.

This H. 2002. Molecular Gastronomy. Angew.Chem. Int. Ed., 41 83–88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-3773(20020104)41:1 %3C83::AID-ANIE83%3E3.0.CO;2- (accessed 2017-07-16).

Wordcloud. 2018. WordClouds. https://www .wordclouds.com/ (accessed 2017-03-04).

Burke R and Danaher P. International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy. 2018, 1, 1-12. 12