GEM NO. 445

Using Hands-on Demonstrations to Promote CookingBehaviors with Young Adolescents: The Culinary CampSummer Cooking Program

Michael W. Beets, MPH, PhD,*Department of Public Health, Collegeof Health and Human Sciences,Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon

Karen Swanger, MS, Director ofKidSpirit, Department of Nutrition andExercise Science, College of Health andHuman Sciences, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, Oregon

Douglas R. Wilcox, MFA, Departmentof Counselor Education andSupervision, College of Education,Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon

Bradley J. Cardinal, PhD, Departmentof Nutrition and Exercise Science,College of Health and HumanSciences, Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon

( J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007;39:288-289)

*Corresponding Author: Michael W. Beets,MPH, PhD, Department of Public Health,Oregon State University, 256 Waldo Hall,Corvallis, OR 97331-6406; Phone: (541) 738-2888; Fax: (541) 737-4001;beetsm@onid.orst.edudoi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.05.002

INTRODUCTION

Good dietary habits are an importantcomponent of a healthful lifestyle,growth, and development.1,2 Cookingclasses have been identified as one ofthe preferred methods of delivering nu-trition education programs3 and are pre-dictive of positive dietary changes be-yond individual nutrition counseling.4

Direct involvement in preparing food,in comparison to demonstration-basedinstruction, results in a greater improve-ment in cooking behaviors, attitudes,and beliefs.5 A lack of competency infood preparation is a primary barrier in

making more healthful food choic-

es.4,6,7 Food preparation skills are iden-tified as key components to preparingmore healthful meals in the home, yetthese skills are given little emphasis inthe school setting.8

Culinary Camp program’s main pur-pose was to increase the number oftimes young adolescents prepared mealsat home and to improve their attitudes,self-efficacy, behavioral expectancies,knowledge, perceived cooking ability,and perceptions of parents’ worry re-garding cooking. Culinary Camp wasgrounded on the rationale put forwardby Hyland et al,8 that (a) food prepara-tion skills are essential to preparingmore healthful food choices in thehome; (b) practical cooking skills andhands-on food preparation are not em-phasized in the school setting; and (c)the incidence of home-prepared mealsis declining,9 and thus, food preparationskills need to be learned outside thehome.

DESCRIPTION OFTHE INTERVENTION

Culinary Camp was grounded on anexperiential learning framework, whichemphasized autonomous, active partici-pation in the selection, preparation, andconsumption of regional and culturallydiverse food.10 Camp primary emphasiswas the development of culinary skills(eg, knife skills, food preparation, andsafe food handling). Camp accommo-dated 20 attendees and lasted 8 days,Tuesday through Friday for 2 weeks dur-ing July 2006, with sessions lasting 4hours (10 AM to 2 PM). Camp was con-ducted in the nutrition laboratory locatedon the campus of the local university. Thelab was equipped with 6 full kitchens,each complete with a sink, oven/stove,and corresponding utensils and appli-ances. Within the lab a section was des-

ignated for tables and chairs, where the

attendees sat and ate the food preparedeach day.

On the first day, prior to preparingany food items, a 45-minute informa-tion session was conducted that coveredissues related to personal hygiene andthe importance of proper hand washing,cross-contamination, and food storage.Throughout the sessions, demonstra-tions were conducted illustrating spe-cific cooking techniques (eg, dicing gar-lic, how to sauté food). All foodprepared was based on a theme for thatspecific day. Themes, suggested by staffand attendees, were selected to coverspecific cuisines (eg, Asian cooking),types of meals (eg, breakfast), or varia-tions on a given dish (eg, how to builda better salad). In groups of 4, attendeesprepared different dishes that wereshared with the entire group at the endof the day’s session. Prior to eating, dis-cussions were led regarding the types offood each group prepared, difficultiesencountered, and modifications to therecipe. All food prepared for the day wasconsumed by the attendees, staff mem-bers, and guests (eg, parents). Recipesfrom attendees were shared with all par-ticipants and placed within a notebook,which also consisted of a culinary dic-tionary, terminology, recipe section,and food handler’s guide. Additional in-formation was delivered throughout thesessions on the selection of produce andmeat/poultry/fish.

EVALUATION AND RESULTS

During the summer of 2006, a pilotprogram was conducted (approved bythe Institutional Review Board).Baseline and 1-week post-assessmentswere collected (N � 17) using a pre-viously designed survey for cookingbehaviors (ie, number of times respon-dents prepared meals at home during

the past 7 days) and psychosocial con-

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior ● Volume 39, Number 5, September/October 2007 289

structs (ie, attitudes toward cooking,self-efficacy, behavioral expectancies,knowledge, perceived cooking ability,and perceptions that parents worryabout cooking) theoretically relatedto preparing food.5,11 Qualitativefeedback was collected at the posttestfrom attendees and their parents.

Change in the number of times at-tendees reported cooking during thepast 7 days was not significant from pre-test to posttest (Table). Improvementsin knowledge and perceived cookingability were significant; reduction ofnegative attitudes tended toward signif-icance (Table). Open-ended responsesfrom the attendees suggest changes oc-curred that were not captured in thesurveys. Several attendees stated thefood prepared was “cool” and the camp“awesome,” indicating the themes se-lected were age-appropriate and readilyaccepted. Many of the attendees re-quested the camp be longer (“I wouldmake the camp a month long”), with ses-sions lasting more than 4 hours (“I wouldmake it 6 hours each day”). The format ofthe camp, therefore, elicited highresponsiveness—audience participation,enthusiasm, positive beliefs and attitudestoward the program—core componentsof implementation fidelity.12

FUTURE REFINEMENTAND CONSIDERATIONS

This program is among the first to at-

Table. Means and Standard Deviations of Prete

Variables PreteAttitudes

Enjoyment .81Negative‡ .76Self-Efficacy .80Expectancies .92Knowledge .81Parent Perceptions .82Cooking (past 7 d)§

Perceived Cooking Ability

ES indicates effect size.*Alpha scale reliabilities†One-tailed P value‡Higher values indicate positive attitudes§Wilcoxon signed rank test

tempt to modify young adolescents’

cooking behaviors and the perceptionsyoung adolescents have regarding cook-ing.8 Unfortunately the primary out-come (increased meal preparation) wasminimally affected, which can be attrib-uted to the evaluation measures used todetect change (self-report) and thelength of exposure to the camp (8 ses-sions). Nevertheless, the culinary campwas an innovative approach to develop-ing the cooking skills of young adoles-cents. Other considerations, such aslonger or additional sessions and target-ing parents, may prove useful in increas-ing the number of meals prepared athome. In regard to the latter, parentsmay act as “gate keepers” by limitingtheir child’s use of the kitchen—reducing the opportunity to preparemeals. In future work, practitionersshould consider increased exposure tothe sessions and incorporate a parentcomponent that focuses on parentalconcerns, family meal preparation, anddining together.

REFERENCES

1. Bryan J, Osendarp S, Hughes D, CalvaresiE, Baghurst K, van Klinken JW. Nutrientsfor cognitive development in school-agedchildren. Nutr Rev. 2004;62:295-306.

2. American Dietetic Association. Positionof the American Dietetic Association: di-etary guidance for healthy children ages 2to 11 years. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104:660-677.

Posttest Assessments

pha* Pretest

Posttest M SD

.94 4.4 0.7

.89 4.1 0.5

.86 4.0 0.5

.85 3.8 0.8

.57 3.7 0.8

.83 2.4 0.86.7 6.03.6 0.7

3. Birkett D, Johnson D, Thompson JR,

Oberg D. Reaching low-income families:focus group results provide direction for abehavioral approach to WIC services. J AmDiet Assoc. 2004;104:1227-1228.

4. Newman VA, Thomson CA, Rock CL, etal. Achieving substantial changes in eatingbehavior among women previously treatedfor breast cancer—an overview of the in-tervention. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:382-391.

5. Levy J, Auld G. Cooking classes outperformcooking demonstrations for college sopho-mores. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2004;36:197-203.

6. Adams LB. An overview of adolescent eat-ing behavior barriers to implementing di-etary guidelines. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1997;28:36-48.

7. Leith P. Consuming with passion: Food inthe age of anxiety. In: Griffiths S, WallaceJ, eds. Cooking with Kids. Manchester, UK:Mandolin; 1998:58-65.

8. Hyland R, Stacy R, Adamson A, Moyni-han P. Nutrition-related health promotionthrough an after-school project: The re-sponses of children and their families. SocSci Med. 2006;62:758-768.

9. NPD Group. 21st Annual Eating Patterns inAmerica Report. Port Washington, NY:NPD Group; 2006; Available at: http://www.npd.com.

10. Oregon State University. KidSpirit: build-ing smiles. Available at http://kidspirit.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed July 7, 2007.

11. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thoughtand Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall; 1986.

12. Domitrovich CE, Greenberg MT. Thestudy of implementation: Currentfindings from effective programs that pre-vent mental disorders in school-agedchildren. J Educ Psychol Consult. 2000;11:

Posttest

P† ESM SD

.4 0.7 .55 �0.03

.3 0.6 .06 0.40

.2 0.7 .22 0.33

.7 0.8 .85 �0.22

.0 0.6 .03 0.42

.4 0.8 .50 0.00

.9 5.4 .34 0.04

.0 0.9 .04 0.52

st and

Al

st

44434264

193-221.