Evaluating quality in associate degree culinary arts programs

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to determine which categories and indicators of quality are best suited to evaluating associate degree culinary arts programs (ADCAP). Design/methodology/approach -The researchers surveyed a national sample of culinary educators and industry chefs in the USA. The instrument asked the participants to rate the importance levels of 50 potential quality indicators for ADCAP. The data were analyzed to determine the most important indicators as well as categories of indicators. Findings -Data analysis revealed the five most important indicators of quality, based on mean scores, to be: sanitation of kitchen laboratories; industry experience of faculty; subject experience of faculty; required internship; and job placement rates. From these data, the researchers developed a list of 20 suggested quality indicators. The indicators were originally divided into eight categories. The majority of the suggested indicators came from the faculty, organization and administration, and facilities categories. However, factor analysis revealed that the list of indicators could more appropriately be divided into 13 categories.Research limitations/implications -The members of the American Culinary Federation surveyed may not be representative of all chefs in the USA. Practical implications -The results provide a basis for educators, students, employers and other stakeholders of ADCAP to evaluate these programs and suggest future research to further evaluate ADCAP quality. Originality/value -This paper applies multiple theories of evaluating quality in higher education to a type of program that has been under-researched in the academic literature.

Assessing the Quality of Gastronomy Education: Turkey Case

“…There are 57 items in these five factors. The items are gathered from academic literature (Abdullah, 2006, Hertzman and Ackerman, 2010, Ko and Chiu, 2011, Ko, 2012, Wollin and Gravas, 2013, , Naidu and Derani, 2016Kuo, Burnard, McLellan, Cheng, f Wu, 2017, and acreditation programs (ACF, 2018, Ontario, 2018, GACHEF, 2018, WACS, 2018. The questionnaire also includes questions to determine the demographic characteristics.…”

“…When international publications on gastronomy education (Hertzman and Ackerman, 2010) (Naidu and Derani, 2016) (Ko, 2012) (Wollin and Gravas, 2013) (Ko and Chiu, 2011) (Kuo, Burnard, McLellan, Cheng and Wu, 2017) (Abdullah, 2006) and educational quality acreditations (ACF, 2018) (Ontario, 2018) (GACHEF, 2018) (WACS, 2018) are examined, it is seen that qualifications are generally covered under the dimensions of curriculum, faculty, student, physical facilities, database.…”

“…From the studies on gastronomy education and its quality, five dimensions of gastronomy education can be conluded. These are; curriculum, physical facilities, database, faculty and student (Hertzman and Ackerman, 2010;Naidu and Derani, 2016;Ko, 2012;Wollin and Gravas, 2013;Ko and Chiu, 2011;Kuo, Burnard, McLellan, Cheng, and Wu, 2017;ESG, 2018;ACF, 2018;Ontario, 2018;GACHEF, 2018;WACS, 2018). It's seen that in order to reach the quality in gastronomy education can be possible with; the faculty graduate from relative fields, capable of professional skills, can think analytic and critical; the cirriculum which provides students to take part in all learning process, is open the flexible learning, shaped by all stakeholders' (university, student, sector) perceptions, convenient with internetional acreditations; the phisical facilities which has enough and accesible equipment in quantity and quality; and, the database which give linkages to useful, helpful and relevant sources and professional institutions.…”

A competency model for Culinology® graduates: Evaluation of the Research Chefs Association's Bachelor of Science in Culinology® core competencies

“…Hertzman and Stefanelli (n.d.) stated that these culinary schools are extremely diverse and vary by factors such as type (public, private, or proprietary), degrees offered, student count, faculty count, faculty characteristics, facility size, curricula, student selectivity, student services, and price. Evaluation of quality in higher education in itself is controversial due to the difficulties in defining quality, and the issue is compounded further by the variety of culinary arts programs currently available (Hertzman & Ackerman, 2010).…”