See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228891037

The effectiveness of culinary curricula: A case study

Article  in  International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · March 2009

DOI: 10.1108/09596110910935660

CITATIONS READS

26 7,603

4 authors, including:

Keith H. Mandabach Robert J. Harrington

New Mexico State University Washington State University
21 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   1,723 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

China American View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert J. Harrington on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effectiveness of Culinary Curricula: A Case Study
Keith F. Müller
George Brown College
Toronto, Ontario Canada
Email: kmuller@georgebrown.ca

Dawn VanLeeuwen
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico USA
Email: vanleeuw@nmsu.edu

Keith Mandabach
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico USA
Email: kmandaba@nmsu.edu

Robert J. Harrington
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Email: rharring@uoguelph.ca

ABSTRACT

Students enter culinary education institutions with expectations of the experience and what
skills/knowledge they will master. After graduation, they discover how prepared they are for a culinary career.
Similarly, employers expect students to enter the workplace with specific skills and abilities. This study uses
survey methodology to examine current and graduated culinary student responses to educational skills attained.
Both groups’ perceptions are examined to determine what and how institutions might best prepare students for
success in the workplace. Findings provide both similarities and differences among respondent groups.
Implications for institutions, curricula, industry employers and students are discussed.

Key Words: Culinary education; culinary curriculum; chef training; catering industry; food industry.

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory culinary study, utilizing survey methodology, examines perceptions and expectations
of students, graduates and those in industry who hire them. Students entering the field of culinary training have
perceptions and expectations of what they should be taught to be successful and how well their culinary school
is meeting their needs. Employed graduates may have different perceptions on the value of the education a
school’s educational processes have delivered. At the same time, the industry is constantly evaluating the
graduate performance and forms perceptions on how well the educational system has prepared the students for
their positions.

BACKGROUND

Historically, the culinary craft was passed from one generation to the next, in its simplest form, from
parent to child, and in the case of professional cooking from master chef to apprentice often in a formalized
guild system (Ranhoffer, 1898). As the food and hotel business grew in the industrialized world in the 19th
century the development of formal and legitimate institutions to teach the craft of cooking occurred (Willy,
1910; Mayer, 1908). The development of these institutions created the need for suitable curriculum development
to validate such institutions (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and ensure student’s success and meet the needs of
industry. Curriculum development and evaluation is a dynamic process (Gustafson, Love & Montgomery, 2005)
and institutions must ensure that currency is met at all times to ensure credibility (Baker, Cattet & Riley, 1995).

Culinary education curriculum had its roots in the vocational education movement of the late 19th and
th
early 20 centuries and traditionally focused on achieving student mastery of core technical culinary
competencies (Mandabach, 1998; Mandabach, et al., 2002). The traditional distinction between liberal and
vocational education must become more irrelevant as we are challenged to recreate the citizen (well rounded
worker) as opposed to the consumer (Hegarty, 2004). Thus, a more holistic approach is assumed to be more
appropriate in today’s business environment. In addition to hospitality/culinary related skills and education,
employees require specific life skills to survive or thrive in an increasingly complex environment.

Today’s culinary student often has developed perceptions about a culinary career from the media. The
increase in the number of food-related programs on television and on the Web has helped popularize the chef
profession and increase the awareness of the pleasure of food (Pratten a, 2003). For the “millenials” or “echo
boomers” (entering the workforce for the first time), there is a clash between reality and expectation (Twenge,
2006) as they expect immediate results and success and struggle to come to terms with a working environment
which has a long standing tradition of authoritarianism (Pratten b, 2003).

The ascension of the chef to an exalted status is an on-going occurrence. It was not until 1971 that the
culinarians’ job classification status changed from domestic to professional in the United States
(VanLindingham, 1995). This change was the first of many that brought about a heightened awareness of the
glamour and viability of the profession as well as increased demand for skilled professionals in the hotel and
restaurant industry. Rapid changes in food technology, food science, agricultural methods (VanLindingham,
1995) and changes in educational requirements (Harrington, et al., 2005) have caused institutions to examine the
programs and courses offered.

It is not uncommon for politicians and industry to complain about a lack of skills by graduates. A
recent study found a lack of proper secondary educational, language and communication skills. Successful
graduates need to develop problem solving skills, customer service management, service management, team
work and people skills. They also must possess sensitivity to multi-cultural needs and understand how to work
in a diverse workplace (Toronto Labor Force Readiness plan, 2000). It is also interesting the large number of
culinary school graduates leave the industry and one wonders if there is a disconnect between student
perceptions, school curriculum and industry needs (Severson, 2007).

Popular culinary programs continue to focus on technical cooking skills with some focus on the
teamwork and leadership skills essential to the delivery of a great meal. Most programs also require students to
learn some business, foodservice accounting and management competencies. Minimal math and English
proficiency are usually required but topics such as marketing, sales, computer/IT studies, career advice,
organizational theory and human relations/personnel are not always included. These are some of the desired
skills necessary for career success according to a ten year study of career demands and learning perceptions
(Johns & McKechnie, 1995) and are also required courses for accreditation (Harrington et. al, 2006).

This study provides a case study of how one culinary school’s curriculum relates to the expectations
and the needs of current students, graduates and industry. The increased exposure of celebrity chefs has been a
growth factor for culinary education but there are few ‘celebrity’ high paying jobs and graduates are
increasingly voicing their dissatisfaction with their often expensive culinary educations (Severson, 2007).

METHODOLOGY

The study utilized survey methodology. An analysis was done of current curriculum information
published and currently offered by institutions teaching culinary programs to determine the practical and
theoretical content for the survey and following evaluation methodology suggested by Ornstein and Hunkins
(1988). Questions were formulated to measure and evaluate criterion-referenced perceptions of major stake
holders, current students and graduates. Identical questionnaires were sent to separate samples. The first sample
consisted of students who were mid-way through completion of their second year, and the second were recent
graduates of a two-year culinary program. The purpose was to identify if their education had adequately
prepared them for the demands of the industry. For current students and graduates, the questionnaires evaluated
the satisfaction level in the areas of computers skill preparation, relevant topics, writing, speaking, problem
solving/critical thinking skills, relevant technical skills, teamwork and the overall value of the program.

A separate survey had been developed to measure criterion graduate employers felt were relevant
industry skills and thus to determine if students entered the workforce with the necessary skills and knowledge
to be successful in the food service industry. Employers were asked questions to rate the satisfaction level of
graduate competencies in communication, comprehension, hiring, knowledge, productivity, quality, time,
problem solving/critical thinking skills, technical skills, and teamwork. The primary data collected was analyzed
for frequency of response using a five-point quality scale where 1 = very satisfied and 5 = very dissatisfied.
 Three similar questions were on the student/graduate survey and the industry survey; these included
teamwork, relevant technical skills and problem solving/critical thinking. The surveys sent to students currently
enrolled in the two-year culinary arts program realized a 67.2% response rate (eighty four of the one hundred
and twenty five responded). The survey to recent graduates from the same school resulted in a 70% response
(one hundred and twelve out of one hundred and sixty responded). In the third survey to employers of the above
students, the survey achieved a 52% response rate (thirty one out of sixty). The response is considered good,
given that the average response for on-line surveys is 39.6% (Cook, Heath & Thompson, 2000).

Analysis Methodology

Original responses to items were collapsed into three categories: Satisfied, Neutral and Dissatisfied. A
response was coded as “satisfied” if the original response was either “very satisfied” or “satisfied”; similarly a
response coded as “dissatisfied” corresponded to an original response of either “very dissatisfied” or
“dissatisfied.” The recoded data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages.

For items common to more than one group, group response distributions were compared using
Pearson’s chi-square test. When the overall test was significant for an item given to all three groups, follow-up
chi-square tests were used to compare group pairs to determine which groups differed. Because some expected
cell counts were less than 5 for some variables, both approximate p-values and Monte Carlo estimates of exact
p-values were computed. Monte Carlo estimates were based on 10,000 random samples and upper confidence
bounds from the 99% confidence interval are reported to confirm significance. For each item and group 95%
confidence interval estimates of the percent satisfied were computed. Significance was defined for p ≤ .05.

RESULTS
Student- Graduate and Industry Comparison

Table 1 consists of the three questions common to all three groups. The first question asked
respondents to evaluate their ability to solve problems. Response distributions differed for all three groups.
About 78.3% of current students indicated they were satisfied while only 3.6% were dissatisfied. The graduated
student responses indicated that 21.3% were satisfied but 39.8% were dissatisfied. Furthermore a 95%
confidence interval estimates that the percentage of the graduate students reporting satisfaction with the
program’s development of problem solving/critical thinking ability is between 13.6% and 29.0%. In a similar
question the industry respondents were asked if students demonstrated problem solving/critical thinking skills.
About 48.4% of industry respondents reported being satisfied, while 22.6% were dissatisfied.

For an item asking about relevant technical skills – either taught in the students’ programs or
demonstrated by students as employees – over 88% of respondents in all groups (current, graduated, and
industry) indicated that they were satisfied (Table 1). Response distributions of the three groups did not differ
significantly from one another.

Over 89% of both student groups responded that they were satisfied with the program’s training and
encouragement to practice teamwork skills. However, the industry group response distribution differed from the
student response distributions (Table 1). Only 71.0% of industry respondents were satisfied with student’s
teamwork abilities.

Current and Graduated Student Rating of the Educational Process

Seven items were administered to both student groups but not to industry respondents: computer skills,
overall learning, overall program satisfaction, speaking skills, teacher currency, relevant topics, and writing
skills. Current and graduate student response distributions differed for only two items: computer skills and
speaking skills (Table 2). In both cases, higher percentages of graduated students reported dissatisfaction with
their program.

For four of the seven items, overall learning, overall program satisfaction, teacher relevancy, and
relevant topics, 80% or more of both current and graduated student respondents reported being satisfied with
their program (Table 2). However, for computer skills, speaking skills, and writing skills lower percentages
reported being satisfied. For computer skills, nearly half (47.7%) of graduated students reported being
dissatisfied with the program; only 18.3% reported being satisfied. For the current students, 19.3% reported
dissatisfaction while 37.3% reported being satisfied. The 95% confidence intervals for computer skills indicate
 that the percent satisfied was less than fifty percent for both of these groups with the interval estimate for the
graduated students being from 11.1% to 25.6%.

Table 1 Summary of items given to all 3 groups.1

Sample dissati- Lower Upper Monte Carlo
Construct Group Size satisfied neutral sfied Bound Bound P-value P-value
Problem Current 83 78.3% 18.1% 3.6% 69.4% 87.2% <.0001 0.0005
Solving - Students
Graduated 108 21.3% 38.9% 39.8% 13.6% 29.0% . .
Students
Industry 31 48.4% 29.0% 22.6% 30.8% 66.0% . .
Technical Current 84 88.1% 7.1% 4.8% 81.2% 95.0% 0.7725 0.8099
Skills Students
Graduated 112 91.1% 5.4% 3.6% 85.8% 96.4% . .
Students
Industry 31 93.5% 6.5% 0.0% 84.9% 102% . .
Team Current 82 90.2% 8.5% 1.2% 83.8% 96.7% 0.0397 0.0413
Work Students
Graduated 110 89.1% 10.0% 0.9% 83.3% 94.9% . .
Students
Industry 31 71.0% 29.0% 0.0% 55.0% 86.9% . .
1. Lower bound and upper bound correspond to a 95% confidence interval for the percent agreement

For speaking skills, 38.4% of the graduated students reported being dissatisfied with the level of skill
taught in their program; the same percentage reported being satisfied (Table 2). For the current students, 19.0%
reported being dissatisfied while 44.0% reported being satisfied. The 95% confidence interval of the percent of
satisfied graduate students was from 29.4% to 47.4% and suggests that the percent of satisfied graduated
students is significantly less than 50%. The interval estimate of the percent of satisfied current students is
33.4% to 54.7%.

While response distributions of current and graduated students did not differ for writing skills, both
groups reported relatively low satisfaction with the level of writing skills taught in their program. Of the
graduated students responding, 34.2% reported dissatisfaction with the same percent reporting being satisfied
(Table 2). For current students, 26.5% reported being dissatisfied and 41.0% reported being satisfied with the
level of writing skill taught in their program. The 95% confidence intervals estimate the percent satisfied to be
between 30.4% and 51.5% for current students and between 25.4% and 43.1% for graduate students.

Industry Only Responses

Seven items were administered to only the industry respondents. These included industry specific
competencies such as communication skills (writing, speaking and technology), comprehension, hiring,
knowledge, productivity, quality of work, and time management. The items with the lowest percentages of
industry respondents reporting being satisfied were communication skills and comprehension (Table 3). For
communication skills, 32.3% reported being satisfied with the same percent reporting being dissatisfied. The
95% confidence interval estimate for the percent satisfied with student employees’ communication skills is from
15.8% to 48.7%. For comprehension, 51.6% reported being satisfied with the interval estimate being from
34.0% to 69.2%. Of the remaining five items, the percentages of industry respondents reporting being satisfied
with student skills ranged from 67.7% to 80.6%. Most interesting are the responses with the dissatisfaction
levels, communication (32.3 %), comprehension (19.4%), time management (9.7%), and quality of work (6.5%)
followed by hiring (3.2 %) and productivity (3.2%). The lower bounds on the confidence intervals for the
percent satisfied for these five items were all above 50% (Table 3).
 Table 2 Summary of items given to all both student groups.1
Sample dissatis- Lower Upper Monte Carlo
Construct Group Size satisfied neutral fied Bound Bound P-value P-value
Computer Students 83 37.3% 43.4% 19.3% 26.9% 47.8% 0.0001 0.0005
skills
Graduated 109 18.3% 33.9% 47.7% 11.1% 25.6% . .
Students
Overall Students 84 88.1% 10.7% 1.2% 81.2% 95.0% 0.7929 0.8154
Learning
Graduated 112 91.1% 8.0% 0.9% 85.8% 96.4% . .
Students
Overall Students 84 90.5% 9.5% 0.0% 84.2% 96.8% 0.2769 0.3290
program
Graduated 112 85.7% 11.6% 2.7% 79.2% 92.2% . .
Students
Speaking Students 84 44.0% 36.9% 19.0% 33.4% 54.7% 0.0089 0.0112
skills
Graduated 112 38.4% 23.2% 38.4% 29.4% 47.4% . .
Students
Teacher Students 83 88.0% 12.0% 0.0% 80.9% 95.0% 0.6353 0.6657
relevancy
Graduated 111 90.1% 9.9% 0.0% 84.5% 95.6% . .
Students
Relevant Students 84 83.3% 13.1% 3.6% 75.4% 91.3% 0.2085 0.2083
Topics
Graduated 112 80.4% 9.8% 9.8% 73.0% 87.7% . .
Students
Writing Students 83 41.0% 32.5% 26.5% 30.4% 51.5% 0.4697 0.4786
skills
Graduated 111 34.2% 31.5% 34.2% 25.4% 43.1% . .
Students

Table 3. Summary of items given to only the industry group (n=31).1

Lower Upper
Construct Satisfied neutral dissatisfied Bound Bound
Communication 32.3% 35.5% 32.3% 15.8% 48.7%
Comprehension 51.6% 29.0% 19.4% 34.0% 69.2%
Hiring 80.6% 16.1% 3.2% 66.7% 94.6%
Knowledge 67.7% 32.3% 0.0% 51.3% 84.2%
Productivity 77.4% 19.4% 3.2% 62.7% 92.1%
Quality 80.6% 12.9% 6.5% 66.7% 94.6%
Time 67.7% 22.6% 9.7% 51.3% 84.2%
Management
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

An administrator might examine the positives in the responses in this study especially in the areas of
teamwork and technical skills responses of all three groups. In addition, most students (90.5%) and graduates
(85.7 %) are satisfied with the overall performance of this culinary program. Overall learning also was rated
satisfactory by students (88.1%) and graduates (91.1%). Teacher relevancy received no dissatisfaction responses
by either students or graduates.

This same administrator might also consider examining what areas might need review. Communication
skills were an issue in industry responses. Industry responses indicate communication as the number one issue.
Scores were balanced in the satisfied (32.3%), neutral (35.5%) and dissatisfied (32.3%) categories. For student
and graduate responses categories in the communication discipline, writing, speaking, and computer skills also
have higher than desired dissatisfied responses.

The students and graduates reported low satisfaction (37.3% and 18.3%) and high dissatisfaction in
computer skills (19.3% and 47.7%) respectively. Interesting finding was that graduate dissatisfaction with the
computer skills was much higher than current students’ responses. The same difference was also evident in
student (19%) and graduate (38.4%) dissatisfaction with speaking skills. The gap is not quite as high with
student (26.5%) and graduate (34.2%) dissatisfaction with writing skills.

Improving communication skills might also address some of the dissatisfied responses in the problem
solving/critical thinking area. Current student response indicates satisfaction (78.3 %) with only minor (3.6%)
dissatisfaction. Graduates had a low response for satisfaction (21.3%) with problem solving skills and a higher
(39.8%) dissatisfaction with a 95% confidence interval upper bound of only 29% when compared to current
student responses. While industry (48.4%) had almost half satisfied responses, they also reported a higher than
desired dissatisfaction (22.6%) level. Only a small percentage of current students reported dissatisfaction with
their training in this area.

Related to the communication area are the areas rated by industry as comprehension, time management,
work quality, hiring and productivity. Improvement these categories might occur if communication skills were
improved. While all received satisfied responses, comprehension had relatively high dissatisfaction rating
(19.4%). The ratings of time management dissatisfaction (9.7%) and quality of work dissatisfaction (6.5%) are
also noteworthy. There no dissatisfied responses for knowledge and productivity; hiring had only a low
percentage (3.2%) of dissatisfied responses.

This exploratory study presents some interesting questions and might be replicated with revised
questions that focus on improving the educational process. It suggests that improving communication skills may
assist graduates in becoming more successful and help already successful programs become more successful.
Some educators are quick to blame the student lack of communication skills on obvious 21st century
distractions. The amount of time they spend on Web messaging, text messaging, cellular phones and often the
lack of time spent on formal written and verbal activities. But, educators would be better served to look at ones
own communication skills before examining the students (Twenge 2006).

The causes behind the poor communication skills in the kitchen might also not be the students’ fault but
endemic to the culture of the culinary world. The kitchens of the world are hot and noisy and most chefs and
chef educators assume students understand their communications. The culture of the culinary world does not
encourage questions - be it a food laboratory or an industry kitchen. Chefs often assume knowledge and then are
driven to distraction when students or workers don’t ask and perform the task incorrectly.

Kitchen miscommunications are part of the business. One author’s experiences serve as an example in this
regard. For instance, a cook was instructed to “brown the lamb shanks, place them in hot stock and prep them so
all we have to do is reheat them tomorrow.” Imagine the chef educator’s surprise when the nicely browned lamb
shanks and stock were taken from the refrigerator for re-thermalization two hours before the lunch and they
were raw. The cook did as instructed, but just did not comprehend.

A classic case is when a cook or student is instructed to put prime rib into the oven. The oven may be too
hot or cold and if the oven temperature is not specified the roast might burn or not cook properly. For example,
instead of a rib roasted at 350 degrees for three hours, it may be roasted at 110 degrees for three hours. Thus, it
will not finish in time for dinner. Any chef educator can relate to these stories. The more any chef educator
considers the issue, improving student communication skills (as well as our own) is a valuable concept.

A variety of strategies might be developed to improve communication education across a program’s

culinary curriculum. Culinary educators might consider stressing the importance of developing an agenda
supporting the relevance of language pedagogy in the hospitality/culinary education. They might also create a
plan “for embedding communication in the hospitality curriculum”. This issue has been addressed in detail in
the hospitality education discipline and a recent journal article, offers suggestions that might be appropriate for
the culinary curriculum to consider. This five step program suggests the following:

1. Discover what written and oral communication instruction occurs in other classes;
2. Choose professional communication to emphasize in your curriculum;
3. Develop contextualized assignments;
4. Encourage careful communication planning and revising processes;
5. Set Standards, provide feedback and reward good communication performance (D. Jameson 2007).

Planning and implementing such a strategy might help the culinary student develop communication skills.
A study of communication education in culinary education might provide valuable insight to culinary educators
and culinary education as a whole. One key to the success of the research program in this area might be to
examine the communication skills of the culinary educators themselves.

Limitations. The objective of this study was to consider the differences and similarities of perceptions
by current culinary students, recent graduates, and industry employers on the satisfaction level of preparedness
in key skill sets and knowledge related to culinary professions. The findings of this study are based on the
curriculum provided by a large, public culinary program and industry needs in eastern Canada. Thus, this
restriction limits the external validity of its findings. The authors hope that this exploratory study will provide
information and provide encouragement for other culinary programs to expand and replicate this research in
other locations to determine the appropriateness of the constantly evolving culinary curriculum.

REFERENCES

Baker, M., Cattet, A., & Riley, M. (1995). Practical food and beverage training in the UK: a study of facilities
and a debate on its relevance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(5), 21-24.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based
Surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 821-836.
Gustafson, C.M., Love, C., & Montgomery, R.J. (2005). Expanding the food service curriculum: who has added
fine dining to the menu? Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 4(2), 53-68.
Harrington, R., Mandabach, K., Thibodeaux, W. & VanLeeuwen, D. (2006). The institutionalization of culinary
education: an initial assessment – Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 4(4), 31-49.
Harrington, R., Mandabach, K., Thibodeaux, W. & VanLeeuwen, D. (2005). A multi-lens framework explaining
structural differences across foodservice and culinary education. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 24(2), 195-218.
Hegarty, J.A. (2004). Standing the heat. Hawthorn Hospitality Press.
Jameson, D.A. (2007). Embedding written and oral communication within the hospitality curriculum, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Education, 19(1), 39-48.
Johns, N., & McKechnie, M. (1995). Career demands and learning perceptions of hotel and catering graduates –
ten years on. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(5), 9-12.
Mandabach, K. (1998). American Professional Culinary Education Prior to WWII: The History of the Founding
of the Washburne Trade School Chef’s Training Program, UMI, Dissertation University of Houston
College of Education.
Mandabach, K. H., Revalas, D, and Cole, R. P. “Pioneers of American Culinary Education: Lessons from the
Depression for Culinary Education Today,” in press, PRAXIS, The Journal of Applied Hospitality
Management V5 (1), Summer 2002.
Mayer, A. (1908). A cooks school for Winona, The Hotel Monthly, 9/1908, 13.
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1988). Curriculum-Foundation Principles and Issues, Allyn and
Bacon.Tornto, 280-292.
 Pratten, J. (2003a). What makes a great chef? British Food Journal, 105(7), 454-459.
Pratten, J.D. (2003b). The training and retention of chefs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 15(4), 237-242.
Ranhoffer, C. (1898). Editorial, The Chef, 2/1898, 13.
Severson, K.(2007). Top chef dreams crushed by student loan debt, The New York Times, 5/8/07, 1 & 20.
Toronto Labour Force Readiness Plan. (2000). Retrieved April 8, 2006, from
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/labour_force_readiness_plan.htm
Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation me. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Willy, J. (1910). Education, The Hotel Monthly, 09/1910, 22.
VanLandingham, P.G. (1995). Effects of change in vocational and occupational education on teaching culinary
arts in America. Non-published manuscript.

View publication stats