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

net/publication/315741906

The impact of video technology on learning: A cooking skills experiment

Article  in  Appetite · March 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.037

CITATIONS READS

33 24,907

11 authors, including:

Dawn Surgenor Lynsey Hollywood

Ulster University Ulster University
15 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   1,104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sinead Furey Fiona Lavelle

Ulster University King's College London
53 PUBLICATIONS   418 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,007 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Trust Makers, Breakers and Brokers View project

Health promotion and Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dawn Surgenor on 23 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Title: The impact of video technology on learning: a cooking skills experiment

2 Authors: Dawn Surgenora, Lynsey Hollywoodb, Sinéad Fureyc, Fiona Lavelled, Laura

3 McGowane, Michelle Spencef, Monique Raatsg, Amanda McCloath, Elaine Mooneyi, Martin

4 Caraherj and Moira Deank.

a,b,c
5 School of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Ulster University (Coleraine campus),

6 BT52 1SA, United Kingdom.

7 d,e,f,k
Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University

8 Belfast, UK.

g
9 Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, School of Psychology, University

10 of Surrey, UK.

h,i
11 Home Economics Department, St. Angela's College, Sligo, Ireland

j
12 Department of Sociology, School of Arts and Social Sciences, City University London, UK

13

14 Email addresses: Dawn Surgeoner (Mcdowell-D10@email.ulster.ac.uk); Lynsey

15 Hollywood (l.hollywood@ulster.ac.uk); Sinéad Furey (ms.furey@ulster.ac.uk); Laura

16 McGowan (laura.mcgowan@qub.ac.uk); Michelle Spence (m.s.spence@qub.ac.uk); Fiona

17 Lavelle (flavelle01@qub.ac.uk); Monique Raats (m.raats@surrey.ac.uk); Amanda McCloat

18 (amccloat@stangelas.nuigalway.ie); Elaine Mooney (emooney@stangelas.nuigalway.ie);

19 Martin Caraher (M.caraher@city.ac.uk) and Moira Dean (moira.dean@qub.ac.uk).

20 1.0 Introduction

21 Convenience has emerged as a key factor in consumer food choice, as well as many social and

22 environmental factors which have all contributed to a decline in the amount of time spent in

23 the kitchen (Jackson and Viehoff, 2016; Pula et al., 2014; Caraher and Lang, 1999).
24 Industrialisation, urbanisation, commercialisation and social change have influenced the social

25 and economic landscape globally and in the United Kingdom (UK) where financial and

26 lifestyle changes have resulted in changing eating patterns (Utter et al., 2016). There is

27 evidence of changes in traditional eating habits, a greater availability of high energy, ready-

28 made convenience foods, and eating outside the home more often, resulting in over

29 consumption (Lavelle et al., 2016a; Jackson and Viehoff, 2016). Correspondingly there has

30 been an escalation of consumer spending in the convenience food sector (Mintel, 2010; Mintel,

31 2016; Jabs and Devine, 2006) where lower end-cost, pre-packaged convenience meals are

32 generally energy-dense, high in fat and salt, and low in micronutrients and fibre which

33 inevitably contribute to dietary inequalities and ill-health (Mc Gowan et al., 2015; Gately et

34 al., 2014; Pettinger et al., 2006).

35 Preparation of convenience meals require limited cooking skills ability; for example, following

36 written instructions to reheat a meal using a microwave or oven (Reiks et al., 2014, Rees et al.,

37 2012). Therefore, where meals can be prepared in minimal time without the requirement to

38 practice more complex cooking skills and feel satiated, individuals are increasingly likely to

39 lose their cooking skills ability (Caraher and Lang, 1999).

40

41 In recent decades, the focus of policy makers and health promotion professionals has been the

42 conservation of domestic cooking skills, through health campaigns, to promote awareness and

43 the facilitation of community cooking interventions, to develop knowledge and skills albeit

44 without an adequate or robust evidence base to support such initiatives (Reiks et al., 2014; Rees

45 et al., 2012). Cooking skills interventions have become a popular tactic used to improve diet

46 quality among the general population. In addition, UK health policy has promoted the merits

47 of cooking skills interventions to deliver wider public health policy solutions (Garcia et al.,
48 2014; Condrasky and Helger, 2010). As a result, educationalists and policy makers are keen to

49 identify the most effective methods of delivering cooking skills training to individuals and

50 groups (Butt, 2016), and with the acceleration in the use of technology to research ideas and

51 learn, video technology has gained momentum as an effective tool to reach and increase

52 learning amongst a larger audience (King, 2017).

53

54 To date there is no literature outside of this study on the effect of video technology on cooking

55 skills development. However, research is available on the benefits of video to enhance skills

56 development in general; for example, building design skills in architecture within the classroom

57 environment (Comiskey, 2011). This study demonstrated that those who lacked practical

58 experience were better equipped to grasp an understanding of relevant skills through watching

59 video than through verbal explanation or text book reading. The positive results from the study

60 emphasised the value students placed on repetition of the visual aspect of video as well as the

61 flexibility and selectivity of viewing the information where and when required.

62

63 Laurillard (2014) however contends that learning technologies are hopelessly underexplored

64 and that educationalists should explore the potential of learning technologies offering

65 participatory and active learning experiences to deliver real improvements in learning. Prensky

66 (2010) reinforces this contention, stating that digital natives, defined as those who possess

67 sophisticated knowledge of, and skills in, using information technologies are used to receiving

68 information at speed therefore the flexibility of video technology using portable devices may

69 offer a more efficient method of learning (Lim, 2005). Indeed, there has been an increased

70 emphasis on the use of digital technology to promote skills development through use of video

71 technology across social media platforms and smart phone Apps (Comiskey, 2010; Whatley

72 and Ahmed, 2007). Videoed cooking demonstrations and those presented on television have
73 tended to visually illustrate the full process, step by step, and often with some spoken

74 information on, for example, the sourcing of fresh local ingredients or nutritional facts

75 concerning the dish being created. Current thinking however suggests that as educators, it is

76 necessary not to simply replicate steps and stages of a process but to additionally consider the

77 needs and learning requirements of the audience in order to fully engage and motivate them to

78 further develop their skills (Dede, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to consider what changes

79 to the learning environment need to be introduced to best meet the needs of the intended target

80 audience and motivate them to change/improve upon their current behaviour (Watson, 2006).

81

82 In addition, it is also necessary to consider what aspects of video technology promote learning.

83 Wishart (2016) contends that visualisation is especially relevant in understanding key concepts

84 and the visual nature and audible content of video serves as a substantial learning tool. Indeed,

85 according to Mayer’s (2001) cognitive theory of digital learning, an individual’s information

86 processing system is separated by cognitive channels to differentiate visual and auditory

87 stimuli. Learning is accessed by integrating the information from these separate channels

88 suggesting that learners can process only a limited amount of information at any given time.

89 This is highlighted through empirical research, which found that if a large amount of visual

90 and verbal stimuli is offered simultaneously, the learner will experience cognitive overload and

91 cannot reach maximum understanding of the content (Mayer, 2001). However, because video

92 technology offers the functions of repeated access and control of the speed and pace of the

93 verbal and visual stimuli offered, cognitive overload may be decreased. This paper proposes

94 that using video technology to teach cooking skills has the potential to improve learning,

95 engage individuals in the cooking process and have a positive influence on diet quality. In

96 addition, research indicates that the facility to listen repeatedly to information is likely to be a
97 mediating factor in reinforcing learning through increased motivation and engagement (Mc

98 Kinney et al., 2009).

99

100 Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the role of video technology in the development

101 of cooking skills. It was anticipated that further understanding on how video technology can

102 promote confidence and motivation in domestic cooking would also arise through thematic

103 analysis.

104

105 1.0 Methods

106 Design and Sampling

107 The focus groups formed part of a wider study investigating the prevalence of food and cooking

108 skills on the island of Ireland. The comprehensive programme of research included a review of

109 domestic food and cooking skills (McGowan et al., 2015), a survey to identify predictors of

110 cooking and food skills (Lavelle et al, 2016a, Lavelle et al., 2016b), a cooking experiment and

111 focus groups to qualitatively explore consumer perceptions and use of video technology to

112 assist in the learning of cooking skills.

113

114 All focus groups were carried out post-experiment. The cooking experiment was a dual-site,

115 randomised controlled study conducted in Sligo (Republic of Ireland [ROI]) and Coleraine

116 (Northern Ireland [NI], UK). One hundred and sixty participants were recruited to take part in

117 the cooking experiment [40 participants x four experimental conditions]. Participants were

118 recruited according to the following criteria: (a) female; (b) cook for a family; and (c) consider

119 themselves as low-ability cooks. The final sample consisted of 141 participants (64 facilitated
120 at St Angela’s College, Sligo, and 77 facilitated at Ulster University, Coleraine) across 16 focus

121 groups. A total of 21 participants withdrew from the study for various reasons (e.g. unexpected

122 commitments, non-attendance and illness). The sample size of each experimental condition is

123 described as follows: condition one (n=34); condition two (n=33); condition 3 (n=35) and;

124 condition 4 (n=39).

125

126 Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Queen’s University Belfast Research Ethics

127 Committee and research was conducted in accordance to the guidelines given in the Declaration

128 of Helsinki. All participants consented to partake in the study and were aware that they could

129 withdraw at any point in the experiment.

130

131 Experimental Design

132 Participants were provided with cooking instructions on how to cook a lasagne from scratch

133 based on one of the four conditions summarised in Table 1.

134

135 Table 1 Experimental Content and Measures

Condition Content Measures

1 Control Recipe card only

2 Video modelling Full video demonstration + recipe card

3 Video prompting Step by step skills video + recipe card [view

full sequence of skills]

4 Video prompting Step by step video + recipe card [view skills

as needed]
136 For Condition 1, (the control group) a recipe card with an image, similar to a traditional

137 cookbook was used. Throughout all four conditions participants had access to the recipe card;

138 however additional instruction was accessible throughout the other experimental conditions.

139 Condition 2 added video modelling to the recipe, where participants watched a full

140 demonstration of the meal being prepared on a tablet prior to starting the cooking task: this

141 condition is similar to watching a meal being demonstrated on a television show. Condition 3

142 added video prompting, where participants watched a step-by-step instruction in a guided

143 sequence while cooking the recipe. This condition was similar to learning meal preparation in

144 a school setting, where a teacher would demonstrate a skill then the student would replicate

145 this after each step. In the final condition, the recipe card and the video elements were presented

146 to the participants and they were advised they had full control of viewing the video clips as and

147 when required. This was considered similar to current use of online videos including YouTube

148 clips, where full videos or elements of them can be viewed or replayed. All other aspects of the

149 experiment (e.g. ingredients, equipment, allotted time and protocols, etc.) were controlled and

150 kept identical in all four conditions and across both sites including the observers (DS and FL

151 attended all sessions across both locations to maintain consistency).

152

153 Procedure and Measures

154 The experiment required participants to prepare a lasagne from scratch within an allocated time

155 (60 minutes). The recipe was developed by two of the research team (AMcC and EM) to ensure

156 the inclusion of multiple skills and a range of ingredients. All participants per experimental

157 condition were observed by two or three researchers. The observers were asked to intervene in

158 the experiment only if a significant health and safety risk was posed to the participant. After

159 the cooking experiment participants were provided with some light refreshments then asked to

160 participate in a focus group discussion.

161

162 This paper will focus specifically on the results of the focus group discussion wherein

163 participants reflected on their perceptions and use of the video technology available used in the

164 experiment. Each focus group was facilitated by an experienced moderator (DS), and began

165 with an ice-breaker activity requesting participants to introduce themselves and state how often

166 they cooked from scratch. The moderator then provided instruction on ground rules of the focus

167 group discussion (e.g. not talking over each other, the importance of confidentiality, etc.)

168 before proceeding to a series of guided, open-ended topics. Results from the literature review

169 and data from an earlier round of interviews (Lavelle et al, 2016a) informed the development

170 of the topic guide (Table 2). Each focus group was conducted immediately after the cooking

171 experiment, lasted between 50 and 65 minutes, and was audio recorded. An assistant moderator

172 (FL) was also present to take notes to help focus the discussion. At the end of each focus group,

173 participants were thanked and an honorarium to the value of 60 Pounds sterling (70 Euro) was

174 paid and a free copy of a safefood cookbook given to each participant for her time and to

175 remunerate the travel costs of study participation.

176

177 Table 2 Outline of the focus group topic guide

Topic Description
Introduction  Facilitator introduction
 Boundaries of the focus group and contracting including
recording consent
Confidence levels  What was your perceived confidence ability in cooking lasagne
from scratch prior to the task?
 Has this confidence changed as a result of the experiment? How?

Evaluation of dish  Individual perception of taste and appearance of the finished dish
 Comparisons with group participants’ dishes?
 Is this what was expected in terms of ability and taste of the
finished dish?
 Barriers/ facilitators  How challenging did you find the task? What were the most/least
to cooking from challenging aspects of the task?
scratch  What would encourage/discourage you to cook using fresh
ingredients at home?
 What additional barriers do you consider prevent you from
cooking this or a similar dish in the home environment?
Identification of  What skills can you identify in cooking lasagne?
skills used  Do you consider these skills achievable in your home?
 Which skills did you consider most challenging?
Would you practise these to enable you to cook this or a similar
dish at home?
Use of technology  Do you have home access to the internet?
 Do you use the internet to assist with learning practical skills?
 Can you think of an example?
 Group 1 – Do you consider the task as more/less challenging
because of lack of visual demonstration?
 Groups 2-4 – How do you consider technology to have
assisted/hindered learning?
 Groups 2-4 – Are there aspects of this form of learning which
you consider particularly useful?
 Would you consider using technology to assist with home
cooking?
 What part do you consider technology can play in promoting
cooking from scratch in your own homes?
Transferability of  Considering the skills you identified earlier - can you think of
skills/learning to the other meals where you might incorporate skills developed today,
home setting or different ingredients, for example, you may like to change or
incorporate ingredients to make the dish healthier or more
Summary and preferable for the family’s taste?
ending  What would you do differently next time?
178

179 Analysis

180 All discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed and uploaded to the qualitative analysis

181 software Nvivo 10 (QSR International Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia). Thematic analysis was

182 implemented to identify a comprehensive set of evolving codes to: (1) summarise the raw data

183 and (2) establish links between the research aim and the raw data. Using a sample of two

184 transcripts initial codes were generated independently by two researchers (DS and LH) and

185 discussed in a process of triangulation for the purposes of developing a codebook to be applied

186 to the remainder of the data. To ensure inter-coder reliability, a further three transcripts were
187 coded and agreed. Codes were then grouped together to form potential themes in relation to the

188 aim of the study. Verbatim quotes are displayed with the focus group number, experimental

189 condition and the location in which the focus group was held, respectively, following in

190 parentheses.

191

192 3.0 Results

193 Data were analysed across experimental conditions to identify key themes highlighting

194 participants’ perceptions on the use of video technology to promote cooking skills. Results

195 identified a total of four themes including: (1) improved comprehension of the cooking process;

196 (2) real-time reassurance in the cooking process; (3) assisting the acquisition of new cooking

197 skills; and (4) enhancing the enjoyment of the cooking process.

198

199 (1) Improved comprehension of the cooking process

200 Results indicated that the combined use of audio visual content improved participants’ overall

201 understanding of each stage within the cooking process across Conditions 2 - 4. Participants

202 within Condition 1 discussed their ability to visualise the end product (lasagne) but struggled

203 to visualise certain steps and stages within the recipe (béchamel sauce). Subsequently,

204 participants suggested that a sequence of images reflecting each stage of the process would

205 have been more helpful than written text instruction.

206

207 “I’ve never made the cheese sauce from scratch, so that was an experience! I kind of found, as

208 I was going through, I hadn't a clue if I was doing it the right way. I think you'd need to see

209 what the end product is supposed to look like after the meat, then the cheese sauce. Especially

210 through the cheese sauce, even if you had pictures.” (1, 1, N.I.)

211
212 Furthermore, participants across all conditions discussed how the use of video enhanced their

213 ability to recall certain stages of the recipe. More specifically, within Condition 2 results

214 revealed that the majority of participants positively perceived the video technology, discussing

215 how it improved their technical skills required in béchamel sauce making. While results from

216 Condition 2 indicated that viewing the video in its entirety prior to the experiment led to an

217 increased inability to recall all of its content, participants did discuss how they mentally

218 retained specific images in key stages of the experiment with which they were not familiar: this

219 was particularly evident when discussing the béchamel sauce-making stage within the cooking

220 process.

221

222 “I forgot exactly what to do when I came to make it, but I remembered that the sauce was

223 supposed to look really thick to start with, so I knew I did it right.” (2, 2, R.O.I.)

224

225 “I probably wouldn't have been able to do it unless I'd watched the video first because I would

226 have thought I'd have made a mess of it and given up. … When you remembered back to the

227 video you realised you were ok.” (1, 3, N.I.)

228

229 (2) Real-time reassurance in the cooking process

230 Results from Conditions 2 to 4 highlighted that the video technology supported participants’

231 learning during the cooking process. More specifically, participants within Condition 3

232 discussed their awareness of how the consistency of the béchamel sauce should appear once

233 prepared, but were uncertain of what the viscosity should be throughout the stages of the sauce-

234 making process. Therefore, watching the video – particularly in staged segments – offered them

235 a visual expectation of the cooking process and provided them confidence and reassurance at

236 pivotal times during the cooking process that they were following each stage correctly.
237

238 “I can’t remember what it was but I got a video on how to prepare fish because I didn't know

239 where to start, and you could do it in stages, like we did today, by stopping and starting it …

240 You could see exactly what to do, and follow it.” (3, 3, N.I.)

241

242 In addition, results from Condition 3 indicated that the step-by-step sequencing reduced the

243 need to recall aspects of the recipe as participants simply followed the video in real time. This

244 real time, step-by-step process also allowed participants to work at their own pace by stopping

245 and starting the video as and when needed, highlighting the flexible nature of video technology.

246

247 “You can pause it where they’re at and catch up, so you're not having to remember things.”

248 (2, 2, N.1.)

249

250 “I’d watch it first when I’m trying to figure out what I’m doing.... I’ll, you know, look and

251 research and, you know, watch it to see if I think I can do it, and then when I’m doing it I’d,

252 you know, watch it and pause it as I go along then.” (1,2, R.O.I.)

253

254 Participants in Condition 3 also discussed how the step-by-step video instruction illustrated the

255 amount and speed at which ingredients should be incorporated throughout each step of the

256 cooking process.

257

258 “It gave me more guidance, as you’re saying, with each step; now have I done this right or am

259 I adding the milk at the right times, you know, or am I adding too much milk too quickly?” (1,

260 3, R.O.I.)

261
262 Participants in Condition 4 discussed their reliance on the video to refer back to certain stages

263 of the process simply to reassure them they had followed the process correctly. The flexibility

264 of selecting which steps to view as and when required, as many times as they required, resulted

265 in participants utilising the video to meet their individual needs. They considered taking control

266 of their own learning empowering and helped to engage them in the cooking process.

267

268 “You can rewind it; you can just put it on pause; I like dipping in and out when I need it.” (2,

269 4, N.I.)

270

271 “I’d probably have it running in the background as an audio while I do something else, and

272 just listen to what I need.” (3, 4, N.I.)

273

274 In addition, this served to develop self-efficacy by increasing the likelihood that they would

275 repeat a similar cooking method in their own home environment.

276

277 “With that video you can just go to what you need to know really quickly…. No long-winded

278 lecture on how to do it. I feel more confident with no-one watching me and it makes me think

279 I’m fine. There is no bother, I could do it again not a problem” (1,4, N.I)

280

281 (3) Assisting the acquisition of new cooking skills

282 Results across all conditions identified the usefulness of video technology to learn new cooking

283 skills. Furthermore, participants discussed its usefulness in the acquisition of more technical

284 cooking skills, for example, baking and sauce making. Findings across all four conditions

285 identified that individuals perceived the video technology to be most effective when: (1)

286 learning or applying a new cooking skill; and (2) reinforcing a more advanced technical skill.
287 More specifically, this occurred when participants were asked to make a béchamel sauce with

288 which they were unfamiliar meaning the majority of participants relied on the use of the video

289 technology to assist them. Participants who had no experience of preparing a béchamel sauce

290 suggested that the visual impact of the video was important in terms of anticipating what the

291 sauce should look like at each step of the process, as well as reassuring them that they had

292 replicated an acceptable consistency.

293

294 “I thought I had made the cheese sauce wrong: when I added the flour and the butter it just

295 went to mush. I thought no…and then I started looking over at somebody else’s… you have to

296 add milk yet, because I thought that was it. When you are reading the recipe, you just see the

297 end result, you have no idea what the sauce is supposed to look like each stage of the way” (1,

298 1, N.I.)

299

300 The majority of participants in Condition 2 expressed a preference to follow recipe text rather

301 than instruction via video, due to their prior experience of making a bolognaise sauce

302 consequently not finding this part of the video beneficial. However, results did highlight the

303 worth of video technology in the acquisition of a new cooking skill. In this instance, individuals

304 did consider seeing the demonstration prior to beginning the experiment beneficial for

305 anticipating that certain stages within the cooking process were being completed correctly.

306 Within Condition 3, participants considered that the skills demonstrated in the video made it

307 easier for them to replicate during the experiment. However, the ability to replicate key skills

308 was only viewed as valuable when undertaking a new skill for the first time (e.g. sauce-making)

309 or a more complex skill which typically they did not practise on a routine basis.

310
311 Results from Condition 4 showed that the majority of participants were familiar with making

312 the bolognaise sauce so chose not to watch the steps relating to this stage in the recipe.

313 However, this did not apply when undertaking the steps relating to the béchamel sauce-making.

314 Some participants discussed how they viewed only the steps relating to the sauce-making and

315 that they viewed these steps more than once to ensure a successful outcome. Participants

316 highlighted that, in terms of learning a new skill, the audio visual nature of the video reinforced

317 key aspects of sauce-making and served to reassure and engage them in the process.

318

319 “I was able … I just wanted to see what my cheese sauce looked like compared to the girl's in

320 the video. I just used one bit of that video, the sauce really, because I make spaghetti all the

321 time and didn’t need the video then.” (2, 4, N.I.)

322

323 For the majority of participants, sauce-making was deemed a new skill. A number of

324 participants suggested that, without the video, they would have disposed of the sauce at the

325 stage when the flour was added to the fat and cooked.

326

327 “That’s my first time making the sauce, so if I hadn’t seen the video, mine would have been

328 thrown in the bin at the point before you add the milk because it just looked wrong. I paused it

329 too and did a bit, then it was easier.” (1, 3, N.I.)

330

331 “No, if it was home I’d have thrown it in the bin, just no: I’d have no patience. The only thing

332 was the girl on the video made it and I saw hers was like the way mine was, so I went on ahead

333 with it and it turned out ok.” (2, 4, N.I.)

334
335 The “gloopy” consistency when the flour was added to the fat was inconsistent with the smooth

336 viscosity typical of a finished béchamel sauce. Therefore, by watching the video, participants

337 conceptualised the thick and “gloopy” appearance of the batter and felt reassured to continue

338 cooking. In contrast, participants from Condition 1 (recipe card only) did not have access to

339 the visual aspect of the stages in sauce-making and expressed lesser reassurance at this stage

340 of the process.

341

342 (4) Enhancing the enjoyment of the cooking process

343 Participants across each condition discussed their apprehension to cook from scratch because

344 of associated fear, lack of confidence, reported absence of skills (lack of awareness), and lack

345 of experience. Participants reported that a lack of confidence restricted them from cooking

346 using fresh ingredients; however, results showed that the majority of participants discussed

347 their enjoyment of the cooking task and the pride they experienced in their ability to replicate

348 the recipe.

349

350 “The thought of having started from scratch was scary, so this was a good outcome for me!

351 (2,2, N.I.)

352

353 The majority of participants discussed how they tended to avoid sophisticated or complex

354 skillsets, instead adhering to what was familiar and comfortable. Participants employed a

355 number of coping strategies that they had evolved in order to satisfy their families at mealtimes.

356 “For me, it’s having the confidence… I would make the same things over and over again. Then

357 I'd tend to go to the supermarket and buy something to reheat. … It's more straightforward and

358 quicker. I wouldn’t really have the confidence to go and follow a recipe”. (3,3, R.O.I)

359
360 Results across all conditions indicated that video technology was perceived to improve

361 participants’ self-efficacy and enjoyment of the cooking process.

362

363 “It was a lot less stressful when you were sure that what you were doing wasn’t going to end

364 in disaster, then you could enjoy what you were doing, a bit like a hobby really” (3,3 ROI)

365

366 “I had never made a sauce like that before and there was no excuse really for not being able

367 to do it, if I wasn’t sure I just checked in with the video…. I actually enjoyed making it, there

368 were no unknowns or surprises so would do it again no problem” (1,4, NI)

369

370 The reported outcomes of Condition 1 indicated that the text-only recipe did enable the

371 participants to produce an end product; however, those who had not experienced this process

372 before, lacked confidence and expressed concerns with certain technical (cooking skills)

373 aspects of the recipe.

374

375 “I suppose, with the white sauce, you think you’re doing it wrong with the recipe card. I've

376 not made it before so I lobbed the milk in too quickly. If you'd seen it being done first you'd

377 know you were doing it wrong before you went ahead. Yeah, if you want to learn something

378 new, even, it’s good to see how other people do it.” (2, 1, R.O.I.)

379

380

381 4.0 Discussion

382 To our knowledge this is the first study to investigate the perceptions of video technology

383 among low-skilled domestic cooks. The results indicate that video technology, among low-

384 skilled domestic cooks, is favourably perceived because it assists in understanding the cooking
385 method, offers reassurance to complete the cooking process, supports in the acquisition of new

386 cooking skills, and enhances the enjoyment of the cooking process.

387

388 Participants highlighted that video addressed their personal learning requirements by enabling

389 them to learn flexibly at their own pace. The study outlines how video, through visualising the

390 cooking process, as well as the ability to direct viewing on the processes which were considered

391 unfamiliar, serves to augment cooking comprehension in this sample of lower-skilled cooks.

392 This finding reflects Mayer’s (2001) cognitive theory of digital learning, as our participants

393 evidenced a greater perceived ability to comprehend processes when they chose to limit the

394 amount of visual and verbal stimuli to only that which were required to meet their personal

395 learning needs. Results from condition 4 revealed how the reduction in cognitive overload, by

396 allowing the individual to select stages of the video as and when they required, meant that

397 individuals had a greater potential to reach maximum understanding of the cooking process

398 when they are given the choice of what, and when they view.

399

400 Results further demonstrate that the video technology reassured individuals about the cooking

401 process allowing them to take control of their learning, which served to promote self-efficacy

402 and enjoyment in food preparation. Digital cooking demonstrations generally are presented in

403 the format of the full process; uninterrupted steps of the preparation from start to finish

404 (Mondada, 2014). The findings from this study suggest that participants experienced the benefit

405 of having the freedom to view the segments of the demonstration they needed as often as they

406 needed throughout the experiment. Therefore, to engage and motivate the audience to develop

407 and learn new cooking skills, it is more beneficial to offer individuals the option to select

408 relevant parts of the process with which they are unfamiliar and, as a result, promoting self-

409 determination, empowerment and a person-centred approach to learning.

410

411 Findings from this study therefore move beyond recounting the benefits of video and instead

412 describing its higher-order capability to verbally and visually describe how to carry out

413 processes by modelling cooking skills and methods, thereby showing that new skills can be

414 acquired and perceived self-efficacy improved. Health educationalists and policy makers have

415 placed priority in promoting cooking practices where families (especially those of low incomes

416 and/or with least access to fresh ingredients) develop the confidence and knowledge to cook

417 from scratch. Results highlight that participants are more likely to repeat a process when they

418 are empowered to identify and access the knowledge they require to complete a cooking

419 process. Too much information is likely to demotivate them whilst too little will not improve

420 their confidence sufficiently to dissuade them from attempting to cook. Therefore, to prompt

421 motivation in low ability cooks, as well as maximise learning, health educationalists could be

422 advised to endorse a video method which empowers individuals to select the information they

423 personally require (e.g, how to make a béchamel sauce). The added advantage of this method

424 of cooking promotion is its associated scalability of learning potential for non-prohibitive

425 financial outlay. Video technology, applied in the prescriptive and instructive way outlined

426 above, has the potential to meet consumers’ needs in a more cost-beneficial way than costlier

427 cooking interventions which evidence limited long term benefits (Reiks, 2014; Rees, 2012).

428

429 It is important to note that in some cooking processes, there is no prescriptive method to

430 produce a final edible meal, and indeed innovation and creativity is encouraged in the area of

431 culinary skills. However, to reach the stage where individuals may feel confident enough to

432 experiment with food, it should be argued that basic knowledge, skills and experience are

433 required to enable the higher level skills of creativity and application to be enacted (Surgenor

434 et al., 2015; Bransford et al., 2000).

435

436 Strengths

437 The advantages of video technology and impact on learning is widely documented (Kellems

438 and Morningstar, 2012; Comiskey, 2011; Walls et al., 2009; Mayer, 2001). However, this is

439 the first research to consider the impact of video technology on cooking skills in adults.

440 Furthermore, this study examines which aspect of video promotes learning. In relation to

441 cooking skills development, the findings report which aspects of video technology are likely

442 to promote motivation, confidence and enhance cooking skills development, (for example the

443 option of selectivity) and which aspects are likely to discourage learning (such as information

444 overload). The qualitative findings offer a rich and valuable contribution on which policy

445 makers and health educationalists can base future interventions to promote healthy eating

446 practices.

447

448 Limitations

449 Females were chosen to participate in this research because studies indicate that in most cases,

450 it continues to be the female who takes responsibility for the family meal (Lavelle et al., 2015).

451 However, this doesn’t negate the importance of promoting cooking as an essential life skill to

452 other sections of the population, such as young males, children and teenagers who often do not

453 have the opportunity to model cooking skills in the home environment.

454

455 A further limitation of this study was that the participants did not feel as at ease in the

456 University kitchens as they would have done in their own homes, for example they were less

457 familiar with the ovens and equipment. In addition, they expressed concern about damaging

458 the tablets and so suggested that these issues themselves impacted slightly on their confidence

459 during the experiment.

460

461

462 Further Research

463 This experiment was conducted in two locations in the north and south of Ireland. Both

464 locations were considered urban, and when undertaking the research, it was evident that there

465 were differences in cooking practices between the two settings. Participants from the city of

466 Sligo reported a greater confidence in cooking from scratch and in practices such as freezing

467 than in the northern town of Coleraine. In terms of targeting consumer health and learning

468 needs, it would be beneficial in future research to make comparisons between cooking practices

469 of urban and rural locations not only in Ireland, but in the UK as a whole.

470

471 The research was conducted in the kitchens of Coleraine and Sligo Universities and the video

472 used was downloaded on to tablets. It would be helpful to further investigate how participants

473 use video in their own familiar kitchen environment using technology such as skype and the

474 device of their choice (for example; some prefer using the smartphone rather than the tablet).

475

476

477 5.0 Conclusion

478 It is clear that video technology has a place in supporting people to cook from scratch. Video,

479 due to its flexibility and the ability to utilise at one’s own discretion (selectivity), further serves

480 to reassure and reinforce the key cooking skills required to achieve a successful meal outcome.

481 Given the current emphasis on developing cooking skills to promote health, as well as

482 considering the scalability advantages in meeting individual requirements, it is necessary to

483 reflect on the learning benefits of video to (1) understand the cooking method being employed,

484 (2) reassure as to correct technique, (3) facilitate the acquisition of new cooking skills through
485 visualisation, flexibility and selectivity, and (4) empower and engage, promoting self-efficacy

486 and enjoyment in cooking. Consequently, video technology facilitates consumers’ cooking

487 aspirations in a relevant, relatable, pragmatic, cost-effective and sustainable way. Learning via

488 this medium delivers, as a minimum, the ability to reassure domestic cooks that their progress

489 is aligned to the expected meal outcome(s), while laying the foundations for higher-order skills,

490 as appropriate, for the more ambitious cooking practitioner.

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509
510 References

511 Aldi C, Crigler A, Kates-McElrath K, Long B, Smith H, Rehak K, Wilkinson L. (2016)

512 Examining the Effects of Video Modelling and Prompts to Teach Activities of Daily Living

513 Skills. Behaviour Analysis in Practice, 9(4),384-8.

514

515 Bransford, J.D., Brown, A, R. and Cocking, D. (2000) How adults learn: brain, mind,
516 experience and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

517

518 Butt S.M., Navarro, K.F., Shorab, M. (2016) Using Mobile Technology to Improve Nutritional
519 Information of Diabetic Patient’s. New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies,
520 1(1),3-11.

521

522 Caraher, M. and Lang, T. (1999) Can't cook, won't cook: A review of cooking skills and their

523 relevance to health promotion. International Journal of Health Promotion and

524 Education, 37(3), 89-100.

525

526 Cihak, D.F., Kessler, K. and Alberto, P.A. (2008) Use of a handheld prompting system to

527 transition independently through vocational tasks for students with moderate and severe

528 intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 102-110.

529

530 Comiskey, D. (2011) Construct Online: Using video and screen casting to bring the

531 construction site into the classroom. in: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational

532 Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011. Lisbon, Portugal 27th June – 1st July

533 2011.

534
535 Condrasky, M. & Helger, M. (2010) How Culinary Nutrition Can Save the Health of Nation.

536 Journal of Extension, 48, 2(2), 22-39.

537

538 Garcia, A.L., Vargas, E., Lam, P.S., Shennan, D.B., Smith, F. and Parrett, A., (2014)

539 Evaluation of a cooking skills programme in parents of young children–a longitudinal

540 study. Public health nutrition, 17(5), 1013-1021.

541

542 Gately, A, Caraher, M, Lang, T. A (2014) qualitative, cross cultural examination of attitudes

543 and behaviour in relation to cooking habits in France and Britain. Appetite, 75(1), :71-81.

544

545 Jabs, J. and Devine, C. (2006) Time Scarcity and Food Choices. Appetite, 47(2), 196-204

546

547 Jackson, P. and Viehoff, V. (2016) Reframing convenience. Appetite, 98(1), 1-11.

548

549 Kellems, R.O. and Morningstar, M.E. (2012) Using video modeling delivered through iPods

550 to teach vocational tasks to young adults with autism spectrum disorders. Career Development

551 and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35(3), 155-167.

552

553 King K, P. (2017) Technology and Innovation in Adult Learning. London: John Wiley & Sons

554

555 Lavelle, F., Spence, M., Hollywood, L., Mc Gowan, L., Surgenor, D., Mc Cloat, A., Mooney,

556 E., Caraher, M. (2016a) Learning cooking skills at different stages; a cross-sectional study.

557 International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13(1), 119-125.

558
559 Lavelle, F., McGowan, L., Spence, M., Caraher M, Raats M., Hollywood L, McDowell, D.,

560 McCloat, A., Mooney, E., Dean, M. (2016b) Barriers and Facilitators to cooking from ‘scratch’

561 using basic or raw ingredients: A qualitative interview study. Appetite, 1(107),383-91.

562

563 Lim, K. Y. T. (2006) Exploring podcasting as a tool in geography education, in: GTAQ

564 Conference/IGLI CSE 23 March 2006 Symposium, Brisbane, Australia.

565

566 Mintel, U. K. (2010). Chilled and frozen ready meals. (May 2010). Available From:

567 http://store.mintel.com/chilled-and-frozen-ready-meals-uk-may-2010 [Accessed 1 March

568 2016].

569

570 Mintel, U. K. (2013). Prepared meals. Available From: http://store. mintel.com/prepared-

571 meals-uk-may-2013 [Accessed I March 2016].

572 Mondada L. (2014) Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. Interacting

573 with Objects. Language, materiality, and social activity. John Benjamins Publishing:

574 Amsterdam.

575

576 Murray, O.T. and Olcese, N.R. (2011) Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or

577 not? TechTrends, 55(6), 42-48.

578

579 Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

580

581 Rayner, G., Treefrog Developments, Inc., (2013) Headphone adapter for a case for an

582 electronic device. U.S. Patent D685, 327.

583

584 Thomas, D. (2003) A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. : Available
585 from:[http://www.frankumstein.com/PDF/Psychology/Inductive%20Content%20Analysis.pd
586 f] Accessed 5/6/15
587
588 Mayer, R.E., (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

589

590 Mc Gowan, L., Caraher, M., Raats, M., Lavelle, F., Hollywood, L., McDowell, D., Spence,
591 M., McCloat, A., Mooney, E. and Dean, M., (2015). Domestic Cooking and Food Skills: A
592 Review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2(23), 12-19.

593

594 McKinney, D., Dyck, J., and Luber, E. (2009) iTunes University and the Classroom: Can
595 Podcasts Replace Professors? Computers and Education, 52(3), 617-623.

596

597 Pettinger, C, Holdsworth, M, Gerber, M. (2006) Meal patterns and cooking practices in

598 Southern France and Central England. Public Health Nutr, 9(8), 1020-1026.

599

600 Pula, K., Parks, C.D. and Ross, C.F. (2014) Regulatory focus and food choice motives.

601 Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity. Appetite, 78, 15-

602 22.

603 Rees, R., Hinds, K., Dickson, K., O’ Mara-Eves, A., and Thomas, J. (2012) Communities That

604 Cook: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness and Appropriateness of Interventions to

605 Introduce Adults to Home Cooking. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of

606 Education, University of London

607
608 Reicks, M., Trofholz, A., Stang, J., Laska, M. (2014) Impact of cooking and home preparation

609 interventions among adults: Outcomes and implications for future programs. Journal of

610 Nutrition and Educational Behaviour, 46(1), 1-54

611

612 Surgenor, D., McMahon‐Beattie, U.S., Burns, A. and Hollywood, L.E., (2016) Promoting

613 Creativity in the Kitchen: Digital Lessons from the Learning Environment. The Journal of

614 Creative Behaviour, Special Issue, 1-10.

615

616 Utter, J., Fay, A.P. and Denny, S., 2016. Child and Youth Cooking Programs: More Than Good

617 Nutrition? Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(1).1-27.

618

619 Walls, S., Kucsca, J., Walker, J., Taylor, W., Mc Vaugh, N. and Robinson, D. (2009)

620 Podcasting in Education: Are Students as Ready and Eager as We Think They Are? Computers

621 and Education, 54 (201), 371-378.

622

623 Wang C, Tsai M, Tsai C. (2016) Multimedia recipe reading: Predicting learning outcomes and

624 diagnosing cooking interest using eye-tracking measures. Computers in Human Behaviour,

625 30(62), 9-18.

626

627 Watson, G. (2006) Technology, Professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-

628 efficacy, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-166.

629

630 Whatley, J. and Ahmad, A., 2007. Using video to record summary lectures to aid students'

631 revision. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3(1), 185-196.
632

633 Wishart, J. (2016) Using the Cameras on Mobile Phones, iPads and Digital Cameras to Create

634 Animations in Science Teaching and Learning Mobile Learning and STEM: Case Studies in

635 Practice, 17(1), 18-26.

636

View publication stats