Developing and delivering food systems training programs for 21st century audiences

Troy Hahn ,
Troy Hahn

Office of Instructional Technology (OIT), SUNY Suffolk County Community College United States

Patricia Curtis
Patricia Curtis
Contact Patricia Curtis

Food Systems Institute, Auburn University , Auburn , United States

Published: 18.04.2016.

Volume 5, Issue 1 (2016)

pp. 1-11;

https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/5.1.2016.a1

Abstract

Expectations for training programmes today are very different from expectations for training programmes in the past, because today’s audiences are not only multigenerational, but the younger generations learn in distinctly different ways from older, more traditional audiences. To meet the needs of these multigenerational audiences, the Auburn University Food Systems Institute (AUFSI) has developed on-demand, online courses that offer a variety of ways for learners to interact with training materials. For example, a typical course may offer not only traditional text, but audio, video, simulations, and more. In addition, AUFSI has developed supporting educational tools such as interactive virtual tours and video games. This approach to creating courses is a response to the different levels of experiences of the generations as well as different expectations of how materials should be delivered. In order to be effective, training materials need to be designed to appeal to this multigenerational audience. Traditionalists (born before 1946) prefer face-to-face training programmes. Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) are more accepting of technology. Generations X (born 1965-1980), Y (born 1981- 2000) and C (born after 2000), however, expect to receive training at their convenience, to have it delivered electronically, and to be entertained as well as educated.

Keywords

References

1.
Quinn C. Engaging learning: designing e-learning simulation games. 2005;
2.
Langton N, Addinall E, Ellington H, Percival F. The value of simulations and games in the teaching of science. European Journal of Education. 1980;(3):261–70.
3.
Mcguire D, Gubbins C. The slow death of formal learning: a polemic. Human Resource Development Review. 2010;(3):249–65.
4.
Mitchell A, Savill-Smith C. The use of computer and video games for learning. A review of the literature. 2004;
5.
Oblinger D. Simulations, games and learning. educause learning initiative. 2006;

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by