Quantitative Research
1
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY
Student Perceptions of Newly Implemented School Lunch Program at Wells Road
Intermediate School, Granby, Connecticut
Jason Arnaukas, Sharon Calabrese, Margaret Tarbox, Kathy Waddington
EDU 508
Assignment Number Four
Eastern Connecticut State University
Quantitative Research
2
Student Perceptions of Newly Implemented School Lunch Program at Wells Road
Intermediate School, Granby, Connecticut
For the past fifty years, Wells Road Intermediate School had no cafeteria. Lunch was brought
from home and eaten on temporary tables in the gym. In September 2005, a newly renovated school
reopened with a fully functional cafeteria. The lunch period this year has been described by staff and
students as chaotic, noisy, and too short.
The purpose of this study is to conduct and analyze a survey of the student population of Wells
Road Intermediate School to determine students’ perceptions of the school lunch process. Analysis of
survey results will indicate how students perceive meal choice, atmosphere, and the time allotted for
lunch. Allowing students a “voice” in the lunch process may produce a more comprehensive, less
stressful and more efficient lunch period plan. The following descriptive and relationship questions were
used to guide the research process: 1.) How much time do students at Granby Elementary School perceive
they are waiting in the lunch line? 2.) How does cafeteria atmosphere affect students’ lunch experience?
3.) Is there a correlation between perceived lunchroom atmosphere and grade level?
LITERATURE
Past studies indicate there are three major complaints that students have towards the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) in our public school system. Although there are many documented issues
pertaining to the NSLP, three recurring themes are variety of food, quality of food, and service/eating
time.
Variety of food. Research indicates that elementary students are more satisfied with the overall
school food service than secondary students (Meyer, 2005). One factor contributing to the increased
negative perception appears to be the repetitive menu choices (Meyer, 2005). Dr. Meyer concludes in her
study of elementary students that, “Students were more satisfied overall and more pleased…when they
perceived they had a choice” (2005). In addition, a study conducted in eight Cincinnati public schools
Quantitative Research
3
showed that students listed food items as their least favorite because they were offered too frequently
(Marples, 1995).
Quality of food. The most obvious variable affecting satisfaction is the quality of food. When
surveyed, as many as 2/3 of the nonparticipating students in the Cincinnati schools said they would
participate if the quality of the plate lunch was improved (Marples 1995). Dr. Meyer’s research indicates
that, “students want school meals that look and taste like the convenience of the fast food they consume
outside of school” (2005). With high percentages of students (Marples 1995, Meyer 2005) rating food as
poor quality, this aspect of the lunchroom experience warrants further investigation.
Service/eating time. A major point of contention is the amount of time allotted for
service/eating. Since this is left to the discretion of the individual school systems, in order to boost class
time, the average lunch period has shrunk from 30 minutes to 23.7 (Vaishnav, 2005). However, students
cite this more often than any other factor as contributing to their dissatisfaction with school lunch
programs (Bergman, et al 2000). Specifically, waiting in line and subsequent insufficient time to finish
eating comprised a majority of the complaints (Marples, 1995, Bergman, et al 2000).
These concerns are echoed throughout the public school systems. In an attempt to reverse these
negative perceptions, studies such as ours are needed to pinpoint the major concerns so they can be
addressed accordingly.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants in this study were selected by convenience sampling of intact classes drawn
from third through sixth grade students in a public school. The student body is primarily heterogeneously
grouped, middle income and contains 99% Caucasian students. There were 344 students who participated
in the survey: 142 boys and 196 girls, with six students not indicating gender.
Quantitative Research
4
Instrument
This is a cross-sectional study, based on survey design, to examine student opinions of current
lunch practices. The survey was developed electronically via a web based survey tool called Quia. The
study began on April 6, 2006 and ended on April 12, 2006. Prior to the development of the questions,
informal interviews were conducted with administrators, paraprofessionals and students. Closed-ended
multiple choice questions were developed based on these interviews. Statistical analysis was done by
coding the results of the survey into Microsoft Excel (Table 15), and then running the coded data through
SPSS version 12.
Procedure
The questionnaire was comprised of three demographic questions, two preference questions, and
six questions dealing with lunchroom environment. Students responded to questions prior to the start of
their weekly technology classes at various times of the day. The student survey was posted on the intraschool website. Permission to administer an anonymous student questionnaire through the school website
was granted by the school principal.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics were run on each category using SPSS version 12. SPSS automatically
adjusted for the missing data, inserting the mean for any unanswered questions. Pearson moment
correlations were performed to determine the relationship between gender and favorite foods or grade and
favorite foods. A minimal correlation between gender or grade was found (Table 12). Additionally, as
seen in Table 11, there was a noteworthy correlation between grade levels and wait time. This correlation
was positive with an r=.308. This was significant at the .01 level. There was a correlation between grade
levels and the noise level in the cafeteria. It is a fairly weak negative correlation of -.118. This implies
that as the grade level increases the perception of cafeteria noise lowers and visa versa. There was no
correlation of any consequence between gender and noise perception or gender and wait time (Table 11).
Quantitative Research
5
Interestingly there are no significant correlations (Table 12) between gender and grade and their
preferred food or their preferred plate, or their ability to finish on time. Although this may seem obvious
there is a negative correlation between the length of time a student spends in line and the ability to finish
lunch in time. This was a -.237 negative correlation (Table 13). This implies the expected—the longer
you wait in line the less likely you are to finish on time. Finally, we can see that there was a correlation
between being hungry and waiting in line. This was a positive correlation of .163, suggesting there was a
relation between students’ perceptions of hunger and wait time (Table 14). An interesting finding was that
there was no relationship of any consequence between students’ perception of being still hungry after
lunch and students who perceived they had not been given enough time to finish their lunch. Meaning that
students that do not finish are no more likely to be hungry than students that do finish.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Past literature indicates problems with the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and this
study indicates similar problems. However, this study is limited in scope and relied on student
perceptions rather than concrete evidence as to time spent waiting in line and whether students were
finished eating. Further research is needed to determine how much time is actually spent in the lunch line
etc., in order to obtain conclusive results that could drive changes within the lunch process. A qualitative
study with administrators and paraprofessionals who monitor lunch might be compared to this study’s data
analysis of student perception of the lunch process in order to define specific areas of weakness and then
to address those areas.
This study indicates a need to change or manipulate student perceptions of the lunch process and
environment. Strategies to address students’ negative perception of wait time and noise level should be
explored in more depth. This study, in correlation with the suggested additional study areas, could
provide a solid scaffolding to improve the overall school lunch process for the general population.
Quantitative Research
6
References
Bergman, E., Buergel, N., Joseph, E., Sanchez, A. (2000). Time spent by schoolchildren
to eat lunch. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100 (6), 696.
Marples, C. (1995). Factors affecting students’ participation in the Cincinnati public
schools lunch program. Adolescence (Fall).
Meyer, M. (2005). Upper-elementary students’ perception of school meals. The Journal
of Child Nutrition & Management, 1 (Spring).
Quia Corporation, (n.d.). Where learning takes you. Retrieved Apr. 19, 2006, from
http://www.quia.com.
Statisitcal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Student Version 12.0 for Windows.
SPSS Science, Inc., Chicago, IL. http://www.spss.com.
Vaishnav, A. (2005). School lunches are no picnic: Longer student breaks advocated. The
Boston Globe, August 6.
Quantitative Research
Appendices
Appendice A
Survey given to 344 students in grades three through six at Well Road Intermediate
School, Granby, Connecticut
Survey
Student Survey on Lunch Satisfaction (copy)
1. How long do you wait in line for lunch
1-3 minutes
4-6 minutes
7-10 minutes
10-15 minutes
15+ minutes
2. What meal do you like best?
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken nuggets
french toast sticks
turkey hotdog
pasta with meat sauce
italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese sandwich
3. What meal do you like least?
Tools
7
Quantitative Research
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken nuggets
french toast sticks
turkey hotdog
pasta with meat sauce
italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese sandwich
4. Which kind of plate would you prefer to eat your lunch on?
plastic plate
styrofoam tray
not important
5. How often would you like to change your assigned seats?
once a week
once every two weeks
once a month
never
6. How often are you still hungry after you eat?
not often
sometimes
always
7. Are you finished eating when it is time to line up?
never finished
sometimes finished
always finished
8. How noisy is the cafeteria when you eat?
8
Quantitative Research
not noisy
a little noisy
noisy
very noisy
9. In what town do you attend school?
Granby
Bloomfield
10. What grade are you in?
third
fourth
fifth
sixth
seventh
11. Are you a boy or a girl?
boy
girl
Submit answ ers
9
Quantitative Research
Table 1
How long do you wait in line?
Valid
Missing
Total
1 - 3 minutes
4 - 6 minutes
7 - 10 minutes
10 - 15
minutes
more than 15
minutes
Total
System
Frequency
69
82
100
Percent
20.1
23.8
29.1
Valid
Percent
20.7
24.6
29.9
Cumulative
Percent
20.7
45.2
75.1
47
13.7
14.1
89.2
36
10.5
10.8
100.0
334
10
344
97.1
2.9
100.0
100.0
Graph 1
How long do you wait in line?
1 - 3 minutes
4 - 6 minutes
7 - 10 minutes
10 - 15 minutes
more than 15
minutes
Missing
10
Quantitative Research
Table 2
What meal do you like best?
Valid
Missing
Total
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken
nuggets
french toast
turkey hotdog
pasta
Italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese
sandwich
Total
System
Frequency Percent
11
3.2
36
10.5
Valid
Percent
3.3
10.8
Cumulative
Percent
3.3
14.1
38
11.0
11.4
25.4
51
8
11
66
13
85
14.8
2.3
3.2
19.2
3.8
24.7
15.3
2.4
3.3
19.8
3.9
25.4
40.7
43.1
46.4
66.2
70.1
95.5
15
4.4
4.5
100.0
334
10
344
97.1
2.9
100.0
100.0
Graph 2
What meal do you like best?
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken nuggets
french toast
turkey hotdog
pasta
Italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese
sandwich
Missing
11
Quantitative Research
Table 3
What meal does you like the least?
Missing
Total
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken nuggets
french toast
turkey hot dogs
pasta
italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese
sandwich
Total
System
Frequency
37
37
11
31
70
28
36
26
16
Percent
10.8
10.8
3.2
9.0
20.3
8.1
10.5
7.6
4.7
Valid
Percent
11.1
11.1
3.3
9.3
21.0
8.4
10.8
7.8
4.8
Cumulative
Percent
11.1
22.2
25.5
34.8
55.9
64.3
75.1
82.9
87.7
41
11.9
12.3
100.0
333
11
344
96.8
3.2
100.0
100.0
Graph 3
What meal do you like the least?
cheese pizza
corn dogs
chicken nuggets
french toast
turkey hot dogs
pasta
italian dunkers
hamburgers
nachos
toasted cheese
sandwich
Missing
12
Quantitative Research
Table 4
What kind of plate do you like?
Missing
Total
plastic
styrofoam
not
important
4
Total
System
Frequency
175
53
Percent
50.9
15.4
Valid
Percent
52.1
15.8
Cumulative
Percent
52.1
67.9
107
31.1
31.8
99.7
1
336
8
344
.3
97.7
2.3
100.0
.3
100.0
100.0
Graph 4
What kind of plate do you like?
plastic
styrofoam
not important
4
Missing
13
Quantitative Research
Table 5
How often would you like to change assigned seats?
Valid
Missing
Total
once a week
once every
other week
once a month
never
Total
System
Frequency
187
Percent
54.4
Valid
Percent
56.2
Cumulative
Percent
56.2
49
14.2
14.7
70.9
41
56
333
11
344
11.9
16.3
96.8
3.2
100.0
12.3
16.8
100.0
83.2
100.0
Graph 5
How often would you like to change assigned seats?
once a week
once every other
week
once a month
never
Missing
14
Quantitative Research
Table 6
How often are you still hungry?
Missing
Total
not often
sometime
s
always
Total
System
Frequency
75
Percent
21.8
Valid
Percent
22.3
Cumulative
Percent
22.3
177
51.5
52.5
74.8
85
337
7
344
24.7
98.0
2.0
100.0
25.2
100.0
100.0
Graph 6
How often are you still hungry?
not often
sometimes
always
Missing
15
Quantitative Research
Table 7
Are you finished when time is up?
Valid
Missing
Total
Never
sometimes
always
Total
System
Frequency Percent
27
7.8
182
52.9
126
36.6
335
97.4
9
2.6
344
100.0
Valid
Percent
8.1
54.3
37.6
100.0
Graph 7
Are you finished when time is up?
Never
sometimes
always
Missing
Cumulative
Percent
8.1
62.4
100.0
16
Quantitative Research
Table 8
How noisy is the cafeteria?
Missing
Total
not noisy
a little
noisy
noisy
very noisy
Total
System
Frequency
20
Valid
Cumulative
noisy is the cafeteria?
PercentHow Percent
Percent
5.8
5.9
5.9
65
18.9
19.2
25.1
137
117
339
5
344
39.8
34.0
98.5
1.5
100.0
40.4
34.5
100.0
65.5
100.0
Graph 8
How noisy is the cafeteria?
not noisy
a little noisy
noisy
very noisy
Missing
17
Quantitative Research
Table 9
What grade are you in?
Missing
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
System
Frequency
1
1
79
76
89
92
4
342
2
344
Percent
.3
.3
23.0
22.1
25.9
26.7
1.2
99.4
.6
100.0
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.3
.6
23.7
45.9
71.9
98.8
100.0
.3
.3
23.1
22.2
26.0
26.9
1.2
100.0
Graph 9
What grade are you in?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Missing
18
Quantitative Research
Table 10
What gender are you?
Missing
Total
boy
girl
Total
System
Frequency
142
196
338
6
344
Percent
41.3
57.0
98.3
1.7
100.0
Valid
Percent
42.0
58.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
42.0
100.0
Graph 10
What gender are you?
boy
girl
Missing
19
Quantitative Research
20
Table 11
Correlations
How noisy is the
cafeteria
How long did you wait
in line
what gender are you
what grade are you in
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
how noisy is
the cafeteria
1
.
339
.018
.740
330
.030
.585
335
-.118(*)
.030
339
How long
did you
what gender
wait in line
are you
.018
.030
.740
.585
330
335
1
.083
.
.133
334
328
.083
1
.133
.
328
338
.308(**)
.010
.000
.851
332
338
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
what grade
are you in
-.118(*)
.030
339
.308(**)
.000
332
.010
.851
338
1
.
342
Quantitative Research
21
Table 12
Correlations
What meal
do you like
best
What meal do you like
best
What meal do you like
the least
What kind of plate do
you like
Are you finished when
time up
What grade are you in
Wat gender are you
Pearson Correlation
What
meal do
you like
the least
What kind
of plate do
you like
Are you
finished
when time
up
What
grade are
you in
What gender are
you
1
.015
-.027
.008
.057
-.043
.
334
.784
331
.629
331
.890
328
.301
332
.442
328
.015
1
.069
-.006
-.023
-.044
.784
331
.
333
.208
331
.920
328
.675
332
.429
328
-.027
.069
1
.104
-.033
-.057
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
.629
331
.208
331
.
336
.059
330
.544
335
.297
331
.008
-.006
.104
1
-.011
-.033
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.890
328
.057
.301
332
-.043
.442
328
.920
328
-.023
.675
332
-.044
.429
328
.059
330
-.033
.544
335
-.057
.297
331
.
335
-.011
.848
335
-.033
.550
331
.848
335
1
.
342
.010
.851
338
.550
331
.010
.851
338
1
.
338
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Quantitative Research
Table 13
Correlations
How long
Are you
did you
finished when How noisy is
wait in line
time up
the cafeteria
How long did you wait Pearson Correlation
1
-.237(**)
.018
in line
Sig. (2-tailed)
.
.000
.740
N
334
327
330
Are you finished when Pearson Correlation
-.237(**)
1
.080
time up
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.
.145
N
327
335
333
how noisy is the
Pearson Correlation
.018
.080
1
cafeteria
Sig. (2-tailed)
.740
.145
.
N
330
333
339
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
22
Quantitative Research
23
Table 14
Correlations
How often
How long
are you still
did they
hungry
wait in line
How often are you
Pearson Correlation
1
.163(**)
still hungry
Sig. (2-tailed)
.
.003
N
337
329
How long did they
Pearson Correlation
.163(**)
1
wait in line
Sig. (2-tailed)
.003
.
N
329
334
What grade are you Pearson Correlation
.082
.308(**)
in
Sig. (2-tailed)
.135
.000
N
337
332
What gender are
Pearson Correlation
-.041
.083
you
Sig. (2-tailed)
.450
.133
N
333
328
Are you finished
Pearson Correlation
-.062
-.237(**)
when time up
Sig. (2-tailed)
.260
.000
N
333
327
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
What grade
are you in
.082
.135
337
.308(**)
.000
332
1
.
342
.010
.851
338
-.011
.848
335
What
Are you
gender are finished when
you
time up
-.041
-.062
.450
.260
333
333
.083
-.237(**)
.133
.000
328
327
.010
-.011
.851
.848
338
335
1
-.033
.
.550
338
331
-.033
1
.550
.
331
335
Quantitative Research
24
Table 15
Sample of how the researchers coded the data in Microsoft Excel
RespondentW aitline
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
3
5
5
5
2
3
3
3
2
4
bestmeal leastmeal plate
4
5
6
5
8
9
7
2
7
4
1
9
4
10
2
6
9
10
1
4
7
8
7
8
7
10
9
10
8
9
9
10
9
7
7
1
4
1
9
6
4
6
2
8
seating
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
stillhungry finished
noise
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
town
2
1
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
grade
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
gender
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quantitative Research
25