Mb B Class Wiki Assignment

The Mercedes-Benz B-Class is a subcompact executive car produced by German automaker Mercedes-Benz since 2005. Mercedes-Benz markets it as a sports compact tourer. It is similar to the A-Class, though bigger and with bigger engines. The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) classifies it as a small MPV (multi-purpose vehicle).[1] As of December 20, 2013, delivery of B-Class vehicles reached 1 million since the launch of the B-Class in 2005.[2]

First generation (W245, 2005–2011)[edit]

First generation

Before facelift

Overview
Production2005–2011
Model years2006–2011
Body and chassis
PlatformMercedes-Benz T245
Powertrain
EnginePetrol:
1.5 L M266I4
1.7 L M266 I4
2.0 L M266 I4 NA/T
Diesel:
2.0 L I4
Transmission5-speed manual
6-speed manual
CVT
Dimensions
Wheelbase2006–08: 2,786 mm (109.7 in)
2009-11: 2,779 mm (109.4 in)
Length4,270 mm (168.1 in)
Width1,778 mm (70.0 in)
Height2006–08: 1,613 mm (63.5 in)
2009–11: 1,603 mm (63.1 in)

In 2005 it was introduced in spring in Europe and in autumn in Canada. The B-Class is a front-wheel drive car with a sandwich floor construction and a parabolic rear suspension.[3] The B-Class has a two-box design: one box for the drivetrain and another the passenger and luggage compartments. The B-Class gains much of its comparatively large interior volume through its height, a configuration that makes the most of the vehicle’s footprint. Having evolved from the even smaller A-Class it retained that car's sandwich floor concept.[4] The A-Class was originally intended to have a battery-powered version that would meet California’s (since-rescinded) zero-emissions mandate, and the batteries were supposed to go between the floors.[citation needed]

All models included many passive automobile safety systems like ESP, ABS, traction control, cornering lights, active lighting system, and headlamp assist.[5] In the event of a frontal impact the engine and transmission slides beneath the passenger compartment.

In 2008 it was updated with a start-stop system and a BlueEFFICIENCY option.[6] A new NGT variant was added, which could burn either gasoline or natural gas.[7]

In 2011 Mercedes-Benz did a world tour with three of its Mercedes-Benz F-Cell vehicles, one of which was the B-Class. The hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle was driven more than 30,000 kilometres in a circumnavigation of the globe, starting and ending in Stuttgart.[8]

Engines[edit]

The B160 and B180 conform to Euro V emission standards. The rest of the engines conform to Euro IV emission standards. A particulate filter is available as an option for the diesel units (this reduces about 99% of the particle emissions, without the need for additives).

ModelTypePowerTorqueTransmissionTop Speed0-62 mphEconomy (Miles per gallon) [clarification needed]Emissions
Petrol
B1601.5 L I495 PS (70 kW; 94 hp)140 N⋅m (103 lb⋅ft)5-speed Manual174 km/h (108 mph)13.2 secs44.1 mpg149 g/km
B1801.7 L I4116 PS (85 kW; 114 hp)155 N⋅m (114 lb⋅ft)5-speed Manual184 km/h (114 mph)11.3 secs44.8 mpg146 g/km
B2002.0 L I4136 PS (100 kW; 134 hp)185 N⋅m (136 lb⋅ft)5-Speed Manual196 km/h (122 mph)10.1 secs39.2 mpg173 g/km
B200 Turbo2.0 L I4 turbo193 PS (142 kW; 190 hp)280 N⋅m (207 lb⋅ft)6-Speed Manual225 km/h (139 mph)7.6 secs35.8 mpg190 g/km
B55 AMG5.5 L
Diesel
B180 CDI2.0 L, 4 in-L109 PS (80 kW; 108 hp)250 N⋅m (184 lb⋅ft)6-Speed Manual183 km/h (114 mph)11.3 secs54.3 mpg136 g/km
B200 CDI2.0 L, 4 in-L140 PS (103 kW; 138 hp)300 N⋅m (221 lb⋅ft)6-Speed Manual200 km/h (124 mph)9.6 secs54.3 mpg136 g/km
Natural Gas
B170 NGT2.0 L, 4 in-L116 PS (85 kW; 114 hp)165 N⋅m (122 lb⋅ft)5-Speed Manual184 km/h (114 mph)12.4 secs38.7 mpg135 g/km

Specifications[edit]

SpecificationB180 CDIB200 CDIB150B170B200B200 TurboB170 NGT FuelEfficiency
length4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)4,270 mm (168.1 in)
width1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)1,777 mm (70.0 in)
height1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)1,603 mm (63.1 in)
wheelbase2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)2,778 mm (109.4 in)
Kerb weight1,435 kg (3,164 lb)1,435 kg (3,164 lb)1,300 kg (2,866 lb)1,310 kg (2,888 lb)1,345 kg (2,965 lb)1,370 kg (3,020 lb)1,445 kg (3,186 lb)
tank capacity54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)54 L (14 US gal; 12 imp gal)55 L (15 US gal; 12 imp gal)
tank reserve6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)6 L (2 US gal; 1 imp gal)Unknown
Cylinders4/inline4/inline4/inline4/i-line4/inline4/inline4/inline
Output hp/rpm109 hp (81 kW; 111 PS) /4200140 hp (104 kW; 142 PS) /4200106 hp (79 kW; 107 PS) /5800116 hp (87 kW; 118 PS) /5500136 hp (101 kW; 138 PS) /5750193 hp (144 kW; 196 PS) /5000116 hp (87 kW; 118 PS)
Torque Nm/rpm250 N⋅m (184 lb⋅ft) /1600-2600300 N⋅m (221 lb⋅ft) /1600-3000160 N⋅m (118 lb⋅ft) /4000-4500155 N⋅m (114 lb⋅ft) /3500-4000185 N⋅m (136 lb⋅ft) /3500-4000280 N⋅m (207 lb⋅ft) /1800-4850165 N⋅m (122 lb⋅ft) /1800-
Top Speed183 km/h (114 mph)200 km/h (124 mph)185 km/h (115 mph)183 km/h (114 mph)196 km/h (122 mph)225 km/h (140 mph)184 km/h (114 mph)
Tires205/55 R 16205/55 R 16195/65 R 15195/65 R 15205/55 R 16215/40 R 18195/65 R 15

Second generation (W246, 2011–present)[edit]

Second generation

Before facelift

Overview
Production2011–present
Model years2012–present
Body and chassis
PlatformMercedes-Benz W246
Powertrain
Engine

1.6L I4
1.8L DieselI4

electric motor
Transmission

6-speed manual
7-speed Dual-clutch

1 speed automatic
Dimensions
Wheelbase2,699 mm (106.3 in)
Length4,359 mm (171.6 in)
Width1,786 mm (70.3 in)
Height1,557 mm (61.3 in)

The second generation B-Class was introduced at the 2011 International Motor Show Germany.[9] European models went on sale in November 2011. Japan models went on sale in April 2012. They assembled at Rastatt, Germany,[10] and from 2011 at Kecskemet, Hungary.[11] By summer 2013, over 230,000 second generation B-Class cars had been delivered.[12]

It included new gasoline and diesel engines, mated to either a six-speed manual or seven-speed dual-clutch transmission.[13]Drag coefficient was lowered, despite growing in overall dimensions to the benefit of interior space. A new four-cylinder engine was introduced with the model, the M270.[14]

New safety systems included adaptive cruise control, blind spot assist and, a collision prevention adaptive brake system.[15]

Variants and nomenclature[edit]

The last part of the model name indicates how the vehicle is powered:[16]

  • Natural Gas Drive: c, e.g. B 200 c (for compressed natural gas)
  • Diesel: d, e.g. B 250 d
  • Electric: e, e.g. B 250 e
  • Fuel cell f, e.g. B 200 f
  • All-wheel drive: i.e. B 250 4MATIC

BlueEFFICIENCY[edit]

BlueEFFICIENCY is a term used by Mercedes-Benz for a series of measures which reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. These include:[17]

  • Start/stop function switches off the engine temporarily when the vehicle is stationary.
  • Alternator management for regenerative braking.
  • Tyres optimised for rolling resistance have low energy requirements while driving and also help to reduce fuel consumption.

The B 180 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY Edition was available from September 2011.[18]

B 200 Natural Gas Drive[edit]

Production version includes a choice of manual and 7G-DCT dual clutch transmission, and was available from early 2013.[19] European model was set to go on sale in February 2014.[2]

B-Class Electric Drive[edit]

Initial concept versions of the B-Class Electric Drive were developed under the Mercedes-Benz BlueZERO project using batteries from Li-tec and a drivetrain from Tesla, but Mercedes switched to using a drivetrain developed by Mercedes itself soon after.[20][21] The Electric Drive was previewed at the 2012 Paris Motor Show,[22] the 2013 New York International Auto Show,[23] and the 2013 IAA International Motor Show 2013.[12] Production for retail customers began in April 2014 at Mercedes-Benz Rastatt factory.[24] In May 2014, Mercedes announced the B-Class Electric Drive will be available in Germany and the UK in the first quarter of 2015.[25] In November, Mercedes-Benz announced pricing for Germany and started accepting orders.

The concept has an electric motor rated 136 PS (100 kW; 134 hp) and 310 N⋅m (229 lb⋅ft), 36 kWhlithium-ion battery from Tesla Motors. The vehicle has a driving range of 200 km (124 mi) with a top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph).[22] The battery can be charged at any standard domestic 230 V power outlet or 400 V rapid charging terminal.

Pricing in the U.S. starts at US$41,450 before any applicable tax credits and other government incentives.[26] In 2015, over 1900 electric B-class were sold in the USA. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under its five-cycle testing, rated the 2014 B-Class Electric Drive with an all-electric range of 87 mi (140 km). The energy consumption was rated at 40 kWh/100 miles for combined city/highway driving, corresponding to a fuel economy of 84 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - MPGe - (2.8 L/100 km; 101 mpg imp). The rating for city driving is

85 mpg-e (2.8 L/100 km; 102 mpg imp), and 83 mpg-e (2.8 L/100 km; 100 mpg imp) for highway.[27]

Engines[edit]

ModelYearsTypePower, torque@rpm
B 180 BlueEFFICIENCY2011-1,595 cc (97 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 16 AL red.)122 PS (90 kW; 120 hp)@5000, 200 N⋅m (148 lb⋅ft)@1250–4000
B 200 BlueEFFICIENCY2011-1,595 cc (97 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 16 AL)156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@5300, 250 N⋅m (184 lb⋅ft)@1250–4000
B 200 Natural Gas Drive2013-1,991 cc (121 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 20 AL)156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@5000, 270 N⋅m (199 lb⋅ft)@1250–4000
B 220 4MATIC2013-1,991 cc (121 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 20 AL)184 PS (135 kW; 181 hp)@5500, 300 N⋅m (221 lb⋅ft)@1200–4000
B 220 4MATIC BlueEFFICIENCY2013-1,991 cc (121 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 20 AL)184 PS (135 kW; 181 hp)@5000, 300 N⋅m (221 lb⋅ft)@1250–4000
B 250 BlueEFFICIENCY2012-1,991 cc (121 cu in) 16V I4 turbo (M 270 DE 20 AL)211 PS (155 kW; 208 hp)@5500, 350 N⋅m (258 lb⋅ft)@1250–4000
ModelYearsTypePower, torque@rpm
B 160 CDI2013-1,461 cc (89 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 607 DE 15 LA)90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp)@4000, 220 N⋅m (162 lb⋅ft)@1750-2750
B 180 CDI (OM 607)2013-1,461 cc (89 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 607 DE 15 LA)109 PS (80 kW; 108 hp)@4000, 260 N⋅m (192 lb⋅ft)@1750-2500
B 180 CDI (OM 651)2013-1,796 cc (110 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 651 DE 18 LA red.)109 PS (80 kW; 108 hp)@3200-4600, 250 N⋅m (184 lb⋅ft)@1400-2800
B 180 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY2011-1,796 cc (110 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 651 DE 18 LA red.)109 PS (80 kW; 108 hp)@3200-4600, 250 N⋅m (184 lb⋅ft)@1400-2800
B 180 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY Edition2013-1,461 cc (89 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 607 DE 15 LA)109 PS (80 kW; 108 hp)@4000, 260 N⋅m (192 lb⋅ft)@1750-2500
B 200 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY2011-1,796 cc (110 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 651 DE 18 LA)136 PS (100 kW; 134 hp)@3600-4400, 300 N⋅m (221 lb⋅ft)@1600-3000
B 220 CDI2014-2,143 cc (131 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 651 DE 22 LA)170 PS (125 kW; 168 hp)@3400-4000, 350 N⋅m (258 lb⋅ft)@1400-3400
B 220 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY2012-2,143 cc (131 cu in) I4 turbo (OM 651 DE 22 LA)170 PS (125 kW; 168 hp)@3400-4400, 350 N⋅m (258 lb⋅ft)@1400-3400
ModelYearsTypePower, torque@rpm
B-Class Electric Drive2014AC induction motor179 PS (132 kW; 177 hp)@?, 340 N⋅m (251 lb⋅ft)@?

References[edit]

  1. ^"Official Mercedes Benz B Class 2011 safety rating results". www.euroncap.com. Retrieved 2016-04-16. 
  2. ^ abSales jubilee Mercedes-Benz B-Class: Mercedes-Benz B-Class – celebrating over one million sales
  3. ^"Mercedes-Benz B-Class 2005 - Car Review | Honest John". www.honestjohn.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-04-16. 
  4. ^Mazur, Eligiusz, ed. (2006). World of Cars 2006·2007. Warsaw, Poland: Media Connection Sp. z o.o. p. 42. ISSN 1734-2945. 
  5. ^"MERCEDES BENZ B-Klasse (W245) (2005 - 2008)". autoevolution. Retrieved 2016-04-16. 
  6. ^Blanco, Sebastian. "New Mercedes-Benz A and B-Class models have start/stop, BlueEffieciency". Autoblog. Retrieved 2016-04-16. 
  7. ^"Mercedes B 170 NGT BlueEFFICIENCY"(PDF). ADAC. Retrieved 16 April 2016. 
  8. ^Staff, Autoblog. "Mercedes-Benz F-Cell World Drive successfully completed". Autoblog. Retrieved 2016-04-16. 
  9. ^"First public appearance of the Mercedes-Benz B-Class: Mercedes-Benz at the 2011 Frankfurt International Motor Show | Daimler Global Media Site > Brands & Products > Mercedes-Benz Cars > Mercedes-Benz Passenger Cars > B-Class > 2011-09/2014". media.daimler.com. Retrieved 2016-04-17. 
  10. ^2012 Mercedes-Benz B-Class gets big-car features
  11. ^Mercedes-Benz expanding Hungarian plant to support B-Class, CLA production
  12. ^ abMercedes-Benz at the 2013 Frankfurt International Motor Show - Locally emission-free, powerful and networked - Electric motoring with no compromises: the new Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive
  13. ^Joseph, Noah. "Mercedes-Benz previews new B-Class ahead of Frankfurt debut". Autoblog. Retrieved 2016-04-17. 
  14. ^Compact sports tourer: the new B-Class from Mercedes-Benz - Heralding a new era in the compact class
  15. ^Mercedes-Benz previews new B-Class ahead of Frankfurt debut
  16. ^"Take Notes: Mercedes-Benz Announces New Nomenclature". blog.caranddriver.com. Retrieved 2016-04-18. 
  17. ^"BlueEFFICIENCY: fast forward to viable efficiency". Retrieved 19 April 2016. 
  18. ^Six new models join the A, B and CLA-Class: New engines and more traction
  19. ^Efficiency class A, 115 g CO2/km. Saving the environment and your wallet: the Mercedes B 200 Natural Gas Drive
  20. ^Media, BioAge. "Green Car Congress: Mercedes-Benz to Present BlueZERO Modular Drive Concept for Electric Vehicles at Detroit Show". www.greencarcongress.com. Retrieved 2016-04-19. 
  21. ^Fehrenbacher, Katie (8 Mar 2016). "Tesla Is No Longer the Auto Tech Supplier It Once Was". Fortune. Retrieved 2018-01-10. 
  22. ^ ab"Mercedes-Benz B Class Electric Coming To U.S.: Report (Compliance Car Watch)". Green Car Reports. Retrieved 2016-04-19. 
  23. ^Mercedes-Benz at the 2013 NYIAS – reinforcement for the product offensive: Five new models for the record-breaking U.S. market
  24. ^Eric Loveday (2014-04-11). "Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive Enters Production – Job #1 Rolls Off The Line". InsideEVs.com. Retrieved 2014-04-18. 
  25. ^Mike Szostech. "Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive launches in the UK at the start of 2015". My Electric Car Forums. Retrieved 5 May 2014. 
  26. ^Eric Loveday (2014-04-28). "BREAKING: Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive Priced From $41,450". InsideEVs.com. Retrieved 2014-04-28. 
  27. ^U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy (2014-07-25). "2014 Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2014-07-26. 
  28. ^ abcAvailable at European dealerships from November 2011: New B-Class to be launched at old price
  29. ^ abcCompact sports tourer: the new B-Class from Mercedes-Benz - Heralding a new era in the compact class

External links[edit]

Press kit:

The Mercedes-Benz Concept B-Class Electric Drive was unveiled at the 2012 Paris Motor Show.
Production Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive charging
A B-class at the New York autoshow, reading "ELECTRIC DRIVE" logotype on rear

Introduction

Students completing degrees in the life sciences are challenged with processing and determining the value of information due to the abundance of information in the field (Iwaoka and others 2010). Most of today's college students have known a world with Internet and most students utilize the internet more than the library for information (Jones 2002; Taylor 2012; Chen 2015). Taylor (2012) suggested that millennials do not verify Internet sources and that the pitfall is related to perception of sources. Further, students are not proficient with information literacy and application (Gross and Latham 2011, 2012). It has been suggested to incorporate information literacy in graduate and undergraduate curricula (Association of College and Research Libraries 2006, 2012).

Information can be obtained from peer-reviewed evidence-based research articles, internet sources, news, books, and social media. However, the internet is most accessible and can host information from those with a variety of backgrounds, from field experts to those without qualified experience (Stern 2003; Meyer and others 2008). The common pitfall of the internet is how to assess and determine relevant information from superficial and unsupported misinformation (Meyer and others 2008). Most students do not have the skills to authenticate available sources, nor differentiate between them without training (Phillips and Kearley 2003). By definition, information literacy is the “students’ ability to find, analyze, and synthesize information” (Meyer and others 2008; Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL 2006) and may include assessing credibility, ethics, citing reliable data, and by association, the development of critical thinking skills (Stern 2003; Eisenberg and others 2004). Furthermore, information literacy can extend to “new genres of information delivery, be they blogs, social networking Web sites, or the search engines and search tools” (Cowan 2014). Critical thinking skills are related to exploring and evaluating resources to form an opinion with relevant and appropriate resources (Wertz and others 2013).

Future graduates will need to discern legitimate information from internet propaganda. In addition, students must be capable of communicating legitimate information within the field and, especially, to the public and those outside the life sciences field (Institute of Food Technologists 2011). An instructor's goals and priorities are to provide opportunities for expansive learning and challenge students to develop and improve their skills through each course, assignment, assessment, and lecture. Also, information literacy should be included in courses at all levels (Rockman 2002) and critical thinking skills should be developed as a skill beginning in K-12 education and continuing in college (van Gelder 2005). A survey of over 400 companies found that qualities expected of new graduates for the workforce include professionalism/work ethic, communication skills, teamwork/collaboration, and critical thinking skills; however, only 27.6% found that students have critical thinking skills (Lotto-Casner and Barrington 2006). Furthermore, information and communication technology is vital in successful careers (Grant and others 2009); however, students may be deficient with professional communication due to social media (Ratliff 2009). Students can be well-versed in social media communication (blogs, tweets, posts, and so on) but lack the ability to draft professional documents, letters, reports, memos, emails and proficiently use spreadsheets and presentation programs. Social media competency does not translate to software and professional writing proficiency.

Scientific discoveries related to functional foods for health are rapidly growing with new perspectives constantly evolving in both scientific and popular press literature (Heasman and Mellentin 2001; Roberfroid 2002; Wright 2015). Functional foods are “foods and food components that provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition… These substances provide essential nutrients often beyond quantities necessary for normal maintenance, growth, and development, and/or other biologically active components that impart health benefits or desirable physiological effects” (Institute of Food Technologists 2011). Public interest is high, resulting in curiosity and exploration of new information and high risk of confusion as new evidence appears (Milner 2002). However, the area of functional foods has a significant amount of misinformation on the functionality, usage, intake, and health impacts because of the broad base of contributors and the amount of rapidly added information. Conflicting information is common in any new field of research, but this compounds the risk of confusion and frustration, and may lead to distrust of science among the general public (Roberfroid 2002). Also, social media can contribute to confusion and misinformation, as seen in other product sectors (Scanfeld and others 2010; Lindsay 2011; Fernandez and others 2012; Rutsaert and others 2013). Developing the young scientist to recognize the pattern of scientific discovery and evolution of knowledge is paramount to critical thinking and communication.

We present and share a Wiki research project we incorporated to enhance the development and improvement of student critical thinking skills and information literacy with a written assignment (Wiki). The Wiki research project challenged students to locate, evaluate, apply, and form an opinion on a functional food. Jacobson and Mark (2000) suggested that concepts of information literacy should be used within assignments in order for students to develop relevant skills and meaning. The access to unlimited resources leads to new and evolving content and communications related to functional foods for students to consider and evaluate for accuracy. The ability to critically evaluate sources is a useful skill when developing scientific opinions or advice. Also, we targeted and incorporated cross-disciplinary perspectives to create a holistic point of view regarding functional foods and research. Collectively, we aim to disseminate our project, share what we learned, and assist instructors in incorporating similar projects into their classroom to engage students.

The objectives of this scientific study of educational intervention are to: (1) provide the Wiki research project structure, and (2) discuss the results, feedback and observations of the Wiki research project. Our study implemented cross-disciplinary teaching and a research-based assignment (Wiki) to improve and demonstrate to students how to (1) obtain legitimate and scientifically supported information in food and nutrition science, (2) critique any information they obtain, and (3) improve their communication of science. We present our findings, observations, and usefulness of cross-disciplinary teaching and the Wiki research project as a tool for other instructors to employ within their classrooms to enhance student experience and development in regards to critical thinking, communication, and information literacy.

Course Description and Demographics

Functional Foods for Health (FST/HNFE 2544) is a 3-credit lecture course taught 3 times a week during the Fall semester. Functional Foods for Health is an introduction to functional foods with a focus on value beyond basic nutrition. Course content includes diverse lectures including development of functional foods, novel food sources and traditional foods with a value-added health benefit, regulatory issues, and media messages.

The course is cross listed between the Dept. of Food Science and Technology and the Dept. of Human Foods, Nutrition, and Exercise; both departments are in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS). The course is a restricted elective in both programs. Most students in the course are from CALS with additional representation from the College of Engineering and College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. The curriculum, assignments and lectures of the control class (Fall 2012; n = 30 students) were used as a baseline. In the experimental year (Fall 2013; n = 29 students), an emphasis on communication and critical thinking content, along with cross-discipline guest lectures, were incorporated into the class structure (Figure 1). Both the 2012 and 2013 Wiki research project assignments required the same base content (Figure 2). The study was approved by Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board #16-141. A pre- and post-test (45 questions; multiple choice) related to functional food concepts was given to students in both the control and experimental class as a way to gauge background knowledge about functional foods. In the control class (Fall 2012; n = 30 students) the pretest average was 64% and the posttest 79% (Improvement 15%). In the experimental class (Fall 2013; n = 29 students), pretest average was 56% and the posttest 76% (Improvement 20%). The experimental year had an increased gain of content knowledge by 5% compared to the control year.

Functional Food Wiki Research Project

Control class structure

Students in this course were tasked with writing a Wiki on a selected functional food (Figure 1). Functional food categories were described in a lecture format modeling the basic structure for the Wiki. Scientific research was incorporated and popular press of other current sources were evaluated and discussed as a class demonstration. The instructor and teaching assistant reviewed the first draft of the Wiki and provided guidance about midway through the Wiki research project. From the guidance and feedback of the instructor, students submitted a final draft.

Wiki research project information

Students were asked to find, incorporate, support with research findings, and discuss a functional food in their Wiki with the section guidelines (Figure 2), including:

  • (a)Introduction and History
  • (b)Identify Bioactive Components and Mechanism(s)
  • (c)Effect and Influence of Food System Processing on Stability and Bioavailability
  • (d)Description of Health Concern
  • (e)Role of the Food/Bioactive Component in Reducing the Disease Risk or Improving Metabolic Performance
  • (f)Amount Needed of the Bioactive Component and Amount of Food Needed to be Consumed to Achieve this Value and Benficial Result
  • (g)Safety of the Component
  • (h)Critical Review of a Popular Press Article

Moreover, it was emphasized that high quality science-based references be used and cited throughout the Wiki, including government sources, peer reviewed journal articles, books, and trade organization materials.

Experimental year objectives and overview

The objectives and criteria of the experimental Wiki research project and course structure integration of cross-disciplinary teaching were to improve students’ ability to (Table 1):

  • (1)Distinguish high quality information sources from poor by identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and biases of research cited;
  • (2)Interpret and critically evaluate the statistical basis of research cited;
  • (3)Identify potential biases with public press articles;
  • (4)Discern conflicting, contradictory or supporting research findings;
  • (5)Describe the chemistry, mechanism, and bioactivity of a functional food;
  • (6)Illustrate the basic understanding of the functional food benefit to a health outcome;
  • (7)Incorporate research findings into a written assignment at an appropriate communication level; and
  • (8)Recognize the importance and implications of a multi-discipline perspective in the functional foods for health sector.
AUnderstands and relates the strengths, weaknesses and biases of the research cited.Critical thinkingAddresses strengths and/or weaknesses of sources cited.Addresses strengths and/or weaknesses of about half of the sources cited.Does not comment on strengths and/or weaknesses of any sources cited.
BUnderstands the type of statistics and can formulate an opinion as to the conclusions made about the research cited.Critical thinking cross-disciplineComments on the statistics used in at least 75% of the sources cited. Comments on the suitability of the statistics.Comments on 25–50% of the statistics of the sources cited. Does not make comments on suitability of statistics.Does not comment or mention statistics.
CAbility to critique and communicate any biases within the popular press articles used in the Wiki.Critical thinkingProvides an in depth critique of biases of the popular press article.Only summarizes the popular press article.Does not cite or mention a popular press article.
DAbility to discern conflicting, contradicting, similarities or gaps in information in the literature and popular press articles cited.Critical thinkingArticulates how the popular press illustrates, or does not illustrate, the current scientific support and findings.Addresses the popular press article but does not appropriately defend or support literature.Does not assimilate or include this information in any capacity.
EAbility describe and/or illustrate the basic understanding of the functional food component, i.e.:CommunicationDescribes the chemistry, mechanism and bioactivity of the functional food component selected, associated food source(s), appropriate quantities, functionality, processing influence, etc. clearly and concisely.Describes and/or illustrates only one aspect of the functional food component (of mechanism, chemistry, and bioactivity).Does not address the aspects of the functional food component correctly.
 
  • •Mechanism
  • •Chemistry
  • •Bioactivity
    
FAbility to describe the food component in context of relevance to a health outcome.Communication critical thinkingCorrectly explains in depth the contribution of the functional food to reducing health risks.Provides only generic description of the health outcome.Does not explain the health outcome.
GUses appropriate language and scientific jargon appropriate at an undergraduate level.CommunicationConcise description for an undergraduate level.Inconsistent use of language. Noticeable advanced language use or too low level for an undergraduate.Too advanced for an undergraduate or not advanced enough (written quite poorly at 8th grade level).
HRecognizes and mentions impact and influence of science on other disciplines (politics, society, culture, economics, health, etc.)Communication cross-disciplineDescribes the influence of other disciplines on functional foods and/or vice versa.Briefly mentions the influence of other disciplines on the impact of functional foods and/or vice versa.Does not mention or make connections to other disciplines.

Experimental method implementation

We implemented 3 methods in the classroom:

  • (1)Individual student projects in which the student developed a Wiki topic related to a functional food and health implications (section “Wiki research project information”);
  • (2)Addition of guest speakers (lectures) with disciplinary expertise related to understanding the evolution of science and media communications (section “Experimental method implementation”);
  • (3)Emphasis on information source credibility, constructive criticism, and critical thinking; and
  • (4)Student peer-review critiques of the Wiki projects to assist them in applying the guidelines for Wiki development and to critically consider the content and the message.

Experimental year with modified Wiki research project and class structure

In addition to the control Wiki research project base (section “Wiki research project information”), the experimental class structure incorporated guest lectures from other departments and Wiki draft peer review (Figure 1 and Appendix).

Cross-disciplinary guest lectures

The guest lectures included speakers from (1) statistics, (2) political science, and (3) human nutrition. Lecture guests were experts in their fields, were focused on the presented topics, and were from academic departments outside of food science (Figure 1). The guest experts each lectured one time for 50 min (standard class time). The guest lectures occurred in the first 6 wk of class and before the first draft of the Wiki was due (Week 9). Each guest lecturer provided pertinent material while making their discipline relevant to functional foods. Student attendance was mandatory for the guest lectures. The information included in these lectures is:

  • (1)Statistics: The statistics lecture focused on the different types of sampling populations and sampling bias. There was discussion about the differences between observational data and experimental data. The lecture content was applicable to the class as the current functional foods research contains statistics for epidemiological data as well as designed experiments.
  • (2)Political Science: The political science lecture provided a regulatory perspective on functional foods including food labeling laws. In addition, there was an explanation about governmental structure, governmental power, and the relationship to the food industry.
  • (3)Human Nutrition: The human nutrition lecture discussed how to access reliable internet information, how to evaluate for authentic information on the internet, and how to effectively communicate to consumers.

Wiki peer-review

Student peer-review critiques of the Wiki projects were incorporated to assist each student in applying the guidelines for Wiki development and to critically consider the content and the message. Students were assigned a total of 6 peer Wikis to evaluate (3 assigned and 3 of their choice). Wikis were online for students to interface and critique one another. The reasoning for the peer evaluation scheme (3 assigned and 3 of their choice) was in order to ensure all Wikis were evaluated at least 3 times (3 assigned) and students could choose 3 functional food Wikis that were of interest to them (3 of their choice). Students were tasked with critiquing and providing feedback to their peers based on the parameters of the assignment. The peer evaluation was incorporated for students to critically think and review Wikis in an effort to provide another opportunity to learn and apply critically thinking skills.

External reviewer rubric development, Wiki assessment, and data analysis

A rubric was developed to score the Wikis from both the Fall 2012 (control) and 2013 (experimental) classes to assess critical thinking, communication and cross-disciplinary content criteria (Table 1). The purpose for evaluating Wikis from both semesters (control; Fall 2012 and experimental; Fall 2013) was to provide insight to the directionality of academic performance change regarding the modified class structure. The Wiki assessments by external reviewers for this study were completed after the completion of the course and were not associated with any grading within the course. No changes were made between student final draft submission and reviewer assessment. To eliminate bias, the Wikis were stripped of names and year associations and assigned random numbers for reviews. Each criterion within the rubric could be given a score between 1 and 3, with 1 being the lowest score and 3 being the highest score. Each score was explained explicitly so that the score would be as objective as possible. Eight reviewers evaluated the Wikis using the developed rubric (Table 1). The majority of reviewers were PhD students in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Graduate Teaching Scholars Program. The students in the program are exposed to research in higher education. Other reviewers were educators with knowledge of food science and/or nutrition.

Each reviewer was given Wikis from both semesters for evaluation at random (n = 19 to 25 Wikis per reviewer). Each Wiki was evaluated by 3 of the 8 reviewers for a total of 3 observations per Wiki. Reviewers attended a training meeting for calibration, consistent scoring, and to discuss the Wiki rubric, specific criteria, and appropriate scoring to create consistency.

Statistics included independent t-tests to determine if a directionality of difference existed between the rubric criterion mean scores for the Wikis of the 2 semesters (α = 0.05; JMP, Statistical Analysis Software [SAS], Cary, NC). The total score sums were also evaluated to determine if the total scores between the semesters changed in performance (α = 0.05). It should be noted that statistical analysis of the reviewer rubric was done to illustrate a directionality of academic performance change between the control and experimental class years; but the reality of this case study is that our experimental unit is the classroom and replication of this cannot be completed. Fleiss’ kappa (α = 0.05) was used to determine rater reliability of agreement.

Student feedback and analysis

At the end of each semester (control; Fall 2012 and experimental; Fall 2013), students were asked to provide a reflection on the Wiki research project. Students wrote a reflective statement (about 150 words) about their changes in perception of functional foods and their health benefits. In addition, students gave their perspective regarding the usefulness of research methods introduced throughout the course. Responses were evaluated and scored depending on the language used within the reflection. The reflections were scored depending on if the Wiki Project assignment was “helpful,” “somewhat helpful,” or “not at all helpful” in their development of functional food knowledge and research skills. Also, if a reflection was not submitted or a student did not mention their opinion of skill improvement, it was classified as “N/A.”

Results

Functional food for health Wiki research project

Scientific criteria were described with scientific skills (Table 2). We observed that 6 of the 8 criteria showed improved scores from the control (Fall 2012) structure to the modified experimental year (Fall 2013; P < 0.05; Table 2). The critical thinking criteria illustrated improvement in the experimental year (Fall 2013; P < 0.05). We observed that students were able to distinguish high quality information sources from poor sources as well as discuss the research. A majority of students were able to interpret and critically evaluate the statistical basis of research cited. Most importantly, we observed an improvement in student's identifying potential biases of popular press articles in the experimental year. Moreover, the project provided the opportunity to increase student knowledge of functional foods and their health benefits.

AUnderstands and relates the strengths, weaknesses and biases of the research cited.Critical thinkingResearch evaluation interrelated research research comprehension2 Comprehension1.7 ± 0.72.2 ± 0.7<0.00010
BUnderstands the type of statistics and can formulate an opinion as to the conclusions made about the research cited.Critical thinking cross-disciplineStatistical evaluation statistical summary statistical interpretation2 Comprehension1.5 ± 0.71.9 ± 0.70.00040.05
CAbility to critique and communicate any biases within the popular press articles used in the Wiki.Critical thinkingCritique information evaluate information verify information discriminate bias6 Evaluation2.0 ± 0.82.5 ± 0.6<0.00010.25
DAbility to discern conflicting, contradicting, similarities or gaps in information in the literature and popular press articles cited.Critical thinkingCompare information differentiate information examine information4 Analysis2.0 ± 0.92.5 ± 0.8<0.00010.22
EAbility to describe and/or illustrate the basic understanding of the functional food component, i.e. Mechanism, Chemistry and BioactivityCommunicationDescribe information illustrate information understand information application of scientific knowledge2 Comprehension -or- 3 Application2.4 ± 0.62.6 ± 0.50.01100.08
FAbility to describe the food component in context of relevance to a health outcome.Communication critical thinkingDescribe information demonstrate health connection communicate scientific relevance2 Comprehension2.4 ± 0.52.7 ± 0.5<0.00010.06
GUses appropriate language and scientific jargon appropriate to an undergraduate level.CommunicationArticulate information communicate information translate scientific language2 Comprehension2.8 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.50.200.04
HRecognizes and mentions impact and influence of science on other disciplines (politics, society, culture, economics, health, etc.)Communication cross-disciplineAssociates information with other disciplines distinguishes source information recognizes scientific information communicates cross-disciplinary influence2 Comprehension1.8 ± 0.71.9 ± 0.80.310
Total score for all criteria:16.6 ± 3.719.0 ± 3.2<0.0001 

The need to critically evaluate information for reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness is paramount for students today (Britt and Aglinskas 2002; Taylor 2012). The skills associated with this criteria included the evaluation of literature and information sources, assessing the interrelatedness of information, the comprehension of the information (including statistical relevance, content relevance, differentiation of quality information from poor, the ability to examine, describe, illustrate understand and apply of scientific knowledge). College students have shown difficulty with attention in thoroughly identifying and substantiating relevant evidence (Brem and others 2001; Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Norris and others 2003; Gross and Latham 2011; Taylor 2012; Gross and Latham 2012). The instructors did emphasize how important critical thinking is to the Wiki research project throughout the experimental (Fall 2013) semester, both in verbal and in written guidelines for the Wiki projects. This may have contributed to increased student awareness reflected in the scores. In addition, if students are interested in the topics of the guest lectures, the level of engagement may be improved and they may have put more effort into their projects.

The incorporation of multiple disciplines and lectures into a curriculum may help students relate to and synthesize information due to multiple perspectives, thus improving critical thinking (Davis 1995) and discussions (Todd and O'Brien 2016). Interestingly, only one of the 2 cross-discipline criteria showed improved scores for Fall 2013 despite adding guest lecturers. The ability to critically evaluate research statistics as well as use statistics within the Wiki was an observed improvement with the experimental modified project. Student improvement (P < 0.05) with the cross-discipline incorporation of statistics and research may be associated with increased emphasis in the topic as provided by the cross-disciplinary guest lectures. Inclusion and exposure to cross-disciplinary lectures and library resources on campus may assist with expanding student exposure and improving information literacy. In a study incorporating information literacy using a pre-/posttest control/experimental model, the experimental students received more contact with librarians, lectures with librarians, and research log assignments, which improved their information literacy scores on the post-test except in the ability to locate research (Meyer and others 2008). In addition, libraries should increase their information literacy programs due to finding that students lack information proficiency (Smith and others 2013; Shorish, 2015). In the future, we recommend the inclusion of more library resource training, as this may help, not only with information literacy, but cross-discipline content aspects.

Student's scores illustrated improvement within 2 of the 4 communication criteria in Fall 2013 (experimental). The improvement included describing functional food information and applying the acquired scientific knowledge to a health connection with scientific relevance. Students in scientific fields will benefit from this skill as it is typical to evaluate multiple sources for content, synthesize, create connections and communicate material (Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Day and others 2015). However, the communication criteria that did not differ included using appropriate level language and jargon at an undergraduate level. The lack of improvement in experimental (Fall 2013) could insinuate that the students had an adequate level of writing skills regardless of the class content. Moreover, the other criterion that was not improved included a cross-discipline aspect of communication. We discussed the influence of guest lectures and the desire for incorporation of cross-discipline research. Numerically, the score slightly improved in the experimental year (Fall 2013); however, perhaps these aspects was not stressed for incorporation into the Wiki, nor were the perspectives on how other disciplines influence functional foods adequately emphasized in the Wiki guidelines. Also, potentially students were not equipped (information literacy) to locate and utilize cross-discipline information. Finally, the total scores for each Wiki for the experimental (Fall 2013) semester showed improvement (P < 0.0001) suggesting that the modified class structure had an overall improvement and contributed to student learning and skill development. Pre- and posttest assessment also saw an increased gain in Fall 2013 (experimental).

Limitations included that students were not asked if they had taken classes or been given any formal training in regards to information literacy. At present there is not a required course for information literacy at the university level; however, the library does offer services for students or instructor resources. In addition, the departments do offer first year experience courses where a class component involves meeting with a librarian and discussing information literacy. Although the Functional Foods class is at a sophomore level, students with more college experience often take the class as an elective. However, it is still uncertain how much previous experience or exposure influences student outcomes even with prerequisite classes (Hull and others 2016); however, it was stated (through survey analysis) that biology and chemistry (prerequisites) did assist with success in anatomy and physiology (Hopp 2009). Regardless of prerequisite or previous exposure, the instructor must still assist students with piecing together and applying information to create a deeper understanding (Bransford and others 1999).

Moreover, the study employed 8 reviewers for evaluation. While all reviewers were given the same rubric and explanation for review, variation among reviewers undoubtedly occurred and more training should be included in future studies as well as a forum for reviewers to discuss scores. Fleiss’ kappa varied between the categories and rater reliability ranged from poor (Category A and H), slight (Category B, E, F, and G) and fair agreement (Category C and D). For future studies, we recommend gaining more insight from the students through a baseline pre-project assessment as well as their experience with the project in a survey after completion. Finally, our experimental unit is small and the statistics were used only to provide indication of directionality of change.

Instructor observations and student feedback

Generally, students enjoyed the Wiki research project and learning more about a variety of functional foods and their associated health benefits. As one student stated,

  • Before this Wiki project, I had a general idea about the functional foods presented by my peers. By “general,” I mean that I knew if the food was a fruit, vegetable, grain, meat, or dairy product. I did not know that all of the foods that were studied provided some benefit to health beyond providing basic nutrition. After participating in creating my own Wiki and listening to others about their functional foods, I feel that I have a completely new outlook on foods and what makes them functional. I can identify the bioactive components in a food and discuss how these components can reduce the risk of disease or promote health.

Moreover, many students were appreciative of the research skills acquired throughout the Wiki research project and functional foods research process. A student reflected that this assignment helped with researching and demonstrating food and nutrition relationships,

  • The project has helped me with my critical evaluating skills, researching, and overall gain in knowledge about research. I've done research throughout my academic career only to learn something new at every new project that was given to me. In this project… the functional food relationship… helped me understand how to show links and relationships between information in a research type paper.

These observations are supported in the student feedback for both the control (Fall 2012) and experimental (Fall 2013) semesters (Table 3). Overwhelmingly, students in both semesters felt that the Wiki research project was helpful in expanding their knowledge and perceptions regarding functional foods. Student feedback included many statements similar to “After writing my own Wiki project and reading multiple others it has expanded my perception on functional foods in general.” In addition, they felt that their research methods and ability to find reliable resources were improved. It should be noted that the one “not helpful” response was due to the student stating previous experience in research.

Fall 2012 (n = 30)22 (73.3%)1 (3.3%)0 (0%)7 (23.3%)15 (50%)4 (13.3%)1 (3.3%)10 (33.3%)
Fall 2013 (n = 29)20 (69%)2 (6.9%)0 (0%)7 (24.1%)19 (65.5%)3 (10.3%)0 (0%)7 (24.1%)

Conclusions

We present a study of educational intervention in which we added cross-disciplinary lectures and modified course lectures to the Functional Foods for Health course as a means to improve our teaching and increase student development related to information literacy, critical thinking, and communicating science. Critical thinking skills are vital to the success of students in the workforce (Flores and others 2012). The impact of other disciplines in the field of food science should continue to be taught as many problems and scientific discoveries are interdisciplinary and students needed to be exposed to a holistic perspective. Students within these courses (control and experimental) appear to have attained good communication skills as evidenced by the scores on those criteria that were categorically considered communication. The cross-discipline lectures have the potential to provide for further topic exploration, enrich the classroom, and allow for students to make connections; however, the cross-discipline perspective was not as observed as expected in the experimental year. This study indicates the usefulness of incorporating critical thinking, information literacy, and communication assignments to provide curriculum enrichment that encourages the student development and practice of these skills to improve proficiency. Based on student feedback, the Wiki research project has engaged students and provided opportunities to explore and expand food content and research, while improving information literacy, communication, and critical thinking skills. We feel that the incorporation of a research based project (Wiki) and the cross-disciplinary lectures will enhance and enrich any classroom as well as engage students in a new experience.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Anne Ryan, Dr. Courtney Thomas, Mrs. Heather Cox M.S., R.D., and Dr. Wen You for contributing and providing lectures to the Functional Foods for Health Class. We would also like to thank our reviewers for evaluating the Wikis (Dr. Matt Schroeder, Dr. Liyun Ye, Lily Yang, Dr. Courtney Vengrin, and Dr. Georgianna Mann). We would like to thank Mrs. Susan Crist for her assistance.

This project was funded, by the Virginia Tech (VT) College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) Integrated Internal Competitive Grants Program, the VT CALS Graduate Teaching Scholars Program, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Hatch Program of the National Inst. of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Appendix

A1. Wiki Research Project Description

Wiki Research Project Description (Experimental Year Guidelines)

Exploration of the science behind the media messages is an important aspect of this class and makes the class more exciting. The project gives you the opportunity to explore functional food topics of particular interest for your life and to share that information with the class. This project is designed to give you an opportunity to illustrate your competence of the course learning objectives. You will be communicating the current scientific knowledge about your assigned topic to a broad audience with good knowledge of food science and nutrition, as represented by the students in the course.

In brief, you will develop a Wiki related to a functional food or functional food component, using and referencing peer-reviewed scientific publications and resources that provide sound scientific information pertaining to the selected topics. The instructor must approve your Wiki topics in order to avoid redundancy in the Wikis and too much overlap with the classroom lectures. Your grade will be based on:

  • Ideas for project. You will identify 3 functional foods/health relationships of interest to you but that are not part of the planned discussion in class. For each, you must provide a 150 word summary answering why the food is a functional food/component and the health condition that the functional food/component addresses. The instructor will identify the topic that you will use for your Wiki project based on your interests.
  • First draft of Wiki. This will be the first draft of your Wiki and will be evaluated based on following the project formatting guidance, amount of information that is included, and quality of references used for Wiki (details later in this document). Guidance for improvements will be returned to the student for a revision opportunity.
  • Second draft of Wiki. Your second draft will be evaluated for how you addressed the feedback recommendations from the first draft and quality/amount/accuracy of scientific information.
  • Reflective statement of the Wiki. Provide a 150 word reflective statement about your changes in perception of these foods as functional foods and the potential for providing a health benefit to the general public. Include 1 to 2 statements about the challenges you found in this research experience.
  • Critiques of 3 other Wikis and comments. You will be assigned 3 other Wikis to review and evaluate in detail, providing comments directly on the Wiki page. In addition, you will review and comment on at least 3 other Wikis.
  • Develop and present a PowerPoint presentation on your topic. You will present your topic to the class at the end of the semester.

Instructions for developing your Wiki project:

  1. Review the Wiki example. Notice the use of references throughout the example Wiki. One criterion for excellence in your Wiki will be use and quality of references.
  2. Based on your topic, you are to develop the Wiki, with careful consideration of the questions described in Functional Foods: Opportunities and Challenges: Process for Bringing Functional Foods to Market (Institute of Food Technologists 2005). Within each topic, you should cover the information that is indicated within each heading.
    1. Introduction and history
      • i.Identify how the relationship between the food or food component and the health benefit(s) was originally identified.
      • ii.Describe the historic perspective of the food, where it is found in the world and any special characteristics about it.
    2. Identifying bioactive components
      • i.Describe the component of interest that possibly creates the health benefit. Is it a single entity or a group of components? What foods are sources of the component of interest?
    3. Effect of [Food System]: Processing, Stability and Bioavailability
      • i.Does the food product composition, physical form, and inclusion as part of the normal diet have an effect on bioavailability of the bioactive component?
      • ii.Discuss processing methods for the food of interest and the effect on the bioactive component.
      • iii.Summarize at least one peer-reviewed scientific publication pertinent to this section.
    4. Description of the health concern and the bioactive role of the component in reducing the disease risk or improving the metabolic performance.
      • i.Provide a summary of statistics relating to the disease of interest (statistics, costs, medical approaches to treatment)
      • ii.Summarize at least 2 peer-reviewed scientific publications pertinent to the action of the bioactive component/food in relation to the disease.
      • iii.Are there other bioactive molecules (not your targeted component) in the food of interest that might also contribute to this health improvement?
      • iv.Describe any health or other claims associated with the component and the food
    5. Amount needed of bioactive component, amount of food needed to be consumed to achieve this value, and safety of the component and the food intake to achieve the desired result
      • i.Provide documentation for how you derived the information
    6. Link to a popular press article that relates to your topic; provide a brief summary of the article and how your research supports or does not support the information in the article.
      • i.Include an assessment of the author's credentials and those of the individuals that are quoted in the article.
      • ii.Use the scientific article that is identified within the popular press article as part of your scientific support. Provide a link to the article.
  3. Develop your draft document in Word, select pictures, graphs, figures, etc. as appropriate for illustration. Create your Wiki from the course Wiki site by pasting in the Word information. Follow the guidelines posted in the Wiki Project Scholar folder.
  4. Your Wiki draft should meet the following minimum criteria:
    • Approximately 1000 words
    • Use of appropriate headings and sequence to match the outline above
    • Content appropriate for general scientists
    • Use of high quality references. Web sites must be from scientific or government organizations or agencies or appropriate health organizations. Peer reviewed research articles and reviews are needed, with a minimum of 5 used throughout the Wiki.
    • Appropriate identification of references throughout the text and list of references appropriately cited.
    • Grammar and punctuation illustrating an undergraduate college level education. If you are not skilled at writing, make certain someone reviews your writing before you post it.

A2. Wiki critiques–constructive feedback teacher evaluation rubric for student assignment

0 Thoughts to “Mb B Class Wiki Assignment

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *