rm presentation on comparative perception of mess food(1)

8/12/2019 Rm Presentation on Comparative Perception of Mess Food(1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rm-presentation-on-comparative-perception-of-mess-food1 1/31

RM PRESENTATION ON

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTION

OF MESS FOOD VIS-A VIS

CANTEEN OF OUR COLLEGE

Group Members-

Shahbaaz Ahmed PGFB1345

Shravan Kumar PGFB1347

Sundram Sinha PGFB134

Swati sharma PGFB13

Saloni Mishra PGFB13Rajni Vasisht PGFB134



INTRODUCTION

• Importance of College Canteen and Mess in Student’s life.

• Eating out decisions by an individual based on-

1. Biological determinants( Hunger, Apetite & Taste)

2. Economic determinants(Cost, income, availability)

3. Physical determinants (Access, education, skills and time)

4. Social determinants (Culture, family, peers and meal patterns

5. Psychological determinants (Mood, stress and guilt)

6. Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about food.



LITERATURE REVIEW

• Anderson A, Hetherington M, Adamson A, et al. (2003) The developmeof and evaluation of a novel school based intervention to increase fruiand vegetable intake in children (Five a Day The Bash Street Way),N09003. Report for the FSA, London. (see http://www.food.gov.uk/)

• Anderson A & Cox D (2000) Five a day - challenges and achievements.Nutrition and Food Science 30(1): 30-4.

• Anderson AS, Cox DN, McKellar S, Reynolds J, Lean MEJ, Mela DJ (1998Take Five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit andvegetable intakes: impact on attitudes towards dietary change. BritisJournal of Nutrition 80: 133-140.

• Maddock, Bronwyn, Warren, Carol and Worsley, Anthony 2005-09, Survof canteens and food services in Victorian schools, Nutrition and

dietetics, vol. 62, no. 2-3, pp. 76-81).

http://www.food.gov.uk/

http://www.food.gov.uk/



METHODOLGY ADOPTED

• Objective-

To compare student’s perception of mess food with respect to canteenfood in JIM college.

•

Hypothesis-1. There is no significant difference between Menu of food items andstudent’s choice for mess food and canteen food.

2. There is no effect of hygiene on student’s choice for mess food andcanteen food.

3. There is no relationship between eating out factors and student’schoice between canteen and mess.

4. Mean ratings of mess is not 70.



RESEARCH DESIGN

• Taste, Service and Hygiene factors are independent variables.

• Student’s food choice is dependent variable.

• Descriptive method used.

• Use of survey questionnaires.

• Study conducted to determine service and satisfaction of studenof canteen and mess.

• Results encoded and analysed.

• Statistical tool (SPSS 16.0) used to interprete the data.



SAMPLING DESIGN

• Sample of 60 respondents taken.

• Respondents represents students of college.

• Probability sampling- Simple Random sampling is used.

• Since, respondents are more or less homogenous, hence, sample size comparatively small.

• No biasing based on gender or age.

•

Structured and undisguised form of data collection.



DATA COLLECTION (Questionnaire)

1. Where do you prefer to eat mostly? • Canteen

• Mess

• Others.

2. How frequently do you eat in the canteen?

• Daily

•

Alternate days• Weekly

• Randomly.

3. What is the basic reason for you to go the canteen in comparison to the mess?

• To eat

• Hang out with friends

• Others



4. What do you prefer to eat mostly ?

• Fast food

• Beverages

• Thaali

• Others

5. How do you differentiate between canteen and mess food?

• On the basis of taste

• Service

• Cleanliness

• Variety of food

6. Which meal do you prefer to eat in the mess ?

• Breakfast

• Lunch• Dinner

• All of the above

7. Are you satisfied with the variety of foods served in the canteen?

• Yes

• No

• Can’t say



Questionnaire

Factors Excellent Good Average Below

Average

Poor

Menu Variety

Value of money

Promptness ofservice

Quality of service

Quality of food

Mess staff hospitality

Cleanliness

Décor

12. Please rate the following accordingly (Canteen and mess)-



Questionnaire

Service factors Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stron

Disag

Good

Hospitality

Staff treatseveryone

equal

Wait in queue

for a long time

Average

waiting time

13. Please answer appropriately (Service factors)-



Questionnaire

Hygiene Factors Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Utensils provided

are clean

Found foul smell

Tables, chairs are

clean

Found

bugs/mice/dirt

Environment &

hygiene is

acceptable

14. Please rate the following accordingly (Hygiene factors)-



Data Analysis

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MenuVariety

Value of money

Promptnessof service

Quality of service

Quality of food

Cleanliness Décor

Comparison of factors which affects food preference between messand canteen

Mess Canteen



Data Analysis

0

5

1015

20

25

30

35

40

Hospitality Staff treats everyone equal Waiting time in queue Average waiting time

Comparison on the basis of Service factor between canteen and mess

Mess Canteen



Data Analysis

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Clean utensils Foul smell Clean tables,chairs Found bugs/mice/dirt Environment is acce

Comparison of Hygiene factors between canteen and mess

Mess Canteen



INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS (Hypothesis testing 1

• H0- There is no significant difference between Menu of food iteand student’s choice for mess food and canteen food.

• Menu type- Independent variable & Ratio scale

•

Student’s choice- Dependent variable & Nominal scale

• 2 sampled t- test used.



Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis testing 1)

• Since, .004 < .05

Hence, we accept H1.

Result-

There is a significant difference between Menu of food items andstudent’s choice for mess food and canteen food.




• H0- There is no effect of hygiene on student’s choice for messfood and canteen food.

• Hygiene- Independent variable & Ratio scale

•


• 2 sampled t- test used.



Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis testing 2)

• Since, .002 < .05

• Hence, we accept H1.

Result-

• There is effect of hygiene on student’s choice for mess food andcanteen food




• H0- There is no relationship between eating out factors andstudent’s choice between canteen and mess.

• Eating out factors - Independent variable & Nominal scale

•


• Chi square test is used.



Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis 3)

• Here, .046 <.05

• Hence, we reject H1.

Result-

There is no relationship between eating out factors and student’schoice between canteen and mess.



Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis 4)

• Here, .000<.05

• Hence, we reject H1.

Result-

Mean ratings of mess is not different from 70.



FINDINGS

•

Lack of Nutritious food in canteen.( 35 students prefer mess food than canteen food on the basis of quali

• Value of money is better in mess than canteen .

( 33 students prefer Mess food than canteen food on the basis of Value

• Lack of food variety in canteen than mess.

( 31 students prefer Mess food than Canteen food on the basis of Menu

• Waiting time of canteen is more than that of mess.

( 36 students prefer Mess than canteen on the basis of waiting time)



RECOMMENDATIONS/ SUGGESTIONS

• More people to serve food in canteen.

• More seating area in canteen.

• Faster payment to decrease waiting time.

• Cleanliness should be maintained in canteen.

•

Healthier food should be included in canteen menu.• Mess environment could be improved.

rm presentation on comparative perception of mess food(1)

Documents