An elective high school cooking course improves students’ cooking and food skills: a quasi-experimental study

Abstract

Intervention

The Professional Cooking (PC) course is an optional 18-week experiential learning course offered in francophone high schools in New Brunswick, Canada. Students are taught how to measure ingredients, read and follow recipes, prepare and cook various foods using different culinary techniques, and apply food safety practices.

Research question

What is the effectiveness of the PC course on high school girls’ and boys’ cooking and food skills, vegetable and fruit consumption, and other eating behaviours?

Methods

Students enrolled in the PC course (n = 124) or a mandatory Personal and Social Development (PSD) course (n = 202) in five high schools were recruited. Students’ food and cooking skills, vegetable and fruit consumption, and other eating behaviours were collected through a self-administered, pre-post questionnaire. Group differences were assessed with mixed-effect regression models, and separate gender analyses were conducted.

Results

Students in the PC course reported greater increases in food (β=5.74, 95% CI 1.65, 9.83) and cooking skills (β=10.33, 95% CI 5.59, 15.06) than students in the PSD course. Girls and boys in the PC course reported greater improvements in cooking skills (β=8.68, 95% CI 2.57, 14.80; β=11.97, 95% CI 4.39, 19.57, respectively) than those in the PSD course. No effect was found for vegetable and fruit consumption or other eating behaviours (all p values > 0.05).

Conclusion

The PC course effectively improved students’ cooking skills. Curriculum-integrated high school cooking courses provide a foundation for healthier eating by helping students develop food literacy skills and should be mandatory in schools.

Introduction

In Canada, home economics education has traditionally been responsible for teaching students about food, nutrition and cooking (Smith & de Zwart, 2010). However, in many Canadian high schools, home economics–related courses have been replaced by other subjects (Goldstein, 2012), with those remaining, such as cooking courses, being primarily optional. Consequently, these educational changes have contributed to low food literacy among students.

Food literacy is a broad and emerging concept that includes multiple components such as knowledge, skills and behaviours, food and health choices, food systems, emotions and culture (Truman et al., 2017). While numerous definitions of food literacy exist in the literature, the one by Vidgen and Gallegos is the most cited (Thompson et al., 2021). It was developed following consultations with experts working in research, practice, policy and advocacy in various fields related to nutrition, food, education and welfare, as well as with Australian youth and young adults (Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). The authors define food literacy as “a collection of interrelated knowledge, skills and behaviours required to plan, manage, select, prepare and eat foods to meet needs and determine intake” (Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014, p. 54). Based on Vidgen and Gallegos’ work, food literacy includes having adequate food skills (i.e. being able to plan, manage and select food) and cooking skills (i.e. being able to prepare food), and demonstrating healthy food choices and behaviours (i.e. choosing healthy foods for good health, limiting unhealthy foods, eating in a social way). Unfortunately, 54% of Canadians report eating out once a week or more, and 40% report that they do so out of convenience because they do not have the time, desire or ability to cook (Statistics Canada, 2019a). Therefore, many students may not have adequate opportunities at home to develop their cooking and food skills. For these students, this lack of knowledge and skills can transfer to adulthood, where they become adults who do not know how to cook and rely heavily on restaurants, take-out meals, and pre-packaged and highly processed foods (Lavelle et al., 2016). Depending on these types of food to feed their families reduces opportunities for their children to develop their cooking and food skills (Lavelle et al., 2016), hence perpetuating the cycle.

It has been suggested that greater food literacy, including having better cooking and food skills, may be linked to healthier diets and eating behaviours among children and adolescents (Bailey et al., 2019; LeBlanc et al., 2022). Such findings are promising, as most Canadian children and adolescents do not consume enough vegetables and fruits (New Brunswick Health Council, 2019; Statistics Canada, 2019b) and demonstrate unhealthy eating behaviours, such as skipping breakfast, eating meals in front of the television, and eating alone (New Brunswick Health Council, 2019). Literature reviews have reported that various interventions have been developed to improve specific components of food literacy among children and adolescents, albeit with various degrees of success (Bailey et al., 2019; Brooks & Begley, 2013). However, interventions that use hands-on learning may be more effective at improving skills, healthy food choices and behaviours than theory-based ones, which focus primarily on increasing knowledge (Liquori et al., 1998). These findings align with the Social Cognitive Theory, which highlights the importance of knowledge and skills in behaviour change (Bandura, 1977).

Current evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of hands-on high school cooking interventions on various components of food literacy. Considering that most Canadian public schools have limited access to resources, evaluating the effectiveness of existing curriculum-based cooking courses on adolescents’ cooking and food skills, healthy eating choices and behaviours is particularly important. Specifically, these courses are already embedded within the educational system, do not require extensive changes, and do not require additional human, financial or material resources. High school cooking courses also allow for a significant “intervention dose”, as students attend classes on most days of the week over an entire semester. Although more research is needed, findings from a previous study suggest that the effectiveness of cooking classes may vary based on gender (Cunningham-Sabo & Lohse, 2013). These findings could be due to differences in gender norms, peer pressure, attitudes, interests and priorities regarding cooking and healthy eating (Reiheld, 2014; Krølner et al., 2011). For example, some studies have found significant differences in nutrition knowledge and eating behaviours between girls and boys (Mirmiran et al., 2007). One Japanese study also found that while cooking skills were generally perceived as important by both adolescent girls and boys, girls found them to be more relevant (Yeung, 2010). Consequently, assessing the effectiveness of cooking classes through a gender lens is warranted. Therefore, this study aimed to assess whether an optional experiential cooking course could improve high school boys’ and girls’ cooking and food skills, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and other eating behaviours.

Methods

Study design

This quasi-experimental study assessed the effectiveness of an elective high school experiential cooking course called “Professional Cooking” (PC) on students’ cooking and food skills, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and other eating behaviours during the 2019–2020 fall semester (September 2019 to January 2020) (trial registration #NCT04605224). Due to the nature of the study, randomization and blinding were not possible. Pre-test and post-test data from students enrolled in the PC course (experimental group) were compared to those of students enrolled in a mandatory Personal and Social Development (PSD) course (control group).

Participants and recruitment

A convenience sample of five public high schools from a francophone school district in New Brunswick, Canada, were selected and recruited for this study. These schools were selected because they offered the PC course to at least 50 students per year, indicating that it would be provided at least once per semester. The PSD course is mandatory for all high school students; therefore, it was offered in all five schools. All students in the PC and PSD courses were eligible and invited to participate. Any student enrolled in both the PC and PSD courses was considered a participant in the experimental group since they would have been exposed to the intervention. Students who were enrolled in the PSD course and had taken the PC course in the past were considered a participant in the control group. All students provided informed written consent before completing the baseline questionnaire. Parental consent was not required for this study because of the age of the students and the minimal risks associated with their participation. This study was approved by the Comité d’éthique de la recherche sur les êtres humains at the Université de Moncton (#1920-002).

Intervention

Professional Cooking course

The PC course is an optional, experiential learning course. It is offered to Grade 9 to 12 students four to five times a week (depending on the school) over an 18-week semester. The duration of each class ranges between 55 and 75 min. Students are taught how to measure ingredients, read and follow recipes, prepare and cook various foods using different culinary techniques, and apply food safety practices. Theoretical concepts of food safety and hygiene are reviewed in the first 3 weeks of the semester. The other 15 weeks blend theoretical concepts of cooking and experiential learning, such as experimenting weekly with recipes.

Personal and Social Development course

The PSD course is a mandatory theory-based course for all students and is typically taken in Grade 9 or 10. Like the PC course, it is offered four to five times a week over the same 18-week semester. Topics in the PSD course include general health and wellness, consumer studies, civics and citizenship, and interpersonal relationships. This course was chosen as the control group as it is where all students acquire basic health- and nutrition-related knowledge.

Measures and procedures

A self-administered pen and paper questionnaire was used to assess students’ cooking and food skills, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and other eating behaviours. Participants completed the questionnaire in class during the first (pre-test) and last week (post-test) of the fall semester (September 2019 and January 2020, respectively). This questionnaire was developed using two previously validated questionnaires (Lavelle et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2008) and one question from the New Brunswick Student Wellness Survey (New Brunswick Health Council, 2015). Questionnaire items that were not already available in French were translated using the back-translation protocol (Brislin, 1970).

Cooking skills

Cooking skills represent the physical or mechanical skills needed to prepare and cook a meal (Lavelle et al., 2017). Cooking skills were assessed with one question, which showed high test-retest reliability (r=0.815, p < 0.001) (Lavelle et al., 2017). Specifically, students were asked the following question: “Please look at the following list. If you do it, please say how good you are at it on a scale of 1-7 where 1 is very poor, 7 very good. If you don’t do a skill, tick ‘Never/rarely’”. This question was followed by 14 cooking skills (e.g. chop, mix and stir foods, blend foods to make them smooth, steam food, boil or simmer food). For each skill, students were awarded a score of 1 (very poor) to 7 (very good) and 0 if they had never or rarely done it. Therefore, a score between 0 and 98 points was possible for this question.

Food skills

Food skills include the knowledge and skills required to plan, manage and select healthy foods, such as knowing how to read labels, plan meals, and prepare meals with limited ingredients (Fordyce-Voorham, 2011; Lavelle et al., 2017). Food skills were measured with one question that was shown to have a high test-retest reliability (r = 0.872, p < 0.001) (Lavelle et al., 2017). Specifically, students were asked: “Please look at the following list of questions relating to food practices. If you do it, please say how good you are at it on a scale of 1-7, where 1 is very poor, 7 very good. If you don’t do a skill, tick ‘Never/rarely’”. This question was followed by a list of 12 food skills (e.g. plan meals, prepare meals in advance, follow a recipe when cooking, shop with a grocery list). For each skill, students were awarded a score of 1 (very poor) to 7 (very good) and 0 if they had never or rarely done it. Therefore, a score between 0 and 84 points was possible for this question.

Consumption of vegetables and fruits

Five questions measured participants’ consumption of vegetables and fruits (Wilson et al., 2008). These questions have shown good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.66, p < 0.001 for vegetables and ICC = 0.66, p < 0.05 for fruits) and correlated with a 7-day food diary (r = 0.36, p < 0.01 and r = 0.48, p < 0.01 for vegetables and fruits, respectively) (Wilson et al., 2008). Two questions assessed students’ usual daily consumption of vegetables and fruits by asking: “How many servings of fruit do you usually eat each day?” and “How many servings of vegetables do you usually eat each day?”. Examples of servings were provided for each question. Response options and their respective score were as follows: “I do not eat fruits/vegetables” (0 points), “less than one serving per day” (1 point), “one to two servings per day” (2 points), ‘“three to five servings a day” (3 points) and “more than five portions a day” (4 points) (Wilson et al., 2008).

Another question included a list of 19 food items and asked students whether they had consumed each item that day and when. Specifically, it asked: “Think about today. Describe what you eat at each time.”, to which students checked whether they had eaten the item at breakfast, lunch or snack. From the list, three were vegetables or fruit: “vegetables or salad”, “fresh or canned fruits” and “dried fruits”. A point was given every time the vegetables or fruits were consumed. Therefore, a maximum of three points per vegetable/fruit item could be awarded, for a maximum score of 9 points for this question.

Two questions asked students to identify which of the 15 fruits and 25 vegetables they consumed the previous day (i.e. “Please indicate if you ate this fruit yesterday, by ticking the box that applies to you, for each fruit” and “Please indicate if you ate this vegetable yesterday, by ticking the box that applies to you, for each vegetable”). A maximum of 4 points was given to each question depending on the number of vegetables and fruits checked (Wilson et al., 2008). For fruits, points were awarded as follows: none consumed = 0 points, 1 fruit = 1 point, 2–3 fruits = 2 points, 4–5 fruits = 3 points and ≥ 6 fruits = 4 points. The following was used to award points for vegetables: none consumed = 0 points, 1–3 vegetables = 1 point, 4–6 vegetables = 2 points, 7–9 vegetables = 3 points and ≥ 10 vegetables = 4 points (Wilson et al., 2008).

The sum of all five questions was calculated to give a score of 0 to 25 points for vegetable and fruit consumption.

Other eating behaviours

Two questions measured students’ other eating behaviours. The first question, based on the provincial NB Student Wellness Survey (New Brunswick Health Council, 2015), assessed the frequency of breakfast consumption by asking, “Last week, how many times did you eat breakfast?”. Response options ranged from none (0 points) to 7 times (7 points).

Additional eating behaviours were assessed with a second question which showed good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.64, p<0.001) and correlated with a 7-day food diary (r = 0.46, p < 0.01) (Wilson et al., 2008). Specifically, the question asked “How often do you usually do the following?”, followed by six items, including carrying a water bottle, helping their family choose or buy groceries, eating dinner with most of their family, and eating dinner or snacks in front of the television (reversed scored question). Response options included the following: never, rarely or less than once a week, approximately once or twice a week, approximately four to six times a week, or every day. A score of 0 to 3 points was given to each item, where a higher score indicated healthier eating behaviours. The sum of each item was calculated to give a total score ranging from 0 to 18 points for this question.

The sum of both questions was calculated to give a score for other eating behaviours that ranged from 0 to 25 points.

Confounding variables

Students’ age, gender and ethnicity were obtained from the self-administered questionnaire. Age was included as a potential confounding variable since older adolescents may have greater food and cooking skills than younger adolescents due to better cognitive and fine motor skills (Dean et al., 2021). Differences among genders and ethnicities have also been documented, particularly regarding time spent cooking (Taillie, 2018). Therefore, these were considered potential confounding variables in this study. Limited availability and accessibility to high-quality foods in rural areas (Ko et al., 2018) may also impact individuals’ food choices and overall food literacy. Therefore, rurality was also added as a potential confounding variable. The rurality of the school was determined using publicly available geospatial information (Community Information Database, 2011). Schools were identified as being in an urban area if they were located in a census metropolitan area, a census agglomeration or a strong metropolitan influenced zone (MIZ). In contrast, schools were defined as being in a rural area if they were located in a moderate MIZ, weak MIZ or no MIZ (Community Information Database, 2011). An optional theory-based “Introduction to nutrition’” course was offered at each school. Since this could have influenced students’ eating behaviours and dietary intake, an additional question was added to consider whether students were currently or had ever taken this course. Another question was also used to assess whether students in either group had previously taken the “Professional Cooking” course, as those students may demonstrate greater food and cooking skills.

Data analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in the fall of 2020 using R Studio, 1.2.1335. Complete case analysis was used, such that only students who completed both the pre- and post-questionnaires were included. In cases where a student did not answer some question items or provided invalid answers (i.e. providing two answers), these items were removed from the total question score. This approach was used as imputation or complete removal of these participants from the analyses did not yield different statistical results. Analyses were done in three steps. First, for each outcome variable (cooking skills, food skills, vegetable and fruit intake, and other eating behaviours), mixed-effect models were computed using time of data collection (pre and post), group (experimental or control) and a group-time interaction as fixed effects. Second, confounding variables were added to the models in step 1. Third, to account for clustering related to repeated measures and schools, both were included as random effects in the final models. To assess for gender differences, gender-specific analyses were also conducted. Bonferroni correction was applied, and statistical significance was considered at p < 0.01.

Results

Of the 10 public high schools in the school district, five met the inclusion criteria, and all agreed to participate in the study (Fig. 1). A total of 475 students (160 in the PC course and 315 in the PSD course) completed the questionnaire in September 2019, and of those students, 326 (124 in the PC course and 202 in the PSD course) provided post-data. Losses to follow-up were partly due to changes in students’ schedules, students moving away and students opting out of the class, but mostly from teachers not having had the time to administer the questionnaire to students before the last day of class. In total, 124 students were part of the experimental group, and 202 were in the control group. Students were similar on most baseline characteristics, except that students in the experimental group were slightly older, and a greater percentage of them had previously taken or were currently enrolled in the “Introduction to nutrition” course (Table 1). Overall, students lost to follow-up did not significantly differ from those retained on all primary outcomes. However, students in the control group had lower scores for food skills than those lost to follow-up (Table 2).

Fig. 1.

Flow diagram of participants through each stage of the study

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics of the study sample at baseline

	Control (n = 315)	Experimental (n = 160)
Age (years)	14.91 ± 0.66	16.79 ± 0.69
13 years old	32 (10.1%)	0 (0.0%)
14 years old	124 (39.4%)	2 (1.3%)
15 years old	147 (46.7%)	23 (14.4%)
16 years old	10 (3.2%)	61 (38.1%)
17 years old	2 (0.6%)	72 (45.0%)
18 years old	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.6%)
19 years old	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.6%)
Gender (boys)	151 (47.9%)	64 (40.0%)
Ethnicity
Caucasian	287 (91.1%)	141 (88.1%)
Black	10 (3.2%)	7 (4.4%)
Indigenous	8 (2.5%)	4 (2.5%)
Asian	3 (1.0%)	1 (0.6%)
Other	7 (2.2%)	6 (3.8%)
Currently or previously enrolled in the “Introduction to nutrition’” course	21 (6.7%)	22 (13.8%)
Taken the “Professional Cooking’” course in the past	21 (6.7%)	5 (3.1%)
Location of the school
Rural	117 (37.1%)	53 (33.1%)
Urban	198 (62.9%)	106 (66.3%)

Table 2.

Baseline values of outcome variables among participants retained and lost to follow-up

	Participants retained (n = 325)			Participants lost to follow-up (n = 149)			p value (t-test)a
	Baseline values (mean ± SD)
	All students	Experimental	Control	All students	Experimental	Control	All students	Experimental	Control
Food skills (0 to 84 pts)	44.92 ± 20.06	44.63 ± 18.61	45.09 ± 20.94	49.79 ± 20.29	42.36 ± 18.59	52.16 ± 20.31	0.015	0.520	0.004
Cooking skills (0 to 98 pts)	49.84 ± 23.62	50.29 ± 24.15	49.56 ± 23.34	54.17 ± 24.15	50.44 ± 22.26	55.35 ± 24.69	0.067	0.973	0.0395
Consumption of vegetables and fruit (0 to 25 pts)	8.96 ± 3.72	8.57 ± 3.57	9.19 ± 3.79	9.47 ± 3.77	8.69 ± 3.40	9.72 ± 3.86	0.166	0.852	0.244
Other eating behaviours (0 to 25 pts)	13.89 ± 4.51	13.30 ± 4.78	14.24 ± 4.31	14.43 ± 4.56	12.92 ± 5.16	14.91 ± 4.26	0.226	0.678	0.186

^aBold indicates statistical significance with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.01)

Overall, fully adjusted models showed that students in the experimental group had, on average, a 10.33 greater point increase in cooking skills and a 5.74 greater point increase in food skills than students in the control group after the intervention (Table 3). However, no significant differences in changes to consumption of vegetables and fruits or other eating behaviours were found between the experimental and control groups. Rurality was a significant confounding variable in all the models (all p values < 0.01). Gender was also significant in all the models (all p values < 0.01), except for the consumption of vegetables and fruits.

Table 3.

Difference in food skills, cooking skills, consumption of vegetables and fruit, and other eating behaviours between the intervention and control groups^a

	Control groupb		Experimental groupb		Unadjusted modelc		Adjusted modeld
	Mean (SD) Pre (n= 315)	Mean (SD) Post (n=202)	Mean (SD) Pre (n=160)	Mean (SD) Post (n=124)	Beta for experimental-control group difference (standard error)	95% CI	Beta for experimental -control group difference (standard error)	95% CI
Food skills (0 to 84 pts)	47.63 ± 20.96	46.96 ± 21.70	44.12 ± 18.57	51.27 ± 20.86	7.70 (2.94)**	1.14, 13.23	5.74 (2.09)**	1.65, 9.83
Cooking skills (0 to 98 pts)	51.64 ± 23.96	51.97 ± 24.09	50.33 ± 23.67	62.64 ± 19.49	11.56 (3.32)***	4.33, 17.99	10.33 (2.42)***	5.59, 15.06
Consumption of vegetables and fruit (0 to 25 pts)	9.38 ± 3.82	8.89 ± 3.62	8.60 ± 3.52	8.30 ± 3.48	0.36 (0.52)	−1.07, 1.04	0.05 (0.33)	−0.59, 0.70
Other eating behaviours (0 to 25 pts)	14.48 ± 4.30	13.66 ± 4.41	13.21 ± 4.85	12.53 ± 4.56	−0.07 (0.64)	−1.32, 1.32	−0.11 (0.40)	−0.90, 0.67

^aBetween-group differences are based on mixed-effect linear regression models which include variables representing students and schools as random effects to account for repeated measures and for clustering of participants in schools

^bMeans in this column are based on all data available at each measurement period

^cRepresents the interaction term between time and group. To be included in this analysis, participants had to have provided data for both the pre- and post-measurement periods

^dRepresents the interaction term between time and group with adjustments for age, gender, rurality, ethnicity, whether students had taken the “Professional Cooking” course in the past and whether students were currently or had previously taken an “Introduction to nutrition’” course

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

Gender analyses revealed that boys in the experimental group had, on average, an 11.97 greater point increase in cooking skills compared with boys from the control group (Table 4). The PC course was not associated with statistically significant differences in effects for boys’ food skills, consumption of vegetables and fruits, or other eating behaviours. Rurality was the only significant confounding variable in the models for cooking skills (p = 0.03), food skills (p = 0.0003) and consumption of vegetables and fruits (p = 0.03). In girls, those in the experimental group had, on average, an 8.68 greater point increase for cooking skills and a 5.76 greater point increase for food skills than girls in the control group. Similarly to boys, no significant differences in effects for consumption of vegetables and fruits or other eating behaviours were found. Rurality was the only significant confounding variable for models relating to the consumption of vegetables and fruits (p = 0.000) and other eating behaviours (p = 0.03).

Table 4.

Difference in food skills, cooking skills, consumption of vegetables and fruit, and other eating behaviours between the intervention and control groups, stratified by gender¹

	Boys						Girls
	Control group2		Experimental group2		Adjusted model3		Control group2		Experimental group2		Adjusted model3
	Mean (SD) Pre (n=151)	Mean (SD) Post (n=99)	Mean (SD) Pre (n=64)	Mean (SD) Post (n=50)	β between-group difference (SE)	95% CI	Mean (SD) Pre (n=160)	Mean (SD) Post (n=101)	Mean (SD) Pre (n=95)	Mean (SD) Post (n=73)	β between-group difference (SE)	95% CI
Food skills (0 to 84 pts)	43.42 ± 21.30	41.42 ± 22.50	40.09 ± 18.75	44.35 ± 21.91	4.84 (3.61)	−2.24, 11.93	51.81 ± 19.99	52.76 ± 19.20	46.83 ± 18.04	56.10 ± 18.77	5.76 (2.42)*	1.01, 10.51
Cooking skills (0 to 98 pts)	48.58±25.63	47.27±24.34	47.56 ± 26.47	58.92 ± 22.53	11.97 (3.87)**	4.39, 19.57	54.66 ± 22.08	57.11 ± 22.69	52.19 ± 21.52	65.23 ± 16.74	8.68 (3.12)**	2.57, 14.80
Consumption of vegetables and fruit (0 to 25 pts)	9.20 ± 3.95	8.84 ± 3.78	8.69 ± 3.91	7.71 ± 3.55	−0.32 (0.53)	−1.36, 0.72	9.68 ± 3.64	9.03 ± 3.47	8.54 ± 3.25	8.71 ± 3.39	0.32 (0.43)	−0.52, 1.16
Other eating behaviours (0 to 25 pts)	13.97 ± 4.29	13.83 ± 4.17	12.86 ± 5.05	11.59 ± 4.73	−1.01 (0.59)	−2.16, 0.14	15.02 ± 4.28	13.71 ± 4.53	13.45 ± 4.73	13.19 ± 4.35	0.57 (0.55)	−0.50, 1.64

¹Between-group differences are based on mixed-effect linear regression models which include variables representing students and schools as random effects to account for repeated measures and for clustering of participants in schools

²Means in this column are based on all data available at each measurement period

³Represents the interaction term between time and group with adjustments for age, rurality, ethnicity, whether students had taken the “Professional Cooking” course in the past and whether students were currently or had previously taken an “Introduction to nutrition” course

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

Discussion

This study is one of the first to assess the effectiveness of a curriculum-based high school experiential cooking course on adolescent boys’ and girls’ cooking skills, food skills, consumption of vegetables and fruits, and other eating behaviours, and is the first of its kind in Canada. Findings suggest that overall, the PC course improved students’ food and cooking skills but did not improve their vegetable and fruit consumption or other eating behaviours. Gender analyses also showed that the PC course was particularly effective at improving boys’ and girls’ cooking skills. Considering that learning how to cook during childhood or adolescence has been linked to improved dietary outcomes during adulthood (Lavelle et al., 2016), the integration of cooking courses in schools’ curricula is encouraged.

Regardless of gender, the PC course was effective at improving students’ cooking skills. This result was expected as the course focuses on developing those specific skills. Nevertheless, these findings are encouraging as cooking skills are a basic life skill required to adopt and maintain a healthy diet in adulthood. For example, an observational study found that cooking skills are associated with healthier eating behaviours in adults (McGowan et al., 2017). This study also found that young adults (18–23 years old) who reported having adequate cooking skills were found to prepare and have family meals more frequently, and to consume more vegetables and less fast foods 10 years later (Utter et al., 2018). Therefore, the impact of high school cooking courses could have long-lasting implications for students’ health.

Our study also showed that prior to the PC course, students’ cooking skills and food skills were poor and that the PC course effectively increased these skills. These findings are important, as food skills have been largely ignored in past studies (Bailey et al., 2019). Food skills are an integral part of food literacy and are required to plan, manage and select nutritious foods (Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). These skills are essential to help adolescents and adults overcome common barriers to healthy eating, such as the lack of time to plan healthy meals or to go grocery shopping, the increased cost of healthy foods, and the lack of knowledge and skills needed to plan and shop (Correa et al., 2017; Munt et al., 2017). Therefore, our findings suggest that experiential cooking courses may have a greater impact on food literacy than previously reported, reinforcing the importance of these courses in schools.

Considering that food literacy has been linked to healthier diets and eating behaviours among students (Bailey et al., 2019; LeBlanc et al., 2022), it was anticipated that improvements in food literacy would lead to increased vegetable and fruit consumption and to other healthier eating behaviours. However, our study found no significant differences in students’ consumption of vegetables and fruits or other eating behaviours between those who took the PC course and those in the PSD course. Similarly, previous studies have also found positive effects of cooking interventions on various nutrition or food literacy–related outcomes such as food preferences and willingness to try new foods, without noting improvements in dietary intake or eating behaviours (Gibbs et al., 2013; Jaenke et al., 2012). One possible explanation for this is that dietary intake and eating behaviours are influenced by multiple personal, social and environmental factors (Rasmussen et al., 2006). Therefore, it is likely that experiential cooking courses such as the one assessed in this study are not enough to induce immediate changes in students’ dietary intake and eating behaviours. For example, Evans et al. (2012) have suggested that students may need to be exposed to multiple types of interventions (e.g. in-class sessions, gardening, taste testing, field trips to farms) to increase their consumption of vegetables and fruits. It is also important to note that these students would still be living with their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and, therefore, would be influenced by their food choices and habits. Nonetheless, Lavelle et al. (2016) found that those who learned how to cook when they were children or adolescents used less pre-prepared foods and more fresh products as adults. Therefore, while the PC course did not improve students’ vegetable and fruit consumption or other eating behaviours, it did lay a foundation that could lead to healthier behaviours in adulthood.

Since previous studies have documented gender differences in nutrition knowledge (Mirmiran et al., 2007), attitudes (Cunningham-Sabo & Lohse, 2013) and dietary intake, such as vegetable and fruit consumption (Rasmussen et al., 2006), separate gender analyses were conducted in this study. While cooking skills improved among students of both genders, no significant improvements in food skills among girls or boys were found. Discrepancies between the latter findings and those with the complete sample are most likely due to the smaller sample sizes and, consequently, a reduced variance. Nevertheless, gender differences were also reported by Cunningham-Sabo and Lohse (2013), who found that girls showed greater self-efficacy for cooking than boys after taking part in the “Cooking with Kids” program. Previous authors have suggested that these differences may be due to girls having a greater interest in nutrition and demonstrating higher nutrition-related knowledge scores than boys (Mirmiran et al., 2007). Although knowledge was not explicitly assessed in our study, baseline data seem to support this hypothesis. Girls had slightly higher cooking and food skills scores than boys at baseline. Gender norms may also contribute to the gender differences observed in our study, as home cooking has traditionally been perceived as a woman’s work (Reiheld, 2014). While more men are now participating in food preparation, women still cook much more often than men (Taillie, 2018). Therefore, children and adolescents may be more likely to observe their mothers involved in food preparation than their fathers, thus reinforcing this gendering of cooking. All of these factors may make girls more likely to enroll in elective cooking courses than boys. Therefore, mandatory high school cooking courses are encouraged to ensure that all students have the skills needed to improve their food literacy.

Strengths and limitations

This study had several strengths, including conducting stratified gender analyses, assessing both cooking skills and food skills, and using previously validated questionnaires. However, limitations must also be acknowledged. Since this study evaluated a cooking course that is part of an existing curriculum, how it was taught may have varied among teachers. However, this also represents a strength of our study, as it represents the real-world context in which these courses are taught in schools. It must also be noted that learning objectives for the PC course are standardized; thus, all teachers were required to teach the same content. This study also used a self-reported questionnaire, which is susceptible to social desirability bias. Therefore, students may have over- or under-reported more positive behaviours. Furthermore, although a variety of cooking skills and food skills were assessed in this study, we did not measure all components of food literacy. To assess the true impact of cooking courses on students’ food literacy, more research is needed to identify how to measure its other components, such as food and health choices, food culture, attitudes and motivation toward food, and food systems (Truman et al., 2017). Finally, since this study evaluated the effectiveness of a specific curriculum-based experiential cooking course, findings cannot be generalized to all high school cooking courses.

Conclusion

The PC course was effective at improving high school students’ cooking and food skills. Among both girls and boys, the PC course was effective at improving their cooking skills. Although no significant effects were found for vegetable and fruit consumption and other eating behaviours, our findings suggest that cooking courses offered in high schools lay a foundation of skills to help promote healthy eating behaviours. Further research should continue to examine multiple food and cooking skills and integrate various components (e.g. gardens, family activities, revised cafeteria menus) to the intervention to maximize their effectiveness.

Contributions to knowledge

What does this study add to existing knowledge?

• Previous interventions have mainly been designed for research purposes and have only assessed their impact on one specific component of food literacy. Evaluating the effectiveness of existing curriculum-based high school cooking courses on various components of adolescents’ food literacy is particularly important since these courses are already embedded within the educational system, do not require additional resources, and allow for a significant “intervention dose”.

• This study shows that curriculum-integrated high school courses can improve adolescents’ cooking skills. This study also highlights the importance of assessing food literacy through a gender lens.

What are the key implications for public health interventions, practice or policy?

• Cooking courses should be mandatory in schools to ensure that all students, regardless of gender, have the opportunity to improve their food literacy and build a foundation for healthier eating.

• In addition to cooking skills, courses should also emphasize developing adolescents’ food skills. Integrating multiple types of interventions in schools may help maximize their effectiveness.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design and material preparation. Jasmine LeBlanc completed data collection and analysis and the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Funding

This study received funding from the Faculté des études supérieures et de la recherche at the Université de Moncton.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable

Declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Comité d’éthique de la recherche sur les êtres humains at the Université de Moncton, #CER-190923) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.