Comparative Perception of Mess food vis a vis College Canteen food

1. 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 PGFB13
Rajni Vasisht PGFB134

2. 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.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
• Anderson A, Hetherington M, Adamson A, et al. (2003) The development
of and evaluation of a novel school based intervention to increase fruit
and 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 (1998)
Take Five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit and
vegetable intakes: impact on attitudes towards dietary change. British
Journal of Nutrition 80: 133-140.
• Maddock, Bronwyn, Warren, Carol and Worsley, Anthony 2005-09, Survey
of canteens and food services in Victorian schools, Nutrition and
dietetics, vol. 62, no. 2-3, pp. 76-81).

4. METHODOLGY ADOPTED
• Objective-
To compare student’s perception of mess food with respect to canteen
food in JIM college.
• Hypothesis-
1. There is no significant difference between Menu of food items and
student’s choice for mess food and canteen food.
2. There is no effect of hygiene on student’s choice for mess food and
canteen food.
3. There is no relationship between eating out factors and student’s
choice between canteen and mess.
4. Mean ratings of mess is not 70.

5. 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 students
of canteen and mess.
• Results encoded and analysed.
• Statistical tool (SPSS 16.0) used to interprete the data.

6. 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 is
comparatively small.
• No biasing based on gender or age.
• Structured and undisguised form of data collection.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 8. Thinking about the value of money, how will you describe food served in canteen in
general?
• Excellent
• Good
• Average
• Poor
9. Where do you think is the nutritional value of food better?
• Mess
• Canteen
• Equal
• Can’t say
10. Do you think non hostellers should be allowed to eat in the mess?
• Yes
• No
• Sometimes
11. Where do you find a better infrastructure and environment?
• Canteen
• Mess

10. Questionnaire
Factors Excellent Good Average Below
Average
Poor
Menu Variety
Value of money
Promptness of
service
Quality of service
Quality of food
Mess staff hospitality
Cleanliness
Décor
12. Please rate the following accordingly (Canteen and mess)-

11. Questionnaire
Service factors Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Good
Hospitality
Staff treats
everyone
equal
Wait in queue
for a long time
Average
waiting time
13. Please answer appropriately (Service factors)-

12. 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)-

13. Data Analysis
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Menu
Variety
Value of
money
Promptness
of service
Quality of
service
Quality of
food
Cleanliness Décor
Comparison of factors which affects food preference between mess
and canteen
Mess Canteen

14. Data Analysis
0
5
10
15
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

15. 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 acceptable
Comparison of Hygiene factors between canteen and mess
Mess Canteen

16. INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS (Hypothesis testing 1)
• H0- There is no significant difference between Menu of food items
and 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.

18. Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis testing 1)
• Since, .004 < .05
Hence, we accept H1.
Result-
There is a significant difference between Menu of food items and
student’s choice for mess food and canteen food.

19. INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS (Hypothesis testing 2)
• H0- There is no effect of hygiene on student’s choice for mess
food and canteen food.
• Hygiene- Independent variable & Ratio scale
• Student’s choice- Dependent variable & Nominal scale
• 2 sampled t- test used.

21. 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 and
canteen food

22. INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS (Hypothesis testing 3)
• H0- There is no relationship between eating out factors and
student’s choice between canteen and mess.
• Eating out factors - Independent variable & Nominal scale
• Student’s choice- Dependent variable & Nominal scale
• Chi square test is used.

24. Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis 3)
• Here, .046 <.05
• Hence, we reject H1.
Result-
There is no relationship between eating out factors and student’s
choice between canteen and mess.

25. INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS (Hypothesis testing 4)
• H0- Mean ratings of mess is different from 70.
• Ratingm - Independent variable & Ratio scale
• 1 sampled t- test is used.

27. Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis 4)
• Here, .000<.05
• Hence, we reject H1.
Result-
Mean ratings of mess is not different from 70.

28. FINDINGS
• Lack of Nutritious food in canteen.
( 35 students prefer mess food than canteen food on the basis of quality)
• Value of money is better in mess than canteen .
( 33 students prefer Mess food than canteen food on the basis of Value for money)
• Lack of food variety in canteen than mess.
( 31 students prefer Mess food than Canteen food on the basis of Menu variety)
• Waiting time of canteen is more than that of mess.
( 36 students prefer Mess than canteen on the basis of waiting time)

29. Findings
• Students found dirt, and foul smell in canteen than mess.
( 40 students prefer to go to mess than canteen than 20 students
who go to canteen)
• Environment is marginally better in mess than canteen.
( 31 students prefer to visit mess than 29 students who goes to
canteen)
• Utensils are more cleaner in mess than canteen.
( 35 students prefer mess food than 25 students who prefer canteen
food on the basis of clean utensils)

30. 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.