As our project is approaching the completion, this will be our last blog post. In this blog, we will be including our executive summary of the final report, and reflecting on a moment of significance. Although there were a lot of challenges, the whole project process has brought us a lot of fun and a better understanding of the community. We hope you enjoy the final blog, and thank you for being together with us throughout the journey!


Executive Summary

The community-based learning project conducted by the Group 22 from the course Land and Food Systems 350 at the University of British Columbia was about the community kitchen assessment in the Kerrisdale and Marple area located at the lower south end of Vancouver West. The objectives of this project were to evaluate the facilities and programs available at privately operated community kitchens in the Kerrisdale and Marpole area, and to understand the challenges faced by these community kitchens with regard to food safety and accessibility aspects. Questions that were expected to be answered by the findings of this project included ‘What equipment and programs are available at community kitchens visited?’, ‘Are community partners interested in expanding the usage of the kitchen?’, and ‘What would allow the community kitchens to be used more often?’ The findings of this project will be potentially used by the City of Vancouver to further improve the current status of community kitchens.

There were two community kitchens participated in this project, and both of them are religious organizations. The consent for participation was acquired from community partners. Raw data were collected during the visits to community kitchens by conducting standardized survey and making observations. The privacy and confidentiality of community partners were emphasized by securing the data kept on our devices using encryption, reducing the device exposure, and non-identifying names of community partners in the report.

The results of the project showed that both community kitchens were holding similar types of programs including both internal and external usages. However, Kitchen 1 had better equipment than Kitchen 2, while Kitchen 1 generally accepted less groups to use the kitchen. Both community partners were interested in expanding the kitchen usage. The major improvement expected by Kitchen 1 was to create the opportunity to regularly communicate with other community kitchens and foodbanks in the same area in order to facilitate the development of the community and to benefit more community members. Kitchen 2 would focus more on the improvement of equipment in the future.

We would recommend the initiation of a community kitchen council between community kitchens and foodbanks in the same geographical area. The council could facilitate the communication between organizations and provide the opportunity for small organizations to seek for support (such as financial support) to improve their programs and facilities, eventually achieving the goal of community development.


 

Reflection on a Moment of Significance

What?

Although moments of significant change can occur through a positive event or result. These moments, can also be negative, an unforeseeable obstacle that arises from an unpredictable outcome. Throughout the course, as a group, we did struggle with participation and efficiently utilizing everyone’s skills and behaviors. Therefore, certain members of the team had to consistently step up and contribute more than other members. Although this may appear to be negative, the dedication and determination these individuals showed the group were tremendous, and must be honored. Through these portrayals of commitment to the group projects, we feel the need to reciprocate and devote ourselves with equal vigor and heart.

 

So What?

Inability to fulfill responsibilities to the group evoke feelings of shame and guilt to the members, particularly the individuals who carried the extra workload. In order for a group to be successful and cohesive, members of the group have to be accountable for their work at a quality acceptable by the individuals (Rovai, 2004). In any collaborative work, four processes are encountered: negotiation, research, conception and production (Oliveira, Tinoca & Pereira, 2011). Although we delegated tasks and performed research competently, participation towards conceiving and production of the final product were unsuccessful at times. Inability to reach members and unforeseen situations did cause members to not complete their assigned part.

 

Now what?

Moving forward, we have created tighter deadlines and reinforced due dates. Along with task delegation, a to-do list was recommended for our group to keep track of our duties. New methods of interaction have been introduced, such-as on campus study sessions and meetings. Instructor supervision and direction is known to have a positive effect on collaborative work, especially if majority of work is done online (Oliveira et al., 2011) (Wenger, 1998). Use of available tools and applications could be utilized to manage and assist group scheduling, notification tools such as online calendars and alerts can remind members of their expected completion deadline.


 

References

Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1348-1357.

Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79-93.

Keys to Successful Group Work: Culture, Structure, Nurture. (2012). The Mathematics Teacher, 106(4), 308-312.

Wenger, E. (1998). Coda II: Learning communities. Communities of Practice Learning, Meaning, and Identity, 214-222.