This document summarizes the implementation and evaluation of an instructional module on wine and food pairing for retail store clerks. The module included online lessons, a tasting experience, and an assessment. Participants' scores on the assessment averaged 92%, with some scoring lower feeling they needed more time. Evaluations were positive overall, with the only negative comment being a desire for more time. The report concludes more time, such as 1.5 hours, should be allotted for future implementations to better accommodate tasting and learning.

1. Wine and Food
Pairing
Implementation
and
Evaluation Report

2. Implementation and Evaluation Report
Module Overview and Description:
This instructional module is designed to teach store clerks at a wine retailer how to help
customers choose a wine to pair with a meal. This module will not make the clerks expert wine
sommeliers, but will give the learners the tools to make some general suggestions to help customers.
Because of the complexity of wine tasting and pairing in addition to the time limit, this module will focus
on learners who have at least a general knowledge of wine types and the characteristics used to describe
wine.
Description of Implementation:
As the learners arrived, each was given instructions for accessing the wireless network and
logging on to the course and a copy of the Participant Guide containing necessary handouts. The learners
proceeded to attempt the task of accessing the wireless, however a lower-case letter where there should
have been a capital in the password initially prevented access. The error was found quickly, and everyone
was then able to access the wireless network and log onto the course. As the learners waited for everyone
to log on, they perused the Participant Guide to familiarize themselves with the course materials.
Once everyone was ready, the learners began the first section, the Rules for Wine and Food Pairing
instructional module. The learners were able to take notes and read through the materials in the first
module without any problems and were successful at answering the questions at the end of the module.
The only issue was some confusion at the end of the online module, even though the directions clearly
indicated that the learner should move to the food/wine tasting area, because the “next” button on the
screen was still active. The facilitator was able to ease the transition from one to the other with some
verbal direction.
The wine/food tasting also went very smoothly. The participants gathered the wines and food
they wanted to sample and proceeded to use the hand-out in the Participant Guide to take notes on their
reactions. There was some excellent discussion about the rules and whether or not the expectations of
good or bad pairings were accurate. Many of the participants also realized that “Rule #1 – Drink what you
like!” really is the most important consideration when pairing wine. The importance of this section was
obvious as the learners were able to experience for themselves what worked and what didn’t. Learners
build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions. (Ertmer,
Newby 1993) From Adult learning, learning occurs through independent action of the learner, when life
experience can be used as a resource for learning, when learning needs are closely aligned to social roles,
is problem centered and is motivated by internal factors. (Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith, 2003). The
learners had to be reminded of the time constraints, and the facilitator had to encourage them to move on
to the next section. Many of the learners wanted to continue to test combinations of food and wine. To
keep to the time limit and still allow those who wanted to continue the opportunity to do so, everyone
was asked to move on to the assessment, but given the option to return to continue tasting if they wanted
to do so.
The last part of the module was an online assessment in which the learners were tested with
scenarios similar to those they might encounter in the day-to-day job as store clerks. The multiple-choice
questions were answered with an average of 92%, the highest score was 100% and the lowest score was
an 80%. Before the learners left they completed a course evaluation. The results were very positive, with
a few helpful suggestions for future implementation.
Overall, the implementation was successful. The one challenge was the time limit. An hour is really
not enough to allow the learners to taste the different combinations of food and wine and to grasp the

3. different pairing relationships. In this implementation, the time was limited for tasting, however those
learners who wanted to do more combinations were able to do so after the completion of the mo dule.
Analysis of Evaluation Data:
The learners completed two assessments, one during and one at the end of the instructional
module. In addition, they completed a course evaluation at the end of the module. The data from the
assessments clearly showed that the learners were able to reliably recommend an appropriate wine for a
specific food. The average final assessment score was 92%, with a range from a low of 80% to a high of
100%. Those who scored in the 80-90% range felt that the time for the instruction was too short, as
indicated on the course evaluation. The following graph shows the individual scores and their rating of
the course length.
Because the only negative comments on the evaluation had to do with the length of time, the
relationship between this concern and the final assessment scores may be important. There seems to be a
pattern, those who scored lower felt they needed more time to learn the information. Because the sample
size is small, this relationship may just be a coincidence. However, it should be monitored in future
Final Assessment Score
Rating of 1 to 5 on evaluation question, "Length of
lesson was sufficient to cover all material."
Learner 1 90 3
Learner 2 80 3
Learner 3 100 5
Learner 4 100 5
Learner 5 90 4
90
3
80
3
100
5
100
5
90
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Evaluation Data
Learner 1 Learner 2 Learner 3 Learner 4 Learner 5

4. implementations to see if this relationship remains so that adjustments may be made if it does continue.
Simply adding some extra time could have a significant effect on the learning in this case.
Proposed Revisions and Key Points:
The following is a list of revisions, some that have been made and others that are proposed for
future implementations of this module. A complete review of the items on this list with explanation may
be found here.
o Corrected a typographical error on the Rules module
o Made the “Next” button inactive on the last page of the interactive modules
o Added a file of printable labels for the wine cups and a hand-out of log-in instructions
o Could have saved some time pre-plating food and pre-pouring wine
o Allot more time to the module – increase time from 1 hour to 1.5 hours.

5. REFERENCES
Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith. (2003). Adult Learning. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching
and technology. http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning
Ertmer, P.A. and Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an Instructional Design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing Effective Instruction (6th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy. The
encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-
knowl.htm#andragogy