- Email: [email protected]
Nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and teaching effectiveness of K-6 teachers
Nutrition Knowledge, Attitudes, and Teaching Effectiveness of K-6 Teachers Barbara Shannon, Ellen S. Marbach, Karen Graves, and Laura S. Sims Nutrition Program and Department of Education The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
We assessed nutntion knowledge, certam nutrition attitudes, and commitment to teaching nutrition of K-6 teachers before and after a nutrition education study in which half of the teachers taught nutrition to their students for a 1O-week penod and half did not. Teachers received 1 of 3 different types of preparation for teaching nutrition. Teachers' knowledge, attitude, and commitment scores correlated more strongly With each other at the end of the study than at the beginning. The preparatory nutrition course positively mfluenced knowledge test scores. A positive change in attitude about favoring nutrition educatIOn in schools correlated with lugher student gains in nutntion knowledge. These data suggest that relationships among teacher characteristics examined and teacher training warrant further study as possible means of improvmg nutrition educatIOn in schools. (JNE 13:145-49, 1981)
ABSTRACT
The Wlute House Conference Panel on Nutrition Teaching m Elementary and High Schools recognized the key role of the classroom teacher m the success of nutrition educatIOn programs for school children when It recommended that nutntlOn be mcluded in both preservlce and inservice training of teachers (1). Cook et al. (2) found that among more than 2,000 elementary teachers, those who actually taught nutrition had a more favorable attitude towards includmg nutrition education in the curriculum than did those who did not teach nutrition. These investigators suggested that mcreasing nutrition knowledge of teachers might increase the probabilIty of their choosmg to teach nutrition. However, Petersen and Kles (3) have found that m their sample of over 900 primary grade teachers, a favorable attitude toward a nutrition curriculum did not correlate with nutrition knowledge. Before and after a study (4) designed to evaluate the effects of teacher preparation and mstruction on nutrition knowledge gam of elementary school children, we also administered knowledge and attitude pretests and posttests to the teachers. ThiS paper reports the interrelatIOnships among 3 sets of data: nutrition knowledge and nutrition education attitudes of elementary school teachers, the effect of teaching and of teacher preparatIOn on these factors, and the relationship of all these to student learnmg. VOLUME 13
NUMBER4
1981
MATERIALS AND METHODS Design. The 125 kmdergarten through sixth grade teachers who participated in the nutrition education study descnbed by Shannon et al. (4) were the subjects of a prestudy and poststudy assessment. Prior to the introduction of experimental variables, each teacher received coded prestudy instruments along with a request for educational background information, a return envelope, information about the study, and a consent form with a separate return envelope. Thereafter, using the curriculum Nutrition In a Changing World (see Note), the experimental block (E) of teachers presented instruction to their students. The control block (C) of teachers did not instruct their students until after collectIOn of poststudy data. Teacher preparation varied within each block. Some teachers (E-O, E-I, C-O, CI) received only the guide materials that accompamed the curriculum. In addition, some teachers (E-2 and C-2) participated in a 3-hour inservice sessIOn which further explained curriculum materials and teaching approaches. Fmally, some teachers (E-3 and C-3) undertook a 45-hour postgraduate nutrition course which included the inservIce session. Teachers received coded poststudy instruments when their students were being posttested.
Instruments. Three prestudy and poststudy instruments assessed nutrition
knowledge, nutntion educatIOn attitudes, and commitment to teaching nutrition. The nutritIOn knowledge test consisted of 40 multiple-choice questIOns: 19 items dealt with basic principles of nutrition, and 21 dealt with applIcation. The test assessed knowledge of food groups and common food sources of nutnents as well as more complex concepts of nutrient functions. Nutrition faculty and advanced nutntlOn students examined the items to establish content validity. Modifications also followed a pilot test With 71 students in an introductory college-level nutrition course and with 54 education students, many of whom were elementary and secondary schoolteachers. The Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient of reliability (5) was 0.83 for the nutrition knowledge test. The attitude Instrument contained 19 statements covenng cognitive beliefs, emotIOnal feelings, and action onentation, which, accordmg to Freedman et al. (6), are component parts of attitudes. Statements on the attitude instrument corresponded to 3 a pnori constructs: Nutntion Is Important, onginally developed by Eppnght et al. (7) and further refined by Sims (8) and Grotkowskl and Sims (9); Nutntion Is Important to Health, originated and reported by Sims (10) and further refined for this study; and Favors NutntlOn EducatIOn in Schools, developed for thiS assessment. We used principal component factor analysis (11) to examine construct validity, and 2 of the a pnon constructs collapsed into 1 construct so that 2 attitudinal scales emerged: Nutrition Is Important and Favors Nutntion EducatIOn in Schools. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients (11) were 0.84 and 0.87, respectively, for the 2 scales. Teachers indicated their extent of agreement with attitude statements on a 5-POlllt Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" (scored 5) to "strongly disagree" (scored 1). JOURNAL OF
NUTRITION EDUCATION
145
In order to avoid a "response set," we intermmgled statements from the scales and stated some negatIvely. Teachers' scale scores were the mean responses to all statements on the scale. For computation of statements worded negatively, we reversed the points. Prescores and postscores refer to attItude data collected before and after the nutrition educatIOn study. Nunnally (12) suggested that uncertainty exists about the extent to which self-report attitude instruments reflect behavIOr. Consequently, we mcluded other types of 10struments aimed at reflectmg behavior. In this regard, it is Important to consider the centrality of the attitude. Newcomb, as in McKeachle and Doyle (13), suggested "that the centrality of an attitude depends in part on the strength of the motives associated with the [attitude] object, and in part on how persistently present the object IS in the indiVidual's environment." Therefore, the third instrument was an attitudinal mstrument that measured commitment to teaching nutrition. The commitment Instrument, constructed in a manner similar to the funnel techmque used by Stouffer (14), eliCited free responses, assigned numerical ranks to objects in terms of their deSirability in various Situations, and forced choice. The hierarchical arrangement of the questions determined scoring. Positive attitudes toward teachmg nutrition expressed in the open-ended questions received more weight than did similar responses resultmg from rankmg or forced choice. Thus, the highest scores occurred when nutrition emerged as a subject preferred by the teachers over other subjects in the freeresponse sectIOn of the instrument. The maximum score was 50 points. On this instrument the test-retest reliability coefficient (5) obtained with 25 preservice or graduate education students was 0.94. RESULTS Prescores. From 103 of the 125 teachers, we collected complete prestudy and poststudy knowledge and commitment data that could be matched by code numbers, and collected complete attitude data from 97 teachers. Analysis of variance of prescores on all 3 instruments revealed no sigmficant differences between experimental and control teachers, by grade level, or by teacher preparation group. Therefore, we combined the data of all teachers and exammed the entry-level nutrition knowledge, attitude, and commitment scores and the interrelatIOnships among these factors. 146 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
Table 1
CorrelalJons (r) between prescores of teachersa NutfltlOn Knowledge
NutrItIOn IS Important Favors Nutrlllon In Schools Commitment
Nutrition Is Important
Favors NulrttlOn In Schools
0.415" 0.226*
0.408**
0.296" 0.173 0045
an = 103 for correlallon between knowledge and commitment, n = 97 for all other correlallons ·p<005 ··p
Table 2
CorrelatIOns (r) between postscores of teachers" Nutfltlon Knowledge
NutrItIon Is Important
0.308"
Favors NutrItIOn In Schools Commitment
0.444*" 0.200*
NulrttlOn Is Important
Favors NulrttlOn In Schools
0.569*" 0.341*"
0.570*"
an = 103 for correialions between knowledge and commItment, n = 97 for all other correlallons .p> 005 •• p> 0 01 ••• p> 0.001
The mean score on the nutntton knowledge pretest was 17.2 out of a pOSSIble 40 points, or 43 % correct. Item analysis revealed that only 8 questions on the pretest had correct responses from 70% or more of the teachers. Most teachers recognized food sources of calcium, the function of iron 10 hemoglobin, the laxative action of fiber, the association of certain sweet foods with dental caries, and amino acids as umts of proteins. They also knew the tmportance of dietary variety to nutrient balance, the value of snack foods, and the nutrient basis of the Four Food Groups. At the other end of the difficulty scale, 10 items, mamly those related to more complex nutrition concepts, received incorrect responses from 70070 or more of the teachers. For example, the teachers' responses to I item reflected a common misconception about energy: only 21 % of the teachers correctly chose fat as the most concentrated source of energy, 44% chose carbohydrate, 23% chose protein, 5% chose vitamms, none chose minerals, and 7% orrutted the question. The teachers' initial attitudes measured on the two 5-point scales generally were -favorable. The mean prescore was 4.0 for the Nutntion Is Important scale and was 3.9 for the Favors Nutrition Education in Schools scale. However, the mean commitment prescore was only 21.1 out of a possible 50 points. Thus, the teachers presented a positive disposition toward nutntion and ItS mclusion in schools but were less sup-
portive when nutntion was positioned m competition with other optIOnal courses. Interrelationships among scores. The simple correlation coefficients between prescores appear in Table I. The scale scores for NutntIon Is Important and Favors Nutrition Education m Schools and the commitment scores correlated significantly with one another. However, only the Nutntion Is Important scale prescores correlated significantly with the nutrition knowledge pretest scores. Prior science courses correlat~d Significantly with nutritIOn knowledge (r = 0.253, p < 0.05) but not With attitude or commitment scores. Prior nutrition courses correlated with none of the prescores; however, only 8 of the partiCipants had completed any such course. The Simple correlation coefficients between postscores appear in Table 2. In all cases the correlations among attitude and commitment postscores were stronger than were correlations between respective prescores. In addition, nutrition knowledge postscores correlated significantly with both attitude scale postscores and commitment postscores. Effect of teaching and teacher preparation. Table 3 presents the mean prescores, postscores, and gam scores of teachers for whom we also had student gam scores. Teachers m groups E-O and CoO completed all the test instruments, but because of an aspect of the curriculum evaluation design VOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
Table 3
Prescores, postscores, and gams of teachers" Teacher Scores Experimental Block E-2 £-3
Instrument £-1
(15)d
Nutntlon knowledge (40 pts)C Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
179 ± 19.5 ± I7
Attitude (2 scales) Nutntlon Is Important (5 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
(19) 2.1 4.2
153 ± 17.3 ±
(18) 0.1
3.8 ± 0.1 00
Favors NutritIOn EducatIOn m Schools (5 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
3.9 ±
Commitment (50 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
182 ± 25.6 ± 73
2.1 47
(15)
(13)
166 ± 65 172 ± 4.7
16.0 ± 6.0
06
(12) 0.1
4.0 ± 0.1 0.1
(13) 3.8 ± 40 ±
(12) 6.5 6.7
2.0
(13)
3.8 ±
Control Blockb Col C-2
(18)
14.8 ± 42 -12
(15)
(13)
01
41 ± 0.1
4.1 ± 0.1
40 ± 01 -01
39 ± 0 I -02
4.0 ± 0.1 -0.1
4 I ±
(12)
(15)
02
3.6 ±
0.3
42 ± 02
4.0 ± 0.3
38 ± 02
0.2
38 ±
02
4.1 ±
3.7
02
36 ± 03 -0.2
02
02
(15) 20,4 ± 8.1 226 ± 10.0 2.2
20.1 ± 59 217 ± 117
(19)
0.3
-0.1
-03
(12) 24.8 ±
7.5 28.0 ± 10.5
1.6
32
:!:
(13)
(15)
(13)
20.8 ± 7 I 204 ± 63 -04
208 ± 9.6 187 ± 95 -2 I
aTeachers m the expenmental blocks (E) taught nutrlllon by usmg the cUrriculum NutritIOn m a Changmg World, and those m the control blocks (C) did not teach nutnllon E-I and C-lteachers dId not receIve the mservlce or postgraduate nulnllOn course, E-2 and C-2 teachers receIved the mserVlce but no nutnllon course, E-3teachers receIved both the mserVlce and course bBecause there were only 2 teachers m group C·3, we dropped It from the stallsllcal analysIs to aVOId spunous results cMaxlmum score dNumber of teachers per group
Table 4
descnbed in our earlier paper (4), the students of these teachers completed no pretests. For stattsttcal analysis of the effect of teacher preparation, we carried out a oneway analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of E-I, E-2, and E-3 postscores and used the prescores as the covariant. We did not include analysis of the control teachers' data for the reason that these results could be spunous because group C-3 included only 2 teachers. The ANCOVA results appear In Table 4. As suggested by the gain scores in Table 3, teacher preparation had a highly slgmficant effect on nutrition knowledge but not on the attitude or commitment scores. Teachers in group E-3, i.e., those who voluntarily completed a postgraduate nutntion course, displayed Significantly greater poststudy nutrition knowledge than did teachers prepared only with curnculum matenals (E-l) or materials plus a 3-hour inservice (E-2). In order to examine the effect of teaching nutrition on teachers' scores, we carried out ANCOVA on data from teachers in groups E-I, E-2, Col, and C-2 and agaIn used prescores as the covariant. We dropped E-3 because of lack of appropriVOLUME 13 NUMBER4 1981
AnalysIS
Covanance analyses of effects of teachmg and teacher preparatlon on teachers' scores Source of Variance
F Values of Covariance Analyses NutritIOn Nutrition Is Favors NutritIOn Knowledge Important Education In Schools Commttment
la
Teacher preparatlon
2
Inservlce 1.54 380*d Teachmg Inservlce X teachmg 0.26
C
754***b
0.59
0.13
023
1.00 1.92
0.17 4,49**d
0.21 0.21
000
0.11
0.09
"A l-by-3 analysIs of covanance postscorers as the covanant, It exammes the effects of teacher preparatIon among teachers who taught nutntlon (groups E-1, E-2, and E-3), n = 46 for nutnuon knowledge and for comltment, n 43 for atlttude scales Nutntlon Is Important and Favors NutritIon Educauon m Schools !>s,gmficant effect of teacher preparation ••• p < 001 (E-3 > E-I and E-2) CA 2-by-2 analysIs of covanance of postscores with prescores as the covanant, It exarmnes the effects of teaclung WIth and without the 3-hour mservlce, n = 62 for nutntlOn knowledge and for commitment, n = 59 for attitude scales NutntlOn Is Important and Favors Nutnllon EducatIOn m Schools dSlgmficant effects ofteachmg .p = 0056, ••p < 005 (E-I + E-2> C·I + C-2) The follow-up test mcluded With the covanance analySIS procedures m SAS User's GUide (15) was used for companng mdlVldual means
=
ate control data. ANCOVA results for this second analysis appear In Table 4. The 3-hour Inservice had no significant effect on knowledge, attitude, or commitment scores of teachers. Use of the curriculum matenals in classroom instructIOn (E-I and E-2) dId significantly affect teachers' scores on the nutrition knowledge test and their responses on the attitude scale Favors Nutrition Education in Schools. Table 3 reflects this finding in that gain scores of
E-1 and E-2 teachers on these 2 measures were slightly greater than that of C-I and C-2 teachers. The magnitude of these differences was quite small and noteworthy only as a trend. In the case of the attItude scale, the trend did not hold WIth E-3 teachers. The gain scores dIsplayed III Table 3 show a tendency for teachers III groups E-1 and E-2 also to have greater improvement in commItment scores than teachers in groups C-1 and C-2. However, JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
147
in this case, variability was large; and this trend did not reach statistical significance.
Table 5
Correlalions (r) of teacher scores with student performance"
Teacher scores and student performance. We made a rough assessment of the relationship of both teachers' nutrition knowledge and their dispoSition towards nutrItIOn to their teaching effectiveness. To do this, we correlated teachers' prescores, postscores, and gam scores on the various instruments with student performance on the students' nutrition knowledge test. Table 5 presents these results. The teachers' change m score on the attitude scale Favors NutrItIOn EducatIOn m Schools correlated Significantly with student gains. None of the other teacher scores were correlated SignIficantly With student performance. This analysis mcluded control classes m which students did not receive nutrition instruction.
Prescore Postscore Gam score
NutntlOn Knowledge
NutntlOn Is Important
0.037 0.130 0076
0.041 0087 0.069
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
0.093 0184 0.233*
-0.075 0124 0.117
"Pearson product-moment correiallon coeffiCient between standardized mean student nutrItIOn knowledge gam scores and teacher scores, n = 74 for nutntlon knowledge and commllment, n = 71 for attItude scales NutrItIon Is Important and Favors NutrItIon EducatIOn m Schools The mean standardIzed student gams were calculated by subtractmg the mean pretest T-scores from the mean posttest T-scores (16) of each class *p < 005
teaching experIence will improve teachers' attitudes toward teaching the subject. However, a reasonable inference to draw from this finding is that providing an effective, simulated nutrItion teaching experIence as a part of teacher preparatIOn may be beneficial in enhancing teachers' attitudes toward nutrItion education. The significant relationships that ocDISCUSSION curred between nutritIOn knowledge and Although this assessment did not reveal attitude scores of teachers are not in agreeany differential effect of the 3 types of ment with findings reported by Petersen teacher preparation on teachers' disposIand Kies (3). ThiS result may be due to the tion toward nutrItion and ItS inclusion in fact that the 2 studies used different inthe education of schoolchtldren, It did struments. Also, in the present study 2 vardemonstrate clearly the value of a prepara- iables, teacher preparation and partiCipatory nutrItIOn course in enhancing the tion in nutritIOn instruction, Improved nutrition knowledge of teachers. The fact scores on the knowledge test and on 1 of that the knowledge posttest was administhe 3 measures of the teachers' disposition tered 4 months after the conclusion of the toward nutrition. Our prestudy data, course makes ItS influence on the knowl- which represents a SituatIOn Similar to edge postscores of the teachers even more Petersen and Kles's (3) study, showed a signIficant correlatIOn only between scores on Impressive. Teachers have long recognized that a I attitude scale and nutrition knowledge. teaching experIence, includmg the immedi- Scores on both attitude scales and the comate preparatIOn for it, generally serves as a mitment instrument were correlated learnmg experience for them. In this as- Significantly with nutritIOn knowledge sessment the tendency for the teaching ex- scores after the intervention. Thus, it apperIence to mfluence positively the nutrI- pears that the mtervention strengthened tIOn knowledge of the teachers exemphfies the relationship between teachers' nutrithiS phenomenon, although there is no way tion knowledge and their feelings about to ascertam whether the learning resulted nutrition. from using the curriculum m preparing for Although findings relating teachers' atteachmg, the actual teachmg, or both. titudes with student performance are not The influence of teachmg a subject on dramatic, they are noteworthy particularly teachers' attitudes toward that subject IS in light of the study of Cook et al. (2). Their much less predictable and likely to vary survey showed that K-6 teachers who most With the situation. In thiS assessment only I favored including nutrition m the curof the measures assessing teachers' dispOSI- riculum of school children were most likely tion toward nutritIOn and Its mclusion in to teach it. schools was mfluenced by teaching nutrIOf course, associatIOns do not prove tIOn; and this mfluence was, at best, a . cause and effect; but these findings linking trend, not a conclusive effect. Further- the attitudes of teachers to the hkelihood more, even though this trend toward a pos- of their teachmg nutrition, and to the peritive mfluence of the teaching experience formance of their students on nutrition on the teachers' attitudes toward nutrItion knowledge tests (after nutrition instruceducatIOn in schools is encouraging, It cer- tIOn) point up the importance of giving sigtainly does not mean that every nutritIOn nificant attentIOn to improvmg teachers' 148
Favors NutntlOn Education m Schools Commitment
attitudes toward nutrition and its inclUSIOn in the education of schoolchildren. This conclusion certainly does not negate the Importance of a cognItive component m preparIng teachers to teach nutrItion, but It does emphasize the need to accompany that cognitive component with a strong affective component aimed at helping teachers gain a positive feeling about nutrition D educatIOn.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ThiS project was supported by the Pennsylvama Department of EducatIOn as a part of the Pennsylvama NutritIOn Education and Traming Program (Grant No. 78-01-(01). The nutrilion currIculum used In the project and the knowledge, atlitude, and commitment Instruments were developed as a part of the Hemz NutritIOn Education Program funded by the NutrIlion FoundatIOn. NOTE
SectIOns of the CUrrIculum for kmdergarten through grade 5 may be obtamed from BrIgham Young Press, Business 205, UPB, Provo, Utah 84602; and for grade 6 from The NutrItIOn FoundatIOn, Office of EducatIOn, 888 17th St N.W., Washington, DC 20006. LITERATURE CITED
1 The White House Conference on Food, NutrItion and Health: RecommendatIOns of panels on nutrItIOn teachIng and educatIOn. Seclion 4, Panel 1: NutritIOn teachmg m elementary and high schools Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 1(3):24-27, 1970. 2 Cook, C. B., D A. Eller, and E C. KamInaka. How much nutritIOn educatIOn In grades K-6? Journal of Nutntlon EducatIOn 9:131-35, 1977. 3 Petersen, M E., and C. Kles. NutrIliOn knowledge and attitudes of early elementary teachers. Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 4:11-15,1972. 4 Shannon, B., P. Bell, E. Marbach, L. H. O'Connell, K. L Graves, and B. F. Nicely, Jr K-6 currIculum evaluation - Instruction and teacher preparation. Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 13:9-13, 1981. 5 Gronlund, N. E. Measurement and evaluatIOn m teachmg. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan Pubhshmg Co , 1976, p. 105-31. VOLUME
13
NUMBER4
1981
6 Freedman, J. L., J. M. Carlsmlth, and D. O. Sears. Social psychology. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1974, p. 245. 7 Eppnght, E. S., H. M. Fox, B. A. Fryer, G H Lamkin, and V. M VIVIan. The north central regional study of diets of preschool children. Pt. 2. Nutntion knowledge and attitudes of mothers. Journal of Home Economics 62:327-32, 1970 8 SIms, L. S. DIetary status of lactating women. Pt. 2. Relation of nutritional knowledge and attitudes to nutrient mtake. Journal of the Amencan Dletellc Assoclalion 73:147-54, 1978.
9 Grotkowskl, M. L., and L. S. SIms Nutntlon knowledge, attitudes, and dIetary practices of the elderly. Journal of the Amencan Dietetic AssoclOtlOn 72.499-506, 1978. 10 SIms, L.S Food-related value onentations, attitudes, and beliefs of vegetanans and non-vegetanans Ecology of Food and NutntlOn 7:23-35, 1978 II Nle, N. H., C. H. Hull, J G. Jenkms, K Stembrenner, and D. H. Bent SPSS. Statistical package for the SOCial sCiences. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975, pp.468-514. 12 Nunnally, J C Psychometnc theory. New
NUTRITION NutritIon education is the theme of 7 papers from a symposium entitled "The Food and NutritIOn Mosaic - Putting the Pieces Together" whIch appears in the December 1980 issue of Food Technology. In an introductory paper, G. R. Jansen (page 55) outhnes the objectives of the symposium-to clarify the role of the National Nutritinn Consortium (NNC) in effecting responsIble nutrition educatIOn and to explore mechanisms for mteraction among NNC member societies and especially between the food industry and acaderma with respect to public nutrition education. Regardmg consumer education, G. A. Leveille (pages 56-57) favors a freedom-ofchoice approach that includes a simple food guide but also provides information on nutritIon principles, facts, and questions about diet and health and on combatance of mismformation. He also encourages traming m consumer education for nutrition professIOnals attempting to educate the pubhc. With respect to dietary adVIce to the public, R. E. Olson (pages 58-61) argues for conservatism, i.e., a dietary change should not be promoted without both proof of benefit as well as eVIdence of little or no risk. He does not address cntena for promotmg retention of an eXIsting dietary pattern. He critIcizes the Dietary Goals as not well documented and the Dietary GuidelInes as being too vague; he favors the Food and Nutntion Board report ToVOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
York: McGraw-HIll Book Co., 1978, p 593. 13 McKeachie, W. J., and C. L. Doyle Psychology. 2d ed. Readmg, Mass.: AddlsonWesley PublIshmg Co., 1970, p. 605. 14 Stouffer, S. A. Communism, conformity, and clvi/libertles. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955, pp. 19-25. 15 Barr, A J., J. H. Goodmght, J P. Sail, W. H Blalf, and D M. Chllko. The SA S user's gUide, 1979 edition. RaleIgh, N C The SAS Institute, 1979, pp. 243-44. 16 SalvIa, J., and J E. Yesse1dyke Assessment In speCial and remedial educatIOn. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1978. pp. 66-68.
EDUCATION
ward Healthful Diets because it IS conservatIve. Focusing on nutrition education of the public, G. Brown and S. Pelican (pages 62-63) advocate a nutrient-based approach and describe 3 such programs. They believe that nutrient-based programs offer trammg in decisIon making, an Important skill for the nutritionally well-informed consumer when making food choices. B. R. Stillings (pages 64-67) offers some strong statements about the role and responsibility of the food industry to the public. He outlines a number of advantages for providing nutntion educatIOn to food industry employees- from improved employee health to better ability to communicate with government, the media, scientists, and the public. In order that the industry serve the consumer as well as avoid excessive, restrictIve government regulation, StIllings argues for a strong, selfimposed standard for truth in advertising and for proVIsion of product composition informatIOn on labels. Stillings argues against the food industry havmg primary responsibIlIty for direct-contact public nutrition educatIon programs, partly because of lack of resources and partly because of the anticipated lack of credibility of the industry m this role. However, he believes that the food industry should take an actIve role in combating nutritIon mlsmformatlOn and should support the programs and activities of the allied professional societIes in food sCIence and nutrition. He urges
responsIveness by the food industry to consumer interests, such as decreasing salt in canned food or increasing label information, despite the likelihood that only a minority of consumers are interested in any smgle issue. Each of the last 2 papers outlines a specific role that an organization has undertaken m relation to a different aspect of nutrition education. Describmg the current and potentIal activities of the NNC, K. W. McNutt (pages 68-70) focuses partIcularly on NNC's emergmg priority, that of developing nutrition pohcy. In addition, B. S. SchweIgert (pages 71-72) outlines efforts of the Institute of Food Technologists in public education and focuses particularly on the scientific status summaries and on other written forms of SCIentific consensus on nutntlon issues. By and large, the symposium was disappomting because It offered little in the way of new approaches on how to educate consumers or Ideas on how to bring profesSIOnals in various fields mto consensus. Rather, the authors confined themselves to descnptions of ongomg programs or elaboratIOn of an already well-defined opmion. Notably, there was virtually no mentIOn of mtegration WIth the "front-line" nutrition educators, such as dIetItians, home economics teachers, and nutntion educators m extenSIOn, pubhc schools, and communIty programs. S.M. O.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
149
We assessed nutntion knowledge, certam nutrition attitudes, and commitment to teaching nutrition of K-6 teachers before and after a nutrition education study in which half of the teachers taught nutrition to their students for a 1O-week penod and half did not. Teachers received 1 of 3 different types of preparation for teaching nutrition. Teachers' knowledge, attitude, and commitment scores correlated more strongly With each other at the end of the study than at the beginning. The preparatory nutrition course positively mfluenced knowledge test scores. A positive change in attitude about favoring nutrition educatIOn in schools correlated with lugher student gains in nutntion knowledge. These data suggest that relationships among teacher characteristics examined and teacher training warrant further study as possible means of improvmg nutrition educatIOn in schools. (JNE 13:145-49, 1981)
ABSTRACT
The Wlute House Conference Panel on Nutrition Teaching m Elementary and High Schools recognized the key role of the classroom teacher m the success of nutrition educatIOn programs for school children when It recommended that nutntlOn be mcluded in both preservlce and inservice training of teachers (1). Cook et al. (2) found that among more than 2,000 elementary teachers, those who actually taught nutrition had a more favorable attitude towards includmg nutrition education in the curriculum than did those who did not teach nutrition. These investigators suggested that mcreasing nutrition knowledge of teachers might increase the probabilIty of their choosmg to teach nutrition. However, Petersen and Kles (3) have found that m their sample of over 900 primary grade teachers, a favorable attitude toward a nutrition curriculum did not correlate with nutrition knowledge. Before and after a study (4) designed to evaluate the effects of teacher preparation and mstruction on nutrition knowledge gam of elementary school children, we also administered knowledge and attitude pretests and posttests to the teachers. ThiS paper reports the interrelatIOnships among 3 sets of data: nutrition knowledge and nutrition education attitudes of elementary school teachers, the effect of teaching and of teacher preparatIOn on these factors, and the relationship of all these to student learnmg. VOLUME 13
NUMBER4
1981
MATERIALS AND METHODS Design. The 125 kmdergarten through sixth grade teachers who participated in the nutrition education study descnbed by Shannon et al. (4) were the subjects of a prestudy and poststudy assessment. Prior to the introduction of experimental variables, each teacher received coded prestudy instruments along with a request for educational background information, a return envelope, information about the study, and a consent form with a separate return envelope. Thereafter, using the curriculum Nutrition In a Changing World (see Note), the experimental block (E) of teachers presented instruction to their students. The control block (C) of teachers did not instruct their students until after collectIOn of poststudy data. Teacher preparation varied within each block. Some teachers (E-O, E-I, C-O, CI) received only the guide materials that accompamed the curriculum. In addition, some teachers (E-2 and C-2) participated in a 3-hour inservice sessIOn which further explained curriculum materials and teaching approaches. Fmally, some teachers (E-3 and C-3) undertook a 45-hour postgraduate nutrition course which included the inservIce session. Teachers received coded poststudy instruments when their students were being posttested.
Instruments. Three prestudy and poststudy instruments assessed nutrition
knowledge, nutntion educatIOn attitudes, and commitment to teaching nutrition. The nutritIOn knowledge test consisted of 40 multiple-choice questIOns: 19 items dealt with basic principles of nutrition, and 21 dealt with applIcation. The test assessed knowledge of food groups and common food sources of nutnents as well as more complex concepts of nutrient functions. Nutrition faculty and advanced nutntlOn students examined the items to establish content validity. Modifications also followed a pilot test With 71 students in an introductory college-level nutrition course and with 54 education students, many of whom were elementary and secondary schoolteachers. The Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient of reliability (5) was 0.83 for the nutrition knowledge test. The attitude Instrument contained 19 statements covenng cognitive beliefs, emotIOnal feelings, and action onentation, which, accordmg to Freedman et al. (6), are component parts of attitudes. Statements on the attitude instrument corresponded to 3 a pnori constructs: Nutntion Is Important, onginally developed by Eppnght et al. (7) and further refined by Sims (8) and Grotkowskl and Sims (9); Nutntion Is Important to Health, originated and reported by Sims (10) and further refined for this study; and Favors NutntlOn EducatIOn in Schools, developed for thiS assessment. We used principal component factor analysis (11) to examine construct validity, and 2 of the a pnon constructs collapsed into 1 construct so that 2 attitudinal scales emerged: Nutrition Is Important and Favors Nutntion EducatIOn in Schools. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients (11) were 0.84 and 0.87, respectively, for the 2 scales. Teachers indicated their extent of agreement with attitude statements on a 5-POlllt Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" (scored 5) to "strongly disagree" (scored 1). JOURNAL OF
NUTRITION EDUCATION
145
In order to avoid a "response set," we intermmgled statements from the scales and stated some negatIvely. Teachers' scale scores were the mean responses to all statements on the scale. For computation of statements worded negatively, we reversed the points. Prescores and postscores refer to attItude data collected before and after the nutrition educatIOn study. Nunnally (12) suggested that uncertainty exists about the extent to which self-report attitude instruments reflect behavIOr. Consequently, we mcluded other types of 10struments aimed at reflectmg behavior. In this regard, it is Important to consider the centrality of the attitude. Newcomb, as in McKeachle and Doyle (13), suggested "that the centrality of an attitude depends in part on the strength of the motives associated with the [attitude] object, and in part on how persistently present the object IS in the indiVidual's environment." Therefore, the third instrument was an attitudinal mstrument that measured commitment to teaching nutrition. The commitment Instrument, constructed in a manner similar to the funnel techmque used by Stouffer (14), eliCited free responses, assigned numerical ranks to objects in terms of their deSirability in various Situations, and forced choice. The hierarchical arrangement of the questions determined scoring. Positive attitudes toward teachmg nutrition expressed in the open-ended questions received more weight than did similar responses resultmg from rankmg or forced choice. Thus, the highest scores occurred when nutrition emerged as a subject preferred by the teachers over other subjects in the freeresponse sectIOn of the instrument. The maximum score was 50 points. On this instrument the test-retest reliability coefficient (5) obtained with 25 preservice or graduate education students was 0.94. RESULTS Prescores. From 103 of the 125 teachers, we collected complete prestudy and poststudy knowledge and commitment data that could be matched by code numbers, and collected complete attitude data from 97 teachers. Analysis of variance of prescores on all 3 instruments revealed no sigmficant differences between experimental and control teachers, by grade level, or by teacher preparation group. Therefore, we combined the data of all teachers and exammed the entry-level nutrition knowledge, attitude, and commitment scores and the interrelatIOnships among these factors. 146 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
Table 1
CorrelalJons (r) between prescores of teachersa NutfltlOn Knowledge
NutrItIOn IS Important Favors Nutrlllon In Schools Commitment
Nutrition Is Important
Favors NulrttlOn In Schools
0.415" 0.226*
0.408**
0.296" 0.173 0045
an = 103 for correlallon between knowledge and commitment, n = 97 for all other correlallons ·p<005 ··p
Table 2
CorrelatIOns (r) between postscores of teachers" Nutfltlon Knowledge
NutrItIon Is Important
0.308"
Favors NutrItIOn In Schools Commitment
0.444*" 0.200*
NulrttlOn Is Important
Favors NulrttlOn In Schools
0.569*" 0.341*"
0.570*"
an = 103 for correialions between knowledge and commItment, n = 97 for all other correlallons .p> 005 •• p> 0 01 ••• p> 0.001
The mean score on the nutntton knowledge pretest was 17.2 out of a pOSSIble 40 points, or 43 % correct. Item analysis revealed that only 8 questions on the pretest had correct responses from 70% or more of the teachers. Most teachers recognized food sources of calcium, the function of iron 10 hemoglobin, the laxative action of fiber, the association of certain sweet foods with dental caries, and amino acids as umts of proteins. They also knew the tmportance of dietary variety to nutrient balance, the value of snack foods, and the nutrient basis of the Four Food Groups. At the other end of the difficulty scale, 10 items, mamly those related to more complex nutrition concepts, received incorrect responses from 70070 or more of the teachers. For example, the teachers' responses to I item reflected a common misconception about energy: only 21 % of the teachers correctly chose fat as the most concentrated source of energy, 44% chose carbohydrate, 23% chose protein, 5% chose vitamms, none chose minerals, and 7% orrutted the question. The teachers' initial attitudes measured on the two 5-point scales generally were -favorable. The mean prescore was 4.0 for the Nutntion Is Important scale and was 3.9 for the Favors Nutrition Education in Schools scale. However, the mean commitment prescore was only 21.1 out of a possible 50 points. Thus, the teachers presented a positive disposition toward nutntion and ItS mclusion in schools but were less sup-
portive when nutntion was positioned m competition with other optIOnal courses. Interrelationships among scores. The simple correlation coefficients between prescores appear in Table I. The scale scores for NutntIon Is Important and Favors Nutrition Education m Schools and the commitment scores correlated significantly with one another. However, only the Nutntion Is Important scale prescores correlated significantly with the nutrition knowledge pretest scores. Prior science courses correlat~d Significantly with nutritIOn knowledge (r = 0.253, p < 0.05) but not With attitude or commitment scores. Prior nutrition courses correlated with none of the prescores; however, only 8 of the partiCipants had completed any such course. The Simple correlation coefficients between postscores appear in Table 2. In all cases the correlations among attitude and commitment postscores were stronger than were correlations between respective prescores. In addition, nutrition knowledge postscores correlated significantly with both attitude scale postscores and commitment postscores. Effect of teaching and teacher preparation. Table 3 presents the mean prescores, postscores, and gam scores of teachers for whom we also had student gam scores. Teachers m groups E-O and CoO completed all the test instruments, but because of an aspect of the curriculum evaluation design VOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
Table 3
Prescores, postscores, and gams of teachers" Teacher Scores Experimental Block E-2 £-3
Instrument £-1
(15)d
Nutntlon knowledge (40 pts)C Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
179 ± 19.5 ± I7
Attitude (2 scales) Nutntlon Is Important (5 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
(19) 2.1 4.2
153 ± 17.3 ±
(18) 0.1
3.8 ± 0.1 00
Favors NutritIOn EducatIOn m Schools (5 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
3.9 ±
Commitment (50 pts) Mean prescore ± SO Mean postscore ± SO Mean gam
182 ± 25.6 ± 73
2.1 47
(15)
(13)
166 ± 65 172 ± 4.7
16.0 ± 6.0
06
(12) 0.1
4.0 ± 0.1 0.1
(13) 3.8 ± 40 ±
(12) 6.5 6.7
2.0
(13)
3.8 ±
Control Blockb Col C-2
(18)
14.8 ± 42 -12
(15)
(13)
01
41 ± 0.1
4.1 ± 0.1
40 ± 01 -01
39 ± 0 I -02
4.0 ± 0.1 -0.1
4 I ±
(12)
(15)
02
3.6 ±
0.3
42 ± 02
4.0 ± 0.3
38 ± 02
0.2
38 ±
02
4.1 ±
3.7
02
36 ± 03 -0.2
02
02
(15) 20,4 ± 8.1 226 ± 10.0 2.2
20.1 ± 59 217 ± 117
(19)
0.3
-0.1
-03
(12) 24.8 ±
7.5 28.0 ± 10.5
1.6
32
:!:
(13)
(15)
(13)
20.8 ± 7 I 204 ± 63 -04
208 ± 9.6 187 ± 95 -2 I
aTeachers m the expenmental blocks (E) taught nutrlllon by usmg the cUrriculum NutritIOn m a Changmg World, and those m the control blocks (C) did not teach nutnllon E-I and C-lteachers dId not receIve the mservlce or postgraduate nulnllOn course, E-2 and C-2 teachers receIved the mserVlce but no nutnllon course, E-3teachers receIved both the mserVlce and course bBecause there were only 2 teachers m group C·3, we dropped It from the stallsllcal analysIs to aVOId spunous results cMaxlmum score dNumber of teachers per group
Table 4
descnbed in our earlier paper (4), the students of these teachers completed no pretests. For stattsttcal analysis of the effect of teacher preparation, we carried out a oneway analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of E-I, E-2, and E-3 postscores and used the prescores as the covariant. We did not include analysis of the control teachers' data for the reason that these results could be spunous because group C-3 included only 2 teachers. The ANCOVA results appear In Table 4. As suggested by the gain scores in Table 3, teacher preparation had a highly slgmficant effect on nutrition knowledge but not on the attitude or commitment scores. Teachers in group E-3, i.e., those who voluntarily completed a postgraduate nutntion course, displayed Significantly greater poststudy nutrition knowledge than did teachers prepared only with curnculum matenals (E-l) or materials plus a 3-hour inservice (E-2). In order to examine the effect of teaching nutrition on teachers' scores, we carried out ANCOVA on data from teachers in groups E-I, E-2, Col, and C-2 and agaIn used prescores as the covariant. We dropped E-3 because of lack of appropriVOLUME 13 NUMBER4 1981
AnalysIS
Covanance analyses of effects of teachmg and teacher preparatlon on teachers' scores Source of Variance
F Values of Covariance Analyses NutritIOn Nutrition Is Favors NutritIOn Knowledge Important Education In Schools Commttment
la
Teacher preparatlon
2
Inservlce 1.54 380*d Teachmg Inservlce X teachmg 0.26
C
754***b
0.59
0.13
023
1.00 1.92
0.17 4,49**d
0.21 0.21
000
0.11
0.09
"A l-by-3 analysIs of covanance postscorers as the covanant, It exammes the effects of teacher preparatIon among teachers who taught nutntlon (groups E-1, E-2, and E-3), n = 46 for nutnuon knowledge and for comltment, n 43 for atlttude scales Nutntlon Is Important and Favors NutritIon Educauon m Schools !>s,gmficant effect of teacher preparation ••• p < 001 (E-3 > E-I and E-2) CA 2-by-2 analysIs of covanance of postscores with prescores as the covanant, It exarmnes the effects of teaclung WIth and without the 3-hour mservlce, n = 62 for nutntlOn knowledge and for commitment, n = 59 for attitude scales NutntlOn Is Important and Favors Nutnllon EducatIOn m Schools dSlgmficant effects ofteachmg .p = 0056, ••p < 005 (E-I + E-2> C·I + C-2) The follow-up test mcluded With the covanance analySIS procedures m SAS User's GUide (15) was used for companng mdlVldual means
=
ate control data. ANCOVA results for this second analysis appear In Table 4. The 3-hour Inservice had no significant effect on knowledge, attitude, or commitment scores of teachers. Use of the curriculum matenals in classroom instructIOn (E-I and E-2) dId significantly affect teachers' scores on the nutrition knowledge test and their responses on the attitude scale Favors Nutrition Education in Schools. Table 3 reflects this finding in that gain scores of
E-1 and E-2 teachers on these 2 measures were slightly greater than that of C-I and C-2 teachers. The magnitude of these differences was quite small and noteworthy only as a trend. In the case of the attItude scale, the trend did not hold WIth E-3 teachers. The gain scores dIsplayed III Table 3 show a tendency for teachers III groups E-1 and E-2 also to have greater improvement in commItment scores than teachers in groups C-1 and C-2. However, JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
147
in this case, variability was large; and this trend did not reach statistical significance.
Table 5
Correlalions (r) of teacher scores with student performance"
Teacher scores and student performance. We made a rough assessment of the relationship of both teachers' nutrition knowledge and their dispoSition towards nutrItIOn to their teaching effectiveness. To do this, we correlated teachers' prescores, postscores, and gam scores on the various instruments with student performance on the students' nutrition knowledge test. Table 5 presents these results. The teachers' change m score on the attitude scale Favors NutrItIOn EducatIOn m Schools correlated Significantly with student gains. None of the other teacher scores were correlated SignIficantly With student performance. This analysis mcluded control classes m which students did not receive nutrition instruction.
Prescore Postscore Gam score
NutntlOn Knowledge
NutntlOn Is Important
0.037 0.130 0076
0.041 0087 0.069
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
0.093 0184 0.233*
-0.075 0124 0.117
"Pearson product-moment correiallon coeffiCient between standardized mean student nutrItIOn knowledge gam scores and teacher scores, n = 74 for nutntlon knowledge and commllment, n = 71 for attItude scales NutrItIon Is Important and Favors NutrItIon EducatIOn m Schools The mean standardIzed student gams were calculated by subtractmg the mean pretest T-scores from the mean posttest T-scores (16) of each class *p < 005
teaching experIence will improve teachers' attitudes toward teaching the subject. However, a reasonable inference to draw from this finding is that providing an effective, simulated nutrItion teaching experIence as a part of teacher preparatIOn may be beneficial in enhancing teachers' attitudes toward nutrItion education. The significant relationships that ocDISCUSSION curred between nutritIOn knowledge and Although this assessment did not reveal attitude scores of teachers are not in agreeany differential effect of the 3 types of ment with findings reported by Petersen teacher preparation on teachers' disposIand Kies (3). ThiS result may be due to the tion toward nutrItion and ItS inclusion in fact that the 2 studies used different inthe education of schoolchtldren, It did struments. Also, in the present study 2 vardemonstrate clearly the value of a prepara- iables, teacher preparation and partiCipatory nutrItIOn course in enhancing the tion in nutritIOn instruction, Improved nutrition knowledge of teachers. The fact scores on the knowledge test and on 1 of that the knowledge posttest was administhe 3 measures of the teachers' disposition tered 4 months after the conclusion of the toward nutrition. Our prestudy data, course makes ItS influence on the knowl- which represents a SituatIOn Similar to edge postscores of the teachers even more Petersen and Kles's (3) study, showed a signIficant correlatIOn only between scores on Impressive. Teachers have long recognized that a I attitude scale and nutrition knowledge. teaching experIence, includmg the immedi- Scores on both attitude scales and the comate preparatIOn for it, generally serves as a mitment instrument were correlated learnmg experience for them. In this as- Significantly with nutritIOn knowledge sessment the tendency for the teaching ex- scores after the intervention. Thus, it apperIence to mfluence positively the nutrI- pears that the mtervention strengthened tIOn knowledge of the teachers exemphfies the relationship between teachers' nutrithiS phenomenon, although there is no way tion knowledge and their feelings about to ascertam whether the learning resulted nutrition. from using the curriculum m preparing for Although findings relating teachers' atteachmg, the actual teachmg, or both. titudes with student performance are not The influence of teachmg a subject on dramatic, they are noteworthy particularly teachers' attitudes toward that subject IS in light of the study of Cook et al. (2). Their much less predictable and likely to vary survey showed that K-6 teachers who most With the situation. In thiS assessment only I favored including nutrition m the curof the measures assessing teachers' dispOSI- riculum of school children were most likely tion toward nutritIOn and Its mclusion in to teach it. schools was mfluenced by teaching nutrIOf course, associatIOns do not prove tIOn; and this mfluence was, at best, a . cause and effect; but these findings linking trend, not a conclusive effect. Further- the attitudes of teachers to the hkelihood more, even though this trend toward a pos- of their teachmg nutrition, and to the peritive mfluence of the teaching experience formance of their students on nutrition on the teachers' attitudes toward nutrItion knowledge tests (after nutrition instruceducatIOn in schools is encouraging, It cer- tIOn) point up the importance of giving sigtainly does not mean that every nutritIOn nificant attentIOn to improvmg teachers' 148
Favors NutntlOn Education m Schools Commitment
attitudes toward nutrition and its inclUSIOn in the education of schoolchildren. This conclusion certainly does not negate the Importance of a cognItive component m preparIng teachers to teach nutrItion, but It does emphasize the need to accompany that cognitive component with a strong affective component aimed at helping teachers gain a positive feeling about nutrition D educatIOn.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ThiS project was supported by the Pennsylvama Department of EducatIOn as a part of the Pennsylvama NutritIOn Education and Traming Program (Grant No. 78-01-(01). The nutrilion currIculum used In the project and the knowledge, atlitude, and commitment Instruments were developed as a part of the Hemz NutritIOn Education Program funded by the NutrIlion FoundatIOn. NOTE
SectIOns of the CUrrIculum for kmdergarten through grade 5 may be obtamed from BrIgham Young Press, Business 205, UPB, Provo, Utah 84602; and for grade 6 from The NutrItIOn FoundatIOn, Office of EducatIOn, 888 17th St N.W., Washington, DC 20006. LITERATURE CITED
1 The White House Conference on Food, NutrItion and Health: RecommendatIOns of panels on nutrItIOn teachIng and educatIOn. Seclion 4, Panel 1: NutritIOn teachmg m elementary and high schools Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 1(3):24-27, 1970. 2 Cook, C. B., D A. Eller, and E C. KamInaka. How much nutritIOn educatIOn In grades K-6? Journal of Nutntlon EducatIOn 9:131-35, 1977. 3 Petersen, M E., and C. Kles. NutrIliOn knowledge and attitudes of early elementary teachers. Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 4:11-15,1972. 4 Shannon, B., P. Bell, E. Marbach, L. H. O'Connell, K. L Graves, and B. F. Nicely, Jr K-6 currIculum evaluation - Instruction and teacher preparation. Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn 13:9-13, 1981. 5 Gronlund, N. E. Measurement and evaluatIOn m teachmg. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan Pubhshmg Co , 1976, p. 105-31. VOLUME
13
NUMBER4
1981
6 Freedman, J. L., J. M. Carlsmlth, and D. O. Sears. Social psychology. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1974, p. 245. 7 Eppnght, E. S., H. M. Fox, B. A. Fryer, G H Lamkin, and V. M VIVIan. The north central regional study of diets of preschool children. Pt. 2. Nutntion knowledge and attitudes of mothers. Journal of Home Economics 62:327-32, 1970 8 SIms, L. S. DIetary status of lactating women. Pt. 2. Relation of nutritional knowledge and attitudes to nutrient mtake. Journal of the Amencan Dletellc Assoclalion 73:147-54, 1978.
9 Grotkowskl, M. L., and L. S. SIms Nutntlon knowledge, attitudes, and dIetary practices of the elderly. Journal of the Amencan Dietetic AssoclOtlOn 72.499-506, 1978. 10 SIms, L.S Food-related value onentations, attitudes, and beliefs of vegetanans and non-vegetanans Ecology of Food and NutntlOn 7:23-35, 1978 II Nle, N. H., C. H. Hull, J G. Jenkms, K Stembrenner, and D. H. Bent SPSS. Statistical package for the SOCial sCiences. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975, pp.468-514. 12 Nunnally, J C Psychometnc theory. New
NUTRITION NutritIon education is the theme of 7 papers from a symposium entitled "The Food and NutritIOn Mosaic - Putting the Pieces Together" whIch appears in the December 1980 issue of Food Technology. In an introductory paper, G. R. Jansen (page 55) outhnes the objectives of the symposium-to clarify the role of the National Nutritinn Consortium (NNC) in effecting responsIble nutrition educatIOn and to explore mechanisms for mteraction among NNC member societies and especially between the food industry and acaderma with respect to public nutrition education. Regardmg consumer education, G. A. Leveille (pages 56-57) favors a freedom-ofchoice approach that includes a simple food guide but also provides information on nutritIon principles, facts, and questions about diet and health and on combatance of mismformation. He also encourages traming m consumer education for nutrition professIOnals attempting to educate the pubhc. With respect to dietary adVIce to the public, R. E. Olson (pages 58-61) argues for conservatism, i.e., a dietary change should not be promoted without both proof of benefit as well as eVIdence of little or no risk. He does not address cntena for promotmg retention of an eXIsting dietary pattern. He critIcizes the Dietary Goals as not well documented and the Dietary GuidelInes as being too vague; he favors the Food and Nutntion Board report ToVOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
York: McGraw-HIll Book Co., 1978, p 593. 13 McKeachie, W. J., and C. L. Doyle Psychology. 2d ed. Readmg, Mass.: AddlsonWesley PublIshmg Co., 1970, p. 605. 14 Stouffer, S. A. Communism, conformity, and clvi/libertles. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955, pp. 19-25. 15 Barr, A J., J. H. Goodmght, J P. Sail, W. H Blalf, and D M. Chllko. The SA S user's gUide, 1979 edition. RaleIgh, N C The SAS Institute, 1979, pp. 243-44. 16 SalvIa, J., and J E. Yesse1dyke Assessment In speCial and remedial educatIOn. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1978. pp. 66-68.
EDUCATION
ward Healthful Diets because it IS conservatIve. Focusing on nutrition education of the public, G. Brown and S. Pelican (pages 62-63) advocate a nutrient-based approach and describe 3 such programs. They believe that nutrient-based programs offer trammg in decisIon making, an Important skill for the nutritionally well-informed consumer when making food choices. B. R. Stillings (pages 64-67) offers some strong statements about the role and responsibility of the food industry to the public. He outlines a number of advantages for providing nutntion educatIOn to food industry employees- from improved employee health to better ability to communicate with government, the media, scientists, and the public. In order that the industry serve the consumer as well as avoid excessive, restrictIve government regulation, StIllings argues for a strong, selfimposed standard for truth in advertising and for proVIsion of product composition informatIOn on labels. Stillings argues against the food industry havmg primary responsibIlIty for direct-contact public nutrition educatIon programs, partly because of lack of resources and partly because of the anticipated lack of credibility of the industry m this role. However, he believes that the food industry should take an actIve role in combating nutritIon mlsmformatlOn and should support the programs and activities of the allied professional societIes in food sCIence and nutrition. He urges
responsIveness by the food industry to consumer interests, such as decreasing salt in canned food or increasing label information, despite the likelihood that only a minority of consumers are interested in any smgle issue. Each of the last 2 papers outlines a specific role that an organization has undertaken m relation to a different aspect of nutrition education. Describmg the current and potentIal activities of the NNC, K. W. McNutt (pages 68-70) focuses partIcularly on NNC's emergmg priority, that of developing nutrition pohcy. In addition, B. S. SchweIgert (pages 71-72) outlines efforts of the Institute of Food Technologists in public education and focuses particularly on the scientific status summaries and on other written forms of SCIentific consensus on nutntlon issues. By and large, the symposium was disappomting because It offered little in the way of new approaches on how to educate consumers or Ideas on how to bring profesSIOnals in various fields mto consensus. Rather, the authors confined themselves to descnptions of ongomg programs or elaboratIOn of an already well-defined opmion. Notably, there was virtually no mentIOn of mtegration WIth the "front-line" nutrition educators, such as dIetItians, home economics teachers, and nutntion educators m extenSIOn, pubhc schools, and communIty programs. S.M. O.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
149