$9.72; . 4

01. .

3174.: ' 234.

En—évm-r

:5»

Eff ctr-1

- ‘1'4'. e:

"I NIH-“I" )

i 'I ."|
_.I‘.' ..
v r It

did
II
‘ 4..
.. I“.
(I
I. .l
I
‘| I

"""L I

4 Iv I ‘
, . .

1:3“: It“
..I

' ”my”: .

:‘I'Iu' :'.l.,l '1

I

my), :I:. mu.‘

'I_\$‘ #‘
”L, t

Mg.

II

I‘alr
(':‘

o 1: .’ ~V 4-»
3\}_,:.....’:....-. .5;
m1‘7
‘ :‘v‘ r‘ hug-,5“
.4, ‘22:..J. 1113‘:
.

"I '. ’. ‘
. ‘1’.-

v ‘ ‘9 . u
r}: ‘f'. ‘f‘fin'fi‘gz “é
. ,r '1' . 1%”?

-I. 3 Illo‘h‘g‘t; LEA-:2"
:w Wk ‘33}821~15‘-F.-:P'f

.x——_,~,-— -

p‘v. 5.5;") ‘~~"‘r.‘ :n,’
"1‘; iifié'T;

.} :3..."

43:11,?” "‘93; ' -3» '
..,. :2; . _Z\ “r

wr§§~~+ (fix 335 it}: "
mm”.

L’: 3%
I

. t—r‘; T

‘1" :s .2' ‘ ‘7‘ 5.13.

333:. mm;- “X" ‘r:
1%-: 1' Y“? .

 

 

 

 

"1"“

 

I
"Md-Ill "III

THESIS

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

NUTRITION EDUCATION IN THE K-6 CURRICULUM-
TEACHERS' OPINIONS AND TECHNIQUES
presented by

Barbara Lynne Mutch

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M-S- degreeinlinmition—

flach/fifl?»

”NJ professor

 

Date J/ZJ/l/g/

0-7639

 

 

~ I!@ilfyllflmlftfllllflllllflnfllIII

ovmug mas:
25¢ W “W P" "u"

RN us LIBRARY HATER
I: return ton-o
21:“; $3.”: 1m] ation records

 

 

 

 

 

NUTRITION EDUCATION IN THE
K-6 CURRICULUM - TEACHERS'
OPINIONS AND TECHNIQUES

By

Barbara Lynne Mutch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1980

. #:‘vrs ‘

 

57/6363

 

 

ABSTRACT

NUTRITION EDUCATION IN THE K-6 CURRICULUM-
TEACHERS' OPINIONS AND TECHNIQUES

By

Barbara Lynne Mutch

Thirty-nine teachers, kindergarten through sixth
grade, were interviewed about general teaching responsi-
bilities, opinions on what students need to know about
nutrition, reasons for including or omitting nutrition
in their curriculum and nutrition education topics, tech-
niques and resources. Fifty-four percent of teachers were
currently including nutrition topics in their curriculum.
Age, sex, years of teaching, college major, highest de-
gree earned, previous food and nutrition training and
nutrition knowledge made no significant difference in
teacher's decision to include or omit nutrition. Lack
of time. money and/or materials were cited as major rea—
sons teachers were not teaching nutrition. The Daily Food
Guide and snacks were the nutrition topics most frequently
included in curricula. General nutrition knowledge was
evaluated. The mean score was fifty percent. Age, sex,
years of teaching, school location and previous food and
nutrition training made no significant difference in

teacher's nutrition knowledge scores.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the
following people:

To Dr. Carolyn Lackey for her patience, advice and
support throughout this research and my graduate program.

To Drs. Kathryn Kolasa, Louise Sause and Jenny
Bond for their assistance and advice which were invaluable
to this research project.

To all of the Community Nutrition grad students for
their help and support. Krista Dessert is especially
thanked for her patience and time spent helping me with
my data analysis; Janet Kiley and Amy Slonim for their
friendship and sympathetic ears; and Jeri Pigott for her
many hours editing the Thesis.

To all of the teachers and school personnel who
so willingly agreed to participate in the project.

To the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,
the Michigan Department of Education—Nutrition Education
and Training Program and the Department of Food Science
and Human Nutrition for financial assistance.

Finally, a very special thank—you to my husband
Dale and son Nicolas for their support and understanding,

and for helping me keep things in perspective.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
   
  
   
  
  
      
    
  
   
   

"Vixen-oscillates....................v
\E'MRObUCTION.....................1
.grnRATIONAL DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
mmIIOFLITERATURE.................7

7

'Nutrition.Education. . . . . . . . .
iNutrition Knowledge and Attitudes of

' Elementary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Future Planning. . . . . . . . . 16
’Status of Nutrition Education in Michigan

. Public Schools. . . . . . . 17
'Personal Interview versus Mail Questionnaires. . 18
‘ sumy. I I O I I O I I O I O I C O I D I O O I 20

, 5:;
‘lq! _¥: 5“ mans AND PROCEDURES. I e u o e I e a I o e I e e I 22

.5. I

4".1‘: Development Of Instruments 0 e e o I e e e l I o 23

\i .‘4 Data collection. I I O I O O U I I O I I O I O C 33
._ v‘ A, ‘ Data Analysi s U C I C O O C O C C t. D O I . C O . 35
$5333st AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The Sample . . . . . . . .
Sample Characteristics . . .

Inclusion of "Extra" Subjects.
Teachers' Opinions . . . . . .
Nutrition in the Curriculum. .
Other Research Instruments . .
Teachers' Philosophies . . . .
Observations In The Sample Schools

Y AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .

3V8enera1 Summary. . . . . .
Conclusion and Implications. . . . .

o o I n e I O
I O o I o I I O
I O O I I I I 0
UI.
VI

0)
UI

moo
VUI

De' “ ii iii

 

' ;‘~ 4'."

Page

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix

A. Research Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . 90
Interview Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Nutrition Interest Checklist. . . . . . . 98
Observation Sheets. . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Nutrition Knowledge Test. . . . . . . . . 101

B. Forms and Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&5

Sample Dialogues. . . . . . . . . . . CS
Introductory Letter . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Consent Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Credential Letter . . . . . . . . . 109

C. Probe Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

D. Nutrition Knowledge Test Item Analysis
Data I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11“

LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

iv

 

 

1

Ad:

- :3? ' 5-

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

l.

10.

Selected demographic characteristic of
teachers interviewed at two schools
(K‘éth) in MiChigan. I I I I I I I I I I I I [+0

Educational background of teachers in—
terviewed at two schools (K-6th) in
Michigan I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 42

Distribution of grades taught by teachers
interviewed at two schools (K- 6th) in
MiCh-igarl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u#

Type of food and nutrition training re—
ported by thirty-two teachers who had
received food and nutrition training . . . . #8

Perceived student nutrition knowledge needs
reported by teachers interviewed at two
schools (K-6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . . . 51

Distribution of current, past and non-
nutrition teachers interviewed at two
schools (K- 6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . . . 56

Nutrition topics taught by current and
past nutrition teachers interviewed at
two schools (K-6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . 61

Types of teaching methods used to present
nutrition topics by current and past nutri-

tion teachers interviewed at two schools

(K- 6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Preparation and class time spent on nutri-

tion topics by current and past nutrition
teachers interviewed at two schools (K- 6th)

in Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Nutrition knowledge scores of teacher inter-
viewed at two schools (K-6th) in Michigan. . 71

 

PAGE

   
    
   
 
 
  
   
  
   
  

Distribution of nutrition knowledge
scores of teachers interviewed at two
schools (K—6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . . 71

NKT item response summary data for
"'rteachers interviewed at two schools
(K’éth) in MiChigan. I I I I I I I I I I I 73

‘Bersonal interest in selected nutrition
. topics b teachers interviewed at two
schools K-6th) in Michigan. . . . . . . . 7?

Top five nutrition topics that teachers
interviewed at two schools (K-6th) in
Michigan would teach to their students . . 78
NKT item response data for teachers

interviewed at two schools (K-6th) in
Mich igan l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11“

vi

v : n
V I);

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Rate of response for NKT and N10 by
teachers interviewed at two schools
(K-6th) in MiChigan. I I I I I I I I I I I I 70

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The importance of nutrition education for school'
age children was emphasized during the White House Confer-
ence on Food, Nutrition and Health in 1969. The import-
ance of nutrition education was further emphasized with
the passage of Public Law 95-166, the National School
Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Amendment of 1977. Section
19 of the Act related directly to nutrition education:
"the proper nutrition of the Nation's children is a matter
of highest priority, and there is a need to create oppor-
tunities for children to learn about the importance of
the principles of good nutrition in their daily lives"
(Public Law 95-166, 1977).

Childrens' attitudes about food and their food habits
have been influenced by many factors (Bell and Lamb, 1973;
Carver and Lewis, 1979; Perkins gt a1., 1980). The school
can be a major influence on the food habit formation of
young children. The elementary school teacher, therefore,
has had an opportunity to play a role in students' food
habit formation (Petersen and Kies, 1972).

Most information gathered to date about kindergarten

through 6th grade nutrition education has been obtained

via mail questionnaires (Carver and Lewis, 1979; Cook 33 51.,

19773 Knudtson, 1972; Lackey and Kolasa, 1979: O'Farrell
l

 

 

2
and Kendrick, 1972; Perkins 23 gl., 1980; and Petersen
and Kies, 1972). The focus of these studies has been:
the nutrition knowledge and attitudes of elementary teach—
ers toward the teaching of nutrition and the school lunch
program (Carver and Lewis, 1979; Knudtson, 1972; Perkins
gt gl., 1980 and Petersen and Kies, 1972); the extent
of classroom teaching of nutrition and teacher training
in nutrition (Cook 23 31., 1977; Knudtson, 1972; O'Farrell
and Kendrick, 1972; and Lackey andKolasa1 1979); the
degree of administrative and parental support for nutri-
tion education (O'Farrell and Kendrick, 1972); and the
teachers' approach to changing the food behavior of chil-
dren (Petersen and Kies, 1972).

Two of the studies using a mail questionnaire pro—
cedure did not report response rates. When response rates
were reported, the range was 47-85 percent. Since re-
spondents may have differed from non-respondents, these
samples may have been biased. This research used personal
interviews with every teacher in two K-6 Michigan public
schools, one rural and one non-rural.

Michigan was one of ten states that had legislated
policy concerning nutrition in the public schools (Johnson
and Butler, 1975). Michigan included nutrition as part
of the Minimal Performance Objectives for Health Education
(Michigan Department of Education, 197A). However, teach-
ers are not required to include nutrition topics in their
curriculum in Michigan. Some teachers may have included

nutrition or other subjects that are not part of the school's

 

 

3
required curriculum. The nutrition education literature
did not report reasons why a teacher would include a non—
required or extra subject in their curriculum.

Information on resources used by teachers for food
and nutrition lesson preparation is limited. The school
nurse, materials and people from the National Dairy Coun-
cil and several state Dairy Councils, textbooks, magazines.
government literature, food manufacturer's literature,
newspapers, film and filmstrips were the resources men-
tioned most frequently by teachers (Cook gt g;., 1977;
Hoffman La-Roche, Inc., 1978; Kolasa and Lackey, 1979;
and Lackey and Kolasa, 1979). More information on what
resources teachers used and on how the resources are used
is necessary for future planning.

The Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
at Michigan State University has been involved in two
large nutrition education research projects: the Michigan
School Breakfast Survey and the Nutrition Education and
Training (NET) activities. The purpose of the 1978-79
Michigan School Breakfast Survey was to collect data, via
personal interviews with K—12th grade Michigan students,
on food behavior as it related to participation in school
meals programs, snacking habits and the students' nutri-
tional well being (Kolasa and Lackey. 1979). Views on
meal programs, importance of nutrition and nutrition edu-

cation were also collected, from school administrators,

 

 

 

4

food service employees and teachers using interviews and
self administered questionnaires.

The Nutrition Education and Training (NET) activities
have been funded by Public Law 95-166, the National School
Lunch and Child Nutrition Amendment of 1977. Michigan
State University's involvement with NET activities in
1978-79 included evaluation of NET pilot projects in Michi-
gan which had a project coordinator who had conducted nutri-
tion education activities and development of a valid and
reliable nutrition knowledge test with broad application to
various groups (Lackey and Kolasa, 1979; Lackey gt gl.,
1979). NET activities for 1979—80 included the production
of a videotape for food service employees to foster the
development of self-esteem; development of instruction
manuals for food service employees; production of a video-
tape for elementary school teachers to motivate them to
include nutrition education in their curriculum; and de-
velopment of a workbook to aid elementary teachers in teach-
ing nutrition to their students.

The current research supplemented the work Michigan
State University has previously been involved with concern-
ing nutrition education in Michigan schools.

The objectives of this research were to: (1) iden-
tify reasons why teachers included any extra subjects, i.e.
subjects they were not required to teach; (2) identify rea-
sons Why teachers included or omitted nutrition education

in their curriculum; (3) document the techniques and

 

5

resources used to present nutrition topics and (4) test
elementary teachers' nutrition knowledge.

An additional experimental hypothesis was proposed
to be tested in this research project: elementary teachers
(grades K-6) will score less than 75 percent on a 40 item
true—false-multiple choice nutrition knowledge test (NKT).
Teachers scored a mean of 56 percent in the pretesting of
the NKT (Lackey gt g1., 1979). The 75 percent score chosen

for this research project includes a safety margin.

 

 

 

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Nutrition Education Any activity in a classroom that
includes food and/or nutrition information.

Food and Nutrition Edugation Topic Any lesson or
activity which involves any of the ideas contained in the
White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health Con-
ceptual Framework (p.9) (White House Conference, 1969).

Teaching Techniques The methods, procedures, re-
sources, and/or approach used to present topics.

Current Nutrition Teachers Teachers who included
food or nutrition topics in their curriculum the present
year.

Past Nutrition Teachers Teachers who had included
food or nutrition topics in their curriculum in a past
year but not during the present year.

Non-nutrition TeaChers Teachers who have never in-

cluded food or nutrition topics in their curriculum.

 

fi—

 

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nutrition Education

Nutrition has been defined as the science of food,
the nutrients and other substances therein, their action,
interaction, and balance in relation to health and disease
and the process by which the organism ingests, digests,
absorbs, transports, utilizes and excretes food substances
(Michigan Department of Public Health, 1980). In addition,
it is concerned with social, economic, cultural and psycho-
logical implications of food and eating. Nutrition pro-
vides one of the greatest opportunities for an individual
to influence his health and well being.

Education is the "act or process of providing know-
ledge, skills, competence" (Webster, 1976). Nutrition edu-
cation, therefore, provides information to enable people
to choose food based on their understanding of their bodies'
needs while considering the cultural, economic, personal
and social implications. A broader goal for nutrition
education has been to create awareness and interest, pro—
mote the acquisition of knowledge, provide motivation to
change, and promote the adoption of new food-related be-
havior patterns to promote Optimum health (Robinson, 1976;
White House Conference, 1969).

The public has shown increasing interest in the re-

lationship of nutrition and health. There also has been

 

IIIIIIII'5"'——"’h
8
I an increased concern by both nutritionists and educators
that children be given the knowledge and skills so they
can function as nutritionally-literate decision makers
(Guthrie, 1978). Nutrition education in the school en-
, vironment is one way to provide children with this know-
; ledge and skills.
The ideal nutrition education approach is to begin
in early childhood and continue throughout the elementary
and secondary school years (White House Conference, 1969).
Callahan (1973) suggested that nutrition education be ad—
dressed through comprehensive, sequential, and integrated

programs.

Nutrition Education Program Components

Suggested components of a comprehensive nutrition
education program in schools included: (1) instruction on
the nutritional value of foods and the relationship be-
tween food and human health, (2) assistance in development
of positive attitudes toward food, (3) education of food
service personnel in the principles and practices of good
food service management, and (4) development and use of
classroom materials and curricula (Guthrie, 1978; Public
Law 95—166, 1977; Robinson, 1976; and White House Confer-
ence, 1969). Furthermore, school nutrition education pro-
grams need to include parents and other adults. Learning
opportunities should be designed to accommodate cultural,
economic, personal and family conditions (White House Con-

ference, 1969).

 

~

   

‘IIIIIII'V""———__—_—__—__—__—_____"4i’

9
Nutrition Education Topics

Some controversy and confusion currently exist as
to what topics could and should be considered part of a
school's nutrition education curriculum. The Nutrition
Teaching and Nutrition Education panel at the White House
Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health developed a "Con-
ceptual Framework for Nutrition Education in the Schools"
to be used as a resource in developing and evaluating cur-
ricula (White House Conference, 1969). This framework
illustrated the diversity of food and nutrition topics

for a school's curriculum.

Conceptual Framework for Nutrition Educgtion in the Schools

1. Nutrition is the process by which food and other
substances eaten become you. The food we eat
enables us to live, to grow, to keep healthy
and well, and to get energy for work and play.

2. Food is made up of certain chemical substances
that work together and interact with body chem-
icals to serve the needs of the body.

a. Each nutrient has specific uses in the body.

b. For the healthful individual the nutrients
needed by the body are usually available
through food.

0. Many kinds and combinations of food can lead
to a well-balanced diet.

d. No natural food, by itself, has all the nu-
trients needed for full growth and health.

3. The way a food is handled influences the amount
of nutrients in the food, its safety, appearance,
taste, and cost; handling means everything that
happens to food while it is being grown, pro-
cessed, stored, and prepared for eating.

 

 

   

 

 

10

4. All persons, throughout life, have need for
about the same nutrients but in varying amounts.

a. The amounts needed are influenced by age,
sex, size, activity, specific conditions of
growth, and state of health, altered some-
what by environmental stress.

b. Suggestions for kinds and needed amounts of
nutrients are made by scientists who con—
tinuously revise the suggestions in the light
of the findings of new research.

c. A daily food guide is helpful in translating
the technical information into terms of every-
day foods suitable for individuals and fam-
ilies.

5. Food use relates to the cultural, social, econ-
omic and psychological aspects of living as well
as to the physiological.

a. Food is culturally defined.

b. Food selection is an individual act, but it
is usually influenced by social and cultural
sanctions.

0. Food can be chosen so as to fulfill physio-
logical needs and at the same time satisfy
social, cultural, and phychological wants.

d. Attitudes toward food are a culmination of
many experiences, and the present.

6. The nutrients, singly and in combination of chem-
ical substances stimulating natural foods, are
available in the market; these may vary widely
in usefulness, safety of use, and economy.

7. Food plays an important role in the physical and
psychological health of a society or a nation
just as it does for the individual and the family.

a. The maintenance of good nutrition for the
larger units of society involves many matters
of public concern.

b. Nutrition knowledge and social consciousness
enable citizens to participate intelligently
in the adoption of public policy affecting
the nutrition of people around the world.

The variety of nutrition topics included in an ele-
mentary school's curriculum has been diverse, but rarely

incorporated the number of t0pics contained in the White

)

11
House Conference framework. Some of the most frequently
cited topics were food groups, nutrients, meal planning,

balanced diets, good breakfasts, snacks, diet and health,

sugar and tooth decay, label reading, food handling, cul-

 

tural foods, weight loss diets, athletes' diets, and food
safety (Baker, 1972; Grogan, 1978; Hicks, 1978; Kolasa and
Lackey, 1979; Niedermeyer and Moncrief, 1975; Spitze, 1971;
- and Wodarski 23 pl., 1980).

Nutrition Teaching Techniques

Many teaching techniques and methods have been em-
ployed to present nutrition topics. Techniques included
experiments, record keeping, taste testing, bulletin board
displays, demonstrations, pre and posttests, food classi-
fication-schemes, assigned reading, audiovisuals, puppet
shows, games, visual aides, dramatics, peer-teaching,
cooking, school cafeteria laboratories, inquiry, discussion,
discovery, simulation, debate, food surveys, scrapbooks
and field trips (Baker, 1972; Head, 1974; Hicks, 1979;
Niedermeyer and Moncrief, 1975; Sodowsky, 1973; Spitze,
1971; Stackhouse, 1979; and Wodarski pp g1., 1980).

Reasons why teachers chose a specific technique for
teaching nutrition have not been explored in detail. Methods
and techniques which increase nutrition knowledge and re-
inforce reading, math, spelling, and/or measurement skills,

however, are desired by teachers (Wodarski pp 51., 1980).

 

   

<FrIIIIFF""""""-__—___—_———___—____’i

12

When nutrition was integrated into other curriculum areas,
other learning skills may have been simultaneously rein-

forced.

Teacher Trainipg in Nutrition

The kinds and amountSof‘nutrition education training
for teachers, either preservice or inservice, has variedn
Acquiring a basic nutrition course at the undergraduate
level for teacher certification would be ideal, but un-
realistic (Callahan, 1973).
As teacher education institutions have
sought to respond to seemingly ever in-
creasing demand to equip educators with
competencies to deliver programs for an
expanding array of society's concerns

' and problems, the competition for time
and priority in both the preservice and
inservice preparation of school teachers,
counselors, and administrators, has be-
come a chronic constraint. (Pourchot and
Ellis, 1978).

To further complicate the issue, there are conflicting
reports on the effect of nutrition courses and/or training
on teachers nutrition knowledge and on the likelihood that
a teacher would choose to teach nutrition. It has been con-
cluded that inclusion of nutrition courses in the college
curriculum of an elementary school teacher or previous
nutrition training resulted in increased nutrition know-
ledge (Carver and Lewis, 1979). This assumption has not
been supported by other researchers (Petersen and Kiss,

1972). Exposure to a nutrition or foods course in high

 

   

fii

13

school or college, or an inservice workshop, however, was
significantly related to the likelihood that a teacher
would choose to teach nutrition (Cook pp p1., 1977).
Researchers have reported that elementary teachers
not only have minimal nutrition knowledge, but relatively
no preparation for methods of teaching nutrition in the
classroom (Carver and Lewis, 1979; Cook pp p1., 1977; Head,
1974; and Petersen and Kies, 1972). Nutrition education
methods could be learned either in preservice courses or
inservice training workshops. The latter appeared to be
the preferred and more realistic option (Callahan, 1973;
Cook pp p1., 1977; Grogan, 1978; Niedermeyer and Moncrif,
1975; and Sodowsky, 1973). Promoting interest and aware-
ness for the need of nutrition education is precursory
to the implementation of inservice training workshops
(Callahan, 1973; Cook pp p1., 1977; and, Grogan, 1978).
Several types of nutrition education inservice work-
shops have been documented in detail (Callahan, 1973;
Grogan, 1978; Lackey and Kolasa, 1979; Niedermeyer and
Moncrief, 1975; and Sodowsky, 1973). Characteristics of
successful workshops may include; (1) compensation for the
teachers, such as money, continuing education credit, or
credit toward a salary increment; (2) avoidance of work-
shops that followed a full day of teaching; (3) limitation
of class size (15-18); (4) scheduling of action-oriented
format with no "gaps;" (5) choice of topic areas that ful-

filled the needs of teachers; (6) distribution of useful

 

gm

 

14
materials and resources; and (7) presentation of innova-
tive, interdisciplinary curriculum guides (Callahan, 1973;

Grogan, 1978; Lackey and Kolasa, 1979; and Sodowsky, 1973).

 

Nutrition Knowledge and Attitudes of Elementary Teachers

Several researchers reported that elementary teachers
scored low on nutrition knowledge tests (Carver and Lewis,
1979: Knudtson, 1972; Lackey pp p1., 1979; and Petersen
and Kies, 1972). Teachers tended to score higher on gen-
eral nutrition items while missing those related to food
composition (Petersen and Kies, 1972). A lack of know-
ledge of the concepts of energy and vitamins was also re-
ported (Knudtson, 1972). However the nutrition knowledge
tests used in some of these studies lacked standardized
testinstrument development, and/or had low reliability
coefficients.

A valid and reliable 40-item test of general nutri-
tion knowledge was developed at Michigan State University
that has broad application to various groups of people,
including teachers (Lackey pp p1., 1979). This nutrition
knowledge test was pretested with a random sample of K-12
teachers in Michigan and with members of the Society for
Nutrition Education (SNE). The Kuder-Richardson 20 re-
liability for this sample was .93, which indicated a highly
reliable test. The mean score for SNE members was 47 and

teachers 28. Fifty points were possible.

 

15

Petersen and Kies (1972) reported that little re-
lationship existed between teachers' nutrition knowledge
and favorable attitudes toward teaching nutrition. The
relationship of nutrition knowledge to nutrition teaching
behavior has not been reported in the literature.

There are conflicting reports on the effect of at-
titudes on behavior. Acock and Scott (1980) believed that
attitude directly influenced behavior. Researchers who
reviewed the literature investigating the relationship
between attitude test responses and corresponding behavior
found little evidence to support the use of attitude meas-
ures as predictors of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1971;
Wicker, 1971).

The relationship between attitudes toward teaching
and actual teaching practices were explored for science
and science teaching. Elementary teachers become "science
specialists" not because of more positive attitudes toward
science, but due to more positive attitudes toward the
teaching of science (Earl and Winklejohn, 1977). With re-
spect to nutrition teaching behavior, teachers' attitudes
on the importance of nutrition education were found to be
significantly related to the teaching of nutrition (Cook
pig” 1977).

Many teachers have agreed that nutrition should be
included in the elementary school curriculum. Florida
teachers favored a mandated nutrition education program

(O'Farrell and Kendrick, 1972). In Michigan, 100 percent

52%

‘illllll
.
.

 

 

7 1

of the teachers surveyed indicated that comprehensive
health education should include nutrition education (Kolasa
and Lackey, 1979). Sixty-three percent of 910 Nebraska
teachers felt nutrition should be taught as part of an in-
tegrated curriculum (Petersen and Kies, 1972). Perkins
and co-workers (1980) reported moderate agreement by teach-
ers to the statement that "a greater emphasis on nutrition
education is needed in the school curriculum.fi Egan and
co-workers (1980) compiled a report for educators and nu-
tritionists who were members of the Task Force on Pregnant
Women, Children and Adolescents, National Conference on
Nutrition Education. This group generally acknowledged
that teachers in all schools should teach nutrition, and
some individuals and groups felt that nutrition education

‘ as well as preparation of prospective teachers in nutri-
tion education should be mandated by the appropriate auth-

orities.

Future Planning

Suggestions and recommendations for future planning
of nutrition education training, both preservice and in—
service, have been numerous and sometimes conflicting.
Sodowsky (1973) proposed that a course presenting nutrition

information and innovative teaching methods as well as ideas

to integrate nutrition into the curriculum be required for

certification of the elementary school teacher. other

 

r—fi

1?
educators have recognized the need for more college level
courses, but did not recommend making them a required part
of the curriculum (Pourchot and Ellis, 1978). Callahan
(1973) felt the requirements of a basic nutrition course
for teacher certification was unrealistic.

Researchers have agreed that planning of future nu-
trition education training and program implementation ad-
dress the need (1) to give nutrition education a high
priority both in the training of teachers and in the ele-
mentary curriculum; (2) for qualified people with adequate
backgrounds in education and nutrition to teach nutrition
education to teachers; (3) for the development of curriculum
guides for teachers' use which integrate and sequence nu-
trition tapics and activities; (4) for the development of

, resource centers and professional libraries which contain
nutrition information; (5) for adequate funding; and (6)

for support and cooperation by school administrators,
teachers, parents, students and the community (Bowman, 1979;
Callahan, 1973; Grogan, 1978, Head, 1974; Johnson and Butler,
1975; O'Farrell and Kendrick, 1972; Pourchot and Ellis, 1978;
and Sodowsky, 1973).

Status of figtrition Edupption in Michigpp Public §phools

The White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and

Health, and the National Nutrition Education Act of 1974

 

prompted a study by Johnson and Butler (1975) in the area

of nutrition education. Their research explored the current

   

"rIIIIIEFI-'-'-"""""""""""""""——'—-'—————————______“__’
18
involvement of departments of public instruction in nutri-
tion education in all 50 states. They found that ten
states had legislated policy concerning nutrition in the
public schools; Michigan was one of these. Michigan in—
cluded nutrition as part of the Minimal Performance Ob-
jectives for Health Education (Michigan Department of
Education, 1974).

The nutrition education activities of nine Michigan
schools which had participated in Nutrition Education and
Training (NET) pilot projects were documented (Lackey and
Kolasa, 1979). A statewide survey to collect information
on current nutrition education programs and practices in
Michigan public schools has not been conducted. Therefore,
it is difficult to discuss the status of nutrition educa-

tion in Michigan public schools.

Personal Interview vs. Mail Questionnaire

Most information concerning nutrition education pro-
; grams in elementary schools and teachers' knowledge and
l attitudes toward nutrition and nutrition education have
! been collected via mail questionnaires (Carver and Lewis,
1979; Cook pp p1., 1977; Knudtson, 1972; Lackey and Kolasa,
1979; O'Farrell and Kendrick, 1972; and Perkins pp p1.,
1980).
There are many advantages and disadvantages to using
the mail questionnaire as a data collection method. Ad-

vantages include: (1) wide coverage for minimum expense;

.7").

_“Ih’_ ‘. ‘

l9

(2) wide geographic contact; (3) greater validity possible
due to larger and more representative samples; (4) greater
uniformity in the manner in which questions are posed; (5)
privacy for respondents and (6) less interviewer effect.

The disadvantages of mail questionnaires include (1)
rate of non-returns; (2) differences of respondents and
non-respondents which may bias the sample; (3) misinter-
pretation of questions; and (4) difficulty of follow-
through on misunderstood questions or evasive answers
(Miller, 1977). Due to these disadvantages, results from
past studies provide only one view of the status of nutri-
tion education in elementary schools and/or teachers' know—
ledge and attitudes toward nutrition and nutrition education.

An alternative data collection method is the inter-
view, which represents a personal contact between an inter—
viewer and a respondent, usually in the home or place of
work. The advantages of the personal interview include:

(1) high response rate; (2) The information
secured is likely to be more correct than that
secured by other techniques since the inter-
! viewer can clear up seemingly inaccurate an-
' swers by explaining the question to the infor-
mant; (3) Supplementary information about the
informant's personal characteristics and envir-
onment can be collected. This information is
valuable in interpreting results; (4) Scoring
and test devices can be used; (5) Return visits
to complete items on the schedule or to correct
mistakes can usually be made; (6) The interviewer
may secure more spontaneous reactions than would
be the case if a written form were mailed out
; for the informant to mill over; (7) The personal
interview may take long enough to allow the in-
formant to become oriented to the topic under in—
vestigation. Thus recall of relevant material
is facilitated; and (8) More of the informant's
time can be taken for the survey than would be
the case if the interviewer were not present to
elicit and record information (Miller, 1977).

20

There are also several possible disadvantages to
personal interviews. First, the transportation costs and
the time requirement may be prohibitive. Second, unless
the interviewers are properly trained, the data collected

and recorded may be inaccurate and incomplete.

Summary

From this literature review it can be concluded that
there is agreement among nutritionists and educators on
the need for nutrition education for school age children.
The need for a nutrition education program for elementary
schools which is comprehensive, sequential and integrated
is stressed. The White House Conference on Food, Nutrition
and Health developed a "Conceptual Framework for Nutrition
Education in the Schools" which provided a broad definition
of what a nutrition education curriculum can encompass
(White House Conference, 1969).

Limited information on teachers' knowledge and at-
titudes concerning nutrition and nutrition education,
techniques used to present nutrition topics, and teachers'
food and nutrition training was available. Most data of
this type have been collected via mail questionnaires.

Teachers generally scored low on nutrition knowledge
tests, but had a positive attitude toward the inclusion of
nutrition education in the elementary school curriculum.
The relationship among knowledge, attitudes, and nutrition

teaching behavior has not been established, due to

 

g-—

21
conflicting reports. The techniques used to present nutri-
tion topics are diverse. Teaching techniques which rein-
force other learning skills are preferred by teachers.

The reported effects of teachers' preservice and/or
inservice training in foods and nutrition and nutrition
knowledge are still being debated. Food and nutrition
training does increase the likelihood that a teacher will

include nutrition in the curriculum.

 

! .
I
l
?

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This study was designed to collect information from
K-6th grade teachers concerning nutrition education in
their classroom curriculum. The research instruments de-
veloped for this project included an original pretested
interview schedule, a nutrition interest checklist and
an observation sheet for each classroom and for the school.
A nutrition knowledge test (Lackey, pp p1., 1979) also was
given to the teachers to be completed at their convenience.
Data collection methods included a 30 to 45 minute inter-
view with elementary teachers working in non-Title I public
SChOOlS in Michigan and completion of observation sheets
in each school by the investigator; completion of a nutri-
tion knowledge test and nutrition interest checklist by
each teacher. Specific factors studied were general
teaching responsibilities, opinions on nutrution education
in the K-6 curriculum, food and nutrition training of the
teachers, individual reasons for including or omitting
nutrition topics in the curriculum, specific nutrition
topics included in the curriculum, techniques used to teach
nutrition to the students in the classroom, and nutrition

interests and knowledge of the teachers.

 

,
_ I-IDZ'

 

fi-

23

Development of Instruments

Interview Schedule

The interview schedule contained a series of 24
forced choice and 18 open-ended questions (Appendix A).
The interview schedule was composed of five parts.

The first part contained questions on teachers'
(1) general teaching responsibilities, (2) reasons for
inclusion or omission of any "extra" or non-required sub—
jects, (3) food and nutrition training, (4) opinions on
what students needed to know about nutrition, (5) Per-
ceived impact on students' eating habits, (6) and opin-
ions on where students learned about nutrition.

The first section on the interview schedule was
administered to all teachers. Questions on teaching re-
sponsibilities and the inclusion of "extra" subjects were
designed to obtain information on (1) teachers' teaching
load, that is, how many subjects they were personally re-
sponsible for teaching to their students, (2) the preval-
ence of non—required or "extra" subjects and (3) reasons
why a teacher would decide to include something "extra".
The questions on food and nutrition training provided in-
formation on each teacher's food and nutrition background.
Questions eliciting teachers' opinions on students' nutri-
tion education needs and students' sources of nutrition
information were designed for two reasons: (1) to gather

general information on teachers' perceptions of nutrition

24
related to their students' needs and (2) to see if teachers'
opinions were related to their teaching of nutrtion and the
specific nutrition topics that they included.

The next three sections of the interview schedule
were administered to selected teachers, based upon whether
they were currently including nutrition topics, had in-
cluded nutrtion in the past, or had never included nutri—
tion topics. The teachers were grouped, at this point,
and designated as a current, past or non-nutrition teachers

(according to the criteria defined in the operational defi-

nitions).

The second part of the interview schedule was ad-
ministered to current nutrition teachers. Questions in
this section included nutrition topics which were part
of the individual teacher's curriculum, reasons for in-
cluding these topics, teaching methods and techniques used
to present nutrition topics, resources used to help teach
nutrition topics, and the amount of preparation and class
time set aside by the teachers for nutrition related topics
each school year. These questions were included in the
interview schedule to describe what, why and how much nu-
trition education was currently being taught in the sample
schools' classrooms.

Questions to obtain information on how teachers set
priorities, and to elicit suggestions on methods or re-
sources which would help teachers teach nutrition and ways

non—nutrition teachers could be encouraged to include

 

 

 

 

‘r————————-

25
nutrition were included. These questions were designed
to provide information for future planning of nutrition
education programs in schools.

The third part of the interview schedule was de-
signed to be administered to past nutrition teachers. These
were teachers who had taught nutrition at some time in their
teaching career, but not the current year. The same ques-
tions were asked of the past nutrition teachers as were
asked of the current nutrition teachers for two reasons:

(1) to obtain information on past nutrition education
teaching practices and methods, and (2) to compare the past
nutrition teachers' methods and practices to current nutri-
tion teachers. Past nutrition teachers also were asked why
they no longer included nutrition topics in their curriculum.

The fourth section of the interview schedule was
developed for non-nutrition teachers, that is, those teach—
ers who had never included a nutrition topic in their cur-
riculum. Questions in this section included data on (1)
whether non-nutrition teachers had ever considered including
nutrition in their curriculum, and (2) if yes, what were
the reasons they hadn't yet, or (3) if no, why. Suggestions
on resources or assistance the non-nutrition teachers would
like or need in order to teach nutrition were solicited,
too.

The final section of the interview schedule con-
tained questions on demographic data for all teachers.

Demographic characteristics were chosen through consideration

,-

 

26
of which characteristics might be associated with the
teachers' decision to include or omit nutrition topics
in their curriculum. Therefore, the school's partici-
pation in school breakfast and school lunch programs,
as well as the individual's age, sex, number of years
teaching, college degree major and minor, and highest de—
gree earned were chosen. The final interview section also
included a comment section. The comment section allowed
and encouraged the teachers to express feelings and opin-
ions which may not have been addressed during other parts
of the interview. Issues such as basic nutrition philo-
sophies and other nutrition related beliefs were recorded.
This type of information was important as a supplement to
other data.

All teachers completed section one and five of the
interview schedule. Each teacher also completed one ad-
ditional section. Current nutrition teacher were admin-
istered section two, past nutrition teachers section three
and non-nutrition teachers section four of the interview

schedule.

figtrition Interest Checklist

A nutrition interest checklist (NIC) was developed
to record information on teachers' personal nutrition in-
terests and their interest in teaching specific nutrition

topics (Appendix A).

. 51.1.. L

27

The NIC contained two sections. The first part
consisted of a list of 16 food and nutrition topics. These
topics were compiled from a review of current nutrition
education literature (Cook gt gl., 1977; Guthrie, 1978;
and Niedermeyer and Moncrief, 1975) and the White House
Conference "Conceptual Framework for Nutrition Education
in the Schools" (White House Conference, 1969). Three
columns were placed next to the list of topics with the
following headings:

"Interested and would like more information,"
"Interested but do not want more information," and fNot
interested enough to seek more information.f This section
was developed to determine teachers' personal interest in
the 16 nutrition topic areas. Space was also provided for
"other" topics.

The second part of the checklist asked teachers
to select five food and nutrition topics that they would
teach in their classrooms. The five topics were chosen
from the 16 previously listed food and nutrition topics.
The information from the NIC was designed to determine if
teachers' reported personal nutrition interests and nutri-
tion teaching interests were associated with teachers'
perceptions of what students needed to know about nutri-
tion and current or past nutrition topics included in the

curriculum.

 

28
The NIC was not patterned after another research
instrument. It was designed specifically for this research

project.

Qbservation Sheets

Two types of observation sheets were developed.
(Appendix A). They were designed to record visual evid—
ence of nutrition education in the schools. One obser-
vation sheet was for the lunchroom, library and hallways,
the other was for each teacher's classroom. Space was
provided for a description of the classroom, titles of
texts and a description of the teacher, students or other
people present in the room.

The decision to record observations was made after
evaluating the possible need for information to supplement

and/or explain some of the responses on the interview

, schedule (Crane and Angrosine, 1974).

Probe Cards

Probe cards were developed to assist the teachers
in recalling selected information during the interview
(Appendix C). These cards contained the same response
choices as the interview schedule. The probe cards were
made of 4" x 6" white cardboard; the information was in
large type for easy reading. The white cards were attached

to colored paper and then heat-laminated with plastic.

 

 

 

29

Consent Form

A Consent Form was developed to explain to the
teachers that their participation is voluntary, they could
end the interview at any time and the information provided

would be treated confidentially. (Appendix B).

Research Instrument Revisions

The interview schedule, nutrition interest check-
list, and observation sheets underwent several revisions.
The first draft of the interview schedule contained ques-
tions which had been discussed in nutrition education liter-
ature as well as original questions developed by the inves—
tigator. This draft was long, lacked focus and contained
some poorly written questions. Several revisions were made
following suggestions from the major professor and other
committee members.

The first draft of the nutrition interest checklist
contained topics, which when evaluated, overlapped. Two
revisions were made to develop a comprehensive list of more
explicit nutrition topics. The observation sheets required
only one revision to clarify possible locations of nutrition

education materials in the schools.

Nutrition Knowledge Test
A #0 item true-false and multipleuchoice test of

general nutrition knowledge was used to measure the teachers'

 

fifi “

. 30

' nutrition knowledge. (Appendix A). The decision to use
the Nutrition Knowledge Test (NKT) as one of the research
tools was based on the NKT's previous validity and re-
liability testing (Lackey gt g;., 1979). The development'
of the NKT included the use of test specifications and
review items, the use of item analysis and reliability

testing.

Pretesting

The interview schedule was pretested for clarity,
length and ease of administration with three elementary
teachers at Wardcliff Elementary School in Okemos, Michigan.
Several revisions were made to increase clarity, shorten
the interview and facilitate the recording of data.

The interview schedule, nutrition interest check-
list and observation sheets were reviewed and critiqued
by twelve Michigan State University, Food Science and Human
Nutrition, Community Nutrition graduate students and faculty

at a group meeting.

Interview Training

One of the disadvantages of using a personal inter-
view for data collection is the possibility of recording
inaccurate and incomplete information, due to improperly
trained interviewers. To minimize this possibility, the

interviewer participated in two interview training sessions.

 

‘1rIIIII"'-""""""""""""""""""IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I-I-I-IIIIIIIIIIIIII
31

The sessions were conducted by Drs. Carolyn Lackey and
Kathryn Kolasa (Assistant and Associate Professors at
Michigan State University, respectively), who had training
and experience in personal interviewing.

To develop the investigator's interviewing skills,
a complete dietary interview and an interview using the
interview schedule for this project were conducted. The
videotaping equipment in the Dietetic Instructional Resource
Center (DIRC) at Michigan State University was used for

these practice sessions.

Approval of Research Involving Human Subjects
The complete procedure for data collection was ap-
proved by the Michigan State University Committee on Re-

search Involving Human Subjects.

Sample Selection

One rural and one non-rural non-Title I, grades K-5th
or K-6th public school in Michigan were chosen as sample
sites. Both a rural and a non-rural school were chosen
for two reasons: (1) to represent different types of
communities in Michigan and (2) to see if any differences
existed in the type of teachers employed at the schools,
the type of resources available and/or the type of school
curricula. Non-Title I schools were specified in the in-
terest of homogenizing the sample. A Title I designation

entitled a school to extra funding, which could have an

32
effect on the school‘s curriculum and available resource
materials. Every teacher was to be interviewed, to pro-
vide a complete and accurate description of the status of
nutrition education in these schools. If a sample was
chosen by eliciting volunteers or by asking the adminis-
trator to choose teachers to be interviewed, there would
be a greater chance of obtaining a non-representative or
biased sample; the interviewed teachers may differ from
the non—interviewed teachers.

Suggestions for possible sample schools were elicited
from (1) Michigan Nutrition Education and Training (NET)
coordinators, who were contacted through Regional Educational
Media Centers (REMC), and (2) from Dr. Louise Sause, pro-
fessor, College of Education, Michigan State University,
who has many professional and personal contacts with admin-
istrators and teachers in Michigan schools.

Administrators at potential sample schools were con-
tacted by phone and/or by letter. (See Appendix B). At that
time, information on how to obtain approval to conduct a re-
search study in the school was requested. Once the appro—
priate person was contacted, the research was briefly de-
scribed. If the administrator responded favorable to the
initial contact, an appointment was made by Dr. Carolyn
Lackey, Associate Professor, Food Science and Human Nutri-
tion, Michigan State University, and the researcher, to
visit the school. A more in depth description of the re-
search was presented at that time. The principal or super-

intendent was given a copy of all the data collection

33
instruments, as well as an abstract of the research pro-
posal.

Final selection of the sample sites was based on
the willingness of the administrators and teachers in all
K-6th classrooms to participate. The schools chosen were:
(1) Laingsburg Community School, Laingsburg with 2# K—6th
grade teachers, and (2) Edgewood Elementary School, Okemos,

with 17 Ke5th grade teachers.

Data Collection

All interviews were conducted in the school building
during the teachers' work day. The interviews were con—
ducted in the teachers' classrooms or in the lounge. Probe
cards were used to assist the teachers in recalling selected

information during the interview (Appendix C).

Ngtrition Interest Checklist and Nutrition Knowledge Test

Following each interview a coded copy of the Nutri-
tion Knowledge Test (NKT) and nutrition interest checklist
(NIC) were left with each teacher for completion at their
convenience (Appendix A). A brief description of the NKT
and NIC and directions for their completion were provided
verbally.

It was requested that the NKT and NIC be returned
within a two week period. The secretary in the front office
of each school was given an envelope, in which teachers

were asked to place their completed forms. If a teacher

34

had not returned his/her forms within the two week period,
copies of the NKT and NIC and a postage-paid return envel-
ope were supplied. If the forms were still not returned

after approximately two more weeks, a reminder letter was
sent with additional copies of the NKT and NIC and another

return envelope.

Observation Sheets

Visual evidence of nutrition education in the schools
was noted on two observation sheets (Appendix A). A coded
observation sheet for classrooms was completed by the re-
searcher following each interview.

A second observation sheet was completed for each
school. The presence of nutrition education materials in
the library, lunchroom, hallways and resource rooms was

recorded.

Informed Consent

A letter introducing the researcher, briefly de-
scribing the research to be conducted and providing a num-
ber to call in case of questions, was developed (Appendix
B). The letter was taken to all interviews, in the event
anyone questioned the investigator's presence. All teach-
ers participating in the study were asked to sign the
Consent Form prior to the interview. By signing the form,

the teachers indicated that they understood the project,

 

I

35
participated willingly, knew they could end the interview
at any time, and knew the information provided would be

treated confidentially (Appendix B).
Fieldnotes

Fieldnotes were kept in addition to the data re-
corded in the interview schedule. Length of interview,
general observations and impressions relating to the inter-
view and respondent, weather conditions and the investi-
gator's physical condition and state of mind were all re-
corded. Some of the information recorded in the field-
notes was used to supplement the information gathered from

the observation sheets.

Data Analysis

Information collected on the interview schedule, nu-
trition interest checklist and Nutrition Knowledge Test was
coded by the researcher. The data was key punched onto cards
at Michigan State University's data preparation center. The
data were analyzed on a Ceyber 750 computer using programs
in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie
g; g;., 1975) and RPX programs (Standard Research, Inc.,
1980). Frequencies were calculated for all variables.

Contingency table analysis were performed on selected
variables utilizing sub—program cross-tabs from SPSS. The

difference test used was Chi square with P5. .05 as the

36
significance level. Z—and t-tests were computed to eval-
uate differences between means of samples and to evaluate
differences between prOportions for selected variables.

The Nutrition Knowledge Test underwent item analy-
sis at the Michigan State University scoring office. The
item analysis included an index of difficulty and an index
of discrimination based on the differences in groups having

the upper and lower 27% of total scores.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Sample

Names of potential sample elementary schools were
obtained from two REMC (Regional Education Media Centers)
coordinators and a Michigan State University Professor
in the Education Department, Dr. Louise Sause. A total
of six schools or school districts were contacted through
referrals by the REMC coordinators and education professor.
All schools requested a copy of the interview schedule be
mailed to them before they could make a decision.

A rural school in Fowler, Michigan agreed to parti-
cipate in the research. However, after the researcher made
an initial visit, it was determined that this school did
not meet the sample criteria; the nth, 5th, and 6th grade
students spent half days in a private school. Three schools
in Grand Rapids and the surrounding area, which met the sam-
ple criteria, declined to participate in the research study.
One of these schools provided a reason for their declination;
the Grand Rapids Director of the Office of Curriculum Plan-
ning and Evaluation stated that his distrct was "already
involved in nearly a dozen other studies," and could not

participate this year. Secretaries from the other two

37

38
schools phoned the researcher to report that their prin-
cipals did not want to participate.

Following an initial contact by Dr. Louise Sause,
a rural school in Laingsburg, Michigan (population 1,733)
agreed to meet with the researcher and project director,
to discuss the research. A copy of the research instru-
ments and abstract of the research proposal were presented.
After this meeting the principal gave the researcher per-
mission to interview the teachers in his school. The re-
searcher met with the superintendent to eXplain the re-
search. He gave his approval.

Following an initial contact by Dr. Louise Sause,
the principal of a non-rural school in Okemos, Michigan
(pOpulation 13,#62), Edgewood Elementary, agreed to meet
with the researcher and project director to discuss the
research. A copy of the research instruments were pre—
sented and explained. The principal approved the research
project. The teachers also approved the project at a faculty
meeting. For the remainder of this discussion Laingsburg
Community School will be referred to as the rural school
and Edgewood Elementary School as the non-rural school.

Interviews with 39 elementary teachers were com-
pleted between March 5 and May 8, 1980, from a possible 41
contacts, a completion rate of 95%. Completed Nutrition
Knowledge Tests and nutrition interest checklists were

received from all 39 teachers.

39

Twenty-three of the 39 interviews were with K-6th
grade teachers at the rural school. One teacher at the
rural school declined to be interviewed because she "had
nothing to do with teaching science or nutrition to the
students." (This teacher therefore was not counted as one
of the 39 interviewed teachers).

Sixteen of the 39 interviews were with K-5th grade
teachers at the non-rural school. One teacher at the non-
rural school did not want to be interviewed, but agreed to
self administer the interview schedule, nutrition interest
checklist and Nutrition Knowledge Test. The information
obtained from the self administered interview was not com-
pleted. A completed interview was not pursued from this
teacher due to her apparent apprehension to being inter-
viewed. (This teacher, therefore, was not counted as one
of the 39 interviewed teachers).

The average length of an interview was 30 minutes.
If the teacher had never included nutrition in his/her
curriculum, the interview required 10 minutes. Four in-

terviews lasted #5 minutes.

Sample Characteristics

The 39 teachers were comprised of 33 females and 6
males (Table l). Fifty-one percent of the 39 teachers were
30 years of age or younger. There were two first year
teachers in the sample, both teaching at the non-rural

school. The mean number of years teaching was 8, ll and

40

TABLE 1. SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS
INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6TH) IN MICHIGAN.

Rural School Non-Rural School Total

 

 

Cn=23) ___ (n=l6) (n=39)
Characteristics n _ 57 n _% n _%
Sex
Male 4 l7 2 13 6 15
Female 19 83 14 87 33 85
Age (years)1
21-25 5 22 l 6 6 15
26—30 9 39 5 3o 14 36
31-35 2 9 3 l9 5 13
36-40 3 l3 2 l3 5 13
#1-45 1 4 2 l3 3 8
51-60 3 l3 3 l9 6 15
Years Teaching
First year 0 0a 2 13b 2 5
2-5 11 A8 2 13 13 33
6-10 7 3O 4 25 ll 28
11-15 2 9o 3 19d 5 13
16-20 0 O 5 3O 5 13
21-2 5 3 13 o o 3 8

none of the teachers were 46-50 years of age

a’bsignificant at p 5; .05

c ’dsignificant at p 1‘: .01

41
9 for the rural, non-rural and total sample, respectively.

Sixty-one percent of the 39 teachers had been teaching
from 2-10 years.

Several t-tests for differences between proportions
were performed to determine if there were differences in
the distribution of males and females, age, and number of
years teaching for the rural and non-rural teachers. No
significant differences were found for sex or age between
the rural and non-rural teachers. There were significantly
more teachers at the rural school who had been teaching
two to five years (pf.- .05) and significantly more non-rural
teachers who had been teaching 16-20 years (pf. .01) (Table l).

The sample characteristics, sex, age, and numbers
of years teaching for the teachers in this study were com-
pared to the same sample characteristics for all K-6th grade
(teachers in Michigan (Sohrauban, 1980). The 2 test and
t—test for differences between proportions were performed.
The prOportion of males to females, mean age and mean num—
ber of years teaching did not differ significantly between
the teachers in this study and all K-6th grade teachers in
Michigan.

Most (91%) of the rural school teachers and 69 per-
cent of the non—rural school teachers reported earning col-
lege credits in addition to their bachelor'degrees (Table 2).
Thirty-one percent of the non-rural school teachers reported
hours past a Master's degree, with one teacher reporting a
doctorate degree. None of the rural school teachers reported

hours past a Master's degree.

42

TABLE 2. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF TEACHERS INTERVIEWED AT
TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN MICHIGAN.

 

Rural School Non-Rural School Total

 

 

 

 

(n=23) _(n=l6) __ (n=39)
Characteristics n $7 n _% n %
Highest degree earned
B.A.and 3.8. 2 9 5 31 7 18
B.A. or 8.8 plus a b
additional hours 14 61 4 25 18 46
M.A. 7 3O 2 l3 9 23
M.A. plus addition- c d
a1 hours 0 O 4 25 4 10
Ph.D. 0 O 1 6 l 3
College Major
El. ed./math,
science 3 l3 2 l3 5 13
El. ed/fine arts 4 l7 1 6 5 13
El. ed/social
studies 4 l7 0 O 4 10
E1. ed./1anguage
arts 2 2 13 1+ 10
El. ed./physica1
ed. 1 4 2 l3 3 8
Special education 2 9e 1 6f 3 8
Elementary ed. 0 O 3 19 3 8
Others 7 3O 5 3O 12 3O
a,b,e,f

significant at p,fi .05

c’dsignificant at p: .01

43
College degree majors and minors were varied with
no pattern emerging at either school. Five teachers (13%)
had a stated science emphasis in their elementary educa-
tion majors (Table 2).
All of the teachers reported that their school par-
ticipates in the National School Lunch Program, but does not

participate in the School Breakfast Program.

Teaching Respgnsibilities

The teaching responsibilities at the two schools
differed substantially. At the rural school grades K-4 are
either team taught in quads,l are taught by one teacher in
a contained classroom, or are taught by one teacher in a
quad. With the team teaching arrangement one teacher, for
example, is responsible for the science and social science
curriculum; another teacher is responsible for reading and
arithmetic. Two grades are frequently combined so that the
science/social science teacher teaches both 3rd and 4th
graders during different times of the day (Table 3).

The entire K-4 curriculum at the rural school is
taught by the classroom teachers; there are no specialty
teachers such as a physical education teacher. Therefore
within each quad or in a contained classroom the teachers/

teacher must each teach physical education, music and art.

 

lA quad is a large "open" type classroom which is
divided by half walls into four activity areas. Children
can be in all four areas, each group doing something dif-
ferent.

44

TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES TAUGHT BY TEACHERS INTER-
VIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN MICHIGAN.

Rural School Non-Rural School Total

 

 

 

 

_in= 23l (n= lél - 1.222).
Gradgg n % n 435 n 43%
Kindergarten 2 9 l 6 3 8
lst 3 13 l 6 4 10
2nd 4 l7 2 l3 6 15
3rd 3 l3 2 l3 5 13
4th 1 4a 2 13b 3 8
5th 0 O 3 l9 3 8
K-4th 1 4C 0 0d 1 3
K-Sth O O 5 3O 5 13
3rd & 4th 2 9 O O 2 5
4th, 5th, & 6th 1 4e 0 Of 1 3
5th & 6th 6 26 O O 6 15
a,b,e,f

significant at p5, .05

Cz’dsignificant at pf, .01

 

 

The 5th and 6th grades at the rural school are team
taught in "Open"2 classrooms. The students spend a half
day in homeroom where they receive communication skills,
and arithmetic and a half day in assigned or elective
courses. Each homeroom teacher has 5th graders for a half
a day and 6th graders the remainder of the day. The as-
signed courses include human ecology, science, social

science, art and physical education. Human ecology is

2An "open" classroom is a very large room which was
divided into classrooms by temporary walls usually made of
bookcases, bulletin boards, tables.

45

taught by a specialist rather than one of the open class-
room teachers. The other assigned courses are taught by
homeroom teachers. The elective courses include band,
woodshop and music. Each of these courses are taught by
one of the homeroom teachers.

The rural school teachers, especially K-4th, had
little time away from their students. The teachers ar-
rived at school between 8 and 8:15 a.m. The students
arrived in class at 9 a.m. The period between 8 and 9
a.m. was the teachers scheduled preparation time. The stu-
dents were in school from 9 a.m. till 2:30 p.m., with one
half hour for lunch. The teachers' work day ended a few
minutes after 2:30 p.m. Since there were no specialty
teachers, the classroom teachers had total responsibility
for their students for 5 of the 5% hours they were in
school. The teachers were not required to eat with the
students. There were a couple of exceptions to this: (1)
the teachers who team taught usually had less contact with
the students depending on their teams arrangements; (2)
the teachers rotated recess duty so that about a half hour
of free time was available to each teacher twice a week;
and (3) some of the 5th and 6th grade teachers had more
flexible schedules due to the varied responsibilities.

The non-rural school teachers had different teaching
responsibilities. All grades, K-5, are taught in contained
classrooms with only one teacher per classroom (Table 3).

Students received as part of the standard curriculum,

46

communication skills, social studies, arithmetic, science,
spelling, health and art from their classroom teacher.
Specialty teachers taught physical education, reading, media
skills, and music to the students, in physical areas sep-
arate from the contained classroom. For example, music
is taught in the music room, media skills in the media lab-
oratory and physical education in the gym. All students
had music and physical education. Students with special
needs received reading and language tutoring from a reading
Specialist. The media laboratory was open to any student
who had completed his/her classroom work. The classroom
teachers gave permission to their students to go to the
media laboratory on an individual basis. The librarian
was the media specialist and instructed the children in
this area.

The non-rural school teachers' day began at about
8:30 a.m. and ended at about 3:30 p.m. The students'
school day began at 9 a.m. and ended at 3:20 p.m. with
one half hour for lunch. The teachers were not required
to eat with the students. The teachers had preparation
periods before the students arrived in the morning, and
when the students were at music and physical education
class. The non-rural school teachers also rotated recess
duty so free time was available twice a week.

The available preparation time for non-rural teachers
and the rural, team teachers were similiar. The rural,

contained classroom teachers had less available preparation

47
time during each school day. The amount of preparation
time available did not make a significant difference in
the teachers decision to include Textra" subjects (deter-

mined by t-tests for difference between proportions).

Teachers Food and Nutrition Training

Thirty-two (82%) of the teachers had some type of
food or nutrition training (Table 4). A high school home
economics course was the most frequently mentioned (41%)
source of food and nutrition training. Dairy Council of
Michigan WorkShOPS and Girl Scouts were mentioned by 33 and
28 percent, respectively, of the teachers as sources of
food and nutrition training. A Z-test indicated that signi-
ficantly more rural school teachers (48%) reported attending

a Dairy Council of Michigan workshOp than non—rural teachers

(13%) (p -05).

Igclusion of "Extra" Subjects

Each teacher was asked if he/she included any sub-
jects, topics or activities in their classroom that other
teachers do not include. For example, an textra" subject
that he/she included in their curriculum. Initially, many
teachers were hesitant to reply. Several were not sure
what other teachers taught and others had taught an "extra"
subject for so long that they did not differentiate it from

their standard curriculum. Other teachers did not

48

TABLE 4. TYPE OF FOOD AND NUTRITION TRAINING REPORTED BY
THIRTY-TWO TEACHERS WHO HAD RECEIVED FOOD AND
NUTRITION TRAINING

 

Rural School Non-Rural School Total

 

 

_(n=23) ,__ _(n=16) (n=§9)

Type of food or
nutrition training n 4%, n <_;% n %
High School Course

Home Economics 8 l7 8 23 l6 19

Science 1 2 l 3 2 2

Other 2 4 3 9 5 6
College Course

Home Economics 1 2 2 6 3 4

Methods 3 7 o o 3 4

Nutrition 2 4 O O 2 2

Child Deve10pment l 2 l 3 2 2

Science 1 2 1 3 2 2

Other 3 7 2 6 5 6
4-H 3 7 l 3 4 5
Girl Scouts 5 11 6 17 ll 13
Inservice/Workshops

Dairy Council 11 24a 2 6b 13 16

Other 3 7 3 9 6 7
Other

Personal Study 1 2 2 6 3 4

Night Class O 0 2 6 2 2

Other 1 2 l 3 2 2

 

a’bsignificant at 133.05

49

necessarily include an extra topic but put extra emphasis
on a standard curriculum subject.

Language skills were mentioned by 25 percent of the
teachers as being a topic they emphasized. Other extra
topics included social/emotional skills (17%). Physical
science (13%), drama (11%), natural science and social
science (9% each), music (7%), nutrition and crafts (6%
each), and motor skills (4%). Eight (21%) of the teachers
reported including no extra topics.

The two most frequently cited reasons for deciding
to include the "extra" topics or for putting extra emphasis
on a standard curriculum subject were "an interest of the
teacher" and a "recognized student need" (23% each). Other
reasons for including extra topics were teachers' training
or knowledge (13%), suggestion from another teacher (12%),
current interest of educators (10%), student interest (8%),
in curriculum of previous teacher and assigned to it 06%
each).

A t—test indicated no significant difference between
the two schools in the percentage of teachers who did not
include any "extra" topics, 22 percent at Laingsburg and 19
percent at Edgewood. It appeared that the decision to in-
clude an "extra" subject was not always based on the avail-
ability of time. The teacher's personal interest, recogni-
tion of student need, and/or training seemed to be the im-
portant factor in making the decision to include Textra"

subjects.

50
Teachers'ggpinions

§tudents' Nutrition Knowledge Needs

Most of the interview questions were about nutri-
tion education. Teachers were asked what they felt stu«
dents needed to know about nutrition. Most (77%) of the
teachers felt students needed to know about the Daily Food
Guide or, as the teachers most often replied fThe Basic
Four" (Table 5). "Junk" food versus "good" food was the
next most frequently mentioned topic (38%). The teachers
who mentioned this topic frequently had specific foods in
mind that they considered "junk" food such as sugar, candy,
fast food, salted snack foods, and snack cakes. Fruits
and vegetables were most often cited as the "good" foods.

The teachers who only gave one or two responses
to what they felt students needed to know about nutrition
frequently mentioned "eating right" (18%) which was coded
within the Daily Food Guide category. There were no signi-
ficant differences in the topics mentioned by the teachers
in the rural versus the non—rural school.

The frequent mention of the Daily Food Guide as the
topic which teachers felt students needed to know about
could be expected. The Minimal Performance Objectives for
Health Education in Michigan developed by the Michigan De-
partment of Education (1974) stresses the identification
of the Basic Four Food Groups as the minimum nutrition know-
ledge needed for students in grades 1-3. Inservice programs

for teachers in several Michigan schools included or were

51
TABLE 5. PERCEIVED STUDENT NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE NEEDS RE—

PORTED BY TEACHERS INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS
(K-6th) IN MICHIGAN

Rural School Non-Rural School Total

 

 

 

_in=23) _in=16) _ (n=32)

Topic n 4;%, n % n 3%'
Daily Food Guide 17 27 13 28 3o 27
"Junk" food vs. "good"

food 7 ll 8 l7 15 14
Nutrition and health

related issues 7 ll 6 l3 13 12
Meal patterns 6 9 5 11 ll 10
Basic Need for food 8 l3 2 4 10 9
Nutrients and their

function in the body 6 9 3 6 9 8
Weight control 3 5 3 6 6 5
Snacks 4 6 2 4 6 5
Others - Food prepar-

ation, dental health,

introduce to new

foods 2 3 3 5 5 5
Consumerism 3 5 l 2 4 4

Don't Know 1 2 1 2 2 2

52
completely based on the Basic Four Food Groups (Lackey and
Kolasa, 1979). Since the curriculum guides and inservice
programs have been stressing the Basic Four, the teachers
felt students must need to know about it.

The mention of the "junk" food issue may reflect
the past and present media coverage. The media, television,
radio, newspapers, and magazines, have included many "junk"
food related reports and commentaries, which has made this

a popular food and nutrition issue, for adults and children.

Impact on Students Eating Habits

The teachers were asked if they believed that they,
as a teacher, could have an impact on students eating habits.
All 39 teachers (100%) replied that yes, they could have an
impact, however, the degree of perceived impact varied.
When asked to quantify the amount of impact, 44 percent
responded the impact would be a little, 28 percent a lot,
26 percent medium and 2 percent "it depends". The values
used to quantify the amount:of impact were subjective eval-
uations made by each teacher.

About half of the teachers (54%) felt they could
affect students' eating habits through their influence as
an authority figure. Other ways which the teachers felt
they could have an impact were to include nutrition infor-
mation in the curriculum (41%), make the children aware
of their eating habits (21%), eat with the students (18%),

have tasting parties (13%), and/or take Tbad" food away

53

from students (5%). There were no significant differences
between the rural and non-rural school teachers in responses
to questions concerning their impact on students eating
habits.

The potential for a teacher to have an influence
on a student's habit formation is greater during the early
elementary years than during a later time (Petersen and
Kies, 1972). The teachers in this sample recognized this
potential. They frequently mentioned that the students
respected them; the students often tried to emulate the
teachers' habits and behavior. This was particularly ob-
vious when the teacher ate with the students. They reported

that students would at least try everything the teacher ate.

Where Students Learn About Nutrition

 

A few more teachers felt that students learned about
nutrition practices and principles outside the school (95%)
than inside the school (87%). The difference was not stat-
istically significant as indicated by a t-test. When asked
from whom, outside the school, students learned about nutri—
tion, parents (46%), family (21%), mother (10%), peers (8%),
and the doctor (3%) were the cited sources. Eighteen per-
cent of the teachers did not know from whom students learned
nutrition outside of the school. Other possible sources of
nutrition information, outside the school, included television/
media (56%), neighborhood, garden and health food store (5%

each) and Girl Scouts (3%).

54

Inside the school 64 percent of the teachers felt
the students learned about nutrition practices and prin-
ciples from them, personally, while 36 percent felt that
another teacher helped the students learn about nutrition.
Another 8 percent felt that peers were the students' sources
of nutrition information and 10 percent of the teachers had
no answer.

It was suggested that nutrition be incorporated in-
to specific subjects, such as health (28%), science (21%),
home economic (13%) and social science (8%). Integrating
nutrition into the total curriculum was suggested by 28 per-
cent of the teachers. Thirteen percent of the teachers
favored teaching nutrition as a separate subject.

Other responses for where inside the school stu-
dents learned about nutrition included the lunchroom (10%),
another grade (5%), and during nutrition week (3%). There
was no significant differences in the responses the rural
versus non-rural school teachers gave in the questions con:
cerning where students learn about nutrition.

The teachers in this research sample believed that
their students did need to know something about nutrition.
Knowledge of the Daily Food Guide was the most often cited
tOpic. The teachers also believed that they could have
an impact on their students' eating habits through authority
figure influence and by presenting nutrition information.
The home, including mother, parents and family, and the

media, were recognized as sources of nutrition information

55
for the students outside of school. Inside school, a
teacher was the most frequently reported source of nutri-

tion information.

Nutrition in the Curriculum

Following the more general section of the interview
schedule, the teachers were divided into three groups de-
pending on their responses to two questions: (1) Do you
currently include any nutrition education t0pics or (2)
have you taught nutrition topics in the past. There were
21 (54%) teachers currently including nutrition, 12 (31%)
teachers who had taught nutrition in the past, and 6 (15%)
teachers who had never taught nutrition. (Table 6). A Chi-
square test indicated that the observed distribution of
current, past and non-nutrition teachers for the total sam-
ple was significantly different (pi-.02) than what would
be expected by chance. The teachers will be referred to
as current, past or non-nutrition teachers for the remainder
of this discussion, as defined in the Operational Definitions
(p-6)-

There was no significant differences in the number
of current, past and non-nutrition teachers at the rural
and non-rural school. There were few significant dif-
ferences found between the rural and non-rural school
teachers. Those found were within the categories of years
of teaching, highest degree earned, college major, grades

taught, and food and nutrition training.

56

TABLE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT, PAST AND NON-NUTRITION
TEACHERS INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN
Non-Rural
Rural School School Total
__(n=23) __(n=l6)_!_ (n=32)
Characteristics n % n % n %
Currently include nutri-
tion topics a
(current) 11 48 10 62 21 54
Have included nutrition
topic in the past b
(past) 10 43 2 13 12 31
Have never included
nutrition topics c
(non-nutrition) 2 9 4 25 6 15

 

a’b’csignificant at p g .05

However, Chi-square tests indicate that the teacher's

age, sex, years of teaching, college major or minor, grade

taught, highest degree earned and previous food or nutrition

training made no significant difference in the teacher's

decision to include nutrition topics.

Therefore, the rural

and non-rural school teachers will be considered as one

sample for the remainder of the discussion.

The teachers who had taught nutrition in the past

but were not including any nutrition related topics this

year reported why they no longer included nutrition. The

reasons cited included lack of time (24%), no room in an

57
already tight curriculum (20%), included in another course
(16%), lack of money, lack of materials, lack of teacher
cooperation, not required in new curriculum, and being new
to the school (8% each).

One-half of the non-nutrition teachers had never
considered including nutrition topics. They would, how—
ever, consider teaching nutrition if they were a science
teacher (25%), they had more eXperience in nutrition (25%),
there were a teacher consensus that would compel them to
teach nutrition (25%) or there were more time or an ex-
tended day (25%). The non-nutrition teachers who had con-
sidered including nutrition cited indecision on when to
begin a program (33%), lack of experience (33%), and lack
of school support (33%) as reasons why they had not begun
teaching nutrition.

Several teachers were not sure what was meant by
nutrition education. Two teachers reported during the
interview that they did not include any nutrition related
topics in their curriculum. Through observations, in the
days following the interviews, it became clear that these
teachers were currently including nutrition topics, but
apparently did not recognize them as such. For example,
one teacher was overheard talking to the secretary in the
front office about the Indian soup his class had prepared
while they were studying India in social studies. Another
teacher was observed filling a baby food jar with peanut

butter in the kitchen at school. Another teacher asked

58

what he was doing, and he eXplained that he used the pre-
paration of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as a lesson
in giving and taking directions.

Several teachers reported, initially, during the
interview, that they included no nutrition topics but seemed
rather unsure. The investigator eXplained what a nutrition
education tOpic could include as defined in the operational
definitions (p.6). The teachers promptly changed their
previous negative response. The most frequently overlooked
nutrition related activity was tasting parties or snack
parties, where the teacher may introduce the students to
new foods. One teacher commented on why she initially did
not consider her inclusion of a vegetable and fruit classi-
fication exercise as nutrition education. She said that
she thought of nutrition education as being "more formal
and detailed."

Other researchers have reported larger percentages
of teachers including nutrition topics in the curriculum.
than the 54 percent reported in this research sample.
Petersen and Kies (1972) reported 86 percent of the teachers
responding to their mail questionnaire were currently in—
cluding nutrition in the classroom. Cook and coworkers (1977)
reported similar results where 75 percent of the teachers
they surveyed via mail questionnaire had taught foods or
nutrition in their classroom during that year.

The differences in the percentage of current nutri-

tion teachers reported in the literature and that found in

59

this research could be the result of different survey methods.
Since the response to the mail questionnaire is voluntary,

it is conceivable that more current nutrition teachers would
respond due to their involvement in nutrition education.

This would bias the sample making it non—representative of
the total teaching population (Miller, 1977). Petersen and
Kies (1972) and Cook and coworkers (1977) reported response
rates of 47 percent and 61 percent, respectively.

All of the teachers in two schools were surveyed
via personal interviews for the current research. The two
teachers who did not want to be interviewed (non-respondents)
did not include nutrition. The percentage of current nutri-
tion teachers would be 51 percent if these two teachers
were included as sample subjects. The response rate for
the total potential sample of 41 teachers was therefore
95 percent or 39 teachers. The current research is rep-
resentative of the teaching population in the two sample
schools.

Researchers have reported that a teacher's ex-
posure to a high school nutrition/foods course, a college
nutrition/foods course or an inservice nutrition workshop
was significantly related to the teacher's decision to
teach nutrition. The present research did not support
this finding. Chi square tests indicate that previous
food or nutrition training made no significant difference
in the teacher's decision to include nutrition topics in

the classroom.

60

In summary, about one half (54%) of the teachers
in the research sample were currently including nutrition
topics in their curriculum. This is a smaller percentage
of teachers than has previously been reported in the liter-
ature. Lack of time, money, and materials were the rea-
sons most often cited by past nutrition teachers for no
longer including nutrition topics. Some confusion existed
as to what was meant by nutrition education. Teachers
occasionally overlooked or did not recognize food and
nutrition activities they included in their classroom as

being nutrition education.

Nutrition Topics

Current and past nutrition teachers cited the Daily
Food Guide, or more specifically, the Basic Four Food Groups
as the topic most frequently included in their curriculum
(Table 7). Snacks, for the current teachers, and meal pat-
terns for the past teachers, were also frequently mentioned.
Eleven of the current (52%),2nuiseven of the past (58%) nutri-
tion teachers who mentioned the Basic Four Food Groups or
Daily Food Guide as a topic students needed to know about,
did include it in their nutrition education curriculum. How-
ever, chi-square tests indicate that these observations are
not significant.

The current nutrition teachers' decision to include
the nutrition topics in Table 7 was based on the interest

and concern of the teacher (35%), a recognized student need

61

TABLE 7. NUTRITION TOPICS TAUGHT BY CURRENT AND PAST
NUTRITION TEACHERS INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS
(K-6th) IN MICHIGAN.

 

Current Teachers Past Teachers

_In =67) (n=29)
Topic n

o‘
0‘

n

 

Daily Food Guide 16
Snacks 10
Dental health
Nutrient function
Health related issues
Food preparation
Consumerism

Food composition
Basic need

Meal patterns

Weight control

Others

Don't remember

l'-’ k...)
WVKCOVMOOOOKOK») 4?

m
0‘

+4FJN
CbownunpknOvoxroroULC
A)

O-C—‘NNNbJ-FKRUIOCD
F‘Nl—‘ONNOOOWl—‘l—‘O

 

a’bsignificant at pé .01

 

 

62
(27%), availability of materials (16%) and the ability of
the nutrition topic to fit into another lesson (8%).
Fourteen percent of the current nutrition teachers reported
that the inclusion of specific nutrition topics fjust hap-
pened". The decision to include specific nutrition topics,
for the past nutrition teachers, was based on availability
of materials (50%), a recognized student need (27%), the
interest and concern of the teacher, and training the teacher
had acquired (11% each). A t-test for differences between
proportions indicated that there were significantly (p .02)
more past nutrition teachers who based their decision to in-
clude nutrition topics in the availability of materials (50%)
than current nutrition teachers (16%). There were no signi-
ficant differences in the other categories.

The literature contained several reports on nutri-
tion topics which nutrition education specialists and con-
sultants have chosen to include in elementary school our-
ricula (Baker, 1972; Grogan, 1978; Head, 1974; Sodowsky,
1973; Wodarski gt g;., 1980). Numerous nutrition topics.
were mentioned in these reports. The topics included: the
function of nutrients, sugar and tooth decay, label reading,
refined vs. unrefined foods, food composition, meal planning,
snacking, additives, Daily Food Guide, social and psycholo-
gical develOpment of food habits and fortification. No re-
ports on the nutrition tOpics teachers chose to include in
their classroom were found.

Grogan (1978) reported that teachers expressed sim-

ilar reasons for including specific nutrition topics in

63
their classrooms as did teachers in the current research.
The teachers also felt that nutrition topics should address

the "pressing needs and interests of students".

Teaching Techniques

Many teaching methods were employed by the current
nutrition teachers (Table 8). Lecture/discussion and taste
testing were most often used. Cooking, singing, art pro-
jects and food sorting activities were the "other? teaching
methods reported. The past nutrition teachers remembered

most often using the lecture/discussion method.

 

TABLE 8. TYPES OF TEACHING METHODS USED TO PRESENT NUTRI-
TION TOPICS BY CURRENT AND PAST NUTRITION TEACHERS
INTERVIEWED IN TWO SCHOOLS (K—6th) IN MICHIGAN

 

Current Teachers Past Teachers

 

 

 

 

(n=97) (n=32)

Method n % n %
Lecture/discussion 17 18a 11 34b
Taste testing 17 18 5 l6
Films/filmstrips 15 15 7 22
Demonstrations 14 14 3 9
Experiments 13 13 2 6
Bulletin boards 7 7 O O
Self-paced materials 6 6 l 3
Food preparation 3 3 l 3
Others 5 5 2 6
a,b

significant at p f: .05

 

64

A combination of teaching techniques was preferred
by most teachers. The decision on which technique to use
depended on the topic, availability of materials and the
class atmosphere.

Head (1974) reported that the majority of teachers
in her research sample felt tasting parties had been the
most effective technique for introducing new food to stu-
dents. Other researchers have reported other teaching
techniques and strategies which have been successful in
presenting nutrition topics (Baker, 1972; Grogan, 1978;
Sodowsky, 1973; Wodarski gt g;., 1980). Games, simulations
and discovery projects were preferred methods. They were
seen as more actively involving students and were viewed
as more likely to overcome disinterest and be effective
(Grogan, 1978). The teachers in the current research also
recognized the need to, at times, employ teaching methods
which would be activity oriented. The class atmosphere was

a factor in their decision in which teaching methods to use.

Resources

The teachers were asked if they ever used any re-
source people to help them teach nutrition, and if they
did who they were and how they were used. Current nutri-
tion teachers used mothers/parents (41%), another teacher
(30%), and Dairy Council of Michigan staff (22%) as re-
source people. Food service personnel were mentioned by

10 percent of the current nutrition teachers. The past

65

nutrition teachers mentioned Daily Council of Michigan
staff (46%), a nurse (36%), and another teacher (18%)
as their resource people. Resource people were never
used by 19 percent of the current nutrition teachers and
50 percent of the past nutrition teachers.

Mothers/parents were used as guest speakers or as
teacher aides, to help prepare food in the classroom.
Nurses were also used as guest speakers. Other teachers
and Dairy Council of Michigan staff were used as reference
people and as a source of materials. Food service per-
sonnel were seen as gatekeepers to the kitchen facilities.

Both current and past nutrition teachers used
National Dairy Council and Dairy Council of Michigan re-
source materials most often as a resource aid (33 and 48%
of the teachers, respectively). Other nutrition education
resource materials reported by both groups of teachers in-
cluded popular and professional magazines (20 and 19% re—
spectively), popular and text books (18 and 10% respectively),
health department materials (9 and 5% respectively), food
industry materials (9 and 5% respectively), and Cooperative
Extension Service bulletins (7 and 5% respectively). Ma-
terials from the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
newspapers, cookbooks and education supply companies also
were reported as resource aids. The resource materials were
used as handouts for the students, references for the teacher
or for classroom display on bulletin boards.

The resources the teachers reportedly used in the

current research were similar to the resources used by

66
teachers in other reports (Cook gt gt., 1977; Head, 1974;
Sodowsky. 1973).

Qtass and Prgparation Timg

The teachers were asked to estimate how much class
time they set aside for nutrition related topics each school
year and how much time it took to prepare to teach these
topics. The current nutrition teachers reported estimates
of the amount of class and preparation time spent on nutri-
tion related topics was twice the amount of estimated time

reported by the past nutrition teachers. (Table 9).

TABLE 9. PREPARATION AND CLASS TIME SPENT ON NUTRITION
TOPICS BY CURRENT AND PAST NUTRITION TEACHERS
INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN MICHIGAN

 

 

 

Current Teachers Past Teachers
ALQ;21)_7 (n=12)
Charactertgtic ,% hrs/school year % hrs/school year.

 

 

Class time spent on
nutrition related tOpics

Goodl estimate 62 16 42 8
poor estimate 24 16 42 7
no idea 14 0 16 0

Preparation time spent

on nutrition related

topics
Good estimate 42 12 33 6
poor estimate 24 4 42 2
no idea 34 O 25 0

 

1The good and poor classifications were subjectively deter-
mined by each interviewed teacher.

67

Many of the teachers had an extremely difficult
time estimating how much time they spent on nutrition.
The administration in both schools did not require the
teachers to keep track of the amount of time they spent
on specific topics or subjects. A few teachers had de-
veloped detailed lesson plans so could make good estimates
of time. Other teachers used a random approach to teaching
"whatever happens, happens":

Cook and coworkers (1977) found that teachers (grades
K—6th) taught an average of 9.7 hours of food and nutri-
tion during 1974-1975. The current nutrition teachers in
the present research reported that they spend 60 percent
more class time on nutrition related activities than the
teachers in the Cook and coworkers' (1977) study. How-
ever, as mentioned earlier, it was often difficult for the

teachers to estimate the time spent on nutrition related

topics.

Adgttion of new tgpics

Teachers are frequently asked to add new topics to
their curriculum. Curriculum changes are influenced by
changing public interests and opinions on what an Teduoa-
tion" should include. Nutrition is a subject which teach-
ers may be (or have been) asked to add.

If another topic was introduced that a current nutri-
tion teacher was required to add to their curriculum, 19

percent of the respondents replied that they would have to

68
eliminate a topic they were teaching now. They would elim-
inate what they did not enjoy teaching (25%), the last sub—
ject of the day (25%). or by setting priorities based on
perceived student needs (50%). Of the 67 percent of the
teachers who felt that they would not have to eliminate a
topic to make room for a new topic, 85 percent would inte-
grate the new topic into the existing curriculum, and 15
percent would spend less time on other subjects. Fourteen
percent of the current nutrition teachers did not know

how they would handle the introduction of a new topic.

Lgcorporatinngutrition Into The Curriculum

Current and past nutrition teachers gave suggestions
concerning what it would take to get non-nutrition teachers
to include nutrition education in their classrooms. The
suggestions cited included accessible materials (29%), in-
service (24%), more time (12%), a developed program/set
curriculum (12%), teacher encouragement (10%), and.resource
people (7%). Other suggestions mentioned were more money,
accurate knowledge of nutrition, and an awareness of stu-
dent's needs.

Current, past and non-nutrition teachers gave sug-
gestions on what they might need to assist them in including
nutrition in their classrooms. The most frequently mentioned
need was accessible materials (46%), such as workbooks, texts,

recipes, pamphlets and visuals. Money was reported as a

69

frequent need of current and past nutrition teachers. Other
suggestions for incorporating nutrition into the classroom
included, the need for more time, knowledge and preservice
training; more teacher and administration support for nutri-
tion activities; a standard nutrition curriculum; and a
state mandate for the inclusion of nutrition education in
all elementary schools.

Similar teacher needs for incorporating nutrition
into the curriculum have been reported in the literature
(Cook gt g;., 1977; Grogan, 1978; Head, 1974; Sodowsky,
1973; Wodarski gt g;., 1980). Poor physical facilities
in the classroom or school, lack of available printed ma-
terials and insufficient time were limitations identified
by some teachers (Head, 1974). Cook and coworkers (1977)
found that when unprompted, only 6 percent of the teachers
they sampled said they wanted a food or nutrition workshop.
However, when prompted by a question on the questionnaire
over half of the teachers said they would attend a nutri-
tion workshop. The teachers in the current research sam-
ple gave unprompted responses to this question. Twenty-one
percent of the teachers mentioned inservice or workshops
as a possible method of assisting them incorporate nutri-

tion into their classroom.

70

Other Research Instrumentg

A complete set of data, including an interview,
Nutrition Knowledge Test and nutrition interest checklist
were obtained from each of the 39 teachers in the research

sample (Figure l).

 

FIGURE 1. RATE OF RESPONSE FOR NKT AND NIC BY TEACHERS
INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K—6th) IN MICHIGAN

 

n = 39 Total number of teachers in research
‘//////\\\\ sample
yes no Number of teachers returning NKT and
n=30 l/;f9 NIC prior to follow-up requests.
yes no Number of teachers returning NKT
n=5 n=4 and NIC after one follow-up request
yes no Number of teachers returning
n=4 n=0 NKT and NIC after two follow-up
requests.

 

Nutrition Knowledge Test

All 39 teachers completed a 40 item true—false and
multiple-choice computer SCOFGd Nutrition Knowledge Test
(NKT), (Appendix A). Each item was valued at 2.5 points.
The mean score on the NKT was 50.5, the mode 47.5, with a
range of 25 to 87.5 (Tables 10 and 11). One hundred points

71

TABLE 10. NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE SCORES OF TEACHERS INTERVIEWED
AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN MICHIGAN

 

 

Non-

Current ‘ Past Nutrition
Descriptive Teachers Teachers Teachers Total
Statistics (n=21) (n=12) (n=6) (n=39)
Mean 52.6 51.2 40.2 50.5
Mode 47.5 60.0 32.5 47.5
Range 25.0-87.5 32.5-62.5 30.0-65.0 25.0-87.5
Standard
Deviation 14.2 9.9 13.6 13.4

 

TABLE 11. DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE SCORES OF
TEACHERS INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN
MICHIGAN

 

 

NKT Test Score % Percentile Rank
25 3 1
27.5 3 4
3O 3 6
32.5 8 12
35 3 17
37-5 5 21
42.5 5 26
45 5 31
47.5 15 41
52-5 3 53
55 13 63
57-5 3 7
6O 13 78
65 5 87
67.5 8 94
87.5 3 99

 

72

were possible. The standard deviation was 13.4. When the
mean test scores for current, past, and non-nutrition teach-
ers were compared, no significant difference existed. How-
ever, the difference between the mean test scores for the
21 current nutrition teachers (52.6), and the six non-
nutrition teachers (40.2), was nearing significance (p 5.09).
Current nutrition teachers who included 5 or more nutrition
topics in their curriculum averaged 55.0 on the NKT, com-
pared to 52.0 for the current nutrition teachers who included
less than 5 topics. The difference was not significant.

The high NKT score of 87.5 was an outlier. The next
highest score was 67.5. The teacher with the 87.5 score
was the human ecology teacher, a specialist in foods and
nutrition.

Mean item difficulty was 50, with a range of 18-92
(Table 12). Test items of greatest difficulty for the sam-
ple teachers were those concerning the definitions of nutri-
ents and enrichment, Recommended Dietary Allowances, fat
soluble vitamins, and calorie needs during pregnancy. Test
items which were of lowest difficulty for this sample were
those concerning the function of carbohydrate and sodium,
general nutrient needs and one item on the Daily Food Guide.

Other NKT items concerning the Daily Food Guide were
of moderate difficulty with difficulty indices of 51-67.
Items concerning sources of nutrients and nutrient informa-
tion were of moderately low difficulty for the teachers with

item difficulty indices of 31-50.

73

TABLE 12. NKT ITEM RESPONSE SUMMARY DATA FOR TEACHERS
INTERVIEWED AT TWO SCHOOLS (K-6th) IN MICHIGAN

 

Number of

 

 

 

Item Difficulty Indices Items Percentage
90-100 1 2
81-90 1 2
71-80 4 10
61-70 7 17
51-60 8 20
41-50 5 13
31-40 8 20
21—30 4 10
11-20 2 5
00-10 0 0
Number of
Discrimination Indices Items Percentage
90-100 0 0
81-90 1 2
71-80 1 2
61-70 1 2
51-60 5 13
41-50 4 10
31-40 10 25
21-30 4 10
11-20 2 5
00-10 9 22
Less than 00 3 7

74

Mean item discrimination was 32, with a range of
-40 to 90. Thirteen test items had a discrimination score
of less than 30. A discrimination score of less than 30
indicates that the item did not discriminate well between
those who knew the answer and those who did not. (Ebel,
1979). A negative discrimination score indicates that
there were more correct responses to the test item from
persons with the lower 27 percent of total scores than
from persons with the upper 27 percent of total scores.
The remaining 27 NKT items had discrimination scores of
30 or greater, indicating that these items were discrim-
inating between those who knew the answer and those who
did not. The mean item discrimination for the test was
low but acceptable.

The Kuder Richardson 20 (K-R 20) reliability co-
efficient for this sample group was .71. ,The K-R 20 re-
liability coefficient for the final pretesting in the de-
velopment of the NKT was .93 (Lackey gt gt, 1979). The
sample for the final pretesting was composed of Society
for Nutrition Education (SNE) members, and two groups of
Michigan teachers. The sample included some people with
training in nutrition and some without, so variance in-
creased, which increased the reliability coefficient.

The pretest sample also was divided by groups.
K-R 20's were calculated for the SNE members and the two
groups of teachers. The respective K-R 20's were .73, .73,

and .59. The lower reliability coefficients indicate that

75
the pretest sample groups displayed more similar knowledge
in nutrition within their groups (Ebel, 1979).

The teachers in the current research sample also
displayed similar nutrition knowledge. This resulted in
less variance in their test scores. The K-R 20 was there-
fore similar to the pretest sample when it was divided by
groups.

Variance of test scores influences reliability.
The greater the variance on a test the higher the relia-
bility. When testing people with similar knowledge scores
should vary relatively little resulting in a lower re-
liability (Lackey gt gl_., 1979).

A test designed to compare individuals requires a
higher degree of reliability (2 .90), then a test designed
to compare groups (.75 to .80). A reliability of .71 can
be tolerated if the test results are to be used for group
survey purposes (Tinkleman, 1971). One of the uses of the
NKT results from the current research was to compare the
nutrition knowledge of this group of teachers to other
groups. Therefore, the K-R 20 of .71 calculated for the
current research sample was low but acceptable.

Chi square tests indicate that the teacher's age,
sex, years of teaching, school location, and previous food
or nutrition training made no significant difference in the

teacher's NKT score.

76

Nutrition Interest Checklists

All of the 39 teachers completed a nutrition inter-
est checklist (NIC). The teachers were personally most
interested and wanted more information on consumerism,
weight control, safety of the food supply, drugs and nu-
trient interactions, and nutrition and health related issues
(Table 13). Topics of least personal interest were food
from farm to table, legislation related to food, and inter-
national food habits and issues.

Topics of greatest interest for teaching to stu-
dents in a nutrition education curriculum included basic
need for food, Daily Food Guide, meal patterns and snacks
(Table 14). Topics of least teaching interest were legis-
lation related to food, drug and nutrient interactions,
food from farm to table, nutrition and health, and inter-
national food habits and issues.

Eleven teachers (28%) who listed the Daily Food
Guide as a topic they would teach to their students had
reported that they were currently including it or had in-
cluded it in the past. The basic need for food and snacks
were mentioned by four (18%) teachers on the Twould teach
to students" checklist and on the fourrent or past nutri-
tion topics included in the curriculumf variable.

The Daily Food Guide/Basic Four Food Groups was
the most frequently reported topic that teachers felt stu-
dents needed to know about, and would or did include in

their nutrition education curriculum. The Dairy Council

 

77

 

mm o o m Ho>oa mug so msoop hoeeo
m mm . am am chflpoxnms .wcflmmoo
, Iona .wcflzonmv canoe on such Song boom
m mm mm mm season odd cone
leaps: .ooom ow oopmaon Coapmawflwmq
m am on on mmsmmw ocm means: UOOH HMCOfipmcsouCH
w Hm mm mm Aooom on mpco
lanes: mo psoosmv Coapflmomsoo ooom
m ma mm mm AOpo .ncccfio
.nocoa .pmmmxmmpnv monoppmm Amos
a a as on its:
.zwsopm .zwnoCmv 600% pom pom: oflmmm
m am am an Cowwflnpzc can nonpoanp¢
m OH mm Hm hpcn
one CH defipocsM pawns com mpcoflnpsz
n ma mm Hm spacer HopCoQ
m CH 0N an Amocm36HH< auspofla onenesso
loom .mmsonw ooomv mofisu ooom hHHMQ
0H ma mm mm mxomcm
m ma mm mm mosmmfl omsmamn spasm: can pcoflnpsz
m ma ma No mCOflpomnopcfi psownps: ocm mama
m ma am No ACOHpMpHCMm .mo>Hp
nanomv magnum @009 one he apovmm
m m om so spaoooo\sonpcoo eeoaoz
m a ma no Amcflasn
.mcfimwpnm>om .mcfiacpmav EmHCoESmcoo
a :1. so a a oaooe
oncoamom sedans Cowpmsnowcfl COHpmsnowcfl
oz unOHCH whoa whoa some ones oxfla
xmom Op zwsocm so: on van case; and
cosmopopcfi poz cosmonPCH oopmmnoch

 

z<UHIUHE zH “newnzv wqoomom 039 zH
amzmH>mmezH mmmxo<me Mm monoe ZOHBHmBDz Dmeomémm zH 9mmmMBzH A¢zommmm .MH mqm<e

78

 

n: ma OH OH oH oa oadoaooo oz
mm n O O O O cease: ocm Cows
swaps: .ooom Op oopmaon schemamflwoq
:0 n O n O O m:owpodpmpcfl escapes: cum wsnm
:w w m m O O Amcfipoxnms .mcflmmoc
long .mCHzohwv canoe op enmm Scam Ooom
mm m m m O O mosmmfi oopmaoh spasm: ocm sowafinpzz
mm m m m O m mosmmfl can means: ooo% Honowpmcsmch
Hm n O OH m m ACOflHMpwcmm
.oo>aeaooov saaasa oooa one so season
Hm m m m m m Aooom CH
masownpsc mo mcsosmv scavwmomaoo poem
on ma m m o m :oaeahpao odo ooaeoaep<
an m m m m m anamono\aonpcoo pzmaoz
an m ma O m m chflhsp
.mcfimflppm>om .mcflamnmav SmHhoESmCOO
ow m O O ma m hoop
one CH Coapocsw Mamas and masoflnpsz
we ma m m OH m spams: Hanson
mm m AN AN OH OH mxomzm
Hm m oa ma n ma A.opo .noccao
.c023H .pmmmxmohnv mahoppmm How:
am m m O OH ma Ammocmsoaa< harpofio consosso
loom .mmsonw ooomv ooflsu boom zHHmO
H: OH O O ma mm Ahwmmon
.npaonm .zwnoCov cock soy woo: cammm
l a l w! an a a E 1 I {oaaoe
Comoso oofiozo mowoco mowono ooao:o mowono
9oz :pm gs: ppm ocm pma

 

.mezmabam mHmze OB Io¢me QADOB z<OonH2 zH Anponxv
mqooxom 039 zH szmH>mmezH mmmro<me e<me mOEmOB ZOHBHmBDZ m>Hm mos .SH mqm<e

79

of Michigan had sponsored an inservice program in the rural
school and had provided materials to teachers in the non-
rural school. Since the Dairy Council programs and mater-
ials are based on the food group system, it could be ex-
pected that teachers would include it in their curriculum.
The Dairy Council of Michigan also has activities on snacks
and the need for food, the next most frequently mentioned

topics by the teachers.

Tgacherg_Philosophies

 

At the end of the interview, before the demographic
data were collected, the teachers were asked if they wanted
to talk about any nutrition issue we had not touched on yet
or any basic philosophies or feelings that they wanted to
share. If the teachers had not said much during the be-
ginning part of the interview they usually reported more,
as yet unexpressed feelings, than the teachers who had
talked more during the interview.

Many teachers (64%) expressed concern for the nutri-
tional well-being of the students. Fifteen of the teachers
(38%) believed that nutrition should be taught in school,
that it was extremely important, but that parents need to
be taught also. Many felt they were "fighting a losing
battle." One teacher suggested a parent inservice and ex-
pressed despair at the way they perceived the children were
fed at home. However, the teachers eXpressed hope that

even though the children may not have much control over

80
their family's food choices, the nutrition principles they
are learning in school will affect their food choices later
in life. The need to prepare students for real life situ-
ations was cited as a goal of several teachers. Their nu-
trition education philOSOphy was centered on providing the
students with consumer skills and cooking experiences.

Students who come to school who have not eaten at
home also was a concern of the teachers. The relationship
between nutrition and performance was mentioned. The need
for a complete health program for students, including nutri-
tion and exercise, was suggested.

The teachers who wanted to include nutrition were
searching for nutrition activities that were fun and could
be incorporated into other subjects. Several teachers rec-
ognized the importance of nutrition education but felt they
did not have the time to prepare for nutrition units.

Two teachers felt that nutrition education was not
necessary or appropriate in school. They believed it was
the responsibility of the parents. However, they did con-
clude, by saying that if their students displayed an urgent
need, for example were starving or sick, they would Fdo
something".

Ten of the teachers expressed their personal feel-
ings about food. Two teachers discussed struggles with
being overweight since childhood and general poor eating
habits. Several teachers had strong feelings about the

perceived benefits of health foods and Shaklee products

81
(vitamins and protein supplements). Two teachers were con-
cerned about the possible harm of food addivites and their

perception of "deceptive practices of food companies".

ObServations In The Sample Schools
The Rural Schoo;

The rural school was on a shortened day, 9 a.m. -
2:30 p.m.; had no 'special' teachers such as art, reading,
music, physical education; had no extra space or class-
rooms; and seemed to have limited funds for curriculum
materials. Each of the rural teachers had to teach all
subjects to their students, unleSs they team taught. If
any food or extra materials were necessary for an activity,
the teachers provided the money, from their own pocket or
from a class collection.

The elementary school (grade K-4) was attached to
the middle school (grades 5-8). A hallway ran the length
of the entire complex. However, there was a recognized
and respected invisible division between the two schools.
The elementary students and teachers did not cross over
into the middle school and vice versa. The invisible bar-
rier kept the two schools separate in most respects. At
noontime the barrier was broken because all students ate
in the same cafeteria in the elementary school. There were
two lunch periods, however, one for the elementary students

and one for the middle school students.

82

The elementary school was shaped in an L. There
were four quads and seven contained classrooms. There was
also a classroom about 50 feet from the school building in
a mobile unit. There was no teachers' lounge; it had been
converted into a small classroom.

The rural school had three sets of the Dairy Council
of Michigan "Food...Your Choice" curriculum kits. About
ten copies of each of three different science texts for 3rd
and 4th graders, which had nutrition units, were being used
by two teachers in the rural school. One of three uppem'ele-
mentary (5th and 6th) science texts had one nutrition unit,
of which the teacher was unaware. Three rural school teach-
ers had hot plates in their rooms, one had a popcorn popper
and another had a hot pot with packages of cocoa for the
students. All of the rural teachers had sinks with running
water in their classrooms. One kindergarten classroom had

a refrigerator.

The Non-Rural Schoo;

 

The non-rural school had many teaching specialists,
room and money for elective activities. The school was
divided into five sections (1) the kindergarten area with
classroom and lounge area; (2) the activities area for the
gym/lunchroom and music room; (3) the lower grade area with
five classrooms, an art room and a large Tcommunity areaf

which all classes could use; (4) the upper grade area with

83
six classrooms and a small "community area" and (5) the
library and media center.

The non-rural school did not have any texts with
nutrition units in them. However, one of the teachers who
was on the "text buying advisory committee" mentioned that
the new texts for next year did have "a few" nutrition units.
They were not available for review. She also stated that
"state mandates govern what type of texts we buy because
more money is allocated for mandated subjects. If nutri-
tion were mandated, we'd spend more money on materials.f

The kindergarten classroom in the non-rural school
had a sink, refrigerator and cooking equipment. The other
classrooms used the sinks in the "community areas.f The
librarian/media specialist reported that several films and
filmstrips on food and nutrition were in her media library
but they were old and seldom used. All were put out by food
companies and covered topics such as food production and

the need to eat a balanced diet.

Additional Observations in the Sample Schools

Both schools had many (30-40) food and nutrition
books in their libraries. Many of the books were children's
cookbooks. Both libraries reported that "the cookbooks are
always checked out by the children; they are very popular".

Teachers in both schools mentioned difficulty in
getting materials, films and filmstrips, from the Intermedi-
ate School District (ISDs). They reported that materials

came late or never arrived.

84

Another observation which was of interest was the
principals' comments about nutrition education in their
school. Both principals said that Fyou are welcome to
interview teachers at this school but I do not think you
will find much, if any, nutrition education in these class-
rooms." However, over half of all the sample teachers did
teach nutrition, some of them quite extensively. The prin-
cipals did not appear to be aware of the extent or the ex-
istence of a non-mandated subject, nutrition, in their
schools. Several teachers alluded to the apparent lack of
administration awareness and support in their nutrition
education activities. Head (1974) reported that adminis-
tration commitment to the importance of nutrition education

in the school is necessary for a successful program.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

General Summary

Interviews with 39 elementary school teachers were
conducted in two Michigan public schools. All the teachers
were asked about their teaching responsibilities, food and
nutrition training, opinions on students' nutrition edu-
cation needs and demographic characteristics. Current and
past nutrition teachers were asked about nutrition topics
covered in their classroom, reasons for including these
topics, teaching techniques and resources used to teach
nutrition. Non-nutrition teachers were asked why they had
not taught nutrition. They were also asked for suggestions
for assistance and resources to help them teach nutrition.

The teachers were asked what they felt students
needed to know about nutrition. The Daily Food Guide or
the Basic Four Food Groups and "junk" food versus "good"
food were the most frequently mentioned topics. These re-
sponses reflect the currently available nutrition education
curriculum materials and guidelines and the media emphasis
on particular nutrition issues.

All of the teachers believed that they could have

an impact on students eating habits. The major source of

85

86
impact reported was authority figure influence. Inclusion
of nutrition information in the curriculum was also seen
as a way of impacting students' eating habits.

About half (54%) of the 39 teachers were currently
including nutrition topics in their curriculum. Another
30 percent had taught nutrition in the past. Lack of time,
money, materials and teacher cooperation were frequently
cited reasons why the past nutrition teachers no longer
included nutrition. The teacher's age, sex, years teaching,
college major or minor, highest degree earned and previous
food or nutrition training made no significant difference
in the teacher's decision to include nutrition topics.

Current and past nutrition teachers cited the Daily
Food Guide as the nutrition topic most often included in
their curriculum. Snacks and meal patterns were also fre-
quently mentioned. Teacher concern or interest, student
needs and the availability of materials were the reasons
why the teachers decided to include nutrition in their class-
rooms.

Lecture/discussion, taste testing and films/filmstrips
were the teaching methods most often used to present nutri-
tion topics. Mothers/parents, another teacher and Dairy
Council of Michigan staff were the resource peOple used by
the teachers to help them teach nutrition. National Dairy
Council and Dairy Council of Michigan materials were the

most often used resource materials.

87

Current, past and non-nutrition teachers gave sug-
gestions concerning what they might need to assist them in
including nutrition in their classrooms. Accessible ma-
terials was the most frequently reported need.

All 39 teachers completed a 40 item Nutrition Know-
ledge Test. The mean score was 50.5 out of 100 possible
points. Age, sex, years of teaching, school location and
previous food and nutrition training made no significant
difference in the teacher's test scores.

The teachers were personally most interested in
and wanted more information on consumerism, weight control,
drugs and nutrient interactions, safety of the food supply
and nutrition and health related issues. Topics of great-
est interest for teaching to students included the basic

need for food, Daily Food Guide, meal patterns and snacks.

Conclusions and Implications

The research describes the status of nutrition
education in two of Michigan's public schools. Each school
in Michigan may be different. However, some general char-
acteristics have been observed such as the importance of
administration, school board and teacher support for any
curriculum component.

It is important to convince the administration,
school boards and teachers of the need for nutrition edu-
cation. The administration includes such people as school

principles, curriculum developers, and superintendents.

88

Administrators and school board members can be convinced
by teachers, parents or a nutrition educator. Once the
teachers realize that the administration and school board
support nutrition education as an integral part of the
curriculum and are willing to provide money, they will be
encouraged to include nutrition in their classrooms. Nu-
trition educators who wish to implement a nutrition edu-
cation program in a school need to recognize the unique
characteristics prevalent at each school.

Materials for teacher use need to be complete and
concise. Nutrition facts and classroom activities need
to be included. Teachers do not want to spend time pre-
paring for nutrition lessons. They do not want to have
to develop their own curriculums or spend time researching,
and gathering materials.

Inservice workshops during the required inservice
days in the schools would be the most appropriate time to
introduce teachers to nutrition education materials. The
materials could initially be placed in school libraries.

If funds are available, it would be desirable to provide
each teacher with some nutrition education materials. The
school library could also contain an accurate, introductory
college level nutrition text book such as Understanding
Nutpttion by E. Whitney and M. Hamilton, West Publishing
C0,, N-Y-. 1977. and a refereed nutrition education journal
such as The Journal of Nutrition Education for the teachers'

reference.

89

Finally, it is important that teachers be made aware
of what nutrition education is and what it can be. If they
understand the diversity of acceptable nutrition topics that
can be part of a nutrition education curriculum the teachers
may be encouraged to include them. Ideally, all teachers
will teach nutrition topics in their classrooms. Nutrition
education eXperiences may range from exposing children to
food in the classroom or lunchroom through displays, posters
or demonstrations to conducting detailed eXperiments on the
effects of nutrients on rats. The amount of nutrition edu-
cation occurring in a classroom can be eXpected to vary from
teacher to teacher. The author feels that a small amount
of nutrition education would be better than none, if accurate

information is presented.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

 

90

Interview Schedule

Name School

 

Address Phone

 

1. What grade(s) do you teach?

 

2. What subjects or topics in your students standard curriculum do you teach
personally?

Communication Skills Science Health
(reading, writing, speaking,

 

 

 

listening)
Social Studies Spelling Art
Arithmetic Music Physical
Education
Other Other

 

 

3. What subjects or topics are included in your students standard curriculum
but which another teacher is responsible for?

 

 

Communication Skills Science Health
(reading, writing, speaking,
listening)
Social Studies Spelling Art
Arithmetic Music Physical
Education
Other Other

 

‘\

a) What subjects, topics, or activities do you teach in your classroom
that other teachers don't?

Don't know what other

 

 

 

teachers include

 

 

 

b) How did you decide to reach this (these)?

 

 

 

 

5. Host of my questions are about nutrition education. what do you think
students need to know about nutrition?

 

 

 

BM/CJI.
FSHN/MSU -1-
2/80

C
6. Have you had any food or nutrition training? yes no don’t know
High School course 4-8
Health Nutrition Girl Scouts
Home Economics
Inservice Type
Other
College courses
Health Nutrition Workshop Type
Home Economics
Other
7. a) Do you think you, as a teacher, can have an impact on students eating
habits?
yes no don't know
How much? A little a lot medium
b) How?
8. Where do you think youth learn about nutrition?
a) Inside school? yes no don't know
From whom?
Subject in curriculum?
Or where?
b) Outside school? yes no don't know
From whom?
Or where?
9. Do you currently include any topics or activities that you would consider
nutrition education in your classroom? yes no don't know
(If yes, go to page 3)
10. Have you ever taught nutrition topics in your classroom? yes no
don't know
(If yes, go to page 5)
(If no to both questions, number
9 and 10, go to page 7)
BM/CJL ~2-
FSHN/MSU

2/80

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\0
f0

TEACHERS WHO CURRENTLY TEACH . r.ITION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll. a) What specific topics do you cover?
b) How did you decide to include these topics?
12. What types of teaching methods do you use when you present the above topics?
lecture/discussion films
demonstrations filmstrips
experiments self-paced materials
taste testing other
13. a) Have you ever used any resource people to help you teach any of these
topics?
yes no don't know If yes, whom?
Home 3c. teacher Another teacher
Dietitian Coop. Ext. Home Economist
Food service personnel Dairy Council of Mich. staff
Other Mother
b) How were the above mentioned people used?
BM/CJL -3-
PSHN/MSU

2/80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C
14. a) Have you ever used any written resource materials to help you teach any
nutrition topics? yes no don't know
Dairy Council Cooperative Extension, USDA
bulletins
health Department books (specify)
magazines (specify) Food Industry Materials
Other

 

b) How were the above mentioned materials used?

 

 

15. How much time do you set aside for these nutrition related topics each
school year?

good estimate poor estimate
no idea

16. How much preparation time do you use to teach these topics (including time
for lesson plans, inservice, preservice)?

good estimate poor estimate
no idea

17. If another topic was introduced that you were required to add to your
curriculum, would you have to eliminate a topic you are teaching now?

yes no don't know

 

If not, why not

 

If yes, how would you decide which topic to eliminate, or how would you set
priorities?

 

18. You include nutrition topics in your classroom but some other teachers don't.
What do you think it would take to get other teachers to include nutrition
education in their classrooms? don't know
Administrative directive Monitoring
Inservice Motivation

Accessible materials Other

19. Can you suggest methods or resources which would help you teach nutrition
more easily in your classroom? yes no don't know

 

movies pamphlets visuals money other

BM/CJL
FSHN/MSU
2/80 -4-

 

 

TEACHERS wno HAVE mugs; summon n: ma PAST

20. Why do you no longer include nutrition topics in your classroom?

 

 

21. a) What specific topics did you cover when you taught nutrition?

 

 

 

b) How did you decide to include these topics?

 

 

 

 

22. what types of teaching methods did you use when you presented the above

 

 

 

 

 

 

topics?

lecture/discussion films

demonstrations filmstrips
experiments self-paced materials
taste testing other

 

 

23. a) Did you ever use any resource people to help you teach any of these
topics? yes no don't know If yes, whom?

Home Ec. teacher Another teacher

Dietitian Coop. Ext. Home Economist
Food service personnel Dairy Council of Mi. staff
Other Mother

b) How were the above mentioned people used?

 

 

 

BM/ CJL - 5..
FSHN/MSU
2/80

I \J
‘\
.

25.

[J
\I
e

28.

BM/CJL

FSHN/MSU

2/80

‘1')
U:

a) Did you ever use any written resource materials to help you teach any

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of these topics? yes no don't know
Dairy Council Cooperative Extension, USDA
bulletins
health Department books (specify)
magazines (specify) Food Industry Materials
Other

 

b) How were the above mentioned materials used?

 

 

How much time did you set aside for these nutrition related topics each
school year?

good estimate poor estimate
no idea

How much preparation time did you use to teach these topics in your class?
(including time for lesson plans, inservice, preservice, etc.)

good estimate poor estimate

no idea

 

You included nutrition topics in your classroom but some other teachers don't.
What do you think it would take to get other teachers to include nutrition
in their classroom? don't know

administrative directive monitoring

 

inservice motivation
accessible materials other

Can you suggest methods or resources which would have helped you teach
these topics more easily or would have improved student learning?

yes no don't know

movies pamphlets visuals money

 

other

 

 

\D

(T'ht

TEACHERS WHO DO NOT IN LUDE NUTRITION

29.

30.

Have you ever considered including nutrition topics in your classroom?
yes no don't know

If yes, what is the main reason why you haven't as yet?

 

 

If no, under what circumstances would you consider including nutrition
topics?

 

If you decided to include a nutrition topic, what would you like or need
in order to do it? (such as assistance, aides, materials) don't know

 

 

BM/CJL
FSHN/MSU
2/80

-7-

\I)
--4

Comments:

How do you feel about nutrition education?
Basic philosophies, etc.

Demographics
Age Sex: M F
School districts population density rural urban

Does your school participate in school breakfast? yes no

 

school lunch? yes no

 

How many years have you been teaching?

 

What was your college degree major? minor?

 

What is the highest degree you have completed? BA 88 MA MS Ed.D. Ph.D.

3A+ BS+ MA+ MS+

DM/CJL
FSHN/MSU
2/80 -3-

 

 

h— -.

Egsic need for food (energyI growthI repair)

 

 

I I I
a g .
i 5.3 ! = '3
Some food and nutrition topics are listed 1 g 3 5 . i 3.. 3
below. Please bndicate your personal { 3 a -3 .3 3 _ u 5 3
interest in each topic by checking the 1 ‘3 s 5 ‘3 3 a! 3 f u
appropriate column. v :3: :3 2g '5 5.3.
I w 3 u a 3' 2.: 5
I b‘m h h a — x
- w.— c o o s s
dae- aun- «an
I c g c c o c g c o
.— s-t hog- OI
I
l
I

 

Daily food guide (food groups, Recommended

Food from farm to table (growing, processing,

 

From the above topics, choose the five that you would teach to students
if you included nutrition education in the classroom.

First choice

 

Second

 

Third
Fourth
Fifth
BM/CJL

FSHN/MSU
2/30

OBSERVATION SHEET (CLASSROOM)

Room description

Texts

311/ C31.
FSHN/MSU
:2/80

 

‘100

OBSERVATION SHEET (ENTIRE SCHOOL)

Lunchroom

Library

Halls

BM/CJL
ESHN/MSU _ -
2/80 10

lOl

   

CC.
I)
, §
“ /’ NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE TEST
/"
— \V—
3:... \‘ - - ~
‘ .‘ ’V’ " . J ,a- __eV
"5’ ,1 y. a .m
8"“ ' \ ‘ «‘51.
1""
. . _,7‘
I w ~
'u ‘ J r‘\:‘ -
.-.i . 33’
2 "' , .
' I
['1 I, ~ 5‘s. " e
0" kn!" .1 \- ‘ \‘ \
"Ker; f M t
e v Mg —- - ... “N ,
Q.) r \ "‘ I.
l l ' ‘ .

Directions

Thus Booxlet consnsts of True-Pavce anc Mumps Cf‘uo'ce items. Wit?- 3 No. 2 penal, blacken :ne cércie urnmeoiazeuy
to the fish of the response you Choose. DO NOT USE mk ba-‘oom: or fen t‘p pens.

Items 1 - '.2 are suher true 0: fanse. 3.‘ s stuer-‘ent «s (we, ‘3! in the circfe immediately to the left of “TRUE." 1f ”.8
statement is fatse, fiu .n we 5:38:23 'mmeo'atew to the left of "FALSE."

Items 73 - 40 are mumoze cnmce. Cmose the 595! answer from the shema'wes o'cwoeo. Fill .n the came up-
mediater to the sf! of the answe' 'aOu have seeecteo.

IT :5 NPORTANT THA' YOU ANSWER ALL QIJESTDNS E‘.EN :F VCU ARE NOT SURE OF YOUR
ANSWERS.

FM .n c‘rCIes comm'etelv and erase toxsnw any answev vou w-sn to Change.

AGAIN, USE A NO. 2 LEAD PENC3L TO BLACKEN THE CIRCLE IMMEDIATELY TO THE LE‘T OF THE
RESPONSE YOU CHOOSE. DO NOT USE INK. BALLPOINT 0R FELT-TIP PENS.

102

- 0..
-»\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

True-False
Answer the followtng ouestlons by filling in the circle to the left of either "true" or "false."

1. All hum l" CMCOI.

- 0 True 0 Fees

2. Vitamin E eaten or taken as a woolarnent beyond the booy's recurrernents us stored in the body.
- Ohm Cam

1 An ounce ol carbohydrate has more calonss than an ounce of protein.
- 0 True 0 Sales

4. Minerals drowns the body with small manta ol calonss.
- 0 True 0 False

5. Some room by themselves have all the nutrlents m the amounts needed for adequate growth and health.

- 0 True 0 “I.

6. The teenage ham o! snacking can provrde valuable nutnents.
- 0 True 0 False

7. Pesttmdas and ether pollutants are incldental rood adults/es.

- 0 True Q field.

8. ‘fltsmln A cs toxic when consumed m moo auantmes.
- 0 True C Fame

9. As a omen ages. generally. energy needs are reduced while nutnent needs remain the same.
- 0 True 0 False

10. l! a cmld retusss mllk. an acceptable lood to crowds su‘mllr nutrlents would be egos.
- 0 True 0 False

11. Nurnnonlsoslsararenulrsdonailcannedgoods.
- 0 TM 0 FOR.

12. There are no known dietary cures for diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.
- 0 TN. 0 False
Multiple Choice

Answer the following questions by filling in the circle to the left of the four answers.

‘3. Decreasing calonc mass by son calones oer day would mean a loss or about one pound of body .‘at in

O Zdava 0 room

O 7cm 0 “days

fl
1%

IBIIWI'IN l 33IIS

14 Whlcn ol the follomnq vs a vuamn’
O fluonde O ‘ructose
O vorsctn O -ron

75, The ROA's iRecov'hl‘nertdeo Cletary Allowances) are nutrtent levels
used as guidelines for dust olsnnmg

Much unsure gooo has-tn tor all lnswtdums

wmch represent mmmum call I needs

‘

DQNQGGQG

QGIQGGQQO
9®O®®®®®

 

 

 

OOOO

ill Of {'70 800V.

103

MW

21.

2‘.

Weight gain results, ii at all, when calorie intalte
3 is from high fat foods
0 is from high sugar content looos
O is more then calorie eabsnolture
0 all or the above

Olmelollowinq,thebestfooosourcsolboth vitaminAanowtammCis
0 apple 0 broccoli
O apricot O carrot

Which of the following is the best food sauce of calcium?
O cutter O tomato rules
0 tea 0 room

The most concentrated source of calories is

Olat Osurch,

Om OW

Oneolthefirstsymomrnsorwtarnirudeliciencyis
O anem- O niqhtbllndness
O jaundice O scurvy

The fat soluble vitamins incude
O £3,37me
O A.C.D.andE
O A.O‘Eanol<
O anarsumac

Vitamins an
O a source of energy
0 indestructaole
Q iwlc Was
0 atomic coinoOunda

Which Vitamin can be made in the body when sun rays contact the satin?
O A O C
C 3 '2 O D

The crust function or carbonydrate we eat is to
O maintain may for
0 am energy
0 crowds dermal amino acids
0 transport Vitamin A

Sodium, bond in table salt and in food
Q can be deactivated by chloride
O W maintain water balance
C "«be orevent scurvy
0 Sea non-essential nutrient

Enncneo‘ "3008 have nutrients
0 added that were not originally present or not bresent in the dummy added
0 reduced that were 'ermved during processing
0 that 1Ira cnernicallv inferior to the natural ones present in the load
0 that are chemically suoenor to the natural ones present in the road

'l the cream is skimmed from nillt. which nutrient will be reduced unless it is added back alter processing ’
C CGICILM O eta-mm 3.2
O muffin A O «tenth C

 

 

. l
I

on"

)(rm it‘ )|‘ )0")

:,ilol.§')tli1’ii-) .~

l (a) C) l

C

..)

‘l

(34(3) (0(1) (Elli) (: ‘il -‘

QM" ll: Mit-

 

 

uauwnn Aims
IIIIIIIIII'III

104

28. According to the Daily Fooo Guide it is recommended that children and adults have now many seryings or fruit and; or vegetables per

day7
0 l C 3
o 2 o a
a. home with nyoertension may need to reduce their intalte or
O alconoi O imium
O potassium C sugar

w. Feanut butter belongs to which or the Daily Food Guide grouos?
O breeds and cereals 0 meat
0 fruits and ~ieigietabliis 0 milk and dairy products

31. Eggs belong to which or the Daily Food Guide grades?
0 breads and cereals 0 meat
0 tnuts and vegetables 0 mill: and dairy orc ducts

32. A child's lunch should supoiv how much of his nutritional needs for a dey’
Q 25% 0 can.
0 339a O 50%

33. Aczoming to the Daily Food Guide. it =s recommended that teenagers have how many saryings from the milk gram per day?
0 2 O 4
O 3 . Q 5

34. According to the Daily Food Guide it is recommended that children and adults have now many servings of meat or protein per day?
0 1 CI 3
O 2 O ‘

35. During pregnancy. most women sage 23 and abovei should
0 increase their ‘ooc man by 300 calories per day
0 mi: their weight gain to 35-20 baunds
O restrict their SOON!“ intake
0 take mega Vitamin suooiements

36. Whicn of the fellowing ‘ooa combinations would brovide a complete protein 7
O beans and lentils 0 rice and beans
0 com and «heat 0 rice and broccoli

37. Vegetarians who eat no animal products or fortified oroducts may need to supplement their diets with

0 iron 0 e‘lTIW‘lnA

C) magnesium O vitamm 8.;

38. Labeling laws require that food product ingredients be iisted on the container in descending order of their
0 calones O nutrients

0 cost 0 weight

39. ‘fitamm C found in an orange is chainicaily
0 identical but more nuthtiOus than vitamin C made in a lab
0 identical to vitamin C made in a lab
0 interior to vitamin C made in a lab
0 suoenor to vitamin C made in a lab

40. .l a food additive is found to cause cancer in a laboratory rat. the FDA must. under the Delaney Clause of The Additive Amendment of 1958.
can the use of that additive

establish an allowable level for food aodityes

order investigative heenngs

order lab testing in humans

OOOO

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE TEST

Nutrition Education and Training

2;»: Science and Humen Nutrleion “9,9." Sure Uri-term» 5..., "7
I

APPENDIX B
FORMS AND LETTERS

103

Dialog for NET Coordinators (Name )

3y ness is Barbara Hutch. I'm a graduate student ac Michigan State University
working on the NET project, with Dr. Lackey. We are interested in obtaining
some inform-tion from elenanrary school teachers in Michigan concerning their
inclusion of nutrition in their curriculum, techniques they use and their
nutrition knowledge. We are looking for several K95 or K96 non-Title I public
schools in which we could interview the teachers. We need a total sample

size of 50 with approximately half of the teachers from rural schools and half
from urban schools. we want to interview every teacher within a particular
school, therefore, we need at least two schools, one urban. one rural with

an average of 25 teachers in each. We are looking for schools in which we

can get administrator approval and support.

Do you know of any possible schools in your area?

Administrators nane

School Address

 

Phone:
Rural Urban

# Teachers

 

Dialog for administrator, principal or curriculum developer-

My name is Barbara Hutch. I'm from hichigan State University. You were
recommended to me by (NET Coordinators name ) as possibly being interested
in allowing me to discuss nutrition with your teachers. It would involve
interviewing each teacher in your school for approximately 30 minutes at

your and their convenience, and the completion of a nutrition knowledge test
at their convenience.

- Would you be willing to participate?
- Can I send you a copy of the interview schedule?

Administrators name

 

 

 

 

School Address
(directions)

Phone rural urban
9 teachers

 

grades

 

107

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DIPAITME‘IT Of FOOD sum AND HUMAN WON EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ~ tulle
HUMAN ECOLWY NILDM

Dear

I am a student at Michigan State University; Dr. Louise Sause is on
my graduate advisory committee. I am in the process of collecting data for
my Master's thesis on nutrition education in the elementary school
curriculum. Dr. Sause recommended you as possibly being interested in
allowing me to discuss curriculum topics with the teachers in one of the
elementary schools in your district. I am specifically interested in
how or if nutrition is currently incorporated into the curriculum, and
teachers' nutrition knowledge.

I would like to interview all of the teachers in one public, non-Title I,
K-S or 6 elementary school. The interview will take approximately 20 minutes
(but no more than 30 minutes) and will be conducted at your and the
teachers' convenience. Part of the interview includes a short nutrition
knowledge test.

I would appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. If
you have any questions, or would like to see my interview schedule, please
let me know. If you are interested, I would like to collect the data in
February or March, if possible.

Ihank you for your time and consideration of this project.

Sincerely,

Barbara Hutch

usua an AM 4cm»! (out Osman msmnon

BM/C
FSHN
2/80

I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted
by: Barbara Hutch

under the supervision of: Dr. Carolyn Lackeyi

Academic Title: Assistant Professor-Food Science and Human Nutrition

 

The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that
has been given and what my participation will involve.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study
at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict
confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions,
results of the study will be made available to me at my request.

I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any
beneficial results to me.

I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation
of the study after my participation is completed.

Signed

Date

JL
/MSU

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WARM OF FOOD SCIENCE \ND HUMAN WTIITION EAST LANSING ' \UCHIGAN ' mus
HUMAN ECOLWY BUILDING

January 17, 1979

I0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Mrs. Barbara Hutch is a graduate student in the Department of Food Science
and Human Nutrition at Michigan State University. Mrs. hutch is conducting
a research on Nutrition Education in the School System. Her work has been
approved by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects.
Mrs. hutch will be interviewing teachers in Michigan schools to get their
view on nutrition education in the classroom.

If you have any questions about Mrs. Hutch or her research, please feel free
to contact me, her major advisor, at Michigan State University.

Carolyn J. Lackey, Ph.D., R.
Assistant Professor

Food Science and Human Nutrition
Office Phone: 353—8658

mew

APPENDIX C
PROBE CARDS

110

t

J

J

  

‘W,

-n .2 ‘3 p.m.-1.45.4 'ltvgrfi1739 *W‘ilfit‘Vyfi‘NmR-K-YW 51533 RW’W‘fi-‘mfia

.. Henna .. «budge?» 31.3 www.mvmnfifimfigevfiémgxugfig 35..» ._.
. in

muse;

mesa;

meson

meson

L

. ‘ a
e -.
' ..- '

one
new
mafia m2
m2
mafia <2
<2
mafia mm
mm
”see an
<m

be
3"

.. u ‘ . ~
vfifi?
3!. [.57 7'10]

secessseem

Q o
m
. \

b -r '
.er-r‘.
. V -

0"
{i
,

has

q,

emceecneee

;i‘
I

5;.

a s,
3.5;
a, we

0.

my

secesseeem

ion
5 I
in.

k

l 4.
‘25:.

s‘u.’ '; ~
(1.; 3'“

emceesseee

1 7hr. ’.'
"A“U» 3" ‘

.v't : , . l ,'
-A V ‘ I
,',.. n... : - 12"

u u’AI
e ,I

D.
' .. . - ’.o14
'“ so-..“ 2-
Are .,.[-‘

s _
e
"w.
“

or”.

‘ .

. . a #4.. 73.}. ...rrfldhow.n....b..\..u»....f.~,et\ NI... . .

 
 

e
hsuvl-ss-gnd .r. ~

.~. .-. u. :.su .s-‘Vu-

qwu

emcee .
cowymonum Hmowm>sm .

news: . w
ac< .
cease: .
mcwafioam .
mocmwom .
assessesc< .
mmeessm.mesocm..

Amcficowmwfi .mcwxmmam
. .mcwawca .mcfiummcv
mefiexm coweaowcsesoo .

nmuauwanw

 

. I -
'_._4 LLAAWMLAnAm—AL.

' f

Bessu:se-£seole
. Food Service Personnel
L Dairy Council of Michigan Staff
. Cooperative Extension Home Economist
. Student's Parent
. Home Economics Teacher
. Another Teacher
. Dietitian

, warmers-agaseeemwMsagwmmwmea ,

r e

V I. . . .~ .,- ‘ . n‘. ~-' - l g, . . 'n '. ~ ‘A ’Ilu — -
.‘ _ . ’u __ ‘ '.'.~. .. ’ ’1‘, .e'-, .s-e _, .- u 4§~ V vs “51 1, I L; ’2'? h P ‘
gets: emits“ ‘3‘ in: (:3: ',- .' finish-WE t'}?:-‘-v’~'fi‘-zt: 1-;;7.kv§:1n.‘;=*ay‘:fr". ”333$, Hfirrfig’%§§&é‘5xv~n.tfimt c£;~1., ”s, .

s

‘ —' 333i“??? ‘11-: 9795;: .lilf‘fdv‘l. - +59; 5" 5'5"; ‘35? "t L" .V E- 33572"; 0.; 3ft} {7‘25 32%;??? faéifii “. 3 {3:‘1‘55fl38'f‘fm-flfltflffiv ’i T £3133)" was Mflqfirv', ,

written-3s§outse§
. Dairy Council materials
. Cooperative Extension Service bulletins
. USDA bulletins
. Health Department pamphlets

 

. Food Industry educational materials
. Magazines (specify)
. Books (specify) 3

 

s
.AAJ4A Al'k4“_‘~-e A

a. yi‘“ "fivfirfli .9 ' a*% -- ’r ‘..~ "' - ~ ' '
.l, . _ .
4.... . "i: atyw 0' ,fitfilfi}. _ , ,
. . c. . 7 - , . , . .

    

 
    

    

CM ‘4‘...

. “Megk _“ _‘ III. .II I ‘h .

Lisa‘sa'e A- A‘u“ e.

 

- "';1. “‘ - ‘ ' ' ‘ “ v- ". “ ‘I f" 1". w - 5 I " ”ZN “; ‘z'e .pw‘y “.4. a ri‘+ s? 24-”??? 1 o:
.»v ‘s _ll 4“:H?5‘l‘~.“r 1"": j?" ‘tj‘fl'vO‘JIfis‘hliahfikdgft d 10*! 911;),{1 .;’Kr>‘:fi ‘1'?) 4;". $.3‘4_‘H)§"._gf;? WVW§¥¥ :;“’PL~ "X‘fg" wfi‘i g

s . ‘
‘A'L. u A‘L‘K'JJ.‘_A_'

 

112

I
6
)
A
c
,1
x
‘0
1
C
\
l
O
,,
Q
‘1
4
I
t
I
,
41

§
lSOUSSlOfl

l

Self-paced units
”swamp???“ 3.». v 2 ‘r a W sweeter? 3

Demonstrations
Others

Lecture/d
Experiments
Taste testing
Filmstrips

Films

 

- " ‘ C ,. ‘ '. b] "‘.'._" 'v
5'6”” W a" A 'nrrh'm? Wat's-we. “274132.32: madness? wwwewwvw mnkumstofi’l

V

‘e-‘n.l

  

.‘ 119971;,- 1_4 ‘Y‘ '1

' u

v. L‘ av» :5.
s“ l
. l
.

...»—-.

31-35
36-h0
hl-hS
h5-50
50-60
60 plus

21-25
26-30
4,74 mt... ”11"“55 3.. fr: y .

‘1'.
t.

r;

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

   

a». "' "‘ " \ima'~-4‘,:. t i'd‘lont" $1,114; 4' C ‘~":7x';' "‘- "V til 1:“.

‘
‘ . .. _ -' . “ _“ .. - c r“ ‘e\u. . _‘ v k}-
mkl'é -1. ' ‘ akk‘f. I'.A"s7??" ...> “a, < '_,-»'~ .' .214 I .f K?“ ‘1'”: I.“ )W‘: 0"" -;Je 1 31.-.}; > ‘ ‘- ‘ .'. I 4

r
’V.I

113

.t‘. L. n .t . .A \l .J IJIL..A .. .1: -.
I . .c .9:- ’%.lln~, .y. l(\ll‘
A“. . ... fi. .t‘fiaflmnfijhd I. ;.

  

 

 

. . . ... v a . .. ). 1 in. .. ... o . .
. Two... winds”. 3...... T... «.3
. . I. A . . I a

Q

  

‘ ’t.
Jpn...

A>hwomamv ems“:
h>hwomamv nozmxgo;

fimv >~o mow>gomcH Lmzommp

mwswmmawmmw

3i?

mwzoom .me

"%§wr

‘5’

nsflo :1:

   

Amy mugsoo mmmfifioo

Amv mmgsoo ficozom gm“:

Tafifimfihj*

mm

"I."
OH'
H
”4|
Ll
4d!
3|
2|
I
LJ
OI
I
'0!
ol
OI
u.l

mHmuH-aq

'..
1

*9 - .

   

.41
EWi

tr *Jn.... “at...” r... .. . , , 4.3%)fi . . . N .

APPENDIX D
NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE TEST RESULTS

111+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tungu-nzusuau-Tu-J-unzuu-TT-T-uT-n-xuu-T-ITu-T--T-nan-mnuTr-uxuu-T-uT-u.nn-z-uuauuTunTnuuznuuza-T TT
N ....... Twin-{G ...... T- ..T. -m--T--._.T-.-.--T-..-m--T-T--T---Ti-T-m -m..-.T..-w.-T.T -.-~--.-.~ T TT 2.. T. T T. 2 en T .. TT
TT T T T T T T T T T T T a T T TT T. T T T.- T T {Tie-NEW.“--MT-u-Tw-T..--w--T.EN.--mu- ---.w
T TT .T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T. .T T. T TT .T T. T T T T. T T T T.
uuuuuuuu T.---TT---T}T--T-.-..T.--T-T--T--aid-q:T-n- --T-.---T- Tm- J.Tnidia-u-T-d-{miam-J-Tw--.~.T-Tw-T--T--~..;-3...
T T.- TT T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T TT T. T. T T. T T. T T. TT TT T m T.
T T T T T T T T a...
up ...... Tm ..... ~T ...... atm,-T- -T.:-u-T--m. T -Tup. T - .w.TT-T T~ T T. T. T~ ” TT no TT T T. T TN -T . TT
TT - a...» T T a - T- T a T-iT-i T- T-o--T -T.T- Amie-in? EMT-d -- Tia -T-....-T-.Tn--.....:m... -T- Titan-z}...
: To on T T c o T o o c T o o a T c m o T o. 3 S. u on To 8 T c. m c. T m n...
........ T.--J--:--.T-d--T--T--T-T-.Tixai-T-d--T--a-..T-TT-.u--T--m-q{Twig-43::-..T.T-..-T- T--T--T.-T----Tn- -.-
.. Ta .T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT on T T T. ~T cT. T T T T T T T T T n .T
T T T T T T T T 3%
Fit--9.- ...... T -. uuuuuu T {Ti-Tl... --T-....--T--T--w-T--Tibia-Eta ..-T..- T 21...... .mT- T T. .. T. T T T c T T T.
T. 2 T T w T- T T T T T T a T T To :- TT d-TT a.m- Tw -T-T--w--m--T-T--qiw-{Tz- T133 ..... .T
.T e. 7. T o e o T o o c T o o e T 2. ~T en T o. ~T en T .3 o. :n T on . T T 2
---.--TT ..... d-T ...... T ud--T--T.--T-T--T--.T--T-T--T--T--T..T--n-d..--TAN-Tm-- Tu-T-..T4-T--T. -w-TH-T-T-m--n--------.=.
.. T.- ~. T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T. T T T T T T Tm ~n T~ T T. .T To T ~ T.
T T T T T T T T T.-
ki-l-mw ....... T -. ...... T-T-..-T--T--T-T--T - T--w-T--T--T--T- T-T-m.--T-.-u-m.- T -T--T emit-ho}... T - - T-T-.~---m.- -
TT T~ T T a a. T a q. .d T T a a T u T T T on .4. T m:TT mm To T-TM -q. M. T _m TN - T.
.. TT .T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT .T To. T TT ~n T T TN T T T T T. T T «T
......... TT---..T---T..d-u-al-TI-u-a--T--T--m-T--u--a-.T-Tniqw-d-oim-Tm13--.:-T-T--T--q-u-Tw-T.-.m-i-T-!«.--.-~ -.--T
B:- i: 0.. 2 T o o o T o o a. T o o c T 0. .~ .2 T o T~ 3 T as : c~ T .3 ~T cw T n .~
I T T T T T T T T 2|
.. TT .n T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT T TT TT TT. T T. T T T. T. c T T T~
-- - -- - an ..... «w ...... T -di-a-iT-iu-T-{T--T-..T-d--a-..T-..-u-Tm-wn- uni-d»..- .--qq-T-T -:..-T--u-Tw-.-n-m.-T.-..T- .--m.. -- -.-.
T. T T. T T T T T T T T T T T T T T. Tn T. T T~ .. T T T T. Tn T T. .. T T T.
......... cannuxu-Td- i-nuT- ui-a -uua-t-u-a-xxfiuud-nzmd-o-u--Qu-..T-a--.~id--m-Tq-Hn-aa-T-.c..- 2: {Tug-4.53. :T-lm-qla. ux- A:
T. -.-...T T: T o o o T o e o. T o o e T 3 «T gain on To 2. T o o c T c c o T m o.
T T T T T T T T 2
T. ........ 3 ....... T .T TTTTTT T-T--T--T--T-T--m-.T--m-T-T -- Tia-.3}:-TT.-m-...T:.--...-.Tm..-w-.T--m twin-Ti... -..w-T-....---..m_ .....
TT TT T T a a T a T T T a .o a T TT Nu T. T T .. T T T. TT TT T T T T T ~ T. ..
m. ........ T----..T uuuuuu T -T--....--T--T-m-!T--Bin.T-..-T--.w-x..T-T--m-.T-.-T.-.w--T._-.-..--T-T-...i.-.--T..-u-.-.m-.-.-.-T--T. ----m.. - ---
Tm .T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT .T T. T 8 3 S T . ~_ 2
.m T. ~T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T ~T T. T Tmuemma-Tmslw-szI-wm-:-:I:
O i O o o C O O o
T. ....... emit-um ...... T -.T,--...-.-ubi-u-m-u-T--m.--T-T--.-T--.w..-.w-Pip-L...-b-Ti..w-..m--T-T-T-wm---...T-u-mm-...--...w-.-T--..~---.-:. ........
TT 3 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TT .~ T. T TT a. 2. T . T .
.21}! -TM ...... . m ...... T -.T..-.-...-T--Poi-Ti-m-iT-bi-m--....-u-m-.-m-.T--w-m--T. -.-.--.T-T,.T-.m.--.--T-.-....-.-m-T-Tam-w.-...--m. ..........
T. .T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T. MT T. T 2. 2 2. T . T .
T. T. T~ T T T T T T T T T T T T T T .m-: T T T T T T T. Tm T~ T T. TT T: T . .w-:|!:-a
T T T T T T T T T
m. ....... Tali-P. uuuuuu T -T--m.--T--T-.-.--T.-.T--T.-T--...--....--.T..T-:-m-.-T--m-T---T---....--T-Tm-.-mT--.T.T-FEM-T- -EiT-----m-- :-
Tn TT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T~ TT TT T TT T~ en T T T .
Tit-{31-31% ........ T -T-- nib- -T-.m--T-- m.---w-T-{mi-m:akin-.1...- -u-m_--T-.-.-.--T- Tm-mm-.....-FTP-Q15....-T- .--~...-- -.--- --
eTu on T T T T T T T T. T T T T T T T T T T T T T Tn TT TT T T. ~m T. T . M .
TT ill- on I. T o c o T ml n a. T o to. a T taxi-cl.- ..oli T u o c T en 9.. 3 T b-miwml-bm- rut-w- . -- u..-
T-.--Tu-n:-IT {Tun-zaa-TuuTau.unnxu-.:-Tnu.un-tnu-=-:T-u.-n-:-n-:-TTaudit-z-T-T-nTn-T-nnxcn-TuuT T
.r---mM_m--mm:m--w---mmmmm--u ...... wcmw--m---m----w ...... w ..... u ..... m ...... T ....... m---:u ......... . ......... w--m§-;mm._ ......
a
B: I - uuuuuuuuuuu . .......... .-. uuuuuuu 1.. ii -- - .---.w.-:- ---. banana my...- m-.-2.T-nm.mm- x..- In-.---- -
- .wnzuTT.T-Tn T..~ ?zo -MTT .J- .: TT~ TTTT WTTT.zuuTTT w:u-. TT :Tuu- TTTTTT-.T.

.ammwnowz :« Que-.5 Season 95 um vmngmuaw 9.9.0.3... How mummy 09.0mm...“ am: .55 .7...

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Acock, A.C. and W.J. Scott. A model for predicting be-
havior: the effect of attitude and social class
on high and low visibility political participation.
Social Psychology Quarterly #3 (1): 59-72, 1980.

Baker, M.J. Influence of nutrition education on fourth
and fifth graders. Journal of Nutrition Education

“355‘58 9 1972'

Bell, C. and M. Lamb. Nutrition education and dietary
behavior of fifth graders. Journal of Nutrition
Education 5:196, 1973.

 

Bowman, E. Developing a state plan: three state co-
ordinators share their experiences. Food and
Nutrition 9 (6):12, 1979.

Callahan, D.L. Inservice teacher workshops. Journal of
Nutrition Education 5:233-23#, 1973.

Carver, L.R. and K.J. Lewis. A nutrition knowledge test
for elementary school teachers. Journal of Nutri-
tion Education 11:68-71, 1979.

Cook, C.B., D.A. Eiler and E.C. Kaminaka. How much nutri-
tion education in grades K-6? Journal of Nutrition
Education 9:131-135, 1977.

Crane, J.G. and M.V. Angrosino. Field Projects in Antro-
pology: A Student Handbook. Morristown, N.J.:
General Learning Press, 197A.

Earl, R.D. and D.R. Winklejohn. Attitudes of elementary
teachers toward science and sciene teaching.
Science Education 61(1): 41-45, 1977.

Ebel, R. Essentials of Educational Measurement. Third Ed.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1979.

Egan, M.C., M. Goodwin and A. Maretzki. Pregnant women,
children and adolescents. Journal of Nutrition
Education 12 (Supplement 1): 121—128, 1930.

 

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Re-
search. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1971.

115

116

Grogan, J. Teacher inservice for nutrition education--an
interdisciplinary approach in the school system.
Journal of Nutrition Education 10:119-120. 1978.

Guthrie, H.A. What should be taught in nutrition educa-
tion. Thresholds in Education #:23-24, 1978.

Head, M.K. A nutrition education program at three grade
levels. Journal of Nutrition Education 6:56-59, 1974.

Hicks, B.M. Perspectives in teaching nutrition-~utilizing
school food service--part IV. Food and Nutrition
Nggg 49(3):3. 1978-

Hoffmann-LaRoohe Inc. Current Nutrition Beliefs and Prac-
tices Among Health Educators, Students, Parents.
Final Report. Nutley, N.J.: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
1978.

Johnson, M.J. and J.L. Butler. Where is nutrition educa-
tion in U.S. public schools. Journal of Nutrition
Education 7:20-21, 1975.

Knudtson, H.K. Nutrition Concepts Held by Fifth and Sixth
Grade Teachers in Iowa. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis.
Ames: Iowa State University, 1972.

Kolasa, K. and C. Lackey. Michigan School Breakfast Survey.
Final Report. Unpublished, Michigan State University,

1979-

Lackey, C. and K. Kolasa. Nutrition Education and Training
Activities. Final Report. Unpublished, Michigan
State University, 1979.

Lackey, 0., K. Kolasa, K. Penner, and B. Mutch. Deve10p-
ment of a nutrition knowledge test. Final Report.
Unpublished, Michigan State University, 1979.

Michigan Department of Education.' Minimal Health Performance
Objectives for Health Education in Michigan. Lansing:
Michigan Department of Education, 1974.

Michigan Department of Public Health. Basic nutrition facts
of Michigan. Working Draft. Lansing: Michigan De-
partment of Public Health, 1980.

Miller, D.C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measure-
ment. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977.

Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner and
D.H. Bent. Statistigal Package for the Social Sciences
Second Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

117

Niedermeyer, F.C. and M.H. Moncrief. Primary graders
stud nutrition. The;Elementary School Journgl

(Feb :305-310, 1975.

O'Farrell, M. and J.L. Kendrick. Educators' attitudes
toward nutrition education in Florida. Journal of
Nutrition Education 4:15-16, 1972.

Perkins, K.L., F.R. Roach and A.G. Vaden. Influence of
teachers' attitudes toward the school lunch program
on student participation. Journal of Nutrition
Education 12:55-60, 1980.

Petersen, M.E. and C. Kies. Nutrition knowledge and at-
titudes of early elementary teachers. Journal of
Nutrition Education #:11-15, 1972.

Pourchot, L.L. and J.R. Ellis. Nutrition education pre-
paration for educators. Thresholds in Education
4:17-19, 1978.

Public Law 95-166. National School Lunch Act and Child
Nutrition Amendments of 1977.

Robinson, C.H. Nutrition education--what comes next?
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 69:126-
132, 1976.

Sodowsky, J.D. Inservice nutrition education for elemen-
tary teachers. Journal of Nutrition Education 5:

139-1fi2, 1973.

Spitze, H.T. Innovation techniques for teaching nutrition.
Journal of Nutrition Education. 3:156-159, 1971.

Stackhouse, M. Nutrition education and training. Food
and Nutrition 9(6):10-1l, 1979.

Standard Research Inc., RPX user's manual. Revision 2K).
East Lansing: Standard Research Inc.,1980 .

Tinkleman, S.N. Planning the objective test. In Educa-
tional Measurement. R.L. Thorndike, ed. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971, pp. 46-80.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary. 17th ed.
s.v. "Education". Springfield: G and C Merriam
Company, 1976. '

White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health. Final
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1969.

118

Wicker, A.W. An examination of the "other variables"
eXplanation of attitude-behavior inconsistency.
Journal_of Personality and Social Psychology
19:18-30, 1971.

Wodarski, L.A., C.L. Adelson, M.T. Todd and J.S. Wodarski.
Teaching nutrition by teams-games-tournaments.
Journal of Nutrition Education 12:61-65, 1980.

MICHIGAN SInIE UNIV. LIBRARIES
mllWIN[IllWNW"WWWIWINIIHNHI
31293105441509