REPORT

Nutrition Education Assessment of Classroom Teachers in Nevada:

Status, Resources, and Preferences

JOYCE M. WOODSON, 1 JAMIE A. BENEDICT,2 AND GEORGE C. HILL 3

lUnivhsity of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89104; 2Department of Nutrition, University of

Nevada, Reno; and 3Educational Leadership, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557

INTRODUCTION

School-based nutrition education, at all grade levels, hasbeen identified as a critical strategy for improving the healthof Americans. I

.2 The school provides an ideal environment

to increase knowledge, shape attitudes, and develop skillsneeded. to plan, prepare, and select healthful meals andsnacks. Increasing the proportion· of schools that providenutrition education from preschool through Grade 12 is oneof the Year 2000 Health Objectives.2 To achieve thisobjective, teachers must be knowledgeable about nutrition,have access to educational resources, and have support fromschool adrninistrators.3-s Previous research with teachers hasshown that they agree that nutrition should be taught inschool and many are reportedly doing SO.3,4.6 However,there remain a number of teachers who believe that thereis not enough class time to teach nutrition, that they lackrelated training, and that they need additional nutritioneducation resources.3,4 Teachers' attitudes may also influ­enc'e the extent to which foods and nutrition subjects aretaught.6

To learn more about the nutrition education needs ofteachers in northwestern Nevada and how best to supportthem, Cooperative Extension specialists conducted a sur­vey. The primary objectives of this survey were to (1)determine the status of school-based nutrition educ~tion,

(2) assess the availability, utilization, and satisfaction withexisting nutrition education support, and (3) explore pref­erences regarding continuing education programs on nutri­tion. Teachers' personal interest in healthy eating practiceswas also assessed and compared to demographic charac­teristics and nutrition education efforts.

Address for correspondence: Joyce M. Woodson, M.S., R.D., University of Ne­vada Cooperative Extension, S.T. & P. Bldg, Suite 207, 953 East Sahara Avenue,Las Vegas, NV 89104.© 1995 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION

42

METHODS

Instrument. The survey instrument was based, in part,on work by Paulson7 and Byrd-Bredbenner. 8 Relevantquestions on current school practices related to nutritioneducation and the availability, utilization, and satisfactionwith nutrition resources were adapted from Paulson'swork.7 Questions selected from Byrd-Bredbenner's "Nu­trition Attitude Scale" were used to construct a 13-itemsummated-rating scale to estimate teachers' personal inter­est in healthy eating practices.B Additional survey questionswere developed to assess teachers' nutrition education ef­forts in their classrooms, determine teachers' preferencesregarding continuing education programs, and describetheir demographic characteristics and educational prepara­tion related to nutrition.

Prior to distributing the survey, suggestions on its con­tent, organization, and length were sought from the Re­search Education Planning Center of the University ofNevada, Reno. The survey was also pretested with five localteachers from the targeted schools. These teachers wereasked to complete the survey independently and then dis­cuss it during a focus group session. 9 This step was useful inreformulating questionnaire items that were irrelevant orpoorly worded.

To assess the reliability and validity of the 13-item scaleto estimate interest in healthy eating practices, item analysiswas conducted after the survey had been distributed to thesample of teachers described below. It was not feasible tocomplete this step earlier due to the large sample sizerequired for-these analyses. 10 Based on both principal com­ponents and reliability analysis, five poorly performingitems were identified and, therefore, not included in thecomputation of participants' scale scores. I Q-13 Confirmatoryfactor analysis of the eight remaining items provided evi­dence of construct validity.lo,11 All items loaded sufficientlyon a single factor (factor loadings> .50). The Eigenvaluewas equal to 3.7, accounting for 47% of the variance.Internal consistency reliability of the final eight-item scalewas estimated utilizing Cronbach's alpha (equal to .84).12.13

Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 27 Number 1 January. February 1995 43

Sample. Teachers from every public elementary, middle,and high school in northwestern Nevada were surveyed.This included 62 elementary schools, 16 middle schools,and 14 high schools. Teachers to be surveyed from theseschools were chosen according to grade level and subjectmatter. At the elementary school level, fourth-grade teach­ers were surveyed. This decision was based on discussionswith a panel oflocal teachers who believed that the inclu­sion of nutrition in elementary school did not occur untilGrade 3 ana then was largely a function of the individualteachers' interest and training. Because it was not feasible tosurvey all those who taught grades three to six, only fourth­grade teachers were included in the survey sample. At thesecondary level, only those teachers who were responsiblefor subject matter most directly related to nutrition weresurveyed. This included home economics, health, physicaleducation, and science teachers.

Survey implementation. A total of 295 teachers weresurveyed in the spring of1991. Surveys were mailed directlyto teachers in the rural areas and distributed by the schooldistrict's internal mail system in the metropolitan area. Tomaximize the return rate, each survey included a personal­ized letter explaining the purpose and importance of thestudy and a self-addressed, business reply envelope. 14 Inaddition, nonrespondents were sent a follow-up letter ap­proximately 2 weeks after the initial mailing. The returnrate was 48% (n = 142), representing 47% (n = 73) of theelementary teachers, 57% (n = 31) of the middle schoolteachers, and 44% (n = 37) of the high school teacherssurveyed. Because of the low number of middle and highschool teachers, their responses to the survey were com­bined and are referred to as "secondary teachers."

Most respondents were females (72%) with 11 or moreyears' of teaching experience (68%). Eighteen percent wereunder the age of 36, 39% were between 36 and 45 years,and 43% were 46 years or older. Forty-six percent held anadvanced degree. When asked to describe their educationalpreparation related to nutrition, a large proportion (61%)indicated that they had studied nutrition on their own.Others indicated that they had studied nutrition as a part ofother classes (38%), completed a college-level course innutrition (22%), completed two or more college courses innutrition (22%), and/or attended a related continuing edu­cation class (18%). Fifteen percent of the teachers had adegree in home economics. Only 11% had never studiednutrition.

RESULTS

To determine the status ofschool-based nutrition education(objective 1), teachers were asked how nutrition was cur­rently taught in their school and how they preferred it betaught. Responses indicated that nutrition was often in-

cluded in more than one curriculum. Fifty-three percent ofthe elementary teachers reported that nutrition was in­cluded in health, 38% reported that it was included inscience, and/or 30% in physical education classes. Prefer­ence ratings showed moderate support for this approachamong the elementary teachers (66%, 40%, and 41%, re­spectively). Forty-four percent indicated that they pre­ferred teaching a separate course on nutrition - greaterthan twice the number whose schools currently offer aseparate course (18%). Responses from secondary teachersalso revealed that nutrition was commonly included in morethan one curriculum, primarily home economics/life skills(75%), health (53%), and/or physical education (28%). Theyindicated a preference for this approach to nutrition educa­tion (79%, 66%, and 40% of the secondary teachers, respec­tively). Interestingly, nutrition was not widely included inscience classes. Sixteen percent of secondary teachers re­ported this practice, and it was preferred by only 19%.Unlike the elementary teachers, only 26% of secondaryteachers expressed a preference for a separate nutritioncourse. The largest disparity between the present and pre­ferred status was in regard to a comprehensive school-wideprogram that was not available in any school but preferredby 37% of the elementary teachers and 26% of the secon­dary teachers. Last, both elementary and secondary teachersagreed that it is important to begin teaching nutrition early.Eighty percent of all respondents indicated that nutritionshould be taught during kindergarten through second grade.

Teachers were also asked about the nutrition educationefforts in their classrooms. Sixty-eight percent ofall respon­dents reported teaching nutrition during the past schoolyear. This included 74% of elementary teachers and 63% ofsecondary teachers. Seventeen percent of elementary teach­ers who taught nutrition during the past school year spentless than 1 hour on the subject, 61% spent between 1 and 5hours, and 22% spent more than 5 hours on the subject ofnutrition. Among the secondary teachers, 5% spent less than1 hour teaching nutrition, 45% spent between 1 and 5 hours,and 51 % spent more than 5 hours on the subj ect. Thoseteachers (elementary and secondary) who did not teachnutrition during the past year reported that lack of time(33%) and/or materials (18%) were factors that contributedto their decision.

To assess the availability, utilization, and satisfaction withexisting nutrition education support (objective 2), teacherswere asked about community agencies, professionals (e.g.,dietitians, nurses, teachers), resource materials, and activi­ties. Overall, respondents found the Dairy Council (17%)and Cooperative Extension (16%) most helpful. Homeeconomics teachers were cited as the most helpful resourceamong the secondary teachers (25%), and the Dairy Councilwas cited as the most helpful among the elementary teachers(19%). An important finding was the high proportion ofteachers who had not sought support, which included 68%of elementary teachers and 38% of secondary teachers. In

44 Woodson et aLlNUTRITION EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Percentage of respondents reporting availability of nutrition education resources and activities.

Elementary Teachers (n = 73) Secondary Teacher (n =68)

Ample Limited Unavailable Ample Limited Unavailable

Print Materials

Curricula 7 64 29 16 65 19

Magazines/newsletters' 7 59 34 35 57 7

Referenc,e books' 16 73 11 41 56 3

Textbooks' 14 53 33 41 57 2

Audiovisual Aids

Audiovisuals' 7 77 16 23 74 3

Exhibits 1 55 44 9 62 29

Food models 8 56 36 22 57 21

Posters 11 70 19 23 68 9

Transparencies' 4 53 43 22 65 13

Special Events and Activities

Computer software' 0 55 45 18 65 17

Field trips 4 71 25 6 67 27

GUElst speakers 12 73 15 19 69 12

National Nutrition Month materials 3 61 36 7 62 31

'Indicates a statistically significant difference between grade levels based on chi-square test (p < .05).

addition, many teachers reported that nutrition educationresources and activities were limited or unavailable to them(see Table 1). Secondary teachers, however, had moreresources compared to the elementary teachers, who wereless likely to have written materials (texts, reference books,magazines/newsletters) and other types of classroom aids(e.g., audiovisuals, software).

The third objective of this survey was to explore teach­ers' preferences regarding continuing education. Findingsindicated that a large proportion (73%) would attend anutrition in-service program, 70% were interested in news­letters, and 67% were interested in self-study programs.Teachers' interest in specific nutrition topics is listed inTable 2. In general, they were most interested in learningabout the relationship between nutrition and health (e.g.,chronic disease prevention, importance of a balanced diet)and nutrition and academic performance. Compared tosecondary teachers, a significantly higher proportion ofelementary teachers were interested in agriculture, culturalfood patterns, history of nutrition, and hunger and famine.More secondary teachers, on the other hand, were inter­ested in eating disorders and weight management.

Teachers' personal interest in healthy eating practices, asassessed by the eight-item summated-rating scale describedpreviously, was compared to demographic characteristicsand classroom nutrition education efforts. No significantdifferences were noted with respect to age, gender, or

grade level. Teachers, however, who held an advanceddegree (t = -3.72, df = 133, P < .05) or a degree in homeeconomics (t = 3.99, df= 133, P < .05) scored significantlyhigher, indicating more interest in eating a healthful diet.The completion of two or more college courses in nutritionor a continuing education program was also associated withsignificantly higher scale scores (t = 2.99; df = 133, P < .05and t = 2.76, df = 133, P < .05, respectively). Interest inhealthful eating was unrelated to nutrition education efforts(teaching nutrition/time spent on nutrition) or continuingeducation preferences.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study indicate that a high proportion(68%) of teachers who completed the survey are includ­ing nutrition in their classes, similar to what previous re­searchers have found. 3•4•6 Reasons for not teaching nutri­tion, namely lack of time and resources, have also beendocumented previously among elementary school teach­ers. 3 Elementary teachers surveyed supported a variety ofapproaches with regard to teaching nutrition, while secon­dary teachers appeared more favorable of integrating nutri­tion into existing courses. There was not strong supportfor a comprehensive, school-wide program. Previous re­search, however, has shown that sequential, multiyear pro-

Journal of Nutrition Education Volume 27 Number 1 January. February 1995 45

Percentage of

Respondents (Rank)

'Indicates a statistically significant difference between grade levels

based on chi-square test (p < .05).

Table 2. Percentage of teachers interested in continuing education

topics related to nutrition.

Introductory Nutritional Sciences

Digestion of food 30 (9) 25 (9)

Importance of balanced diet 51 (2) 53 (3)

Metabolism 37 (6) 38 (7)

Nutrient deficiencies 26 (10) 24 (10)

Nutrient functions 33 (7) 35 (8)

Nutrient sources 44 (3) 44 (5)

Nutrition and Health

Chronic disease prevention 51 (2) 60 (2)

Eating disorders' 30 (9) 52 (4)

Food guides 43 (4) 43 (6)

Weight management' 40 (5) 66 (1 )

Nutrition, Culture, and Social Issues

AgriCUlture' 30 (9) 15 (13)

Cultural food patterns' 40 (5) 16 (12)

History of food/nutrition' 32 (8) 9 (14)

Hunger and famine' 40 (5) 18 (11)

Nutrition and academic performance 59 (1 ) 53 (3)

were also less likely to seek support from communityagencies and other professionals. A recent survey docu­mented the nutrition-related issues of importance to ele­mentary teachers. 16 Basic healthful eating, dental health, andappropriate snack choices were ranked as most important.Additional research is needed to determine the nature andtype of resources, related to these critical issues, whichwould benefit these teachers the most. It would be impor­tant to include teachers at all grade levels (kindergartenthrough Grade 12) in this research, given that 80% ofteachers surveyed here thought that nutrition should beginas early as possible. Also, nutrition educators may need totake steps to ensure that teachers are aware and take advan­tage of existing support sources.

This study failed to show a relationship between thenutrition education efforts in the classroom and teachers'personal interest in healthy eating practices. Another areafor further research is the relationship between teachers'attitudes and their effectiveness as nutrition educators.

Interpretation of these survey findings should includeconsideration of the limitations related to the methodologyand the sample. Mail surveys, unlike personal interviews,do not provide an opportunity to clarify questionnaire itemsor discuss participants' responses.!7 Despite preliminary re­views and pretesting, questions may have been misread,misinterpreted, or left unanswered. Limitations related tothe sample include the limited geographical representation,selection criteria, and response rate. The response rate tothe mail survey was 48%, which is within the 30% to 50%range often reported for mail surveys but is still rather low,!8The extent to which this introduced a response bias isunknown, but it is likely that respondents are more inter­ested in and/or motivated about nutrition than the non­respondents.

Secondary

Teachers

(n = 68)

Elementary

Teachers

(n = 73)

grams are most effective in changing knowledge, attitudes,and behavior. 15

Teachers' educational preparation in nutrition is alsorelated to effective nutrition programming, as a result ofthe amount of class time devoted to the subject. 4,15 Con­tinuing education programs are one way to enhance teach­ers' knowledge and make them more comfortable with thematerial. This survey indicated that teachers were equallyinterested in classes, newsletters, and self-study programs.Offering teachers alternative means of obtaining continuingeducation may increase their participation in such programs.The survey also suggests that elementary and secondaryteachers have different areas of interest. Other studies havedocumented teachers' knowledge of nutrition.3,6 In devel­oping continuing education programs for teachers, oneshould consider the delivery method, areas of interest toteachers, and their knowledge of nutrition.

A high proportion of teachers indicated that resourcesand activities were not available to them, especially at theelementary school level. In addition, elementary teachers

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Portions ofthis paper were presented at the Annual Meetingof the Society for Nutrition Education, Washington, DC,July, 1992.

REFERENCES

1. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Education of the

public: strategies and actions for implementation. In: Paul R. Thomas,

ed. Improving America's diet and health - from recommendations co

action. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991:184-209.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people

2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991.

3. Soliah LL, Newell K, Vaden AG, Dayton AD. Establishing the need

for nutrition education: II. Elementary teachers' nutrition knowledge,

attitudes, and practices. J Am Diet Assoc 1983; 83:447-53.

46 Woodson et al.lNUTRITION EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

4. Olson CM, Frongillo EA, Schardt DG. Status of nutrition education

in elementary schools: 1981 vs. 1975.] Nutr Educ 1986; 18:49-54.

5. Frongillo EA, Olson CM, Schardt DG. Administrators' views on

school-based nutrition education.] Nutr Educ 1990; 22:74-80.

6. Penner KP, Kolasa KM. Secondary teachers' nutrition knowledge,

attitudes and practices.] Nutr Educ 1983; 15:141-5.

7. Paulsen BK. Needs assessment for nutrition education in Nevada's

public and private schools: a teacher survey. Unpublished final report

to the Nevada Department of Education, 1987.

8. Byrd-Bredbenner C, Shear R. Nutrition knowledge, attitude, dietary

behavior and commitment to nutrition education of nutrition educa-

tors. Hom Econ Res] 1982; 11:167-74.

9. Weinberg E. Data collection: planning and management. In Rossi PH,

Wright ]D, Anderson AB, eds. Handbook of survey research. San

Diego: Academic Press, 1983:334.

10. Kim]O, Mueller CWo Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical

issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1978.

11. Nunnally]C. Psychological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

12. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979.

13. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika 1951; 16:297-334.

14. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method.

New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978.

15. Contento IR, Manning AD, Shannon B. Research perspective on

school-based nutrition education. ] Nutr Educ 1992; 24:247-60.

16. Thomas LF, Long EM, Zaske ]M. Nutrition education sources and

priorities of elementary school teachers. ] Am Diet Assoc 1994;

94:318-20.

17. Dillman DA. Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In Rossi

PH, Wright]D, Anderson AB, eds. Handbook ofsurvey research. San

Diego: Academic Press, 1983:359-77.

18. Perkin]. Design and use of questionnaires in research. In: Monsen E.

ed. Research: successful approaches. Chicago: The American Dietetic

Association, 1992:111-29.

Statement of OwnershipManagement and Circulation

Date of filing: October 20, 1994. ]ournal of Nutrition Education(ISSN 0022-3182) is puPlished bimonthly at Decker Periodicals,One James Street South, P.O. Box 620, L.C.D. 1, Hamilton,Ontario, Canada L8N 3K7. The name and address of the pub­lisher is Brian Decker; Decker Periodicals, One James StreetSouth, P.O. Box 620, L.C.D. 1, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N3K7. The editor is Karen Glanz, Ph.D., M.P.H., Cancer Re­search Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, 1236 LauhalaStreet, Honolulu, HI 96813. Owner of the publication is TheSociety ofNutrition Education, 2001 Killebrew Drive, Suite 340,Minneapolis, MN 55425-1882. There are no bond-holders,mortgagees, or security holders.

Total number of copies printed (average for preceding 12months) - 4,650; sales through dealers - none; mail subscriptions- 3,825; total paid circulation 3,825; free distribution - 183; totaldistribution - 4,008; office use - 642; return from news agents ­none; total 4,650.

Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest tofiling date - 4,620; sales through dealers - none; mail subscriptions- 3,935; total paid circulation 3,935; free distribution - 103; totaldistribution - 4,038; office use - 582; return from news agents ­none; total 4,620.

I certify that the statements made by me above are correctand complete.

Brian C. Decker, Publisher