| Summary: | 碩士 === 台北醫學院 === 保健營養學研究所 === 85 === The purpose of the study was to compare nutrition
knowledge(K), attitude(A) and dietary
practices(P) of 6th grade students in elementary
schools with and without school lunch program in Taipei. Schools
with school lunch program are designated as
SLP group and those without school lunch program
are designated as NSLP group. Four hundreds and forty four
6th grade students participated in the study: 208 students came
from sev en elementary schools with school lunch
program (SLP group) while 206 stu dents were from
seven elementary schools without school lunch program (NSLP
group) which were randomly selected from those located near
elementary schools with SLP. Questionnaires for
students and principals were developed to collect data
for the study. Each school was visited and questionnaires for
students were administered to the students of one
class selected randomly. Questionnaires for principals
were mailed and returned in self-addressed envelop. After
analyses, the results of the study were as follows :
1. Students
(1) No significant differences in K and A between SLP and NSLP
groups; but P in SLP group was better than that
in NSLP group (T=1.9996, p<0.05).
(2) In SLP group, there was a positive correlation between K and
A (r=0.27, p<0.001) , no correlation between K
and P (r=0.11, p=0.09) , a positive correlation
between K and A (r=0.32, p<0.01, p<0.001) . In NSLP group,
there was a positive correlation in K & A, K & P, and A & P (KA
: r=0.26, p<0.001 ; KP : r=0.33, p<0.001
; AP : r=0.31, p<0.001) .
(3) Student characteristics selected in the study included sex,
height, weight, height, the number of brothers and
sisters, birth order, degree of interest in
nutrition knowledge, self-evaluated K and nutrition education.
In SLP group, birth order and nutrition
education had significant influence on K
(F=4.74, p<0.01 ; F=6.70, p<0.05). K of those whose birth order
were the first order was better than that of
those who were not. K of those who were not on
nutrition education program was better than that of those
who were on . Sex and the degree of interest in K had
significant influence on A (F=4.77,
p<0.05 ; F=5.54, p<0.01). Boys'' A was better
than girls''. A of the students who were interested in K was
better than that of those who were not. Self-
evaluated K and nutrition education had
significant influenced on P (F=8.45, p<0.001 ; F=4.55,p<0.05 ;
F=3.97, p<0.05). P of the students interested
in K was better than that of those not. P of the
students who evaluated their K as good was better than that
of those evaluated themselves as bad P of students on nutrition
education program was better than that of those
on no nutrition education program. In NSLP
group, the number of brothers and sisters and education level of
parents had significant influence in K (F=3.18, p<0.05 ; F=4.28,
p<0.01 ; F=12.05, p<0.001 ; F=12.38, p<0.001). K
of those who had two brothers and sisters was
better than that of those who had four brothers and sisters.
K of the students whose parents were better educated was better
that those whose parents were less-educated.
Degree of interest in K had significant
influence on A (F=3.43, p<0.05). A of the students interested
in K was better than that of those of no interest. Sex, birth
order, the education level of parents , degree
of interest in K, and self-evaluated knowledge
had significant influence on P (F=6.29, p<0.05 ; F=4.22,
p<0.01 ; F=8.09, p<0.001 ; F=12.17, p<0.001 ; F=12.22, p< 0.001
; F=3.71, p<0.05). Boys'' P was better
than girls''. P of the students with first birth
order was better than that of those with the last. P of the
students whose parents were higher educated than that of those
whose parents were less educated. P of the students interested
in K was better than that of those of no
interest. P of those who evaluated their K as
good was better than that of those evaluated their K as bad.
2. Principals
(1) According to the principals'' response, Most of nutrition
education planners were teachers, deans of students,
prefects of students, chiefs of general affairs,
chiefs of public health and nurses in both SLP and NSLP groups.
Two dietitians involved in nutrition education planning in SLP
group. Nutrition educators were almost the
same as nutrition education planers. But no
dietitians were nutrition educators in SLP group. Most of
principals thought that dietitians should take
charge of nutrition education.
(2) Most of teaching materials for nutrition education were
homemade, or from Ministry of Education, Ministry
of Health or purchased. The ways of
carrying out nutrition education were posters, teaching in the
class room, holding variety of activities or
events, inviting nutritionists or professional experts
to give seminar and publishing nutrition-related issues. Most
principals suggested that supplementation and
development of nutrition education be in the
direction of training teachers to teach nutrition, promoting
publications of nutrition information, making video
tapes, making computer software , holding variety of
activities, education and training.
(3) Of nine elementary schools where nutrition education were
conducted, five principals felt satisfactory, two
were neutral, five were not satisfactory, Of fourteen
elementary schools, seven principals thought that nutrition
education as very important, five though that
nutrition education as important, two thought
nutrition education as not very important, Of five elementary
schools where nutrition education were not conducted,
their principals expressed that they planed to
conduct nutrition education in the future. Regarding the
teaching materials for nutrition education, eleven principals
felt inadequacy, three expressed not bad. As to
information on foods and nutrition in the
library, six principals felt few and eight expressed "ordinary",
which meant no more and no less.
|
|---|
