z-logo
Premium
Educator Interactions at Head Start Lunches: A Context for Nutrition Education
Author(s) -
Swindle Taren,
WhitesideMansell Leanne
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.731.2
Subject(s) - head start , psychology , context (archaeology) , observational study , developmental psychology , medical education , medicine , paleontology , pathology , biology
Early childhood educators in center‐based care share lunch with preschool children over 150 times in a school year. Unfortunately, research shows that, in terms of nutrition education, lunch is a missed opportunity (Larson et al., 2011). Worse, educator behaviors were often negative in a landmark 2001 study of Head Start (Gable & Lutz, 2001). The current study examined Head Start educators lunchtime interactions with children with the goal of (a) updating the state of mealtimes in the Head Start setting and (b) expanding observations to a greater number of classrooms (n =21) across different centers (n= 7). Lunch observations were conducted by observers who were trained to code phrases by lead and assistant teachers into either 4 positive or 4 negative categories. A broad category related to behavior management was also recorded when firm directives, not appropriate transitions, were used. Interrater reliability of 85% or greater was obtained for all observers. Table 1 presents the mean number of times each target interaction was observed. Lead teachers were more positive than assistant teachers in their comments and generally more vocal. On average, 54% of lead teachers and 61% of assistant teachers' comments were not supportive of a healthy, nurturing food environment. Findings illustrate that a high proportion of interactions at Head Start meals between educator and child are either negative or focused on behavioral control (57% of total comments). Children were commanded to eat 4 times more frequently than they were directed to internal hunger cues. This descriptive, naturalistic, observational study highlights the continued need for improved policy and training for educators acting as role models for at‐risk children. Table 1. Frequency of Educator Interactions by Teacher RoleLEAD ASSISTANT TOTALPositive LanguagePositive comments about food served (e.g., I am really enjoying the carrots today. Yummy!) 4.64 3.29 7.93 Hunger cues (e.g., Are you full? How does your belly feel?) 1.50 1.00 2.50 Encourage trying in a positive way (e.g., Would you like to try the peas? Peas are good for our bodies.) 4.38 2.25 6.63 Exploring foods (e.g., What does it smell like? How does it feel in your mouth?) 3.39 2.15 5.54Negative LanguagePressure to eat (e.g., Eat your food. Take a bite. Clean your plate.) 6.22 4.17 10.39 Threats to encourage eating (e.g., If you don't eat, you'll be over here by yourself.) 0.45 0.39 0.84 Discourage manipulating food (e.g., Use your manners. Eat, don't play. That's sticky and nasty.) 1.81 2.26 4.07 Hurry to finish eating (e.g., We're waiting on you. Let's hurry so we can go to recess.) 1.10 1.02 2.12Behavior LanguageFocus on behavioral control (e.g., Turn around. Sit up straight. Hands in your lap.) 6.89 5.75 12.64

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here