Abstract
This research explores current teaching interventions in the development of school food education in urban schools of northern Taiwan, focusing on the relationship between teachers’ teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments. As the urban schools of northern Taiwan (Taipei, New Taipei City, and Taoyuan City) are all classified as metropolitan areas, schools in these areas place a greater emphasis on students’ dietary habits. This study therefore selected urban middle schools of these three connected municipalities as the research area. It adopted stratified random methods for sampling and designed questionnaires to collect data. A total of 748 urban middle school teachers were selected as research participants. A total of 652 valid questionnaires were recovered, which generated an effective recovery rate of 87.17% among 59 urban middle schools. The results for teaching attitudes, environmental awareness, and food awareness are important. For teaching knowledge, teachers’ professional knowledge, class management knowledge, and academic research knowledge are significant. They will facilitate the development of school food education. Despite the limitations, the study can provide teachers with multiple technologies to fulfill food education through teaching interventions.
Keywords
Introduction
The implementation of food education at all school levels has suddenly received significant attention. The Taiwan government has issued administrative orders calling for the implementation of food education in all school grades. Particularly, an irreversible trend in the development of school food education has emerged. The most efficient approach entails encouraging teachers to integrate food education into subject teaching, thereby spurring the development of food education in Taiwan.
According to the Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future (TLSF) program proposed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2010), the focus of the curriculum design for the 10 major contemporary issues comprises five topics: population and development, world hunger, sustainable agriculture, sustainable communities, and globalization trends. All these topics concern food education and related teaching activities. As highlighted in the 2014–2015 Global Food Policy Report published in 2015 by the International Food Policy Research Institute, the uneven distribution of contemporary food production, disputes over fair trade in agriculture, malnutrition, and food safety risks are all thorny worldwide issues requiring urgent resolution. The report also indicates that food education has attracted international attention.
Advanced countries have promoted food education for years and even consider it a symbol of national cultural heritage (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries [MAFF], 2006). Teaching practices in food education have been enriched and diversified (Kimura, 2011), indicating that food education is an important factor in a country’s development. For example, in the United States, the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) introduced in 1946 had undergone many revisions until recent years, when food education-related laws such as the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 were enacted. In 2013, the National Nutrition Education Curriculum Standards were introduced and designed for implementation in primary and middle schools through teaching. In the United Kingdom, the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906 and the Education Act 1944 were set forth, and the “Health of the Nation” white paper was published in 1992. In 2013, the Ministry of Education published The School Food Plan, explicitly reclassifying cooking as a compulsory subject (Dimbleby & Vincent, 2013), treating food education as part of the national curriculum. These actions served to urge teachers of British food education to build teaching professional knowledge. In Japan, the Basic Law on Food Education (Shokuikukihonhō) was promulgated in 2005, explicitly designating the 19th day of each month as “Food Education Day.” This development shows the emphasis Japan placed on food education. Teachers who had previously completed an administrative dietitian course and who had a dietitian certificate could obtain professional certificates in teaching and dietetics simultaneously (Liang, 2014). The system paid particular attention to promoting school-based food education teaching programs, with schools at the K-12 level deserving particular attention (Allegra, 2014).
Noticing the worldwide trend in food education, the Taiwan government revised its School Health Act. However, the promotion of food education remains at the stage of permitting schools make their own decisions, though certain counties and cities have placed distinct emphasis on food education and have promoted it through a diet-health program. Nonetheless, the core activity of food education involves schools encouraging subject teachers to commit themselves to integrated teaching, emphasizing the integration of subject teaching into food education, and cultivating students’ food literacy (Flowers & Swan, 2012). Taiwan has selected this aspect of teaching and learning for exploring the development of school food education, both given Taiwan’s reality and in response to the worldwide trend in food education.
Based on this finding, teachers’ intervention refers to a school’s efforts to reform and the implementation process (Rothwell et al., 1995). Moreover, teachers’ interventions—through the growth of teachers as human resources—drive the development of school food education and helps build a considerably healthier food education culture (Swan & Flowers, 2015).
This study explores teaching interventions in the development of school food education, emphasizing the growth of human resources based on teacher empowerment and treating teacher development as a mechanism for organizational development (Blanke, 1992). Among the interventions, teaching attitudes (Ohe et al., 2014), teaching knowledge (Barnett & Hodson, 2001), and teaching commitments (Public Health England, 2015a) are important for designing food education.
The three municipalities chosen for the study are linked together in northern Taiwan. They are the most representative metropolitan areas in Taiwan, and parents in these cities place distinct emphasis on their children’s food safety and habits. This study examines how teachers’ interventions can foster the growth of teachers as human resources to understand the development of school food education.
Purpose of the Study
Given the background and aims mentioned above, and using urban middle schools in the three directly governed municipalities in the central government of Taiwan as the research scope, this article pursues three objectives:
To discuss current teachers’ interventions in the development of school food education.
To explore the relationship between teachers’ teaching attitudes, knowledge, and commitments in the development of school food education.
To explore the predictive power of teaching attitudes and teaching knowledge on teaching commitments in the development of school food education.
Literature Review
The Significance of School Food Education Development
The concept of food education (or dietary education, food pedagogies, pedagogy of food) is interchangeable with “agricultural food education” (food and agriculture education, agro-food education, and food and farming education) or “nutrition education.” It emphasizes the basic literacy of nutrition and health for educated individuals and the sound and sustainable development of the agricultural ecological environment in which these individuals live (Sumner, 2015). It also promotes educators’ awareness of food culture (Adachi, 2008; Kimura, 2011). To avoid confusion arising from differences in terminology, this study uses food education.
Sumner (2008, 2013) believes that food can be used as a teaching and learning topic and is an important aspect of school education development. Therefore, promoting school food education is a topic of reform. For example, research by González-Cutre et al. (2018) showed that food education as a way to develop school-based distinctive features will inspire teachers’ self-autonomy and catalyze the effects of teaching interventions in multiple ways to improve school effectiveness. Based on this finding, teachers’ intervention refers to a school’s efforts to reform and the implementation process (Rothwell et al., 1995). Moreover, teachers’ interventions—through the growth of teachers as human resources—drive the development of school food education and helps build a considerably healthier food education culture (Swan & Flowers, 2015). In this regard, the use of teaching interventions for developing school food education can urge the integration of food education in teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments. These interventions will further spur teachers’ motivation for organizational learning to reinforce the choice of correct values, improve their mental models, strengthen teachers’ knowledge management through introspection, promote the teaching practice of food education development, and contribute to implementing the school’s vision (Senge, 1990).
Teachers’ Interventions in the Development of School Food Education
Teaching attitudes
Food awareness
Food awareness emphasizes the intention to learn the basic characteristics of and information about foods and the sources of food production, raise concerns about the inheritance of food culture and the choice of genetically modified foods, and cultivate the motivation to avoid food waste (Yan & Zeng, 2014). In terms of these intentions, positive food awareness includes respect for food and perception of sentimental interactions of the interdependence of food networks (Flowers & Swan, 2012).
Health awareness
Health awareness emphasizes a healthy food attitude, focuses on a balanced diet, and encourages the consumption of fruits and vegetables. It also supports efforts to identify the relationship between food and physical health as well as concerns about food safety and good eating habits. The Institute of Medicine unit (IOM) of the National Academies asserted that food education is intended to correct improper eating attitudes, foster health awareness, and strengthen the motivation to improve the quality of one’s life.
Environmental awareness
Environmental awareness emphasizes concern for the relationship between biodiversity and food safety, a preference for sustainable agricultural products, and an attitude of respect for food and self-harmony and an acknowledgment of the relationship between food, self-harmony, and the choice of environment-friendly agricultural products. It also encourages reflection on industrial farming methods that overexploit food ecology (Wight & Killham, 2014) and contributes to understand the interdependence between self and food ecology to accentuate concern about the symbiotic coexistence of food and the natural environment and to enhance ecological literacy.
Community awareness
Community awareness emphasizes the willingness of the local community to participate in food campaigns, establish a reasonable relationship with agricultural producers, and develop concern for the national rate of food self-sufficiency (Swan & Flowers, 2015). Swan’s research further indicates that community awareness about food education emphasizes that individualism causes people to neglect care for the environment and the land and the establishment of a rational relationship between self and others, thus reducing the willingness to implement food education. The teaching atmosphere created by the shared learning connection between teachers and their peers is particularly instrumental to promoting the healthy development of students’ bodies and minds.
Teaching knowledge
Academic research knowledge
Academic research knowledge includes educational research knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge of reflection on practice and exploration, and philosophy of science education. All these types of knowledge have a function in research on teaching, so academic research knowledge emphasizes critical reflection (Bucher, 2017) and scientific thinking (Galt et al., 2013). Teachers’ interactive network exploration and action research are particularly important methods for developing knowledge (Harris & Barter, 2015).
Subject teaching knowledge
Subject teaching knowledge includes the establishment of subject teaching objectives, a coherent curriculum layout (Swan & Flowers, 2015), teaching skills and teaching strategies (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010; O’Dea, 2005), and a teaching assessment, as well as the strategic use of scientific resources, interschool resources, community resources, and the integration of disciplines (Barnett & Hodson, 2001).
Teachers’ professional knowledge
Teachers’ professional knowledge includes school administration knowledge, education professional knowledge, and teachers’ teaching knowledge. These types of knowledge all concern teachers’ responsibilities, the school culture, the school system, the school administration, teaching support, trade union affairs, competent authorities, parent–teacher relations, public relations, and curriculum planning (Barnett & Hodson, 2001). The “school-wide participation model” in the Food teaching in primary and secondary schools: knowledge and skills framework emphasizes the professional knowledge of food teaching, promotes school-wide policies, and advocates for collaborative curriculum development to assist in teachers’ professional development (Carraway-Stage et al., 2016).
Class management knowledge
Class management knowledge stresses teachers’ understanding of students and their knowledge of student learning management (Birdsall, 2015), including students’ psychological (O’Dea, 2005), social, background, and behavioral awareness to enhance the management of student learning (Birdsall, 2015). Therefore, teachers must possess knowledge of students’ preferences, habits, academic preparations, peer culture, subgroups, and living environments (Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Public Health England, 2015a) and revise teaching practices to support student learning.
Teaching commitments
Continuance commitment
Kanter’s (1968) so-called “continuance commitment” emphasizes the activities that individuals recognize and continue to participate in to benefit themselves. Often, a teacher’s sacrifice will involve curbing his or her appetite, avoidance of unhealthy foods, and increasing the longevity of food education activities (Public Health England, 2015a). In addition, teachers “invest” additional effort in creating teaching activities that can provide future benefits (Mooney et al., 2011) and promote an investment in teaching. Therefore, a sustained teaching commitment emphasizes professional dedication and the investment of resources in teaching.
Cohesion commitment
Kanter’s (1968) so-called “cohesion commitment” emphasizes individuals’ pattern of emotional connection in social relationships to obtain emotional gratification. Often, “renunciation” stresses teachers’ abstention from relationships that are potentially detrimental to solidarity (Fernandes, 2013; Kucelin, 2011). In addition, “communion” requires that teachers integrate themselves into their own team, exist in a community of life in chorus with others, derive gratification from teaching (Park, 2005), and increase their care about students’ learning of food education (Tyree, 1996). Therefore, cohesion commitment stresses personal loyalty and team symbiosis.
Control commitment
Kanter’s (1968) so-called “control commitment” emphasizes the individual’s “evaluation.” After a moral evaluation, an individual chooses a considerably higher level of social norms or control authority. Often, the teacher’s “mortification” emphasizes the perception of the teacher’s inability to reshape their social identity following the teacher’s disengagement from the social system. Teachers’ design of food education must consider the school culture so that, for example, teachers can defuse fierce confrontational behavior (O’Dea, 2005) to avoid internal friction during the implementation of reform. In addition, teachers’ “surrender” emphasizes the conviction of their social authority and promotes their self-autonomy to follow system regulations. For example, food education programs must comply with national food education policy regulations and syllabus requirements (Public Health England, 2015b). Therefore, control commitment to teaching emphasizes organizational identity and institutional compliance.
Method
This study adopts a questionnaire survey approach. It uses the measure of “teachers’ intervention in school food education development” to collect data. The data are distinguished with three dimensions: teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments. Teaching attitudes include three factors, that is, food awareness, health awareness, environmental and community awareness; teaching knowledge includes three factors, that is, subject research knowledge, subject teaching knowledge, and teachers’ professional knowledge and class management knowledge; and teaching commitments include three factors, that is, continuance commitment, cohesion commitment, and control commitment.
The measure of teaching attitude in food education development is based on the questionnaire on food education issues and food education care used by Ohe et al. (2014) and the questionnaire on teachers’ nutrition knowledge, attitude, and behavior used by Sharma et al. (2013). The measure of teaching knowledge is based on the questionnaire on school food nutrition and healthy environment used by Girard (2010), the questionnaire on teachers’ cognition of obese children used by Lynagh et al. (2015), and the questionnaire on teachers’ food education plan used by Sharma et al. (2015). The measure of teaching commitment in food education development is based on the questionnaire on school food nutrition and healthy environment used by Girard (2010), which we supplemented with a literature review. We also translated the text of the questionnaire to reflect the current situation of class teaching in Taiwan. After completing the first draft of the questionnaire, six experts and scholars in food education were asked to review each question and make necessary revisions to increase the content validity.
Preliminary Test of Questionnaire
After the relevant literature was explored, the questionnaire was administered as a self-report. First, 120 middle school teachers were selected to participate in the preliminary test. The study analyzed the exploratory factors and internal consistency to establish the questionnaire’s reliability and validity and then finalized a formal measure. This study used a 5-point Likert-type scale for scoring the questionnaires, corresponding (in descending order) to strongly match, match, generally match, not match, and strongly not match. Factor analysis was used to extract the common factors, and the shaft was turned by the maximum variation method. The results showed that in terms of reliability and validity. The reliability and validity of all other questions were greater than .50, and the explanatory variables all exceed 70%, indicating good validity. The reliability values of Cronbach’s alpha are all greater than .80, indicating good internal consistency of the scale.
Valid Samples
The study was conducted using middle schools in the three directly governed municipalities because, as food education is an emerging educational issue in Taiwan, schools in the metropolitan area are more active in promoting food education. The study chose subject teaching teachers as the participants. A total of 748 questionnaires were distributed to 59 schools, and 664 questionnaires were recovered. After all questionnaires were reviewed, 12 invalid ones were removed, and 652 valid ones were retained as the basis for the data analysis, thus achieving an effective recovery rate of 87.17%.
Data Analysis
The mean scores on teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments in food education development were divided into five levels according to the mean: high (4.5–5 points), mid-high (>3.5 points and <4.5 points), middle (>2.5 points and <3.5 points), lower-middle (>2 points and <2.5 points), and low (>1 point and <2 points).
To understand the relevant situation of interventions in school food education development, including teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments, Pearson’s product–moment correlation was used to perform correlation analysis. According to the correlation coefficient (r), the correlation is weak or no correlation if the correlation coefficient is less than ±.100; the correlation is low if the correlation coefficient is ±.100 to ±.399; the correlation is moderate if the correlation coefficient is ±.400 to ±.699; and the correlation is high if the correlation coefficient is ±.700 to ±.999. The proceeding discussion focuses on individual aspects and an overall analysis of teaching attitudes, teaching knowledge, and teaching commitments in food education.
This study performed a predictive regression analysis to predict teaching attitudes and teaching knowledge of school food education development for various aspects of teaching commitments. A stepwise analysis method was used to select the optimal combination of single independent variables. The criterion for selecting this combination is that the explanatory power (R2 variation) of individual predictive variables must be above 1%. It is hoped that the predictive variable can offer a reasonable explanation of the criterion variable. Next, a multivariate stepwise regression analysis was conducted using the various aspects of teaching attitudes and teaching knowledge as predictive variables and the various aspects of the teaching commitments as criterion variables.
Research Results
Current Situation
The mean score of teachers’ teaching attitudes in school food education development is 4.23. Teachers’ overall attitude toward food education and various other attitudes are at the mid-high level. Teachers’ attitudes toward community awareness are relatively neglected, with an average score of 4.04, which is out of the range of other types of awareness (see Table 1).
Analysis of Teachers’ Teaching Attitudes From Each and Overall Analysis.
The mean score of teachers’ teaching knowledge in food education development is 3.48, indicating that teaching knowledge in the overall food education development differs from various other knowledge types. Among these types, subject research knowledge and class management knowledge are relatively high, with a mean score of 3.53 and 3.68, respectively, belonging to the mid-high level. By contrast, subject teaching knowledge and teachers’ professional knowledge are relatively low, with a mean score of 3.33 and 3.39, respectively, belonging to the middle level, indicating that teachers’ teaching knowledge and professional knowledge are relatively neglected in school food education development (see Table 2).
Analysis of Teachers’ Teaching Commitments From Each Aspect and Overall Analysis.
The mean score of teaching commitments in school food education development is 3.61, indicating that in the overall of teaching commitments in food education, the continuance commitment and cohesion commitment are at the mid-high level, with a mean of 3.60 and 3.76, respectively, but the control commitment is at the middle level, with a mean of 3.47. Compared with other two commitments, the control commitment is at a lower level (see Table 3).
Analysis of Teachers’ Teaching Commitments From Each Aspect and Overall Analysis.
Correlation
Analysis of the correlation between teaching attitudes and teaching knowledge
The analysis of the correlation between the teaching attitudes of food education and teaching knowledge of food education is shown in Table 4. A significant positive correlation exists between teachers’ overall teaching attitudes and various aspects of teachers’ teaching knowledge and between the teachers’ overall teaching knowledge and various aspects of teachers’ teaching knowledge: The correlation between the overall teaching attitudes and its overall teaching knowledge is moderate, indicating that when teaching attitudes of food education development are trending positively, teaching knowledge about food education also increases. Additional analysis of the various aspects shows that all aspects of teaching attitudes are positively correlated with all aspects of teaching knowledge, with the degree of correlation ranging from low to moderate. Among the correlations of the aspects, the correlation between health awareness and subject teaching knowledge is relatively low.
Excerpt From the Relevance Matrix of Teaching Attitudes and Teaching Knowledge.
p < .01.
Analysis of the correlation between teaching attitudes and teaching commitments
The analysis of the correlation between the teaching attitudes of food education and teaching commitments is shown in Table 5. A significant positive correlation between the overall and various aspects of teaching attitude and the overall and various aspects of teaching commitment was found. The correlation between the overall teaching attitudes and the overall teaching commitments is moderate, indicating that when the teaching attitudes are trending positively, the teaching commitment to food education likewise increases. Additional analysis of the various aspects shows that the various aspects of teaching attitudes and of teaching commitments are positively correlated, with the correlation ranging from low to moderate. Among the correlations, the correlation between health awareness and control commitment is relatively low.
Excerpt From the Relevance Matrix of Teaching Attitudes and Teaching Commitments.
p < .01.
Analysis of the correlation between teaching knowledge and teaching commitments
The analysis of the correlation between the teaching knowledge of school food education development and teaching commitments is shown in Table 6. A significant positive correlation between the overall and various aspects of teaching knowledge and the overall and various aspects of teaching commitments was found. The correlation between the overall teaching knowledge and its overall teaching commitments is high, indicating that the greater the teaching knowledge, the higher the teaching commitment. Additional analysis of the various levels shows that all aspects of teaching knowledge and all aspects of the teaching commitments are moderately to highly and positively correlated. Among the correlations, the correlations between teachers’ professional knowledge and teaching commitments and between class management knowledge and teaching commitments are both higher than expected, indicating that teachers’ teaching knowledge is particularly important for improving teaching commitments, though teachers’ professional knowledge and class management knowledge are significantly more important.
Excerpt From the Relevance Matrix of Teaching Knowledge and Teaching Commitments.
p < .01.
Predictive Power
According to the results of the statistical analysis, the four variables of teaching attitudes in school food education development include food awareness, health awareness, environmental awareness, and community awareness, predicting the results of the three variables for teaching commitments: continuance commitment, cohesive commitment, and control commitment. The results were statistically significant (p < .001) with an individual explanatory power of more than 1%. For the variables selected as part of the optimal combination of single variables, their predictive power was sequenced in descending order according to environmental awareness and food awareness, indicating that teachers’ environmental awareness and food awareness have a positive impact on continuance commitment, cohesion commitment, and control commitment.
According to the results of the statistical analysis, the four variables of teaching knowledge in school food education development include academic research knowledge, subject teaching knowledge, teachers’ professional knowledge, and class management knowledge, which together predict the results of the three variables for teaching commitments: continuance commitment, cohesive commitment, and control commitment. The results were statistically significant (p < .001) with an individual explanatory power of more than 1%. For the variables selected as part of the optimal combination of single variables, their predictive power was sequenced in descending order. The discussion and analysis of these variables are as follows:
Continuance and control commitments correspond in descending order of predictive power to teachers’ professional knowledge, class management knowledge, and academic research knowledge. This result means that teachers’ professional knowledge, class management knowledge, and academic research knowledge in school food education development have a positive impact on continuance, cohesion, and control commitments, as shown in Table 7.
Multivariate Regression Analysis of the Impact of Teaching Awareness and Knowledge on Teaching Commitments.
Note. The rank of the predictive power is indicated parenthetically, and the results in gray correspond to results with individual explanatory power (R2 variation) <1%.
p < .001.
Discussion
The correlation for teachers’ teaching attitude toward school food education development is moderate to high, indicating that currently, a general emphasis has generally been placed on food education (Kucelin, 2011; Perikkou et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2013). The correlation for teaching knowledge is moderate. Relative to teaching attitude, teachers’ teaching knowledge requires strengthening (Hamilton-Ekeke & Thomas, 2011). Teaching commitments constitute the core mechanism for school food education development (Blanke, 1992), and in terms of correlation, it falls between teaching attitudes and teaching knowledge. Teachers are among the important contributors to the food education development because they are willing to invest more time in teaching and course practices (Perikkou et al., 2015). Nevertheless, their lack of knowledge may reduce the impetus for school food education development. This finding shows that improving teachers’ teaching knowledge is necessary for school food education development.
Furthermore, a positive correlation was found between teachers’ teaching awareness and teaching knowledge in school food education development. The correlation between health awareness and teaching knowledge is relatively low, with the correlation between health awareness and subject teaching knowledge even lower. Teachers’ attitudes toward food health cannot be integrated intelligently with teaching knowledge (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010), resulting in a dilution of teachers’ food education attitudes toward the motivation to acquire teaching knowledge, which in turn affects teaching commitments and in particular, reduces the effectiveness of the control commitment and restricts the momentum of school food education development. The reason for this situation is that teachers’ food health awareness is often constrained by administrative resources, thereby producing multiple barriers to effective teaching actions (Bucher, 2017). Therefore, encouraging teaching commitments in the development of school food education will help schools make their best effort to obtain educational resources to strengthen teachers’ health awareness (Rosenholtz, 1989).
Moreover, teachers’ community awareness in the development of school food education is insufficient, but community awareness is highly correlated with subject research, subject teaching, teachers’ professional knowledge, and class management knowledge. Therefore, teachers’ community awareness is particularly important for the growth of teaching knowledge. However, schools often fail to guide teachers in and devote energy to constructing a learning community for food education. Consequently, teachers continue to be constrained by the sole activity of teaching, thus reducing the opportunities for students to grow jointly in learning about food issues (Bucher, 2017). Moreover, the correlation between community awareness and cohesion commitment is the highest, representing the importance of the relationship school food education development. The reason for this importance is that in teaching, teachers can strengthen community links with other teachers, thereby expanding teacher peer learning (Harris & Barter, 2015) and contributing to the construction of a school culture for the development of food education. However, this relationship has no predictive power for teaching commitments. Although community awareness cannot improve teaching commitments directly, it can improve teaching awareness and teaching knowledge to enhance teaching commitments, so its indirect effect merits attention.
The correlation between academic research knowledge and cohesion commitment is relatively low. Moreover, academic research knowledge is often translated from teachers’ professional knowledge, and through training in teaching practice, it undergoes a reflection on the linkage between teaching knowledge and teaching programs in food education to bolster the growth of teaching (Birdsall, 2015). Hence, teachers’ professional ability is the precondition for academic research in food education and contributes to the development of school food education. Therefore, teachers can strengthen the integration between academic research knowledge and teachers’ professional knowledge to urge specialization in constructing a teaching knowledge structure (Birdsall, 2015). In other words, teachers can identify differences in teaching contexts between general disciplines and food education and explore the multiplier effect of learning. Doing so will help strengthen the cohesion commitment in teaching.
Environmental awareness in the development of school food education is highly important and is reflected in two aspects. First, it can promote the growth of teaching knowledge; second, it can strengthen the continuance, cohesion, and control commitments in teaching. It is an important driver of sustained school food education development. Therefore, teachers should be equipped with ecological literacy and cultivate an attitude of environmental protection as well as evaluate and adopt environment-friendly foods into their diets. These activities will help fortify the practice of ecological justice, further developing the perception of a harmonious symbiotic relationship between food choices and nature (Harris & Barter, 2015), which in turn will promote progress in building teaching knowledge for sustainable school food education development and expand teaching commitments. Accordingly, environmental education can strengthen the dietary habits derived from cultural identity and develop awareness of the derived ecological problems (Stapleton, 2015), which is rooted in the environmental awareness of food education to promote teaching practices for food education development.
Food awareness is also crucial. Therefore, during school food education development, teachers should understand food attributes and their nutritional value. This knowledge will boost food choice literacy (Carraway-Stage et al., 2016) and improve teaching commitments for the development of food education.
Teachers’ professional knowledge and class management knowledge have predictive power for continuance, cohesion, and control commitments and can promote school food education (McCracken, 1987). Rosenholtz (1987) believes that the education reform strategy is both a difficult and important project to enhance teachers’ commitments. This perspective illustrates the importance of cultivating teachers’ professional knowledge and class management knowledge in the development of school food education. Thus, the culture of school food education development is mainly rooted in law and institutions and teaching support and in guidelines for curriculum development. Then, through critical thinking and creativity, this culture is linked with educational activities in food, diet, health, and the environment (Rangel et al., 2014), fostering the cohesion of all members’ participation in food education (Carraway-Stage et al., 2016), resulting in enhanced high-level social change (Catacutan & de Guzman, 2015), the promotion of teachers’ teaching culture and students’ growth in learning. Moreover, all these effects will stimulate students’ willingness to express their views, which in turn helps strengthen the assessment of students’ individual needs, urging students to study autonomously, and catalyzing their learning effects (Barnett & Hodson, 2001). It is also possible to strengthen the teaching effectiveness of food education through group activities (Cotugna & Vickery, 2005) to enhance teachers’ commitment to reform in food education, improve teachers’ reflections on the dietary context, and strengthen guided behaviors in teachers’ teaching, thereby encouraging teachers to adjust their teaching to the context (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), concerns over food safety, health, and career pursuits, raising teachers’ ambition in food education practice (Park, 2005), and driving the development of school food education. However, teachers’ professional knowledge is insufficient and has strong predictive power for teaching commitments and thus demands attention.
Finally, academic research knowledge has predictive power for continuance, cohesion, and control commitments. Despite its position in the ranking order of predictive power, this type of knowledge appears to be important. This finding suggests that when faced with teaching problems in food education, teachers should enhance their teaching commitments by exhibiting a quality of self-exploration, strengthen the innovation and management of knowledge, and urge students to learn in action. In particular, introspection on one’s teaching practice can be most effective for teachers’ self-empowerment (Bucher, 2017) and can prevent a situation in which teachers adopt an exclusive focus on subject knowledge because of the minimalist effect of entrance exams steering teaching and thereby ignore the dialectical integration of subject teaching and food education and contribute little to the development of food education.
Research Limitations
Limitations include the following. The teachers’ teaching intervention in this study is a reform driver for developing human resources. However, in terms of organizational development, it is only one aspect. Excluded from this study are other interventions such as vision, structure, group experience, and data diagnosis. Also, this study used a questionnaire survey to collect information using self-reported measures. It is necessary to clarify whether answers by the teachers reflect the current situation or are merely their opinions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
