Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.48(6) > 1081426

TOOLS
Han: The work performance and the factor contributing to the work performance of nutrition teacher & school dieticians
Original Article

J Nutr Health 2015;48(6):558-570.

Published online: 19 January 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2015.48.6.558

The work performance and the factor contributing to the work performance of nutrition teacher & school dieticians

Jang-Il Han†

Department of Foodservice Management, College of Hotel & Culinary, Woosong University, Daejeon 34518, Korea

†To whom correspondence should be addressed. tel: +82-10-771-4159, e-mail: hanjangil@hanmail.net

Received 26 November 2013       Revised 16 January 2014       Accepted 30 October 2015

Copyright © 2015 The Korean Nutrition Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose:

The objective of this study is to investigate the work performances and the factors contributing to the work performance of nutrition teachers and school dieticians according to employment status in Daejeon and Chungcheongnam-do.

Methods:

A survey was conducted among 415 school dieticians from selected elementary, middle, and high schools in the area. This survey was used for analysis of the general characteristics and the status of working and foodservice environments. The frequency of occurrence was measured using the χ2-test while analysis of differences in work performance of 57 variables grouped according to 12 categories by mean ± SD was performed using student t-test. In addition, a regression analysis was performed to assess the influence of occupational (working and foodservice) environment on work performances.

Results:

All 14 environmental factors including general characteristics were different between nutrition teachers and school dieticians. In 12 of 57 variables there were significant differences in work performance between the two groups. When compared using average work performance, 5 domains showed significant difference in work performance between the two groups. These 5 domains were other works (T = 6.050), dietary habit guide (T = 4.789), menu (nutrition) management (T = 3.524), foodservice administration and evaluation (T = 2.757), and production and service management (T = 2.588). Overall, the work performances of nutrition teachers were comparably higher than those of school dietitians. A correlation analysis between occupational (working or foodservice) environments and work performances of the two groups showed that the work performances of nutrition teachers were influenced by the number of employees, number of students, meal frequency a day, annual salary, age, foodservice years of school, and school type.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, the work performances of school dieticians were influenced by the number of students, number of employees, meal frequency a day, work hour, education level, age, school type, and service years as a dietitian.

Keywords: nutrition teacher, school dietitian, work performance

REFERENCES

1.Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development (KR). Comprehensive plan for improvement of school foodservice (2007~2011). Seoul: Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development;2006.
2.Ministry of Education and Science Technology (KR). School foodservice statistics. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Science Technology;2009.
3.Ministry of Education and Science Technology (KR). School foodservice statistics. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Science Technology;2011.
4.Han JK., Kim H. Comparative study of the job satisfaction, job performance and job importance level of school nutrition teachers and school dietitians. Korean J Food Cult. 2009. 24(5):525–532.
5.Kim JR. Study about establishment of technical support system for school foodservice management. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute;2002.
6.Sung KH., Kim HA., Jung HY. Comparative analysis of job satisfaction factors between permanently and temporarily employed school foodservice dietitians in Gyeongsangnam-do. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2013. 42(5):808–817.
crossref
7.Chin JH., You JS., Chang KJ. Comparison of role conflict, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and job involvement between nutrition teachers and dietitians at school food service in Incheon metropolitan city: focusing on the interactions between nutrition teachers and dietitians. Korean J Nutr. 2012. 45(1):64–79.
8.Lee KH., Choi BS., Lee IS. Job Satisfaction and Perception of Importance-Performance among Nutrition Counseling by Nutrition Teachers in Kyungbuk Area. J East Asian Soc Dietary Life. 2010. 12(6):1018–1028.
9.Lee MJ., Jang MS., Lee J. Analysis of recognized changes in performance and organizational environment by dietitians transposed to nutrition teachers in Gyeonggi province. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2008. 14(3):243–258.
10.Kim MA., Lee YS., Rho JO. Analysis of perceived management performance and importance level of nutrition teachers by school administrators in the Chonbuk area of Korea. Korean J Food Nutr. 2010. 23(2):203–211.
11.Shin KH., Shin EK., Park YH., Kim HH., Bae IS., Lee YK. A survey on the perceived importance and difficulty to set up the job duties of nutrition teachers in elementary school. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2006. 12(2):105–117.
12.Kim AJ., Yang HS., Han MR., Rho JO. A comparative study of job importance, performance level, and job satisfaction of school and office foodservice dietitians. Korean J Hum Ecol. 2011. 20(4):871–884.
crossref
13.Bae HJ., Lee HY., Chun HJ. An assessment of dietitian job tasks according to the characteristics of foodservice operations and dietitians. Korean J Food Cookery Sci. 2007. 23(6):858–866.
14.Choo YJ., Lee JH., Yoon J., Ryu SH. Relationship between levels of dietitians' management activities and job satisfaction in elementary school foodservice operations. Korean J Community Nutr. 2005. 10(4):546–554.
15.Cha MH., Seo SH. Comparison analysis of school foodservice dietitians' job satisfaction, work value, and turnover intention based on the expectation to be a nutrition teacher. Korean J Community Nutr. 2006. 11(3):361–373.
16.Kim HK., Khil J. Job analysis and satisfaction of dietitians, nutrition teacher in school foodservice by school type in Gwangju and Jeonnam area. Korean J Nutr. 2012. 45(3):274–282.
17.Hong YS., Lee JH. Current status and strategic plan of nutrition education comparing nutrition teachers with dietitians in schools, Gyeonggi area. Korean J Community Nutr. 2013. 18(3):233–242.
crossref
18.Youn JS., Kim OS., Hwang SY., Chung YK., Kang KO. The status of foodservice operations and perceived performance of management for school dietitians in the Kyunggi area. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2009. 19(2):256–264.
19.Kim GM., Lee YH. A study on nutrition management of dietitian for school lunch program in Seoul and Incheon provinces. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2003. 9(1):57–70.
20.Bae IS., Shin KH., Lee YK., Lee SK. Perception of the elementary school dietitians and students on nutrition education to set up the roles of nutrition teacher: centered on Daegu city and Gyeongbuk province. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2005. 11(4):393–404.
21.Park YH., Kim HH., Shin KH., Shin EK., Bae IS., Lee YK. A survey on practice of nutrition education and perception for implementing nutrition education by nutrition teacher in elementary schools. Korean J Nutr. 2006. 39(4):403–416.
22.Cho YO. Comparison of job satisfaction and working environment of school nutrition teachers and cooking employees in Jeonnam school foodservice [dissertation]. Mokpo: The Graduate School of Education, Mokpo National University;2013.
23.Ko HS. The study on job satisfaction of dietitians in school foodservices: focus on Daejeon and Chungnam of dietitians in school foodservices [dissertation]. Industrial Graduate School, Kongju National University. 2003.
24.Kang KO. Studies on the sanitary recognition and perceived performance of sanitary management for school food service managers in the Kyunggi area. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2008. 18(2):264–275.

Table 1.
General characteristics of subjects according to an employment status
  Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian χ2
Age (yrs) ≤ 30 5 (2.2)1) 63 (32.8) 104.833∗∗∗2)
31 ~ 35 20 (9.0) 37 (19.3)
36 ~ 40 134 (60.1) 40 (20.8)
41 ≤ 64 (28.7) 52 (27.1)
Marital status Single 26 (11.7) 76 (39.6) 43.398∗∗∗2)
Married 197 (88.3) 116 (60.4)
Education Technical college 0 (0) 26 (13.5) 104.108∗∗∗3)
Technical college + Bachelor's degree 53 (23.8) 28 (14.6)
Bachelor's degree 107 (48.0) 26 (13.5)
Graduate school or above 63 (28.3) 112 (58.3)
Working area Daejeon 57 (25.6) 72 (37.5) 6.865∗2)
Chungnam 166 (74.4) 120 (62.5)
  Total 223 (100) 192 (100)  

1) Values represent number (%).

2) Significances are shown through Pearson's chi-square test (∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

3) Significances are shown through Fisher's chi-square test (∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

Table 2.
School foodservice dietitian's working environment according to an employment status
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian χ2
School type Elementary 170 (76.2)1) 91 (47.4) 50.138∗∗∗2)
Middle 18 (8.1) 67 (34.9)
High 35 (15.7) 34 (17.7)
Work hours (hrs) ≤ 44 128 (57.4) 141 (73.4) 32.098∗∗∗
45 ~ 50 59 (26.5) 38 (19.8)
50 < 36 (16.1) 13 (6.8)
Years of service (yrs) ≤ 5 7 (3.1) 103 (53.6) 266.290∗∗∗
6 ~ 10 24 (10.8) 76 (39.6)
11 ≤ 192 (86.1) 13 (6.7)
Annual salary (1,000,000 won) ≤ 25 15 (6.7) 171 (89.2) 300.617∗∗∗
25 ~ 30 15 (6.7) 13 (6.8)
30 ≤ 193 (86.5) 8 (4.2)
Total 223 (100) 192 (100)  

1) Values represent number (%).

2) Significances are shown through chi-square test (∗∗∗p < 0.001).

Table 3.
School foodservice dietitian's foodservice environment according of an employment status
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian χ2
Administrative system Individual cooking 159 (71.3)1) 161 (83.9) 12.838∗∗2)
Joint cooking 49 (22.0) 29 (15.1)
Joint management 15 (6.7) 2 (1.0)
Number of meals a day 1 meal 186 (83.4) 164 (85.4) 18.859∗∗∗
2 meals 9 (4.0) 22 (11.5)
3 meals 28 (12.6) 6 (3.1)
Number of students served in lunch time ≤ 400 79 (35.4) 87 (45.3) 9.601∗
401 ~ 800 52 (23.3) 51 (26.6)
801 ~ 1,200 46 (20.6) 33 (17.2)
1201 ≤ 46 (20.6) 21 (11.0)
Foodservice years of school (yrs) ≦5 31 (13.9) 52 (27.1) 56.628∗∗∗
6 ~ 10 39 (17.5) 79 (41.1)
10< 153 (68.6) 61 (31.8)
Number of employee 5 ≥ 103 (46.2) 126 (65.6) 16.171∗∗∗
6 ~ 10 101 (45.3) 53 (27.6)
11 ≤ 19 (8.5) 13 (6.8)
Total 223 (100) 192 (100)  

1) Values represent number (%).

2) Significances are shown through chi-square test (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

Table 4.
Comparison between nutrition teacher and school dietitian's work performances related to food production
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian T-value Cronbach's α
Menu (nutrition) management
  Determination of nutrition standard amount 4.74 ± 0.681) 4.53 ± 0.85 2.716∗∗2) 0.910
  Menu planning 4.82 ± 0.54 4.69 ± 0.66 2.130∗
  Menu making 4.84 ± 0.50 4.67 ± 0.68 2.881∗∗
  Nutrition assessment 4.74 ± 0.66 4.43 ± 0.82 4.143∗∗∗
  Standard recipe management 4.51 ± 0.76 4.26 ± 0.87 3.090∗∗
Purchase & storage management
  Forecasting on meals 4.79 ± 0.61 4.61 ± 0.77 2.528∗ 0.822
  Planning purchase 4.76 ± 0.62 4.62 ± 0.72 2.123∗
  Market survey 4.25 ± 1.00 4.32 ± 0.97 0.729
  Making purchase form 4.73 ± 0.67 4.63 ± 0.78 1.462
  Placing order 4.75 ± 0.66 4.70 ± 0.66 0.770
  Receiving & Inspection 4.85 ± 0.52 4.79 ± 0.56 1.114
  Storage & inventory control 4.78 ± 0.55 4.68 ± 0.62 1.591
Production & service management
  Cooking planning, education & supervision 4.59 ± 0.72 4.44 ± 0.82 2.007∗ 0.805
  Meal inspection 4.78 ± 0.65 4.64 ± 0.74 2.016∗
  Distribution planning, leading & inspection 4.68 ± 0.67 4.51 ± 0.77 2.312∗
  In-class nutritional guidance 4.52 ± 0.91 4.33 ± 1.02 1.973∗
Utensil recovery and management
  Utensil received 4.33 ± 0.94 4.03 ± 1.09 3.015∗∗ 0.757
  Utensil cleaning & storage 4.18 ± 1.05 4.18 ± 1.00 0.022
  Utensil sterilization 4.29 ± 0.98 4.32 ± 0.90 0.385
Equipments & facilities management
  Selection & purchase of equipment & facilities 4.17 ± 0.99 3.95 ± 1.11 2.109∗ 0.792
  Maintenance & repairing of foodservice equipmen & facilities 4.29 ± 0.91 4.21 ± 0.92 0.811
  Safety supervision of foodservice equipment & facilities 4.34 ± 0.78 4.27 ± 0.89 0.742
  Foodservide materials management 4.48 ± 0.78 4.41 ± 0.82 0.805

1) Values represent Mean ± SD.

2) Significances were shown through student's t-test (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

Table 5.
Comparison between nutrition teacher and school dietitian's work performances related to sanitation and foodserv administration
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian T-value Cronbach's α
Sanitation management
  Food sanitation 4.64 ± 0.641) 4.53 ± 0.73 1.545 0.858
  Equipment & facilities sanitation 4.54 ± 0.71 4.46 ± 0.75 1.103
  Utensil sanitation 4.54 ± 0.71 4.47 ± 0.77 1.047
  Environmental sanitation 4.45 ± 0.78 4.36 ± 0.80 1.206
  Personal sanitation 4.67 ± 0.66 4.54 ± 0.70 1.862
  Sanitation education for employees 4.56 ± 0.67 4.45 ± 0.77 1.450
  HACCP management 4.59 ± 0.74 4.54 ± 0.77 0.781
Foodservice administration & evaluation
  Planning of food service administration purpose 4.42 ± 0.90 4.31 ± 0.90 1.458 0.844
  Foodservice business management 4.69 ± 0.65 4.48 ± 0.81 2.815∗∗2)
  Budget settlement & spending 4.48 ± 0.83 4.19 ± 0.95 3.284∗∗∗
  Foodservice evaluation (Survey) 4.17 ± 1.06 4.14 ± 0.99 0.241
  Foodservice administration report 4.56 ± 0.75 4.42 ± 0.82 1.738
  Improvement of foodservice quality 4.46 ± 0.76 4.11 ± 0.89 4.277∗∗∗
Human resource management
  Employment & arrangement 3.66 ± 1.24 3.92 ± 1.13 -2.149∗ 0.817
  Employee education & training 4.22 ± 0.87 4.05 ± 0.98 1.845
  Employee job evaluation 3.68 ± 1.14 3.61 ± 1.14 0.555
  Maintenance of personnel relationship 4.08 ± 0.94 4.03 ± 0.93 0.541
Other works
  Office work (document management & record keeping) 4.71 ± 0.68 4.58 ± 0.71 1.819 0.722
  Work cooperation with teachers 3.33 ± 1.12 2.73 ± 1.13 5.391∗∗∗
  Lunch support management for the lower incomme students 4.18 ± 1.26 3.30 ± 1.60 6.118∗∗∗
  Management of foodservice administration commmittee 4.01 ± 1.01 3.77 ± 1.08 2.359∗

1) Values represent Mean ± SD.

2) Significances were shown through student's t-test (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

Table 6.
Comparison between nutrition teacher and school dietitian's work performances related to nutritional education and counseling
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian T-value Cronbach's α
Dietary habit guide
  Guide about servicing a meal 4.50 ± 0.89 1) 4.16 ± 1.09 3.442∗∗∗2) 0.869
  Guide about reducing of food waste 4.27 ± 1.01 3.85 ± 1.14 3.926∗∗∗
  Guide about dietary habit 3.80 ± 1.17 3.29 ± 1.12 4.502∗∗∗
  Sanitation guide 3.83 ± 1.16 3.31 ± 1.14 4.544∗∗∗
  Table manners guide 3.77 ± 1.15 3.37 ± 1.15 3.505∗∗∗
Nutritional education
  Planning nutritional education 4.12 ± 1.05 3.79 ± 1.20 2.946∗∗ 0.795
  Development & distribution of nutritional education materials 3.19 ± 1.20 2.93 ± 1.23 2.176∗
  Nutrition education for teachers & staffs 2.67 ± 1.15 2.76 ± 1.22 0.706
  Performance & evaluation of nutritional education 2.78 ± 1.09 2.90 ± 1.18 0.993
  Operation of nutrition class for parents 2.18 ± 1.18 2.30 ± 1.31 0.958
Nutritional counseling
  Nutrition counseling for students 2.43 ± 1.09 2.29 ± 1.21 1.307 0.618
  Nutrition counseling for parents 1.85 ± 1.09 1.88 ± 1.11 0.211
  Operating of nutritional clinic 1.93 ± 1.06 1.84 ± 1.06 0.808

1) Values represent Mean ± SD.

2) Significances were shown through student's t-test (∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

Table 7.
Nutrition teacher and school dietitian's average work performances about 12 work domains
Variables Nutrition teacher School dietitian T-value
Menu (nutrition) management 04.72 ± 0.531) 4.51 ± 0.66 3.524∗∗∗2)
Purchase & storage management 4.70 ± 0.54 4.62 ± 0.58 1.421
Production & service management 4.64 ± 0.60 4.48 ± 0.66 2.588∗∗
Utensil recovery and management 4.26 ± 0.86 4.17 ± 0.83 1.080
Equipments & facilities management 4.31 ± 0.81 4.21 ± 0.80 1.328
Sanitation management 4.56 ± 0.60 4.47 ± 0.67 1.468
Human resource management 3.92 ± 0.88 3.89 ± 0.87 0.307
Foodservice administration & evaluation 4.46 ± 0.66 4.27 ± 0.72 2.757∗∗
Other works 3.97 ± 0.73 3.50 ± 0.83 6.050∗∗∗
Dietary habit guide 4.03 ± 0.91 3.59 ± 0.93 4.789∗∗∗
Nutritional education 2.98 ± 0.84 2.93 ± 0.89 0.655
Nutritional counseling 2.07 ± 0.97 2.00 ± 1.02 0.713
Total score 236.97 ± 26.52 226.96 ± 28.94 3.570∗∗∗
Total Mean ± SD 3.75 ± 0.45 3.59 ± 0.47 3.394∗∗∗
Percentage (%) 83.2 ± 9.30 79.6 ± 10.1 3.594∗∗∗

1) Values represent Mean ± SD.

2) Significances were shown through student's t-test (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

Table 8.
Regression analysis of variables in nutrition teacher's job or foodservice environment & job performance
Variables Age Education Years of service Annual salary Work hours fr Meal requency a day No of students No of employee Foodservice years of school School type
Menu management 1.232 1.599 1.783 2.649∗∗1) 0.007 -1.219 1.444 1.637 0.574 -0.903
Purchase & storage management ∗2.173∗ -1.896 -0.488 -0.498 1.638 0.972 -1.085 -0.220 0.164 0.662
Production & service management -0.663 -0.513 0.581 0.242 -1.021 0.975 0.030 0.196 -0.471 1.402
Utensil recovery and management -1.074 -0.510 -1.655 -1.233 -0.722 -0.268 -0.778 -0.765 0.216 -0.638
Equipments & facilities management -0.058 0.014 -0.979 -1.904 -0.259 0.739 0.496 0.407 -1.257 1.400
Sanitation management -0.446 1.584 -0.315 -1.135 0.500 -0.631 0.187 -1.475 -0.338 -1.124
Human resource management 0.987 -1.248 -1.074 2.139∗ 0.213 1.901 0.420 0.508 0.525 0.622
Foodservice administration & evaluation 0.516 -0.145 0.880 1.328 -0.155 0.305 1.669 2.151∗ 0.066 1.694
Other works -1.157 -0.586 -1.032 0.660 -0.842 -2.751∗∗ -2.156∗ -3.436∗∗∗ 0.858 -3.150∗∗
Dietary habit guide 1.002 -0.674 1.088 0.484 -0.784 -3.032∗∗ -2.536∗ -1.997∗ 0.233 -3.117∗∗
Nutritional education 0.580 1.048 -0.068 0.170 -0.635 -0.568 -0.359 -1.134 -0.200 -0.594
Nutritional counseling 0.505 -0.077 1.851 1.147 -1.178 -0.078 0.204 0.148 ∗ 2.011∗ 0.406

1) Significances were shown through regression analysis (∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

Table 9.
Regression analysis of variables in school dietitian's job or foodservice environment & job performance
Variables Age Education Years of service Annual salary Work hours Meal frequency a day No of students No of employee e Foodservic years of school ce School type
Menu management -1.907 2.207∗ -1.010 0.157 0.817 -1.540 0.911 0.308 0.466 -0.413
Purchase & storage management 1.057 -1.958 1.221 -1.143 1.093 1.659 -0.323 0.034 0.018 0.540
Production & service management 0.127 -1.739 0.470 0.499 -0.179 -0.408 1.075 0.414 0.151 0.721
Utensil recovery and management 0.475 0.2582 0.584 1.283 -2.316∗ -2.302∗ -2.250∗ -0.900 0.236 -2.313∗
Equipments & facilities management 0.943 0.680 0.726 1.884 0.334 0.240 -0.640 0.004 0.488 1.235
Sanitation management 1.037 3.160∗∗ 1.318 1.848 1.723 0.882 3.516∗∗∗ 2.473∗ -1.357 1.806
Human resource management -0.553 -1.333 -1.191 -0.697 0.621 1.630 1.159 0.420 -0.814 1.642
Foodservice administration & evaluation 0.714 -0.812 -0.600 -1.060 -0.385 -0.414 -0.695 -0.446 0.905 0.106
Other works -2.995∗∗ -0.353 -2.816∗∗ -1.392 -3.574∗∗∗ -2.218∗ -5.213∗∗∗ -3.211∗∗ 1.910 -4.968∗∗∗
Dietary habit guide 0.376 1.537 -0.502 0.342 0.410 -0.249 -1.430 -1.201 -0.051 -2.411∗
Nutritional education 0.512 0.916 1.544 -0.774 -0.438 -0.618 0.579 -0.197 0.184 0.369
Nutritional counseling 0.719 -0.722 0.193 0.061 1.031 1.036 2.148∗ 0.879 -1.706 1.901

1) Significances were shown through regression analysis (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

TOOLS
Similar articles