Although teachers generally may not fa­vor the workshop format (8), ours was well­received as have been other nutrition educa­tion workshops offered as mservice educa­tion (2, 9, 10). Although some teachersreport nummal transfer of Illformation andskJils from an mservice program to theclassroom (11), we found a high degree ofmcorporation of workshop matenals intoteaching programs as WIth other nutntioneducatIon programs for which follow-updata are avaJiable (7, 12, 13).

We cannot conclude that all home eco­nomics teachers can benefit from a work­shop. Our workshop participants attendedvoluntarily and without compensation fortheir time. We assume a workshop with re­qUIred attendance might appear less suc­cessful because of a lower proportion ofteachers highly motivated to improve theirnutrition knowledge and teaching .skills.However, under our conditions, positivechanges occurred III knowledge and mdi­cated that this type of workshop can be aneffective means of nutntion education. Thefollow-up evaluation mdicated not onlythat a 3-hour nutntion education workshopcan effect retention of nutntion knowledgeI month later but that It can lead to incor­poration of new nutrition education re­source materials in the classroom. We be­lieve that our workshop had certalll ele-

ments that helped contnbute to Its success.These included the assessment of teachers'needs m advance, the careful planning andorgamzatlon of the 3-hour time block, thepace and variety of activities provided, andthe degree of teacher involvement. ConsI­deration must be given to such factors inplanning a successful mservlce workshop.

D

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

These data were taken m part from the master'sthesis of Chnstma M Stark, Oregon State UnI­versIty, Corvalhs, Oregon, 1980

The authors wish to thank Jane PromnItz andSylVia Lee, School of Home Economics, OregonState UnIversity, for their cooperatIOn and aSSIs­tance m helpmg make these workshops possible

NOTE

1 Lee, S.L. Personal commUnIcation. Depart­ment of Home Economics EducalIon, Schoolof Home Economics, Oregon State UnIversity.

LITERATURE CITED

1 Dwyer, J T., J J. Feldman, and J. MayerNutntiona1 hteracy of high school students.Journal of NutritIOnal EducatIOn 2:59-66,1970.

2 Henneman, A., H Fox, and S. Kreutz A nu­tntlon workshop for home economics teach­ers. Journal of NutntlOn Educallon 8:25-27,1976.

3 Gronlund, N. E. Constructing achievementtests. Englewood Chffs, N.J : PrenlIce Hall,1977, pp 54-56.

4 Oppenheim, A. N. Quesllonnalre deSign andattitude measurement. New York: BasiCBooks, 1966, pp. 223-60.

5 Nle, N., C. Hull, J. Jenkins, K Stembrenner,and D. Brent. SPSS' Stallstlcal package forthe social sCiences. 2d ed. New York:McGraw-HIlI Book Co., 1975, pp 267-75

6 Lovett, R., E. Barker, and B Marcus. Theeffect of a nutnlIon educallon program at thesecond grade level. Journal ofNutritIOn Edu­catIOn 2:81-95, 1970

7 Grogan, J. Teacher m-servlce for nutnlIoneducallon - An mterdlsclplmary approach mthe school system. Journal ofNutnllon Edu­calion 10 119-20, 1978.

8 Zigarml, P., L Betz, and D. Jensen. Teach­ers' preferences m and perceplIons of m-ser­vice educatlon. EducatIOnal Leadership34:545-51, 1977

9 McDonald, S. c., and H. BOwen NutnlIoneducatIOn workshop. Journal of NutntlOnEducatIOn 2:68-69, 1970.

10 Cook, C. B., D. A. Eiler, and E. C. Kamma­ka. How much nutntlon education m gradesK-6? Journal of NutntlOn EducatIOn9:131-35,1977.

11 Bnmm, J. L., and D. J. Tollett How doteachers feel about m-servlce educalIon?Educallonal Leadership 31 :521-25, 1974

12 Sodowsky, J. D. In-serVice nutntlOn educa­lIon for elementary teachers Journal ofNu­tntlon EducatIOn 5:139-41, 1973

I3 Cooper, B , and M Philp. Evaluation of nu­trltlon education m everyday teachmg envI­ronment. Journal of NutritIOn EducatIOn6:99-103, 1974.

[ TRACE MINERALS ]----------------Based on 88 collecttons from 13 healthy

adult men, R. A. Jacob et. al. (AmencanJournal of Climcal NutntlOn 34:1379-83,1981) measured the mean daily total bodysurface loss of zinc, copper, and iron as 0.5,0.34, and 0.33 mg. respectively. The investi­gators calculated that surface loss repre-

Through actual analyses of samples col­lected throughout the Umted States, Y. K.Park et al. (Journal of the AmencanDtetetlc AssocratlOn 79:17-24, 1981) foundthat food and water proVIde iodine far m ex­cess of the RDA. Diets representattve ofthose consumed by young men containedabout 1,000 J.lg of iodine per day; foodsrepresenting diets of infants and of toddlersaveraged about 400 to 600 J.lg of Iodine perday. These amounts are several-fold the

VOLUME 13 NUMBER 4 1981

sented 26% of copper intake and less than5070 of zinc or Iron intakes. They concludedthat surface loss of copper represented anappreciable portion of the dietary require­ment and suggested that "marglllal dIetaryintakes of copper are probably more fre­quent than preVIOusly suspected." Using the

IODINE

RDAs of 150 J.lg per day for adults and of lessthan 70 J.lg per day for young chIldren. Forall geographic areas and all age groups,dairy products contnbuted at least one-thirdand up to three-fourths of the total iodine.Cereal products were the second largest con­tributor, followed by sugary foods III theadult dIet and meat, fish, and poultry pro­ducts in all age groups. All other foods com­bined, mcluding drmking water, contnb­uted only about 10% of total dietary iodine.

data from thiS study and the usual averagevalues for percent absorptIOn of traceminerals (40% for ZIllC, 30% for copper,and 10% for iron), one can calculate thatsurface loss excretion represents 10, 87, and21 percent of absorbed zinc, copper, andiron, respectively. S.M. O.

The authors diSCUSS the routes by whichiodllle enters the food system and the possi­ble consequences of excess Iodine mtake.They do not consider the average Intakesreported to be dangerous. However, theypoint out that persons consuming iodizedsalt (which was not mcluded in the calcula­tions) and certain other high-iodine foodswould have mtakes well above the averagevalues. S.M.O.

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION 139