Content uploaded by Pamela B. Payne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pamela B. Payne on Oct 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 61
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Undergraduate Competencies in Family Science: An Exploratory Study
Paul L. Schvaneveldt
Pamela B. Payne
Daniel S. Hubler
Chloe D. Merrill
Weber State University
ABSTRACT. The purpose of the study was to explore the ratings of core competencies for
undergraduate students in Family Science. Identifying the competencies which are viewed as
most important is necessary to effectively prepare undergraduate students for professions or
other . A sample of 113 Family Science professionals was asked to rate the importance of
undergraduate students possessing 18 differing core competencies related to Family Science. A
rank order of importance was identified. Variations were also identified by gender and type of
institution (i.e., teaching focused university or research focused university). Implications for
curriculum, teaching pedagogies, assessment, and future research are discussed.
Keywords: family science, pedagogy, assessment, competencies
Family Science is a field of study in which “the primary goals are the discovery,
verification, and application of knowledge about the family” (National Council on Family
Relations Task Force on the Development of the Family Science Discipline, 1988, p. 48). Born
in the early twentieth century, Family Science has evolved into a unique discipline (Burr &
Leigh, 1983; NCFR Task Force, 1988). While many disciplines, including family and consumer
sciences, sociology, psychology, religion, education, communication, anthropology, law, and
political science “contributed valuable insights into family structure and process” (Hollinger,
2002, p. 300), the field of Family Science helped to integrate existing knowledge that was
previously fragmented and disconnected (Burr, 1992). Similarly, some have argued that as a
unique and separate domain of the human experience, the family, and interactions within it,
require distinct examination (Beutler, Burr, Bahr, & Herrin, 1989), using particular assumptions,
paradigms and
______________________________________________________________________________
Direct correspondence to Paul Schvaneveldt: pschvaneveldt@weber.edu
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 62
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
methodologies (Burr, Day, & Bahr, 1993). Burr and Leigh’s (1983) conclusion still holds true
today: “the family field has entered a unique historical era because it has a bona fide family
discipline and also complex interdisciplinary ties… It is [both] a discipline and an
interdisciplinary area” (p. 470). This relatively new and interdisciplinary identity often makes it
challenging to effectively communicate the distinctiveness of Family Science to students
interested in social sciences, as well as other scholars and potential employers of family science
graduates (Hamon & Smith, 2014).
Recognizing the unique contributions of professionals educated in Family Science,
considerable attention has been paid to the many programs that offer professional training in this
area (Day, Quick, Leigh, & McKenry, 1988; Hans, 2005). Despite the prevalence of such
programs, including the growing number of family programs at international universities
(Hollinger, 2002), departmental names used to describe the discipline are often varied,
contributing to identity ambiguity in the discipline (Burr & Leigh, 1983; Hans, 2013). After
discussion and debate, the NCFR Task Force on the Development of the Family Science
Discipline (1988) recommended using the term Family Science for the discipline.
Defining Family Science
Some recent publications (Eiklenborg, Bayley, Cassidy, Davis, Hamon, Florence-Houk,
& Tymes, 2004; Hamon & Smith, 2014; Hollinger, 2002) help to define the field of Family
Science and delineate a code of ethics for professionals within it (Adams, Dollahite, Gilbert, &
Keim, 2001; AAFCS, 2013). So too, the National Council on Family Relations, as a result of its
development of the certification in family life education, has solidified ten substance areas
thought to be critical for family scientists and family life educators. They include: families in
society; internal dynamics of families; human growth and development over the life span; human
sexuality; interpersonal relations; family resource management; parent education and guidance;
family law and public policy; ethics; and family life education methodology (Buck, Campbell,
Chatelain, Higginson, & Merrill, 1999; Powell & Cassidy, 2001). More recently, faculty in
Family Science graduate programs have further identified skills and competencies necessary for
graduate-level professionals in the field of Family Science (Benson, Allen, Few, Roberto,
Blieszner, Meszaros, & Henderson, 2006; Koblinsky, Kuvalanka, & McClintock-Comeaux,
2006).
One possible theoretical approach to exploring competencies follows Vygotsky’s socio-
cultural theory which highlights the importance of interpersonal, cultural-historical and
individual factors in learning and education (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). This
approach melds well with the field of Family Science which stresses the importance of context in
understanding people as they navigate various relationships with parents, partners, and
communities (Benson, et al. 2006). By using this theory, we highlight the importance in the field
of understanding the cultural context and social environment in which students will enter after
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 63
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
obtaining varied levels of education. In order to apply the principles of Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory, we must, as a field, understand the competencies, which are valued by the context in
which we exist. By assessing competencies, we can begin to determine how we are meeting
these goals.
General Competencies
The idea of competency-based education is common in primary education (K-12) and in
many high performing nations (e.g., Singapore and New Zealand) (National Education
Association, 2013), but in higher education, aside from Carnegie rankings, there is little in the
way of common competencies for students. The current trend in U.S. education is moving from a
knowledge-based orientation to a competency-based education (CBE) (Achtenhagen, 2001;
Arguelles & Gonczi, 2000; Barnett, 1994; Hatcher, Fouad, Campbell, McCutcheon, Grus, &
Leahy, 2013; Levesque, Lauen, Teitelbaum, Alt, Librera, & MPR Associates, 2000;
Samuelowicz, 2001; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). The goal of CBE is to provide students with
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable them to solve and recognize complex problems in a
specific domain of study or work (Hatcher et al., 2013). This differs from knowledge-oriented
education, which focuses on questions of what should be taught and learned in relation to
concepts (Hoogveld, Paas & Jochems, 2005). This change in foci alters not only the curriculum,
but also the role of instructor from “knowledge transmitter” to “coach” who guides students to
understand tasks rather than discrete content (Enkenberg, 2001; Hoogveld, et al., 2005; Kerr,
1996; Pratt, 1998; Samuelowicz, 2001).
In addition to this shift in the role of educators, CBE is based on six critical components
(Van der Horst & McDonald, 1997): (a) explicit learning outcomes with respect to the required –
text skills and concomitant proficiency (standards assessment), (b) a flexible time frame to
master these skills, (c) a variety of instructional activities to facilitate learning, (d) criterion-
referenced testing of the required outcomes, (e) certification based on demonstrated learning
outcomes, and 6) adaptable programs to ensure optimum learner guidance. These six components
provide a broad framework from which various domains can establish their discipline-specific
competencies.
At the university level, common competencies include written and oral communication,
problem solving, critical thinking, diversity competence, personal growth, multi-disciplinary
knowledge, subject mastery, application of knowledge, and life-long learning (Schvaneveldt,
2013). In addition to the common competencies, it is important that each discipline establish
competencies within its particular domain.
Competencies in Related Fields
Although Family Science has yet to establish competencies, some related fields have
begun the legwork to develop them for their domains. Family Psychology, for example, has
identified eight family specific competencies in the areas of application of scientific knowledge
to practice, psychological assessment, psychological intervention, consultation and inter-
professional - collaboration, supervision, professional development, ethics and legal issues, and
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 64
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
individual and cultural diversity (Kaslow, Celano, & Stanton, 2005). While these eight
competencies may not apply directly to Family Science, Family Psychology is paving the way
for the study of competencies to evaluate students and professionals.
Identifying Competencies in Family Science
As a distinct field of study, it is important to understand and evaluate outcomes for
student learning and knowledge. In fields such as Family Science, where the clientele are adults,
children, or the family unit as a whole, it is necessary to ensure that those serving the public are
receiving the needed information and skills that will allow them to adequately provide
meaningful and useful services to their clientele. In order for this to happen, it is crucial to
evaluate the outcomes, or competencies, students acquired during their studies.
Many ways exist for a field to obtain a sense of what the competencies or outcomes
should be. One possible method, is to poll students, professionals, instructors, and the
communities where students use their academically acquired skills. This study aims to begin the
process of understanding competencies in Family Science through an exploratory study aimed at
professionals and instructors in the field of Family Science. Specifically, the research goals were
to explore how scholars in the Family Science field ranked, according to importance, various
competencies for undergraduate students.
Method
Subjects
IRB approval was obtained prior to data collection. Data were collected via an online
questionnaire. Respondents were recruited through the National Council on Family Relations’
(NCFR) e-mail listserv.
Sample. The majority of the sample (n=113) consisted of 88 female (25 male)
respondents. Twenty respondents reported being under 30 years old, 45 respondents were
between ages 30 to 45 years, 38 were between 46 and 59 years, and 10 were 60 years or older.
Thirteen respondents reported a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education, 30 reported
a master’s degree or currently enrolled in graduate studies and 70 reported a doctorate degree as
their highest level of education. The professional affiliation of the sample varied in that 25
respondents self-identified as graduate students, 57 as university tenure-track faculty, nine as
therapists or human services practitioners, eight as extension faculty/staff, four as full-time
instructors at a university level, and two as members of the clergy. Professional affiliation was
measured by asking participants to self-identify as working at a primarily research or teaching
focused university, hospital setting, private practice/human service agency, or a religious
organization. The majority of the respondents self-identified themselves as teaching at a
research-focused university (64), 36 self-identified as working at a teaching-focused university,
eight worked in a hospital setting, seven were employed in private practice/human service
agencies, and two worked in a religious organization.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 65
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Instrumentation
Rating of Family Science student competencies. After basic demographic questions
were answered, respondents were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 indicating a rating of
extremely low importance and 10 indicating a rating of extremely high importance) the
importance of the following 18 competencies to be developed by an undergraduate Family
Science student. Oral Communication Skills refers to competencies such as public speaking,
presentations, and ability to effectively communicate orally. Written Communication Skills
refers to the capacity for quality writing. Critical Thinking refers to the ability to use analysis,
judgment, problem solving, and critical thinking skills. Creativity entails innovation and
exploring new ideas. Cultural Diversity Competency involves the ability to appreciate and
interact with diverse populations within one’s own country of residence. International Cultural
Competency involves the ability to appreciate and interact with diverse international populations.
Personal Growth refers to the ability to change, develop, and reach one’s potential. Ethics
entails an understanding and practice of ethical behaviors both personally and professionally.
Multidisciplinary Knowledge deals with a breadth of knowledge across the university
curriculum. Subject Mastery deals with competence and depth of knowledge within the
discipline of Family Science. Quantitative Skills refers to proficiency in math, statistics, and
research. The ability of Application of Knowledge deals with using and applying theoretical
information into practice or everyday use. Life-Long Learning includes a desire and ability to
continue learning after university educational experiences. Civic Engagement refers to
involvement in one’s community and enacting change to better the community. Interpersonal
Competence refers to teamwork skills, group dynamics, and relationship skills. Intrapersonal
Competence includes emotional intelligence and the ability to manage stress. Flexibility and
Adaptability involves the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Technology Skills refers to
the ability to use and learn new technologies. Participants were provided both the competencies
and the definitions in the survey.
Results
Results from the survey provided some foundational information regarding the ranking of
competencies in order of importance, and comparisons were made to identify any potential
differences based on a number of demographic factors identified within the sample. The ranking
of competencies are listed in ascending order in Table 1. The least important competencies were
Quantitative Skills, International Cultural Competency, and Creativity. The most important
competencies were Ethics, Critical Thinking, and Cultural Diversity.
To further explore how respondents viewed competencies for undergraduate students in
Family Science, several t-test analyses were performed by gender, age, education level, and
workplace affiliation (see Tables 2-3). Results identified that men were more likely to rate Oral
Communication Skills as more important than women. However, women were more likely to
rate Cultural Diversity competencies more highly than men. No other gender differences were
significantly different. A comparison of respondents affiliated with research universities
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 66
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
compared to those affiliated with teaching universities identified three significant differences.
Those who self-identified themselves as being affiliated with primarily research focused
universities rated Quantitative Skills, Written Communication Skills, and Critical Thinking Skills
more highly than those affiliated with a teaching focused university.
Comparisons were made by age and by educational level and no significant differences
were identified by age and only one significant difference was noted by educational level. There
was a significant difference between those with a doctoral level of education (M = 9.10) and
those with lower levels of education (M = 8.49) with regards to the importance oral
communication skills (t = 2.05, p < .05).
Discussion
The overall purpose of this research project was to explore the perceptions and ratings of
competencies in Family Science for undergraduate students. The study evaluated the perceptions
of professionals and instructors in the Family Science field who have a vested interested in
fostering the development of core Family Science competencies in undergraduate student
populations. By better understanding which competencies are rated as more important and how
these ratings may vary by institution, gender, age, or education level, the scholarship of teaching
and learning in Family Science can better prepare students for success within the profession.
A sample of 113 professionals in Family Science responded to an online questionnaire
and rated their perceived importance of 18 competencies for undergraduate students in the
discipline. The most important competencies, as rated by the respondents, included Ethics,
Critical Thinking, Cultural Diversity Competency, Subject Mastery, and Written Communication
Skills. The competencies rated lowest included Quantitative Skills, International Cultural
Competency, Creativity, Civic Engagement, and Technology Skills. Thus, it appears that for
those who mentor undergraduate students, the ability to behave ethically is of highest
importance. The ability to critically analyze information, problem solve, and to be a
sophisticated consumer of information is viewed highly. Students who are capable of higher
levels of thought and problem solving are in all likelihood better prepared to meet the challenges
of rapidly changing society. Furthermore, undergraduate Family Science students who are able
to effectively collaborate with and appreciate people of diverse backgrounds including ethnicity,
race, religion, lifestyle, family structure, or other dimensions of diversity, is of high value. A
mastery of the theory and application of Family Science is also valued for undergraduate
students. Finally, written communication skills were also rated highly by professionals in
Family Science.
Quantitative Skills were least valued as a core competency for Family Science
undergraduate students. Perhaps quantitative skills are viewed as being more important for
graduate students and less important for those working in family life education settings. Many of
the jobs for undergraduate students in Family Science focus on working directly with people, as
opposed to work requiring advanced computational skills. It was somewhat surprising that
International Cultural Competency was rated relatively lower in the ranking given rapid rates of
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 67
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
globalization and worldwide migration. While this competency may be rated relatively low at
this time, it is likely that future generations of Family Science scholars will place greater
importance on the appreciation of and ability to effectively work with diverse international
populations. Creativity and Civic Engagement were also rated lower. This was also somewhat
surprising given that problem solving and critical thinking often require creative solutions and
perspectives. Additionally, engagement and being involved in communities would likely foster
an appreciation for diversity and competency in this area. While these competencies were all
rated relatively lower than other competencies, they were still valued highly by the majority of
the respondents.
Some variations were identified in how men and women rate these competencies. It is
important to be cognizant of the differences between men and women since the field of Family
Science is predominantly female (NCFR, 2013b). Men rated Oral Communication skills more
highly than women did (see Table 2). This may reflect differing communication styles between
men and women, (Canary & Emmers-Sommer, 1997; Tannen, 1994) where men tend to engage
in more direct and assertive communication strategies and women in more rapport building
communication approaches. Given these differing approaches to communication and that
women in the United States may be more prone to express their feelings and emotions
(Ingoldsby, Horlacher, Schvaneveldt, & Mathews, 2005), men may see more need to develop
Oral Communication Skills. Similarly, those with higher levels of education (doctorate degree)
were more likely to rate Oral Communication Skills as important compared to those with lower
levels of education. Perhaps those with doctorate degrees are more likely to present information
to larger groups of people and see a greater need for this competency.
Another gender difference was that women rated Cultural Diversity Competency more
highly compared to men. This finding was not expected and additional research is needed to
explain this gender difference. It should be noted that there is variation within each gender and
overall the vast majority of men highly valued a competency in cultural diversity.
Finally, differences were noted between those who identified themselves as being
affiliated with primarily research based institutions (i.e., research universities) and those who
viewed themselves as being affiliated with primarily teaching based institutions (i.e. teaching
universities, community colleges). Those affiliated with primarily research institutions rated
Quantitative, Written Communication, and Critical Thinking skills more highly than those from
primarily teaching institutions. This may reflect the higher emphasis placed on research and
publication activities at such institutions; however, all respondents rated these skills as important
regardless of their professional affiliation.
Implications for Preparing Competent Family Science Undergraduate Students
It can be assumed a gap exists between valuing a competency and the mastery of a given
competency for undergraduate students. The challenge placed before the discipline of Family
Science and those professionals who engage in mentoring and teaching students, is to develop
pedagogies, curriculum, and assessment strategies that include mastery of those competencies
deemed most important. Many undergraduate Family Science programs are approved through
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 68
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
the National Council on Family Relations in preparing students to be provisionally Certified
Family Life Educators (CFLE) (NCFR, 2013a). These programs must submit an application that
is reviewed by a team of scholars and professionals to determine if their curricula provide
educational experiences to develop the subject mastery and skills necessary for becoming a
CFLE. This is a critical benchmark in unifying the curricula of Family Science which
historically has varied widely (Burr & Leigh, 1983).
The gap between factual knowledge in a given area and the actual skills to effectively
execute a task has been referred to as the knowledge translation issue or the knowing-doing gap
(Cochrane, Olson, Murray, Dupuis, Tooman, & Hayes, 2007; Lang, Wyer, & Haynes, 2007;
Rimal, 2000; Samuelowicz, 2001). In other words, while a student may have knowledge of a
theory, the ability to effectively apply it may be lacking. Likewise, while ethics was rated as the
most important competency in this study, the question remains how can we teach and develop
ethics in a way that leads to ethical behaviors and practices? It is important, therefore, that we
implement teaching pedagogies that engage students in active learning, the application of theory
and knowledge; incorporating service learning experiences and other engaged learning strategies
leading to the mastery of core competencies (Meyers & Jones, 1993). Historically, many
university instructional pedagogies have relied heavily on the traditional lecture format. While
this may be marginally effective with some undergraduate students, it may not impact most
students. As a result, it does not lead to the optimal development of abilities in the many key
competencies identified in this study (i.e., ethics, cultural diversity competency, interpersonal
competence, oral communication skills, and civic engagement). Thus, those who teach
undergraduate students must utilize teaching pedagogies that engage students as active
participants in the learning process rather than as passive consumers of lectures only to be
regurgitated for multiple choice exams.
Finally, teaching professionals in Family Science need to carefully design and implement
assessment strategies to identify students who have developed core competencies. Specifically,
evaluation or assessment refers to identifying the competencies outlined in a learning experience
and provides the basis for recognizing competencies (Maclean, Wilson, & Chinien, 2009). The
American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) (1992) identified principles of good
practice for assessment and student learning. These principles are briefly summarized as
encouraging recognition of educational values, that evaluation is multifaceted, outcomes should
be clear, and that evaluation should be experience based, ongoing, collaborative and
interdisciplinary. Furthermore, evaluation should promote change, growth, and ultimately meet
the needs of students and society. Thus, evaluation must be seen as a multidimensional process.
Consequently, if the discipline of Family Science chooses to follow the AAHE
recommendations, it must embrace ongoing assessment and evaluation to determine if students
are actually developing competencies rather than assuming or hoping students developed these
during their undergraduate experience.
Limitations and Future Research Implications
The current research project has limitations. Since this was an exploratory study, the
sample was not representative of Family Scientists and therapists. Future research needs to
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 69
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
consist of a more representative sample of Family Science professionals and therapists. It
should also examine which competencies are most important for future employers. For example,
which skills and attributes are viewed as most important from the point of view of a human
service agency administrator? The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE,
2013) survey asked employers what they deemed to be important job related skills and qualities.
Results of their study found the following skills to be rated as very or extremely important: 1) the
ability to work in a team structure, 2) to make decisions and solve problems, 3) to plan, organize
and prioritize work, 4) to verbally communicate with persons, 5) to obtain and process
information, 6) to analyze quantitative data, and 7) to possess technical knowledge related to the
job. Future research could see how these preferred skills and qualities coincide with
professionals in the field of Family Science. Future research could also explore the competencies
that students deem valuable. Also, future studies could include a qualitative research measure
with open-ended perspectives to capture other domains that may have been overlooked. Seeking
the opinions of current and former students on their views of competencies could yield important
insights into the teaching and learning process.
Paul L. Schvaneveldt, Ph.D., CFLE is Professor and Chair of the Department of Child and
Family Studies at Weber State University in Ogden, UT 84408-1301.
Pamela B. Payne, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies
at Weber State University in Ogden, UT 84408-1301.
Daniel S. Hubler, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies
at Weber State University in Ogden, UT 84408-1301.
Chloe D. Merrill, Ph.D., CFLE is Professor of Child and Family Studies in the Department of
Child and Family Studies and Associate Dean of the Moyes College of Education at
Weber State University in Ogden, UT 84408-1301.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 70
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
References
Achtenhagen, F. (2001). Criteria for the development of complex teaching-learning
environments. Instructional Science, 29, 361-381.
Adams, R.A., Dollahite, D.C., Gilbert, K.R., & Keim, R.E. (2001). The development and
teaching of the ethical principles and guidelines for family scientists. Family Relations,
50, 41-48.
Arguelles, A., & Gonczi, A.E., (2000). Competency based education and training: A world
perspective. Mexico City: Grupo Noriego Editores.
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (2013). AAFCS code of ethics.
Retrieved from http://www.aafcs.org/aboutus/codeethics.asp
American Association for Higher Education (1992). Nine principles of good practice for
assessing student learning. Retrieved from:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~oir/assessmenteval/tools/9principles.html
Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence: Knowledge, higher education, and society.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Benson, M.J., Allen, K.R., Few, A.L., Roberto, K.A., Blieszner, R., Meszaros, P.S., Henderson,
T.L. (2006). Transforming the master’s degree in human development and family
science. Family Relations, 55, 44-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00355.x
Beutler, I.F., Burr, W.R., Bahr, K.S., & Herrin, D.S. (1989). The family realm: Theoretical
contributions for understand its uniqueness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51,
805-816.
Buck, J., Campbell, C., Chatelain, R., Higginson, R., & Merrill, C. (1999). Competencies for
family life educators. Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations
Burr, W. (1992). Family science. In Peterson’s Guides (Ed.). Peterson’s guide to graduate
programs in the humanities and social sciences 1993 (Vol. 2, 27th ed, pp. 437-438).
Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s Guides.
Burr, W.R., Day, R.D., & Bahr, K.S. (Eds.) (1993). Research and theory in family science.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Burr, W.R., & Leigh, G.K. (1983). Famology: A new discipline. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 467-480.
Canary, D.J., & Emmers-Sommer, T.M. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal
relationships. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 71
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Cochrane, L. J., Olson, C. A., Murray, S., Dupuis, M., Tooman, T., & Hayes, S. (2007). Gaps
between knowing and doing: Understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal health
care. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(2), 94-102.
Day, R., Quick, D., Leigh, G., & McKenry, P. (1988). Professional training in family science: A
review of undergraduate and graduate programs. Family Science Review, 1, 313-348
Eiklenborg, L.L., Bayley, B., Cassidy, D., Davis, J.C., Hamon, R.R., Forence-Houk, & Tymes,
V. (2004). Family science: Professional development and career opportunities.
Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.
Enkenberg, J. (2001). Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 495-506.
Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S.R. (2014). The discipline of family science and the continuing need
for innovation. Family Relations.
Hans, J.D. (2013, November). Naming the family field: Family science, family studies, or
something else? Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations
Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Hans, J.D. (2005). Graduate and undergraduate study in marriage and family (2nd ed.).
Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.
Hatcher, R.L., Fouad, N.A., Campbell, L.F., McCutcheon, S.R., Grus, C.L., & Leahy, K.L.
(2013). Competency-based education for professional psychology: Moving from concept
to practice. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7, 225-234. DOI:
10.1037/a0033765
Hollinger, M.A. (2002). Family science: Historical roots, theoretical foundations, and
disciplinary identity. Journal of Teaching in Marriage and Family, 2, 299-328.
Hoogveld, A.W.M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W.M.G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for
instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-
oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 287-297.
Ingoldsby, B. B., Horlacher, G. T., Schvaneveldt, P. L., & Matthews, M. (2005). Emotional
expressiveness and marital adjustment in Ecuador. Marriage and Family Review, 38, 25-
44.
Kaslow, N.J., Celano, M.P., & Stanton, M. (2005). Training in Family Psychology: A
competencies-based approach. Family Process, 44, 337-353.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 72
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Kerr, S. T., (1996). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education and the schools.
In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education: Part II. Technology and the future of schooling (pp. 1-27). Chicago: National
Society for the Study of Education.
Koblinsky, S.A., Kuvalanka, K.A., & McClintock-Comeaux, M. (2006). Preparing future faculty
and family professionals. Family Relations, 55, 29-43.
Lang, E.S, Wyer, E.S., & Haynes, B. (2007). Knowledge translation: Closing the evidence-to-
practice gap. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49(3), 355-363.
Levesque, K., Lauen, D., Teitelbaum, P., Alt, M., Librera, S. & MPR Associates Inc. (2000).
Vocational education in the United States: Toward the year 2000 (029). Washington,
DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Maclean, R., Wilson, D., & Chinien, C. (editors). (2009). International handbook of education
for the changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational learning - Volume 1.
New York, NY: Springer.
Meyers, C. & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) (2013). The candidate skills/qualities
employers want. Retrieved from: https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/skills-
qualities-employers-want.aspx
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) (2013a). Certified Family Life Education
Certification for academic institutions. Retrieved from: http://www.ncfr.org/cfle-
certification/academic-institutions
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) (2013b). Unpublished member attribute report.
National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.
National Education Association (NEA) (2013). Retrieved from http:www.nea.org
NCFR Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline (1988). What is family
science? Family Science Review, 1, 87-101.
Powell, L.H., & Cassidy, D. (2001). Family life education: An introduction. Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Pratt, D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing Company.
Rimal, R. N. (2000). Closing the knowledge-behavior gap in health promotion: The mediating
role of self-efficacy. Health Communication, 12(3), 219-237.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 73
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Samuelowicz, K. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher
Education, 41, 299-325.
Schvaneveldt, P. (2013, June). An educated Family Studies student. Paper presented at the
Teaching Family Science Conference, Annapolis, MD.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,
interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H.
Schunk (Eds.), Education psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207-228).
Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Der Horst, H., & McDonald, R. (1997). OBE: A teacher’s manual. Pretoria, Kagiso.
Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. (M.
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 74
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Table 1
Mean Values in Ascending Order of the Perception of Importance of Competencies for Family
Science Undergraduate Students (n=113)
Competency
Mean (range 1-10)
Sd
Quantitative Skills
7.40
1.42
International Cultural Competency
7.67
1.78
Creativity
8.04
1.47
Civic Engagement
8.07
1.62
Technology Skills
8.18
1.29
Multidisciplinary Knowledge
8.52
1.32
Personal Growth
8.58
1.41
Life-Long Learning
8.59
1.55
Intrapersonal Competence
8.81
1.26
Oral Communication Skills
8.87
1.41
Flexibility
8.89
1.30
Interpersonal Competence
9.01
.99
Application of Knowledge
9.08
1.05
Written Communication Skills
9.13
1.23
Subject Mastery
9.13
1.12
Cultural Diversity
9.13
1.07
Critical Thinking
9.34
.92
Ethics
9.57
.74
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 75
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Table 2
Comparison of Male and Female Respondents on Ranking of Importance on Undergraduate
Family Science Student Competencies (n=113)
Item
Mean (Men
parentheses)
sd (Men in
parentheses)
t-value
Quantitative Skills
7.34 (7.60)
1.42 (1.41)
.81
International Competency
7.20 (7.81)
2.33 (1.58)
1.23
Creativity
8.07 (7.96)
1.45 (1.57)
.31
Civic Engagement
8.05 (8.16)
1.69 (1.41)
.34
Technology Skills
8.30 (7.76)
1.29 (1.20)
1.93
Multidisciplinary Knowledge
8.63 (8.16)
1.20 (1.68)
1.30
Personal Growth
8.61 (8.44)
1.26 (1.85)
.44
Life-Long Learning
8.59 (8.60)
1.49 (1.77)
.24
Intrapersonal Competence
8.86 (8.64)
1.09 (1.73)
.61
Oral Communication Skills
8.75 (9.28)
1.50 (.84)
2.27*
Flexibility
8.97 (8.64)
1.16 (1.71)
.90
Interpersonal Competence
9.02 (8.96)
.99 (.98)
.28
Application of Knowledge
9.05 (9.20)
1.08 (.91)
.72
Written Communication Skills
9.05 (9.44)
1.30 (.87)
1.77
Subject Mastery
9.07 (9.36)
1.16 (.95)
1.28
Cultural Diversity
9.31 (8.52)
.906 (1.36)
2.74**
Critical Thinking
9.31 (9.44)
.95 (.82)
.69
Ethics
9.58 (9.52)
.72 (.82)
.33
* p < .05
UNDERGRADUATE COMPETENCIES IN FAMILY SCIENCE 76
Family Science Review, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2013
© 2013 by The Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
Table 3
Comparison of Research University and Teaching University Respondents on Ranking of
Importance on Undergraduate Family Science Student Competencies (n=100)
Item
Mean (Teaching in
parentheses)
sd (Teaching
in
parentheses)
t-value
Quantitative Skills
7.63 (7.08)
1.33 (1.38)
1.91*
International Competency
7.84 (7.50)
1.68 (1.88)
.91
Creativity
7.95 (8.17)
1.44 (1.46)
-.70
Civic Engagement
8.02 (8.28)
1.60 (1.52)
-.81
Technology Skills
8.03 (8.31)
1.23 (1.31)
-1.03
Multidisciplinary Knowledge
8.61 (8.22)
1.26 (1.42)
1.37
Personal Growth
8.59 (8.56)
1.24 (1.59)
.12
Life-Long Learning
8.63 (8.69)
1.40 (1.39)
-.24
Intrapersonal Competence
8.89 (8.53)
1.06 (1.61)
1.21
Oral Communication Skills
8.92 (8.89)
1.46 (1.35)
.11
Flexibility
8.95 (8.72)
1.06 (1.72)
.73
Interpersonal Competence
8.98 (9.17)
.95 (1.00)
-.89
Application of Knowledge
9.23 (9.06)
.96 (.96)
.90
Written Communication Skills
9.42 (8.75)
.91 (1.50)
2.45*
Subject Mastery
9.30 (9.03)
1.00 (1.11)
1.21
Cultural Diversity
9.27 (8.94)
1.10 (1.06)
1.43
Critical Thinking
9.52 (8.97)
.73 (1.16)
2.54*
Ethics
9.67 (9.50)
.64 (.81)
1.09
* p < .05
