Introduction

This chapter introduces a critical science curriculum evaluation process that assesses the FCS curriculum prior to initial planning for teaching and learning. Also referred to as a gap analysis (Montgomery, 1999), this critical science curriculum evaluation process is an appropriate exercise for pre-service and in-service FCS teachers. By applying this evaluation process, teachers will have access to evidence-based data, which could inform their curriculum planning and implementation from a critical science perspective. This process helps align instructional practices more directly to the National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences and connects the broader theoretical and philosophical intentions of the discipline.

Key Terms to Know

Capacity Building

Critical Literacy

Critical Science Perspective

Curriculum Evaluation

Evolving Problems

False Consciousness

Gap Analysis

Human Ecosystems Theory

Perennial Problems

Positionalities

Process Skills

Technical-Rational Perspective

The recent work on the National Standards for Teachers in Family and Consumer Sciences demonstrates the need for family and consumer sciences (FCS) teachers to be proficient in content and pedagogy specific to the discipline (Erickson, Fox, & Stewart, 2010), which over the course of the last few decades has theoretically taken a critical science approach (Montgomery, 2010). In particular, FCS teachers are expected to “develop, justify, and implement curricula that address perennial and evolving family, career, and community issues; reflect the integrative nature of family and consumer sciences; and integrate core academic areas” (Erickson et al., 2010, p. 158). Additionally, FCS teachers must be prepared to historically situate and contextualize content reflective of the discipline’s critical science perspective, as a means of promoting the “enduring values and beliefs of the profession” (p. 246).

In short, when planning curricula, FCS teachers must synthesize all that they have learned throughout the teacher education program including general education requirements, FCS content and foundation perspectives, and best practices for meeting the learners’ needs. The reason is clear: a teacher capable of exercising intellectual reasoning through the curriculum planning process is more likely to be able to engage their own students in meaningful learning experiences that stimulate intellectual and socio-emotional growth and development. More directly, a critical science grounded FCS curriculum will foster students’ abilities to critically examine issues affecting individuals, families, and communities; positively engage with people who are different from themselves; and as a consequence, contribute to the common good as they develop the multidimensional aptitude to care for themselves and others.

For many new teachers, however, there exists a gap between what they learned throughout their teacher education programs and what they encounter in their new positions. For FCS teachers, this potential gap makes it challenging to implement a critical science perspective as they enter the classroom. The competencies identified through research that are most important to new FCS teachers, include the abilities to:

1. create a positive learning environment 2. reflect on and evaluate their own practice 3. plan curricula to meet stated outcomes 4. attend to the diverse learning needs of their students

(Yahnke & Love, 1997, p. 52)

By focusing on reflective practice, it is possible for new teachers to overcome the potential gap between prior learning and future job-related experiences.

Background to the FCS Intellectual-Ecological Heritage

For at least the last 35 years, the field of FCS has devoted much attention to evaluating its purposes and discipline in an effort to better align professional practices with those originally conceived by the founders of the field at the Lake Placid Conferences that occurred from 1899 to 1908. Scholars Marjorie Brown and Beatrice Paolucci, both recognized for their groundbreaking work entitled Home Economics: A Definition (1978), laid the foundation for altering the course of FCS. When they articulated the purpose of the field as an obligation to serve families as both a dynamic unit operating in a community and as a social institution, Brown and Paolucci incorporated into FCS professional actions a humanistic lens that promoted commitments to both self- and community-formation (p. 23).

Brown (1985) added philosophical depth to this work, outlining the right fit between critical science and FCS, then home economics. To promote the common good, Brown indicated the need to not only provide technical knowledge inherent to the discipline but also to foster in FCS professionals the ability to examine values and commitments among individuals, families, and communities. As a result, FCS is positioned to uphold the democratic ideals inherent in the notion of community in the United States.

Since Brown conceived this idea, FCS scholars continue to examine how to integrate critical science into the FCS curricula. Johnson and Fedje (1999) examined the meaning of curriculum from a critical science perspective leading to further consideration for transforming FCS content, methods, and assessments. More recently, Montgomery (2010) proposed that the intent of Standard 5 of the National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences—teacher obligation to develop, justify, and implement FCS curricula—is best achieved through a critical science-based curriculum. Montgomery outlined how new teachers might use critical science perspectives to “determine the nature of the written curriculum” (2010, p. 160).

FCS Critical Science Pedagogical Concepts

Exploring the goals, values, means/ends, context, and roles of the teacher and learners will assist FCS teachers and stakeholders in better understanding both the technical-rational and the critical science perspectives (Plihal, Laird, & Rehm, 1999). As summarized in Table 1, a critical science driven classroom creates a community of learners—students and teachers together—who use multiple methods for understanding complex issues. In order to do so, the learning community must examine and questions both the methods and the end goals for addressing problems. Judging the best alternatives for individuals, families, and communities leads to the development of a social justice perspective. It is through this pedagogically focused, critical science classroom that students are more likely to develop an appreciation for their capacity to participate in a democratic society and to recognize the importance of others doing the same.

Table 1: Comparison of Technical-Rational and Critical Science Perspectives

[3-1]

Organized around perennial problems–those recurring, challenging questions that demand deep thinking and further inquiry in light of current norms and values, the FCS curriculum is poised to examine the complex work of the family (Montgomery, 2010). In an effort to ensure healthy family functioning, the FCS curriculum must also prepare students to address evolving problems, like global warming, which are new and emerging from the most current circumstances (Fedje, 1999; Montgomery, 2010). By focusing on the problems confronted by individuals, families, and communities, FCS students must, out of necessity, develop strengths in critical thinking and problem solving to help them to navigate the inquiry process. These skills are central to the Reasoning for Action Standard that is principal to the National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences Education (National Association of State Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS, 2008-2018).

For the FCS curriculum to be truly emancipative, students need to develop not only critical thinking skills but, more so, the ability to engage in social critique (Peterat and Slocum, 1997). This intellectual shift permits students to

“question the influence of social structures and practices on one’s own consciousness and identity. It challenges the knowing subject [student] to recognize the constraints imposed on consciousness by social ideology . . . and to take action to alter the structures and relations which perpetuate such ideologies, thus liberating consciousness” (Peterat & Slocum, 1997, p. 143).

In short, for students to have the capacity to take action to emancipate others, their own thinking must likewise be liberated. This demands that the FCS curriculum prepares students with the appropriate intellectual tools by helping them develop a critical literacy including the ability to think, read, speak, and write.

To be critically literate allows students to more deeply explore the use of language and contextual factors in an effort to identify root causes of social problems (Rehm M. L., 1999). The integration of core academic subjects (e.g., the liberal arts, especially social studies and literature for their ability to probe the human condition) provide an important liberating perspective to the FCS curriculum (Duncan, 2011b).

Promoting a pedagogical focus of critical literacy within the FCS classroom will create an environment in which students can explore how and what shapes their own positionalities, including their personal goals, knowledge, and beliefs about issues affecting themselves, their families, and communities (Rehm & Allison, 2006). In this way, students will be prepared to examine false assumptions and biases that contribute to “social structures [that] render people as objects to be controlled rather than as subjects determining their own goals” (Rehm, Jensen, & Rowley, 2010, p. 284).

Critical Literacy: FCS Content Centered on the Family

Through FCS curriculum, students will be prepared to improve the human condition and participate in public policy deliberation, which is the cornerstone of a democratic society (Rehm et al., 2010). More specifically, students will better be able to critically examine the human condition through all aspects of family life as recommended in the National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences Education which outlines the importance of students understanding their roles in:

• Strengthening the well-being of individuals and families across the lifespan;
• Becoming responsible citizens and leaders in family, community, and work settings;
• Balancing personal, home, family, and work lives;
• Using critical and creative thinking skills to address problems in diverse family, community, and work environments; and
• Appreciating human worth and accepting responsibility for one’s actions and success in family and work life (NASAFACS, 2008-18b, ¶ 5).

Critical knowledge about family life helps students to better appreciate the relationship between individual and family autonomy and their role in the community, which stands to be deepened through the use of theoretical tools central to the FCS curriculum.

Both visually and theoretically, the FCS body of knowledge demonstrates the “interrelatedness between family well-being and the social environment” (Duncan, 2011b, p. 393) as it outlines the relationship between core concepts, including individual wellbeing, family strengths, and community vitality; integrative elements, inclusive of human ecosystems theory and life course development theory; and cross-cutting themes, comprised of wellness, global interdependence, appropriate use of technology, resource development and sustainability, and capacity building. Reflecting the nested imagery of the human ecosystems 1theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Buboltz & Sontag, 1993), the FCS body of knowledge serves as a tool for examining human interaction with particular focus on individuals and families in the community, and likewise in the broader environment, mirroring the critical science perspective central to the FCS curriculum (Baldwin, 1996; Henry, 1996; Mitstifer, 1996; Smith, 1998).

The human ecosystems theory is a focal point to the FCS body of knowledge and provides FCS students with a clear synopsis of what is meant by human-social interaction, demonstrating the connectedness between children and families and social institutions in the near and broader environments. As noted by Duncan,

“The value of the ecosystems model is that the direction of influence moves both inward and outward. This multidirectional influence confirms the role, responsibility, and possibility for individuals and families to change the social environment, and thus justifies the promotion of capacity and human agency—concepts integral to . . . FCS practice” (2011b, p. 397).

Capacity building, introduced to the FCS field by Brown (1985) and now integrated into the FCS body of knowledge, directly contributes to the development of autonomous individuals capable of contributing to the community and the common good (Brown, 1995). In this sense, the FCS classroom becomes the space in which students develop the ability to demonstrate interdependence and solidarity with one another and the broader community.

Strategies for Critical Science Curriculum Evaluation

The FCS critical science curriculum utilizes both a critical literacy approach and a family-centered focus and serves as a standard to assess FCS curriculum. The curriculum evaluation process that follows is not so much a tool of judgment (yes/no; right/wrong), but rather a tool to examine the current status of a curriculum. Additionally, the process will allow for transformation of the curriculum to better meet the needs of learners, families, and society more broadly (see Appendices A, B, and C). Johnson and Fedje (1999) outlined three major concepts central to an FCS critical science curriculum including broad concepts, global perspectives, and assessment strategies. These three concepts should frame the evaluation of FCS curriculum.

An FCS critical science curriculum evaluation should begin with a review of program materials that speak to the purposes of the FCS program including the program philosophy, mission, and vision statements. Likewise, it is also relevant to explore the degree to which each FCS course reflects components that are central to a critical science curriculum. Course-specific material, including course descriptions and syllabi, along with teacher perspectives related to the content taught are central to the FCS curriculum implementation. All of these components must be included in the curriculum evaluation process.

Broad Concepts

The FCS curriculum that considers broad concepts is one that:

1. fosters co-investigator roles of teacher and learner
2. engages learner thinking
3. broadens learner perspectives
4. explores the work of the family. Broad concepts will likely be highlighted in the FCS program documents.

Co-Investigator Role of Teacher and Learner

The shared role of co-investigator held by both teacher and learner is key to an FCS critical science curriculum. The teacher’s role of co-investigator requires thoughtful preparation and practice. Teachers implementing a critical science curriculum frequently use discussion and collaborative learning. Frequent discussion fosters meaningful dialogue among learners (teacher and student), encourages learners to explore their biases, develops understanding of differing perspectives, and creates environments for learners to collaboratively contribute to the construction of knowledge. This ability hinges on the intellectual practices of the teachers and their thoughtful preparation, which includes thinking about the content prior to its delivery; exploring the interdisciplinary connections related to the content; identifying entry points into a student-centered dialogue; and securing the materials and resources necessary to facilitate this process. In this way, FCS teachers create an environment that encourages learners to enter into the process of knowledge construction through perspective sharing; directing goals and further inquiries; and subsequently sharing research findings pertinent to the course content (Williams, 1999).

Engagement of Learner Thinking

Learners serving as co-investigators will consequently strengthen their intellectual skills. As suggested above, the co-investigator relationship positions the FCS teacher to model process skills such as thinking, communicating, and demonstrating leadership that are necessary for learners to fully engage in knowledge construction. As learners apply process skills, they are prepared to more fully examine various problems affecting individuals, families, and communities. This co-investigative learning environment results in long-term outcomes of persistence, empathy, accuracy, creativity, curiosity, collaboration, or risk taking, among others for both the teacher and learners (Costa & Liebmann, 1997).

A process-oriented FCS curriculum emphasizes practical reasoning skills. Practical reasoning differs from basic decision making in that it examines the values, means, and consequences of addressing human problems through various perspectives (Olson, 1999). Practical reasoning skills rely on the learned ability to pose questions. In FCS, the questioning process identifies more than the facts of the matter; it also reveals contradictory perspectives and personal beliefs and biases. Questioning uncovers how misconceptions are socially perpetuated and offers alternatives acceptable to learners (Selbin,1999). A process-oriented FCS curriculum that promotes practical reasoning skills prepares learners to explore broad perspectives consistent with FCS content.

Broadening Learner Perspectives

Because the intent of the FCS curriculum is to improve the human condition, it requires looking at issues through a wide-angle lens to stretch student thinking and imagination. Developing both process skills and practical reasoning skills help learners adopt necessary strategies for looking more deeply at complex issues affecting family life. As a result, learners are positioned to examine issues contextually while also considering multiple perspectives associated with any given issue or problem. When students examine family-related issues in this light, it shifts their thinking from an individualistic/micro perspective to a more global/macro perspective (Eyre and Peterat, 1990). That is, student concerns shift from a self-centered perspective to an others-centered perspective.

Broadening student perspectives increases the possibility to deepen student insights, concerns, and reflections while ideally decreasing stereotypes and misconceptions often perpetuated through the traditional education model. Key to this process is the development of a community of learners (Duncan, 2011a; Williams, 1999). An FCS critical science classroom promotes the use of humanistic process skills that contribute to positive human interaction among learners—a space where listening, empathy, and collaboration are necessary to increase the community’s collective understanding on any given issue impacting the work of the family.

Exploring the Work of the Family

These skills are more effective when taught within the context of the family because learners can relate to their personal family situations. An FCS perspective includes family functions (e.g., nurturance, resource attainment, shelter, and heritage) as well as the reasoned, ethical approaches to solving problems in a way that is best for individual family members, the family as a group, and the family within society. This approach to FCS content demonstrates the importance of preparing learners to critically examine issues pertaining to families through broad, multi-focal perspectives and warrants a different view of the FCS curriculum (see 3-2).

By identifying the work of the family as a priority to curriculum development, the FCS curriculum is elevated. As learners examine the processes and power relationships among family and community, learners create a better understanding of the work of the family. In this way, the FCS curriculum moves beyond technical perspectives of a given FCS content area and becomes a dynamic space to generate student engagement, inquiry, and meaningful knowledge construction.

When using broad concepts to facilitate student learning, students develop their ability to think and reflect. The FCS curriculum assists students in creating a basis for their personal understandings and provides opportunities to engage with complex, interrelated content. Considering FCS content through broad perspectives additionally provides each student the opportunity to discover content relevant to his or her life currently and in the future (Hauxwell & Schmidt, 1999).

[3-2]

Global Perspectives

The depth and substance of a critical science curriculum centers on global perspectives that are inclusive of critical thinking and moral reasoning with the intent to shape learning experiences that assist students in both “relating to or encompassing the whole of anything or any group of things, categories, etc.; comprehensive, universal, total, overall . . . [and] . . . relating to, or involving the whole world, worldwide” (Global, 2015, ¶ 2). In this sense, the global perspectives central to the FCS critical science curriculum reflect both the inclusive, holistic viewpoints associated with the content as well as how the content impacts the international community.

Critical Thinking: Engagement Through FCS Critical Science Content

Perhaps the best way to foster critical thinking among students is to engage them in the processes of reading, writing, and listening (Moser, 1999). While a wide assortment of readings (beyond the textbook) exposes students to varied perspectives, the act of writing “allows the students to be precise, examine their thinking, and the meaning of their words” (Moser, 1999, p. 199). As Moser further suggests, “writing allows us to stand back and see significance in things close to us, a private act with a public result” (p. 199).

Writing serves as a tool for students to navigate their personal insights and reflections within the public domain of the learning community. Listening is essential to this navigation process. Through the learning community, students are poised to practice listening to integrate ideas; differentiate between factual information and unfounded opinion; examine the credibility of materials; and develop empathetic skills and knowledge (Moser, 1999), all which have particular relevance to the development of moral reasoning among students.

Moral Reasoning as Key to FCS Praxis

Critical thinking serves as an important component of the process of moral reasoning, which is necessary for addressing social justice issues and working for the common good. Morality is comprised of three primary factors: caring, judging, and acting (Arcus, 1999). Taken as a whole, morality depends on one’s interest in the welfare of others (caring); the ability to rationally examine the complex nature of human experience (judging); and the interest to make a positive difference in the lives of others (action) (Arcus, 1999). Initiating moral reasoning among learners leads to the development of their empathetic skills and intellectual ability to reason about the moral issue at hand (Arcus, 1999). Through in-class dialogue, learners are positioned to examine self-perceptions alongside those of their peers as all collaboratively consider how to address the given issue (Fedje, 1999). In this light, reflection-driven action is central to the FCS critical science curriculum— fostering action to positively transform society by challenging the status quo (Duncan, 2011a). By promoting moral reasoning among FCS students, a shared moral ecology (Bubolz & Clifford, 1997) is created as students are empowered to take positive action within their community.

Reviewing the FCS Curriculum for Global Perspectives

To ensure that global perspectives are addressed in the learning experience, it is essential to the FCS critical science curriculum evaluation that teachers review both the course materials and the educational strategies. In particular, the global perspectives can be modeled through readings and other resources (e.g., texts, media, and speakers) that stimulate both critical thinking and moral reasoning. Course assignments and other experiences should reflect how learners are expected to engage with these materials and resources. Some questions to consider include: Do the resources reflect diverse perspectives that promote critical thinking and/or moral reasoning? How is the material utilized (teaching strategies) to promote critical thinking and/or moral reasoning? Through the learning experiences, are students encouraged to question, examine, and challenge the status quo? How do the learning experiences promote an interest among students to affect change to improve the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities? These and other questions will assist in determining the degree to which the FCS curriculum reflects the global perspectives inherent in an FCS critical science curriculum.

Assessment Strategies

Assessment, a key component of all curricula, will be most effective when it reflects the philosophical orientation of the curriculum (Keino & Hausafus, 2010; Olson, Bartruff, Mberengwa, & Johnson, 1999; Reynolds & Trehan, 2000; Torrie & Van Buren, 2010). For an FCS critical science curriculum, this means that assessment should evaluate a student’s developing skills/abilities; content knowledge (inclusive of both subject and process); relationship with others; group interactions; and impact of actions on the community (Olson et al., 1999, pp. 209-214). Assessment from a critical science lens is a complex process and demands that FCS teachers are assessment literate in their ability to not only judge when, how, and what to assess but also how to educate students about assessment as well (Torrie & Van Buren, 2010). In this light, the assessment process mirrors the spirit of the curriculum, especially in terms of the co-investigator relationship between student and teacher. The FCS critical science curriculum assessment is dependent on the teacher’s role and the knowledge of assessment strategies that will account for student learning.

Role of the FCS Teacher

Just as thoughtful preparation is key to developing the FCS critical science curriculum so too is it important to the assessment process. In fact, because the FCS critical science curriculum aims to strengthen the reasoning skills of students, the assessment process must be integrated into the curriculum as curricular scaffolding to foster intellectual, social, and moral growth. Involvement in and dialogue about the evaluation of one’s own work with peers and teachers is key to assessment (Reynolds & Trehan, 2000). Assessment in an FCS critical science class might be visualized as a feedback web, rather than simple feedback, demonstrating the collaborative, cooperative nature of the curriculum (Frey and Schmitt, 2007). Crucial to the learning-assessment process is the responsibility of the teacher to facilitate both knowledge construction and self-assessment among students. Teachers who successfully foster a metacognitive perspective (knowing what I know, how I know it, what more I need to know, and how to go about learning it) in each student accomplish this through the techniques of modeling and posing questions that stimulate student thinking about their prior knowledge and application of metacognitive techniques (Preus, 2012, pp. 68-69):

• “Remember when we talked about [topic]?”
• “How does this connect to what you learned [when]?”
• “What do you already know that connects to [topic]?”
• “Why do you think I’m asking you this?”
• “What evidence did you use to form that conclusion?”

In this way, facilitating intellectual growth and self-assessment is a simultaneous process which can be enhanced through authentic assessment strategies.

Authentic Assessment Strategies

The FCS critical science curriculum aims to promote both a critical literacy pedagogy and content focused on the work of the family that engages students in a simultaneous process of learning and self-assessment. These processes are best fulfilled through the integration of authentic assessment strategies. Scholars Frey and Schmitt (2007) acknowledge that there is a continuum of practices associated with authentic assessment— those that mirror real-world tasks. These varied types of assessments support the purposes of the FCS critical science curriculum and, as outlined in Table 2, are reflected in a variety of strategies that can be used in the FCS classroom. The commonality shared among all assessment types and related strategies is that they assist the learners in shaping their own thinking and perspectives about an issue, as opposed to forcing reiteration of pre-established content (Olson et al., 1999). These assessment strategies challenge students to engage with FCS content mediated through real and relevant concerns, fostering among students the ability to generate resolutions and take action— the cornerstone of an FCS critical science curriculum (Olson et al., 1999).

Table 2: Overview of Assessment Types, Purposes, and Strategies

[3-3]

Broad Educational Implications

The FCS critical science curriculum aims to promote deep learning to address issues impacting individuals, families, and communities. The use of authentic assessment strategies, which engage higher order thinking skills, can be implemented successfully within an inclusive classroom (Preus, 2012). As such, the learning-assessment process central to the FCS critical science curriculum obliges student engagement with diverse perspectives within the context of a culturally, socially, and physically diverse environment. Such efforts are consistent with the National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences, especially the “Reasoning for Action” standard which promotes the intellectual processes by which FCS content is examined (Keino and Hausafus, 2010).

Reviewing the FCS Curriculum for Authentic Assessment(s)

Integrative in nature, the FCS critical science curriculum exemplifies a learning-assessment process in which the assessment strategies are intertwined directly with broad concepts and global perspectives to foster student learning, thereby increasing the intellectual, social, and moral capacities of students. Relying on the interaction among the student, peers, and teacher, assessment from an FCS critical science curricular lens assists both the student and teacher in recognizing student growth toward becoming an engaged global citizen.

In reviewing an FCS curriculum for its integration of critical science perspectives, some questions to consider regarding the assessment process include: To what degree are higher order thinking skills (i.e., analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creation) promoted? Through what kinds of experiences are students asked to exercise critique? To what measures and/or principles are students held accountable through the process of classroom dialogue? To what degree do students have the opportunity to refine their work? Under what circumstances are students expected to function collaboratively? In what ways are students engaged in real and relevant problem solving? To what degree are students engaged in their school and broader community? Are there opportunities for students to present their findings? These and other questions assist in understanding to what degree the assessment practices are consistent with an FCS critical science perspective.

Concepts that frame the evaluation of FCS curriculum

Edit

Export

Delete

What are the three concepts that should frame the evaluation of FCS curriculum?

A

broad concepts, global perspectives, and assessment strategies

B

crtitcal literacy, knowledge of the family unit and the human condition, and understanding roles

C

challenging the norm, being subjective, and examining personal goals

Summary

This chapter outlines a rationale for and an explanation of a critical science curriculum evaluation process to assist both pre-service and in-service FCS teachers to examine and refine FCS curricula to more directly reflect FCS standards and the disciplinary perspectives on which they were founded. Conceived as a gap analysis based on the works of Johnson and Fedje (1999) and Montgomery (2010), the evaluation process as outlined in Appendix A can be conducted utilizing the “FCS Program Evaluation Checklist for Critical Science Perspectives” (Appendix B). Developed as an assignment to deepen thinking about FCS critical science curriculum development and evaluation, the assignment “FCS Critical Science Program Evaluation” (Appendix C) can be utilized to promote the learning-assessment process among FCS pre-service teachers.

Used prior to curriculum implementation, the FCS critical science curriculum evaluation will highlight to what degree aspects of the FCS curriculum reflect a critical science orientation. This information will permit the FCS teacher to determine how to modify the curriculum to better reflect the critical perspectives integral to FCS education. Increasing opportunities for students to more fully engage in the learning-assessment process, developing among students a critical literacy, and expanding the scope through which they examine the work of the family will not only increase the depth of FCS knowledge among students but will also instill in them skill sets that will strengthen their abilities to navigate future work and life experiences.

The importance of an FCS critical science curriculum evaluation cannot be understated. Deliberately evaluating an FCS curriculum for its integration of a critical science perspective will assist FCS teachers to more purposefully align their respective programs to the critical interests of the discipline and FCS education ideals in particular. The data from these curriculum evaluations can be used to demonstrate congruity between FCS course content and local, state, and national education goals and standards, highlighting the very important role that FCS holds in contributing to the intellectual, social, and moral development of students. As noted by Vincenti (1999), there is a real need for critical evaluation plans that offer concrete data to assist FCS professionals in their efforts to communicate effectively with stakeholders. While an FCS critical science curriculum fosters skills reflective of the needs of the 21st century workforce, it is equally important for the curriculum to prepare students to critically examine issues affecting individuals, families, and communities; engage with people who are different than themselves; and contribute to the common good as they develop the ability to care for themselves and others. In short, an FCS critical science curriculum has the potential to promote students’ capacity to participate in a democratic society and inspire them to ensure the same opportunities for others.

References

Arcus, M. E. (1999). Moral reasoning. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 174-183). Peoria, Illinois: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Baldwin, E. E. (1996). Family well-being: A conceptualization guide to professional practice. In KON (Ed.), Toward a Theory of Family Well-Being (pp. 5-14). East Lansing, Michigan: Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.

Brown, M. M. (1985). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Our practical-intellectual heritage. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Brown, M. M. (1995). The concept of community. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, 8(2), 7-20.

Brown, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1978). Home economics: A definition. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association.

Buboltz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 419-448). New York: Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Bubolz, M. M., & Clifford, M. C. (1997). A framework for creating a shared moral ecology in family and consumer sciences. In J. F. Laster, & R. G. Thomas (Eds.), Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities (Yearbook 17 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 28-39). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Costa, A., & Liebmann, R. (1997). Toward renaissance curriculum: An idea whose time has come. In A. Costa, & R. Liebmann, Envisioning process as content: Toward a renaissance curriculum (pp. 1-20). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Duncan, J. (2011a). Defining rigor in family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 29(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/v29no1/v29no1Duncan.pdf

Duncan, J. (2011b). Rooted in mission: Family and consumer sciences in Catholic universities. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 14(4), 391-412. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/view/1675

Erickson, P. M., Fox, W. S., & Stewart, D. (Eds.). (2010). National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, implementation, and resources. National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf

Eyre, L., & Peterat, L. (1990). The practice of critical thinking in home economics. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 8(1), 1-7.

Fedje, C. J. (1999). Program misconceptions: Breaking the patterns of thinking. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 17(2), 11-19. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/v17n02/v17no2Fedje.pdf

Ferree, S. (2014).

Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 402-423.

Gentzler, Y. S. (1999). What is critical theory and critical science? In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 23-31). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Global. (2015). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/global

Hauxwell, L., & Schmidt, B. L. (1999). Developing curriculum using broad concepts. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 91-102). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Henry, M. I. (1996). Family well-being: Insights gained through the process of critical reflection. In KON (Ed.), Toward a theory of family well-being (pp. 18-24). East Lansing, Michigan: Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society.

Johnson, J., & Fedje, C. (Eds.). (1999). Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education and Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed.). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Keino, L. C., & Hausafus, C. O. (2010). Student and program assessment: Effective preparation of teacher candidates. In P. Erickson, W. S. Fox, & D. Steward (Eds.), National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, implementation, and resources (pp. 302-319). National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf

Mitstifer, D. (1996). Power and the emancipative dimension of family well-being. Toward a theory of family well-Being (pp. 25-30). East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society.

Montgomery, B. (1999). Continuing concerns of individuals and families. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 80-90). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Montgomery, B. (2010). Curriculum development: A critical science perspective. In P. Erickson, W. S. Fox, & D. Stewart (Eds.), National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, Implementation and Resources (pp. 159-174). National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf

Moser, S. M. (1999). Using reading, writing, and listening in new ways. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 195-207). Peoria, IL: Glencoe-McGraw-Hill.

National Association of State Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS). (2008-2018). Retrieved from National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences Education: http://www.doe.in.gov/octe/facs/NASAFACS/index.html

Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., & Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266-283.

Olson, K. (1999). Practical reasoning. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 132-142). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Olson, K., Bartruff, J., Mberengwa, L., & Johnson, J. (1999). Assessment: Using a critical science approach. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 208-223). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Peterat, L., & Slocum, A. (1997). Teaching critical thinking in family and consumer sciences education. In J. F. Laster, & R. G. Thomas (Eds.), Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities (Yearbook 17 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 137-146). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Plihal, J., Laird, M., & Rehm, M. (1999). The meaning of curriculum: Alternative perspectives. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 2-22). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Preus, B. (2012). Authentic instruction for 21st century learning: Higher order thinking in an inclusive school. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 59-79.

Price, M., O’Donovan, B., & Rust, C. (2007). Putting a social-constructivist assessment process model into practice: Building the feedback loop into the assessment proecess through peer review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 143-152. doi:10.1080/14703290701241059

Rehm, M. L. (1999). Learning a new language. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 58-69). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Rehm, M. L., & Allsion, B. (2006). Positionality in teaching culturally diverse students: Implications for family and consumer sciences teacher education programs. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34(3), 260-275. doi:10.1177/1077727X05283593

Rehm, M., Jensen, J., & Rowley, M. (2010). Professionalism: History, philosophy, ethics, and public policy. In P. Erickson, W. S. Fox, & D. Stewart (Eds.), National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, Implementation, and Resources (pp. 280-300). National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBooks/Standards_eBook.pdf

Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A critical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267-278.

Selbin, S. (1999). Developing questions in a critical science classroom. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 167-173). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Smith, F. M. (1998). Family well-being through the lens of Habermas’ three human interests. In M. Henry, D. Mitstifer, & F. Smith (Eds.), Toward a theory of family well-being II (pp. 20-28). East Lansing, Michigan: Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society.

Torrie, M. C., & Van Buren, J. B. (2010). Student and program assessment: Assessment literacy, the basis for student assessment. In P. Erickson, W. S. Fox, & D. Stewart (Eds.), National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences:

Research, implementation, and resources (pp. 320-333). National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf

Vincenti, V. (1999). Consequences of action. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 284-296). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Williams, S. K. (1999). Critical science curriculum: Reaching the learner. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technology Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 70-78). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Wright, P. J. (1999). Work of the family. In J. Johnson, & C. G. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technlogy Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 103-116). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Yahnke, S. J., & Love, C. T. (1997). Critical teaching competencies for beginning family and consumer science teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 15(1), 49-57.

Image Credits

[3-1] Table created and provided by authors via Microsoft Officd. Data taken from: Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technlogy Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 103-116).

[3-2] Table created and provided by authors via Microsoft Officd. Data taken from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/1077727X08329561

[3-3] Table created and provided by authors via Microsoft Officd. Data taken from: Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a Critical Science Approach (Yearbook 19 of the Education & Technlogy Division of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences ed., pp. 103-116).

Blue kaleidoscope banner created and provided by authors.