Next Article in Journal
Longitudinal Study of Perceived Brand Globalness: The Dynamic Effects of Ethnocentrism and Purchase Intentions from 2021 to 2024
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Synergistic Mechanism Design of Electricity-CET-TGC Markets and Transaction Strategies for Multiple Entities
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Shared and Inclusive Governance on Environmental Sustainability at U.S. Universities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Convergence Competencies in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences for Sustainable Futures in the South Korean Context

1
Department of Biohealth Convergence, College of Innovation Convergence, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea
2
Next-Generation Display Program, Convergence and Open Sharing System (COSS), College of Innovation Convergence, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Library and Information Science, College of Humanities and Social Convergence, Konkuk University, Chungju 27478, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7131; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157131
Submission received: 29 June 2025 / Revised: 29 July 2025 / Accepted: 30 July 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management for the Future of Education Systems)

Abstract

Addressing global challenges such as climate change and inequality requires convergence competencies that enable learners to devise sustainable solutions. Such competencies have been emphasized in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) fields, but empirical research and assessment tools tailored to Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) remain scarce. This study aimed to develop and validate a self-assessment tool to measure convergence competencies among HASS learners. A three-round Delphi survey with domain experts was conducted to evaluate and refine an initial pool of items. Items with insufficient content validity were revised or deleted, and all retained items achieved a Content Validity Ratio (CVR) of ≥0.800, with most scoring 1.000. The validated instrument was administered to 455 undergraduates participating in a convergence education program. Exploratory factor analysis identified five key dimensions: Convergent Commitment, Future Problem Awareness, Future Efficacy, Convergent Learning, and Multidisciplinary Inclusiveness, explaining 69.72% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the model’s goodness-of-fit (χ2 (160) = 378.786, RMSEA = 0.054, CFI = 0.952), and the instrument demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.919). The results confirm that the tool is both reliable and valid for diagnosing convergence competencies in HASS contexts, providing a practical framework for interdisciplinary learning and reflective engagement toward sustainable futures.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary era, humanity is confronted with complex and multidimensional crises, including climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, population aging, and digital inequality. These global challenges cannot be adequately addressed through responses from a single academic discipline or individual nation-state. Rather, they necessitate a new kind of human capital—individuals who can comprehend the contextual complexity of such issues and explore creative yet ethically grounded solutions. In this context, it is increasingly required that higher education transcends the traditional role of knowledge transmission and adopts transformative learning approaches that empower students to envision and actively engage with uncertain futures [1].
With the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) gaining prominence as a central global agenda, higher education is undergoing a paradigmatic shift. This shift moves beyond mere problem recognition or theoretical instruction toward cultivating competencies that enable students to collaboratively shape sustainable futures. The term “futures” here implies a plurality of possibilities, encompassing diverse trajectories, values, and choices [2]. Navigating such plural futures requires convergence thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Against this backdrop, convergence education has emerged as a strategic response to the complexity and uncertainty of future societies. This educational approach integrates knowledge, skills, and attitudes across disciplinary boundaries, fostering the capacity to generate innovative solutions to real-world problems [3,4,5]. Particularly, global challenges such as sustainability entail structural dilemmas that cannot be resolved by single disciplines or technologies alone, necessitating an integrative understanding that spans social, cultural, ethical, environmental, and economic dimensions.
Research on competencies for sustainability has grown considerably in recent years. Researchers [6] have identified systems thinking, strategic thinking, values orientation, collaboration, and self-reflection as core sustainability competencies. Brundiers et al. [7] further emphasized the need for interdisciplinary curriculum design that enables the integration of such competencies within authentic educational contexts. However, existing research on convergence competencies has been predominantly focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), with limited attention given to their conceptualization and assessment within Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) education.
HASS disciplines offer deep insights into human experiences and social contexts, cultivating qualities such as ethical reflection, cultural sensitivity, and creative expression—attributes that are closely linked to social sustainability. Nevertheless, the unique contributions of HASS fields have been insufficiently reflected in prevailing models of convergence education or sustainability discourse. In the context of higher education in South Korea, although various convergence initiatives have been implemented, there remains a lack of standardized tools for diagnosing convergence competencies specifically among HASS students and linking them to educational outcomes.
While studies have highlighted the qualitative and philosophical values of HASS-based sustainability education, efforts to operationalize these insights through quantitative assessment tools remain at a nascent stage. Research has mainly focused on course design and instructional cases, and attempts to develop systematic frameworks that support learners’ self-diagnosis and autonomous development remain scarce [8].
Although the recently implemented Korean education policy increasingly emphasizes convergence education and the cultivation of future-ready talent, there has been limited progress in the development of assessment tools that can measure educational outcomes in this domain. For example, Huh [9] indicated the challenges of convergence education in engineering, while Padmanabhan [10] highlighted the need for competency-based assessment in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). However, practical implementation of such tools in higher education remains scarce. This lack of assessment infrastructure inhibits students’ ability to understand their own competencies and plan for growth, while also undermining the institutionalization and quality assurance of convergence education.
This study aims to develop a self-assessment tool for diagnosing convergence competencies among undergraduate students in the HASS fields. The research seeks to address the following questions:
RQ1. What are the core convergence competencies required for university students in the HASS fields to contribute to sustainable futures?
RQ2. How can the identified convergence competencies be structured and validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses?
RQ3. To what extent does the developed self-assessment tool validly measure the learning outcomes of convergence education in the HASS disciplines?
This study seeks to make the following academic and societal contributions. First, it complements existing STEM-centric models of convergence competencies by incorporating the unique insights and attributes of the HASS disciplines. Second, it provides a framework for learners to self-assess their competencies and receive formative feedback, thereby supporting self-directed learning. Third, it offers a shared evaluative language for higher education institutions, policy-makers, and industries to advance the diffusion and quality management of convergence education. Finally, it opens pathways for the international application of the tool as a global diagnostic framework aligned with the educational paradigms of convergence and sustainability.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Convergence Education for Sustainable Futures: Paradigm Shifts and Competency Demands

As the global community confronts escalating poly-crises—climate change, resource depletion, social polarization, pandemics, etc.—sustainability has emerged as a central imperative for 21st-century education. UNESCO [1], particularly, emphasizes transformative learning and convergence thinking as key educational approaches for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These pedagogies aim not only to impart functional skills, but also to cultivate practitioners capable of understanding and addressing interconnected socio-environmental and economic challenges.
Convergence education has thus acquired prominence as a core strategy for preparing students to respond to complex future issues by integrating technological capabilities with human-centered values. Kim and Ryou [11] emphasized the need to nurture talents equipped with competencies for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, while Choi [12] argued that globalization and digitalization necessitate a paradigm shift in higher education through convergence-driven qualitative transformation. Hong [13] further asserted that convergence education is evolving from a focus on general education and character development to an action-oriented pedagogy that fosters the capacity to contribute to a sustainable society rooted in the creative industries. Essentially, convergence education is now being reframed as an educational philosophy that cultivates future-ready individuals capable of designing sustainable futures through an integrated lens of technology, humanities, society, and the environment.
Technological innovation alone cannot achieve a sustainable future. While advancements in artificial intelligence, big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics have opened new frontiers, they have also generated structural issues such as social inequality, labor market instability, and ecological degradation. To address such multifaceted problems, a broader set of competencies is required, including social responsibility, environmental sensitivity, ethical reasoning, and inclusivity. The transition to a knowledge-based, information-driven economy necessitates not only creativity and innovation, but also the ability to critically interpret data and translate it into socially meaningful outcomes. Moreover, the ongoing transformation into multicultural and inclusive societies further accentuates the need for competencies rooted in social sustainability, diversity, and coexistence. These developments call for a fundamental reconfiguration not only of pedagogical methods, but also of the values and goals that education itself should pursue.
Reports by the World Economic Forum (WEF) [14,15] have illustrated the evolving competencies required for the future employment landscape. Skills such as complex problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, leadership, and resilience are not merely technical assets but essential capabilities for sustaining life, organizations, and communities. The 2025 WEF report [15] presents an expanded competency framework that reaffirms the enduring relevance of human-centric skills—particularly in the context of HASS. It emphasizes the increasing importance of analytical and creative thinking, resilience, flexibility and agility, as well as curiosity and lifelong learning—competencies that align closely with the educational aims of the HASS disciplines. Moreover, leadership and social influence, systems thinking, motivation and self-awareness, and talent management are highlighted as key capabilities required to navigate complex socio-cultural transformations. Taken together, these findings suggest that core competencies for the future must integrate both technological literacy and humanistic values. The convergence of these domains constitutes the foundational attributes of convergence competencies, which are essential for driving sustainable societal transformation.
In response to these global shifts, higher education institutions and evaluation bodies in South Korea have increasingly advocated for competency-based curriculum design and assessment frameworks aligned with the vision of sustainability. While universities have begun restructuring curricular and extracurricular systems accordingly, the development of robust educational models and assessment tools that explicitly link convergence competencies to sustainability remains insufficient.
Historically, discussions on convergence competencies have been rooted in STEM-based education, emphasizing domains such as problem-solving, collaboration, creativity, and systems thinking [16,17]. However, there is growing recognition that technology-centric approaches alone are inadequate for resolving social problems, and that perspectives and competencies of HASS are vital components of a new convergence paradigm [18,19].
The significance of HASS-based convergence education can be substantiated as a foundational approach to envisioning and designing sustainable futures. First, the integration of emerging technologies—virtual reality, artificial intelligence, mobile learning, etc.—into the HASS fields provides immersive, multisensory learning environments that enhance not only creativity and critical thinking, but also cultural sensitivity and human-centered technological literacy [20]. Second, educational practices such as digital storytelling, 3D modeling, and immersive exhibitions facilitate identity work and civic responsibility, enabling learners to reinterpret cultural heritage and envision ethically grounded futures. Third, as Novis-Deutsch et al. [21] emphasized, interdisciplinary learning in the humanities goes beyond knowledge building to foster critical subjectivity and the formation of learner identity. This dimension of learning supports ethical engagement with social issues and integrative thinking across disciplines—essential elements for a sustainable societal transition.
Moreover, Amsler and Facer [22] introduced the concept of unlearning, advocating for a shift in higher education from prediction-based instruction to learning approaches that embrace uncertainty and explore multiple potential futures. In this context, HASS-based education offers a unique space for reflexive and imaginative inquiry, enabling students to experiment with new thought frameworks and cultivate ethical foresight. Although the authors do not directly employ the term “futures literacy,” the competencies they highlight—imagination, reflexivity, and possibility-oriented thinking—closely align with its core principles.
However, existing convergence competency assessment tools have primarily been developed for engineering or interdisciplinary majors, often failing to reflect the distinctive characteristics of HASS learners. While recent studies have proposed models for convergence competencies grounded in art and design, standardized tools that enable self-assessment in the HASS context remain scarce.

2.2. Review of Previous Research on Convergence Competencies

This study aims to develop a self-assessment instrument to measure convergence competencies, a construct that extends the existing frameworks of the 21st-century and sustainability competencies by foregrounding the epistemic, ethical, and cultural dimensions integral to HASS education. While prior models have largely focused on cognitive, technical, and systems-level skills often rooted largely in STEM-based paradigms, this study emphasizes a human-centered, interdisciplinary orientation that captures the unique ways in which HASS learners engage with complexity, uncertainty and the co-creation of sustainable futures.
To establish a robust theoretical foundation for the instrument, a comprehensive review of previous research related to sustainability education and key competencies was conducted, with particular attention to how convergence has been conceptualized and operationalized across diverse disciplinary contexts.
Wiek et al. [6] proposed a widely recognized framework that defines five essential competencies for sustainability education: systems thinking, anticipatory (futures-thinking), normative (values-based), strategic, and interpersonal competencies. These competencies enable students to analyze complex socio-ecological systems, envision sustainable futures, make value-laden decisions, plan strategic interventions, and collaborate effectively with diverse actors. Furthermore, the authors of [6] included integrated problem-solving as a higher-order meta-competency that synthesizes and applies these five in practice. Basic academic skills are regarded as the foundation supporting these competencies.
Building on this, Evans [23] restructured the Wiek framework into five broader categories: systems competence, critical and normative competence, interpersonal and communication competence, creative and strategic competence, and transdisciplinary competence. This adaptation places greater emphasis on reflexivity, communication, and cross-disciplinary collaboration—elements that align closely with the aims of convergence education in the HASS context.
In parallel, the concept of Gestaltungskompetenz—a term originating in the German-speaking discourse on sustainability education—provides an expanded view on transformative learning. Introduced by de Haan [24], Gestaltungskompetenz refers to the ability to shape and implement solutions to sustainability challenges [25]. It encompasses 12 sub-competencies including foresight, participation, empathy, and the capacity for self-reflection and decision-making, reinforcing the necessity for learners to actively engage in shaping sustainable futures.
Further refinement is seen in Redman and Wiek [2], as referenced by Annelin and Boström [26], who outlined eight core sustainability competencies. These updated models reflect the growing complexity and interdisciplinary nature of sustainability education. Vare et al. [27] offered another multidimensional framework that includes 12 competencies such as systems thinking, futures thinking, attentiveness, empathy, criticality, responsibility, and decisiveness. These competencies collectively highlight the shift toward learner agency, ethical engagement, and systems-level transformation.
Additionally, Venn et al. [28], through an action research study with senior sustainability professionals, delineated interpersonal collaboration competency as a core element of sustainability interventions. This includes boundary spanning, stakeholder engagement, building mutual trust, communication, and co-creation. These dimensions not only operationalize the interpersonal domain of Wiek’s framework, but also reflect the practical and participatory aspects of convergence competencies in real-world contexts. Taken together, these complementary frameworks provide a comprehensive foundation for defining and assessing convergence competencies, particularly those required for addressing complex societal challenges through interdisciplinary and sustainability-focused education.
Taken together, these frameworks highlight the growing need for institutional mechanisms that not only define convergence competencies in theory, but also make them measurable and actionable within higher education settings. This growing institutional need motivates the managerial orientation of this study.

2.3. Managerial Problems in Higher Education Addressed by This Study

Higher education institutions are under increasing pressure to cultivate students’ ability to navigate complex, interdisciplinary, and ethically charged societal challenges. However, several managerial barriers limit their capacity to do so effectively, particularly in the context of convergence education for HASS learners.
First, curricular alignment issues persist. Many programs lack the diagnostic tools to evaluate whether their curricula actually foster convergence competencies. This gap leads to a misalignment between intended learning outcomes and actual student development, particularly when it comes to higher-order competencies such as ethical reasoning, cross-cultural literacy, and systems thinking.
Second, institutions face assessment and accountability challenges. Without scalable and valid self-assessment instruments, universities struggle to monitor student progress or provide evidence of educational effectiveness to accrediting bodies and funding agencies. This impedes both internal quality assurance and external policy compliance.
Third, there exists a strategic integration gap with national and global agendas. Convergence education is increasingly promoted in national education reforms such as Korea’s HUSS initiative and globally through the UN SDGs. However, the operationalization of these agendas at the institutional level remains limited due to a lack of concrete, outcome-oriented tools.
This study addresses these managerial problems by proposing a theoretically grounded, empirically tested self-assessment tool tailored to convergence competencies in the HASS domain. By providing a mechanism for diagnosing and enhancing such competencies, the study contributes to institutional strategies aimed at curriculum reform, quality assurance, and alignment with broader policy goals.

3. Materials and Methods

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a self-assessment tool that diagnoses the core convergence competencies required for cultivating convergence-oriented talent capable of contributing to sustainable futures. A systematic research procedure was established, consisting of the following:
(1)
Literature review and conceptual framework development;
(2)
Item generation;
(3)
Expert Delphi validation;
(4)
Empirical testing and statistical validation.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using a single dataset owing to practical constraints. While this approach provided preliminary evidence for the instrument’s validity, the limitation of using the same sample is acknowledged, and future studies are recommended to perform cross-validation. These procedures are illustrated in Figure 1 and form the basis of the empirical development of the diagnostic tool.

3.1. Literature Review and Preliminary Item Development

To construct the foundation for item development, 331 documents, including peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and policy reports, were identified using core keywords such as sustainability, future education, convergence competencies, convergence talent, and convergence education. Among these, 17 documents were selected based on their theoretical clarity, methodological rigor, and direct relevance to convergence competencies within HASS (Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Duplicate indicators as well as those lacking empirical grounding were excluded from further analysis. Based on the selected literature, definitions and components of convergence competencies were systematically derived, forming a preliminary pool of diagnostic items.

3.2. Expert Delphi Survey

To ensure the validity and appropriateness of the preliminary items, a three-round Delphi survey was conducted with 10 experts who had extensive experience (over seven years) in developing and managing convergence education programs. These panelists were selected through recommendations from the National Research Foundation of Korea and relevant academic societies. All experts were provided with detailed explanations of the research objectives and consent forms via email and voluntarily agreed to participate.
In the first round, experts reviewed the definition, components, and draft items of convergence competencies and provided qualitative feedback. In the second round, a revised version of the items was reviewed again based on previous feedback. In the third round, the experts evaluated the appropriateness of each item to refine the tool. Content validity was assessed using Lawshe’s [29] Content Validity Ratio (CVR), and items were retained only if they met the minimum CVR threshold of 0.62 for a panel of 10 experts.

3.3. Pilot Study: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Testing

Following the Delphi survey, the refined items were subjected to a pilot study conducted during 10–17 July 2024, targeting undergraduate students participating in the second Humanities Utmost Sharing System (HUSS). (HUSS (Humanities and Social Sciences University Students Support) is a higher education initiative that promotes consortium-based convergence education in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. It supports modular curriculum co-development, cross-institutional learning, and collaborative research to foster critical, creative, and ethical competencies for addressing global challenges). Of the 774 initial respondents, 455 valid responses were included in the final analysis after excluding incomplete or inattentive responses. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to evaluate construct validity and identify the underlying factor structure. Maximum Likelihood extraction was used, with Direct Oblimin rotation applied to account for inter-factor correlations. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α for each subdimension.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents were as follows: 27.9% male (n = 127) and 72.1% female (n = 328); by academic year, 19.1% were freshmen, 30.1% sophomores, 31.4% juniors, and 18.9% seniors. Regionally, 42.4% were from the Seoul metropolitan area and 57.6% from non-metropolitan regions.

3.4. Main Study: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Finalization of the Tool

Based on the results of the pilot study, several items were revised or removed. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted using AMOS 24.0 to validate the final version of the diagnostic tool. The model fit and construct validity of each subdimension were examined, and the appropriateness of item loading was assessed. Through this process, the final number of items per component and their corresponding reliability indices were confirmed.
Consequently, the developed diagnostic tool for convergence competencies in future-oriented talent secured both theoretical and psychometric validity. It serves as a practical instrument for quantitatively assessing the outcomes of HASS-based convergence education and provides a foundational resource for program improvement and curriculum design.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

This study used a non-anonymous online survey to develop a self-assessment tool for educational purposes. The survey did not collect personally identifiable or sensitive information, and no physical or psychological interventions were involved. All participants were fully informed of the purpose of the study and an informed consent prior to participation was taken. In accordance with the local regulations and institutional guidelines, this type of minimal risk educational guidelines was exempt from formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Consequently, no IRB application was submitted; this exemption was determined by the re-search team in line with institutional policy.

4. Results

4.1. Synthesis of Previous Research and Derivation of the Diagnostic Tool Framework

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of previous domestic studies on convergence competencies to establish the theoretical foundation for the diagnostic tool developed in this study. Using keywords such as sustainability, future education, convergence competencies, convergence talent, and convergence education, a total of 331 scholarly works—including academic journal articles, dissertations, and policy reports—were collected and reviewed. After eliminating sources that employed identical indicators or duplicate instruments, 17 key studies were selected for detailed analysis.
The selected literature conceptualized convergence competencies as multidimensional constructs encompassing cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Common themes included the integration of diverse disciplinary knowledge, collaborative attitudes, practical execution, and responsiveness to future challenges. Based on this synthesis, the present study defines future convergence competency as “the ability to create new value demanded by future society through understanding and integrative thinking across multiple academic domains.” This definition extends beyond mere acquisition of knowledge and emphasizes the creative capacity to traverse disciplinary boundaries, solve complex problems, and generate novel insights. It reflects the essential nature of convergence competency as a core capability in higher education for preparing students to navigate and shape sustainable futures, incorporating both the purpose and praxis of convergence.
The resulting model of future convergence competency is structured into six major domains (competency clusters) and 12 sub-competencies. These were designed to comprehensively represent the full spectrum of convergence thinking and practice. The six domains and their conceptual definitions are summarized in Table 1.

4.2. Definition, Components, and Preliminary Items of Future Convergence Competencies: Findings from the Delphi Survey

Each sub-competency was defined in concrete terms to ensure its measurability in actual educational settings, systematically incorporating the core elements required in both contemporary and future societies. Notably, competencies such as convergent communication and collaboration and future efficacy are increasingly emphasized amid rapidly changing social conditions, demonstrating the relevance and timeliness of the proposed framework.
Based on the existing literature, the Delphi panel was invited to review and refine the definitions and components of future convergence competencies. The initial definition proposed in Round 1 was as follows: “The ability to create new convergent values required by future society through understanding and integrative thinking across various academic domains.”
While this definition was generally supported, experts recommended greater conceptual precision regarding the term “convergent values.” Additionally, they suggested replacing the phrase “required by future society” with a more concrete formulation such as “required by future society and industries.” These refinements aimed to reinforce the practical and future-oriented nature of the definition.
Incorporating these recommendations, the revised definition emphasized the actionable dimensions of convergence competencies and their relevance to socio-industrial transformation. The revised definition was subsequently subjected to content validation, with the results summarized in Table 2. The content validity analysis yielded a mean rating of 4.70 (on a 5-point scale) and a CVR of 1.00, based on Lawshe’s method, thereby confirming the conceptual soundness and content appropriateness of the refined definition.
Based on a synthesis of previous research, the components of future convergence competencies were categorized into the following key domains: (1) Convergent Attitudes, including Multidisciplinary Openness and Integrative Willingness; (2) Convergent Knowledge, comprising Understanding of Integrative Knowledge and Convergent Learning; (3) Convergent Practice, encompassing Collaborative Communication and Problem-Solving; and (4) Futures Orientation, including Futures Literacy and Future Efficacy. The validity of these domains and sub-competencies was reviewed in terms of both conceptual clarity and practical relevance.
While no major objections were raised regarding the overall competency clusters, a few expert panelists noted the difficulty of explicitly delineating closely related sub-competencies. They highlighted the need for behavioral indicators that could concretely represent each sub-competency and better facilitate the promotion of convergence-related actions in educational practice.
The statistical validity of the proposed components was assessed, and the results are presented in Table 3. All competency domains received high evaluations, with average scores exceeding 4.4 on a 5-point Likert scale. Standard deviations for most items were below 0.5 indicating a high degree of consistency in responses. Furthermore, the interquartile range (IQR) for the majority of items was 1.00, suggesting stable variance in expert ratings. Most notably, the CVR for all components was 1.000, confirming exceptionally high content validity across all proposed elements.
As a result of the content validity assessment for the definitions of each competency domain and sub-competency, all definitions were confirmed to be valid, with mean scores exceeding 4.0 and CVR values above the threshold of 0.62. In Rounds 2 and 3 of the Delphi survey, expert validation of individual diagnostic items was conducted for each sub-competency. Based on the experts’ consolidated feedback, several items were revised or refined to improve clarity and alignment with the intended constructs. Thereafter, the revised preliminary items were subjected to a final round of validation, during which mean ratings and CVR values were re-evaluated, confirming their appropriateness. Details of the specific modifications made to the items and their associated validation statistics are presented in Table 4. While most items were retained or deleted based on the predefined criteria (M ≥ 4.0 and CVR ≥ 0.62), a small number of items were retained due to their conceptual relevance, as advised by expert judgment, despite slightly lower CVR or mean values.

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Reliability Results

To determine the appropriate number of factors in advance, the Maximum Likelihood method was applied, and factors with eigenvalues of 1 or higher were selected. As correlations between factors were assumed, Direct Oblimin Rotation—an oblique rotation method—was employed.
As a result of the analysis of the Convergence Competency Diagnostic Tool for Future Talent, five factors were extracted. Based on the theoretical content of each factor, they were named as follows: Integrative Willingness, Future Issue Recognition, Future Efficacy, Convergent Learning, and Multidisciplinary Openness.
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in this study was based on an initial conceptual framework consisting of eight competency clusters: Multidisciplinary Openness, Integrative Mindset/Willingness, Understanding of Integrative Knowledge, Integrated Learning for Convergence, Convergent Communication and Collaboration, Convergent Problem Solving, Future Issue Recognition, and Future Efficacy. However, the empirical results led to a refined structure of five latent factors, derived through rigorous consideration of item communalities, factor loadings, and cross-loadings.
Specifically, items from “Convergent Communication and Collaboration” and “Convergent Problem Solving” did not form statistically distinct factors and were either removed or integrated into the broader construct labeled “Convergent Commitment.” Similarly, although “Integrated Learning for Convergence” and “Understanding of Integrative Knowledge” were theoretically distinguished, they clustered together empirically and were consolidated under the factor “Convergent Learning.”
Consequently, the final model includes five factors: Convergent Commitment, Future Problem Awareness, Future Efficacy, Convergent Learning, and Multidisciplinary Inclusiveness. This reflects both statistical robustness and conceptual clarity, offering a more parsimonious yet theoretically grounded structure for understanding convergence competencies in the HASS context. The details of factor loadings, communalities, and reliability coefficients are presented in Table 5.
The total explained variance of the five factors was 65.433%. The appropriateness of each preliminary item was examined, and items with communalities below 0.4 were removed, resulting in a final set of 20 items. As a few of the original preliminary items were removed, EFA was conducted again on the 20 items.
To verify whether the observed variables followed a multivariate normal distribution in the reanalysis, skewness and kurtosis were examined. Skewness ranged from –0.678 to 0.512, and kurtosis ranged from –1.123 to 1.044, indicating that the assumption of multivariate normality was met. The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001, Chi-square = 2946.691, df = 190), and the KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) measure was 0.925, exceeding the threshold of 0.5, confirming that the data matrix was suitable for factor analysis. To verify the reliability of each factor, Cronbach’s α values were calculated, and the reliability of the five factors ranged from 0.802 to 0.912, indicating acceptable levels.

4.4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In this study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the same dataset owing to practical constraints. While this approach provides preliminary evidence of construct validity, it may pose the risk of overfitting. Future studies should validate the factor structure using an independent sample to ensure generalizability.
To evaluate the five-factor structure derived from the EFA, a CFA was performed. The model fit indices revealed a Chi-square value of χ2 (160) = 378.786 (p < 0.001), with a CMIN/DF of 2.367, which falls within the acceptable range (<3.00), indicating a reasonable model fit.
Regarding absolute fit indices, the results were RMR = 0.053, RMSEA = 0.054, GFI = 0.902, and AGFI = 0.878. These values meet or approximate the commonly accepted thresholds (RMR < 0.08, RMSEA < 0.06, GFI ≥ 0.90, AGFI ≥ 0.85), indicating satisfactory model fit. Incremental fit indices also supported model adequacy, with NFI = 0.921, IFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.937, and CFI = 0.952, all exceeding the 0.90 benchmark. A summary of model fit statistics is provided in Table 6.
Taken together, the results confirm that the proposed five-factor model aligns well with the empirical data (Figure 2). This supports the structural validity of the convergence competency assessment tool and confirms its potential as a psychometrically sound instrument.

4.5. Finalized Items

Following the processes of preliminary item selection, EFA, and CFA, the final version of the diagnostic tool for convergence competencies in future-ready students was confirmed with five factors and 20 items. The tool followed a multivariate normal distribution and was verified to be suitable for factor analysis based on Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the KMO measure. Internal consistency reliability was also acceptable for all five factors.
To further evaluate the reliability of the finalized tool, Cronbach’s α was calculated using responses from 469 valid cases. The overall reliability coefficient was 0.919, indicating a high level of internal consistency. The α values remained stable (ranging from 0.912 to 0.919) even when individual items were removed, suggesting minimal impact of single items on the overall reliability. These results confirm that the tool possesses high reliability and can serve as a valid instrument for measuring convergence competencies.

5. Conclusions and Implications

This study aimed to theoretically and empirically identify the components of convergence competencies required for a sustainable future society, targeting undergraduate students in HASS, and to develop and validate a self-assessment tool. In contrast to existing research that often focuses on abstract descriptions or STEM-centric tools, this study contributes to the literature by proposing HASS-specific indicators of convergence competence.
First, the study integrated key elements emphasized in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)—systems thinking, collaboration, future responsiveness, etc.—into a structured competency model. The model encompasses attitudinal dimensions (e.g., interdisciplinary inclusiveness, convergence mindset, etc.), cognitive dimensions (e.g., understanding of convergent knowledge, integrative learning, etc.), and behavioral dimensions (e.g., collaborative communication, problem-solving, future efficacy, etc.). This comprehensive structure aligns closely with the notion of “interdisciplinary competence for transition and transformation” [35].
Second, through EFA and CFA, the tool’s reliability and validity were empirically verified, confirming its potential for practical use in HASS educational settings. The high structural coherence among factors and internal consistency of items suggest applicability across diverse learning environments.
Third, the tool not only facilitates individual-level diagnosis of convergence competence, but also serves as an evaluation instrument to assess and improve curriculum effectiveness at the department, college, and consortium levels. It offers a foundation for competency-based quality assurance and feedback mechanisms in higher education.

5.1. Practical and Policy Implications

5.1.1. Use as a Feedback Tool for Convergence Curriculum

The tool can be applied to pre- and post-assessments in general education, co-curricular, and interdisciplinary programs, including MOOCs and PBL-based or cross-campus collaborative courses. It enables quantitative evaluation of program outcomes and provides evidence for program refinement.

5.1.2. Design of Personalized Learning Pathways Based on Diagnostic Results

By analyzing individual diagnostic results, tailored learning paths can be suggested, including recommended courses, co-curricular activities, and external experiences aligned with career goals. Integration with digital learning management systems (LMSs) can support implementation.

5.1.3. Expansion Across Fields and Policy Integration

While developed for HASS, the tool can be extended to STEM and used for cross-disciplinary comparisons, regional or demographic gap analyses, and studies on the educational impact on underrepresented groups. It can serve as a foundation for national policies such as quality assurance in higher education.

5.1.4. Faculty Development and Pedagogical Innovation

In addition to learner assessment, the tool can be applied to evaluate the effectiveness of faculty development programs, such as “Teaching for Sustainability.” It enables feedback on convergence course design and supports instructional improvement.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the convergence education literature by offering an empirically grounded model specific to the HASS context. In contrast to conventional competency frameworks that focus primarily on cognitive or technical skills, this model integrates ethical reasoning, interdisciplinary integration, and future-oriented thinking into a unified measurement structure. It thereby expands existing paradigms of 21st-century and sustainability competencies. The tool also operationalizes often underrepresented epistemic and affective dimensions, offering new directions for research on learner development in complex social systems.

5.3. Managerial Implications for Educational Institutions

From an institutional management perspective, the tool supports evidence-informed governance of convergence education. It can be embedded into student onboarding, course evaluation, or program-level assessment cycles, enabling longitudinal tracking of learner growth. Such integration supports data-driven curriculum planning, targeted resource allocation, and internal quality assurance. Importantly, it offers a scalable solution for aligning university programs with national initiatives such as the HUSS program, which promotes convergence competencies through consortium-based curriculum development.

5.4. Future Research Directions

To enhance the generalizability of the proposed diagnostic tool, future studies should examine its applicability across diverse age groups, cultural back-grounds, and academic disciplines. Multi-group analyses can help test measurement invariance and reveal how convergence competencies manifest in varying contexts. Additionally, alternative or complementary assessment methods, such as peer evaluations, portfolios, and instructor ratings should be considered to address the limitations of self-reported data.
Further research may also employ structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the predictive relationships between convergence competency levels and educational outcomes such as academic performance, engagement, or career performance.
Given that the current validation was conducted solely within South Korean higher education, cross-national studies are necessary to evaluate the cultural sensitivity and institutional adaptability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.J.; data collection, Y.N. and I.S.; formal analysis, Y.N. and I.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.J.; writing—review and editing, H.J., Y.N. and I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Dankook University, Internal Research Fund, grant number DKU-IRF(Internal Research Fund)-R-2022-01116. The authors would like to thank the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) for supporting the data collection for this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study in accordance with national regulations and the institutional guidelines of Dankook University. The study involved a voluntary, non-anonymous online survey without collection of sensitive or identifiable data. Informed consent was obtained through survey participation.

Informed Consent Statement

The study involved a voluntary online survey without collection of sensitive or personally identifiable data.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the following individuals at the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) for their invaluable support and guidance throughout the course of this study: Bong Moon Kim, Director, RISE Center, NRF Woo-Young Kim, Team Leader, RISE Center, NRF Seo Yeong Kang, Researcher, University-Industry Cooperation Foundation Team Their insights and encouragement significantly contributed to the development and refinement of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
STEMScience, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
HASSHumanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
CVRContent Validity Ratio
ESDEducation for Sustainable Development
SGDsSustainable Development Goals
IoTInternet of Things
WEFWorld Economic Forum
EFAExploratory Factor Analysis
CFAConfirmatory Factor Analysis
IRBInstitutional Review Board
HUSSHumanities Utmost Sharing System
IQRInterquartile Range
KMOKaiser–Meyer–Olkin
MOOCMassive Open Online Courses
PBLProblem Based Learning
SEMStructural Equation Modeling

References

  1. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  2. Redman, A.; Wiek, A. Competencies for advancing transformations towards sustainability. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 785163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bammer, G. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brassler, M.; Dettmers, J. How to enhance interdisciplinary competence—Interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2017, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Braßler, M. Interdisciplinary problem-based learning—A student-centered pedagogy to teach social sustainable development in higher education. In Teaching Education for Sustainable Development at University Level; Leal Filho, W., Pace, P., Eds.; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wiek, A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C.L. Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brundiers, K.; Barth, M.; Cebrián, G.; Cohen, M.; Diaz, L.; Doucette-Remington, S.; Dripps, W.; Habron, G.; Harré, N.; Jarchow, M.; et al. Key Competencies in Sustainability in Higher Education—Toward an Agreed-Upon Reference Framework. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cunningham, J.A.; Miller, K.; Perea-Vicente, J.L. Academic entrepreneurship in the humanities and social sciences: A systematic literature review and research agenda. J. Technol. Transf. 2024, 49, 1880–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huh, J. A study on limitations and possibilities of convergence education in engineering. J. Eng. Educ. Res. 2019, 22, 46–54. Available online: https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201910537995444.page (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  10. Padmanabhan, J. Integration of Education for Sustainable Development with Competency-Based Education. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohd-Barkati/publication/385936886_Education_Technology_and_Sustainability/links/673ef9c888177c79e83c9cbb/Education-Technology-and-Sustainability.pdf#page=35 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  11. Kim, H.; Ryou, O. Case study of development of competency-based convergence subject in higher education: Focused on the development guidelines and principles of ‘Practice on Manufacturing Systems’. J. Learn.-Cent. Curr. Instr. 2021, 21, 767–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Choi, H. Development of university convergence major standards to promote key competencies. J. Holist. Converg. Educ. 2020, 24, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hong, B. Current diagnosis for convergence education and measures to improve convergence capacity. Korean J. Gen. Educ. 2016, 10, 13–35. Available online: https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002178341 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  14. World Economic Forum (WEF). The Future of Jobs Report 2023; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  15. World Economic Forum (WEF). The Future of Jobs Report 2025; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  16. Jones, P.; Selby, D.; Sterling, S. More than the sum of their parts? Interdisciplinarity and sustainability. In Sustainability Education; Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 17–37. [Google Scholar]
  17. Usca, N.; Samaniego, M.; Yerbabuena, C.; Pérez, I. Arts and humanities education: A systematic review of emerging technologies and their contribution to social well-being. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Novis-Deutsch, N.; Cohen, E.; Alexander, H.; Rahamian, L.; Gavish, U.; Glick, O.; Mann, A. Interdisciplinary learning in the humanities: Knowledge building and identity work. J. Learn. Sci. 2024, 33, 284–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Amsler, S.; Facer, K. Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: Exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures 2017, 94, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Evans, T.L. Competencies and pedagogies for sustainability education: A roadmap for sustainability studies program development in colleges and universities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Haan, G. Gestaltungskompetenz als Kompetenzkonzept der Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. In Kompetenzen der Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2008; pp. 23–43. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-De-Haan/publication/226689376_Gestaltungskompetenz_als_Kompetenzkonzept_der_Bildung_fur_nachhaltige_Entwicklung/links/56c4562608ae7fd4625a1755/Gestaltungskompetenz-als-Kompetenzkonzept-der-Bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-Entwicklung.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2025).
  22. Sposab, K.; Rieckmann, M. Development of sustainability competencies in secondary school education: A scoping literature review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Annelin, A.; Boström, G.O. An Assessment of Key Sustainability Competencies: A Review of Scales and Propositions for Validation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 24, 53–69. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijshe-05-2022-0166/full/html (accessed on 21 June 2025). [CrossRef]
  24. Vare, P.; Arro, G.; de Hamer, A.; Del Gobbo, G.; de Vries, G.; Farioli, F.; Kadji-Beltran, C.; Kangur, M.; Mayer, M.; Millican, R.; et al. Devising a competence-based training program for educators of sustainable development: Lessons learned. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Venn, R.; Perez, P.; Vandenbussche, V. Competencies of sustainability professionals: An empirical study on key competencies for sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sipos, Y.; Battisti, B.; Grimm, K. Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sterling, S.; Thomas, I. Education for sustainability: The role of capabilities in guiding university curricula. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 1, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kearins, K.; Springett, D. Educating for sustainability: Developing critical skills. J. Manag. Educ. 2003, 27, 188–204. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1052562903251411 (accessed on 24 June 2025). [CrossRef]
  30. Rieckmann, M. Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 2012, 44, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Crofton, F. Educating for sustainability: Opportunities in undergraduate engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 2000, 8, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frisk, E.; Larson, K. Educating for sustainability: Competencies & practices for transformative action. J. Sustain. Educ. 2011. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/3083852613/71A9703D44AF4176PQ/1?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  33. Lans, T.; Blok, V.; Wesselink, R. Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 62, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tariq, M.U. Enhancing students and learning achievement as 21st-century skills through transdisciplinary approaches. In Transdisciplinary Approaches to Learning Outcomes in Higher Education; Kumar, R., Ong, E., Anggoro, S., Toh, T., Eds.; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 220–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zeidan, H.; Rai, S.S.; Zweekhorst, M.B. Transdisciplinary competencies for transformation. In Transdisciplinarity for Transformation: Responding to Societal Challenges through Multi-Actor, Reflexive Practices; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 469–495. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Development and validation process of the self-assessment tool.
Figure 1. Development and validation process of the self-assessment tool.
Sustainability 17 07131 g001
Figure 2. Final confirmatory factor model for the convergence competency scale. Note: CH: Convergence Competency items for HASS learners (as defined in the EFA section).
Figure 2. Final confirmatory factor model for the convergence competency scale. Note: CH: Convergence Competency items for HASS learners (as defined in the EFA section).
Sustainability 17 07131 g002
Table 1. Convergence competency clusters, definitions, and related concepts.
Table 1. Convergence competency clusters, definitions, and related concepts.
Competency ClusterDefinitionRelated Key CompetenciesSources
Multidisciplinary OpennessA mindset characterized by openness and curiosity toward diverse academic fields, new perspectives, and unfamiliar knowledge and phenomenaSystems thinking, Holistic thinking, Interdisciplinary work, Transdisciplinarity, Openness, Diversity of perspectives, Curiosity[7,30,31]
Integrative WillingnessA proactive orientation to view issues and phenomena through the convergence of various perspectives, knowledge, and informationValues-thinking Competency, Value diversity, Reflexivity, Participation, Trans-cultural understanding, Empathy, Inclusion[7,31,32,33]
Convergent LearningThe ability to analyze and synthesize knowledge across disciplines to derive new insights through reasoning and reflectionStrategic-thinking Competency, Problem-solving, Critical thinking, Learning for change[7,33,34]
Collaborative ConvergenceThe social ability to communicate and cooperate effectively with individuals from diverse academic backgrounds and information domainsInterpersonal Competency, Communication, Collaboration, Conflict resolution, Solidarity, Networking, Building teams, Social engagement[7,30,35]
Futures LiteracyThe competency to identify signals of future change, make data-informed predictions, and define emerging tasks and challengesFutures-thinking Competency, Anticipatory thinking, Foresight, Scenario creation, Trans-generational thinking, Identifying signals[7,33,34]
Future EfficacyThe self-efficacy and social agency to proactively engage with uncertain futures and generate positive transformationImplementation Competency, Change agency, Action-taking, Social responsibility[7,30,33]
Table 2. Refinement of the definition of future convergence competencies through the Delphi survey.
Table 2. Refinement of the definition of future convergence competencies through the Delphi survey.
VersionDefinitionM (SD)CVR
Initial DraftThe ability to create new convergent values required by future society through understanding and integrative thinking across various academic domains4.00 (1.22)0.60
Final Version (Revised after the Delphi Survey)The ability to create novel and meaningful values required by future society and industries through understanding and integrative thinking across various academic domains4.70 (0.45)1.00
Table 3. Content validity results of future convergence competency components from Delphi rounds 2 and 3.
Table 3. Content validity results of future convergence competency components from Delphi rounds 2 and 3.
Competency DomainSub-CompetencyDefinitionRound 2
M (SD)
CVRRound 3
M (SD)
CVR
Convergent AttitudesMultidisciplinary OpennessA mindset of openness and curiosity toward various academic fields, perspectives, and knowledge when observing phenomena4.1 (0.831)0.804.3 (0.640)1.00
Integrative Mindset/WillingnessThe willingness to engage in convergent thinking across diverse and novel perspectives to understand and address problems and phenomena4.0 (1.000)0.804.4 (0.663)1.00
Convergent KnowledgeUnderstanding of Integrative KnowledgeThe capacity to comprehend various disciplines and perspectives through a convergence-oriented lens4.2 (0.872)0.804.4 (0.490)1.00
Convergent LearningThe ability to analyze and synthesize diverse disciplinary knowledge and perspectives to generate new insights through reasoning4.2 (0.979)0.804.5 (0.671)1.00
Convergent PracticeCollaborative CommunicationThe capacity to communicate and collaborate effectively with individuals from various academic backgrounds based on shared information and knowledge4.2 (0.979)0.804.3 (0.900)0.80
Convergent Problem-SolvingThe competency to examine diverse perspectives and alternatives to propose convergent solutions to complex problems3.7 (1.100)0.604.3 (0.640)1.00
Futures OrientationFutures LiteracyThe ability to identify and define future problems and goals through structured foresight and exploration4.2 (1.077)0.804.3 (0.900)1.00
Future EfficacyThe ability to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in the future and to make meaningful choices and actions that influence oneself, organizations, and society3.8 (0.980)0.804.3 (0.900)1.00
Table 4. Delphi validation summary.
Table 4. Delphi validation summary.
Competency ClusterItem No.DraftFinal
M (SD)CVRRevision StatusRevised ItemM (SD)CVR
Multidisciplinary Openness13.8 (1.249)0.800RetainedI believe that people may think differently depending on their environment or culture.4.5 (0.671)1.000
23.6 (1.497)0.600RevisedI acknowledge the perspectives of peers who hold views different from mine.4.8 (0.400)1.000
34.3 (0.900)0.800RetainedI actively incorporate diverse contexts and information when solving problems.4.7 (0.458)1.000
43.3 (0.900)0.400Deleted
53.5 (1.118)0.600RevisedI believe it is important to learn about various subjects and academic disciplines.4.4 (0.663)1.000
62.6 (1.019)0.200Deleted
73.0 (1.095)0.400Deleted
82.9 (0.943)0.400Deleted
93.4 (1.357)0.400Deleted
103.3 (1.005)0.800RevisedI enjoy asking questions about various subjects and academic fields.4.2 (0.872)1.000
113.6 (1.200)0.800RevisedI am curious about new knowledge related to various subjects and academic fields.4.5 (0.671)1.000
Integrative Mindset/Willingness13.7 (1.418)0.600RevisedI try to explain complex situations by applying knowledge from various fields.4.7 (0.458)1.000
24.0 (1.1832)0.800RevisedI try to utilize knowledge from multiple disciplines when creating new outcomes.4.5 (0.671)1.000
33.4 (1.281)0.400RevisedI try to solve problems by integrating knowledge from various domains.4.3 (0.781)1.000
44.0 (0.894)0.800RevisedI try to apply interdisciplinary knowledge to solve problems.4.4 (0.663)1.000
53.3 (1.345)0.400Deleted
63.2 (1.249)0.400Deleted
73.5 (1.432)0.400RevisedI am open to thinking from the perspective of experts in other fields.4.0 (0.775)0.800
83.1 (1.300)0.200Deleted
93.1 (1.300)0.200Deleted
Understanding of Integrative Knowledge13.7 (0.781)0.800RevisedI tend to apply diverse knowledge and experiences when solving problems.4.3 (0.640)1.000
23.8 (1.327)0.600RevisedWhen needed, I actively seek to understand knowledge from unfamiliar fields.4.1 (1.044)0.800
33.7 (1.269)0.600RevisedI try to understand various disciplines to approach problems comprehensively.4.0 (1.183)0.600
44.1 (0.943)0.800RevisedI believe it is necessary to understand knowledge from diverse fields depending on the problem context.4.6 (0.916)0.800
53.7 (1.269)0.600RevisedI believe that real-world problems are interconnected across multiple domains of knowledge.4.4 (1.019)0.800
63.1 (1.300)0.200Deleted
73.5 (1.360)0.400Deleted
83.7 (1.005)0.600RevisedI can generate new ideas by combining interrelated knowledge.4.5 (0.671)1.000
93.8 (1.166)0.600Deleted
103.7 (1.187)0.600RetainedI try to learn new knowledge from a variety of disciplines.3.9 (1.044)0.800
113.1 (1.044)0.600RetainedI enjoy working on collaborative projects with students from different majors, such as engineering, humanities, or arts.4.1 (1.221)0.600
123.1 (1.300)0.200Deleted
Integrated Learning for Convergence12.8 (1.166)0.000Deleted
23.0 (1.341)0.200Deleted
33.3 (1.345)0.400Deleted
43.4 (1.200)0.600RetainedI am able to identify links between different academic disciplines.4.2 (0.748)1.000
53.6 (1.281)0.600RetainedI can discover connections between seemingly unrelated things or phenomena and integrate them appropriately.4.4 (0.663)1.000
63.8 (1.327)0.600Deleted
73.2 (1.400)0.600RevisedI make an effort to find connections between my major and other disciplines.4.3 (0.900)0.800
84.0 (1.183)0.800RevisedI can comprehend and internalize new knowledge and apply it to other domains.4.4 (0.489)1.000
93.8 (1.166)0.800RetainedI strive to integrate newly acquired knowledge and information with my existing understanding.4.4 (0.916)0.800
103.6 (1.200)0.800RetainedI often think about how to combine my disciplinary knowledge with other fields.4.0 (1.000)0.800
Convergent Communication and Collaboration14.2 (0.872)0.800RetainedI respect diverse viewpoints and can work cooperatively with individuals who hold different perspectives.4.5 (0.500)1.000
23.6 (1.019)0.600Deleted
34.1 (0.943)0.800RevisedI can co-construct and expand new knowledge and understanding through interactions with others.4.7 (0.458)1.000
44.3 (1.005)0.800RetainedI am able to accept information, knowledge, and viewpoints from fields outside of my own major.4.5 (0.671)1.000
53.7 (0.900)0.800RetainedI am open to accepting ideas that differ from my own.4.6 (0.489)1.000
64.3 (0.900)0.800RetainedI can communicate and collaborate with individuals from different academic disciplines or perspectives.4.7 (0.458)1.000
73.4 (1.200)0.800Deleted
83.3 (1.100)0.800Deleted
93.5 (1.360)0.600Deleted
103.8 (1.166)0.800RetainedI enjoy learning through mutual communication between my field of study and other disciplines.4.5 (0.500)1.000
Convergent Problem Solving13.8 (1.166)0.600RetainedI can gather relevant information about a problem and derive a valid solution.4.5 (0.671)1.000
23.4 (1.114)0.400Deleted
33.6 (1.114)0.600Deleted
43.5 (1.432)0.400Deleted
53.0 (0.894)0.400RetainedI can apply diverse perspectives to solve problems and identify their success factors.4.0 (0.894)0.800
63.2 (0.979)0.400Deleted
73.5 (1.025)0.600Deleted
83.5 (1.025)0.600RevisedI seek solutions to problems from multiple perspectives.4.7 (0.458)1.000
93.4 (1.019)0.600Deleted
103.7 (1.345)0.400RevisedI can prioritize and choose the most effective and appropriate method for solving a problem.4.2 (0.979)0.800
114.0 (0.894)0.800RetainedI can search for the information needed to solve a problem using multiple methods.4.5 (0.500)1.000
123.6 (1.114)0.600RetainedI can set criteria to decide among various problem-solving approaches.4.1 (1.044)0.800
Future Issue Recognition13.5 (0.922)0.600RevisedI become interested when I hear about future technologies or societal changes.4.4 (0.663)1.000
23.1 (1.136)0.400RetainedI enjoy discussing future technologies and societal changes.4.4 (0.800)1.000
33.2 (1.327)0.400Deleted
44.2 (0.979)0.800Deleted
53.6 (1.114)0.600Deleted
63.3 (1.269)0.400Deleted
73.6 (1.114)0.600Deleted
83.6 (1.114)0.600Deleted
93.7 (1.100)0.600RevisedI can identify and analyze errors or hidden intentions in future-related information.4.2 (0.871)1.000
104.1 (0.943)0.800RevisedI can compare and analyze various sources to understand different perspectives on the future.4.6 (0.489)1.000
114.0 (1.000)0.800RevisedI can recognize and predict patterns of change based on future-related information.4.4 (0.663)1.000
123.9 (1.044)0.800RevisedI can synthesize past and present data to derive implications for the future.4.6 (0.489)1.000
Future Efficacy13.9 (0.943)0.800RetainedI believe that today’s choices and actions can change our future.4.6 (0.663)1.000
23.6 (1.281)0.600RevisedI believe that present decisions can influence future outcomes.4.5 (0.671)1.000
34.1 (0.943)0.800RevisedI believe it is important to take actions that bring positive change in the future.4.6 (0.663)1.000
43.3 (1.486)0.400RevisedEven in the face of an uncertain future, I can respond with a willingness to change.4.2 (1.166)0.800
53.7 (1.005)0.600RetainedEven when others are pessimistic about the future, I believe we can develop responses together.4.2 (1.249)0.800
63.7 (1.269)0.600RetainedI am confident that I can overcome various difficulties in preparing for the future.4.2 (1.166)0.800
Table 5. Exploratory factor structure and psychometric properties of the convergence competency scale.
Table 5. Exploratory factor structure and psychometric properties of the convergence competency scale.
Factor NameItem CodesNormality TestFactorReliability
SkewnessKurtosisFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5Communality
Convergent Commitment (Factor 1)CH07−1.0110.5740.7350.1750.0630.2180.2230.6550.866
CH06−1.0420.7790.7170.1330.1100.2790.1890.643
CH08−1.1371.3440.6860.1760.1990.2190.1870.620
CH05−1.0120.8930.6200.2120.1770.1900.2350.560
Future Problem Awareness (Factor 2)CH18−1.1000.9550.1830.7570.1800.2560.0710.6660.866
CH16−1.1870.7290.1270.7470.1480.2280.1320.610
CH19−0.9790.3450.2230.5980.2020.2950.1420.568
CH17−0.9570.1830.2240.5890.2860.3000.2210.648
Future Efficacy (Factor 3)CH21−1.7683.7970.1350.1040.7900.1080.1260.6390.839
CH22−2.0475.6990.1250.1730.7720.1180.1080.652
CH20−1.4472.6840.1010.1520.7140.1600.1340.596
CH24−1.4672.3200.1530.3920.5200.1100.1170.439
Convergent Learning
(Factor 4)
CH11−0.6120.2680.2410.2570.0670.6680.1560.5770.816
CH12−0.7400.2290.2490.2140.1820.6070.1210.517
CH13−0.7260.4970.2470.2450.2060.6000.1220.549
CH10−0.4720.1290.1770.2380.1150.5770.1790.462
Multidisciplinary Inclusiveness
(Factor 5)
CH04−1.1870.9330.2430.1890.0960.1830.7200.6540.758
CH03−2.1516.1300.2090.2340.0370.1580.6590.538
CH02−1.4913.3980.164−0.0200.2410.0900.6040.470
CH01−2.1366.0110.3590.1040.2280.1360.5710.495
Eigenvalue6.0342.6532.2011.6451.411
% Variance Explained30.16913.26511.0078.2257.055
Cumulative % Variance30.16943.43454.44162.66669.721
Note: CH01–CH24 are item codes used throughout this study. “CH” stands for “Convergence Competency for HASS,” indicating that the items were developed to assess convergence competencies specific to humanities, arts, and social sciences learners.
Table 6. Model fit statistics for the five-factor CFA model.
Table 6. Model fit statistics for the five-factor CFA model.
χ2 (df)NFITLICFIRMSEA
378.786 (160)0.9210.9370.9520.054
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jung, H.; Song, I.; Noh, Y. Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Convergence Competencies in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences for Sustainable Futures in the South Korean Context. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157131

AMA Style

Jung H, Song I, Noh Y. Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Convergence Competencies in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences for Sustainable Futures in the South Korean Context. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157131

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jung, Hyojung, Inyoung Song, and Younghee Noh. 2025. "Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Convergence Competencies in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences for Sustainable Futures in the South Korean Context" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157131

APA Style

Jung, H., Song, I., & Noh, Y. (2025). Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Convergence Competencies in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences for Sustainable Futures in the South Korean Context. Sustainability, 17(15), 7131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157131

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop