“seeing the forest for the trees”
Güliz Karaarslan-Semiz, David Olsson
The main purpose of IMP>ACT project is to develop a valid, reliable and user-centered assessment framework that can be used by practitioners in policy ad practice in formal and non-formal learning contexts to measure the impact of Sustainability and Climate Change Education (SCCE). Action competence (key learning outcome of SCCE) and action orientation (action-oriented teaching and learning approaches in SCCE) are the core concepts of IMP>ACT assessment framework. Through the project, we will develop innovative measurement instruments for these concepts and we will pilot and validate these instruments through the case studies and interventions, in close collaboration with actors from SCCE policy and practice. Our work started with conducting two systematic literature reviews of scientific publications: one on action competence and one on action orientation. In this blogpost, we reflect on the process and outcomes of these reviews.
The literature review on the concept of action competence focused on conceptualization and systematic search for core measurement instruments covering action competence in SCCE across diverse contexts and age groups. In a similar way, the literature review on action orientation aimed to determine initial quality criteria and identify measurement instruments related to action-oriented teaching and learning approaches, as well as educators’ competencies in SCCE.
The literature reviews were conducted by searching empirical and theoretical papers from two data bases: Scopus and Web of Science. We focused on papers published in English and included studies from all years. In order to search articles, we used various keywords such as action competence, action-orientation, sustainability education, education for sustainable development, environmental education, education for sustainability, climate change education, competence, competency, assessment and evaluation etc. (as well as Boolean search strings combining several keywords such as these). To identify the relevant research and ensure the quality of the review process, we defined several criteria for selecting the publications such as 1) articles and book chapters published in peer-reviewed journals or books 2) empirical or theoretical papers 3) those related to action competence and action orientation in the context of SCCE 4) studies at primary, secondary and higher education levels 4) those in formal and non-formal settings. We excluded publications that focused on pre-school education or health promotion and health issues, as well as literature lacking theoretical or empirical evidence.
While reading the articles, we focused on the purpose of the studies, their methodologies, settings, data collection tools, major findings, recommendations, concepts being assessed, assessment types and target users, as well as a few more themes relevant for each particular review. Through the two systematic literature reviews, we had complementary aims. Identifying gaps in the literature, the review on action orientation focused on mapping fundamental quality criteria for action-oriented learning and teaching approaches in SCCE and how core competencies for teachers and educators implementing action-oriented learning were defined. In the review on action competence, we also identified gaps in the literature and possibilities to develop better instruments, suited to assess different aspects of learners’ action competence.
The results of the literature reviews will thus guide us in developing innovative measurement instruments in order to assess action-oriented teaching and learning approaches, educators’ SCCE competencies and action competence of learners. In addition to scientific aspects of the literature review process, we also want to share our personal insights gained during this journey.
Güliz: “For me, the literature review process was an inductive journey. At the beginning, I read numerous articles that presented a wide range of concepts and frameworks, causing me feeling confused. However, as I progressed and through the joint discussions with my colleague, my understanding gradually deepened, and I began to see the bigger picture—an example of ‘seeing the forest for the trees.’ As I delved further into the process, I became more critical in my reading, identifying limitations in the research methods of some empirical articles, particularly the lack of explicit discussion on instrument validity. On the positive side, I observed a growing interest in action competence and action-oriented learning and teaching approaches within the literature. Overall, reading a large amount of information related to action orientation in SCCE and educators’ competencies enriched my understanding and broadened my perspective and empowered me to make meaningful contributions to the IMP>ACT project.”
David: “For me, the process of working with this literature review has both been inspiring and, at times frustrating. Developing proper search terms, Boolean search strings and relevant exclusion criteria to pinpoint the most relevant literature, and reading through over a thousand abstracts and hundreds of studies in their entirety, were indeed tedious work. However, I have not been alone in this process. The support from other researchers in the project has resulted in many creative and productive conversations, allowing new ideas to emerge and help the work to move forward. Hence, it has been just as much a collective as an individual effort – a good example of productive teamwork. This ongoing work has already provided many insights that could be of great importance for the further work in the project. To me, the most exciting finding is the diversity of types of instruments for assessing action competence and related concepts that we have identified (although some types of instruments are much more abundant than others), each with their particular strengths and weaknesses. This diversity offers many intriguing possibilities for creative combinations of instruments, enabling us to capture all aspects of action competence more adequately. Although such combinations will likely pose many challenges, I look forward to further explore these, and other, development possibilities with my project partners.
Moving the work forward, we will proceed to draft two academic papers, one for each literature review. These will be presented and discussed with other project members of IMP>ACT in Antwerp in September 2024. The aim of these discussions use the insights from the reviews to bring us closer to the overall aim of the project: to develop a valid, reliable and user-centered assessment framework that can be used by actor from policy and practice in formal and non-formal learning contexts to measure the impact of Sustainability and Climate Change Education (SCCE) practices. This will allow designers and implementers of SCCE policies, curricula and practices to collect information on the impact they achieve, and as such drive improved feedback loops between research, policy and practice. This ensures that SCCE materials, tools, interventions, and curricula stay relevant, and leads to evidence-based quality improvement of SCCE policies and practices.
Dr. Güliz Karaarslan-Semiz is a research associate in educational sciences at University of Vechta, Germany. Her research interests include environmental and sustainability education in teacher education, systems thinking, outdoor learning, and the whole school approach to sustainability.
Dr. David Olsson is an associate professor in political science at Karlstad university, Sweden. Among his research interests are the exploration and development of new and innovative ways of promoting teaching and learning for environmental and sustainability education. However, he is also conducting research on governance, political organization and policies for climate change adaptation and sustainable development more broadly.