David Olsson, Karlstad University
Why Review Measurement Instruments of Action Competence?
Imagine a classroom where students spend weeks learning about climate change, environmental degradation, unsustainable practices, and their social implications. How do we know if this makes them feel empowered and motivated to make a difference, both individually and collectively? And if they feel empowered, in what sense and under which circumstances would that be the case? To answer these questions, and to refine teaching and learning activities based on the answers, there’s a need for instruments that can assess different forms of action competence and learners’ motivation under different circumstances.
In a systematic review, researchers at Karlstad University and Utrecht University set out to investigate the potential of the existing validated self-assessment scales in these regards. Their findings point to significant shortcomings but also to ways forward.
Approaching Adequate Self-Assessments of Action Competence
Action competence is crucial to empower citizen engagement on climate and sustainability issues. Adequate assessments of action competence need to encompass three interconnected components:
- Knowledge of Action Possibilities. Learners understand what can be done and have the skills to contribute to solving environmental challenges.
- Confidence in One’s Own Influence. Learners believe they are good at performing the actions and believe that they can make a difference.
- Willingness to Act. Learners feel motivated and genuinely want to contribute to make a difference.
Based on insights from different theories of democracy and social change, we argue that measurement instruments also should be capable of assessing action competence for different forms of individual and collective action. These encompass actions oriented toward helping individuals make sustainable choices, but also actions for promoting systemic change. Furthermore, credible assessments of motivation need to include circumstances when actions come at a cost, such as social pressure, inconvenience, or monetary costs.
Aims of the Study
Informed by theories of social change and democracy, as well as a systematic review of self-assessment scales designed to assess action competence and closely related learning objectives in environmental and sustainability education, the study had two main aims:
- To identify validated self-assessment scales designed to measure action competence for sustainability and environmentally friendly actions.
- To identify potential shortcomings in these scales in terms of their ability to: (a) clearly distinguish between individual and collective action competence, (b) assess teaching and learning activities focused on individually driven and systemically oriented actions for social change, and (c) explicitly relate learners’ willingness to act to different costs. If such shortcomings were found, the authors also examined whether other self-assessment scales in the review offer hints on how these aspects of action competence could be better assessed.
Shortcomings of Existing Self-Assessment Instruments
Key Finding #1: The validated self-assessment scales on action competence (ACiSD-Q, SPACIC, and SPACS-Q) do not clearly distinguish between individual and collective action competence. Consequently, the feedback they can provide does not distinctly indicate whether the teaching and learning activities promote individual or collective action competence, or both. Most democratic theories – such as deliberative and agonistic democracy – highlight collective action competence as central to active citizenship (although not using that term), e.g. being able to deliberate, organize and act together in public. Market-based theories of democracy, by contrast, focus on individuals acting as ‘consumer citizens’, influencing politics mainly by acting as rational political consumers. It should be emphasized that the shortcoming is that the scales fail to make clear distinctions between individual and collective action competence (and don’t include enough items to adequately measure them both). However, the study also shows that the scales encompass examples of items that measure individual and collective action competence.
Key Finding #2: The validated self-assessment scales fail to provide clear measures of action competence oriented toward systemic change. Individually oriented actions, such as sustainable consumption choices, are however assessed in two of them (ACiSD-Q and SPACIC). These instruments are thus incapable of providing explicit feedback on the extent to which learners perceive themselves to be knowledgeable, competent, and willing to contribute to a systemic transformation of the societies they live in – a core aspect of citizen empowerment. One of the scales (SPACS‑Q) does however include items that are abstract enough to, in principle, enable implicit assessments of systemically oriented teaching and learning activities, but only if such activities are clearly specified and assessed separately from individually oriented ones.
Key Finding #3: None of the scales assess action competence under circumstances where actions come at a cost, such as increased inconvenience, monetary costs, or social pressures. The items in these scales simply ask students to rate their willingness to act. Since many real-life situations of acting for sustainability are connected to costs, there is a significant risk that the assessment of their willingness will be overestimated with existing instruments. By implication, the effect that teaching and learning activities have on learners’ motivation will also be exaggerated.
Ways forward
Although the validated self-assessment scales on action competence have shortcomings, our study points to ways in which new instruments could resolve these. Some of the reviewed self-assessment scales, designed to measure closely related learning outcomes, do for instance make clearer distinctions between individual and collective actions. Others include examples of items that could form part of assessing action competence oriented toward systemic change. In some of these scales, there are also examples of items that explicitly relate motivation to act for sustainability to monetary costs, inconvenience, and social pressure. Taken together, these examples sketch a design brief for a new generation of action competence scales: instruments that clearly distinguish individual and collective action, capture action competence for both individual and systemic change, and assess willingness to act even when it’s costly. Developing such an instrument is one of the core tasks of the EU-funded IMP>ACT project, which aims to build a robust assessment framework for sustainability and climate change education.
You can find the full publication by clicking on the link.