Deconstructing action competence: developing a case for a more scientifically-attentive environmental education

Abstract

Environmental education tends to be characterized by a rhetoric of action-taking, and the call for the development of personal action competence is one manifestation of this. This paper critically examines recent work on the concept of action competence. This is seen as a set of capabilities which equip people with the ability to take purposive and focused action, and which embodies a democratic commitment to be participants in the continuing shaping of society—on their own terms and in their own ways. Action competence is seen by some as a crucial outcome for environmental education because it brings together the processes and practices of education with the need to develop democratic citizenship skills and values, and with the nature of the ecological, social and environmental crises facing the world. This paper acknowledges the contribution such concepts make to environmental education, but takes issue with a tendency within action competence to undervalue the place of science in the construction of knowledge and understanding of environmental issues. We argue that, despíte being dismissed by many environmental educators, science has a significant role to play within effective environmental education, particularly through the achievement of scientific literacy and capability, both of which seem fundamental to an understanding of science, environmental issues, and their interrelationship. The paper argues for a more pragmatic conceptualization of action competence in order to encourage broadly-based and scientifically-attentive conceptions of environmental education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

B. B. Jensen and K. Schnack , “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education,” Environmental Education Research 3, no. 2 (1997): 163-178.

S. Brieting and P. M. Janniche , MUVIN-DK. Background information for schools in Denmark participating in Nordic Environmental Education in 1994-96 (Copenhagen: The Ministry of Education & The Royal Danish School of Education Studies, 1995).

S. Breiting and K. Neilsen , Environmental Education Research in the Nordic Countries (Copenhagen: Research Centre of Environmental and Healt, The Royal Danish School of Education Studies, 1996).

H. Hungerford and T. Volk , “Changing Learner Behaviour through Environmental Education,” Journal of Environmental Education 21, no. 3 (1990): 8-21.

E. W. Jenkins , “Public Understanding of Science and Science Education for Action,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 26, no. 6 (1994): 601-611 (see pp. 603-605).

D. Layton , “Science Education and Praxis: The Relationship of School Science to Practical Action,” Studies in Science Education 19 (1991): 43-79.

J. Lave and E. Wenger , Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Palo Alto CA: Institute for Research on Learning, 1990).

P. Posch , “Curriculum Change and School Development,” Environmental Education Research 2, no. 3 (1996): 347-362.

Jensen and Schnack , “The Action Competence Approach,” p. 165.

10.

Jensen and Schnack , “The Action Competence Approach,” p. 164.

11.

K. E. Walker , “Challenging Critical Theory in Environmental Education,” Environmental Education Research 3, no. 2 (1997): 155-162.

12.

K. Schnack , “Motiver og Behov [Motives and Needs],” in Pyskologisk Opslagsbog [Critical Essays in Psychology], ed. K. Schnack (Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers Forlag, 1994).

13.

B. Jacobsen , K. Schnack and B. Wahlgren , Erfaring og Undervisning [Experience and Education] (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1980).

14.

UNESCO-UNEP , “The Tbilisi Declaration,” Connect 3, no. 1 (1978): 1-8.

15.

N. W. Brickhouse , W. B. Stanley and J. A. Whitson , “Practical Reasoning and Science Education: Implications for Theory and Practice,” Science and Education 2 (1993): 363-375.

16.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC) , Science Education for Scottish Schools (Edinburgh: SCCC, 1996).

17.

W. C. Kyle , “Scientific Literacy: Where Do We Go From Here?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, no. 10 (1995): 1007-1009.

18.

M. H. Shamos , The Myth of Scientific Literacy (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995).

19.

B. Rogoff and J. Lave , Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context (Cambridge, Mass., London: Harvard University Press, 1984).

20.

V. M. Robinson , Problem-based Methodology (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993).

21.

Jensen and Schnack , “The Action Competence Approach,” p. 171.

22.

Posch , “Curriculum Change and School Development.”

23.

Jenkins , “Public Understanding of Science and Science Education for Action,” p. 606.

24.

H. M. Collins , Changing Order (London: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

25.

and V. Shiva , Staying Alive—Women, Ecology and Development (London: Zed Books, 1989).

26.

J. Ramsey , “The Science Education Reform Movement: Implications for Social Responsibility,” Science Education 77, no. 2 (1993): 235-258.

27.

Shamos , The Myth of Scientific Literacy.