Predicción con el mejor algoritmo de clasificación

The implementation of action competence in one situation is described by Mogensen as follows. In Denmark health and environmental education were clustered together and the aim was to introduce critical thinking into both (Mogensen, 1997). Mogensen goes on to say that the aim was to develop an approach that wasn‘t just moralistic; concerned with behaviour change or just recording how often students participated in recycling. Critical education was to develop students‘ ability to ask questions, to think for themselves and to make their own decisions. Mogensen saw this as being achieved by using a different teaching approach, listening to students carefully, treating them with respect, involving them in real world decisions, developing their curiosity, getting them to ask how something had developed, helping them work with controversial issues and, when doing so, to imagine alternatives. In order to do this teachers needed to include not only ―a language of critique but also a language of possibility‖, otherwise students would become mired in negativity (Mogensen, 1997, p. 431) or paralysed by inaction (Jensen, 2004; Jensen & Schnack, 1997). Mogensen goes on to state that critical thinking is always embedded in a cultural/historical context, requires imagining of alternatives, is reflective and evaluative and leads to a reasoned solution. Schnack (2000) agrees with him. These conditions could be accomplished using an action competence model based on conflicts of interest (Mogensen, 1997).

The largest testing of the action competence model in environmental education was the MUVIN project. Phase 1 was from 1991 to 1994 and took place under the

‗Nordic joint initiatives‘ of the Nordic Council (Breiting et al., 2009). In Denmark MUVIN was linked to a Government initiative to ‗green‘ schools.

Despite this there was a common approach by all 5 Nordic countries with joint co-ordination between individual countries that included teacher and student interchange. This was followed by organised experience sharing between the researchers from each country (Breiting et al., 2009). Phase 2 took place in the 1994/5 academic year. Considerable support was also provided for the second phase. This included teacher release time for regional seminars, background material provided for schools, researchers acting as advisors, study groups, newsletters and again exchange visits (Breiting et al., 2009). In Denmark there were 22 Advisors across 85 schools and 10 schools were part of a set of in depth case studies (Breiting et al., 2009).

In the project, the Scandinavians started with a conflict of interest around a resource issue (Breiting et al., 2009). They feel that by doing this, students are encouraged to identify a range of conflicting views and can then investigate what is behind each view. They also feel that this means the teacher is not pushing their view onto students and so this allows students to make up their own minds on an issue (Lundegard & Wickman, 2007). This means students are researching and acquiring knowledge about an issue and engaging in a range of activities.

These activities are varied but may include: activity organised by someone other than students, going out and collecting data, or helping someone else with an action (Jensen, 2004). Teachers needed to be careful that students involved in an action were not recorded as ―taking action‖ as the two are not the same (Breiting et al., 2009; Jensen, 2004). In an Action Competence approach ‗taking action‘

implies the action has been designed by the students themselves, is intentional and specific and is aimed either directly or indirectly at solving the root cause of the issue (Breiting et al., 2009). This emphasis on student participation and co-influence marked the MUVIN project out from other approaches being used in Europe at the same time. Note again these steps clearly parallel the steps outlined

in critical theory but here they are applied as a process by students to an environmental issue.

This strict action competence approach to content, co-influence and defining of

‗action‘ meant that the MUVIN project was not part of the Environment and School Initiative (ENSI) which was happening at the same time across a large part of Europe. ENSI started in 1986 (ENSI) and is an ongoing joint OECD-CERI (OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; CERI = Centre for Education research and Innovation) initiative which is part of the UNESCO Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) (UNESCO/ENSI, 2004). ENSI uses an action research model by teachers and focuses on supporting educational developments that promoted educational understanding and a participatory approach with individual school projects linked to curriculum and sustainable development. However they operate in more of a top down approach starting at government level and then through particular institutions so their control is at the institutional level not at the student level of co-influence, as with the action competence model (ENSI). The work they publish showcases interesting examples of this work. ENSI Programme Director Posch promoted students‘ understanding of complex relationships between humans and the environment and developing dynamic qualities such as exercising initiative and taking responsibility (Breiting et al., 2009). Mayer (2003) reports that as an Italian science educator working for ENSI she found it challenging to get her understandings across and to fully understand in return in a research setting that was very Anglo-Saxon. She found it very exciting working ‗at the borders‘.

ENSI then appears to work in a complementary way to the Danish researchers.

While ENSI tended to be top down, the action competence approach is bottom up.

Researchers in Denmark indicate that for bottom up to work there must be some support from above, at the very least to allow time in the curriculum to follow this approach (Breiting et al., 2009).

To summarise then, action competence was an approach to both environmental education and education for sustainable development that arose out of Denmark and spread to other Nordic countries. It uses a critical education model and

emphasises what humans need to do by using conflicts of interest over resources, usually related to a school‘s local area, and encouraging students to develop the skills necessary to become active democratic participants in decision-making.

They did this by taking part in activities, research, pursuing multiple approaches and making their own decisions through co-influence. If as a result of their work students wished to design and intentionally take action of their own to address the underlying causes of the issue, then this was encouraged. Such an approach required professional development for teachers to help them implement this approach and time in the curriculum for it to happen.

Elsewhere in Europe other forms of environmental education and education for sustainable development were designed and implemented. The ENSI project was such an approach. Both the action competence project and ENSI used a model that emphasised students changing their attitudes rather than just having their behaviour changed. This contrasts with the latter approach being employed in the USA (Robottom & Hart, 1995).