Action competence (AC) is conceptualized as an educational ideal and overall perspective on the purpose of schooling, referring to the German notion of ‘Bildung’ (Mogensen and Schnack 2010), a general didactics formation perspective. AC is also operationalized in components of knowledge, commitment, visions and action experiences, i.e. as a classical competence concept with a conceptualization of learning outcomes (see e.g. Carlsson and Jensen 2006). The purpose of the paper is to explore tensions and potentials in construing AC both as an educational ideal and a competence concept, and to discuss the implications of this in relation to assessing learning outcomes in ESD. Part of the reason why AC is used in pedagogical development work and evaluation within ESD seems to be that its operationalization in different components is found useful in educational practice. While it is its formulation as an educational ideal, and the promise of offering a ‘democratic curriculum model’ in ESD, that seems to have rendered it access to several countries national curricula, hereunder the Danish and New Zealand curricula (Carlsson 2016; Bolstad, Joyce and Hipkins 2015; Taylor, Quinn and Eames 2015). Both countries are late adopters when it comes to introducing a learning outcome centered curricula, operationalizing overall subject competencies in knowledge and skills, and pushing criteria based assessment and tests further up on the educational agenda as the golden standard for assessing learning outcomes. The introduction of learning outcome curricula and criteria based assessments is linked to the same source – concerns around the performance in international comparative assessment such as PISA (Carlsson in press; Nuche et al 2012). The paper is exploring conceptualizations of AC in the new learning outcome oriented ESD curricula in Denmark and New Zealand, focusing on the twinning of Bildung centered perspectives and conceptualizations of competence components in curricula. The analysis is drawing on methodological inspiration from an analytical distinction between full-ended and open-ended learning outcomes, the first described as in good correspondence with measurement and accountability expectations, the second as opposing these expectations (Prøitz 2015). The paper closes with a discussion of constrains related to using AC and other Bildung centered perspectives in national curricula in times of an enforced focus on accountability and neoliberal governance in schools, drawing on Willbergh’s (2015: 347) point that it does not work well with assessment, and “would have to be implemented independently of international comparative assessment”.

Carlsson, M. (in press) The use of tests in evaluation within education. Lysgaard, J.A; Ljungdalh, A.K.; Tafdrup, O.A. (red). Educational science (Uddannelsesvidenskab). Roskilde University Publisher. Carlsson, M. (2016) Critical thinking in science education. (Kritisk tænkning i naturfag), KvaN 104. Carlsson, M. & Jensen, B.B. (2006). Encouraging environmental citizenship: The roles and challenges for schools, in Dobson, A. & Bell, D. (eds.) Environmental citizenship, MIT Press. Bolstad, R. Joyce, C. and Hipkins, R. (2015). Environmental education in New Zealand schools, Research update 2015, New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the 'new' discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1). Nusche, D., et al. (2012). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: New Zealand 2011, OECD Publishing. Prøitz, T.S. (2015). Learning outcomes as a key concept in policy documents throughout policy changes, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59: 3. Taylor, N., Quinn, F. and Eames, C. (2015). Educating for Sustainability in Primary Schools. Sense Publishers. Willbergh, I. (2015). The problems of ‘competence’ and alternatives from the Scandinavian perspective of Bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies.