We are developing the IMP>ACT assessment framework in response to a call from the broad field of sustainability and climate change education (SCCE) policy and practice: the need for approaches that allow organisations to grasp their impact on learners. The framework has two conceptual foundations: action competence as key learning outcome of SCCE (Sass et al., 2020), and action orientation as the key pedagogical principle that fosters this competence (Sinakou et al., 2022). The framework will be designed through an argument-based approach to validity (Kane, 2016). The premise is that validity is not reduced to construct validity of instruments, but is expressed in how instruments lead to actionable interpretations and decisions by users. Therefore, our framework starts from users’ goals for use and aims to provide tools that support them in making sense of data in their own specific professional contexts (Van Gasse et al., 2024). Users’ needs are central in both the definition of ‘what to assess’ and in the methodological choices that are made. The current contribution presents findings that are drawn from consultations with 29 potential users of the IMP>ACT assessment framework from seven European countries. Inclusion criteria were that organisations focus on SCCE and are engaged in impact assessment (or planning to). We strived for diversity across user perspectives, related to monitoring, evaluation, quality development, and accountability. Through the consultations, we collected input on the aims they wish to achieve through SCCE, the teaching approaches they deploy, the alignment of these with the concepts of action competence and action orientation, their goals for engaging in impact assessment and their current assessment practices, and finally the challenges they meet in all of this. Based on the data collected we propose four user personas for the IMP>ACT assessment framework: (i) the supporter, (ii) the SCCE-oriented supplier, (iii) the all-round supplier, and (iv) the broker. We also identified a range of goals that each of these personas have for SCCE impact assessment. These are scattered across activity level (e.g., improving SCCE activities through evidence); organisation level (e.g. showing own value to society) or meta level (e.g. monitoring the quality of the SCCE field within a policy region). At the conference we will present key results of the user consultations, the four personas and an overview of goals. We will also present how we will support users in achieving these goals through planned case studies with selected organisations.

Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 198–211. Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2020). Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292–305. Sinakou, E., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Action-orientation in education for sustainable development: Teachers’ interests and instructional practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 370, 133469. Van Gasse, R., Goffin, E., Peeters, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2024). Hitting the mark? A user perspective on the relevance and irrelevance of school performance indicators. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101416.