Action competence plays a central role in almost all concepts and models of ESD. For example, in his Gestaltungskompetenz, De Haan (2010, 320) implicitly mentions action competence in 8 out of 12 sub-competences through expressions such as ‘thinking and acting with foresight’ or ‘participating in decision-making processes’. It sees the application of knowledge about sustainable development as a central building block of ESD. Furthermore, the European Commission’s ‘GreenComp Conceptual Reference Model’ of 2021, designed as a guideline for the implementation of sustainable strategies, identifies ‘acting for sustainability’ as one of the four central components of ESD. A distinction is made between ‘individual initiative,’ ‘collective action’ and ‘political agency’ (Bianchi et al., 2022, 3). As a final example, the Education 2030 initiative launched by UNESCO as part of Agenda 2030, which aims to promote quality education for all, also refers to action competence in four of the nine sub-competences of ESD. Here, ‘concrete action’ is explicitly emphasised (Stelzer et al., 2012, 7).

Critics of ESD have shown that although ESD imparts a high level of environmental knowledge, sustainable actions and behaviour often do not follow (Gebauer, 2021, 151 ff.). Thus, ESD knowledge does not initiate action. For this, the action competence itself has to be conveyed. However, research dealing with action competence in ESD is rare. Conditions for the readiness to act are identified, but the competence to act itself is not clearly described. Furthermore, there is a lack of models that differentiate and relate the sub-competences of sustainable action competence. Rieckmann (2016, 7) therefore also sees a research gap in the systematisation and differentiation of sub-competences of ESD, such as action competence. The few works on action competence in ESD, such as the ‘Action Competences in Sustainable Development’ model by Sass et al. (2020, 301), seem unspecific, as action competence in their model only consists of knowledge and affective attitudes such as self-confidence, willingness, commitment and passion. However, especially when it comes to teaching action competence in classroom practice, there are some ambiguities that could make it difficult for teachers to teach ESD action competence, as no guidance is given on how self-confidence or passion can be fostered by the teacher. Due to this lack of scientific basis, controversies arise in the didactic implementation in schools about forms of action, implementation of action and the role of the teacher.

Although many aspects of competences in ESD have been investigated in the scientific discourse, the models of action competence concentrate on aspects such as willingness and motivation (Sass et al., 2020, 301). There is no model that relates the competences to each other and that can be used by teachers for structuring purposes. Based on the current literature, a model of geographical competence in ESD has been developed (see Figure 1).

The model presented here is based on the relevant literature on ESD, research for action competence and the didactics of geography. Nine central components of geographic action competence in ESD have been identified and related to each other. These are presented below. Although the importance of each component has been proven in the scientific discourse, the resulting model cannot and should not claim to be complete or flawless. Rather, it can serve to help geography teachers develop an understanding of the components that can make up action competence in ESD and to examine their current understanding, and to help stimulate discussion in the scientific discourse. In the following, the relationships between the individual components are explained and then each individual component and its meaning is described and substantiated.

In order to describe the relationship between the different competences (see Figure 1), it must first be noted that subject knowledge, system thinking and conflict perspective, and knowledge of possible actions and solutions are not actions in themselves. Rather, they serve as a basis for competent action. Ideally, these competences are sufficiently developed before action is taken. The acquisition of knowledge and these competences always takes into account the sustainability square of economy, environment, social and political aspects (see light blue square in Figure 1). Building on this, students can carry out sustainable actions and improve their action competence. According to Weber (1922/1988), 22 ff), communication and argumentation and assessment are also independent actions. Nevertheless, a series of ESD lessons should ideally culminate in a participatory or creative action. As shown in the European Commission’s ‘GreenComp cenceptual reference model’, these actions can be carried out at an individual, common or political level (Bianchi et al., 2022, 3) (see dark blue triangle in Figure 1). Ideally, in all these steps towards sustainable action competence, students should reflect on their intentions, ideas, methods, actions and the effects of their actions, and thus adapt their work process again and again. Finally, in all steps towards sustainable action competence, the geographical spatial reference and the different scale levels should be considered. The individual sub-competences of the model (see Figure 1) are described in more detail below.

Due to the qualitative and open design of the study, a sample size of 14 teachers was chosen. Since no quantitative statements were to be made, theoretical saturation was reached after 14 interviews to the teachers’ understanding. The 14 subjects selected were all active geography teachers at a secondary school in Germany. In order to obtain the most meaningful results possible, the subjects were selected according to the ‘theoretical sampling’ method (Glaser and Strauss, 2010). This means that the most informative subjects were selected, in this case active German geography teachers, who differed as much as possible in characteristics such as age, gender, second subject or professional experience. In this way, the ‘range of results, meaning generalisability and quality’ could be achieved as well as possible (Dimbath et al., 2018, 3). The age of the subjects ranged from 24 to 50 years, with an average of 37 years. Teaching experience ranged from one to 22 years with an average of 9.4 years. Eight female and six male teachers with 10 different second subjects were interviewed. Other characteristics of the school or subject, such as a high level of inclusion in the student body or a bilingual profile of the school, were also collected and taken into account in the discussion of the results. For the sake of anonymity, the female teachers are referred to as W1 to W8 and the male teachers as M1 to M6.

The course of the study is described below. It took place in three phases, as shown in Figure 2.

First, introductory questions about ESD were asked in a guided interview. These were answered in detail by the respondents at their own discretion. In this phase, the interviewer only asked questions in case of comprehension problems. In this way, further attempts at structuring are prevented by the interviewer’s ideas (Hohl, 2000, 143). The initial aim of this part of the survey was to find out what the teachers thought about ESD. For example, questions were asked about the teachers’ understanding of the term ESD, what competences they wanted to promote in their teaching of sustainability, or how motivated they were. As the teachers were not specifically asked about action competence at this stage, it was possible to ascertain the importance of action competence in the context of the other competences and at the same time to exclude the possibility that it was put in the foreground due to social desirability.

Subsequently, the respondents were asked to rate a questionnaire with 42 statements on ESD action competence using a four-point Likert scale (see Table 1). With the help of the questionnaire, attitudes and opinions on action competence could be elicited. Conflicting statements on action competence were presented to the teachers for evaluation. In addition, various controversies in the current scientific discourse (see Chapter 2) were described by two opposing statements. This form of ‘reverse coding’, in which an item is presented once positively and once negatively, compensates for teachers’ tendencies to rate positively or negatively (Magazine et al., 1996). For example, the two contrasting statements ‘When sustainable behaviour is clearly right, I as a teacher recommend it as a course of action to my students’ and ‘I as a teacher keep my own opinions about sustainable behaviour to myself in order not to indoctrinate my students’ were presented to teachers and rated by them.

In the third phase of data collection, an open interview was conducted on the basis of the statement sentences (see Figure 2). Here, the controversial statements of the second part usually provided many opportunities for discussion. In this part of the interview, the interviewer asked specific questions about teaching examples and implementation possibilities.

This form of methodological triangulation was chosen because the approaches and contents of the three parts of the survey should complement each other in a meaningful way (Flick, 2011, 48 ff). The first part of the interview was designed to assess understanding of ESD and ESD action competence. As the teachers were not aware at this point that the survey was about action competence, they were honest about the role they thought it should play in their ESD teaching and the goals they associated with it. The second part of the interview provided an opportunity to explore attitudes and beliefs about teaching action competence with controversial statements. In the third part of the interview, the attitudes were to be explained and deepened with examples. Due to the open form, this part showed which statements were particularly important for the teachers. This methodological triangulation also showed whether the teachers’ statements were consistent or whether they changed or contradicted each other from the first to the third part. It is precisely these contradictions and ambivalences that are of particular importance in this qualitative interview (Hohl, 2000, 144).

For the qualitative evaluation of the results, the teachers’ answers to the questions of the first and third phases (see Figure 2) of the survey were transcribed and coded. The first part of the interview (see Table 2) was analysed using deductive categories, which were formed on the basis of the academic discourse (see Chapter 2). The discourse shows that there are no harmonised definitions or goals for action competence in ESD to which teachers can orientate themselves. The aim is therefore to analyse how teachers view ESD, the goal of their ESD lessons, their problems and uncertainties and their own role in teaching ESD. Secondly, the deductive categories were formed with the help of the model of geographical competence in ESD (see Figure 1). This makes it possible to analyse how the teachers understand the competence to act in the context of ESD and to what extent this understanding corresponds with that of the other teachers. This results in deductive categories on the definition, goals and competences of ESD, which are intended to show the understanding of ESD and the competence to act within it. In addition, the categories on motivation, problems and uncertainties as well as the goals in relation to the action competence provide information on the teacher’s understanding of their own role. These categories were formed using the method of qualitative content analysis according to Mayring and Fenzl (2019) and were intended to contain the teachers’ ideas about ESD and ESD action competence (see Table 2). In this way, the statements of all teachers in this part could be coded, summarised and then compared (Krüger and Riemeier, 2014, 139). For the third open interview part, new inductive criteria were developed on the basis of the transcriptions. As each interview in this part was very different and went in unpredictable directions, new categories could be developed that were not visible to the interviewer (see Table 2). It became clear that several teachers came up with the same topics on their own initiative. As the form of teaching and implementing sustainable actions, dealing with one’s own opinion, the choice of methods and the sources of knowledge about ESD competences were discussed in many interviews, it can be assumed that these topics are of concern to the teachers. They were therefore included in the analysis as inductive categories. The respondents’ statements in the second phase of the survey were statistically analysed and graphically presented. The creation of the codes and the creation of the coding guidelines were discussed and determined by two people. The coding, evaluation and typing were discussed and reviewed by a larger team of experts.

In order to make a typification, all interview parts were examined for patterns. Attention was paid to whether the teachers showed agreement or disagreement in the categories (Prommer, 2018, 252–259). For some categories there was a high level of agreement among most teachers. These are presented in the results section without typification. For some categories, the results were so diverse that no types could be identified. However, some other categories were answered by the teachers in similar patterns, so that the teachers could be grouped into these categories. The groups of teachers in each category were compared and clear overlaps were identified (ibid). In this way, teachers could be grouped into three types in their understanding of action competence and into four types in their understanding of their own role. Finally, each interview was individually checked for typification.

ESD is an interesting and important part of geography teaching for all teachers interviewed. They often emphasise the high global relevance as well as the topicality. Most teachers also show that they have a good knowledge of ESD. 13 out of 14 teachers could immediately give a definition of ESD, 8 teachers highlighted the sustainability square and 4 teachers highlighted the SDGs. When it comes to teaching action skills in ESD, 11 teachers claim to be sufficiently trained overall to teach them. At the same time, 10 teachers disagree with the later statement that they were sufficiently trained in their studies and training to promote action competence in the context of ESD. The teachers therefore appear to state that they did not acquire their knowledge during their studies or training. This is consistent with the fact that in the course of the interview they reported that they had rather acquired the knowledge for teaching action competence through further training, the internship or by themselves.

A first difference in the statements can be seen in the aims of teaching ESD. Five teachers state that their main goal is for the students to make their private behaviour more sustainable, while five teachers want to develop an awareness of global sustainability problems among their students in order to prepare them for their future and the challenges that lie ahead. The remaining four teachers do not specify an objective.

These two quotes show the difference in the teachers’ aims. While teacher W1 wants her pupils to make their private behaviour more sustainable, teacher M4 defines her task much more broadly.

This difference can also be seen in the understanding of ESD action competence. First of all, it can be stated that the teachers almost uniformly attach great importance to teaching ESD action competence. 12 teachers state that they are particularly motivated to promote the action competences of their students and 10 teachers attribute a higher importance to them than to other competences such as subject competence, communication competence or spatial orientation. Furthermore, all teachers agree with the statement in the questionnaire that ESD aims to promote action competence (see Figure 3). However, in the interviews it became clear that teachers’ understanding of action competence is very different.

In order to analyse how the interviewed teachers understand action competence in detail, the previously deductively developed model for the promotion of sustainable action competence is used as an analytical tool (see Figure 1). It can be examined which theoretical sub-aspects of action competence are actually important for the teachers. In the interviews conducted, the first thing that stood out was that subject knowledge was named by 10 teachers as the most important sub-competence. Systems thinking and conflict perspective were also mentioned several times. Knowledge of possible actions and solutions was described by about half of the teachers as the epitome of action competence. They described that they would promote factual, systemic and conflict competence in order to then provide options for action or to discuss them in class. Most of the teachers were aware that these competences, as described in the model (see Figure 1), could be considered and taught within the framework of the sustainability square. Eight teachers even mentioned the sustainability square in their definition of ESD. It can therefore be stated that the subject knowledge, system thinking and conflict perspective, the knowledge of possible actions and solutions as well as the sustainability square, which are represented in the model (see Figure 1), seem to be present to the teachers and central to their sustainability teaching. Interestingly, for most of the teachers interviewed, this is where the promotion of action competence ends. This is illustrated by the fact that the importance of argumentation skills, communication skills and reflexivity for the development of students’ action competence in the context of ESD was only mentioned by one teacher each. Design and participation were not mentioned at all. However, it is clear from the interviews that four out of the 14 teachers also promote these sub-competences in their teaching (see type 1 in Figure 4). These four teachers stand out from the others in that they were able to give examples from their lessons in which their students were able to communicate, argue, participate or create.

For example, teacher M4 reports several lessons in which not only theoretical knowledge about options for action was discussed, but the pupils themselves became active. Through the examples of action and the way in which the teachers of the first type (see Figure 4) prepare their students for these actions, it becomes implicitly clear in the interviews that these teachers see competences such as argumentation, communication, creation and participation as an important component of sustainable action competence. The will to let the students participate in and shape sustainable actions is also shown in the statement of teacher W7 about the orientation of her sustainability lessons and the resulting learning product:

The students of this teacher obviously get the opportunity to participate in a self-chosen sustainability topic and to create their own form of action. In the course of the interview with teacher W8, it also becomes clear that collective cooperation and joint action seem to be very important for her teaching:

This also shows that the teachers of the first type (see Figure 4) seem to use both individual and collective and political forms of action, which are also described in the model (see Figure 1), in their teaching. The other 10 teachers seem to rely exclusively on the individual form of action. This means that, according to their statements, they want to promote action competence primarily by discussing with their students possibilities of action that could make their private lives outside of school more sustainable. The basic understanding of sustainable action competence seems to differ among the teachers, especially in the type of ESD action form they are aiming for.

These 10 teachers can be divided into two groups according to the reasons why they only promote competences such as factual, system and conflict competence and knowledge of possible actions and solutions (see Figure 1). Five teachers (see type 2 in Figure 4) state that they could not promote students’ ESD action competences in their geography lessons as much as they would like to. Many reasons are given for this, such as the high complexity or the lack of individual training. It is noticeable that lack of time is mentioned as an obstacle by all teachers of the second type (see Figure 4). The following quote from W5 may serve as an example for this type:

When asked if she could give an example of a lesson in which she had promoted action competence, teacher W5 replied: ‘No.’

It becomes clear that Teacher W5 considers ESD action competence important in principle, but apparently does not teach it much, if at all, in the classroom. As a result, these teachers seem to limit themselves to providing their students with theoretical options for action on an individual level.

The remaining five teachers (see type 3 in Figure 4), on the other hand, are very self-confident and show that for them the promotion of action competence seems to mean the promotion of subject knowledge and systemic thinking as well as providing students with knowledge about theoretical options for action at the individual level. For example, their series of lessons on the sustainable clothing industry might end with an appeal to the pupils to buy more second-hand clothes. ESD action competence does not seem to be very important for these teachers either.

The statements of this teacher in particular show that action competence is not a central component of her ESD teaching. She seems to associate a very high effort with the promotion of action competence and therefore seems to pay attention primarily to the competences that her students need in order to get a good grade in the exam. From this perspective, action competence seems rather superfluous. Even if the second and third type of teachers are similar in most aspects, especially in the implementation of action competence, they differ significantly in their reasons for doing so. Type 2 teachers would like to teach action competence differently but are unable to do so. Their lack of confidence and overwhelming demands mean that they only promote competences, such as subject knowledge, which do not involve any action. Type 3 teachers in contrast reject central aspects of action competence teaching out of conviction. This fundamental difference leads to the separation of the two types.

By analysing the interview with the help of the model (see Figure 1), the teachers could be divided into three types. While the first type seems to want to teach action competence in ESD in detail at all levels of action, the second type seems to be unable to do so due to ignorance and excessive demands. The third type, contrary to the initial statements, does not seem to attach much importance to action competence. Therefore, it also seems to play a subordinate role in his teaching.

Interestingly, three teachers of the third type (see Figure 4) stated in their statements that they are particularly motivated to promote action competence, and one of them even stated that action competence is more important in his sustainability teaching than the other competences (see Figure 3). So there is a contradiction in the statements of the third type.

Teachers show great differences of opinion about their own role in teaching sustainable action competence. This is particularly evident in the way they deal with their own opinions and the danger of influencing pupils with them. The importance of this topic for the teachers is particularly evident in the fact that 10 teachers steered the interview towards this topic before the interviewer could ask a question in this direction.

The ratings of statements 1 and 2 (see Figure 5) show large differences in the way teachers deal with their own opinions on sustainability issues. Five teachers state that they give their students recommendations for action. Four teachers tend to disagree and four teachers disagree completely. At the same time, eight teachers state that they tend to or completely keep their own opinions on sustainability issues to themselves. Six teachers disagreed. As this topic was discussed in more detail in 12 interviews, the teachers’ statements can be examined in more detail.

It is clear that 42% of teachers say that they keep their opinions on sustainability issues to themselves in geography lessons. The reason given by these teachers is that they do not want to influence students’ free choices (see Figure 6). This is particularly evident in the case of teacher W3:

The second reason given by the teachers, as exemplified here by W5, was that as teachers they were not allowed to do this at all:

This part of the teachers seems to understand the institutional guidelines of the school and the German education system as not allowing them to reveal their opinion under any circumstances, as this could influence the unguided decisions of their students. The remaining 58% of teachers say that they would express their own opinion on appropriate sustainable behaviour in the classroom (see Figure 6). This group can be further subdivided. The following statement by teacher M4 can serve as an example for 25% of the teachers:

The teacher seems to be aware of the danger of indoctrinating the students by expressing his own opinion, and yet he does not see his role as value-free. He wants to be a role model and show the students a sustainable way of life through his own behaviour. However, he only expresses his opinion when asked by the students in class.

17% of teachers say they put their own opinions up for discussion in their sustainability lessons. Teachers express their own opinions about sustainable options in class and try to discuss them with students without presenting them as the only correct solution. Teacher M6 explains this as follows

This group of teachers also see themselves as role models, but they are much more aggressive about it. By confronting the pupils with their opinions, they want to encourage them to think about their own opinions and to start opinion-forming processes.

As a last group, 17% of the teachers say that they give their opinions as clear recommendations for action in geography lessons. This is exemplified by the statements of teacher M1, who clearly tells the students which action he thinks is the most sustainable. He justifies this as follows:

This group of teachers seems to be convinced of their own opinion regarding the right sustainable action decisions, especially when it comes to sustainability issues. Therefore, they also see it as their task to communicate this to their students and to convince them.

It is therefore clear that the teachers interviewed define their own role in relation to the teaching of sustainable action competence in geography very differently. Interestingly, only one teacher stated that she was not sure how to deal with her own opinion (see Figure 5).