In recent years, the agency of children has been high on the agenda, both internationally (UN, 1989) and in Norway (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2020; 2019; UN, 2020). The guidelines are clear: to facilitate the opportunity of children expressing themselves and being involved in decisions regarding their everyday school life. Despite this, there seems to be a gap between legislation and practice, as few teachers seem to engage in teaching practices that support student autonomy (Bru, Stornes, Munthe & Thuen, 2010; Wendelborg, Røe & Buland, 2018).

Considering that previous research confirms that autonomy is important for students’ well-being, intrinsic motivation, and learning outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2016), and that this research is mainly survey-based, there is an obvious need for more research close to practice in the classroom. Additionally, though Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes autonomy as a subjective experience (Reeve, Nix & Hamm, 2003), there are surprisingly few studies in which students’ own voices have been listened to. On the basis of these facts, it is clear that a qualitative interview study could help to complete the picture, perhaps illuminating the gap between theory/legislation and practice.

This study took place as a result of a school development project where 150 students were offered autonomy support in learning activities one day each week over the course of one school year. 40 students were interviewed about their experiences, both positive and negative, through the use of open-ended questions. The goal was to use students’ own words to highlight the issue of student autonomy in school. The research problem is best expressed as: What opportunities and challenges do students experience as a result of autonomy in learning activities?

In Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, autonomy is described as voluntary behavior that originates within the person himself, in his own interests or values (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Such behavior is important for the experience of having one's own will or being the source of one's own actions. In other words, it is an internally-motivated behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In its optimal form, autonomy is described as giving experience of “flow”, defined as “the experiences of total absorption in an activity” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 260). SDT theory emphasizes that autonomy, intrinsic motivation and self-regulated behavior are three facets of the same issue: that, at a phenomenological level, human autonomy is reflected in the experience of integrity, volition, and vitality that accompanies self-regulated action” (ibid., p. 254). On this basis, Deci and Ryan refer to the concept of autonomous self-regulation, which stands in contrast to behavior that is controlled from the outside, in the form of coercion or social conviction. SDT also emphasizes that autonomous self-regulation is, at base, about expressing who one is, or “the true self” (p. 9) (Deci &g Ryan, 1995).

In SDT theory, the term autonomy support refers to teachers facilitating the influence and opportunity students have to make their own choices in line with their own values, interests or needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Furthermore, an autonomy-supporting teaching style is emphasized, including non-controlling language, meaningful justifications for schoolwork, recognition of students’ thoughts and feelings, and accommodation of student initiative (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Research shows that both facilitation of influence and choice, as well as a supportive teaching style, must be in place for students to experience autonomy (Reeve et al., 2003). Critically, autonomy support in a learning environment that is characterized by a clear structure and clear expectations promotes student engagement (Jang, Reeve & Deci, 2010).

The study’s 40 students in primary school grades 3rd through 7th, were invited to share their experiences with respect to how easy or difficult they found autonomy in learning activities to be. A total of 14 teachers were instructed to practice a didactic model for adapted education (the TIL-model) (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2018, p. 263). The TIL-model consists of a work plan that is designed to safeguard pedagogical principles for a teacher`s classroom practice such as a learning-oriented goal structure, self-regulated learning, and structure. The TIL-day began with students given a work plan which provided an overview of the learning tasks in various subjects throughout the day, with some tasks marked “individually” and others “collaboration”. Another distinction between tasks was “first priority” (must do) and “second priority” (voluntary). Based on the work plan, students were to set their own goals, plan and prioritize their tasks, carry them out accordingly, and take a break, if necessary. In sum, this gave the students influence over their day and the opportunity to make independent choices, which in turn meant that the students were served by an autonomy-supporting teaching style, both in line with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). On three occasions, the teachers were given guidance on how to practice autonomy support, in language and action. To inductively approach the students’ experiences, the interview guide was prepared with open-ended follow-up questions. Before the interviews started, everyone was informed that the interview was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time. Audio recordings were made of the interviews which were subsequently transcribed. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. The analysis was initiated from the data with a goal to reduce the data to a few topics, with underlying categories and codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The most prominent theme emerging from the data in this phase was the opportunities that the students experienced with autonomy in learning activities, giving immediate associations with SDT and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Furthermore, there was a paradox in the data in the that the students valued autonomy, despite that many of them experiencing challenges in practicing it. With this, the further analyses focused on the tension between these two, noted as “opportunities” and “challenges”. The data was then explored in a constant movement between the data and the theory as well as in comparison with previous research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

It became clear that students’ experiences of autonomy could be presented in three categories taken from students’ own statements: “A new and positive experience”, “Freedom and trust”, and “Free will and flow”. The empirical data showed that many students struggled to take responsibility and be independent through the TIL day. While the analyses did provide answers as to why students struggled with these things, those answers are less important than understanding the challenges themselves as highlighting the need for students to master autonomy in learning activities. The challenges were separated into the categories of “The need for structure” and “The need to learn independence”. In line with other research confirming that teachers only rarely practice autonomy support, autonomy seemed like a new and positive experience for the students. The experiences they had of “freedom and trust” and “free will and flow” are systematically confirmed both in theory and previous research. Analyses indicated that the sum of the experiences gave the students a feeling of expressing “themselves”, which according to Deci and Ryan (1995), accompanies autonomous actions. Given the students’ statements, this had an impact on their well-being, efforts and learning outcomes in everyday school life, which is also in line with previous research. Furthermore, the students reflected on the fact that they developed independence as a result of their experiences with autonomy through the TIL day; as a formal competence, they were motivated to learn, and experiences of structure seemed to be an important condition of learning. Despite the fact that autonomy was not easy to master, the students practicing independence in an optimistic way, framing it as a critical skill in mastering life as adults. This study's findings indicate that more knowledge on how teachers can support all school students in mastering autonomy in learning activities in school is needed.

Bru, E., Stornes, T., Munthe, E., & Thuen, E. (2010). Students' perceptions of teacher support across the transition from primary to secondary school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(6), 519–533. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of personality and Social psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self- esteem. I M.H. Kernis (red.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (p. 31–49). Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of educational psychology, 102(3), 588. Kunnskapsdepartementet (2020). Læreplanen for kunnskapsløftet (LK2020). Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/ Kunnskapsdepartementet (2019). NOU 2019:23. Ny opplæringslov. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2019-23/id2682434/ Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications. Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of educational psychology, 95(2), 375–392. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54–67. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory. In K.R. Wentzel & D.B. Miele (red.), Handbook of motivation at school (p. 96–119). Routledge. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2018). Skolen som læringsarena: Selvoppfatning, motivasjon og læring. Universitetsforlaget. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics for qualitative research. Sage. United Nations. (1989). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). United Nations. United Nations Associations of Norway (2020). Barnekonvensjonen. Retrieved from https://www.fn.no/om-fn/avtaler/menneskerettigheter/barnekonvensjonen Wendelborg, C., Røe, M., & Buland, T. H. (2018). Elevundersøkelsen 2017: Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen, Foreldreundersøkelsen og Lærerundersøkelsen. NTNU Samfunnsforskning.