Agency can be generally defined as an individual’s capacity to “act purposefully and reflectively on their world” (Rogers & Wetzel, 2013, p. 63). Higher education students’ agency has been studied from various perspectives, such as students’ self-efficacy and competence beliefs or participatory structures (e.g., Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012;). However, studies that combine different dimensions of agency and use multimodal methods for studying agency are rare (but see Jääskelä et al., 2017; 2020). In this study agency is approached from the perspective of students’ perceptions of their personal, relational and participatory resources for agency (Jääskelä et al., 2020). This perspective can be seen to represent a subject-centered approach (e.g., Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Su, 2013) to agency as it acknowledges the meaning of a person’s own experience and sense-making “of having (and using of) personal, relational and context-specific participatory resources to engage in intentional and meaningful action and learning” (Jääskelä et al., 2021, p. 793). However, this view also acknowledges that agency is situational, connected to contextual conditions and constructed in interaction between the person and the socio-cultural context (Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Lasky, 2005). Therefore, as Priestley and colleagues (Priestley, Edwards, Priestley & Miller, 2012) argue, agency is not merely a capacity of the individual.

The focus in this study is to explore university students’ perceived agency resources (personal, relational, and participatory, Jääskelä et al., 2020) from the perspective of positioning (Arvaja, 2016; Harrè & van Langenhove, 1999; Kayi-Adar, 2015, York & Kirshner, 2015; Wortham, 2001). Positioning helps to understand the interactional nature of agency as positioning takes place in relation to others (others broadly speaking; e.g., other people, material and socio-cultural learning context) (Wortham, 2001). Agency, thus, is dynamic and shaped by social interaction and context (Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Priestley et al., 2012). Consequently, the same student may take a more agentic position in one context and less in another. Kayi-Aydar (2015) suggests that agency is possible to achieve when students are enabled to take agentic positions in their (learning) context. When students take agentic positions, it implies their capacity and willingness to act. Therefore, it is important to study students’ perceived agency in relation to possibilities available and created through the pedagogical arrangements. As York and Kirshner (2015) argue, teachers’ (discursive) activity and learning environment for their part enables or constrains agency. However, even though the learning environment may enable agentic positions through the pedagogical means students may resist the positions available and supported (Kayi-Aydar, 2015). Therefore, the interest in this study also lies in studying agency as a personalized construct (e.g., Su, 2011) focusing on different meanings the students negotiate for agency while participating in the same course. This necessitates also considering students’ life and study histories in manifestation of agency (e.g., Arvaja, Sarja & Rönnberg, 2022; Wortham, 2001).

The aim of this study is to explore 1) what kinds of agency positions the students - who are participating in two university courses (teacher education and information technology) - take in relation to their experienced personal, relational and participatory resources for agency and 2) what kinds of similarities and/or differences there are between positionings within the students participating in the same course or between the students in different courses.

This study is part of StudyAgent research project funded by the Academy of Finland. The participants of the study are eight university students from the same Finnish university. Four of the students are studying teacher education and four information technology. For the purposes of this study these eight students were selected from a dataset consisting of 208 students’ responses to the AUS Scale (Jääskelä, Heilala, Kärkkäinen & Häkkinen, 2021). The AUS (Agency of University Students) Scale is a validated questionnaire (Jääskelä et al., 2020) developed for studying students’ agency multidimensionally. By responding the AUS questionnaire the students of information technology (n=130) and teacher education (n=78) reflected their agency experiences at the end part of their courses. In the questionnaire the students evaluated their personal, relational and participatory resources for agency in the course. This study focuses on purposefully selected eight student interviews conducted after having the students fill in the AUS questionnaire related to their completed courses. From both courses two students having lower than average group level agency and two students having higher than average group level agency were selected for further analysis. After the courses the students were given a summary of the results including, for example, visualizations showing their own agency profiles generated from the results of the AUS questionnaire (Jääskelä et al., 2021). In the visualizations the students’ own profiles in different dimensions (personal, relational, participatory) were compared to the study group’s (all course participants in own subject) overall profile. The semi-structured interview was partly constructed around the agency profile and its different components giving the students a chance to reflect on their perceived personal, relational and participatory resources for agency in the course. The analysis of the interviews leans on positioning theory (Harrè & van Langenhove, 1999) and Wortham’s (2001) dialogical approach to narrative positioning (e.g., Arvaja, 2016). It targets on analyzing students’ positioning discourse on the students’ perceived personal, relational and participatory resources in the learning environment, and how these resources either support or restrict constructing agentic (or less agentic) positions in the courses. The analysis also focuses on exploring what kinds of agency positions the students construct in the courses.

Preliminary results show that the university students interpreted their personal, relational and participatory resources for agency not only in relation to the specific course and its pedagogical features but also in relation to their earlier school experiences (e.g., learning conceptions and practices) and the general interest in their discipline. The teacher education course was based on group work and gave the students lots of opportunities to choose and influence their learning activities. One student positioning herself as highly agentic as regards to personal (e.g., competence beliefs), relational (e.g., teacher support) and participatory resources (e.g., participation activity) was a student who had a strong calling for teacher profession and who felt that the course resonated with her own ideas on learning and teaching (participatory pedagogy) and supported her strengths as a learner (learning through discussion; collective agency position). On the contrary, a teacher student perceiving her agency resources as low was a student who preferred a traditional way of studying (teacher-led activity) and, hence, positioned the teacher and the group as non-supportive. This student resisted the agency position offered through the strong participatory pedagogy in the course. Information technology course was a programming course that proceeded more through the planned steps of the teacher. Most of the students interviewed felt that the course content was difficult. However, it seemed that the students who had a strong interest towards their discipline/subject perceived especially their personal resources (self-efficacy and competence beliefs) for agency higher and positioned themselves as persistent and willing to put effort despite of the challenging content. They also positioned the teacher as supportive and approachable. However, as regards participatory resources, the students felt that they had no opportunities (and felt no need and capability) to influence the course content due to its difficulty.

Arvaja, M. (2016). Building teacher identity through the process of positioning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 392-402. Arvaja, M., Sarja, A. & Rönnberg, P. (2022). Pre-service subject teachers’ personal teacher characterisations after the pedagogical studies. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 653-669. Harrè, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999) (Eds.) Positioning theory. Wiley-Blackwell. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P. & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency?Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45-65. Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V, Kärkkäinen, T. & Häkkinen, P. (2021). Student agency analytics: learning analytics as a tool for analysing student agency in higher education, Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(8), 790-808. Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A-M., Häkkinen, P, Vasalampi, K., Rasku-Puttonen, H. & Tolvanen, A. (2020). Students’ agency profiles in relation to student-perceived teaching practices in university courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101604. Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A-M., Vasalampi, K. Valleala, U. M. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Assessing agency of university students: validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2061-2079. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015). Teacher agency, positioning, and English language learners: Voices of pre-service classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94-103. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-916. Lipponen, L. & Kumpulainen, K: (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812-819. Priestley, M, Edwards, R., Priestley, A. & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214. Rogers, R. & Wetzel, M. M. (2013). Studying agency in literacy teacher education: a layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 62-92. Schunk, D. H. & B. J. Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 349–68). Routledge. Su, Y. H. (2011). The constitution of agency in developing lifelong learning ability: the ‘being’ mode. Higher Education, 62, 399–412. Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. A strategy for research and analysis. Teachers College Press. York, A. & Kirshner, B. (2015). How positioning shapes opportunities for student agency in schools. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 103–118.