The aim of this study is to explore higher education (HE) students’ perceived contextual resources contributing to their agency in the university course contexts. Student agency has become a central concept in HE policy and practice (Klemencic, 2023). It is seen as a goal and outcome of HE and as a process to help learners to direct their own learning (e.g., Lee, 2024; Klemencic, 2023; Mameli et al., 2023; Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022). OECD’s Learning Compass 2030 (OECD, 2019) raises student agency as a key feature in preparing students to cope with unpredictable future. Accordingly, HE should equip students with capabilities that help them to navigate in the (unknown) future and engage in lifelong learning (e.g., Klemencic, 2023). As argued by Yang and colleagues (2024) agency is, hence, the key for understanding HE students’ development and growth.

Common conceptualizations on HE student agency are generally aligned with OECD’s (2019) ideas, seeing student as an autonomous and active agent of one’s own learning and responsible for one’s own learning process (Lee, 2024). Stressing student agency as a goal of HE is expected also to influence curriculum practices (Lee, 2024). A large body of research shows that student-centered pedagogy promotes agency and learning (for review see Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022). Student-centered practices support student active participation, possibilities for making choices and influence on different phases of the learning process, monitoring and reflecting own learning as well as investing time and effort (e.g., Klemencic, 2023; Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022).

However, some researchers warn against overemphasizing students as free agents of their learning process for its neo-liberal connotations (Klemencic, 2023; Lee, 2024; Marginson, 2024) or rational autonomy (Lee, 2024). It is argued that the neo-liberal ideal of student agency sees students as possessing the competencies to autonomously control their learning irrespective of context and content (e.g., Ashwin, 2014; Lee, 2024; Marginson, 2024; Matusov et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2024). In addition, Su (2011, p. 402) argues that stressing student as an active, autonomous agent of one’s learning may lead into “performativity” where the student is expected to “develop the ability to cope and operate effectively” in the university and later in working life. The role of student agency in HE, then, is “merely a condition for society-serving student outcomes” (Klemencic, 2023, p. 12).

Consequently, recent studies on HE student agency call for more multidimensional approach to student agency stressing its personalized, contextual, relational and transformative nature (e.g., Jääskelä et al., 2023; Klemencic, 2023; Leijen et al., 2020) as well as specificity of the learning content or discipline for construction of student agency (Ashwin, 2014; Lee, 2024; Marginson, 2024). The scope of research on student agency has moved towards seeing it also through ontological lenses as students’ being and becoming (Biesta, 2009; Klemencic, 2023; Lee, 2024; Marginson, 2024; Matusov et al. 2016; Su, 2011; Yang et al., 2024) rather than seeing it plainly as instrumental and effortful (Matusov et al., 2016) or as knowing and doing (Su, 2011).

This study approaches student agency as a situated, contextual, dynamic and personalized construct. The different features of the learning context can foster or inhibit the enactment of agency, since students may perceive these conditions as enablers or constraints (Leijen et al., 2020). Important, then, is the meaning of students’ own perceptions of their agentic possibilities in accessing resources that support intentional and meaningful action and learning (person-centered approach, Billett, 2006; Mercer, 2012; Su, 2011). The aim of this study is to explore seven university students’ perceived contextual resources contributing to their agency in the context of two university courses.

The present study is a sub study of a research project on student agency funded by the Research Council of Finland. The data consist of interviews of seven students participating in basic courses in educational (four students) and natural (three students) sciences in the university context. Before the interviews, the students responded to a validated questionnaire developed to capture their perceptions of their agency in the course they were studying. In the questionnaire, their evaluation centered on the following four domains: their beliefs of competences, experiences of supportive relations, and having possibilities for participation and transformation. After their courses, the students received a summary of their agency profiles generated from the results of the questionnaire. In this summary, their profiles in different domains were presented. The semi-structured thematic interview followed the agency profiling, and the interviewers encouraged the students to freely reflect on their perceived resources for agency in the course. Data were analyzed by applying (reflexive) thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). First the interview transcripts were read multiple times making general notes on first impressions on aspects of constraints and enablers of agency (contextual agency resources). Then data set was defined, removing irrelevant parts of the interview from the individual transcripts. From the remaining data set the aspects that the students perceived were supporting and constraining their agency guided the preliminary coding and repeated iterations of coding. The analysis was inductive “in the sense of analysis ‘grounded in’ the data”, however, recognizing that researcher does not enter “a theoretical vacuum” when doing the analysis (Braun & Clark, 2021, p. 331). The coded data were further reviewed to form combinations according to preliminary patterns of shared meanings (themes, sub-themes). Concept maps were utilized in this phase of the analysis. The combinations were refined and finally the themes and sub-themes were defined and named.

Preliminary results show five initial themes and related sub-themes on contextual resources contributing to the students’ agency in the course contexts: 1) Students’ conceptions of their own learning capabilities (sub-themes: task/context related aspects influencing students’ sense of capability; general conceptions/beliefs of one’s capability), 2) teacher’s (pedagogical) role contributing to students’ experienced agency (sub-themes: teacher’s personal characteristics; teacher’s availability and presence; teacher’s engaging/active role in students’ learning; opportunities for negotiation; utilization of teacher expertise), 3) course design contributing to students’ experienced agency (sub-themes: transparency of the course design; balance between student autonomy/teacher responsibility; nature of tasks and learning material; opportunity to influence course design (e.g. evaluation practices); meaning of time for engaging learning; learning conceptions behind pedagogical practices), 4) meaning of collaborative learning and interaction for students’ experienced agency: (sub-themes: meaningfulness of group and/or individual work; dialogicality in group work/discussions; meaning of togetherness and informal peer support; teacher’s role in enhancing student collaboration), 5) agentic relationship with the knowledge and learning practices (sub-themes: theory/practice/subjectivity connection of the course contents and practices; relevance of tasks/contents to broader community/society; authenticity of the learning practices; course tasks broadening knowledge, understanding and awareness). Our preliminary results show that the courses provided the students with various possibilities to enact agency. However, there were also “waisted” opportunities for creating more agentic relationship with the knowledge and learning practices in the courses. Promoting student agency remained in some respects more apparent (e.g., autonomous working, possibility to make choices) than actual. Our study suggests that supporting student agency in HE calls for more conscious and critical attention to teacher-student encounters and responsibilities. The role of HE should be seen as providing students with resources for self-formation and constructing agentic rather than instrumental relationship with specific disciplinary knowledge. This will enhance expanded I-World relationship and educate students as transformative agents.

Ashwin, P. (2014). Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding in higher education. Higher Education, 67, 123-126. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46. Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 53–69. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. Jääskelä, P., Tolvanen, A., Marín, V. I., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2023). Assessment of students’ agency in Finnish and Spanish university courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 118, 1–13. Klemencic, M. (2023). A theory of student agency in higher education: student agency shaping student experiences and student outcomes. In C. Baik & E. R. Kahu (Eds.), Research handbook on the student experience in higher education (pp. 25-40). Elgaronline. Lee, S. E. (2024). Becoming a subject in learning: Student freedom, agency, and subjectivity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–12. Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., & Lepp, L. (2020). Teacher agency following the ecological model: How it is achieved and how it could be strengthened by different types of reflection. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(3), 295–310. Mameli, C., Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2023). Student agency: Theoretical elaborations and implications for research and practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 122, Article 102258. Marginson, S. (2023). Student self-formation: an emerging paradigm in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(4), 748–762. Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 420–446. Mercer (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 41–59. OECD. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030 – Concept note: Student agency. OECD. Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2022). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 653–669. Su, Y. H. (2011). The constitution of agency in developing lifelong learning ability: the ‘being’ mode. Higher Education, 62, 399–412. Yang, L., Lee, S., & Oldac, Y. I. (2024). A cross-cultural exploration of student development in higher education: Acknowledging, exercising, and enhancing agency. ECNU Review of Education.