The present study examines university teachers’ perceptions of practices facilitating student agency in course and degree programs contexts in Finnish higher education. Student agency is important for students’ learning and how they experience their learning environment (Stenalt & Lassesen 2022). There has been increased interest in the agency of higher education students in recent years (Torres Castro & Pineda-Báez 2023), but empirical research on fostering student agency in higher education is limited (see Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022). Student agency is commonly understood as students’ active participation and capacity to shape their own learning, encompassing the opportunities they have to influence their learning processes within social contexts (e.g., Bandura, 1999; Biesta & Tedder, 2007). The importance of student agency is also emphasized in international educational policy documents (e.g., OECD, 2019), thus affecting educational aspirations in European countries, including Finland.

Student agency is shaped by how individuals interact with their social and structural environments and by the resources available to them. Instead of viewing students only as rational, self-directing actors (Lee, 2024) it is important to understand that agency involves beliefs about personal efficacy, and experiences of relational and contextual resources available to them, which all contribute to students’ agentic actions (e.g., Jääskelä et al., 2023). From a social cognitive perspective, Bandura (1999) identifies beliefs about personal efficacy as central to agency, influencing people’s actions, expected outcomes, and their capacity for self‑regulation and reflection. Thus, student agency emerges through interactions between learners’ perceptions, social contexts, and the supports that enable meaningful action.

Research on student agency in higher education—particularly within teacher education—highlights the central role of social interaction, learning environments, and pedagogical practices in shaping how students experience and enact agency. Studies show that future teachers need opportunities to build their own sense of agency, as this supports their capacity to later foster pupils’ agency (e.g., Juutilainen et al., 2018). Opportunities for students to share ideas, negotiate roles, participate in discourse, and take authorial stances promote agency, whereas traditional teacher‑led practices may constrain it (e.g., Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011).

Research on higher education pedagogy shows that agency-supportive environments, involving trust, co-construction of knowledge, and student‑centred pedagogies, enhance meaningful learning (e.g., Stenalt & Lassesen,2021). While co-creation of knowledge can enhance agency, it also poses challenges: student voices may not be equally heard, and authentic participation requires inclusive and safe environments (Simecek & Freeman, 2025). Ultimately, fostering student agency demands attention to institutional cultures, curriculum, and pedagogical approaches (Graham, 2025), involving integration of real-world learning experiences for students (Nieminen et al., 2025).

Although student agency is widely recognised as a central goal in higher education, there is limited empirical research on concrete ways to foster it. More evidence is needed across different disciplines and learning contexts. This qualitative study examines university teachers’ perceptions of how agency can be supported through course design and degree programme practices. The study aims to identify both agency‑supportive and agency‑hindering practices by analysing university teachers’ reflections.

This study investigates university teachers’ perceptions of fostering student agency through a qualitative research design involving group reflection discussions and individual interviews. The data were collected at a research‑intensive Finnish university as part of a larger project on student agency. Participants included five experienced teachers from two bachelor’s degree programmes—natural sciences (n = 2) and educational sciences (n = 3). The disciplines were intentionally chosen for their contrasting characteristics. In total, the dataset consists of five group reflection discussions and three individual thematic interviews. Informed consent and anonymity procedures were carefully followed. The teachers collaborated with researchers over three years. To support reflection on their pedagogical practices, they received summary results from a student agency survey administered in their courses. The survey assessed students’ perceived agency resources, agentic intentions, and actions. Prior to data collection, teachers and researchers met three times to develop a shared understanding of student agency, informed by a conceptual model emphasizing students’ capabilities, relations, participation, and transformation. The group reflection discussions focused on course implementations, teachers’ observations of student agency, and perceived opportunities or challenges in supporting it. Although no structured question framework was imposed, researchers guided the conversations with introductory prompts and contributed theoretical insights. Each teacher led the discussion when their course was under review. The discussions lasted approximately 90 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. To deepen understanding of teachers’ views, semi‑structured thematic interviews were conducted. Interview themes included teachers’ conceptions of student agency, practices that support or hinder it, and the role of agency within degree programmes. Interviews lasted about one hour. The analysis combined thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) with narrative and positioning approaches (e.g., Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008). Analysis began with repeated readings of the reflection transcripts to identify a variety of themes raised by the teachers, linked to central aspects of student agency, such as teacher–student interactions, roles, power dynamics, and trust. A narrative lens was employed to understand how teachers constructed meanings and roles through storytelling within the group interactions (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008). After the initial familiarisation, both discussion and interview data were coded in Atlas.ti 25, identifying key themes and subcategories that captured teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of fostering student agency.

The findings emphasise the teacher’s role as a facilitator who provides disciplinary knowledge, conceptual frameworks, and concrete examples to support students’ learning. Peer interaction and helping students find personal relevance in their studies were considered essential components of agency. Teachers highlighted the importance of being accessible both as experts and as supportive guides, requiring pedagogical approaches that are student centred and that create safe, just learning environments. However, simply inviting students to participate in teaching-learning situations is insufficient; teachers must intentionally cultivate safety, belonging, and meaningful opportunities for contribution. These findings echo student-ready critical care pedagogy (Collins-Warfield et al. 2025), which centres on autonomy, relational support, and creating supportive spaces, and normalising challenges students may face while learning. Teachers noted that structural constraints, such as limited resources, large lecture formats, and heavy workloads, shape their ability to implement ideal practices. Supporting agency therefore requires balancing pedagogical ideals with realistic working conditions. Participants stressed that individual guidance allowed them better opportunities to support students’ learning. Dialogical teaching and reflective tasks were seen to deepen engagement, support learning, and help teachers understand students’ progress. Such practices require both individual effort and institutional support. At the program level, shared pedagogical practices and a curriculum that explicitly acknowledges student agency were viewed as important for fostering agency progressively across studies. This aligns with calls for curricula that promote critical reflection, meaningful knowledge use, and student development as knowledgeable, active participants in society (see Graham, 2025; Nieminen et al., 2025). Overall, teachers saw themselves as facilitators supporting students’ active role in learning, while recognising that clearer conceptualisations of student agency could strengthen curriculum design and program level pedagogical development.

Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377–396. Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian journal of social psychology, 2(1), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024 Biesta, G. & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and Learning in the Lifecourse: Towards An Ecological Perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Collins-Warfield, A. E., Niewoehner-Green, J. E., Scheer, S.D., & Mills, K.J. (2025) Student-ready critical care pedagogy: a student-centred instructional approach for struggling students, Teaching in Higher Education, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2249401 Graham, C. (2025). Towards transformatory critique: reframing curriculum for student focus. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(6), 1470–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2488497 Juutilainen, M., Metsäpelto, R. L. & Poikkeus, A. M. (2018). Becoming agentic teachers: Experiences of the home group approach as a resource for supporting teacher students' agency. Teaching and Teacher Education 76, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.013 Jääskelä, P., Tolvanen, A., Marín, V. I. & Poikkeus, A-M. (2023). Assessment of students’ agency in Finnish and Spanish university courses: Analysis of measurement invariance. International Journal of Educational Research, 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102140 Lee, S-E. (2024). Becoming a subject in learning: Student freedom, agency, and subjectivity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(13), 1332–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2391859 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001 Nieminen, J. H., Haataja, E. & Cobb, P. J. (2025). From active learners to knowledge contributors: authentic assessment as a catalyst for students' epistemic agency, Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2332252 OECD. (2019). Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030. A Series of Concept Notes. Retrieved 18.9.2025. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf Simecek, K. & Freeman, R. (2025): Understanding philosophical perspectives of ‘voice’ for better student staff co-creation. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2562587 Stenalt, M. H. & Lassesen, B. (2021). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874 Torres Castro, U. E. & Pineda-Báez, C. (2023) How has the conceptualisation of student agency in higher education evolved? Mapping the literature from 2000-2022, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(9), 1182–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2231358