Student-Centered Learning (SCL) has become a predominant paradigm in higher education after the Yerevan Ministerial Summit of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (European Higher Education Area, 2015; Klemenčič, 2017), gaining support from students, researchers, and policymakers (Grøndahl Glavind et al., 2023).

As a key strategic pathway to improve the quality of learning and teaching processes, it is prioritized in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ENQA, 2015). However, at the institutional level, SCL is often used with multiple meanings (Bremner, 2021), referring to active-learning pedagogies, student participation in decision-making, learning-outcomes approaches, or enhanced support services, without a shared evidential base.

This conceptual looseness makes it difficult for universities and quality agencies to produce reliable and comparable evidence on whether, and for whom, student agency is enabled across programs (Jääskelä et al., 2021).  It also limits quality assurance to support curriculum transformation rather than compliance, especially when institutions rely on metrics and administrative “big data” that do not capture the lived conditions of learning (Hooshyar et al., 2023).

Conceptually, SCL is approached as a context-sensitive orientation and culture of quality implemented through an institutional ecosystem (Hoidn, 2020), where student agency is understood as the capability to make meaningful decisions and co-construct learning processes within programme structures, supported by transparent learning outcomes, opportunities for participation and dialogue, coherent curricular pathways, and formative assessment and feedback promoting self-regulated learning  (Nicol, 2010).

This contribution is based on the implementation of a research project funded by the Spanish National Research and Development Plan, which addresses this evidence gap by developing and validating an indicator-based framework for improving institutional quality. Its main objective is to make SCL visible, measurable and actionable by capturing student agency and curricular coherence across: (i) teaching and learning design; (ii) assessment and feedback practices; and (iii) student support and guidance arrangements.

Three research questions guide the study: how can SCL be operationalized into a coherent set of evaluative indicators that reflect student agency at program and institutional levels? (RQ1); what patterns of alignment or misalignment emerge between curricular intentions, enacted learning and assessment designs, and support structures across academic units? (RQ2); and how do institutional cultures and governance arrangements mediate the enactment of student agency, including potential differences for diverse student groups? (RQ3).

This national project is being implemented as an institutional case study at a European public comprehensive university (30,000 students, 2,500 professors, 22 faculties, and 13 research institutes, Shanghai Ranking 2025, ARWU, 501-600, and among the 11-14 best of the 100 universities in the country), although the resulting framework of indicators is designed to be transferable to the entire EHEA. Its European relevance lies in grounding the logic of evaluation on shared benchmarks (European Higher Education Area, 2015), and in providing a concrete response to a recurring challenge in quality assurance debates: translating SCL from principle into credible evidence and decision-making practice.

The main output is a multi-source indicator framework that allows universities to examine SCL as an institutional quality issue rather than as isolated classroom innovation. The indicators will be organized around: (a) opportunities for student participation and collaboration; (b) assessment and feedback designs that support self-regulated learning; (c) consistency and flexibility; and (d) the availability and use of support structures that enable students to navigate their learning pathways.

Preliminary mapping conducted at the case institution suggests substantial variability among academic units in how these conditions are met. Differences arise in the extent to which assessment and feedback are designed for learning (rather than just judgement) and in the consistency with which program learning outcomes are connected to assessment regimes and support services.

Through methodological development, the main objective of this national project is to provide evidence-based explanations for the phenomena studied in order to contribute to the creation of a solid knowledge base that facilitates decision-making in the field of education. Accordingly, this study is divided into several phases based on specific project objectives, each of which develops different methods for collecting and analyzing relevant data. Thus, following a mixed-methods evaluation design (Palinkas et al., 2019), institutional administrative data are combined with qualitative evidence to examine the SCL as an institutional ecosystem. Complementarily, the research process will include systematic literature reviews aimed at strengthening the conceptual framework and ensuring the theoretical validity of the dimensions analyzed. Quantitative evidence will be drawn from student records (within the limits of institutional data governance), including student characteristics and equity-relevant variables (e.g., gender and socio-economic background where available), and indicators related to their progression and outcomes throughout their educational program (e.g. credits earned, retention, completion, and performance). This data will be used to describe educational programs and to explore whether differences in outcomes align with differences in SCL-related practices. Documentary evidence will be collected through a structured review of program and course documentation (e.g., program specifications, course guides, assessment plans, and internal quality reports). Documents will be analyzed to identify how student agency is framed in intended learning outcomes, learning activities, assessment criteria, feedback arrangements, and opportunities for student participation in curriculum review and improvement. Qualitative evidence will be gathered through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key institutional stakeholders, including academic leaders and quality managers, program coordinators, teachers, and students. This data explores how the SCL is interpreted and applied, what is perceived as “evidence” of student agency, and what institutional conditions enable or limit change (e.g., resources, norms, professional development, and quality routines). Finally, to capture variability and institutional mediation, the design includes case studies of selected academic units showing contrasting patterns in the preliminary mapping. Cross-case comparison connects indicator patterns to organizational and cultural agreements. Integration occurs through triangulation across data sources, linking processes (curriculum and practice) and outcomes (student trajectories) without reducing SCL to a single metric.

This paper frames student-centered learning as an institutional ecosystem that can be evaluated through the alignment (and misalignment) between curriculum design, assessment and feedback agreements, and student support structures. In this way, integrated analysis of the information will allow us to discuss not only whether SCL exists, but also how different institutional practices and approaches enable or limit student agency, considering that these groups of students are increasingly diverse. According to this, the development of the research project aims to contribute to the generation of a deeper understanding of the university student profile as well as effective methodological strategies to improve the quality of university institutions, promoting that they increasingly focus on deep learning and student orientation, including a gender perspective. In addition, it is also expected to have a significant social impact, promoting equal socio-educational opportunities and social inclusion, while optimizing the role of education as a guarantee of social welfare and the equitable redistribution of resources. This impact is directly linked to the main purpose of the European Higher Education Area, which aims to encourage European Union member states to collaborate in the development of more resilient and inclusive education and training systems (European Education Area, 2025). Finally, the results will be disseminated through a transfer strategy designed to convert the indicator framework into a model that can be replicated by other universities. Similarly, in addition to the publication of findings in high-impact journals indexed in the field of education, the possibility of communicating the results obtained and the proposals developed to the quality agencies and networks involved in the EHEA are being considered. Its aim is to facilitate the transition of the indicators from scientific validation to their integration into accreditation and continuous improvement processes.

Bremner, N. (2021). The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education, 57(2), 159-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1805863 ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. https://www.enqa.eu/esg-standards-and-guidelines-for-quality-assurance-in-the-european-higher-education-area/ European Education Area. (2025, octubre 24). European Education Area explained. https://education.ec.europa.eu/about-eea/the-eea-explained European Higher Education Area. (2015). Ministerial Conference Yerevan, 2015. https://ehea.info/page-ministerial-conference-yerevan-2015 Grøndahl Glavind, J., Montes De Oca, L., Pechmann, P., Brauner Sejersen, D., & Iskov, T. (2023). Student-centred learning and teaching: A systematic mapping review of empirical research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(9), 1247-1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2241391 Hoidn, S. (2020). Beyond the student-centered higher education classroom: The student-centered ecosystems framework. ETH Learning and Teaching Journal, 2(2), 191-195. https://doi.org/10.16906/lt-eth.v2i2.130 Hooshyar, D., Tammets, K., Ley, T., Aus, K., & Kollom, K. (2023). Learning Analytics in Supporting Student Agency: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813662 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1725130 Klemenčič, M. (2017). From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual Considerations of European Policies on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4 Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559 Palinkas, L. A., Mendon, S. J., & Hamilton, A. B. (2019). Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(Volume 40, 2019), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044215