Clarifying and fostering student autonomy in high-risk educational settings: insights from secondary teachers in Spain and Chile

Introduction: Enhancing student autonomy is mandated by the legal frameworks of OECD countries, particularly in vulnerable contexts where it is crucial for individual well-being and life aspirations. Despite its significance, there is limited understanding of teachers’ conceptions and strategies to effectively promote autonomy in the classroom. The present study pursued two complementary aims: first, to propose an interdisciplinary framework, grounded in the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD), to delineate and operationalize student autonomy and establish conditions for its classroom promotion; and second, to analyze teachers’ perceptions of student autonomy, focusing on the importance they assign to it, their theoretical understanding, and the practices they use to foster it in the classroom.

Methods: A qualitative approach was employed, using categorical content analysis of eight semi-structured interviews with secondary teachers working with high-risk students. This methodology enabled an in-depth exploration of teachers’ perceptions within settings with similar regulatory requirements.

Results: Results indicate a significant gap between teachers’ valuation of student autonomy and the institutional support they receive: although most recognize its importance, many report lack of support and training, exhibit conceptual uncertainty when defining the concept, and possess limited technical tools to foster it, acknowledging mainly three out of ten key conditions (individual work, adapting to needs, and power sharing). The inclusion of Chile and Spain was conceived as a complementary strategy, rather than a strict comparison, to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon in diverse vulnerable contexts.

Discussion/conclusion: In conclusion, while teachers consider autonomy important, they demonstrate greater ability to foster it in practice than to define it theoretically. The study contributes to bridging the gap between theory and practice by operationalizing student autonomy through the SoLD framework, and underscores the urgent need for enhanced teacher education and institutional support to translate curricular mandates into sustainable pedagogical practices.

1 Introduction

Biologists and anthropologists (Diamond, 2008, 2006; Dunsworth and Eccleston, 2015; Faust et al., 2020; Gómez-Robles et al., 2024) concur that humans are among the most vulnerable and dependent species at birth in the animal kingdom. This extreme helplessness means that, without the care and support of others, survival would be impossible. From the perspective of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, human beings progress over the course of their lives from a state of complete heteronomy to one of increasing autonomy, which may be achieved to varying degrees–minimal, partial, or full (Kamii, 1982). According to Piaget (1984, 2013), this notion of “autonomy” encompasses both moral and intellectual development, which directly shapes an individual’s behavior. Kamii (1991), drawing on Piaget’s work, defines “autonomy” as self-governance–the ability to make decisions while considering their consequences for oneself and others. She further argues that fostering autonomy should be the ultimate goal of education (Kamii, 1982), thereby positioning it as a cornerstone in the formation of future citizens.

At the same level of importance, renowned authors such as Freire (2004) and Dewey (2010) have argued that autonomy and the active role of students are essential. This highlights that the concept is neither new nor exclusive to any one educational paradigm; rather, it is widely recognized as a complex and critical skill to be developed across contexts. Similarly, Self-Determination Theory, proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000, 2020), Deci and Ryan (1987), identifies autonomy as one of the three basic psychological needs required to achieve individual well-being–thus once again underscoring its significance and linking it directly to motivation, happiness, and personal fulfillment. In the same vein, international organizations such as UNESCO (2015), the OECD (2001, 2018), and the European Union (2019), when projecting future educational goals, emphasize competencies grounded in student autonomy–such as learning to learn, entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness and expression. Likewise, many universities around the world–such as the University of Granada and several in Chile–explicitly state on their websites that their curricula incorporate student autonomy throw autonomous work as a formal requirement, assigning credits and dedicated hours to it. Consequently, secondary school graduates are expected to have developed a sufficient level of autonomy to face the challenges of tertiary (higher) education.

Along the same lines, the school curricula of both Latin American and European countries explicitly emphasize the development of autonomous students. In Chile, for example, the General Education Law [Ley General de Educación (LGE). (2010)] states in Article 30 that the primary aim of education is to “achieve moral, spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and physical development that enables individuals to lead their lives in an autonomous, fulfilling, free, and responsible manner” (p.14). Similarly, the national curriculum guidelines (Bases Curriculares, BBCC) require that all subjects in the second year of upper secondary education (2° Enseñanza Media) contribute to fostering this capacity (Ministerio de Educación de Chile, 2015). In Spain, likewise, Royal Decree 217/2022 identifies autonomy as a key educational goal (Boletín de Estado (BOE), 2022). Furthermore, the Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia (BOJA 144/2016) explicitly mandates that when working with students, educators must aim to “increase their level of autonomy and their capacity for learning to learn” (2016, p.128). This requirement directly influences the graduate profiles at the end of compulsory secondary education (4° ESO), where the development of this complex skill is explicitly outlined.

From an educational perspective, Freire (2004) insightfully emphasizes the crucial role of the teacher in fostering autonomy in students. He reflects that, as an educator, “I must remain attentive to the difficult path or journey from heteronomy to autonomy, aware of the responsibility of my presence, which can be either supportive or disruptive” (p.33). The central point is that the teacher is an educational agent who directly influences students’ autonomy, acting either as a facilitator or as a barrier to its development. As such, the dynamics and interactions that occur in the classroom are of fundamental importance. For this reason, both the theoretical and practical knowledge that teachers possess regarding student autonomy and its effective promotion in the classroom become particularly relevant when seeking to understand its current state and future potential.

However, upon closer examination of the aforementioned official documents, a concerning issue arises. In the Chilean case, although the development of autonomy is consistently emphasized, there is a notable absence of the pedagogical tools necessary to promote it in the classroom. In the Spanish context, while the term frequently appears in educational policy and curriculum documents, it is rarely accompanied by a clear definition of what is meant by autonomy.

Along these lines, but from a scientific standpoint, it is important to note that in recent decades, traditional linear or stage-based models of human development–such as those proposed by Piaget (1972) and Kohlberg (1984)–have increasingly been challenged by complex systems models. These latter approaches understand development as a non-linear process, as seen in the work of Vygotsky (1978), Bronfenbrenner (1979), Fischer and Bidell (2006), Lerner and Callina (2013), and Overton (2010, 2015). From diverse perspectives–social, contextual, and neurological–they conceptualize development not merely as progression, stagnation, or regression, but rather as a dynamic, situated, and interactive phenomenon. These models also account for multiple factors, including physiological, contextual, cultural, and relational elements. From this perspective, autonomy is better represented not as a linear sequence, but as a form of “spiderweb growth” that may be more developed in some areas or contexts than in others.

This situation suggests that neither official policy documents nor traditional linear models of human development are sufficient to fully grasp the complexity and scope of autonomy–especially considering that the development of student autonomy is now a legal, curricular, and pedagogical mandate at the global level. As a result, teachers may lack a clear understanding of what student autonomy actually entails, as well as how to effectively foster it in classroom practice.

From this standpoint, the present study pursued two complementary aims: first, to propose an interdisciplinary framework, grounded in the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD), to delineate and operationalize student autonomy and establish conditions for its classroom promotion; and second, to analyze teachers’ perceptions of student autonomy, focusing on the importance they assign to it, their theoretical understanding, and the practices they use to foster it in the classroom.

2 Autonomy

In order to address the first objective, this section explores the concept of student autonomy drawing from philosophical, psychological, sociological, and neuroscientific sources. First, the general scope of the concept of autonomy is presented. Second, an in-depth look is taken at how it is explained through Self-Determination Theory, linking it to human well-being. Third, the interdisciplinary paradigm of the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) is introduced as an educational framework for supporting student autonomy. Finally, a selection of educational approaches that have historically engaged with the construct is examined. These approaches, within the SoLD framework, provide a basis for proposing a definition of student autonomy, an operationalization of its core dimensions, and the conditions under which it can be effectively promoted in the classroom.

From an etymological perspective, autonomy derives from the Greek words autos, meaning “self” or “one’s own,” and nomos, meaning “law” or “rule.” Its literal meaning is self-governance according to one’s own rules. Although this root meaning has remained consistent since antiquity, its interpretation has evolved to encompass freedom of choice and self-determination within social and cultural frameworks. A useful starting point is to distinguish “autonomy” from “independence,” since these terms are often used interchangeably. Novo Lima et al. (2022), writing from the health sciences, emphasize that independence refers merely to the ability to perform a task without assistance, whereas autonomy is a broader concept that encompasses independence but also allows for interdependence and collaboration. This distinction is crucial, as educational studies highlight that autonomy does not imply isolation but meaningful engagement with others (Bellina, 2016; García and Bustos, 2020; Sánchez and Casal, 2016).

Philosophical traditions, especially Kant, have deeply shaped the modern understanding of autonomy. Kant directly linked autonomy to human freedom and moral reasoning, granting it universal value (Torres Sánchez, 2005). Dworkin (2015) expanded this notion by emphasizing the free use of critical thinking and self-reflection on one’s own motivations for making choices. Piaget (1984, 2013), influenced by Kant, described human development as a progression from heteronomy to autonomy. This line of thought was later developed by Kamii (1982, 1991), who defined autonomy as self-governance and argued that fostering it should be the ultimate goal of education. In this sense, autonomy has been consistently as being composed of the capacity to make decisions, independence, volition, responsibility for one’s actions, and self-reflection, while not being reducible to mere independence (Dworkin, 2015; Heinrich, 2015; Salokangas and Wermke, 2020; Sjödin, 2015). Sjödin (2015) even argues that autonomy is a human right, underscoring its ethical and universal significance.

Thus, while autonomy retains its philosophical depth and etymological resonance, in education the central challenge is not its abstract definition but its operationalization as a set of skills and dispositions that can be intentionally cultivated in classroom practice. This task requires integrating insights from philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and pedagogy -an integration that will be developed in the following subsections, beginning with Self-Determination Theory.

2.1 Self-determination theory (SDT)

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a psychological framework for understanding human motivation and development, emphasizing how social and contextual factors shape well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2017, 2020). At its core, SDT identifies three basic psychological needs- autonomy, competence, and relatedness- as essential for optimal functioning. Autonomy refers to the experience of acting with volition and self-endorsement, whereby actions are perceived as congruent with one’s values and interests. Importantly, autonomy in SDT is not equivalent to independence; rather, it acknowledges interdependence and social embeddedness.

Educational research grounded in SDT demonstrates that autonomy-supportive environments-those that offer meaningful choices, rationales for activities, and acknowledgment of students’ perspectives- promote intrinsic motivation, persistence, academic achievement, and psychological well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Conversely, environments that constrain autonomy foster superficial motivation and disengagement. Autonomy support, however, does not exclude structure; when structure is provided in an informational way, it strengthens students’ sense of competence and enhances motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2020).

In summary, SDT positions autonomy as a fundamental psychological need with direct implications for educational practice: classrooms that promote student voice, choice, and meaningful engagement foster deeper learning and well-being.

2.2 Science of learning and development (SoLD)

The Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) constitute an interdisciplinary field that integrates knowledge from biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and the learning sciences in order to provide a deeper and more holistic understanding of how human beings learn and develop across contexts and over time (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019, 2023). At the core of this framework lies Developmental Systems Theory (DST), which challenges linear and stage-based conceptions of human development by proposing instead a dynamic vision grounded in variability, context, and the reciprocal interaction of biological, cognitive, social, and cultural factors (Fischer and Bidell, 2006; Lerner et al., 2012; Lerner and Callina, 2013; Overton, 2010, 2015).

It should also be stressed that, although SoLD incorporates insights from cognitive neuroscience, it does not assume that neuroscience alone can explain or solve educational problems. As Bethlehem et al. (2022) caution, very little is still known about the brain and millions of neuroimaging studies would still be required to standardize findings at the interindividual level. Moreover, the conditions under which neuroscientific research is conducted- often in laboratory settings or even with non-human models- are far from the complexity of real classrooms, making direct extrapolation both problematic and reductionist. For this reason, SoLD avoids the temptation of translating neuroscience results directly into educational prescriptions. Instead, it builds on more than two centuries of educational sciences while enriching them through interdisciplinary dialogue, offering a framework that is rigorous but also pedagogically grounded.

From this standpoint, development is understood as a constructive process that emerges from the continuous interplay between the individual and their environment. Relationships- with family, peers, teachers, and communities- are conceived as central engines of development, while experiences of synchrony, belonging, and attunement are emphasized as decisive in shaping learning opportunities (Osher et al., 2018). Contexts such as poverty, discrimination, or institutional vulnerability are also recognized as risk factors that may hinder autonomy, while supportive contexts promote it beside resilience and thriving (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cantor et al., 2019). This orientation resonates strongly with the sociocultural paradigm (Vygotsky, 1978; Priestley et al., 2015), which conceives learning, agency, and autonomy as situated achievements that emerge from cultural tools, interactions, and historically mediated practices.

Another key contribution of SoLD is its emphasis on the integration of dimensions traditionally treated as separate. Cognitive, emotional, and social processes are considered inseparable, as are foundational skills such as self-regulation (Bandura, 1991), metacognition (Flavell, 1979), and stress management. These abilities are not viewed as ancillary but as central pillars for the development of higher-order competencies and for the capacity to learn how to learn. In this regard, Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) acquires a central role: rather than being treated as a parallel domain, SEL is understood as integral to cognitive development and essential for cultivating students’ sense of belonging, agency, and autonomy in educational contexts (Osher et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2023).

It is important to note that the SoLD framework has been particularly explicit in its concern for educational equity and contexts of vulnerability. By emphasizing the role of relationships, socio-emotional attunement, and culturally responsive practices, SoLD directly addresses the barriers that poverty, stress, or discrimination pose for learning and the development (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019, 2023; Osher et al., 2018). Research on toxic stress further illustrates how chronic adversity undermines both cognitive and socio-emotional development, highlighting the urgency of safe and supportive environments (Center on the Developing Child, 2016; Immordino-Yang et al., 2019). In this sense, SoLD’s value lies not only in offering a general model of human development but also in providing a research-informed framework and principles that- when applied through an equity lens- can counter inequitable practices and expand opportunities for historically marginalized students (Hammond, 2019).

In relation to autonomy, SoLD provides a particularly valuable framework. By conceiving students as active agents in reciprocal interaction with their contexts, it highlights how autonomy emerges not as a fixed trait but as a situated and dynamic capacity. The framework stresses the importance of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-efficacy as essential elements in helping students take ownership of their learning. At the same time, by integrating SEL and sociocultural mediation into its structure, SoLD enables autonomy to be understood science not only as an individual disposition but also as a relational and contextual phenomenon, dependent on the opportunities for voice, belonging, and decision-making afforded in the classroom (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

In sum, SoLD offers a comprehensive and dynamic foundation for understanding student autonomy within education. By bridging disciplines and aligning evidence-based practices, it provides an integrative perspective that not only explains how learning and development occur but also guides the intentional design of classroom practices to foster student autonomy, especially in vulnerable contexts where this capacity is both most at risk and most needed.

2.3 Selected educational approaches to autonomy

Autonomy has been addressed through various educational approaches, each contributing complementary insights into how learners can achieve it.

2.3.1 Learner autonomy

Originating in second language learning, learner autonomy was first conceptualized by Holec (1981) as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (p.3), a capacity not innate but cultivated through educational experience. Little (1991, 2007) and Benson (2013) further emphasized reflection, decision making, and self-regulation as central. Learner autonomy involves goal setting, strategy selection, monitoring progress, and evaluation. Pedagogically, Little (1991) proposed three key principles for its development: learner involvement, learner reflection, and use of the target language.

Research has consistently shown that fostering learner autonomy produces multiple benefits. It strengthens self-regulation and metacognitive abilities, enabling students to monitor and adapt their learning strategies (Crabbe, 1993; Dam, 1995). It also enhances intrinsic motivation: when learners feel responsible and enjoy their progress, they show higher engagement and deeper learning (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Lamb, 2017). Psychological well-being is also positively affected, as autonomy-supportive environments promote self-confidence, self-esteem, and reduced anxiety (Nguyen and Gu, 2013; Williams and Burden, 1997). More recent reviews (Ahmed and Hossain, 2024) confirm these findings, highlighting the links between autonomy, motivation, and sustained engagement with learning tasks.

2.3.2 Self-directed learning (SDL)

Self-Directed Learning is a longstanding concept that gained prominence in the 1960s and has since become a central framework in adult education and lifelong learning research (Garrison, 1992). Knowles (1975) defined SDL as a process in which individuals take the initiative- with or without the assistance of others- to diagnose their learning needs, set goals, identify resources, implement strategies, and evaluate outcomes. This perspective shifted responsibility from the instructor to the learner, positioning autonomy, self-management, and proactivity at the center of the learning process (Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991; Merriam et al., 2007).

Brookfield (2009) expanded this framework by emphasizing critical reflection as a central dimension of SDL, while Boud (1988) stressed the pedagogical implications of scaffolding SDL through supportive environments and gradual introduction of autonomy. SDL therefore requires learners to: (1) set their own objectives and timelines; (2) determine assessment criteria; (3) structure the sequence and nature of activities; and (4) seek and incorporate feedback to refine strategies (Smith, 2021).

Evidence has shown that SDL is associated with academic achievement and lifelong learning skills (Khalid et al., 2020), improved critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (Brookfield, 2009), and enhanced learner satisfaction and engagement, particularly in adult and online education contexts (Boud, 1988; Knapper and Cropley, 2000; Smith, 2021). More recently, Morris et al. (2023) underlined the importance of SDL in contemporary societies, highlighting that it fosters adaptability and proactivity- qualities essential for rapidly changing conditions and workplaces.

2.3.3 Agency from a sociocognitive perspective

Within social cognitive theory, Bandura (2001) defines agency as individuals’ capacity to intentionally regulate thought and action through the reciprocal interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. Its core properties-intentionality, forethought, self-regulation, and self-reflection- explain how learners exercise control over their learning. A central mechanism is self-efficacy, or belief in one’s ability to organize and execute actions (Bandura, 1997), which shapes persistence and resilience (Bandura and National Inst of Mental Health, 1986). Closely related are self-regulation- the cyclical process of planning, monitoring, and adapting behavior (Zimmerman, 2000; Pintrich, 2004; Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2016) - and metacognition, the awareness and regulation of one’s own thinking (Flavell, 1979). Together, these processes operationalize autonomy as a dynamic skill set, scaffolded in classrooms through feedback, reflection, and strategy use (Usher and Schunk, 2018).

Recent work further stresses that agency is not only about control, but also about purpose and belonging, which strengthens motivation (Code, 2020). In this sense, fostering agency requires learning environments that provide opportunities for voice, decision making, and collaborative engagement.

2.3.4 Self-regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition

Closely linked to sociocognitive theories, these three constructs explain the psychological mechanisms through which autonomy is enacted in practice. Self-regulation refers to the cyclical process of planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s learning, including the use of strategies to sustain motivation and adapt to challenges (Zimmerman, 2000; Pintrich, 2004). Self-efficacy beliefs, conceptualized by Bandura (1997), shape students’ willingness to engage in demanding tasks, their persistence, and their ability to regulate emotions in the face of setbacks. Metacognition, defined by Flavell (1979) as the awareness and regulation of one’s own thinking, allows learners to select strategies, monitor comprehension, and refine approaches, thus supporting transfer and adaptability.

Together, these processes form the internal architecture of individual autonomy, linking volition with reflective and motivational mechanisms. As Usher and Schunk (2018) emphasize, such capacities are not innate but can be intentionally scaffolded through pedagogy, for instance, by encouraging students to set goals, monitor progress, and engage in reflective feedback. In this sense, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition operationalize individual autonomy as a dynamic skill set, providing the bridge between theoretical constructs of agency and their manifestation in classroom practice.

2.3.5 Agency from a sociocultural perspective

From a sociocultural perspective, agency is understood as the capacity of individuals to act intentionally within a social and cultural context, mediated by cultural tools, signs, and interaction with other members of the community (Vygotsky, 1978; McLeod, 2025). This view emphasizes that human development and action do not occur in isolation, but rather within a web of social, historical, and cultural relationships that shape and enable agency. In this framework, agency is not regarded as an isolated individual capacity, but as a situated achievement that emerges at the intersection of individual action and the social and cultural structures that condition it (Priestley et al., 2015).

Sociocultural agency encompasses several key dimensions. First, it is relational and contextual, emerging through social interaction and within specific cultural settings where norms, values, and historical practices influence the scope of possible actions (McLeod, 2025). Second, it is collective, exercised within groups, communities, and social contexts through collaboration and the negotiation of meaning (Priestley et al., 2015). Third, it is mediated by cultural tools, in that semiotic resources such as language, symbols, and technology mediate the subject’s relationship with the world, allowing for the active transformation and appropriation of reality (Roth and Lee, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978). Finally, agency is dynamic and developmental, as it evolves historically and is transformed through experience and social participation, rather than being a fixed capacity (Rigo et al., 2021; Vygotsky, 1978).

Agency is thus conceptualized as a capacity developed through interaction between the learner and their social environment, where cultural structures and interpersonal relationships either enable or constrain the individual’s ability to act and make decisions within the educational process. As such, agency is a relational, situated, and socially mediated action that arises when educational contexts provide students with social, cultural, and pedagogical resources to actively participate in their learning and within the educational community. While individual factors are present in this conception of agency, empirical research by Jääskelä et al. (2017, 2020) emphasizes that the critical factor is the student’s own evaluation of their context, particularly in terms of the relationships and opportunities it affords.

Empirical evidence further indicates that socially mediated learning supports cognitive and emotional development, strengthening students’ capacity to act with autonomy within their context (Peña-Sandoval and Venegas-Weber, 2022). Similarly, collaboration and group work enhance problem-solving and innovation, highlighting the collective dimension of agency (Peña-Sandoval and Venegas-Weber, 2022).

In sum, agency from a sociocultural perspective is a dialogical and culturally mediated process through which individuals act and develop in interaction with their social, historical, and cultural environments, utilizing symbolic tools that enable the internalization and active transformation of reality. This perspective clarifies that agency should be viewed less as an individual ability and more as a space of sense-making and action (sense of agency), contingent upon the contextual conditions that allow it to be exercised.

2.3.6 Student-centered learning (SCL)

Student-centered learning places students at the center of the educational process, contrasting with teacher-centered models by fostering agency, autonomy, collaboration, and critical thinking (Lee and Hannafin, 2016; Tang, 2023). Grounded in constructivist theories, it views knowledge as actively constructed through engagement and social interaction, and it encourages students to assume responsibility for their learning by making choices about content, strategies, and even assessment methods (Degago and Kaino, 2015).

Research has consistently highlighted the principles and benefits of SCL. Lee and Hannafin (2016) emphasize active engagement through inquiry, reflection, and problem-solving, while Tang (2023) underscores autonomy as goal setting, monitoring, and evaluation. Collaborative learning has been shown to strengthen peer interaction and knowledge co-construction (Dada et al., 2023), and personalization allows learning experiences to adapt to students’ needs and interests (Degago and Kaino, 2015). These principles converge with formative assessment practices, which use continuous feedback to improve outcomes (Tang, 2023).

The implementation of active methodologies, such as the Flipped Classroom (Lee and Hannafin, 2016) and Project-Based Learning (Bhardwaj et al., 2025), further demonstrates the potential of SCL. Evidence shows increased motivation and engagement (Lee and Hannafin, 2016; Tang, 2023), improved academic performance and knowledge retention (Bhardwaj et al., 2025), development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Dada et al., 2023), as well as enhanced research, teamwork, and social inclusion (Degago and Kaino, 2015; Bhardwaj et al., 2025).

In summary, SCL promotes active, autonomous, and collaborative learning with positive effects on motivation, achievement, and higher-order skills. Nevertheless, its effective implementation requires strong institutional support, particularly in terms of teacher training and adequate resources. Finally, the central components of SCL are closely aligned with the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD), reinforcing their educational implications for students and their relevance for teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019, 2023).

2.3.7 Synthesis

Across philosophical, psychological, and educational perspectives, autonomy emerges as a complex and multidimensional construct. From Self-Determination Theory, it appears as a basic psychological need essential for motivation, learning, and well-being. From the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD), it is conceptualized as a dynamic developmental capacity shaped by relationships, culture, and context. From educational approaches- including learner autonomy, self-directed learning, sociocognitive and sociocultural agency, and student-centered learning- it is operationalized through practices that foster reflection, self-regulation, collaboration, and active participation.

Taken together, these perspectives converge in showing that autonomy is not reducible to independence or individual effort, but rather a situated capacity that integrates cognitive, motivational, relational, and contextual dimensions. This synthesis provides the foundation for the next section, where student autonomy is defined and operationalized within the SoLD framework as a construct intentionally promoted in classroom practice.

2.4 Educational operationalization of student autonomy within the SoLD framework

As highlighted throughout this article, student autonomy is a concept that is increasingly demanded at the legal, curricular, and societal levels. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding how to effectively foster it within classroom settings. For this reason, the interpretive framework offered by the SoLD provides a valuable, evidence-based foundation for cultivating this essential and complex skill in future citizens, particularly in a world characterized by constant change.

First and foremost, it is important to clarify that student autonomy, as conceptualized within the SoLD framework, breaks away from the dichotomous tendencies found in the educational approaches previously discussed. Rather than aligning exclusively with either individually- or socially oriented interpretations, in this frame student autonomy situates at a balanced midpoint between these perspectives. Unlike other theoretical frameworks that lean toward one pole or the other, student autonomy is conceived as a centered construct, an idea illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Positions between individual or social conception of the educational approaches and student autonomy. Source: Own elaboration.

Secondly, after identifying where the proposed notion of student autonomy is situated in relation to other theoretical approaches, it becomes essential to define the construct to enable its operationalization. Consequently, drawing from the comprehensive framework of the SoLD and the converging points across the previously reviewed theoretical proposals, student autonomy is understood as follows:

A complex skill that entails the dynamic implementation of individual and contextual factors that interact in the pursuit of a goal. It encompasses higher-order cognitive and metacognitive processes, as well as motivational, emotional, and interactional dimensions, all situated within a specific social, cultural, and historical context (Rivera-Gómez-Barris, 2024, p.1038).

From this perspective, aligned with the SoLD paradigm, student autonomy is situated within a framework influenced by constructivism, sociocultural theory, the sociocognitive perspective, cognitivism, and cognitive neuroscience (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019, 2023). These are theoretical approaches that have demonstrated effectiveness in educational settings through the implementation of instructional practices supported by empirical evidence.

Thirdly, to operationalize this definition and render it more understandable and applicable within educational practice, six equally important components were identified (common across all previously reviewed theoretical approaches), which provide a basis for more clearly understanding what student autonomy entails and for its effective promotion in the classroom:

Table 1 illustrates that student autonomy comprises six core components that facilitate its understanding and effective promotion in the classroom. However, it is important to emphasize that these components function dynamically and follow the patterns established by the SoLD vision. In other words, as previously noted, the development and behavior of this complex skill resemble the previously mentioned spiderweb metaphor, being influenced not only by individual factors but also by its inextricable connection to the culture and specific context in which it is socially situated, as depicted in Figure 2.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Operationalization of the concept of student autonomy.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Student autonomy hypothetical performance. Source: Own elaboration.

While Figure 2 illustrates a hypothetical representation of student autonomy in action, it is essential to understand that this skill does not operate or evolve in a linear or uniform way. In fact, its development is marked by various complexities. A single individual may demonstrate differing degrees of autonomy across different contexts. Moreover, each context is shaped not only by individual performance but also by self-perception and how others within the same context perceive that performance, as depicted in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Individual and contextual influences in student autonomy performance. Source: Own elaboration.

Based on Figure 3, it is important to note that teachers’ perceptions of their students’ abilities significantly influence the self-assessment students develop about themselves and their own capacities -commonly referred to as the Pygmalion effect. This example highlights both the complexity and urgent necessity involved in fostering student autonomy in the classroom and the critical role of factors such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001) and social skills, which must be actively cultivated and promoted within the educational system.

Finally, drawing on perspectives such as that of Sjödin (2015), who regards “autonomy” as a human right, or Kamii (1982), who frames it as the ultimate goal of the Educational System, along with the contributions of Bremner (2021a,b) and Morris et al. (2023), ten conditions have been structured to promote Learner-Centered Education (LCE) and to compare Student-Centered Learning (SCL) and Self-Directed Learning (SDL). At the same time, this proposal proves to be relevant and with pertinent adaption could be a useful for fostering student autonomy within the framework of the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019, 2023).

In Table 2, the third column presents the pages where the overlaps are identified between the ten aspects proposed to promote student autonomy in the classroom- based on the research of Bremner (2021a,b) - and those found in the article framed within the SoLD perspective, “Implications for Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development” by Darling-Hammond et al. (2019). In this process, three of the conditions (individual work, authentic assessment and social and emotional safe space) were renamed or adapted to better align with the goal of fostering student autonomy in SoLD framework. These correspondences are noteworthy, considering that the SoLD framework, from a general explanatory stance, aims to provide disadvantaged students with the best possible opportunities to achieve their life goals–an objective that closely aligns with the development of student autonomy.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Strategies and conditions that promote student autonomy.

In sum, the operationalization of student autonomy within the SoLD framework provides a coherent and evidence-based model that integrates cognitive, motivational, emotional, and contextual dimensions. By delineating its core components and conditions, this section establishes the theoretical foundation for examining how teachers perceive, define, and foster student autonomy in their practice. The following section describes the methodological design employed to explore these perceptions in depth.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Type of study and design

This research, part of a doctoral thesis, adopts a qualitative descriptive approach aimed at understanding teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding student autonomy in vulnerable educational contexts (McMillan and Schumacher, 2005). The design is non-experimental and follows an instrumental multiple case study (Stake, 2006), allowing for in-depth exploration of several cases within their real-world context. The study is exploratory and does not seek statistical generalization but rather analytical depth and transferability (Patton, 2002, 2015). Chile and Spain were conceived as complementary contexts, rather than strictly comparative ones, in order to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon from two educational systems subject to similar curricular mandates and policy frameworks.

3.2 Participants

A purposive sampling strategy was employed, selecting four secondary schools located in vulnerable contexts- two in Chile and two in Spain. The inclusion of vulnerable schools was intentional and central to the research design, as the study aimed to capture teachers’ perceptions in contexts where the promotion of student autonomy is most critical yet most challenged. A total of eight teachers participated (four History and four Biology teachers; two per subject and country), all teaching students aged 15–16, a stage identified as critical for school dropout risk (OCDE, 2016, 2019; Gijón and Lizarte, 2020). The selected subjects emphasize student autonomy in national curricula (Ley General de Educación (LGE)., 2010; Spain’s LOMLOE, 2020; de Andalucía, 2016). Moreover, this grade level is pedagogically relevant because it coincides with the transition to educational adulthood, making it appropriate to incorporate andragogical approaches such as Self-Directed Learning (Knowles, 1975; Brookfield, 2009).

3.3 Fieldwork and ethical considerations

Eight semi-structured interviews (≈40 min each) were conducted to examine three axes: (a) teachers’ perceptions of the importance of autonomy, (b) their definitions of the concept, and (c) classroom strategies and conditions that foster it. The interview guide consisted of nine core questions, validated by three experts in education and didactics to ensure clarity, relevance, and capacity to elicit rich responses (Miles et al., 2013). While the structure was maintained, the flexible nature of semi-structured interviews allowed the interviewer to pose additional probing questions during the application, depending on participants’ answers.

Examples of core questions included:

• How do you define student autonomy in your teaching practice?

• Why do you consider student autonomy important (or not) for your students?

• What strategies or classroom conditions do you use to promote student autonomy?

Follow-up probes were used when necessary, such as:

• Could you give me a concrete example from your class?

• How do your students usually respond to these strategies/conditions?

Ethical safeguards were carefully applied: all participants signed informed consent, explicitly authorizing the recording of the interviews, and were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage without consequences. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured through alphanumeric codes. Testimonies were securely stored and used exclusively for research purposes, ensuring respect for participants’ autonomy and ethical protection throughout the process. Although the study was not submitted to a formal ethics review board, it strictly adhered to the ethical principles established in the British Educational Research Association’s Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (British Educational Research Association, 2018), which emphasize voluntary participation, confidentiality, and respect for the rights and dignity of participants in non-clinical educational research.

3.4 Data analysis

The interviews were fully transcribed to preserve the authenticity of the testimonies (Taylor and Bogdan, 1994). The analysis followed an inductive and deductive categorical approach using analytical matrices. One matrix was built from emerging categories related to the importance of fostering student autonomy, and two were constructed based on a priori categories grounded in the literature and complemented by emergent categories identified during analysis (Miles et al., 2013).

In total, three matrices of analysis were established:

1. Importance of promoting student autonomy: Includes emerging categories concerning teachers’ perceptions of autonomy’s relevance in relation to their student profiles, institutional priorities, received training, and willingness to pursue professional development.

2. Definition through the dimensions of student autonomy: The operational definition was based on theoretical components (goal setting, decision making, accountability for my actions and their consequences, independence, self-assessment of the process, and motivation) drawn from the converging features of educational approaches within the SoLD framework. An additional category, “uncertainty,” emerged to reflect teachers who explicitly acknowledged a lack of clarity regarding their understanding of student autonomy.

3. Strategies and conditions to promote student autonomy: This matrix used a priori categories derived from Bremner’s (2021a) ten adapted conditions, such as active participation, interaction, real-life skills, higher order skills, adapting to (student) needs, power sharing, individual work, authentic assessment, metacognition, and social and emotional safe space (classroom).

The unit of analysis consisted of completely meaningful statements extracted from participants’ responses. Based on these units, descriptive frequencies were counted to identify recurring patterns without applying inferential statistics, in line with the descriptive nature of the study. This was complemented with thematic content analysis, as it enables the identification of patterns that support the development of descriptions and interpretations from both inductive and deductive perspectives (Barrera et al., 2012; Boyatzis, 1998; Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Finally, methodological triangulation was conducted by contrasting data from interviews, as well as through peer debriefing with an external researcher to validate interpretations and strengthen the study’s credibility (Creswell and Poth, 2018). Additionally, theoretical saturation was considered reached when no new categories or relevant meanings emerged during analytical iterations (Guest et al., 2006).

4 Results

The results of this study are framed in its second objective: to examine teachers’ perceptions of student autonomy. For analytical purposes, the findings are organized into three dimensions aligned with the main interview questions: (a) the importance teachers assign to student autonomy, (b) their conceptual understanding of student autonomy, and (c) the classroom practices they report using to foster it. Each category is presented with illustrative excerpts from the testimonies of the eight participating teachers, collected through semi-structured interviews (Miles et al., 2013).

4.1 Importance of promoting student autonomy

Based on the interviews, four categories emerged regarding the importance teachers assign to student autonomy:

1. Importance assigned by teachers themselves.

2. Importance assigned by the school.

3. Importance the school assigns to training on student autonomy.

4. Importance of acquiring training on student autonomy from the teachers’ perspective.

To present the information in an organized way, teachers’ testimonies were grouped into five levels of perceived importance: Very Important (VI), Important (I), Moderately Important (MI), Not Very Important (NVI), and Not Important (NI).

Table 3 provides a descriptive overview of how these levels are distributed across both countries. The data indicate that while teachers overwhelmingly view the promotion of student autonomy as very important or important, institutional support and training opportunities reveal greater variability. In particular, the categories “importance assigned by the school” and “importance of training” tend to receive lower ratings and show a higher proportion of “not important” responses, highlighting a perceived gap between teachers’ convictions and institutional practices.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Teachers’ perceptions of the importance of promoting student autonomy.

These frequencies are explored in detail below, supported by teachers’ testimonies.

4.1.1 Importance teachers assign to promoting student autonomy

This first category examines the degree of importance that teachers attribute to the promotion of student autonomy in their professional practice. Responses from both Chilean and Spanish participants were concentrated almost entirely in the “Very Important” and “Important” ranges, with no negative evaluations. This consistency suggests that teachers perceive autonomy as a central element in students’ educational development and future life trajectories.

In this sense, it is worth noting that teachers also project its relevance beyond secondary education, since they consider it a resource that remains useful throughout life. Among the comments made by Chilean teachers, one teacher explicitly states the need to foster student autonomy progressively, arguing that exercise make it possible to achieve higher levels of mastery that students can apply beyond secondary education.

“Very important, because it is a tool for life, not only in teaching, in their formative education process at school or university, but also forever, and it is a skill that lasts over time and is perfected every day” (Teacher 1, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

Similarly, teachers regard student autonomy as one of the most relevant skills in their students’ education, explaining that it serves as a vehicle to guide life and, according to a remarkable testimony of a Spanish teacher, as the most important of all:

“I think it is such an important issue, because afterward, for example, in addition to what we were talking about before, in society. (Before), knowledge, information, all that before was too difficult to get, but now the challenge is to get them to be autonomous so that knowledge, those skills and so on we can use them correctly. That is why I also believe - I have told you about the vehicle-…that it is very important that each student is able to lead his life, each one in his own way, with more, that is, more intelligence, with more abilities, with fewer abilities, but that they are autonomous, able to resolve within the range that each one has. Because there are so many students, aren’t there? So many different types, but within each of their ranges, I think, autonomy is the main one” (Teacher 3, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

Both the absence of testimonies suggesting that student autonomy is not very significant in students’ education and the small difference between Spanish and Chilean teachers reaffirm the perception presented above, as teachers are likely fully aware of the responsibility assigned to them in promoting it in their professional practice.

4.1.2 Importance of the promotion of student autonomy by the institution according to teachers

The comments on this topic are framed by education professionals’ perception of whether they receive support from the educational centers in which they work. The results show that testimonies tend to cluster at both extremes of the importance scale and, at the same time, they indicate clear differences between Chilean and Spanish teachers.

In Chile, most teachers reported that their schools provide little or no support for student autonomy, as reflected in several testimonies. One teacher expressed this bluntly:

“No, they don’t, that’s categorical” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

On the other hand, those who feel that they do receive support from the school describe this support mainly in relation to the implementation of activities that require student participation in projects outside the classroom. Among the most relevant appraisals from Chilean teachers are the following:

“Because, (for) example, it allows me to do these types of practical activities rather than an evaluated test, a PAES [Higher Education Entrance Exam] test; it allows me to do work with self-evaluation and co-evaluation. When students are motivated to participate in different projects, we ask for the school’s authorization and the school supports us” (Teacher 5,2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

“For this school, yes, as I said, one thing is advertising and the other is what the school proposes, that is, from the social-emotional formation that the child can take charge of his emotions…that is why our school practices yoga, that is why we also practice transcendental meditation (so that) the students are able to self-regulate, that they are able to find themselves and in the academic work, which is what we are working on, that they are also able…we were already saying to develop skills and that in the classroom work they can search, inquire, investigate with respect to class topics without it being an expository class” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

In contrast, Spanish teachers recognize that student autonomy is a regulatory requirement, since it is part of the formative competencies of the schools. Among the most notable testimonies are:

“Yes, because there you are within the competencies. Within the educational competencies, it is autonomy, being…I don’t remember…learning to learn. So it is there, what happens is that it is not part of the syllabus. As we have said before, it is one of the competencies that must be worked on in all the didactic units in a transversal way, but it is there, it is included” (Teacher 3, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

“Yes, teacher training, the methodologies that are applied in the classroom and also the ideology of the center itself aims to educate people. So, you cannot understand a person without autonomy” (Teacher 6, 4th ESO, Biology, Spain).

This disparity may be explained by the fact that, in Spain, the mandatory inclusion of student autonomy as part of the competency-based curriculum has permeated schools’ institutional ideologies, whereas in Chile teachers perceive weaker and less consistent support at school level.

4.1.3 Importance assigned by the school to the development of students’ autonomy

This topic concerns teachers’ perceptions of whether they receive training on student autonomy from the school. The comments made by most of the teachers are, unlike in the previous topics, at the lowest levels of appreciation.

In both Chile and Spain, teachers clearly state that they do not receive training on student autonomy, although they do receive training on other subjects that, in their view, support students’ autonomous work, for example, collaborative work:

“I don’t know about autonomy, but it is linked to autonomy, to school work with students in the way of doing work, for example, experimental work, where they can, in one way or another, manage their time, manage their cognitive development, but as if to say “today we are going to develop autonomy,” no” (Teacher 5, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

“Yes, in some way…they have included it in another line of work, when we have training courses and we do what I told you about the other day…the cooperatives, the PBL and all this…we include autonomy, it is included in one of the parts that…even the capacity is evaluated. But, as such, a course called autonomy, no, not for students, but in a transversal way or in an evaluable way…it is incorporated” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

4.1.4 Importance given by teachers to receive training on student autonomy

On this subject, both Chilean and Spanish teachers explicitly state that they would like to receive training on student autonomy, since they perceive that it would allow them to improve their performance and contribute more effectively to the education of their students.

Chilean teachers emphasize the importance of receiving training on student autonomy, stressing that it is essential to understand both its meaning and its practical implications. They also note that, in some schools, it is included in the graduate profile and that they consider themselves creative when designing strategies. Nonetheless, continuous professional development is seen as a key competence in teacher education, as it directly contributes to improving students’ learning.

“For me it would be something super important anyway, because if I’m going to be working there on autonomy, but I don’t really know what autonomy is and how to apply autonomy. Then it would be like… I can’t be preaching without practicing it” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

“Yes, absolutely. We teachers are creative, but up to a certain point no more…because one thing is the innate creativity that we may have, as an innate talent that a “teacher” may have, and another thing is to learn, acquire, appropriate new strategies that have to do with how time goes by, how generations change. A strategy 10 years ago is not the same as now…they are totally different and for that reason it is also very important that the institution [the center] itself takes care of promoting these instances of improvement, socialization, dialogue among colleagues to be able to do things in common, something that does not happen here” (Teacher 5, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

Spanish teachers, likewise, state that they would like to receive training on how to develop autonomous students in the classroom, pointing out that teachers are always in a constant state of learning, so it would be beneficial to acquire more tools:

“Right now in the … is that the whole wide range, there is so much training, technological, cooperative, emotional intelligence, mindfulness, many, but autonomy is very important … I think the base, which is what will help them to be adults, not to depend on anyone. When we talk about socialization, to not depend on anyone, at any level, professional, social relations, that we carry inside the house, outside the house; that we do not depend, an emotional dependence could also reach that. Preparing for modern life…” (Teacher 7, 4th ESO, Biology, Spain).

Another of the Spanish teachers’ comments stands out for making explicit that student autonomy may vary according to time and context and that, therefore, it would be important to receive updated information on this subject:

“So I do claim a little bit that training in… or if we call for it and I take up the gauntlet of the need to train ourselves in developing autonomy or the new autonomy. I understand that the autonomy we have experienced is different from the autonomy required by the new students, so I think we are not aware of this new autonomy, I think we do not know what the students’ autonomy demands.” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

In summary, with respect to the four categories that comprise the results related to the importance that Chilean and Spanish teachers assign to student autonomy, the findings indicate that:

1. Regarding the importance they attach to fostering the autonomy of their students, both Chilean and Spanish teachers agree that it is rated as “Important” or “Very Important.”

2. Regarding whether they consider that the educational center in which they work assigns importance to student autonomy, the trend shows that there are differences in teachers’ perception in both countries, since the majority of Chilean teachers state that, although it is recognized in the norm and in the discourse of the educational entity that student training in autonomy is important, in practice there is a lack of concrete actions for its empowerment. In contrast, the majority of Spanish teachers stated that they do feel that it is promoted in schools, as it is part of the competencies established in the regulations.

3. Regarding whether teachers perceive that it is important for the educational center that they receive training to know how to promote student autonomy, as in the previous category, the majority of Spanish teachers indicated that they did receive such training, while the majority of Chilean teachers stated that the school did not provide it.

4. With respect to whether they consider it important to receive training on how to promote student autonomy, again the same tendency is registered among Chilean and Spanish teachers, since for both it is important to have training support for their professional practice.

Overall, these findings reveal a shared conviction among teachers regarding the value of student autonomy, while also pointing to contextual differences in how schools and institutions support its development. These contrasts set the stage for the next analytical section.

4.2 Teachers’ level of knowledge and understanding of student autonomy

This section presents results on two aspects: teachers’ knowledge of what student autonomy is and their perceptions of its components.

It should be noted that, in order to establish the a priori categories and to carry out the analysis, both the definition and the components of student autonomy presented in the first part of this study were used as a framework for the analysis. The results are presented below.

4.2.1 Teachers’ perception of what student autonomy is

The operational definition proposed in this article of what student autonomy is establishes a theoretical basis for contrasting of the testimonies of teachers in Chile and Spain regarding this concept.

It should be noted that, since these are testimonies given by teachers in a semi-structured interview, it is expected that the information they provide regarding what they understand by student autonomy will be presented based on individual perception, which generates a diversity of contributions; therefore, in order to collect and analyze the information, a priori categories were expected to be identified in each case, and the corresponding results are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Teachers’ perceptions of what student autonomy is.

The results show that no teacher was able to provide a theoretical definition of what student autonomy is, since, when referring to what it is conceptually, all participants pointed out characteristics that describe the profile of an autonomous student. In this sense, it is important to highlight two testimonies that, although they cannot be framed as a definition as such, explicitly point out three very relevant aspects of what student autonomy is.

The first of these corresponds to a Chilean teacher who framed student autonomy as a complex skill involving multiple dimensions:

“That the student has the ability to achieve this on his own, isn’t that right? …the development of certain skills and then obviously developing competencies…which is what is expected” (Teacher 1, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

The second one adds a different dimension by stating that the exercise of autonomy is a process, which shows that it is achieved progressively and that it requires different levels of complexity, since it explains that, as the student progresses through the educational levels, it changes:

“Well, that he knows how to look for and expand instruments to understand by himself, under the guidance or accompaniment of the teacher, but that he knows by himself, where he has to go to find what he needs. But of course, this is a process that coincides with the first year of primary school; there are processes that go on every year, they are reset” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

Finally, the testimony of another Spanish teacher is presented, who mentions that autonomy is related to the management capacity that a student should possess, emphasizing that it is a tool that serves to solve unforeseen events:

“Management capacity. The ability to manage any unforeseen event that may arise, to plan, which is important for them because not everything is always going to come (…) So autonomy will give them the ability to solve, well, everything they propose, whether it is planned or unforeseen. What I think” (Teacher 6, 4th ESO, Biology, Spain).

Regarding the different skills that make up the dimensions of the concept of student autonomy, the table shows that Chilean and Spanish teachers show a clear tendency toward the cognitive dimension, since they all express higher order thinking skills.

“To solve problems independently, to be able to give an opinion, to give a point of view, to solve situations directly without having to ask the classmate or the teacher or things like that” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

Similarly, it is interesting to note the testimony of a Spanish teacher who, on the same subject, points out the influence that the context of the students has on the development of autonomy, evidencing a very important factor when it comes to defining it conceptually:

“I mean, it is not only the student or not only the teacher, but often the system; it is also the cultural context that these children have, if these children have a cultural context that motivates curiosity, autonomy develops in another way…if it is in a family context where there are not (these) elements, we cannot ask the elm tree for pears, my poor children” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

In summary, all teachers show some confusion when defining student autonomy: they tend to describe characteristics of an autonomous student rather than provide a clear conceptual definition. This is concerning because, when they attempt to define it, they frequently allude to other skills, which suggests that the promotion of student autonomy remains largely implicit in classroom practice.

4.2.2 Teachers’ perceptions of the components of student autonomy

This section presents the results on teachers’ perceptions of the components of student autonomy. It should be noted that, as in the previous section, a priori categories of analysis were established as a basis for contrasting the information provided by teachers with the proposal of this research. Therefore, by way of summary, Figure 4 shows the results of the perception of the teachers who participated in the semi-structured interviews.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Teachers’ perceptions of the components of student autonomy. Source: Own elaboration.

The results show that during the semi-structured interviews, teachers stated that “independence” is the most representative characteristic of student autonomy. In this sense, it should be pointed out that Chilean teachers mention it most often, while Spanish teachers do so to a lesser extent, since, out of 20 comments, 13 correspond to Chile and 7 to Spain.

Among the most significant appreciations is that of a Spanish teacher who associates independence with the ability to identify what is needed to understand on one’s own and, thus, to be able to improve one’s shortcomings:

“Well, that he knows how to look for and expand instruments to understand by himself, under the guidance or accompaniment of the teacher, but that he knows by himself, where he has to go to find what he needs” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

On the other hand, the second characteristic that teachers most associate with student autonomy is “Decision making,” with Chilean teachers mentioning it more frequently, since, out of 13 interventions, 11 of them correspond to Chilean teachers, while 2 are from Spanish teachers. Among the testimonies that stand out the most is that of a Chilean teacher who associates “Decision making” with “Self-assessment of the process”:

“In this case, the student should be able to perform or develop not only the work activity that he is destined (to do), but also, he should be able to make decisions. For example, you [interviewer who visited the classroom] saw in the room (today)…either I dedicate myself to listen to music or I dedicate myself to work…work by copying (the guide to classmates) or I read (and I do it) …you realize. So, these are decisions that are made…(I work) with the teacher’s support or I answer alone and then I ask the teacher how the answer is” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

The third category with the highest frequency is “Self-assessment of the process,” which appears equally in both countries, since, out of 12 comments, 6 correspond to Chile and 6 to Spain.

Among the most significant appreciations is that of a Chilean teacher who mentions that an autonomous student can evaluate his own learning process, specifying the relevance of “realizing the error” in order to achieve learning:

“They also make the self-reflection of (where) I was wrong or I was wrong experimentally, but not theoretically or I was wrong theoretically, but not experimentally” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

The fourth most recognized characteristic is the “Goal setting.” Of 5 total responses, 3 correspond to Chilean teachers and 2 to Spanish teachers. Among the most significant appreciations, the following stand out:

“Man, I would understand student autonomy as a person who can…prepare his activities, propose objectives, can even prepare the syllabus, make what we call the inverted class, (that is) that the student knows how to work on his own, as long as I give him some guidelines” (Teacher 3, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

In fifth place is the emerging category of “Uncertainty,” understood as the questioning of teachers’ own knowledge of what student autonomy is and what it is made up of. Four teachers from Chile explicitly stated this, while one from Spain also said so. Among the most significant appreciations, the following stand out:

“When one talks about the concept of autonomy, one gets confused with the concept of independence” (Teacher 1, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

The next category of analysis is evidenced in a total of 4 interventions and is the “Accountability for my actions and their consequences,” which is mostly expressed by Chilean teachers, since 3 out of 4 interventions correspond to Chile and 1 to Spain. Among the most significant appreciation, the following stand out:

“On the other hand, when they are autonomous, the burden of having to train them and take them to that side is reduced a little, and that transforms it into guiding them in how to take that autonomy, in how to improve them or make them see that there are things that have limits there” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

In last place is “Motivation,” since only 3 interventions were recorded, all corresponding to teachers from Chile. Among the most significant appreciations, the following stand out:

“It is very important in terms of achieving motivation in the “chiquillos” [students], then achieving motivation beyond the subject matter because suddenly there are subjects that are dry, unpleasant or that are not to the liking of all children, if you “hook” [engage] them with the way they learn, they can still achieve a much more significant learning” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

In summary, although both Chilean and Spanish teachers emphasize “independence” as the most significant component of student autonomy, Chilean teachers mention a wider range of components, whereas Spanish teachers tend to focus mainly on independence. It is also evident that Chilean teachers display greater self-criticism, as they openly express uncertainty about whether they truly understand what student autonomy is and what they need to improve in order to foster it.

4.3 Classroom practices used by teachers to promote student autonomy

The final section of the results of this study focuses on the classroom strategies that teachers acknowledge using to promote student autonomy. Following the same methodological line as in those previously presented, 10 categories are established a priori that make it possible to organize teachers’ accounts and obtain the frequencies reflected in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Teachers’ perceptions of classroom strategies to foster student autonomy. Source: Own elaboration.

The overall results show that teachers in both countries recognize that the strategies they use most to promote student autonomy are: “Individual work,” “Adapting to needs” and “Power sharing”; in second place, they name: “High order skills,” “Interaction” and “Authentic assessment” and, less frequently, they allude to: “Active participation,” “Real-life skills,” “Metacognition” and “Social and emotional safe space.” Differentiating between Chilean and Spanish teachers, it is possible to identify that they implement different strategies to foster student autonomy. While Chileans indicate that “Adapting to needs” is what they use the most, Spanish teachers prefer “Individual work.” Among the most representative comments are the following:

“Yes, because each student has a different way of learning and they must apply it according to their style. For example, today I saw Benja (who) is someone who runs, who is competitive…umm…if you give him competition he works and does the activity, just like Ariel. Ariel, if you give him competition, he does the work… “engancha” [he gets engaged]. The other thing is that there are students who need positive reinforcement to be able to do the activity, others need to be more visual. Because I saw Benja, he knows how to explain with disordered ideas, but he knows how to explain and he knows how to explain it in a notebook. Ariel also knows how to explain in a notebook, but he is much more verbal, he needs to express himself more than to write…it’s like he doesn’t do well in writing” (Teacher 5, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

“Let’s see, normally I work that they… that, yes, they have worked on their own, if they know how to look for information, if they know how to look in specific places for information. Normally that” (Teacher 8, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

Among the testimonies of Spanish teachers who emphasize the use of strategies that promote “Higher order skills” is that of a teacher who emphasizes that reasoning skills are a vehicle to achieve self-management of learning:

“I try to work with them, I try to get them to think, to reason for themselves, to be able to manage themselves and, above all, I tell them a lot about planning so that they can follow a course that is more flexible and, little by little, become more independent. But I find it more and more difficult” (Teacher 6, 4th ESO, Biology, Spain).

Similarly, a Chilean teacher points out that by implementing higher order skills in the classroom it is possible to realize what students need to improve in order to advance in their level of learning:

“So, what I like about autonomy is that they have higher order skills, apart from understanding and recognizing, they evaluate, investigate, explore and come up with their own hypotheses. They also do the self-reflection of (where) I was wrong or I was wrong experimentally, but not theoretically or I was wrong theoretically, but not experimentally.” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

On the other hand, among the testimonies that highlight “Real-life skills,” one that stands out is that of a Chilean teacher who emphasizes the need to help students become aware of how much things are worth in real life:

“Because one (I) work in the course councils not only on the commercial part, the money, but also, for example, how to make better use of it so that they can do more than one thing and see how much things are worth in reality” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

Another outstanding testimony is that of a Spanish teacher who expresses the relevance of adapting to the students’ profile in terms of being able, for example, to implement technology in the classroom, since it will be part of what they will have to use on a regular basis in the near future:

“Well, because eh…. see…the world is not still, you have to learn, you have to evolve, children have other learning systems eh…they already move a lot in digital topics, we cannot continue…let’s see, I am completely in favor of the master class eh…but I am also in favor of incorporating other types of techniques in which I believe that both can be combined to improve the subject, children have to learn to listen to a master class and also to work with technology” (Teacher 3, 4th ESO, Geography and History, Spain).

Finally, among the testimonies of teachers who work on “Metacognition,” two Chilean teachers stand out:

“At the end of the guide they have the metacognition question, such as: What was the most difficult? What was the easiest? What did they like? What did they not like?” (Teacher 4, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

“They have a self-assessment guideline and a co-assessment guideline. I evaluate both the written part of the student, but I also evaluate the ability to work in a team, alone, and I measure the skills…experimental skills and self-initiated skills. They know that they have a weighting of 1 to 7 for autonomy, I mean, I’m going to do this, I mean, I’m going to take the reagent and I’m going to add it, I’m going to mix it up, I don’t care if I’m wrong or not. They have that evaluation and the part that they do it well, when the teacher already models the activity, the rest should already know how to do it well” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

On the other hand, Chilean teachers are the ones who emphasize that they use strategies to create a socioemotionally safe space. Among the most representative testimonies are:

“You noticed today in class that in many cases they need guidance, a lot of guidance for the work because they are insecure, in one way or another they also seek validation. There are others who do manage, which is a minority, to say “teacher, I’m done, ready,” while others need, I insist that you answer, “teacher, here it is.” At work you also have to validate yourself, so that you don’t make mistakes, and you tell them that making mistakes is also a learning process” (Teacher 5, 2nd grade, Biology, Chile).

“I don’t know what you thought, you saw the scribbling [rudeness], the disrespect, but today, for example…I don’t know if it is with me, I don’t know, but I am the head teacher…so, I am very rigorous with them, very strict, but I also give them space for affection, I approach them, I talk to them, independently, that sometimes they may ask me a silly question, if they want to know I will answer them, I give them the answer I can give them…serious” (Teacher 2, 2nd grade, History, Geography and Social Sciences, Chile).

The testimonies on strategies used to foster student autonomy show that both Chilean and Spanish teachers tend to implement activities that promote individual work, adapt to students’ needs, enhance real-life skills, and create opportunities for students to make their own decisions. However, when examining the data by country, clear differences emerge. Spanish teachers do not report using strategies aimed at creating a social and emotional safe space, whereas Chilean teachers explicitly mention this dimension. A similar pattern is observed regarding metacognitive skills: only one testimony from Spain refers to them, while the majority of Chilean teachers explicitly incorporate them into their classroom practices.

4.4 Summary of findings

The overall results show that, first, regarding the objective related to the importance of student autonomy, both Chilean and Spanish teachers consider that fostering it is highly relevant for students’ education.

Secondly, most teachers report that, although student autonomy is important in their schools, not all institutions provide sufficient support to promote it. Specifically, most Chilean teachers perceive this support as limited, while many Spanish teachers indicate that they do receive support, as it is included in institutional regulations.

With respect to training, Chilean teachers report that they do not have formal opportunities to specialize in student autonomy. In contrast, Spanish teachers state that, to varying degrees, they do receive training, although not specifically on autonomy itself, but rather on skills they consider part of student autonomy.

Regarding the importance teachers assign to receiving training in this area, all of them consider it very important. Most Chilean teachers, in particular, reflect on whether they are truly prepared to promote student autonomy and on the opportunity for improvement that receiving new tools would represent for their teaching.

Furthermore, when examining what student autonomy is, the results show limited conceptual clarity. Most teachers tend to describe characteristics of an autonomous student but are unable to provide a clear conceptual definition. Spanish teachers mainly relate autonomy to independence and, to a lesser extent, to goal achievement and decision making. Chilean teachers, while also considering independence and decision making as part of an autonomous student’s profile, include additional aspects such as metacognition, motivation, taking responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences and, importantly, reflecting on how much they know and whether they are truly capable of fostering autonomy in their students.

Finally, regarding the strategies used to promote student autonomy in the classroom, teachers in both countries report implementing activities that foster individual work, adaptation to students’ needs and power sharing, and, to a lesser extent, authentic assessment, interaction and high order skills. It is also noteworthy that most Chilean teachers, unlike Spanish teachers, report using strategies aimed at fostering metacognition and a social and emotional safe space. Conversely, Spanish teachers, unlike Chilean teachers, more frequently report using strategies that promote real-life skills, which may indicate different educational contexts and demands that require strategies adapted to each setting.

Consequently, although there are differences between Chilean and Spanish teachers regarding which skills they associate with student autonomy and which strategies they report using to foster it, there is no evidence of substantial difference in how confident they feel about their level of mastery or about how to promote student autonomy in the classroom. Cross-context contrasts are presented descriptively to highlight patterns and potential transferability; the study does not aim to test country-level differences.

5 Discussion

This study aimed to explore the conceptions and practices that teachers use to foster student autonomy in secondary schools serving vulnerable populations in Chile and Spain, through semi-structured interviews analyzed using categorical matrices. The findings reveal a strong consensus regarding the high value attributed to student autonomy, but also difficulties in defining it theoretically, limitations in the strategies employed to promote it in classrooms, and a perceived lack of institutional support.

First, the results confirm that student autonomy is perceived as an essential, cross-cutting life competence. Both Chilean and Spanish teachers view it as a long-term educational goal, in line with research emphasizing its importance for holistic development and life project construction (Maldonado-Sánchez et al., 2019; Freire, 2004). However, a relevant distinction emerges: while Spanish teachers recognize student autonomy as embedded in curricular and regulatory mandates, Chilean teachers report insufficient institutional support- an observation consistent with evidence highlighting the gap between policy and practice in schools serving vulnerable populations (Camayo Maca et al., 2021).

Regarding the definition of student autonomy, participants demonstrated conceptual uncertainty, relying on partial notions such as independence or individual responsibility. This finding aligns with research associating student autonomy with broader constructs such as metacognition and self-regulation, which require specific teacher training for their effective integration (Herrera Barzallo et al., 2024). In contrast to these fragmented views, the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) framework offers a comprehensive perspective that integrates cognitive, motivational, emotional, social and contextual dimensions (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2023). The gap between theoretical discourse and teachers’ conceptions reinforces the need to strengthen pedagogical literacy around student autonomy.

With respect to strategies and conditions to foster student autonomy, teachers mainly identified three: individual work, adapting to student needs, and power sharing. While relevant, these represent only a fraction of the ten conditions emphasized in specialized literature (Bremner, 2021a,b; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019). Key practices such as metacognition, authentic assessment, and creating social and emotional safe learning spaces were rarely mentioned. This indicates that, while teachers generate practices that partially encourage student autonomy, they lack the theoretical and methodological resources to articulate these practices within a coherent pedagogical framework.

Another critical issue identified is teachers’ limited self-criticism regarding how much they truly know about student autonomy. Only two Chilean teachers explicitly questioned whether they understood it well enough to foster it effectively. This is problematic, as Korthagen (2010) and Schön (1992) argue that reflection on one’s own practice is a turning point in professional development, allowing teachers to recognize weaknesses and move toward continuous improvement.

In this sense, the results suggest that teachers may feel more capable of promoting student autonomy in practice than of defining it conceptually. This paradox is significant: without minimal theoretical clarity, classroom practices risk becoming fragmented or superficial. It underscores the importance of future research being conducted in classrooms to examine to what extent teachers’ declared intentions align with their actual practices.

Another relevant finding is the perceived lack of institutional support, particularly in Chile. Teachers reported insufficient training and guidance on student autonomy, suggesting that many school leaders may not fully understand its importance or how to foster it. This limitation not only constrains pedagogical innovation but, as Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) note, can also become a risk factor contributing to teacher attrition due to frustration and burnout.

Finally, the study highlights the distance between educational research and school practice. As Gore and Gitlin (2007) demonstrate, many teachers believe academic research has little impact on their daily work. This makes it especially relevant to generate knowledge from teachers’ own voices, as this study does, to ensure findings are both situated and practically meaningful.

6 Conclusion

This study shows that although secondary school teachers in Chile and Spain recognize student autonomy as central to education, significant conceptual gaps and practical limitations persist in how it is promoted in classrooms. Student autonomy is valued as a cross-cutting life competence, but remains poorly operationalized in teaching practice, producing a gap between normative discourse and pedagogical action.

A key contribution of this research is offering an operationalized definition of student autonomy in dialogue with the SoLD framework, providing a renewed theoretical space that situates autonomy in relation to some significant educational concepts. This contribution clarifies a concept that is often diffuse in education and opens possibilities for designing teacher training instruments that are coherent and applicable in vulnerable contexts.

On a practical level, the findings highlight the urgent need to support teachers through both initial and ongoing professional development that enables them to grasp student autonomy in its complexity. Equally important is the role of school leadership: when leaders fail to value or support autonomy, they create barriers to pedagogical innovation and frustration, which may exacerbate the risk of teacher attrition (Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond, 2019).

From a research perspective, the findings point to a central paradox: teachers appear more confident in their ability to promote student autonomy than to define it conceptually. This tension justifies the continuation of this doctoral project, whose next step will be to contrast teachers’ perceptions with their actual classroom practices, deepening understanding of how student autonomy is enacted and fostered in vulnerable educational contexts, and how it contributes to educational quality and social equity.

Regarding limitations and future directions, while the qualitative design and limited sample (eight teachers) restrict the generalizability of the findings, they allow for rich and situated insights into teachers’ lived experiences. Future research should incorporate classroom observations and longitudinal follow-ups to connect teachers’ discourse with their pedagogical enactments, particularly in contexts where institutional conditions may either constrain or enable student autonomy.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

BR-G-B: Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. MEH: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study is part of the doctoral thesis project: “La autonomía del estudiante en la enseñanza secundaria. Estrategias didácticas eficaces en contextos vulnerables” (“Student autonomy in secondary education. Effective teaching strategies in vulnerable contexts.”) developed by the main author under the direction of PHD Mohamed El Homrani Maknuzi of the Doctoral Program in Educational Sciences of the University of Granada, Spain. In addition, has been funded by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation, Chile.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID-Chile), through the International Doctoral Fellowship N° 72220138 (to BR-G-B).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI used to translate the manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Ahmed, M. K., and Hossain, K. I. (2024). Nurturing learner autonomy to enhance motivation and academic achievement for the L2 learners in ESL contexts. IUBAT Rev. 7, 176–196. doi: 10.3329/iubatr.v7i2.78809

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 248–287. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Boise: Freeman.

Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A., and National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Barrera, M. D. M., Tonon, G., and Alvarado, S. (2012). Investigación cualitativa: el análisis temático para el tratamiento de la información desde el enfoque de la fenomenología social [Qualitative research: thematic analysis for the treatment of information from the perspective of social phenomenology]. Univer. Humanística 74, 195–225. Spanish. Available online at: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-48072012000200010

Google Scholar

Bellina, C. (2016). Aprender desde la autonomía en la Educación a Distancia [Learning from autonomy in Distance Education]. Argonautas 7, 165–174. Spanish. Available online at: https://fchportaldigital.unsl.edu.ar/index.php/argonautas/article/view/375

Google Scholar

Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. Tesol Quart. 47, 839–843. doi: 10.1002/tesq.134

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bethlehem, R. A. I., Seidlitz, J., and White, S. R. (2022). Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature 604, 525–533. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhardwaj, V., Zhang, S., Tan, Y. Q., and Pandey, V. (2025). Redefining learning: Student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth. Front. Educ. 10:1518602. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boletín de Estado (BOE). (2022). Real Decreto 217/2022, de 29 de marzo, por el que se establece la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Boletín de Estado (BOE), 76, de 30 de marzo de 2022 [Royal Decree 217/2022, of March 29, establishing the organization and minimum curriculum for Compulsory Secondary Education. Official State Gazette (BOE), 76, of March 30, 2022]. Madrid: Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Boud, D. (1988). Developing Student Autonomy in Learning Ed. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780203059036

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bremner, N. (2021a). The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comp. Educ. 57, 159–186. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1805863

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bremner, N. (2021b). What is learner-centred education? A quantitative study of english language teachers’ perspectives. Electronic J. Engl. Sec. Lang. 25, 1–29. doi: 10.55593/ej.25100a12

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research 4th Edn. London.

Google Scholar

Brockett, R. G., and Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: perspectives on theory, research, and practice. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780429457319

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Brookfield, S. D. (2009). “Self-directed learning,” in International handbook of education for the changing world of work, eds R. Maclean and D. Wilson (Berlin: Springer).

Google Scholar

Camayo Maca, J. E., Gutiérrez, R. E., Pérez Añasco, A., and Isaza de Gil, G. (2021). Estrategias didácticas que fomentan la autonomía en los estudiantes adolescentes [Teaching strategies that promote autonomy in adolescent students]. Spanish. Available online at: https://ridum.umanizales.edu.co/items/e49feb5e-84d5-451f-ac65-189bc3082f28 (accessed August 30, 2025).

Google Scholar

Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., and Rose, T. (2019). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context1. Appl. Dev. Sci. 23, 307–337. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carver-Thomas, D., and Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 27, 1–32. doi: 10.14507/epaa.27.3699

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Center on the Developing Child. (2016). From best practices to breakthrough impacts: A science-based approach to building a more promising future for young children and families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Google Scholar

Code, J. (2020). Agency for learning: Intention, motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation. Front. Educ. 5:19. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s responsibility. System 21, 443–452. doi: 10.1016/0346251X(93)90056-M

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Dada, D., Laseinde, O. T., and Tartibu, L. (2023). Student-centered learning tool for cognitive enhancement in the learning environment. Proc. Comput. Sci. 217, 507–512. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.246

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Boisbriand: Authentik.

Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., and Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Appl. Dev. Sci. 28, 97–140. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A., Wojcikiewicz, S., and Flook, L. (2023). Educating teachers to enact the science of learning and development. Appl. Dev. Sci. 28, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2022.2130506

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Andalucía, J. (2016). Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía (BOJA) 144 [Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia (BOJA) 144]. Available online at: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/2016/144/ (accessed March 9, 2025).

Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 1024–1037. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Degago, A. T., and Kaino, L. M. (2015). Towards student-centred conceptions of teaching: The case of four Ethiopian universities. Teach. High. Educ. 20, 493–505. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1020779

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (2010). Experiencia y educación (1° ed. 1938) [Experience and education (1st ed. 1938)]. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Diamond, J. (2006). Armas, gérmenes y acero (1° ed. 1997) [Weapons, germs, and steel (1st ed. 1997)]. Barcelona: Debate. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Diamond, J. (2008). El tercer chimpancé: origen y futuro del animal humano (1° ed. 1991) [The Third Chimpanzee: Origin and Future of the Human Animal (1st ed. 1991)]. Madrid: Debolsillo. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Dunsworth, H., and Eccleston, L. (2015). The evolution of difficult childbirth and helpless hominin infants. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44, 55–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013918

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dworkin, G. (2015). The nature of autonomy. Nordic J. Stud. Educ. Policy 2015, 7–14. doi: 10.3402/nstep.v1.28479

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Union. (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels: European Union.

Google Scholar

Faust, K. M., Carouso-Peck, S., Elson, M. R., and Goldstein, M. H. (2020). The origins of social knowledge in altricial species. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 2, 225–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-051820-121446

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischer, K. W., and Bidell, T. R. (2006). “Dynamic development of action, thought, and motion,” in Theoretical models of human development, Handbook of child psychology, eds W. Damon and R. M. Learner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons), 319–399.

Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogía de la Autonomía: Saberes necesarios para la práctica educativa [Pedagogy of Autonomy: Knowledge necessary for educational practice]. Sao Paulo: Faze Terra SA. Spanish.

Google Scholar

García, M., and Bustos, C. (2020). Desarrollo de la autonomía y la autorregulación en estudiantes universitarios: una experiencia de investigación y mediación [Developing autonomy and self-regulation in university students: a research and mediation experience]. Sinéctica 55:e1108. Spanish. doi: 10.31391/s2007-703320200055-003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult. Educ. Quart. 42, 136–148. doi: 10.1177/074171369204200302

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gijón, P., and Lizarte, E. (2020). Manual de educación para el empleo [Employment education manual]. Granada: Editorial Técnica Avicam. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Gómez-Robles, A., Nicolaou, C., and Smaers, J. B. (2024). The evolution of human altriciality and brain development in comparative context. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 133–146. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02253-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gore, J. M., and Gitlin, A. D. (2007). [Re] Visioning the academic–teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teach. Teach. 10, 35–58. doi: 10.1080/13540600320000170918

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18, 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hammond, Z. (2019). Looking at SoLD through an equity lens: Will the science of learning and development be used to advance critical pedagogy or will it be used to maintain inequity by design? Appl. Dev. Sci. 24, 151–158. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2019.1609733

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heinrich, M. (2015). Metamorphoses of pedagogical autonomy in German school reforms: Continuities, discontinuities and synchronicities illustrated by icities illustrated by empirical studies on school development planning, school profiling and school inspection. Nordic J. Stud. Educ. Policy 2015, 51–61. doi: 10.3402/nstep.v1.28563

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herrera Barzallo, J. G., Arias Villalba, W. O., Estrella Romero, V. A., and Obando Santillán, D. I. (2024). Aprendizaje autónomo y metacognición en el bachillerato: Desarrollo de habilidades para el siglo XXI, una revisión desde la literatura [Autonomous learning and metacognition in high school: Development of skills for the 21st century, a review from the literature]. Rev. Invecom Estudios Transdisciplinarios Comun. Soc. 4:e040252. Spanish. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10659690

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning [Autonomy and foreign language learning]. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Immordino-Yang, M., Darling-Hammond, L., and Krone, C. (2019). Nurturing nature: How brain development is inherently social and emotional, and what this means for education. Educ. Psychol. 54, 185–204. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1633924

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V., Kärkkäinen, T., and Häkkinen, P. (2020). Student agency analytics: Learning analytics as a tool for analysing student agency in higher education. Behav. Inf. Technol. 40, 790–808. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1725130

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U., and Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS Scale. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 2061–2079. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kamii, C. (1982). La autonomía como objetivo de la educación: Implicaciones de la teoría de Piaget [Autonomy as an educational goal: Implications of Piaget’s theory]. Infancia Aprendizaje 18, 3–32. Spanish. doi: 10.1080/02103702.1982.10821934

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kamii, C. (1991). Toward Autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice making. School Psychol. Rev. 20, 382–388. doi: 10.1080/02796015.1991.12085561

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khalid, M., Bashir, S., and Amin, H. (2020). Relationship between Self-directed learning (SDL) and Academic achievement of university students. Bull. Educ. Res. 42, 131–148. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281053

Google Scholar

Knapper, C., and Cropley, A. (2000). Lifelong learning and higher education. Milton Park: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago: Follett.

Google Scholar

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. volume II. The psychology of moral development. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/essays-on-moral-development-volume-ii.-the-psychology-of-moral-development-the-n/page/n1/mode/2up (accessed March 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). La práctica, la teoría y la persona en la formación del profesorado [Practice, theory, and the individual in teacher training]. Rev. Interuniversitaria Formación Profesorado 68, 83–101. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension oftional dimension of language teaching. Lang. Teach. 50, 301–346. doi: 10.1017/S026144

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, E., and Hannafin, M. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 64, 707–734. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lerner, R. M., and Callina, K. S. (2013). Relational developmental systems theories and the ecological validity of experimental designs: Commentary on Freund and Isaacowitz. Hum. Dev. 56, 372–380. doi: 10.1159/000357179

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lerner, R. M., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdóttir, S., and DeSouza, L. (2012). Promoting positive youth development in the face of contextual change and challenges: The roles of individual strengths and ecological assets. N. Dir. Youth Dev. 135, 119–128. doi: 10.1002/yd.20034

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ley General de Educación (LGE). (2010). Ley 20370 que establece la ley general de educación (LGE) publicada en el Diario Oficial, en su última modificación el 02 de julio de 2010 [Law 20370, which establishes the general education law (LGE), published in the Official Gazette, in its last modification on July 2, 2010]. Chile: General de Educación. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Google Scholar

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 1, 14–29. doi: 10.2167/illt04

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maldonado-Sánchez, M., Aguinaga-Villegas, D., and Nieto-Gamboa, J. (2019). Estrategias de aprendizaje para el desarrollo de la autonomía de los estudiantes de secundaria [Learning strategies for developing autonomy in secondary school students]. Propósitos Representaciones 7, 415–439. Spanish. doi: 10.20511/pyr2019.v7n2.290

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McLeod, S. (2025). Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. London: Simply Psychology.

Google Scholar

McMillan, J., and Schumacher, S. (2005). Investigación educativa. 5° edición [Educational Research, 5th Edn. London: Pearson Education. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., and Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide, 3rd Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Ministerio de Educación de Chile. (2015). Bases Curriculares 7° básico a 2° medio [Curriculum Framework 7th grade to 2nd year of high school]. Chile: Ministerio de Educación de Chile. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Morris, T. H., Bremner, N., and Sakata, N. (2023). Self-directed learning and student-centred learning: A conceptual comparison. Pedagogy Cult. Soc. 33, 847–866. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2023.2282439

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, L. T. C., and Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Lang. Teach. Res. 17, 9–30. doi: 10.1177/1362168812457528

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Novo Lima, A. M., Ferreira da Silva, Martins, M. M., Martins Ferreira, M. S., Fernandes, C. S., et al. (2022). Del concepto de independencia al cuestionamiento de su uso en la práctica: scoping review [From the concept of independence to questioning its use in practice: scoping review]. Enfermería Global 21, 625–654. Spanish. doi: 10.6018/eglobal.444151

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

OCDE. (2016). Panorama de la educación. Indicadores de la OCDE 2016. informe Español [Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2016. Spanish report]. Paris: OCDE. Spanish.

Google Scholar

OCDE. (2019). Informe PISA 2018. informe español [PISA report 2018. Spanish report]. Paris: OCDE. Spanish.

Google Scholar

OECD. (2001). Defining and selecting key competencies. Paris: OCDE.

Google Scholar

OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills. Education 2030. Paris: OCDE.

Google Scholar

Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., and Rose, T. (2018). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Appl. Dev. Sci. 24, 6–36. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2017.1398650

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Osher, D., Kidron, Y., Brackett, M., Dymnicki, A., Jones, S., and Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Advancing the science and practice of social and emotional learning: Looking back and moving forward. Rev. Res. Educ. 40, 644–681. doi: 10.3102/0091732X16673595

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Overton, W. F. (2010). “Life-span development: Concepts and issues,” in The handbook of life-span development, eds R. M. Lerner, W. F. Overton, A. M. Freund, and M. E. Lamb (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 1–29.

Google Scholar

Overton, W. F. (2015). “Processes, relations and relational- developmental-systems,” in Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 1. Theory and method, eds W. F. Overton and P. C. M. Molenaar (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 9–62.

Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Peña-Sandoval, C. H., and Venegas-Weber, P. (2022). Hacia una formación inicial docente con pertinencia cultural y social: lecciones desde las ideologías curriculares de futuros profesores [Towards initial teacher training with cultural and social relevance: lessons from the curricular ideologies of future teachers]. Formación Universitaria 15, 87–98. Spanish. doi: 10.4067/S0718-50062022000500087

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1972). Science of education and the psychology of the child, (1° ed. 1969). New York, NY: Compass Viking.

Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1984). El criterio moral en el niño. Ed. Martínez Roca, S. A. (1.^a ed. 1932) [The moral judgment of the child. Ed. Martínez Roca, S. A. (1st ed. 1932)]. Barcelona: Ediciones Martínez Roca, S. A. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (2013). Psicología de la inteligencia (1.^a ed. 1947) [Psychology of Intelligence (1st ed. 1947)]. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivationand self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 385–407. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., and Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Google Scholar

Rigo, D. Y., Squillari, R. B., Caraballo, M. R., and Rovere, R. (2021). Revisión teórica del concepto agencia. Implicancias educativas para comprender el compromiso académico. Ciencia Educ. 5, 81–92. doi: 10.22206/cyed.2021v5i2.pp81-92

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rivera-Gómez-Barris, B. (2024). “Percepción docente sobre la autonomía del estudiante desde el paradigma neuroeducativo en Esteban [Teacher perception of student autonomy from the neuroeducational paradigm in Esteban],” in Perspectivas de la neuropedagogía [Perspectives of neuropedagogy], eds R. Martínez, S. López Rodríguez, and M. Cuevas López (Barcelona: Octaedro). Spanish.

Google Scholar

Roth, W.-M., and Lee, Y.-J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 186–232. doi: 10.3102/0034654306298273

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). “Self-determination theory: An introduction and overview,” in Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness, eds R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci (New York, NY: Guilford Publishing).

Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61:101860. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salokangas, M., and Wermke, W. (2020). Unpacking autonomy for empirical comparative investigation. Oxford Rev. Educ. 46, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2020.1733514

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sánchez, I., and Casal, S. (2016). El desarrollo de la autonomía mediante las técnicas de aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula de L2 [The development of autonomy through cooperative learning techniques in the L2 classroom]. Porta Linguarum 25, 179–190. Spanish. doi: 10.30827/Digibug.53915

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. (1992). La formación de profesionales reflexivos. Hacia un nuevo diseño de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en las profesiones [The training of reflective practitioners. Towards a new design of teaching and learning in the professions]. Barcelona: Paidós. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H., and DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). “Self-efficacy theory in education,” in Handbook of motivation at school, eds K. R. Wentzel and D. B. Miele (Milton Park: Routledge), 34–54.

Google Scholar

Sjödin, S. (2015). Negotiating learner autonomy: a case study on the autonomy of a learner with high-functioning autism. Nordic J. Stud. Educ. Policy 2015, 86–94. doi: 10.3402/nstep.v1.28483

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, T. (2021). Self-directed learning. EBSCO Research Starters. Available online at: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/self-directed-learning (accessed May 11, 2025).

Google Scholar

Spain’s LOMLOE,. (2020). Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOMLOE). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 340, de 30 de diciembre de 2020 [Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, amending Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education (LOMLOE). Official State Gazette, 340, of December 30, 2020]. Madrid: Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Tang, K. H. D. (2023). Student-centered approach in teaching and learning: What does it really mean? Acta Pedagogia Asiana 2, 72–83. doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor, S. J., and Bogdan, R. (1994). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación [Introduction to qualitative research methods]. Barcelona: Paidós. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Torres Sánchez, H. R. (2005). Autonomía en la esfera política y religiosa en Kant. Praxis Filosófica 19, 81–90. doi: 10.25100/pfilosofica.v0i19.3221

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UNESCO. (2015). Replantear la educación >Hacia un bien común mundial? [Rethinking education: Towards a global common good?]. Paris: UNESCO. Spanish.

Google Scholar

Usher, E. L., and Schunk, D. H. (2018). “Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation,” in Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2nd Edn, eds D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene (Milton Park: Routledge), 19–35. doi: 10.4324/9781315697048-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Williams, M., and Burden, R. L. (1997). sychology for language teachers, A social constructivist approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective,” in Handbook of self-regulation, eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 13–39. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar