printAgency and Autonomy as a Learning Outcome:
Distinguishing the Notions
Dobryakova M.S.
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Senior Expert of the Institute of Education of the HSE University, Moscow, Russia. mdobryakova@hse.ru
Yurchenko О.V.
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), PhD, Senior Researcher of the Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia. olesya@mail.ru
Rubric: Sociology of education
For citation:
Dobryakova M.S., Yurchenko О.V. Agency and Autonomy as a Learning Outcome: Distinguishing the Notions. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2023. No 11. P. 80-92
Abstract
The article explores conceptual difference between the notions of “autonomy” and “agency” in relation to students’ learning outcomes. These concepts are often used as synonyms. We argue that distinguishing them is more productive for practical pedagogy. Unfolding the essence of agentive action in 9 theoretical theses based on sociological and psychological approaches, we trace its prerequisites and outline the forks where agency and autonomy diverge. Agency implies a desire for change based on a consciously constructed identity and values. Independence focuses on achieving mastery within existing roles and social norms. In a social sense, in the continuity/change pair, independence aims at continuity, while agency aims at change. Distinguishing these concepts will help consciously design learning situations and set realistic learning outcomes. However, can agency be a realistic measurable learning outcome in the conventional sense? Probably not, since it is tied to identity and personal attitudes towards social situations, and will therefore be very individual. Autonomy as a learning outcome is simpler, for ultimately it requires comparing the student’s skills to those of an adult. The key factor differentiating autonomy and agency is the nature of the individual’s identity – its orientation towards reproducing the existing or towards individual search and change.
Keywords
autonomy; agency; education; distinction; learning outcomes
References
Выготский Л.С. Мышление и речь. М.: Национальное образование, 2016 (1934). [Vygotsky L.S. (2016 (1934)) Thought and Language. Moscow: Naciolnae obrazovanie. (In Russ.)]
Давыдов В.В., Варданян А.У. Учебная деятельность и моделирование. Ереван: Луйс, 1981. [Davydov V., Vardanyan A. (1981) Learning activity and design. Yerevan: Luis. (In Russ.)]
Добрякова М.С., Фрумин И.Д. и др. Универсальные компетентности и новая грамотность: от лозунгов к реальности. М.: ВШЭ, 2020. [Dobryakova M.S., Frumin I.D. et al. (2020) Key competences and new literacies: from slogans to school reality. Moscow: HSE University. (In Russ.)]
Петровский В.А. Человек над ситуацией. М.: Смысл, 2010. [Petrovsky V. (2010) Man above the situation.Moscow: Smysl. (In Russ.)]
Поддержка и развитие «мягких» навыков в школе: атлас практических решений / Под ред. М.С. Добряковой, Е.И. Казаковой. М.: Мультивейс, 2023. [Fostering Soft Skills at School: A Handbook for Teachers. (2023) Ed. by M. Dobryakova, E. Kazakova. Moscow: Multiveis. (In Russ.)]
Поливанова К.Н., Бочавер А.А. Возможна ли детская самостоятельность в современной школе? // Психологическая наука и образование. 2022. Т. 27. № 3. С. 6–15. [Polivanova K., Bochaver A. (2022) Is child autonomy possible in the modern school? Psyhologicheskaya nauka I obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education]. Vol. 27. No. 3: 6–15. (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2022270301
Сорокин П.С. и др. Новые требования к человеческому потенциалу: развитие самостоятельности: доклад к XXIII Ясинской (Апрельской) междунар. науч. конф. по проблемам развития экономики и общества. М.: ВШЭ, 2022. [Sorokin P.S., et al. (2022). New Requirements for Human Potential: Developing Agency: Report for the XXIII Yasin (April) International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Issues. Moscow: VSHE. (In Russ.)]
Archer M. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Bamberg S., Rees J.H., Schulte M. (2018). Environmental protection through societal change: What psychology knows about collective climate action – and what it needs to find out. In: Clayton S.,
Manning C. (eds) Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses. Elsevier Academic Press: 185–213.
Bandura A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 52(1): 1–26.
Bandura A. (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 1(2): 164–180.
Bourdieu P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Calhoun C. (1991) The problem of identity in collective action. In: Huber J. (ed.) Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology. American Sociological Association presidential series: notes on nursing theories Sage Publications. Vol. 6: 51–75.
Castells M. (2010) The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Vol. II. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
de la Sablonnière R. et al. (2009) Reconceptualizing relative deprivation in the context of dramatic social change: the challenge confronting the people of Kyrgyzstan. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 39: 325–345. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.519.
de la Sablonnière R. et al. (2012) Social change in South Africa: A historical approach to relative deprivation. British Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 52(4). DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12003.
de la Sablonnière R. et al. (2013) Dramatic Social Change: A Social Psychological Perspective. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. Vol. 1(1): 253–272. DOI: 10.5964/jspp.v1i1.14.
Dobryakova M. et al. (2023) Key Competences and New Literacies: From Slogans to School Reality. UNIPA Springer Series. Springer, Cham.
Dörner D., Funke J. (2017) Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 11 (8): 1153. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153.
Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. (1994) Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 99 (6): 1411–1415.
Emirbayer M., Mische A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103(4): 962–1023.
Erikson E.H. (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton & Co.
Giddens A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press.
Giddens A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford Univ. Press.
Giroux H. (2022) An Interview with Henry A. Giroux: Cultural Studies and Pandemic Pedagogy. In: Critical Pedagogy and the Covid-19 Pandemic. Keeping Communities Together in Times of Crisis. Ed. by F. Mizikaci, E. Ata. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Grünbaum T. (2009) Action and Agency. In: Gallagher S., Schmicking D. (eds) Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Springer: 337–354. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_19.
Heidegger M. (1962) Being and Time. Harper & Row. Hitlin S., Elder G.H. (2007) Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory. Vol. 25(2): 170–191.
Jenkins R. (2008) Social Identity. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Meca A. et al. (2015) Identity Centrality and Psychosocial Functioning: A Person-Centered Approach. In: Emerging Adulthood. Vol. 3 (5): 327–339.
Melucci A. (1996) Challenging codes: collective action in the information age. Cambridge University Press.
Meyers D.T. (1989) Self, Society, and Personal Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
OECD. (2019) Student Agency for 2030. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-andlearning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf (accessed 15.07.2023).
OECD. (2021) Student Agency for 2030. Conceptual learning framework. OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf (accessed 15.07.2023).
Offe C. (1985) New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Social Research. Vol. 52: 4.
Parsons T. (1949 (1937)) The Structure of Social Action. 2nd ed. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Rowe I.V. (2022) Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for All Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power. Templeton Press.
Sablin I. (2012) Written Oral History: Dimensions of identity of Chukotka’s indigenous people in the works of Rytkheu. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. Vol. 8(1): 27–41. DOI: 10.1177/117718011200800103.
Seligman M. (2021) Agency in Greco-Roman philosophy. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Vol. 16(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2020.1832250.
Simmel G. (1971) On Individuality and Social Forms: selected writings. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Stryker S. (1968) Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Vol. 30(4): 558–564.
Stryker S. (1980) Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.
Stryker S., Burke P.J. (1994) The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 63: 284–297.
Touraine A. (1980) The Voice and the Eye: On the Relationship between Actors and Analysts. Political Psychology. Vol. 2(1): 3–14.
UNESCO. (2020) Schools must prioritize fostering learner agency. In: Bajaj M. The Blue Dot. Special Iss.: 53–57. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373713 (accessed 20.05.2023).
White H. (1992) Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wright Mills C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Zimmerman B.J. (2000) Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Vol. 25(1): 82–91.
Content No 11, 2023