Introduction
The concept of learner agency in children has emerged as a foundational and novel construct in educational and psychological sciences, attracting significant attention from researchers and policymakers. This multidimensional construct emphasizes the child’s active, conscious, and purposeful role in directing their learning process, positioning them not as a passive recipient but as an effective agent in their own development. Learner agency is intrinsically linked to the quality of learning, mental health, and holistic child development, fostering autonomy, resilience, and intrinsic motivation. It empowers learners to make meaningful choices, set personal goals, reflect on their progress, and confront challenges with self-confidence.
Despite its critical importance, the existing literature suffers from conceptual fragmentation, with diverse definitions, theoretical approaches, and methodological frameworks leading to inconsistencies in operationalization and measurement. Furthermore, there is a clear absence of a comprehensive, integrated framework that coherently explains the core dimensions of learner agency—cognitive, emotional, social, behavioral, and environmental—alongside its underlying mechanisms and contextual factors. Therefore, this study was designed with the primary aim of identifying valid empirical indicators and proposing a coherent, evidence-based conceptual framework for understanding learner agency in children. By synthesizing findings from diverse educational studies, this framework seeks to clarify how learner agency functions as a facilitator for effective learning and the promotion of children's well-being, thereby providing a robust theoretical guide for designing curricula, instructional methods, and educational policies aimed at nurturing self-regulated, empowered, and psychologically resilient learners.
Research Methods
This study employed a synthetic research approach grounded in a systematic review of theoretical literature. The initial research population comprised 783 credible scientific documents extracted from international databases and national scientific repositories. A multi-stage screening process was applied based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, including publication year, methodological rigor, language, and direct relevance to learner agency. This rigorous process resulted in the final selection of 53 high-quality studies for in-depth analysis. These selected studies encompassed diverse educational contexts, age groups, and cultural settings, which significantly enhanced the analytical depth and transferability of the findings. Data extraction and thematic analysis were conducted using Elo and Kyngäs’ qualitative content analysis method, involving stages of open coding, categorization, and conceptual abstraction to identify both manifest and latent meanings within the data. To ensure inter-coder reliability and enhance the validity of the analysis, two independent researchers coded a portion of the data, yielding a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of K=0.82, indicating a high level of agreement beyond chance. This systematic and coherent analytical process enabled the identification, organization, and integration of core concepts, ultimately leading to the development of a multidimensional conceptual structure of learner agency.
Results
The findings of this research demonstrated that learner agency in children is a dynamic, context-dependent, and multidimensional construct that manifests across five interconnected primary domains: cognitive, social, behavioral, emotional, and environmental. Each domain comprises a set of interrelated factors that shape the child's learning experience and promote psychological well-being both independently and through complex interactions. The cognitive domain encompasses metacognitive awareness, self-regulation, and goal-setting. The social domain refers to peer collaboration, the quality of teacher-student relationships, and communicative competence. The behavioral dimension reflects initiative, perseverance, and active engagement in learning tasks. The emotional domain includes components, such as self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and resilience.
Finally, the environmental dimension pertains to the classroom climate, access to learning resources, and the cultural sensitivity of the learning environment. Thematic analysis revealed that these dimensions do not operate in isolation or in a hierarchical manner; instead, they form a highly interactive and intertwined network. The strengthening or weakening of any single dimension can have a cascading effect on the others. For instance, a supportive and resource-rich learning environment can enhance a child's sense of social belonging, which in turn can bolster his/her emotional motivation and lead to more persistent and engaged learning behaviors. This systemic perspective underscores the necessity of adopting holistic, ecology-of-learning-based instructional approaches that simultaneously attend to and nurture all dimensions of learner agency, rather than focusing on them in a fragmented way.
Conclusion
The proposed framework positions learner agency not as a mere outcome of successful learning, but as a fundamental capacity for self-direction, responsibility, and psychological equilibrium in the child. The five interconnected domains provide a comprehensive map for understanding how children navigate their learning worlds. The cognitive and behavioral dimensions establish the foundation for executive function and lifelong learning, while the social and emotional dimensions provide the necessary psychological safety and relational context for intrinsic motivation and active participation. The environmental dimension acts as the crucial catalyst that can either enable or constrain the expression of agency across all other domains. Despite limitations inherent in a review study, such as dependence on the quality of existing primary research and some residual conceptual heterogeneity in the literature, the findings strongly emphasize the necessity of designing integrated, child-centered curricula and pedagogical practices that holistically strengthen all facets of agency. Future research should prioritize experimental, longitudinal, and cross-cultural designs to empirically validate this framework and to investigate the specific roles of diverse educational contexts and interventions in the development and long-term impact of learner agency on academic achievement and overall child well-being.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This article is derived from a doctoral dissertation approved by the University of Birjand with proposal code number 11713. All ethical considerations and standards were fully observed in the preparation of this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Authors contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of the article, data analysis, interpretation of findings, and preparation of the final manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
References
Adair, J. K. (2014). Agency and expanding capabilities in early grade classrooms: What it could mean for young children. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 217-241. [DOI:10.17763/haer.84.2.y46vh546h41l2144]
American Institutes for Research. (2018). Maximizing student agency. Retrieved from: [Link]
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Asghari Khaftari, R., Marzooghi, R., Turkzadeh, J., & Keshavarzi, F. (2025). Developing a comprehensive training model for first-grade elementary school teachers using a meta-synthesis approach. Journal of Early Childhood Health and Education, 6(1), 96–110. [DOI:10.32592/jeche.6.1.96]
Bagheri Noparast, K. (2020). Human Agency: A Religious and Philosophical Approach. Tehran: Vaakaaresh. [Link]
Bagheri Noparast, K. (2022). Education in the Horizon of Agency. Tehran: Vaakaaresh. [Link]
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1]
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337. [DOI:10.12691/jpar-2-1-2]
Bennett, L., & Folley, S. (2019). Four design principles for learner dashboards that support student agency and empowerment. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(5), 1031–1042. [DOI:10.1108/JARHE-01-2019-0010]
Benson, P. (2022). Autonomisation, individualisation and uses of space: Mapping out individual language learning environments. Recherches En Didactique Des Langues Et Des Cultures. Les cahiers de l’Acedle, 1(19-1). [Link]
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132-149. [DOI:10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545]
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. [DOI:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325]
Blaschke, L. M., Bozkurt, A., & Cormier, D. (2021). Learner agency and the learner-centred theories for online networked learning and learning ecologies. Retrieved from: [Link]
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Washington: SAGE Publications. [Link]
Bordonaro, L. I., & Payne, R. (2012). Ambiguous agency: critical perspectives on social interventions with children and youth in Africa. Children’s Geographies, 10(4), 365-372. [DOI:10.1080/14733285.2012.726065]
Bray, B. (2018). Defining Learner Agency [Web log post]. Retrieved from: [Link]
Brennan, K. A. (2013). Best of both worlds: Issues of structure and agency in computational creation, in and out of school. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Link]
Bruner, J. (1996). What we have learned about early learning. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 4(1), 5-16. [DOI:10.1080/13502939685207811]
Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016). A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence-based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(3), 241-249. [DOI:10.1111/wvn.12134]
Code, J. (2020). Agency for Learning: Intention, Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation. Frontiers in Education, 5. [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2020.00019]
Code, J. (2025). The Entangled Learner: Critical Agency for the Postdigital Era. Postdigital Science and Education, 1-23. [DOI:10.1007/s42438-025-00544-1]
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. [DOI:10.1177/001316446002000104]
CORE. (2017). Learner Agency: Final Research Report. New Zealand: CORE. [Link]
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2024). CASP checklists. UK: CASP. [Link]
Damşa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143-186. [DOI:10.1080/10508401003708381]
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. [DOI:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01]
Deneulin, S. (2010). "The Capability Approach and Development." In The Oxford Handbook of Economics and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deschênes, M. (2020). Recommender systems to support learners’ agency in a learning context: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 50. [DOI:10.1186/s41239-020-00229-2]
Dillabough, J. A., & Kennelly, J. (2010). Lost youth in the global city: Class, culture, and the urban imaginary. New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2019.05.002]
Driver, P., Larsen-Freeman, D., Gao, X., & Mercer, S. (2021). Learner Agency: Maximising Learner Potential. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization research. In A. R. De Fina & G. E. S. G. Rampton (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing and analyzing agency and second language learning (pp. 54-72). London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Link]
Education Reimagined. (2016). Practitioner’s lexicon: What is meant by key terminology. Washington: Education Reimagined. [Link]
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x]
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001]
Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: an analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70. [DOI:10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5]
Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., & Pearson, A. (2010). A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1736-1743. [DOI:10.1177/1049732310378656]
Hart, C. S., & Brando, N. (2018). A Capability Approach to Children’s Well‐Being, Agency and Participatory Rights in Education. European Journal of Education, 53, 293-309.
[DOI:10.1111/ejed.12284]
Hilppö, J., Lipponen, L., Kumpulainen, K., & Rainio, A. (2016). Children’s sense of agency in preschool: a sociocultural investigation. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(2), 157-171. [DOI:10.1080/09669760.2016.1167676]
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., & Dagenais, P., et al. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285-291. [DOI:10.3233/EFI-180221]
Hossein Zadeh Dashti, M., Salehi, K., Keshavarz Afshar, H., & Javadipour, M. (2025). Compilation of an educational-consultative package to reduce the psychological and educational damages of children of divorce based on Iranian culture. Journal of Early Childhood Health and Education, 5(4), 228–242. [DOI:10.32592/jeche.5.4.228]
Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V., Kärkkäinen, T., & Häkkinen, P. (2021). Student agency analytics: Learning analytics as a tool for analysing student agency in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(8), 790-808. [DOI:10.1080/0144929X.2020.1725130]
Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2061-2079. [DOI:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693]
Jabbari Zahirabadi, A., & Sharifatmadari, M. (2023). Presenting a model for promoting elementary school children’s mental health based on life skills training and the three-factor tripartite model with validation. Journal of Early Childhood Health and Education, 4(2), 101–119. [Link]
Jalali, A., Eskandari, H., & Borjali, A. (2019).A study of the contexts for the development of learner agency in education during crisis[ MA thesis]. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University. [Link]
Jarvis, P. (2012). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link]
Kakavandi, A., Mousavi, N., Shirmohammadi, F., Hejri, F., & Haji sharifi, R. (2022). Relationship between emotional self-regulation and online game addiction with the mediating role of loneliness in elementary school children. Early Childhood Health and Education. [Link]
Kamyabi Azar, S., Molanorouzi, K., Vakili, S., & Charbashlu, H. (2025). Fundamentals of quantitative, qualitative, and integrated content analysis methodology: Examining approaches, strengths, weaknesses, and the role of each in the process of preparing educational content.
Journal of Early Childhood Health and Education, 5(4), 243–259.
[DOI:10.32592/jeche.5.4.243]
Klemenčič, M. (2017). From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual Considerations of European Policies on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69-85. [DOI:10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4]
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning : A guide for learners and teachers. Cambridge: The Adult Education Company. [Link]
Kraftl, P. (2013). Beyond ‘voice’, beyond ‘agency’, beyond ‘politics’? Hybrid childhoods and some critical reflections on children’s emotional geographies. Emotion, Space and Society, 9, 13-23. [DOI:10.1016/j.emospa.2013.01.004]
Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, audio, and video. New York: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8]
Kumpulainen,K., & Krokfors, L. (2019). Shared epistemic agency in museum learning. Internatinal Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1635-1655.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. [DOI:10.2307/2529310]
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Lee, N. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Ohio: McGraw-Hill Education. [Link]
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100]
Lieten, G. K. (2008). Children, structure and agency: Realities across the developing world. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link]
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. [DOI:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8]
Long, H. A., French, D. P., & Brooks, J. M. (2020). Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 1(1), 31-42.[DOI:10.1177/2632084320947559]
Lopez, S. J. (2013). Making hope happen: Create the future you want for yourself and others. New York: Simon and Schuster. [Link]
Manyukhina, Y., & Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223-243. [DOI:10.1080/09585176.2019.1599973]
Margarit, V. (2021). Transformative teaching and heutagogy: Unleashing the power of learner agency. In G. Armano & L. M. M. de Souza (Eds.), Heutagogy in digital higher education: Concepts, competencies, and applications (pp. 1–18). Pennsylvania: IGI Global. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-7998-6624-9.ch001]
Martin, K. L. (2018). Learner centered innovation: Spark curiosity, ignite passion and unleash genius. IMPress, a division of Dave Burgess Consulting, Incorporated. [Link]
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.496830]
Masoudnia, M., Rahavi Ezabadi, R., & Khalil Marandi, P. (2025). Effect of physical activity on children’s self-regulation skills in three domains: Cognitive, emotional, and physical. Journal of Early Childhood Health and Education, 6(2), 179–191. [DOI:10.22034/jeche.6.2.179]
McNay, L. (1999). Gender, Habitus and the Field:Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 95-117. [DOI:10.1177/026327699016001007]
Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427-436. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2011.08.001]
Mick, C. (2011). Learner agency. European Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 559–571. [DOI:10.2304/eerj.2011.10.4.559]
Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005). A Difference-Centred Alternative to Theorization of Children’s Citizenship Rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369-388. [DOI:10.1080/13621020500211354]
Nind, M., Flewitt, R., & Payler, J. (2010). The social experience of early childhood for children with learning disabilities: inclusion, competence and agency. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(6), 653-670. [DOI:10.1080/01425692.2010.515113]
OECD. (2019). An OECD Learning Framework 2030. In G. Bast, E. G. Carayannis, & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), The Future of Education and Labor (pp. 23-35). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link]
Oswell, D. (2011). The agency of children: From family to global human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139033312]
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., & Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71]
John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. [Link]
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 ]
Ponomariovienė, J., & Jakavonytė-Staškuvienė, D. (2025). Manifestation of learner agency in primary education: Goal setting, implementation, and reflection. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1116. [DOI:10.3390/bs15081116]
Prout, A. (2000). Childhood Bodies: Construction, Agency and Hybridity. In A. Prout & J. Campling (Eds.), The Body, Childhood and Society (pp. 1-18). London: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-333-98363-8_1]
Raffo, C., & Roth, W. M. (2020). Learner agency in urban schools? A pragmatic transactional approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(4), 447-461. [DOI:10.1080/01425692.2020.1748571]
Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. (2004). Understanding resilience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110-120. [DOI:10.1080/02783190509554299]
Robson, E., Bell, S., & Klocker, N. (2007). Conceptualizing agency in the lives and actions of rural young people. In Global perspectives on rural childhood and youth (pp. 152-165). Oxfordshire: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203942222]
Scherr, A. (2013). Agency – ein Theorie- und Forschungsprogrammfür die Soziale Arbeit? In G. Graßhoff (Ed.), Adressaten, Nutzer, Agency: Akteursbezogene Forschungsperspektiven in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 229-242). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-531-19007-5_1]
Schoon, I. (2018). Conceptualising Learner Agency: A Socio-Ecological Developmental Approach. Conceptualising Learner Agency: A Socio-Ecological Developmental Approach. Retrieved from: [Link]
Sensen, O. (2012). Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Smith, L., & Jones, R. (2023). Putting the social into learner agency: Understanding social contributions to agency. Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 123–136. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102214]
Sury, N. (2008). Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in India. Foreign Trade Review, 42(4), 24-41. [DOI:10.1177/0015732515080402]
Trede, F., & Flowers, R. (2020). Preparing Students for Workplace Learning: Short Films, Narrative Pedagogy, and Community Arts to Teach Agency. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 365-376. [Link]
Unterhalter, E. (2005). Global inequality, capabilities, social justice: The millennium development goal for gender equality in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(2), 111-122. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.11.015]
Vaughn, M. (2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 109-118. [DOI:1080/00405841.2019.1702393]
Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3(3-1). [Link]
Wach, E., & Ward, R. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis. [Link]
Wenmoth, D., Jones, M., & DiMartino, J. (2021). Agency by Design: Making Learning Engaging. Aurora Institute. Retrieved from: [Link]
World Health Organization. (2023). Tracking universal health coverage: 2023 global monitoring report. Geneva: World Health Organization. [Link]
Wyse, D., & Manyukhina, Y. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: A critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223–243. [DOI:10.1080/09585176.2019.1599973]
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S., Zhang, C., Li, S., & Sun, F., et al. (2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 8(1), 2-10. [DOI:10.10.1111/jebm.12141]
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing Student Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628. [DOI:10.3102/00028312023004614]
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and an overview. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1-12). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Link]