This section discusses Foucault’s theory of power, specifically its pervasiveness in educational institutions and how it is exercised within them. The field of educational management has widely acknowledged Foucault’s ideas, and, unlike other more contentious theories, they have mainly remained the same over time (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013). Although some debate exists regarding their accuracy or relevance (Butin, 2006; Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013; Wang, 2011), his theories help clarify power and discourse, which significantly influence social and cultural interactions. Foucault’s theory emphasizes the relationship between power and discourse, its effects, and its role in domination within social contexts. Rather than focusing on sovereignty, Foucault argues that power is inherently related to basic institutional structures.

Dreyfus and Rabinow (1983) elaborate further on this, extending it to show how the power dynamics shaped within institutions or discourse become facilitated by forms of knowledge and meaning. ‘Discourse’ has several conceptual dimensions. Generally, it is used in linguistic studies to mean the patterns of speech, language usage, and communication theorizing among certain groups (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013). Discourse is not limited to written and verbal communication; it includes anything humans say or write. According to Foucault (1978), power and knowledge are never separated from discourse, which is made up of various elements that do not always have a logical structure.

Foucault’s concepts of discourse, knowledge, and power are socially constructed and interdependent. Such implications are important for education, especially for teachers and students. Besley (2005) states that his philosophical framework has an ethical model for understanding classroom management and institutional structures. Therefore, power is not fixed but shifts in hierarchical settings, allowing educational practice to redistribute authority through autonomy, raising traditional teaching methods.

In terms of current Arabic language learning and instruction, teachers have primary control, and as such, a portion of this authority is expected to be transferred to students with advancements in autonomy. Research has indicated that autonomous learning redefines traditional teacher roles, making students responsible for more of their learning (Cullen and Oppenheimer, 2024; Daflizar et al., 2022). Motivation studies also show that autonomous learning helps achieve deeper engagement (Reinders and Benson, 2017). Autonomy approaches offer more interactive learning, as opposed to traditional models where students receive knowledge passively from teachers.

In discourse, as a social construct, the power to control communication and discourse topics resides in those in power. In his own words, Foucault (1977) stresses that discourse also dictates who can say what and when, with what kind of authority. For example, in educational institutions, teachers may not be allowed to be flexible with curricula when rigid curricula are imposed on them by senior administrators. According to Graves (2008), practices of curriculum implementation take place in the classroom milieu, influenced by relationships between teachers, students, and subject matter. Foucault (1972) claimed that discourse not only describes objects but also constructs and defines them. Additionally, he points out that power should be studied as an effect of institutions, examined in terms of how power circulates and operates through networks (Foucault, 1977, 1972, 1987).

In education, pedagogy is connected to assumptions about the nature of knowledge, what constitutes the legitimacy of knowledge, and how this can be achieved (Foucault, 1987; Deacon, 2006). For Foucault, schools are not just places of control and surveillance but rather sites for reciprocal power: teachers are subject to the examination of students and school administrators. Woolner et al. (2018) agree with this view that discourse is inherent in everyday social practices and has even been visible in the physical structure of schools. Leaders in power determine what should or should not be discussed and define what acceptable discourse is. These boundaries limit the extent to which power can be challenged. What constitutes acceptable discourse expands and contracts over time, and its scope is subject to change. According to Foucault’s principle of discontinuity, knowledge does not develop in a strict, linear fashion but may evolve through interruptions and shifts.

Although some scholars agree with Foucault that ‘knowledge is power,’ others argue that discourse could also be used as a weapon of resistance (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013). Knowledge and power are not preconditions; rather, discourse is a form of control through which they are linked and regulated. For post-structuralists, power is a way of hegemony, in which the oppressed are unaware of cooperating in their submission. Public awareness plays an important role in recognizing true freedom (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013) because this happens through ingrained social practices where neither the oppressors nor the oppressed fully recognize it. Restricted access to knowledge is not enough to oppress education; societal pressure to conform to dominant norms also breaks the streak of education. Knowledge is considered important, but educators decide what is relevant. Education can either maintain the status quo or be used as a means of social change (Foucault, 1972). Since discourse is a mechanism of domination, it shapes the components of social reality (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013).

In their reading of Foucault’s notion of power, Moss (2002) sees it as a bilateral network in which institutional structures influence each individual’s choices. On the one hand, education is hierarchical, which may be good or bad; structured learning may help a student, while rote memorization may hinder language acquisition. However, some scholars argue that Foucault’s ideas about power and discourse are too narrow and superficial and do not properly apply to education. Butin (2006) compares their interpretations to extremes: either liberating individuals from oppression or trapping them within rigid systems. Foucault’s ideas have also been aligned with types of education (Ball, 2006; Olssen, 2006), but this sometimes fails to capture his views on the dynamism of power and knowledge (Wang, 2011). The application of Foucault’s theories in education changes the power dynamics in classrooms and may affect learning outcomes. Nevertheless, scholars have adapted his ideas to suit their interpretations of power in educational management, sometimes alienating his original point concerning power in educational management. For this study, classroom management is viewed as a complex framework combining theoretical concepts, teaching strategies, and institutional structures for legitimization or institutional equilibrium (Pitsoe and Letseka, 2013).

Bernstein’s theory of knowledge structuring—specifically the power of classification and framing—is fundamental to understanding its impact on learning autonomy. Bernstein, identified by Singh (2002) as a leading theorist in the sociology of knowledge, has made a significant contribution to educational discourse. However, many of his theories have been controversial, as some embraced them while others found his ideas complex and difficult to apply practically within education. Nevertheless, Bernstein placed considerable importance on the environmental forces that shape students’ ability to learn. One of his key contributions to pedagogy is the assertion that less rigid categorization of knowledge and a less structured pedagogical framework enhance learning. Classification refers to how knowledge is organized into curriculum subjects, while framing addresses how knowledge is conveyed to students through pedagogical methods.

The term “framing,” as defined by Bernstein (2003), refers to the degree of control over the selection, arrangement, pacing, and timing of knowledge for sharing and learning between the teacher and student. This insight suggests that weakened framing, which offers students more control over their learning, contrasts with strong framing in traditional teaching, where students have less control. This shift toward greater student agency is a core element of autonomy in the learning process.

In the same vein, Bernstein refers to classification as the maintenance of boundaries between content. This concept is further expanded by Cause (2010), who argues that classification includes not only subject boundaries but also the environments of education and pedagogy. According to Bernstein (1971), learning is more efficient when it occurs without restrictive subject classes or rigid pedagogical structures. Bernstein (2003) also argues that strong framing diminishes students’ control over their learning while increasing the teacher’s authority. Consequently, a successful learning environment should aim to reduce teacher dominance, allowing students greater agency in the educational process. Research by McLean and Abbas (2009) found that strong framing was particularly common in high-ranking UK universities, while weaker framing was more prevalent in universities with lower rankings, leading to closer teacher-student relationships in the latter context.

Bernstein, as cited by Sadovnik (1991), distinguishes between two curriculum codes: collection and integration. Integrated codes are more fluid with respect to subject boundaries compared to collection codes. For example, Yalcinkay et al. (2009) assert that the development of writing skills is interconnected with auditory comprehension, meaning that skills are better learned when they are cross-disciplinarily integrated, aligning with Bernstein’s (1971) preference for less circumscribed knowledge classification. The importance of active curriculum design is central to this perspective, highlighting the role of internal curriculum design in shaping students’ learning experiences. Bernstein (1971) also linked knowledge construction in curricula to prevailing power structures in educational settings. He advocated for integrating curricula and emphasized the interconnection of subjects rather than their separation. He also distinguished between horizontal knowledge, transmitted informally in everyday affairs, and vertical knowledge, organized into academic disciplines. According to Bernstein (Cullen et al., 2012), students must have some autonomy in choosing, ordering, and engaging with knowledge. Bernstein (2000) references Young (2008) and envisions an ideal curriculum as one that extends beyond the school and workplace into “future engagement” with past knowledge applied in future contexts.

For Bernstein, classification and framing are symbolic tools that define how students, teachers, and the overall environment of the classroom interact. Knowledge is structured and transmitted within the school based on power relations, meaning that certain groups dominate. Singh (1997) highlights Bernstein’s advocacy for considering parents and employers as stakeholders in curriculum and policy development to improve educational outcomes. Bishr and Alzahrani (2004) discuss the role of curriculum integration in preparing education for real-life applications in Saudi Arabia. Their recommendations are:

Thus, when all relevant parties are involved, this results in the development of a pedagogy with weak boundaries between curriculum subjects, a shift in power from teachers to students, and an organic move toward collaborative learning (Drake and Reid, 2018).

Bernstein’s theories are especially relevant for assessing current pedagogical methods and the transition toward autonomous learning. The student-centered approach naturally grants students greater independence, allowing for more autonomy in the learning process with less interference from the teacher (Kerimbayev et al., 2023). There is, therefore, a need for a theoretical framework that accommodates this shift—Bernstein’s framework fits this need. According to Bernstein’s classification framework, the curriculum’s content and instruction are so structured that subject boundaries are strongly reinforced. Foucault (1977) argues that it is within the educator’s control where power is predominantly felt. However, to implement this within a given timeframe, coordination among departments may be necessary to create an integrated curriculum that improves advanced language proficiency. By matching teaching methods with students’ cognitive development and assessment strategies, this approach may help students learn more.

Using Foucault and Bernstein as theoretical frameworks can help us understand how teachers and students might approach education differently in different teaching situations, and what this means for curriculum design and the power dynamics in education.

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan came up with the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which is now one of the most important ways to understand how people learn a language (Ryan, 2017). SDT basically says that human motivation exists on a spectrum from amotivation to intrinsic motivation. The quality of motivation is greatly affected by the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy (the need to feel like you have control over your actions), competence (the need to feel like you are effective in your environment), and relatedness (the need to feel connected to others).

Deci and Ryan (2000) claim that the main difference between autonomous and controlled types of motivation is important for understanding learning outcomes. Intrinsic motivation (doing something because it makes you feel good) and identified regulation (doing something because you value it) are both types of autonomous motivation. On the other hand, external regulation (doing something to get rewards or avoid punishment) and introjected regulation (doing something because you feel guilty or pressured) are both types of controlled motivation. In language learning, students typically start with restricted motives like meeting parental expectations or passing tests. However, in an ideal learning environment, they can work toward more self-endorsed motivations.

These needs for language learning have different parts and dimensions that often overlap and happen at the same time, which has a big effect on how well people learn. Studies show that language learners who have teachers who give them autonomy support, positive feedback that helps them build their skills, and a social environment where they can connect with others tend to stick with it longer, think more deeply, and have much better emotional outcomes (Herrera et al., 2025; Tuan, 2021; Deci, 2012). The strength of this theory is that it focuses on social and environmental factors that may enhance or hinder natural growth processes. Reeve (2009) lists a number of teaching behaviors that encourage independence, such as listening to students’ points of view, giving relevant reasons for assignments, and giving students options without making them feel pressured. Language teachers who do these things on a regular basis assist in meeting students’ psychological requirements. This leads to more involvement in the classroom, lower dropout rates, and increased motivation to learn a language. Furthermore, when students’ environments are conducive to meeting these requirements, they are more inclined to investigate the target language outside of the formal classroom setting. It is possible to ensure that learners feel both capable and connected by providing them with satisfaction of competence through appropriate scaffolding and of relatedness through pleasant classroom dynamics. This has the effect of improving the overall learning experience for learners.

SDT’s use in language learning settings has led to many important discoveries about the best places to learn. The teaching method that gives students choices, does not use controlling language, and values each student’s point of view fosters greater intrinsic motivation and better self-directed learning (Yuksel, 2010). Competence support, which entails the integration of informational feedback with optimally challenging tasks, is a method by which learners sustain their motivation during the challenging phases of language learning (Srinivasa, 2022). Lamb (2017) posits that language learning is facilitated by positive interactions between learners, instructors, and fellow students, which in turn helps students feel more at ease taking risks with the language. Teachers are very important in helping students move from external to more internalized states of motivation. In classrooms that foster autonomy, students can communicate with one another in a democratic way, and they feel confident speaking the target language without worrying about being corrected or made fun of. Competence is developed not only via praise but also through constructive criticism, activities that are well-structured, and encouragement to create personal goals. Additionally, Reeve (2009) highlights the fact that learners can acquire confidence through frequent monitoring that does not include any pressure. Boosting students’ self-efficacy and encouraging them to reflect on their own progress can be accomplished through activities such as self-assessment exercises and open-ended diary reflections, for instance.

Self-Determination Theory posits that intrinsic motivational factors are more influential than extrinsic motivators, such as grades and rewards, as they promote deeper cognitive processing and enhance retention. Self-Determination Theory provides a robust framework for analyzing motivation patterns in various educational settings and cultural contexts within language instruction (Noels et al., 2003). With their fundamental study, Noels et al. (2003) proved that students who learnt a second language out of personal interest or affiliation with the language community reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation and lower levels of anxiety. This was a significant finding. Students whose learning was motivated by fear of failure or other outside forces reported lower levels of satisfaction and often stopped studying sooner. This fits with the assumption that intrinsic drive makes people more likely to remember a language, be creative, and want to communicate honestly. Moreover, students with integrated motivation who completely understand the value of learning a language are more likely to be successful in the long run and often want to be multilingual for the rest of their lives.

SDT reveals motivational processes in the acquisition of the Arabic language, particularly in the context of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), due to its distinctive features. Arabic is a triglossic language, which poses obstacles to the development of learner autonomy. Based on their objectives, learners are required to select from a variety of Arabic dialects: Quranic Arabic for religious education, business Arabic for professional purposes, or regional dialects for cultural heritage (Albirini, 2014). The structured variety choice model is supported by research, as it results in increased learner motivation and program retention, which is consistent with the principles of SDT regarding autonomy satisfaction (Wahba et al., 2022). Muslim learners are motivated by the religious significance of Arabic, which is achieved through self-determined regulation (Bakar, 2010). The importance of autonomy in goal setting is reflected in the fact that the student has the freedom to select the type of Arabic vocabulary that they prefer to concentrate on, such as Modern Standard Arabic, Classical Arabic, or Egyptian Arabic. Students are more motivated when they can choose dialects that match their personal, spiritual, or professional interests. This also helps learners build their skills since they can better understand the context in which they are using language. Using dialectal comparisons, real audio samples, or culturally relevant themes in the classroom makes students feel more connected, especially heritage learners or those learning Arabic to strengthen their religious identity.

It is very hard to learn Arabic because of its complicated writing system and morphological structure. Grammar-translation methods that emphasize correctness over communicative skills reduce student competency (Bakar, 2010). SDT-based techniques that use structured exercises and embrace a variety of performance requirements, such as faith-based comprehension and conversational skills, result in greater motivated outcomes (Roark, 2009). The concept of competence is perceived differently by academic students and heritage students. Heritage students prioritize family communication over Modern Standard Arabic proficiency. Consequently, it is imperative to provide adaptive competence support in order to inspire these pupils (Wahidah, 2025). Reeve’s (2009) ideas about competency are very useful in this situation. Competence should not just mean being able to speak and write correctly or pronounce words correctly. It should also entail being able to communicate meaningfully in your social and religious settings. For instance, a heritage student who can talk to their grandparents in a particular dialect should be seen as competent in that area. Students are more motivated and achieve better results when their teachers validate a variety of expressions of proficiency, which fosters a sense of competence and respect. Moreover, making classroom activities that include Islamic literature or cultural storytelling helps students learn the material and the beliefs behind it, which builds both competence and independence.

In the Arabic context, SDT constructs are expressed differently, emphasizing the manner in which these fundamental concepts adapt to native cultural and linguistic contexts to establish unique motivational characteristics for language learners. Learning Arabic is quite hard because of strict educational standards that do not take into account the cultural and religious needs of students. Al-Batal (2007) says that not including religious value in Arabic lessons makes students less motivated to learn. Adding religious and cultural themes to school materials makes students more interested and helps them remember what they learned for a longer time. Khatib et al. (2011) claim that teaching that includes literature and is culturally relevant can help students become more motivated and improve their language skills. When students read Arabic poetry, religious writings, or proverbs that relate to their lives, they become more emotionally connected to the language. This shows the SDT principle of relatedness: language is no longer merely a subject, but an important element of the learner’s life. Moreover, teachers who accept different religious views and let students talk about their values and beliefs make classrooms where students are naturally motivated. This kind of culturally sensitive teaching is extremely important in Arabic education because language, faith, and tradition are all interrelated.

Learner autonomy is widely recognized as a key factor in language learning. However, the research specifically focusing on its implementation in Arabic language education remains limited (Hussein and Haron, 2012). The prior studies have not adequately addressed how institutional structures and pedagogical frameworks intersect to influence the development of autonomy in the context of Arabic language instruction. Furthermore, Arabic language teaching presents unique challenges due to its triglossic nature (Chaleila and Garra-Alloush, 2019), which is not always adequately addressed in current autonomy research. This gap highlights the need for a more tailored approach that integrates Foucauldian, Bernsteinian, and SDT frameworks to explore how power, knowledge, and motivation interact in this specific educational setting. As noted by Benson (2011), research on autonomy has largely focused on Western language contexts, with limited attention to non-Western educational settings.

The primary objective of this study is to explore how Foucauldian power relations, Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing, and SDT can inform and enhance the development of learner autonomy in Arabic language education. The study will aim to offer a deeper understanding of how power dynamics, curriculum design, and motivational theories impact the learning experience of Arabic students. This study has addressed the following research questions: