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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:

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

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.

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:

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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.

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.