Through decades of research on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the core symptoms of hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity have been recognized to negatively affect students’ motivation and academic outcomes in educational contexts (Tarver et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2017; Arnold et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2023). Academic functioning in school requires a range of skills in areas such as cognition, organization, self-regulation, time-management, and socializing, and the core symptoms of ADHD can lead to impairments in all of these areas (Arnold et al., 2020).

Our focus on autonomy in learning activities aligns with a recent shift within educational psychology in the field of ADHD, which has moved from predominantly addressing negative aspects of the diagnosis and symptom control to also recognizing positive psychological factors and well-being (Newton et al., 2017; Champ et al., 2021; Morsink et al., 2021; Champ et al., 2023). According to self-determination theory (SDT), the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy is proposed to enhance students’ sense of volition and motivation outcomes in school contexts (see, e.g., Ryan and Deci, 2020), and it is possible that this also applies to students diagnosed with ADHD. A recent study found that students with ADHD symptoms benefit particularly from autonomous engagement (intrinsic motivation) with respect to academic outcome and that interventions that provide these students with autonomy support are especially sought after (Smith et al., 2023). Rogers and Tannock (2018) who recently claimed to be the first to explore perceived autonomy support in a group of students with ADHD symptoms, find that the presence of ADHD symptoms may uniquely interfere with children’s fulfillment of this basic psychological need in the classroom. As this remains an understudied topic, our study contributes to the body of research by exploring how two students with inattention experience autonomy in learning activities, specifically in terms of volitional choice and motivation.

The study was conducted in a Norwegian primary school, within the framework of a one-year school-based intervention using an autonomy supportive learning model that included elements of adapted education and self-regulated learning (SRL). In the Norwegian educational context, inclusive education is high on the agenda with the principle of tilpasset opplæring (adapted education) strongly emphasized for all students (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2024; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024). Considering that adapted education seeks to balance individual differentiation with students’ sense of belonging in the community (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024), it creates a unique framework for exploring autonomy and autonomy support for students with ADHD in mainstream classrooms. Internationally, however, much of the ADHD literature has focused on behavioral reinforcement and symptom management (Carlson et al., 2002), with limited attention to internal emotions and motivational processes (Morsink et al., 2021; Champ et al., 2023). By applying SDT within the Norwegian framework of adapted education, this study contributes to bridging this gap, offering insights into how autonomy-supportive practices can be tailored to students with ADHD in inclusive settings.

While autonomy is a fundamental psychological need, research suggests that students with ADHD may struggle to benefit from autonomy in learning contexts unless it is accompanied by sufficient structure and support (Rogers and Tannock, 2018). Autonomy, especially when it includes SRL, as in this study, may pose additional challenges for students with ADHD, due to impairments in metacognitive, affective, and behavioral processes (Reddy et al., 2018; Champ et al., 2023).

With the intention of exploring both opportunities and challenges according to autonomy for students with ADHD, the following research question guided our study:

In line with recommendations for research in this field, we provide details about the context of the study and the intervention used (Graham, 2017).

This study was conducted in a primary public school in Norway. In Norway, inclusive education is prioritized, and legislation supports the right of all students to participate and learn in regular classrooms in local schools (Nes et al., 2018). This means that teachers in Norwegian schools face a very diverse group of students in their daily work, something which places a significant demand on their teaching competence. To ensure that students with diverse needs and abilities experience inclusion, tilpasset opplæring (adapted education) is a fundamental principle outlined in the Norwegian Education Act (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2024) with the goal of promoting inclusivity through variations and adjustments to the diverse prerequisites and needs of the students. Importantly, this principle does not advocate for pure differentiation according to the individual student but emphasizes striking a balance between individualization and promoting each student’s sense of belonging in the community (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024).

The study took place within the framework of a one-year intervention in which teachers were instructed by the first author to implement a didactic model for adapted education (the TIL Model) one day each week (TIL Day). TIL, then, is an abbreviation of the Norwegian term tilpasset opplæring (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2021, p.248) and translates as “adapted education.” One of the intentions of the model is developing autonomy supportive teaching practices. In accordance with SDT, teacher autonomy support promotes students’ sense of choice, volition, and freedom from excessive external pressure (Ryan and Deci, 2000b), but only if the learning environment has a clear structure so that the students are well-acquainted with the expectations and requirements placed upon them (Jang et al., 2010). In the TIL Model, structure in the learning environment is facilitated through a working plan consisting of three interdependent, sequential phases: forethought, performance control, and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2000, p.16).

The TIL Model consists of a comprehensive work plan prepared by the teachers that provides the students with an overview of the TIL Day’s sessions (time and place), subjects, assignments, learning activities, individual work, student collaboration, teaching sessions, and common classroom activities. TIL Day activities are intended to be diverse, spanning subjects and with varied cognitive workload. As such, some activities are more practical, some more creative, some collaborative, and others requiring independent work, but all with the intention of catering to the needs of individual students. To accommodate the students’ different prerequisites and needs according to workload on the TIL Day, tasks and activities are divided into “first priority” (mandatory) and “second priority” (voluntary), but the plan also allows students to take breaks whenever they need wish. Furthermore, the plan is structured so students perform learning activities throughout the day according to the three phases of self-regulated learning (SRL) as expressed by Zimmerman: planning, working, and evaluation (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 16).

While the TIL Plan provides a clear structure, giving students an overview of the day and what is expected of them according to the three phases of SRL, it also offers them a high degree of flexibility meant to encourage them to choose and act autonomously, according to their own prerequisites and needs. This involves setting both personal and common goals with peers, establishing timelines, setting priorities for the different tasks, activities, and effort, executing tasks both alone and together with peers, and taking breaks when needed. Ultimately, the students are asked to reflect on their experiences throughout the day, focusing on the choices they made, whether those choices worked well or not, and also on how they perceived their workload and academic level. This aligns with Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2021), which aims to support students in developing a positive attribution pattern by enabling them to experience that they, with support from their teachers, are capable of influencing success and failure on TIL Days.

This study was part of the larger TIL intervention involving multiple schools, teachers, and students. Of the 115 students who participated in the intervention, 60 were invited to share their experiences through interviews. Those invited were recruited through their teachers based on “student diversity” as a criterion. The students were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time and without any consequences. Among the 40 students who agreed to participate, only two had a formal ADHD diagnosis. These two students and their parents, as well as their teachers, all signed an informed consent agreement. The study was registered at the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt) under the number 435104.

Our choice of participants in the context of TIL Model intervention responds to Graham’s (2017) recommendations regarding direct involvement of students with ADHD diagnoses in research, and to his call for exploring better ways to translate our knowledge into practice. In accordance with recommendations by Graham (2017), we share descriptions of the study participants.

The students and their teachers were from the same urban primary school, where approximately 500 students are enrolled. The first student was 10-year-old Benjamin and the second is 11-year-old Sophie (pseudonyms). Both students have been diagnosed with ADHD in accordance with the national professional guidelines (Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2022) through the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry specialist health services. According to both the students and their teachers, the ADHD symptom of inattention is the main challenge both students face when learning in school. Even though students in Norwegian schools encounter several teachers daily, each student has a teacher with specific responsibility for following up with that student (their “contact teacher”). The contact teachers were recruited for the study when their student’s participation was secured. Both teachers have a four-year general teacher education. Sophie’s teacher (age apprx. 30 years) is relatively newly qualified and has been Sophie’s contact teacher for 2 years. Benjamin’s teacher (age apprx. 40 years) has been teaching for nearly 13 years and Benjamin’s contact teacher for 3 years. Both Sophie and Benjamin’s classes consist of about 20 students.

To ensure fidelity of the intervention (Swanson et al., 2013), the teachers involved in the study received guidance on the TIL Model and the content of the working plan and how both were intended to address adapted education in terms of differentiation and students’ participation in the community. Several pedagogical principles intended to ensure adapted education were highlighted, such as the principles of differentiation in terms of academic level, practical and creative tasks, self-selected breaks, and the balance between individual work, working with a study buddy, and group collaboration. The teachers were also instructed in autonomy-support, structure and the three phases of SRL in line with the intention of the TIL Model (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2021). The teachers and the one of the researchers met on three occasions during the year to reflect on how each teacher experienced student autonomy with respect to the teachers’ own practices in the framework of the model and autonomy support. Before each meeting the researcher observed in the classroom throughout TIL Day, so that joint reflections were connected to their real experiences from that day.

To support an inductive approach, two different interview guides consisting of open-ended questions were prepared: one for the students and one for the teachers.

The student interview guide explored how students experience autonomy in learning activities throughout TIL Days, with a particular focus on volitional choice, motivation, and self-regulation. Key topics included:

The teacher interview guide focused on teachers’ experiences with the TIL Model and their observations of students with ADHD, particularly regarding autonomy support, motivation, and self-regulated learning. Topics included:

Each interview took place at the school, during school hours, and lasted between 45 and 75 min. Prior to the interviews, both students and teachers were reminded that their participation was voluntary and that they had the option to withdraw at any time without any consequences. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a research assistant. In order to treat the students as experts on their own thoughts and reflections, we decided to read the transcripts of student interviews first, followed by those of the teachers, throughout the process of analysis. The aim of the intervention was to empower the children participating and contribute to positive changes for them. However, in line with Robinson and Taylor (2013), we were mindful of the issue of unequal power dynamics between the researchers and teachers as adults, and the two students as children. This became a concern during the analysis when questions arose regarding whether autonomy in learning activities might result in more drawbacks than benefits for these students. We address this crucial issue in the discussion (Autonomy in learning activities: A double-edged sword) as well as in the concluding remarks (regarding decisive teacher competence).

Given the study’s exploratory nature, our aim was not generalizability or theoretical contribution, but in-depth insight into the research question. While full data saturation was not feasible, thematic redundancy across interviews suggests sufficient depth for the study’s purpose (Tjora, 2019). The analysis process was followed by collaborative discussions during each step, to compare, refine, and validate codes, code groups, and main topics. This iterative approach ensured analytical consistency and strengthened the credibility of the findings (Tjora, 2019).

In accordance with the open research question and inquiry approach, the initial data analysis was open or inductive in nature (Tjora, 2019). While reading through the transcriptions individually, we noted our spontaneous reflections about the essence of the participants’ stories. The notes reflect the students’ appreciation of “deciding for themselves” on TIL Day, as well as their experiences of challenges related to inattention.

In the next phase, we identified words and expressions indicating meaning and labeled them with empirically close codes (numbered) according to both the students’ appreciations and the challenges (Tjora, 2019, p. 29). After conducting coding tests which included multiple readings of the transcriptions, further empirically close coding, and adjustments to codes, we discerned several codes that had internal thematic connection to different preliminary “code groups” (Tjora, 2019, p. 37). When we summarized the various preliminary code groups at one point, we discovered that they were related to two seemingly contradictory main topics according to “students’ own will.” On the one hand, both students and their teachers expressed that they, the students, were prevented from acting on the basis of their own will, when facing the experience of losing concentration (challenges). On the other hand, they talked about experiences of taking action when relating to positive experiences of autonomy and teachers’ autonomy support in learning activities on TIL Days (opportunities). Therefore, at this point, the main topics were labeled as preliminary main topics (1) Challenges: Experiences of concentration as being beyond one’s own will and (2) Opportunities: Motivation to act on the basis of one’s own will. In subsequent analyses, we moved back and forth between the empirical data, theory, and previous research (Tjora, 2019, p. 39), and realized that these two main topics provided new insights in line with the research question.

Although the two preliminary main topics appeared to be valid at this point, it remained unclear how they reflected the students’ experiences throughout the TIL Day. Consequently, in line with the analytical distinction between challenges and opportunities, we again turned to the codes and code groups and performed adjustments. Finally, using Tjora’s (2019), p. 38 terminology, we unified meaningful and still empirically close main topics with underlying code groups according to the students’ experiences of autonomy in learning activities: (1) Challenges with concentration, choices, and carrying things out, (a) Losing concentration, (b) Becoming disturbed and uncertain, and (c) Struggling to stay on track, and (2) Opportunities of motivation and self-reflection, (a) The freedom to choose and act, (b) The powerful feeling of mastery, and (c) Teacher support and ongoing self-reflections.

Table 1 provides insight into the analysis process according to main topic 1 and code group 1.a.

Through the perspectives of two students diagnosed with ADHD and their teachers, this study provides new insights into how ADHD students with inattention experience autonomy in learning activities, both on possible beneficial aspects of autonomy, and challenges.

The TIL Model, grounded in the fundamental pedagogical principle of adapted education, forms the basis of the intervention on which this study is built—and consequently, the basis of study findings. Given different interventions, student experiences of autonomy in learning activities would vary accordingly.

While the intervention was designed to support students’ autonomy through structured and differentiated learning activities, the fidelity of implementation may have varied across the teachers and class context. Although efforts were made to ensure consistency, such as teacher training and regular follow-up meetings, variations in how autonomy support was enacted could have influenced the students’ experiences. Future studies should consider using fidelity checklists or observational tools to systematically assess implementation quality (Farmer et al., 2023).

During the broader intervention, several students expressed that they appreciated TIL Days because they were allowed to make their own choices. This positive feedback might echo intervention features described to students ahead of the implementation and hence, it might have influenced the researchers’ attentiveness to autonomy-related benefits in the present study. The choice to apply SDT, with its emphasis on psychological wellness and intrinsic motivation, could have reinforced a bias toward interpreting autonomy as inherently beneficial. The coding process was followed by joint discussions to compare, refine, and validate the codes and categories. This iterative process ensured analytical consistency and strengthened the validity of the findings (Tjora, 2019).

The small number of participants in this study allows for an in-depth understanding of individual experiences rather than generalization to the broader ADHD population, which is highly diverse. However, the study’s suggestion that autonomy causes intrinsic and autonomous extrinsic motivation for the two students involved are not based on controls or elimination of other potential reasons. Therefore, future research with larger and more varied samples is needed to support generalization. Hopefully, this study will serve as a source of inspiration in that regard and further, provide a valuable foundation for developing inclusive educational practices.

In this explorative study with an innovative intervention, the results of two students’ experiences and their teachers’ interpretations are thought-provoking and provide a valuable basis for further research on positive psychological factors and well-being in the field of ADHD. Both the students and their teachers describe concentration as something that can be lost, seemingly beyond the students’ own volition. Consequently, when it comes to autonomy, the students seem to experience challenges in learning activities in terms of disturbances, uncertainty, and staying on track. However, through the voices of the participants, this study offers insight into how differentiated autonomy support is tailored to individual needs and capacities and can help students engage based on personal interest, enjoyment, or a sense of competence and thereby help them experience a renewed, intrinsically driven energy to apply cognitive resources in learning.

Given that students with ADHD symptoms exhibit greater diversity than other students (Kofler et al., 2008), their ability to exercise autonomy in learning activities largely depends on the competence of teachers in providing differentiated support for both autonomy and structure, based on each student’s individual resources, prerequisites, and needs (cf. Ryan and Deci, 2017, p. 367). Furthermore, teacher and peer availability and ongoing dialogic interactions about challenges when they arise might be crucial, echoing an SDT appreciation of autonomy, not as independence, but as “autonomously dependent” (Ryan and Deci, 2006, p. 1562). Such a community-oriented approach to student autonomy is also in line with the principle of adapted education in the Norwegian educational context, where the balance between individual support and finding support within the community is emphasized (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024). It also aligns with an upward understanding of this group of students’ endeavors to make independent choices valuable. Rather than focusing on the students’ challenges on an individual level and implementing measures aimed at addressing them, it may prove more fruitful to explore opportunities within the social context. However, given the extent of autonomy support needed due to inattention and self-regulation in learning activities, it is, in line with Panadero (2017), pertinent to question whether teachers in schools have the necessary conditions, capacity, and competence to support this ongoing differentiated and dialogical autonomy support. If not, autonomy in learning activities might burden these students and potentially result in unequal access to learning opportunities and decreased participation in school.