Digital student agency: Approaching agency in digital contexts from a critical perspective

Main Article Content

Maria Hvid Stenalt


Developing student agency is a critical aspect of higher education and, in particular, digital education. In this sense, the capacity to understand what constitutes agency in digital contexts of education and evaluate students’ digital agency is now crucial. In contrast to traditional approaches to student agency in digital contexts that subsume technologies to educational intentions, media research has illustrated a more complex interplay between humans and technology. Drawing on this insight, the paper argues for a more critical disposition to digital student agency, wherein relational, cultural, and technological dynamics are central to agency. Specifically, the article proposes a framework for digital student agency that distinguishes five critical domains to student agency in digital contexts: (1) agentic possibility, (2) digital self-representation, (3) data uses, (4) digital sociality, and (5) digital temporality. The article concludes by outlining the implications of the framework for educational practice and academic research around student agency and student learning. Specifically, adopting the framework implies changes in how we investigate student agency in digital contexts and enables critical investigations of student-centred teaching practices.

Article Details

How to Cite
Stenalt, M. H. (2021). Digital student agency: Approaching agency in digital contexts from a critical perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 9(3), 52 - 68.


Adam, B. (2008). Of timescapes, futurescapes and timeprints. In L. University (Ed.), Lüneburg Talk Web 070708.

Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016). Attending to Objects, Attuning to Things. In T. L. T. Cathrine Adams (Ed.), Researching a Posthuman World (pp. 23-56). Palgrave Macmillan.

Arkoudis, S., & Tran, L. T. (2007). International Students in Australia: Read ten thousand volumes of books and walk ten thousand miles. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(2), 157-169.

Ashwin, P. (2008). Accounting for structure and agency in ‘close-up’research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. International journal of educational research, 47(3), 151-158.

Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: implications for policies and practices. In A. M. Curaj, Liviu; Pricopie, Remus; Salmi, Jamil; Scott, Peter (Ed.), The European Higher Education Area - Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 343-359). Springer Open.

Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European psychologist, 7(1), 2.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180.

Baym, N. K., & Boyd, D. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 56(3), 320-329.

Bayne, S. (2015). What's the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, media and technology, 40(1), 5-20.

Bayne, S., Connelly, L., Grover, C., Osborne, N., Tobin, R., Beswick, E., & Rouhani, L. (2019). The social value of anonymity on campus: a study of the decline of Yik Yak. Learning, media and technology, 44(2), 92-107.

Bennett, A., & Burke, P. J. (2018). Re/conceptualising time and temporality: an exploration of time in higher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(6), 913-925.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4 ed.). Open University Press.

Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self (pp. 47-66). Routledge.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer‐mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322-339.

Calitz, T. M. L., Walker, M., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (2016). Theorising a capability approach to equal participation for undergraduate students at a South African university. Perspectives in Education, 34(2), 57-69.

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.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American journal of sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.

Ess, C. (2015). New selves, new research ethics. In H. Fossheim & H. Ingierd (Eds.), Internet research ethics (pp. 48-76). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Eteläpelto, A. (2017). Emerging conceptualisations on professional agency and learning. In M. P. Goller, Susanna (Ed.), Agency at Work - An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (1 ed., pp. 183-201). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_10.

Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: socio-material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1-7.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.

Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348-1365.

Gourlay, L., Rodríguez-Illera, J. L., Barberà, E., Bali, M., Gachago, D., Pallitt, N., Jones, C., Bayne, S., Hansen, S. B., Hrastinski, S., Jaldemark, J., Themelis, C., Pischetola, M., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Matthews, A., Gulson, K. N., Lee, K., Bligh, B., Thibaut, P., Vermeulen, M., Nijland, F., Vrieling-Teunter, E., Scott, H., Thestrup, K., Gislev, T., Koole, M., Cutajar, M., Tickner, S., Rothmüller, N., Bozkurt, A., Fawns, T., Ross, J., Schnaider, K., Carvalho, L., Green, J. K., Hadžijusufović, M., Hayes, S., Czerniewicz, L., Knox, J., & Networked Learning Editorial, C. (2021). Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition. Postdigital Science and Education.

Hamilton, E., & Friesen, N. (2013). Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective/Éducation en ligne: Perspective des études en science et technologie. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(2).

Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell Oxford.

Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T., & Dargusch, J. (2018). Not playing the game: Student assessment resistance as a form of agency. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 125-140.

Hassan, R (2003). Network time and the new knowledge epoch. Time & Society, 12(2-3), 226-241.

Hassan, R. (2007). 24/7: Time and temporality in the network society, Stanford University Press.

Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in higher education, 42(8), 1567-1579.

Hitlin, S., & Long, C. (2009). Agency as a sociological variable: A preliminary model of individuals, situations, and the life course. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 137-160.

Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning Higher Education for the 21st Century Learner through Multi-Access Learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 172.

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 25-43.

Järvenoja, H., Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Regulation of emotions in socially challenging learning situations: An instrument to measure the adaptive and social nature of the regulation process. Educational Psychology, 33(1), 31-58.

Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V., Kärkkäinen, T., & Häkkinen, P. (2020). Student agency analytics: learning analytics as a tool for analysing student agency in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-19.

Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Häkkinen, P., Vasalampi, K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Tolvanen, A. (2020). Students’ agency profiles in relation to student-perceived teaching practices in university courses. International journal of educational research, 103.

Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A. M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2016). Assessing agency of university students: validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in higher education, 1-19.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2011). Enhancing learning and teaching through technology: a guide to evidence-based practice for academic developers. H. E. Academy.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, media and technology, 39(1), 6-36.

Klemenčič, M. (2015). What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement. In M. Klemenčič, S. Bergan, & R. Primožič (Eds.), Student engagement in Europe: Society, higher education and student governance. (pp. 11-29). Council of Europe Higher Education Series No. 20. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

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.

Klemenčič, M., Pupinis, M., & Kirdulytė, G. (2020). Mapping and analysis of student-centred learning and teaching practices: Usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher education (NESET Analytical Report). Publications Office of the European Union.

Lash, S. (2001). Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 105-120.

Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6).

Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344-355.

Livingstone, S. (2005). On the relation between audiences and publics. In S. Livingstone (Ed.), Audiences and publics: when cultural engagement matters for the public sphere. (2 ed., pp. 17-41). Intellect Books.

Luo, H., Yang, T., Xue, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). Impact of student agency on learning performance and learning experience in a flipped classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 819-831.

Lupton, D. (2020). Data Selves: More-than-Human Perspectives. Polity Press.

Malmberg, L. E., & Hagger, H. (2009). Changes in student teachers' agency beliefs during a teacher education year, and relationships with observed classroom quality, and day-to-day experiences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 677-694.

Marín, V. I., de Benito, B., & Darder, A. (2020). Technology-Enhanced Learning for Student Agency in Higher Education: a Systematic Literature Review. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal IxD&A, 45, 15-49.

Markham, A. N. (2018). Ethnography in the digital internet era. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5 ed., pp. 650-668). SAGE.

McCosker, A. (2017). Data literacies for the postdemographic social media self. First Monday, 22(10).

Merrill, B. (2014). Determined to stay or determined to leave? A tale of learner identities, biographies and adult students in higher education. Studies in higher education, 40(10), 1859-1871.

Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2021). Student agency in feedback: beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-14.

Nye, A., Hughes-Warrington, M., Roe, J., Russell, P., Deacon, D., & Kiem, P. (2011). Exploring historical thinking and agency with undergraduate history students. Studies in higher education, 36(7), 763-780.

OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Working Papers. OECD Paris, France.

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Conclusion. A Networed Self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self (pp. 304-318). Routledge.

Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without you, I'm nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International journal of communication, 6, 18.

Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T., & Smits, A. (2018). Digital agency: Empowering equity in and through education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 425-439.

Paasonen, S. (2018). Affect, data, manipulation and price in social media. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 19(2), 214-229.

Paasonen, S., Hillis, K., & Petit, M. (2015). Networks of transmission: Intensity, sensation, value. In K. Hillis, S. Paasonen, & M. Petit (Eds.). Networked Affect. (pp. 1-24) Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pink, S., Sumartojo, S., Lupton, D., & Heyes LaBond, C. (2017). Empathic technologies: digital materiality and video etnography. Visual Studies, 32(4), 371-381.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.

Rosenberger, R. (2017a). The ICT Educator’s fallacy. Foundations of Science, 22(2), 395-399.

Rosenberger, R. (2017b). Notes on a nonfoundational phenomenology of technology. Foundations of Science, 22(3), 471-494.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73.

Sen, A. (2005). Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166.

Shonfeld, M., Passey, D., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T., Smits, A., Khablan, S., & Starkey, L. (2017). Digital agency to empower equity in education: Summary report. In: Rethinking Learning in a Digital Age. EDUsummIT 2017. (pp. 39-45).

Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). What contributes to first-year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom? Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 641-659.

Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework for policy and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375-390.

Stenalt, M. H. (2021). Researching student agency in digital education as if the social aspects matter: students’ experience of participatory dimensions of online peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 644-658.

Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first year student teachers' sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 126-136.

Tsai, Y.-S., Perrotta, C., & Gašević, D. (2020). Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-14.

Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self-and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational psychologist, 44(4), 215-226.

Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813-1831.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3).

Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2013). If Romeo and Juliet had mobile phones. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 166-171.

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and technology, 45(2), 107-114.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 217-221.