Adam Robbins’ recent(ish) blog, Motivation and Autonomy: Should Teachers Be Given a Choice in Leverage Points?, offers a thoughtful reflection on the role of autonomy in teacher motivation, framed through Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory.

In his blog, Robbins gives a shout out to Adam Boxer, who introduced him to this theory, and the idea of autonomy and motivation has been highlighted by other popular advocates of cognitive science in education, such as Peps Mccrea (2020). 

Whilst critically evaluative and cautious (autonomy must be balanced with competence), Robbins rightly emphasises the psychological value of choice in the classroom, particularly in how policy levers can either empower or restrict teachers’ sense of control over their work. His piece – which centres on instructional coaching and teacher observations – prompted me to reflect on a related but, I would argue, more expansive concept: teacher agency.

This distinction – between autonomy and agency – is more than just a matter of semantics. It reflects deep differences in how we understand professional identity, judgement, educational research and ultimately, what it means to teach well.

Therefore, with the increased interest in teacher autonomy amongst popular education writers, bloggers and influencers, I think it is worth considering the use of these two concepts. 

Autonomy vs agency: More than a matter of choice

The concept of teacher autonomy has often been linked to freedom of choice – having space to select between different pedagogical techniques or classroom strategies. In policy and research rooted in cognitive psychology or behavioural science (like SDT), autonomy is celebrated for its motivational benefits: it helps teachers feel more in control, more satisfied and more engaged (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

But agency speaks to something broader. Drawing on the work of scholars like Priestley et al. (2015), teacher agency is not just about choosing – it’s about acting with purpose in relation to one’s professional environment. Agency emerges through interactions between the individual and the structures around them: policies, school cultures, curriculum demands, accountability pressures etc.

Perhaps this can be better unpacked by looking at the respective definitions in the Cambridge English Dictionary:

• Autonomy – independent and having the power to make your own decisions.
• Agency – the ability to take action or to choose what action to take.

It could be argued that the former term denotes decision making at a given point in time, perhaps based on a number choices that can be applied to a given situation. Whereas the latter term acknowledges the systematic constraints impacting our ability to take independent action. It could be further argued that this term does not assume that decisions are made with complete independence and in a objective, value free and contextually ambivalent manner.

So what? Whats the actual difference?

It’s not accidental, I think, that the term autonomy appears more frequently in spaces where teaching is framed as a scientific, evidence-informed practice – a ‘what works’ enterprise (Slavin, 2002; Goldacre, 2013; see also, Wrigley & McCusker, 2019). Autonomy becomes a way to give professionals some room to personalise practice, but only within the boundaries of approved methods or standardised frameworks.

In this sense, teachers have a ‘menu’ of techniques and strategies to use in the classroom; albeit, a menu that fits within the positivist, often values neutral, paradigm of ‘evidence-based practice’ currently championed by the Department of Education, policy-makers and popular edu-influencers (Jones 2025). This paradigm often rules out other forms of pedagogy, such a critical and dialogic pedagogues, that do not fit the scientific lens of the ‘what works policy agenda’ (see, for example, Gold, 2018).

By contrast, agency often appears in research that values qualitative evidence, narrative inquiry and philosophical reflection (Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Sachs, 2016). Here, good teaching isn’t just about applying best practices; it’s about interpreting, responding to context and acting ethically amid complexity.

These paradigmatic differences matter. As already suggested, autonomy fits comfortably within policy frameworks like the Initial Teacher Training Core Curriculum and the Early Career Framework (DfE, 2019a, 2019b), as well as pedagogical models based on cognitive science, such as Barak Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (2011) and ‘pedagogical toolkits’ (Mccrea, 2024), which offer clear, structured, evidence-based support for teachers. But in my own research (for an EdD), I explore whether such frameworks also leave room for professional agency: for teachers to shape their identities, question assumptions and exercise judgement in ways that go beyond implementation.

Subsequently, in this conception, teachers would have the wider freedom to choose pedagogical approaches that are arguably out-of-favour and potentially question top-down approaches to best practice – if, of course, these approaches are context-sensitive and justifiable.

As Biesta (2015) puts it, autonomy may be a necessary condition for agency, but it is not sufficient. Agency involves not just freedom, but responsiveness: the capacity to navigate dominant structures in order to make meaningful, ethical pedagogical decisions, that may include highly contextual and value laden judgements.

Autonomy or agency (or both)?

Priestley et al. (2015) conceptualise agency as ecological – something that arises at the intersection of individual capacity, structural conditions and cultural-discursive influences. While autonomy (the freedom to choose) is part of this ecology, agency demands more: the ability to act with intention in complex systems, navigating pressures without being defined by them.

Other scholars offer related models. Hargreaves and Fullan’s (2012) idea of professional capital frames agency as something strengthened by collaboration, trust and expertise – not just individual autonomy. Similarly, Apple and Beane (2007) argue for democratic professionalism, where teachers co-construct policy and pedagogy rather than merely implement it.

But when performativity, accountability measures and narrow interpretations of evidence dominate – as Ball (2003, 2013, 2021) has long warned – agency risks being reduced to a performance of autonomy. A ‘freedom to choose,’ but only from an approved menu.

Of course, this could be seen as perpetuating a false dichotomy and a narrow conceptualisation of autonomy per se. However, I am making the case for a wider understand of what it means to teach with freedom and purpose, for which – again – autonomy is not sufficient in and of itself. 

Final thoughts: Reframing the conversation

So yes – autonomy matters. Robbins is absolutely right to flag the importance of choice in fostering motivation and trust. It’s a good blog and I don’t write this as a criticism – it simply got me thinking.

Nonetheless, I’d argue we need to move beyond simply discussing autonomy and towards the language of agency – a language that reflects the reality of teaching as a moral, relational and political practice. Because in the end, it’s not just about the freedom to choose. It’s about the freedom – and responsibility – to act meaningfully within the policy, institutional and demographic contexts in which we teach.

Of course, I would also admit that I could be seen as overplaying the differences between these two terms, and that most people would see them as part and parcel of the same issue: to what degree do we have control over our own practice.

You can make up your own mind.

References

• Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face. McGraw-Hill.
• Archer, M. (2009). Critical realism and relational sociology: Complementarity and synergy. Journal of Critical Realism, 8(1), 5-14.
• Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
• Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, power, and education. Routledge.
• Ball, S. J. (2021). The education debate (3rd ed.). Policy Press.
• Biesta, G. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
• Department for Education (DfE). (2019). Initial Teacher Training Core Curriculum. . UK Government.
• Department for Education (DfE). (2019). Early Career Framework. UK Government.
• Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45-65.
• Fairclough, N. (2018). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
• Gold, J. (2018). The what works network: Five years on. UK Government.
• Goldacre, B. (2013). Building evidence into education. UK Government.
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
• Jones, A. (2025). Pedagogical prophet? David Hargreaves’ 1996 vision for a research-based profession: A 2024 reality check. PRISM, Early View.
• Mccrea, P. (2020). Motivated teaching. Self-published. 
• Mccrea, P. (2024). Agree the toolkit. Evidence Snacks by Peps Mccrea. https://snacks.pepsmccrea.com/p/agree-the-toolkit
• Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
• Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching, 22(4), 413–425.
• Wrigley, T., & McCusker, S. (2019). Evidence-based teaching: Advancing professionalism or corporate control? British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 545–561.

Picture credit: Pxhere.com (used under a Creative commons licence)