Agency

At the heart of Vismaya Kalike’s philosophy lies a fundamental belief: children are capable actors, not passive recipients of whatever adults decide for them. This belief shapes how we design learning environments, how facilitators interact with children, and how communities come together around learning. But what exactly do we mean by agency in learning, and why is it so central to our work?

Psychological and educational research helps us see that agency is more than simply having choices. The OECD describes agency as the capacity for children to make meaningful choices, set goals, and take actions that influence both their own lives and the lives of others. It involves self-determination, belonging, and the courage to express oneself and participate in shared life (Kucirkova, 2024). Agency is not exercised only when children choose between options, but when they act purposefully and experience that their actions have consequences.

Self-Determination Theory further clarifies how agency grows. According to SDT, agency develops when three psychological needs are supported: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Children become intrinsically motivated when they feel some control over what they do, when they experience themselves as capable, and when they feel emotionally safe and connected with others. Agency, in this sense, is both a capacity and a feeling — the sense that “I can act, and what I do matters.”

Contemporary thinkers extend this understanding by showing that agency is both internal and relational. Henrik Karlsson describes agency as the combination of autonomy and efficacy — the ability to form one’s own goals and the willingness and capacity to pursue them (Karlsson, 2025). Agency requires not only freedom to choose but also curiosity about reality, the ability to question defaults, imagine alternatives, and engage with problems rather than assuming that solutions are fixed by systems or norms. Agency, therefore, is not simply doing whatever one wants; it is the ability to see possibilities, form intentions, and act with purpose.

This richer perspective matters when thinking about children’s development. Agency is not a trait some children possess while others lack. It grows through lived experiences — through opportunities to decide, try, fail, revise, and see how one’s actions affect situations. Research shows that when adults constantly intervene, solve problems for children, or structure every interaction, children may lose confidence in their own ability to act (Overell, 2025). Martin Seligman’s work on learned helplessness demonstrates the opposite of agency: when children repeatedly experience that their actions do not influence outcomes, they eventually stop trying. Agency is therefore not automatic; it must be experienced through action in environments that balance support and challenge.

Agency also requires judgment and responsibility. Acting impulsively or selfishly is not the agency we hope to nurture. True agency involves reflection — understanding consequences, considering others, and acting responsibly within shared spaces. Ethical awareness and empathy are therefore part of mature agency. Children need opportunities not only to act, but also to reflect on how their actions affect others.

Educational research from around the world reinforces that agency is relational and contextual. Sociocultural theorists show that agency develops through participation in shared practices. James Paul Gee explains that agency emerges when learners take on identities, negotiate roles, and shape participation in social worlds (Gee, 2004). When children contribute to group decisions, shape games, or influence shared activities, they are exercising agency through participation.

Scandinavian research on democratic classrooms similarly shows that agency grows when children participate in decisions affecting their learning environments. Through negotiation, dialogue, and collaboration with peers and adults, children learn that their voices matter and that shared life can be shaped collectively (Ekström, 2019).

Critical educational perspectives add another layer by connecting agency with power and justice. Drawing from capability theory, scholars influenced by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum argue that agency requires not only capacity but also conditions that allow children to pursue lives they value. Without supportive social structures, capacities alone cannot translate into meaningful action. Feminist scholars similarly emphasise that agency must be understood within social contexts shaped by power, norms, and inequality. Children exercise agency not only by acting but also by negotiating and sometimes resisting restrictive conditions.

Developmental research also shows that agency is learned in interaction with others. Barbara Rogoff’s work demonstrates that children develop purposeful action through guided participation with caregivers and peers (Rogoff, 2003). Agency grows through collaboration, observation, and gradual participation in shared activities rather than through isolated independence.

Cross-cultural studies remind us that agency does not always look like individual autonomy. In many Indigenous and community-centered traditions, agency is relational and collective. Scholars working with Māori communities in Aotearoa/New Zealand describe agency in terms of responsibility to community and shared identity (Berryman, 2014). Similarly, research with Indigenous communities in Australia highlights that agency is tied to cultural continuity and collective responsibility rather than individual success (Nakata, 2007). These perspectives remind us that agency can mean acting responsibly within community life, not simply acting independently.

Educational design research further shows that agency emerges when learning environments invite participation and responsibility. Biesta argues that agency is not something teachers give; it arises when learners are invited to take responsibility and respond as subjects in the world (Biesta, 2015). When children co-design activities, reflect on experiences, and influence how learning unfolds, they grow as active participants rather than passive recipients. Similarly, work on design-based learning environments shows that authentic problems and opportunities for testing and revising ideas support learners in becoming thinkers and doers rather than followers (Barab & Squire, 2004).

Finally, scholars such as Nel Noddings remind us that agency must be connected with care. Acting freely without regard for others is not educationally desirable. Agency in learning spaces must be accompanied by empathy, responsibility, and attention to collective wellbeing (Noddings, 2005).

In practice, agency does not appear in test scores but in how children participate in learning. Children showing agency ask questions, initiate ideas, negotiate with peers, persist through challenges, change strategies when things fail, and care about the consequences of their actions. These behaviours signal that children are beginning to see themselves as capable actors rather than passive participants.

Agency also develops gradually. Younger children need scaffolding to make meaningful choices and handle consequences. Adults play a role in supporting reflection and decision-making without taking control away from children. Agency grows through guided participation, not abandonment or rigid control.

At Vismaya Kalike, agency is built into everyday life at the centres. Children choose activities, initiate projects, negotiate games, and influence how time unfolds. Facilitators act as companions who help children articulate intentions, think through consequences, and sustain effort. Agency here is both individual and collective — children act as individuals while learning to live and decide with others.

Agency matters even more in a rapidly changing world. As economies, technologies, and social conditions shift unpredictably, fixed knowledge alone is not enough. Children need the capacity to learn continuously, judge situations, collaborate with others, and act thoughtfully in uncertain circumstances. Agency allows children not only to respond to change but to shape it.

For Vismaya Kalike, agency is therefore not a slogan but one of the most important educational objectives. When children begin to see themselves as people who can think, decide, question, and act responsibly, education begins to serve its deepest purpose. Learning becomes something children do for themselves and with others, rather than something done to them.

Our aim is simple: every child who spends time in a ViKa centre should gradually develop the sense that their voice matters, their choices matter, and their actions can shape the world around them. Nurturing agency means trusting children, listening seriously to their ideas, and creating environments where their participation genuinely matters.

References

Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

Berryman, M. (2014). Culturally responsive methodologies. Education Research and Policy.

Biesta, G. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

Ekström, S. (2019). Children’s agency in early childhood education: Exploring participation and interaction. Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.

Karlsson, H. (2025). On agency. Escaping Flatland Substack. https://substack.com/@henrikkarlsson/p-167633827

Kucirkova, N. (2024). What does child empowerment mean today? OECD.

Nakata, M. (2007). The cultural interface of Indigenous and Western knowledge. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36(1), 7–14.

Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. Teachers College Press.

Overell, M. (2025). Agency. New Literacies.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

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.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.