The development of student autonomy in Spain over the last 10 years: a review

The development of student autonomy in Spain over the last 10 years: a review Omar García Zabaleta and Elizabeth Pérez-Izaguirre Department of Social Psychology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Donostia/San Sebastián, Spain; bDepartment, of Didactics and School Organisation (DOE) University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Donostia/San Sebastián, Spain This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in [EDUCATIONAL REVIEW] on [24 Jan 2022.], available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1987389. To cite this article: Omar García Zabaleta & Elizabeth Pérez-Izaguirre (2022): The development of student autonomy in Spain over the last 10 years: a review, Educational Review, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2021.1987389 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1987389 García Zabaleta, O., & Pérez-Izaguirre, E. (2022). The development of student autonomy in Spain over the last 10 years: a review. Educational Review, 75(7), 1329–1348. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Educational Review on 24 Jan 2022, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1987389 The development of student autonomy in Spain over the last 10 years: a review This paper is based on a review of studies focusing on student autonomy in early childhood, primary, and secondary education in Spain published in the last 10 years. Autonomy is defined as the capacity of individuals to act in a self-determined way. Educational institutions play a key role in the development of autonomy through experience, and students demonstrate more autonomy in learning when they are older. The method used in this paper consists of an overview of empirical studies from different databases and the application of three pre-defined filters. A total of 41 studies is analysed and critically assessed in relation to (1) the area of knowledge and level of schooling, (2) the definition of autonomy, (3) the method used, and (4) the elements influencing student autonomy. Results indicate that (1) physical education in secondary education is the most researched area, (2) most studies have defined autonomy and used self-determination theory as a framework for measuring student autonomy, (3) the majority of studies have used quantitative methods and a student sample, and (4) autonomy support provided by teachers positively influences student autonomy. In addition, the results show that intrinsic elements, such as the development of stable individual identity and psychological resources, enhance student autonomy. The paper concludes that future research should be aimed at a more specific conceptualisation of student autonomy to be assessed, measured, and promoted in different international educational environments and areas of knowledge. Keywords: student autonomy, Spain, review, self-determination theory (SDT), autonomy support. Introduction Since the second half of the twentieth century, many influential theorists of pedagogy have highlighted autonomy as one of the main objectives in education. For instance, Peters (1979) pointed out that rational autonomy is the capacity to freely define one’s own beliefs and values, which is an essential human property that should be addressed in education. Following Peters (1979), Carr (1996) specified that rational autonomy and freedom are the central aims of education from a progressive viewpoint. In a similar vein, Habermas (1972) considered that education led by an emancipatory interest should be directed to promoting rational autonomy. Following this idea, Freire (1970, 1997) defended the need to convert education into a resource for awareness and critical autonomy for both students and teachers in order to enable social transformation. In general terms, autonomy can be defined as the process in which an individual acts in a self-determined way, where the source for such action is in that individual himor herself (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Yurdakul, 2017). Indeed, autonomy is essential for learning as selfdetermination is closely linked to experience, and individual experience is key to learning. What an individual feels makes them aware of their own experience, and as such facilitates their learning (Nasri et al., 2017; Vieira, 2019). However, student autonomy is not an univocal concept and could be regarded as a multi-faceted term (Arnold, 2006), as it considers various aspects in the process of learning, including the aforementioned experiences. Paradoxically, it is also highly specific as it refers to the act of learning – and the multiple experiences therein – including the influence of lifecontexts, people, and circumstances, and reflection on the action of learning itself. Both the multi-faceted and specific nature of the term are part of the conceptual process of refinement. Hence, autonomy should be distinguished from other concepts that stress different aspects related to the idea of self-determination. For instance, we do not consider synonymous terms to autonomy self-reliance or independence, which stress individuality in decision-making; or empowerment, which focuses on power relations. Autonomy is specific to each individual, as not all students learn in the same way. Although analysing the types of learning autonomy is outside of the scope of this particular study, it is important to mention that not all students demonstrate the same level of autonomy. Moreover, some school subjects promote a specific kind of autonomy. For instance, philosophy encourages moral autonomy, while language studies foster language learning autonomy. The level of student autonomy is also dependent on age – students usually act with greater autonomy when they are older (Deci & Ryan, 2005), so autonomy can also be related to maturity. In principle, the higher the stage of development of an individual, the higher their autonomy. In this paper we focus on student autonomy in compulsory and secondary education, as this age range is suited to analysis of the stages of development that precede adulthood. Specifically, we focus on early childhood, primary, and secondary education in Spain. This educational cycle is completed at the age of 18, which is considered legal age in the country. However, it should be noted that compulsory education is Spain is completed at the age of 16, hence, secondary education comprises two extra years. Therefore, we exclude studies that focus on higher education. Autonomy is also context-specific. In other words, the level of autonomy shown by an individual is subject to the socio-cultural context in which they are embedded. The present study focuses on the autonomy demonstrated by Spanish students. Spain was chosen as the country context of this study as it has a short history of democracy: the democratic system in Spain was established only in 1978. Furthermore, during these 42 years of democracy, six different education laws have been passed. There have been a number of changes in education policies, including those related to student autonomy, which have entailed a significant amount of variance and a certain degree of uncertainty for stakeholders in the field of education. In 2004, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español [PSOE]) proposed the Organic Law of Education (Ley Orgánica de Educación [LOE]) education law and in 2013 the Popular Party (Partido Popular [PP]) proposed the reform of the LOE by means of the Organic Law for the Improvement Quality in Education (Ley Orgánica de la Calidad Educativa [LOMCE]). More precisely, in 2006, LOE was approved; within this law the term autonomy, as referring to student autonomy or autonomous behaviour, was mentioned 12 times. By contrast, in 2013 the LOMCE was approved, and the term autonomy (again as referring to student autonomy or autonomous behaviour) was only mentioned five times. Based on a preliminary analysis of these uses of autonomy, in the LOE, autonomy refers to moral, economic, personal or psychological, and physical autonomy, while LOMCE refers to moral, economic, and physical autonomy. The conceptualisation used in both is similar and quite vague, although more attention is devoted to the concept in the LOE, as shown by the number of times mentioned. This is remarkable, as one would expect autonomy to receive greater emphasis in a democratic and participative society. It is unsurprising, thus, that the approval of the LOMCE stimulated protests from high school and university students and teachers (Ramírez, 2016; Subirats, 2014). Based on the above, the present review covers a 10year timeline, taking into account the last years of the LOE and the beginning and development of the LOMCE. It should also be considered that Spain is very diverse in terms of regional specificities regarding culture, society, and education. Indeed, while curricular diversity for childhood, primary, and secondary education exceeds the objectives of this paper, it is worth acknowledging that such regional variety exists.It should be noted that childhood, primary, and secondary education curricula in Spain vary across regions. Spain is divided into 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities, all of which share the same current education law (LOMCE), although there are exceptions in certain autonomous communities (Official Gazette of Spain, 2013, art.2bis.2). Hence, there is no single education curriculum and some autonomous communities have political competence to establish their own, based on the LOMCE. For instance, in the Basque Autonomous Community decree 236/2015 establishes the curriculum for basic education (Official Gazette of the Basque Country, 2016). By contrast, in Andalusia the curriculum for primary education is established by decree 97/2015 (Official Gazette of Andalusia, 2015) and secondary education by decree 111/2016 (Official Gazette of Andalusia, 2016). The latter has been modified by the Extraordinary Bulletin n.7 18/01/2021 (Official Gazette of Andalusia, 2021). Autonomy is time-specific. For instance, during the Franco dictatorship in Spain, the level of autonomy of students was very low because the education system did not encourage acting in a self-determined way. An example of this can be found in the streams of the education system: males and females were considered to be fundamentally different, especially from adolescence onwards; hence, physical education was taught differently to each of the sexes (Manrique Arribas et al., 2009). Again, although detailing the various activities for each sex is outside of the scope of the present work, it is important to note that the values rooted in this decision were ingrained in the Franco totalitarian and fascist regime (1936-1975), which was based on a Spanish nationalist ideology, Catholic religion and traditions (Laudo & Vilanou, 2015; Viñao, 2015). In this study we review previous research that has analysed student autonomy in Spain in the last 10 years. Recently, various systematic reviews have been conducted on the concept of self-determination theory in physical education (Juwono & Szabo, 2020; Saugy et al., 2020; Vasconcellos et al., 2020) and teacher autonomy support (i.e., Raabe, Schmidt, & Höner, 2019; Pérez-González et al., 2019). The latter refers to the creation and promotion of environments and opportunities for student autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2019). To date, review studies focusing on student autonomy in specific locations have not been conducted –the present research aims to address this gap in the context of Spain. Aim and research questions The aim of the present paper is to analyse empirical studies published over the last 10 years that have focused on student autonomy in Spain. In order to conduct the review, it is important to consider (1) the age, level of schooling, and subject researched in each of the studies; (2) the concept of autonomy studied; (3) the tools and methodological approach used to collect information about student autonomy; and (4) the elements that enhance student autonomy. In line with these elements, the proposed research questions (RQs) are defined as follows: RQ1: In which area of knowledge/subject and level of schooling are extant studies on autonomy embedded? RQ2: How has the concept of autonomy been defined and used in extant studies? Does the concept’s application change according to the level of schooling? RQ3: Which tools and methodologies have been used for measuring student autonomy? RQ4: What elements influence student autonomy? Method This study is based on a literature review conducted in February 2020, and considers empirical studies published over the last 10 years (i.e., 2010–2020). To identify and collate relevant literature, a date filter was applied in order to obtain papers published between 2010 and 2020. The literature review was conducted by means of four databases: Web of Science (WoS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Dialnet, and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). The terms used for the search were “autonomy”, “learner”, “student”, and “Spain”. It is important to note that use of these keywords yielded a wide spectrum of studies. More specific keywords, such as “early childhood education”, “elementary education”, “primary education”, or “secondary education”, could have been used instead of “learner” or “student”; however, a search using such terms would have eliminated articles that include other keywords related to student age, such as those dealing with adolescent students in non-formal education. In addition, secondary education in Spain is divided into two stages: compulsory secondary education (Educación Secundaria Obligatoria [ESO]), and baccalaureate (Bachiller). In order to avoid excluding relevant papers, we decided to use the more general terms presented above. Although the terms “learner” and “student” can be applied to both pre-university and higher education, the use of various filters enabled us to distinguish between studies focusing on these two educational levels. In order to meet the search criteria according to the objectives of the study, three filters were applied; these are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 around here First search The first search was conducted using the selected keywords in all of the databases. This search took into account the results yielded from all databases, which equated to 134 studies from WoS, 20 studies from ERIC, 8 studies from SciELO, and 23 studies from Dialnet. The total number of studies identified was 192. Second search The second filter was applied to the results of the primary search based on the abstract: all studies that did not include the concept of autonomy of students in Spain were discarded. Most of the discarded studies referred to the concept of political autonomy in education or the autonomy of the education centres. In addition, some of the selected studies were duplicated; these were deleted from the list. The result of this step was 111 studies from WoS, 16 studies from ERIC, 4 studies from SciELO, and 16 from Dialnet, equating to 147 articles in total. Third search Finally, the third filter was applied after we had read the articles in full. The filter enabled the study to focus on the research object – that is, in line with the objective of the paper, empirical studies that included early childhood, primary, and secondary education were retained, while those referring to higher education were discarded. Thus, this filter excluded papers that did not focus on the selected educational stages. The final number of studies for analysis was as follows: 40 from WoS, 1 from ERIC, 0 from SciELO, and 0 from Dialnet. This equated to a total of 41 studies deemed relevant to the research topic. Critical analysis of the studies In order to critically assess all of the collected studies, they were classified according to the following criteria: the level of schooling, the sample used, the type of empirical study, the definition of autonomy applied, and the results obtained. These five categories were formulated in line with the research questions. Results This section presents the results of the analysis of the papers according to the RQs. As Table 6 shows, the majority of studies found that autonomy support positively influences student autonomy. More precisely, 15 studies (36.59%) mentioned autonomy support provided by teachers as a factor that positively influences student autonomy. Twelve (29.27%) of these studies used a sample from secondary education, while only two used a sample from both primary and secondary education; in addition, one study focused on primary education only. In line with the results presented with respect to RQ1, this fact seems to indicate that the concept of autonomy support is more frequently measured with reference to secondary education than to other stages of schooling. Almost a quarter of the studies (n=10, 24.39%) analysed a specific pedagogical method or innovative programme. In this case, it is worth noting that five of these studies (12.2%) used a sample from primary education, three focused on secondary education, and one considered both primary and secondary education. Finally, only one study included a sample from various stages of schooling. It is also important to mention that the nature of these pedagogical methods or innovative programmes differed. For instance, with respect to secondary education Méndez Giménez and colleagues (2016) focused on activities that promote autonomy in physical education based on cooperative learning. Likewise, Murillo Pardo and colleagues (2016) analysed an innovative programme called “Sigue la Huella” (“Follow the Trace”) to test student autonomy in physical education, and Sánchez Díaz and Di Fuccia (2016) studied the impact of an educational programme called “Chemie im Kontext” (“Chemistry in Context”) to analyse learner identity in chemistry. Again in the context of primary education, González Castaño and colleagues (2014) analysed the impact of project-based learning. Fernández Río and Suárez (2016) studied the effect of the use of Parkour2 in physical education sessions, and its impact on student autonomy. 2 Parkour is a physical activity that consists of overcoming obstacles in order to advance in a straight line in an urban space. Méndez-Giménez and colleagues (2017) focused on the impact of cooperative learning in physical education sessions. Méndez-Giménez and Pallasa-Manteca (2018) considered the effect of using the resources from physical education classes during recess; they designated this “active recess”, and found that it had a positive impact on student autonomy. Similarly, Navarro-Patón and colleagues (2017) studied the impact of cooperative games in student autonomy. Using a sample from both primary and secondary education, Hinojo (2019) found that flipped learning3 had a positive impact on student autonomy in physical education sessions. Finally, in early education, Tirado Morueta and colleagues (2020) found that the key to cultivating learner autonomy is to use adequate pedagogical methods to ensure engagement. Only two studies focused on the impact of using a specific ICT tool or platform to measure student autonomy; these studies analysed various stages of schooling. Seven studies (17.07%) concluded that intrinsic elements, such as a well-established individual identity or psychological resources, positively influence student autonomy. Six of these studies (14.63%) used a sample from secondary education, while another study compared samples from primary and secondary education. These findings support the belief that intrinsic psychological elements are more developed in higher schooling stages. Only three studies focused on a variety of elements that influence student autonomy. Amado and colleagues (2016) analysed how dance classes that employ a variety of teaching methods in physical education sessions influenced student autonomy. The authors concluded that gender, and intrinsic and extrinsic elements, influenced the perception of motivation and autonomy. Menéndez Santurio (2017) related student autonomy to intrinsic elements and interpersonal relations between peers. Caldeiro Pedreira and colleagues (2018) measured 3 Flipped learning usually makes reference to an innovative student-centred perspective in which “the activities traditionally completed outside of class as homework are now completed in class during instruction time. And, the activities traditionally completed in class are now completed on students’ own time before class” (Honeycatt & Garrett, 2014). autonomy in media use in early childhood and secondary education; while they expected to find higher media autonomy results from secondary education students, the findings in fact demonstrated low levels in these individuals. Discussion The above review analysed extant empirical studies published in the last 10 years in Spain that have focused on student autonomy. According to the results, most studies have focused on student autonomy in secondary education. The most frequently considered subject or area is physical education, and most studies have used an SDT framework. In studies that have used this framework, autonomy has been conceptualised as freedom in the origin of action, where the source of action is in the individual himor herself (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Yurdakul, 2017). In most of the studies analysed in this paper, autonomy has been considered as selfdetermination. SDT was developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1980s. It claims that human beings have three fundamental innate needs that are developed throughout life: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The development of these needs has a central impact on the configuration of personality and is also strongly related to motivation. According to SDT, when these psychological needs are satisfied, motivation and mental health are enhanced (Ryan and Deci, 2000). More precisely, Ryan and Deci (2004, p. 449) stated that: [SDT] is an empirical approach to motivation, development, and personality that is deeply concerned with the dynamics of autonomy, with regulation by the self. Our interest not only has been in understanding the nature and consequences of autonomy; it has also been in detailing how autonomy can be either diminished or facilitated by specific biological, developmental, and social conditions. The vast majority of reviewed articles embedded in this theory also appear to have analysed the relation between autonomy and motivation in an educational context. As autonomy is the focus of the present review, it is relevant to highlight certain aspects of SDT in order to clarify how autonomy is conceptualised in this framework. It should be noted that in SDT, autonomy does not equate to independence. Autonomy is developed in the relationships one has with others, and therefore those others have an important role in the emergence of autonomy. In addition to biological or developmental factors, specific social conditions are crucial for enhancing or diminishing autonomy. This was clearly explained by Ryan and Deci (2004, p. 450), who postulated that “autonomy is a critical form of human functioning that, not surprisingly, like all human functioning, requires a brain and a body and, moreover, a context of influences and opportunities for action”. Another important result pertains to physical education. This subject was the most frequently considered in extant studies, and experience was highlighted as key for learning. Physical education enables a physical and often performative experience of life. Educational institutions, as the primary places of socialisation for young members of society, provide an adequate environment for student learning. Student autonomy in this case can also be understood as the symbolic place in which the experience of oneself can be controlled by teachers. This is closely related to autonomy support, or the creation and promotion of environments and opportunities for student autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2019). Most of the extant studies identified here entailed quantitative analysis. The majority also used specific scales to design questionnaires and measure student autonomy. This is particularly true with respect to studies that have used the SDT framework, and indicates that the main source for analysing student autonomy is quantifiable and standardised. In addition, most studies have used a student sample, which indicates that self-reports of autonomy provide a viable means of measurement. This is in line with the argument that the experience of the self is key to developing autonomy, which has been extensively measured in studies conducted in the context of Spain. It is also important to mention that, according to the studies analysed, autonomy support positively influences student autonomy, particularly in secondary education. Specific projects have also been analysed in extant studies, but these projects focused on a primary education student sample. This indicates that students in primary education show greater autonomy when it comes to specific projects, while student autonomy in secondary education can be measured individually, especially during physical activity. The studies also reveal that intrinsic elements are key for student autonomy, which goes in line with the idea that autonomy is based on individual action, or the action triggered by a self-determined act. The studies reveal that the intrinsic elements that trigger student autonomy are psychological resources such as motivation, effectiveness, efficacy, or individual identity development. To summarise, the results with regard to RQ1 reveal that physical education in secondary education is the most frequently researched area. In relation to RQ2, SDT is the framework most often applied, as this provides a specific concept of autonomy that relates to student motivation and the opportunities that individuals have for action (Ryan and Deci, 2004). With regard to RQ3, quantitative methods are most frequently used and the majority of studies evaluate autonomy from students’ perspectives. Finally, in response to RQ4, the implementation of autonomy support, pedagogical methods, ICT, and intrinsic elements examined by the studies appear to be positively related to the promotion of autonomy. However, it should also be noted that not all studies aim to measure the impact of the above elements on the enhancement of autonomy. Conclusion This work has analysed empirical papers that have focused on student autonomy in Spain in the last 10 years. Even though autonomy is a fundamental goal for education, the study reveals that the concept has not received significant attention. Furthermore, the use of student autonomy is diverse in many studies, except those using an SDT-based perspective. Paradoxically, in spite of this conceptual diversity, many studies do not detail the concept of autonomy they are using. The abundant use of SDT may be due to certain features that facilitate its adaptation to educational environments, since, by definition, schools probably comprise the main space for personal development. The human relationships that are formed in this environment have a considerable influence on the development of autonomy. Autonomy, understood in this manner, is important in this context for two main reasons: (1) higher degrees of autonomy enhance motivation, and (2) the relationships formed in this context influence the development of autonomy. Among those relationships, people who are in positions of authority are especially relevant, according to SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2017, 2019). In educational contexts, teachers have authority over students, which allows teachers to provide opportunities for developing student autonomy. This creation and promotion of environments and opportunities to develop autonomy by people in positions of authority is known as autonomy support in SDT. Many of the papers reviewed in the present study have considered the influence that autonomysupportive teachers have with respect to students’ motivation. In general, it seems that autonomy-supportive educational methods have positive effects on student autonomy; however, this concept has been primarily developed for physical education. For this reason, it is recommended that future studies seek to analyse student autonomy in other subject areas. This is important, as autonomy is a key developmental milestone in human development, especially in pre-adult ages (Gaete, 2015). The present study also reveals that student autonomy has been primarily measured quantitatively. However, qualitative methods can provide broader frameworks for the concept of autonomy. For instance, ethnographic methods including interviews and observation could compare how autonomy is promoted in different subjects in a particular setting. It is also important to mention that for research purposes, measuring student autonomy might be convenient in physical education, as student autonomy is easily perceived by researchers, teachers, and even students themselves. However, other subjects that promote autonomy in thinking, which can also be designated as critical thinking, could indeed be relevant for the theory of student autonomy and SDT frameworks. All of the abovementioned points should be contemplated in the social, political, and educational scenario in Spain. Ongoing changes to education laws and the curricular particularities of different regions create a complex reality for education researchers and stakeholders. In addition, as the concept of student autonomy is multi-faceted, its delimitation, execution, support, and measurement are even more challenging. Overall, although autonomy is considered one of the main educational goals by educational theorists (Carr, 1996; Freire, 1970, 1979; Habermas, 1972; Peters, 1979), this study shows that its conceptualisation has not been sufficiently developed. Instead, many conceptualisations of autonomy have been developed in other areas of knowledge. Richer and more profound education-centred concepts of student autonomy could be helpful for both its support and assessment. A limitation of this study is that the analysis of student autonomy was conducted based on studies published over the last 10 years in early childhood, primary, and secondary education in Spain. That is, student autonomy was analysed using other studies as a basis. As the results show, there are clusters of studies in physical education, whereas other areas have been subject to little research. Hence, the present study is based on extant work and the results obtained are indebted to them. Future research, as mentioned above, is recommended to consider other subjects or areas of knowledge. Future studies could also focus on the conceptual difference and comparison between student autonomy and other similar – but not synonymous – terms in other areas of knowledge, such as empowerment, self-reliance or independence. Another line of research could be directed to confirming whether ICT, autonomy support, pedagogical methods, or intrinsic elements such as motivation promote or hamper student autonomy. The lack of research in different subjects or areas of knowledge could also be due to the low levels of autonomy in student learning in those areas, due to the short tradition of democracy in Spain. Another explanation for this lack of analysis of student autonomy in other subjects or areas of knowledge could be that they have not been of interest to researchers, or that they are rather difficult to measure, as previously mentioned. Future research should focus on addressing this gap. Overall, this work describes the student autonomy research panorama in the context of Spain, and contributes to the theory of student autonomy by highlighting its conceptual diversity and complexity. A more education-specific concept of student autonomy could help implement measures for its development. Such concept of student autonomy could have different terminological and contextual implications that which would enable its measure and promotion in different international educational environments. This study also reveals that identifying students’ age and stage of schooling are crucial for understanding how autonomy is promoted and perceived by the students themselves. References Aibar, A., Julián J. A., Murillo, B., García-González, L., Estrada, S. & Boys, J. (2015). Actividad física y apoyo de la autonomía: El rol del profesor de Educación Física. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 24(1). https://www.rpdonline.com/article/view/aibar_solana_julian_etal A., Diana & Miguel, P., González Ponce, I., Pulido, J. & Del Villar, F. (2016). Motivation towards dance within physical education according to teaching technique and gender. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation. 38, 1-16. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajrs/article/view/141732 Baena-Extremera, A., Granero-Gallegos, A., Baños, R., & Ortiz-Camacho, M. del Mar. (2018). Can Physical Education Contribute to Learning English? Structural Model from SelfDetermination Theory. Sustainability, 10. doi: 10.3390/su10103613 Balluerka, N., Gorostiaga, A., Alonso-Arbiol, I. & Aritzeta, A. (2016). Peer attachment and class emotional intelligence as predictors of adolescents' psychological well-being: A multilevel approach. Journal of Adolescence, 53. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.08.009. Bernal Guerrero, A. (2014). Competencia emprendedora e identidad personal. Una investigación exploratoria con estudiantes de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Revista de educación, 363, 384-411. 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-363-192 Caldeiro-Pedreira, M., Rodríguez Rosell, M., Zubizarreta, A. & Renés, P. (2018). La autonomía mediática del alumnado de Educación Infantil y Bachillerato: el caso español. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación. 9(10). 14198/MEDCOM2018.9.2.17. Canga, A. (2011). El portafolio como recurso para la reflexión y la autoevaluación en alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 16, 137-153. Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. (2013). The Importance of Autonomy for Development and WellBeing. In B. Sokol, F. Grouzet, & U. Müller (Eds.), Self-Regulation and Autonomy: Social and Developmental Dimensions of Human Conduct (pp. 19-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi:10.1017/CBO9781139152198.005. Fernández, A., Rodríguez Fórtiz, M., Rodríguez, M. & Martínez Segura, M. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77-90. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.014. García Martínez, S. (2016). Percepciones y Valoraciones de Alumnos en Edad Escolar sobre su Experiencia de Aprendizaje en un Programa Semipresencial de Lengua y Cultura Españolas. RIED Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19(2),237-262. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.19.2.15398 Romero, C., Méndez-Giménez, A., & Cecchini-Estrada, J. A. (2019). Papel predictivo de las metas de logro 3x2 sobre la necesidad de autonomía en Educación Física. Sportis. Scientific Journal of School Sport, Physical Education and Psychomotricity, 6(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.17979/sportis.2020.6.1.5799 Gómez-López, M., Extremera, A., Granero Gallegos, A., Castellón-Rubio, I. & Abraldes, J. A. (2015). Self-Determined, Goal Orientations and Motivational Climate in Physical Education. Collegium antropologicum, 39, 33-41. University Students in Spain. Perceptual and motor skills, 125(5), 894-907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518788743 Tirado-Morueta, R., Berlanga-Fernández, I., Vales-Villamarín, H., Franco, M.D., DuarteHueros, A., & Gómez, J.I. (2020). Understanding the engagement of elementary school students in one-to-one iPad programs using an adaptation of self-system model of motivational development. Comput. Hum. Behav., 105, 106224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106224 Trigueros, R., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Cangas, A. J., López-Liria, R., & Álvarez, J. F. (2019). Influence of Physical Education Teachers on Motivation, Embarrassment and the Intention of Being Physically Active During Adolescence. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132295 Vieira, F. (2020). Pedagogy of Experience in Teacher Education for Learner and Teacher Autonomy. Issues in Teachers´ Professional Development. 22(1), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n1.78079 Viñao, A. (2014) From dictatorship to democracy: history of education in Spain, Paedagogica Historica, 50(6), 830-843, DOI: 10.1080/00309230.2014.948006 Yurdakul, C. (2017). An Investigation of the Relationship between Autonomous Learning and Lifelong Learning. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 2(1), 15-2 Tables Table 1: Filters used in the study WoS ERIC SciELO Dialnet n Filter 1 134 20 8 23 192 Filter 2 111 16 4 16 147 Filter 3 40 1 0 0 41 Table 2: Classification of identified studies related to student autonomy in Spain Area of Knowledge/Subject Stage of Schooling n Studies Physical education Secondary 17 Aibar et al., 2015; Gómez-López et al., 2015; González Cutre et al., 2014; Granero Gallegos et al., 2014; Moreno Murcia et al., 2014; Moreno Murcia & Huéscar Hernández, 2013; Sánchez Oliva et al., 2014; Amado et al., 2016; Baena Extremera et al., 2018; Hein et al., 2018; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019; Méndez-Giménez et al., 2016; Murillo Pardo et al., 2016; SánchezAlcaráz et al., 2017; Sevil Serrano et al., 2018; Sevil Serrano et al., 2016; Trigueros et al., 2019 Primary 2 Fernández Río & Suárez, 2016; Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017 Primary and secondary 5 García Martínez, 2016; García Romero et al., 2020; Hinojo et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero & Cervelló., 2020 Language learning Secondary 2 Canga, 2011; Juan-Garau & Jacob, 2015 Primary 1 Roman & Abril Soriano, 2015 Chemistry Secondary 1 Sánchez Díaz & Di Fuccia, 2016 Various Secondary 7 Bernal-Guerrero, 2014; Balluerka et al., 2016; López et al., 2016; Menéndez Santurio, 2017; MumbradoAdam et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2018c Primary 3 González Castaño et al., 2014; Méndez-Giménez & Pallasa-Manteca, 2018; Navarro-Patón et al., 2017 Early childhood 1 Tirado Morueta et al., 2020 Various Early childhood and secondary 1 Caldeiro-Pedreira et al., 2018 Various Early childhood and special education 1 Fernández López et al., 2013 Table 3: Definition of autonomy in studies that did not use SDT-based conceptions Study Stage of Schooling Definition Balluerka et al., 2016 Secondary “emotional and cognitive autonomy” (p. 2). This definition is implicit, via reference, supported on the work of Allen, et al. (1994) BernalGuerrero, 2014 Secondary Autonomy is “the ability to act within a general framework, ability to make and carry out life plans and personal projects, and ability to assert rights, interests, limits and needs” (n.p.). CaldeiroPedreira et al., 2018 Elementary and secondary Media autonomy is “the capacity [...]..to function according to their own criteria” in the field of media communication (p. 280; definition by González and Aguaded, 2012, p. 13) Canga, 2011 Secondary Learner autonomy is conceptualized “as reflection, selfawareness and control over one’s own learning” (p. 140). FernándezLópez et al., 2013 Special and elementary Autonomy is the ability to “independently perform daytoday activities” (p. 78). GarcíaMartínez, 2016 Primary and secondary Working autonomy is the “ability to perform work on [one’s] own, without the help of other older people” (p. 242). Juan-Garau and Jacob, 2015 Secondary Learner autonomy in the context of “plurilingualism, and intercultural awareness and competence” (p. 65). This definition is implicit, via reference, supported the work of COE (2009). López et al., 2016 Secondary Learning autonomy is the ability to “develop [one’s] own ‘regulating strategies for learning’” (p. 1091). ManzanoSánchez et al., 2019 Secondary Personal autonomy is the “capacity to adjust [one’s] own behavior and make decisions” (p. 4). Roman & AbrilSoriano, 2015 Primary Learner autonomy refers to “raising the learner’s awareness of his or her present state of knowledge; self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectives; selection of materials; self-assessment” (p. 38). Table 4: Application of the concept of autonomy in extant studies Definition of Autonomy Level of Schooling n Studies SDT-based Elementary 1 Tirado Morueta et al., 2020 Primary 3 Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017; Méndez-Giménez & Pallasa-Manteca, 2018; Navarro-Patón et al., 2017 Primary and secondary 3 García Romero et al., 2020; Montero-Carretero et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero & Cervelló, 2020 Secondary 20 Aibar et al., 2015; González Cutre et al., 2014; GómezLópez et al., 2015; Granero-Gallegos et al., 2014; Moreno-Murcia et al., 2014; Moreno-Murcia & Huescar-Hernández, 2013; Sánchez-Oliva et al., 2014; Amado et al., 2016; Baena-Extremera et al., 2018; Hein et al., 2018; Menéndez Santurio, 2017; MéndezGiménez et al., 2016; Mumbardó-Adam et al., 2018a; Mumbardó-Adam et al., 2018b; Mumbardó-Adam et al., 2018c; Murillo Pardo et al., 2016; Sánchez-Alcaráz et al., 2017; Sevil Serrano et al., 2018; Sevil Serrano et al., 2016; Trigueros et al., 2019 Non-SDTbased Special and elementary 1 Fernández López et al., 2013 Elementary and secondary 1 Caldeiro-Pedreira et al., 2018 Primary 1 Roman & Abril-Soriano, 2015 Primary and secondary 1 García-Martínez, 2016 Secondary 6 Bernal-Guerrero, 2014; Canga, 2011;Juan-Garau and Jacob, 2015; Balluerka et al., 2016; López et al., 2016; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019 Not defined Primary 2 Gonzalez Castaño et al., 2014; Fernández Río & Suarez, 2016 Primary and secondary 1 Hinojo et al., 2019 Secondary 1 Sánchez-Díaz & Di Fuccia, 2016 Table 5. Methodologies used for measuring student autonomy Methodology n Studies Quantitative 31 Aibar et al., 2015; Fernández-López et al., 2013; Gómez-López et al., 2015; González Cutre et al., 2014; Granero Gallegos et al., 2014; Moreno Murcia et al., 2014; Moreno Murcia & Huescar Hernández, 2013; Sánchez Oliva et al., 2014; Baena Extremera et al., 2018; Balluerka et al., 2016; Caldeiro-Pedreira et al., 2016; García Martínez, 2016; García Romero et al., 2020; Hein et al., 2018; Hinojo et al., 2019; Manzano Sánchez et al., 2019; Menéndez Santurio, 2017; Méndez-Giménez et al., 2016; Méndez-Giménez and Pallasa-Manteca, 2018; Montero-Carretero et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero & Cervelló, 2020; Mumbardo-Adam et al., 2018c; Mumbardo-Adam et al., 2018a; Trigueros et al., 2019; Murillo Pardo et al., 2016; Navarro-Patón et al., 2017; Sánchez Alcaraz et al., 2017; Sevil Serrano et al., 2018; Sevil Serrano et al., 2016; Tirado Morueta et al., 2020; Mumbardo-Adam et al., 2018b Qualitative 2 Amado et al., 2016; Fernández-Río & Suárez, 2016 Quantitative and qualitative 8 Sánchez Díaz & Di Fuccia, 2016; BernalGuerrero, 2014; Canga, 2011; González Castaño et al., 2014; Juan-Garau and Jacob, 2015; Roman & Abril Soriano, 2015 López et al., 2016; Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017 Table 6: Classification of elements that influence student autonomy Elements that Influence Student Autonomy Stage of Schooling n Studies Autonomy support Secondary 12 Aibar et al., 2015; Canga, 2011; Gómez-López et al., 2015; González Cutre et al., 2014; Hein et al., 2018; Moreno Murcia & Huéscar Hernández, 2013; Sánchez Oliva et al., 2014; López et al., 2016; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019; Sánchez-Alcaráz et al., 2017; Sevil Serrano et al., 2016; Trigueros et al., 2019 Primary 1 Roman & Abril Soriano, 2015 Primary and secondary 2 Montero-Carretero et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero & Cervelló, 2020 Pedagogic method or innovative programme Secondary 3 Méndez-Giménez et al., 2016; Murillo Pardo et al., 2016; Sánchez Díaz & Di Fuccia, 2016