Autonomy in Students’ Degree Projects: A Matter of Space,Knowledge and Time

Abstract

Within higher education, students’ autonomy in connection with degree projects is highly valued and research indicates relationships between autonomy and motivation, which are essential for both academic achievement and lifelong learning. However, it is unclear what autonomy means and how it is promoted in tutoring. This study aims to obtain knowledge about how to enable a learning environment in tutoring that develops students’ autonomy during their work with the degree project. Through phenomenology, the essential meanings of students’ autonomy in their degree projects are described. Data is gathered through focus-group interviews with both students and tutors in various educational programs. The results indicate that autonomy develops in a supportive process balanced by the tutor between control and freedom and requires frameworks such as space, knowledge and time. The student’s self-awareness and the tutor’s knowledge of the student’s individual needs facilitate the student’s autonomy.

Introduction

When autonomy is described in research, certain concepts come up repeatedly in the context. Several researchers point out that autonomy is associated with the view of the student as a constructive and not as a passive recipient of knowledge (Duchatelet & Donche, 2019; Jordal et al., 2021; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020; Ramnarain, 2020). Active learning strategies and student involvement promote autonomy (Vandiver & Walsh, 2010). Sometimes, autonomy is described in combination with Self-determination Theory (SDT) (Guay et al., 2008) and the relation to motivation of different kinds, for example intrinsic and extrinsic, makes autonomy crucial to maintain lifelong learning (Ciekanski, 2007; Duchatelet & Donche, 2019). The different ways of understanding motivation in SDT do not mean “either or,” but rather being somewhere in between depending on, for example, subject and situation. In an educational context, based on the theory, one can influence the learning environment by stimulating extrinsic motivation or emphasizing intrinsic motivation instead. Another concept related to autonomy in research is metacognitive awareness (Ciekanski, 2007; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020). Autonomy is also related to democracy: in a democratic society, autonomy is enabled by individuals being able to participate in decision-making processes, and it is therefore desirable to promote autonomy (Dewey, 1916/1930). When people feel that their opinions count and that they can make a difference, they become more motivated and confident in their choices. Applied to the present article, fostering autonomy helps students’ taking ownership of their learning, instead of being passive, and helps them to feel responsible and empowered. To be autonomous in learning requires an ability to continuously reflect on and understand how the learning process takes place.

In the relevant research area, the concepts of autonomy and independence are used to varying extents without the choice appearing to be deliberate or explained. Deci and Ryan (2008), who founded Self-determination theory (SDT), believe that the difference between the concepts is tangible and claims that autonomy is the aspirational thing in relation to motivation. They illustrate this by explaining that “autonomy means to act volitionally, with a sense of choice, whereas independence means to function alone and not rely on others” (pp. 15–16). Similar statements are made, for example, by Dewey (1916/1930), who uses the concept of interdependence to highlight the importance of social interaction. Moreover, Chirkov et al. (2003) differentiate autonomy from independence and individualism, situating these concepts within cultural contexts. They argue that autonomy involves making self-endorsed choices aligned with one’s values and driven by internal motivations, while individualism promotes independence and focuses on personal goals at the expense of social connections. In this study, Self-Determination Theory is used as part of the methodology, and we follow the distinction between the concepts expressed by Deci and Ryan (2008).

Within the research field, tensions are expressed between different ideals that makes it difficult to know how the tutoring should be designed for the students to develop autonomy. One problem is that there are a lot of standards among tutors about how degree projects should be carried out and be of high quality. Sometimes the ideals are expressed explicitly but, in many cases, they are implicit (Magnusson & Zackariasson, 2019). These norms can counteract students’ opportunities to make their own choices. Another problem is the tension between the students wanting clear directives on how the work should be designed and their opportunities to take their own positions (Strebel et al., 2021; Zackariasson, 2018). Both tensions are related to the desire for students to develop strategies for self-regulation and the belief in their self-efficacy (Duchatelet & Donche, 2019; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020; van Blankenstein et al., 2019). Instead of being informed about how to carry out the work, they themselves need to set goals, find strategies, make time planning and evaluate the work (Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020). Belief in one’s own ability develops, for example, through the teacher’s autonomy-supportive behaviour (Del Río et al., 2018; Duchatelet & Donche, 2019), but it is highly unclear where the line between support and control lies and what role the student assigns to the tutor. van Blankenstein et al. (2019) show in their study that clarity around students’ responsibilities and instructions for the task promotes belief in their self-efficacy. Praise could be a way to increase the students’ belief in their self-efficacy, but according to Magnusson (2020a), the tutor’s praise seems to mostly be about the student’s personality and what the tutor thinks the student needs and not so much about the quality of the student’s work.

Strebel et al. (2021) point out the tension between learning goals that require the tutor’s support and assessment goals where more freedom is desired. They advocate that the tutoring is balanced between clear support in, for example, work with purpose and methodology and a laissez-faire attitude in other matters. A factor that is significant in relation to the development of student autonomy in degree projects is the asymmetric relationship that prevails between tutor and student (Magnusson, 2020b). Research points to the fact that many tutors do not have relevant education but nevertheless they account for most of the speech space (Sveen & Magnusson, 2013) and are given a role as an expert and role model for the students (van Blankenstein et al., 2019). Magnusson (2020b) shows in her study that students have a greater tendency to accept the tutor’s directives than to behave autonomously and be critical of various sources, such as the tutor’s claims.

Autonomy within the degree project is a complex area, existing to a greater or lesser extent and in several different areas of the thesis work. Through a content analysis Magnusson and Zackariasson (2019) identify seven themes to describe autonomy ¹ namely: (1) taking initiatives, (2) positioning oneself in relation to sources and context, (3) originality, creativity and enthusiasm, (4) motivating, arguing and choosing, (5) critical thinking and reflection, (6) taking responsibility and (7) generalising and synthetizing. They place the themes in a matrix marking whether they appear in the tutorial process, in the text, and/or in the examination. The themes involve both aspects of thinking and acting autonomously. In this study, the matrix is used as part of the methodology.

The reason why autonomy is advocated can partly be linked to the various effects that research shows that autonomy has on motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation and thus produces positive academic results (Duchatelet & Donche, 2019; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020; van Blankenstein et al., 2019). Values such as renewal of thought patterns and ideas can be added (Ramnarain, 2020) and in the long term, autonomy can have a positive effect on lifelong learning (Ciekanski, 2007; Duchatelet & Donche, 2019). In addition to these reasons, it also seems to be strikingly important to reduce tutors’ workload, which is mentioned in several studies (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013; Del Río et al., 2018; Jordal et al., 2021).

In previous research, several studies report autonomy based on concepts that indicate different models, styles, roles and strategies within tutoring. Tutors can, for example, have roles such as expert, method guide and process guide (Ankersborg, 2022) or proofreader (Del Río et al., 2018) which affects both autonomy and tutors’ workload. Zackariasson (2018) makes a division between a Socratic dialogic style and a directive style. In the dialogue, tutors ask open-ended questions and give space for students’ own thoughts, while the directive style focuses more on the tutors telling the students what is expected. One would think that the students prefer the dialogic style but according to Zackariasson (2018) they need and wish for the directive style. Questions, demands and exhortations and how they can be used to enable and limit in tutoring are problematized by Eriksson and Gustavsson (2016). The demands are clearly limiting for the students’ autonomy, while both exhortations and questions can be used to give space to autonomy. Magnusson (2021) has studied interactions in tutoring through different kinds of questions, characterized to be either opening and presenting, developing, and deepening or challenging and problematizing. Related to tutoring models of teaching and partnership with reference to Dysthe (2002), she concludes that questions, regardless of format, can be used both to express expertise and to enable participation and therefore, the tutors should be aware of the purpose of their questions. Additional models mentioned in other studies are the apprentice model (Dysthe, 2002), a laissez-faire model (Ankersborg, 2022) and a contractual model called ESRA (Escorting the Students into Responsibility and Autonomy) with an emphasis on dialogue and cooperation (Jordal et al., 2021). Kolmos and Holgaard (2007) divide the tutoring into product, process, laissez-faire, and control guidance and there seems to be both similarities and differences to divisions in other studies. The models advocate different approaches on the part of the tutor, but it is unclear how the models contribute to or prevent students’ autonomy.

Students’ autonomy is valued in higher education and not least related to the students’ degree projects. In a Swedish context, the degree project is generally referred to as an autonomous work, without specifying anywhere what the “autonomous” includes, which entails how the meaning of autonomy can be taken for granted and have specific underlying expectations. In everyday understanding, autonomy lies in the fact that the students plan the time themselves and are not scheduled in the course. This simplistic approach may have contributed to autonomy being interpreted very differently and rendering implicit expectations. The concept is multifaceted (Magnusson & Zackariasson, 2019) and the meanings as well as consequences for tutoring are rarely discussed. Moreover, the concept is not clearly described in policies, neither national nor local (Eriksson & Gustavsson, 2016). Therefore, research on tutoring in undergraduate programmes is needed (Strebel et al., 2021). The contribution of this study is an increased knowledge of the implicit meanings of autonomy expressed as an essential description of the phenomenon of student autonomy in degree projects. A common understanding can facilitate tutors to promote autonomy during tutoring.

Aim

This study aims to obtain knowledge about how to enable a learning environment in tutoring that develops students’ autonomy during their work with the degree project. To enable such a learning environment, we need knowledge about the phenomenon of student autonomy.

The following research questions have guided our analysis:

• (1) What characterizes the phenomenon of student autonomy and how can tutors promote it?

• (2) How does student autonomy become visible and assessed during the tutoring, in the text and during examination?

Methodology

Through descriptive phenomenology and more specifically the Reflective Lifeworld Research (RLR) approach (Dahlberg et al., 2008), the essential meanings of the phenomenon of students’ autonomy in degree projects are searched for. The essential meanings that characterize the phenomenon despite variations in different contexts, are analyzed through the participants’ lived experiences. In phenomenology, reflection is central, and a distinction is made between lived experiences and reflected lived experiences (van Manen, 2014). Experiences can be part of a natural attitude (Husserl, 1995) which means that everyday events can be taken for granted, but when they are reflected in dialogue with others, the everyday can be noticed and scrutinized critically, which is important in science. In this study, the focus groups enable the participants to share reflected lived experiences through discussion with each other. Initially, the essence is formulated on an abstract level and then follows a description of different variations and concrete examples from the data. The different levels of abstraction together provide a thorough understanding of the phenomenon.

Participants

The participants in the project are tutors and students from programs in teacher education (T1–7, S1, S3–5), library (T8–10, S2), healthcare (T11–13) and engineering (T14). Through contact with course coordinators and the learning platform in ongoing courses, tutors and students were informed about the study and compliance with general ethical principles of consent, confidentiality and use of data. They were asked to participate and consented through email contact. The students are usually under a lot of time pressure when completing their degree work and it has therefore been very difficult to get them to participate in focus groups. We tried to contact them via their tutors but only managed to get one group together and interviewed two students separately. To gain additional experience from students, we also posted our questions in a survey on the student learning platform. They consented to participate by answering the survey via a link which allowed for anonymity. Six students from the teaching program (E1–6) and eight students from the library program (E7–14) responded. Among tutors, we conducted two focus group interviews with a total of seven participants from the teaching program, one focus group interview with three participants in the library program and one focus group interview with two participants in the healthcare program and one in the engineering program.

Data Collection

All the interviews have been carried out by two researchers. The focus group interviews with tutors were designed as workshops (Swennen et al., 2008) and lasted two hours. Questions were asked unconditionally to get the participants’ descriptions based on their lived experiences and theories from earlier research were added to get the participants’ reflections on them in relation to their experiences. We briefly explained Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan 2008; Guay et al., 2008) and then we used the matrix with seven themes that Magnusson and Zackariasson (2019, p. 1414) developed based on their study. The participants discussed the themes and tried to reach a consensus on how the themes were manifested during the tutoring process, in the text and during the examination. They were instructed to tick the matrix. In the interviews with students and in the survey, we used the same questions but did not add the theory and the matrix. We solely focused on their lived, and through the discussion in one case, reflected lived experiences of writing a degree project. The interviews lasted for about one hour and offered richer data than the survey through opportunities to ask for examples and use follow-up questions.

Analysis

The phenomenological analysis is a time-consuming work, based on bridling, reflection and openness in relation to the phenomenon (Dahlberg et al., 2008). The researchers’ preunderstandings must be known and questioned (bridled) during the process. Through the analysis, the researchers move between the whole and the parts repeatedly. In the first step, the researchers read through the data several times to familiarize themselves with it. In the next step, words, sentences, or paragraphs that express something about the phenomenon are marked. These markings are called meaning units (Giorgi, 1997) and are placed in the margin. In the third step, the meaning units are placed together in different conceivable patterns, clusters, to finally determine which pattern expresses the meaning of the phenomenon based on the data. In the last step, the essential meaning of the phenomenon is formulated in an abstract description, a new whole of the phenomenon. To exemplify, single words or phrases like “time” and “just ask questions during the tutorial” from the second step collectively indicate a cluster of “frameworks” for autonomy in the third step. Finally, the cluster leads to part of the essence being formulated as “a general consensus on frameworks.” Based on the essence, variations and concrete examples are also presented to provide a thorough understanding of the phenomenon.

Results

This section begins by answering the first research question, what characterizes the phenomenon of student autonomy and how can tutors promote it. Initially, the essential meanings of the phenomenon of student autonomy in degree projects are described on an abstract level:

What Characterizes the Phenomenon of Student Autonomy and How Can Tutors Promote It?

The phenomenon of student autonomy in degree project manifests itself in varying ways and in different parts of the work (tutorial process, text, examination) but is most clearly prominent in the communication between tutor and student during tutoring. Autonomy appears more and less in different parts of the degree project (e.g. theory, methodology) and is in a process that is influenced by the communication in the tutoring and in relation to the framework within which it takes place. Autonomy develops when the tutor balances the communication in the tutoring between control and freedom in a way that stimulates the student’s motivation and self-confidence. The appearance of autonomy also occurs in relation to the student’s self-awareness and the tutor’s knowledge of the student’s individual needs. The balance in communication is dependent on knowledge of the students’ individual needs. This knowledge can be revealed through the tutors’ responsibility to acquire knowledge in different ways and through students’ self-awareness as well as their responsibility and ability to express their individual needs.

The framework consists of both external conditions for tutoring that neither tutor nor student can influence and factors that are negotiated in an asymmetric interaction between tutor and student. Space, knowledge and time appear as factors affecting autonomy. The space for autonomy is an implicit and/or explicit negotiation issue between students and tutor. The tutor can give space, but the student can also take space for autonomy in various areas. Autonomy is based on knowledge which is, during education, both offered and acquired on the student’s own initiative. Both obtaining knowledge needed within the degree project, processing feedback, reflecting and acting autonomously in different ways and in different areas within the degree project require time. The degree project is carried out based on given knowledge goals and criteria within the framework of the course. These frameworks indicate some space for interpretation by tutors and examiners, but the autonomy of the work requires that the frameworks be so clearly stated that a general consensus is reached.

The essential meaning of students’ autonomy in degree projects is constituted by the following meaning elements:

• A developing process balanced by the tutor between control and freedom, which gives students motivation and self-confidence.

• A general consensus on frameworks that provide conditions for tutoring and frameworks included in tutoring, mainly space, knowledge and time.

• Student’s self-awareness of needs and the tutor’s knowledge of the student’s needs.

A Developing Process Balanced Between Control and Freedom

The essential meaning of autonomy occurs as a developing process, balanced by the tutor between control and freedom. This balancing process needs to promote the student’s motivation and self-confidence to develop autonomy. Autonomy is experienced by both tutors and students as an ongoing process that can both be promoted and face obstacles, depending on how tutors and students manage the balance between control and freedom to increase the student’s motivation and self-confidence. T11 says that “there is some line between allowing their process, own process and controlling it.” The balance in the development is difficult and T8 believes that feeling and improvisation must rule: “When you are sitting with a text or when you answer the students’ questions and so on, it is like how far I should go in telling them how they should do.”

Tutoring is complex because there are no clear stages of development but depends on who the students are and the context in which the work is carried out. According to T9, tutoring should take place based on the students’ intentions being favoured and thereby strengthening their autonomy: “. . .the thing about how to then guide them in the right way so that it still becomes what they think is most important and so that they gain autonomy at the beginning so that it still becomes their work.” The complexity is also found in that on the one hand tutors have knowledge in the field that needs to benefit the students, as T6 expresses it: “[I]f students were to be able to do exactly what they want initially, that does not always mean that it is possible.” On the other hand, it is the students’ ideas and commitment to their own projects that need space to develop their self-confidence and autonomy. T13 explains that “after two occasions I back off more and more each time which makes me see that autonomy is increasing.” The importance of support is stated by S5 saying that “I probably also needed to get some actual praise or get something like confirmation.” Self-confidence is crucial to autonomy and among tutors who engage in group tutoring, there is another way to strengthen the students through their mutual relationships. T13 says that the students “listen much more to their fellow students than to me.” The security in the relationship can contribute to them giving each other a more direct response.

Promoting autonomy must, based on the balance that characterizes it, involve constant consideration. As T8 claims, it can be based on feeling and improvisation but can also be a matter of judgment based on experience. The uncertainty in the situation makes different situations difficult to handle. E12 says: “The tutor can support me by giving me a fair amount of support, I suppose. It is of course not obvious what is appropriate, I imagine that some need more and different types of support than I do.” The student adds that she does not envy the tutors their work. Indeed, the balance act requires experience and collegial discussions.

Another difficulty with the concept of autonomy is that it can have a negative connotation if it is not limited in relation to something:

. . . it can lead to anarchy and something that we cannot control. . . we also want to be sure that we don’t end up anywhere and collect stuff that is out of our control. A little autonomy, I’d like it to be. (T4)

Tutors need to control what the students do and for example what they collect (data) to be reassured that autonomy do not turn into anarchy. This leads us to the second meaning of framework for autonomy:

A General Consensus on Frameworks

Space, knowledge, time and other stated frameworks are always aspects in relation to student’s autonomy in degree project and thus, to the tutorial process. Like the meaning elements outlined above, these aspects are entangled and flexible and are not to be perceived as divided parts.

Students’ autonomy is about their space to act on their own: how the tutor offers space for autonomy, as well as how the student takes space, and the tutor backs off. In that sense, autonomy can be both given and taken:

. . .in one way or another you have a sort of mandate or license to act on your own regardless . . . because I think with autonomy you can both . . . you can take autonomy or that you sort of get autonomy or a combination then. (T8)

This illustrates how student autonomy is conditioned by the specific space at hand. Someone who has authority, the tutor, gives autonomy and thus responsibility within certain limits, and sometimes, the student takes the initiative. Students experience autonomy as expectations to do things by themselves: “For me, I consider autonomy to mean doing it yourself. You have the tools and the knowledge to be able to implement something alone by yourself and so on” (S1). However, autonomy and responsibility can be formalized, delimited.

Student autonomy requires that the student possesses some kind of knowledge, and T7 describes how this knowledge is expressed as “. . . really thinking through why you do this and that. You know, you make a conscious decision.” The tutors’ expectations on the students to reflect and make conscious decisions, reveal what knowledge students should have already at the start of the course. Some students experience that they are prepared:

I haven’t missed a single lecture since I started [. . .] I feel that the chest is full of tools I can use now in some way and knowledge that I’ve gained along the way that has prepared me for this task. . . (S1)

However, other students feel unprepared and would have liked more knowledge, for example “about these theories that should follow the theoretical starting point” (S3). Thus, the knowledge to be autonomous is developed both during the program and during the degree project course.

Moreover, the aspect of time is always present during the course, that the students must plan their work so that they can finish on time: “There is always a date when it (the text) must be submitted, when it must be finished, so the time that is there must be managed in a good way” (S1). The aspect of allotted time for the tutoring that the students must adhere to, and the tutors must dispose for their different students is also prominent:

. . . already from the way the course is structured, they have incredibly little active teaching time. It’s just these poor tutoring hours. The rest of the time, they are left to fend for themselves. (T8)

The limited time for tutoring makes visible how students are expected to be autonomous right from the start of the course. Some tutors offered students the opportunity to send “simple questions and so on between the tutorials” (T8) and students experienced a need “to get a quick answer from her (the tutor) to be able to move on” (S2). However, another attitude when tutors are not so available, or accommodating was also exemplified: “Some other tutors were very strict about only asking questions during the tutoring” (S2). Depending on which tutor students are assigned, the conditions for tutoring differ and so also the conditions for being autonomous.

Time is important for the opportunity to plan as well as to meet and communicate with tutors, but also for the student to be able to process comments and reflect, have time to decide on different choices and acquire the necessary knowledge: “I think it is quite helpful if you want more autonomy for the student to have some time to think through these comments. Come up with some dialogue around them” (T9). The time required depends on what knowledge already exists and which must be acquired.

When students write their thesis, they do this within a frame of a course and within a frame of an academic context, as pointed out by T12: “They shall be autonomous, but within the frames, here are the rules, this is how it works, this is the template, this is how you write a thesis, because this is the rule.” This quote expresses a kind of ambiguity to both develop autonomy and still follow rules and templates.

Frameworks are wanted by both tutors and students, but students experience tutors’ and examiners’ different ideas about how a degree project should be done as problematic. S3 describes the dilemma: “. . .we should think for ourselves and so on, but it won’t be in a way anyway because we get comments from the examiner and then it will sort of be . . . then it won’t be autonomous anyway. . .” Different frameworks are a challenge for the students and the development of autonomy would benefit from more clear stated frameworks, such as templates, that will in a way control what the students do but, in this sense, it will be the same conditions for all.

The Student’s Needs

Balancing so that the student’s motivation and self-confidence are strengthened requires that the tutor seeks knowledge of the student in various ways. E4 says that the tutor must be “good” meaning able to “read me and my needs.” The students realize the difficulty of balancing and that they themselves also need to take responsibility for expressing their needs, which are exemplified as having a dialogue, getting praise, support with planning and much more. T3 describes how two equally autonomous pairs of students expressed individual needs and received different support:

One (student) group, they didn’t want supervision at all because they wanted to think for themselves, but they just wanted me to approve their method for data collection and then take care of themselves and meet two weeks before submission.

After approving their method, T3 gave the group space and time to work on their own. The other pair of students told T3 that “we have problems to plan our time so that we finish on time” and got help to set up a schedule. Based on students’ different individual needs, the tutor can offer various types of support and T3 concludes that it is important to “meet students in different ways, that you don’t treat everyone the same way.”

Another aspect that emerges from the tutors’ accounts is how group tutoring is a contributing factor to increased student autonomy. T13 explains that “the students help each other and strengthen each other in their autonomy because it is easier when they give each other feedback and ask questions.” The idea is that the group already have built a relationship with each other in the program and therefore already are used to reflect and discuss different aspects and choices. T13 continues:

I have experienced that it (group tutoring) is much easier and then I can somehow step back a little, a little bit and then they challenge each other. It falls into better soil, . . ., than when I challenge them. They receive it in a different way and that’s great, because it’s also an autonomy that is promoted to their future profession. Because that’s how they will work then. They will challenge each other as colleagues.

Group tutoring becomes visible here as a means of promoting autonomy during the work on the thesis but also as a means of a future skill they need to develop. Also, without experience of group tutoring E6 expresses the benefit of working with someone because they can “support each other and contribute different knowledge.” The relational aspect appears to support the development of autonomy in many ways. What is needed in tutorial to support the individual student depends partly on what the tutor feels is necessary and willingness to meet the needs of the student. The individual needs can for example involve emotional support (Praise – hang in there, well done), structural support (providing a scheme/process chart) or response/answers between planned tutorial sessions.

How Does Student Autonomy Become Visible and Assessed During the Tutoring, in the Text and During Examination?

In this section the second research question, how does student autonomy become visible and assessed during the tutoring, in the text and during examination, is answered. Through the students’ and the tutors’ experiences, autonomy becomes visible in various ways. Mostly students and tutors agree on where autonomy is visible, but there are some differences.

In relation to this research question, we used the matrix with seven themes that describe autonomy manifested during the tutorial process, in the text and during the examination (Magnusson & Zackariasson, 2019, p. 1414), trying to reach a consensus among participant tutors. Data revealed dilemmas around how student autonomy appears and is assessed during degree projects: Firstly, tutors have different views on the themes, how they are organized and what the terms mean. For example, there was discussion about why the terms originality, creativity and enthusiasm were brought together as a theme. They discussed the meanings, and some critical voices were raised while other tutors accepted the terms. Secondly, they have different views about where autonomy becomes visible and thus also possible to assess. The instruction was to agree on where student autonomy could be observed and to place a cross in the matrix. The tutors rather placed several crosses in the matrix to include different possible interpretations. The matrix appears to be inflexible and forced participants to find quick solutions when they did not agree and did not have time to create consensus. The groups, on their own initiative, wrote uppercase or lowercase crosses, or placed brackets around the crosses, to show how autonomy became visible. It was not possible to reach a consensus, instead discussion and negotiation arose.

In all workshops and interviews, questions in different forms have been part of the participants’ lived and reflected experiences of autonomy in relation to tutoring. Both students and tutors describe how questions from the student can be signs of either autonomy or dependence. There seem to be right and wrong questions to ask to label a student as autonomous in some aspect. In addition to asking the right questions, aspects such as time and frequency are also important. Too many questions or questions at the wrong time can indicate dependence, according to the participants.

The students experience that the ability to ask the right questions, at the right time, is about knowledge about research methods gained through education. During work on the degree projects, students’ way of asking questions has developed from specific to a more reflective approach:

How do we do here? How do we write methodically, that is, a little. . . so now maybe it was more like this, we think like this and then you want a confirmation of what you have thought. A little more in that direction. (S4)

When they have gained more knowledge about methods, they do not need to ask questions but want confirmation from the tutor. Another sign of autonomy that is experienced differently by students and tutors, is how much students should write before contact with tutors. Students sometimes need confirmation before they continue writing while tutors perceive that it is autonomous to write longer texts: “They do maybe a whole chapter and then they come. That’s how you can see the difference between students and autonomy” (T4).

The students have no ideas about how autonomy would appear in the text, while tutors give different suggestions and claim that autonomy is visible there as well. Primarily, it is critical thinking and relating to different sources that the tutors believe appears in the text. However, there is considerable doubt regarding, for example, initiatives: “Students who take their own initiative, if I read a text, I think I can interpret that activity also in how the text turns out” (T2). Discovering and assessing autonomy in the text seems, to several of the participants, to relate to the fact that the tutorial process has also been followed.

Students and tutors agree that autonomy is visible in the working process and during examination of the thesis through for example students’ ability to argue for choices, discuss the text as a whole and through their general involvement. Students, who not only state but also explain strengths in the text during the examination, show autonomy:

You can also see when they present their degree projects, how they oppose the other. Some just keep up. Yes, but that’s good, you say. What then? What is it that is good, and then they explain it a bit to you. (T4)

There is a consensus between the participants’ experiences but also differences which show that a certain caution in interpreting external signs of autonomy is needed.

Discussion

Through this descriptive phenomenological study, knowledge is obtained about how to enable a learning environment in tutoring that develops students’ autonomy during their work with the degree project. Despite different and sometimes conflicting experiences among the participants of the meaning of autonomy, how it can be promoted and where signs of autonomy can be detected and assessed, the essential meanings that characterize the phenomenon have been formulated. The essence makes clear what is unvaried and enables tutors to create a learning environment which adds the essentials and thereby stimulates student autonomy. Through examples, variations are expressed and indicate what can be shifting without counteracting the autonomy.

The result indicates that students’ autonomy is a developing process balanced by the tutor between control and freedom, which gives students motivation and self-confidence. Autonomy means a general consensus on frameworks that provide conditions for tutoring and frameworks included in tutoring, mainly space, knowledge and time. In addition, autonomy means student’s self-awareness of needs and the tutor’s knowledge of the student’s needs. Autonomy is observed and assessed during the tutorial process and in the examination. Most tutors claim that they observe autonomy also in the texts, but the study reveals quite different experiences in this matter. The fact is that the matrix, which aims to discuss student autonomy (Magnusson & Zackariasson, 2019, p. 1414), created a discussion but didn′t provide any guidance on how to understand and assess autonomy. This leads us to question the matrix as a useful tool for reaching consensus on assessment regarding autonomy. Maybe a discussion based on the essential meanings presented in this article would be useful.

Autonomy is emphasized as something positive in previous research by stimulating motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation as well as the production of academic results (Duchatelet & Donche, 2019; Kinsella et al., 2024; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020; van Blankenstein et al., 2019) and through an effect on lifelong learning (Ciekanski, 2007; Duchatelet & Donche, 2019). Helping students navigate academic challenges, preparing for their careers, and take charge of their learning and future goals can enhance their autonomy (Kinsella et al., 2024). It enables students to have the freedom to control their own education and development, and to continuously seek new knowledge and skills throughout their lives. Moreover, students’ autonomy helps to reduce tutors’ workload (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013; Del Río et al., 2018; Jordal et al., 2021). In this study, negative aspects have also emerged, such as the risk that students’ autonomy may become limitless and mean lower quality of degree projects when structures and frameworks are not made clear. In addition, the pursuit of student autonomy can contribute to leaving students to themselves or alternatively that the students themselves do not make contact but need support, it turns out afterwards. In this, Deci’s and Ryan’s (2008) distinction between autonomy and independence becomes interesting. Autonomy is not the same as being independent from others, but to develop autonomy we need to get other people’s perspectives and listen to other people’s experiences. Participants’ experiences of group tutorial are interesting for further research regarding opportunities to support autonomy in various ways.

In agreement with previous research, this study shows that autonomy relates to students having a driving force, being active and not only recipients (Duchatelet & Donche, 2019; Jordal et al., 2021; Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020; Ramnarain, 2020; Vandiver & Walsh, 2010), but the way in which activity and driving force are observed is varied. The driving force can be associated with intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (Guay et al., 2008) although it manifests itself in many ways. For example, earlier research identifies time planning as something that autonomous students should handle (Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020). However, in this study, students with different needs for support from the tutor, for example time planning, go-ahead for the method and frequent confirmation about being on the right track, still are experienced as autonomous. The phenomenon of autonomy thus seems to manifest itself in many variations based on the work process and the essential balance in the support from the tutor. A crucial point is to consider autonomy in the process of development and not something static already achieved that can only be identified. If the student does not directly show a driving force, the tutor can influence this through various forms of support. The tutorial process could be described as a dance controlled by communication and the tutor’s judgement. When the student is self-aware and capable of being active, the student can lead, and the tutor can take a step back but otherwise the tutor needs to be the one leading through dialogue and judgement, encouraging the student to lead. That both parties can be the one to lead and at the same time maintain the balance is a challenge, but such a dance stimulates the development of the students’ autonomy.

In the same way that dance has different rules and prerequisites, the tutorial is also determined by a framework within the course that can be interpreted slightly differently. As we can see from the students’ experiences, the tutors’ and examinators’ interpretations are sometimes very different and quite normative about the degree projects. In previous research, different models and strategies are elaborated (Ankersborg, 2022; Dysthe, 2002; Jordal et al., 2021; Kolmos & Holgaard, 2007) but it is unclear whether they contribute to increasing knowledge about how tutors could meet the students’ different needs or whether they risk creating normative systems for how tutoring should be carried out, regardless of individual needs. If the dance between tutor and student is to be balanced, the framework of the course needs to be stable between colleagues, both tutors and examiners, and clarified for students to support and facilitate autonomy. Other frameworks that the tutor specifies must be clarified in ongoing communication with the student. A common structure in courses demands continuous collegial discussions. Uncertainty about the frames makes the students dependent on authorities which counteracts not only autonomy but also legal certainty and academic freedom in general.

The tutors’ roles vary between being experts, guides, proofreaders or role models (Ankersborg, 2022; Del Río et al., 2018) and there is a risk that tutors are regarded as authorities that are not questioned. Again, the picture of the tutor as a dance partner who can both lead and follow is helpful to understand the balance in the tutoring. In previous research, the dialogic and the directive style have been identified and Zackariasson (2018) claims that students prefer the directive style. In this study, the students prefer both styles depending both on who you ask and in relation to different situations. The tutor needs to give space to the students, either when they request it or when the tutor judges it to be appropriate. Different research traditions can rest heavily, both on tutors and thus also on students, and it is another difficulty to take a position on when it is appropriate to challenge traditions and when they need to be followed. Giving and taking space can mean a kind of freedom to challenge traditions.

Conclusions

The conclusion is that the essential meanings provide guidance on how a learning environment that stimulates autonomy can be created. Examples of variations provide the opportunity to question normative models as well as to refute the conviction of individual tutors that autonomy manifests itself in a particular way. In working with the essence, it has become clear that the development towards autonomy is a complex process that takes time and therefore, the support for students’ development of autonomy needs to start early in the education and preferable with a view of knowledge that advocates a critical approach. By promoting and developing autonomy throughout an education program, better conditions for students to be able to act autonomously when completing their thesis will be created. However, more research is required to gain knowledge about how the learning environment in general in education needs to be designed to favour autonomy.

The limitations of the study lie primarily in the difficulty we had in getting the students to participate. Their perspective is important and points to many questions about the lack of consensus among tutors as an obstacle to autonomy. Opportunities for consensus within the degree project need to be further investigated using the meanings of autonomy that this study has shown. The lived experience of group tutoring that some of the tutors expressed also needs to be studied more closely as an opportunity for the development of students’ autonomy.