A student asks one careful question near the end of a seminar. It challenges the assumption behind the discussion and sends the class back to the text. Another student has spoken frequently but has mostly repeated the lecturer’s interpretation. Which student has exercised more agency?
That question offers a useful way into the Asian Conference on Education 2026. Scheduled for 14–18 November in Tokyo, ACE provides an opportunity to examine what educators mean when they ask learners to become more active, independent or critical. Those terms can describe very different experiences. A busy classroom does not necessarily give students influence over their learning.
This is a preview, written on 28 October 2026. It draws on the announced programme and a bounded research example, then develops practical questions for educators. It does not report conference findings or claim that one event represents education across Asia.
ACE 2026: the announced setting
The 18th Asian Conference on Education is organised by IAFOR in partnership with the IAFOR Research Centre at Osaka University’s Osaka School of International Public Policy. The announced venue is Tokyo International Forum.
The draft schedule distinguishes three participation arrangements: 14–15 November combine onsite sessions and livestreaming; 16–17 November are onsite; 18 November is online only. Readers planning to attend should check the organiser’s current information for their particular sessions.
One announced keynote, by Mikiko Nishimura of International Christian University, addresses learner agency, creativity and critical thinking in Japanese higher education. Its description proposes examining educational context and cases involving Sophia University and International Christian University. These are planned areas of discussion, not findings independently established by this article.
The programme also raises questions about universities’ public responsibilities and education during crises. Together, these themes invite a practical question: how can an institution ask students to exercise judgement while creating conditions in which their contributions matter?
Learner agency requires a clearer definition
“Active learning” can become a description of what students look like from the front of the room. They move between tables, answer questions, use devices or speak in groups. Such activity may serve learning well. By itself, however, it does not tell us who shapes the intellectual work.
For this discussion, learner agency means having meaningful opportunities to contribute to how learning develops. A student might ask for a different explanation, identify a problem with an example, propose a question worth investigating or explain why the current task is not helping them understand.
This working definition leaves room for responsibility. Students do not need unrestricted control over the curriculum to make consequential contributions. A lecturer can retain demanding disciplinary standards while allowing learners to question a premise, request clarification or propose another route towards the same learning goal.
Agency also involves a response. If students can make suggestions but nobody considers them, participation becomes a performance of consultation. The educator’s answer need not always be agreement. Explaining why a proposal cannot work, and offering a productive alternative, can make the exchange intellectually meaningful.
A research distinction worth bringing to the discussion
Johnmarshall Reeve and Ching-Mei Tseng’s 2011 study examined agentic engagement as an additional dimension alongside behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement. Its central distinction concerns students contributing constructively to the instruction they receive.
The university repository abstract describes research involving Taiwanese high school students, questionnaire measures, end-of-semester grades and structural equation modelling. It reports relationships among the measured constructs. This was not a randomised test establishing that a particular classroom intervention caused better attainment.
That distinction matters when using research at a conference. A study involving secondary students in Taiwan cannot automatically explain university teaching in Japan. The abstract and bibliographic record were verified for this preview; the complete methods and measurement instruments were not reviewed.
The study nevertheless supplies a precise question for professional discussion: are we observing students engaging with an instructional design, or students also contributing to its development? Those possibilities may overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.
What agency could look like in a literature seminar
Consider a hypothetical university seminar comparing two short stories. The lecturer has asked students to explain how each narrator represents belonging. The planned discussion assumes that the narrators’ descriptions can be taken at face value.
A student writes a short note before speaking: what if one narrator is deliberately misleading the reader? She points to a passage that conflicts with the class’s current interpretation. Instead of simply adding another answer to the board, she is questioning the basis of the comparison.
The lecturer asks her to explain the evidence. Other students test the proposed reading against a second passage. The group then revises its comparison to distinguish what a narrator claims from what the story allows a reader to infer.
Here, the student’s contribution has changed the inquiry. The lecturer has maintained the requirement for textual evidence while allowing the original framing to be examined.
This is an invented teaching example, not an account of either university mentioned in the conference programme. It illustrates an editorial distinction rather than a validated intervention.
The same seminar could have contained plenty of visible participation without that shift. Students might have taken turns presenting polished answers to the original question. They could have been attentive and thoughtful, yet had little opportunity to examine whether the question itself needed revision.
Context should sharpen interpretation
An international education conference can help participants notice assumptions they usually take for granted. It can also tempt them into explanations that are too broad: students from one country supposedly prefer silence, while those from another supposedly favour debate.
Such labels are poor tools for understanding a particular learning situation. Before interpreting a student’s hesitation, ask what the task requires, how contributions are assessed, which language is being used and what previous classroom responses have taught the student to expect.
A person may be ready to challenge an interpretation in a written response but need more time to do so aloud. Another may speak confidently while remaining uncertain about the underlying reasoning. A third may understand the issue but see no useful opening in the way the discussion is organised.
These are possibilities to investigate, not explanations to assign in advance.
Context also varies within an institution. A first-year lecture, a postgraduate research group and a professional placement create different relationships between expertise, assessment and responsibility. A useful account of agency should specify the setting rather than attaching a single disposition to a national population.
Make contributions possible and responses visible
For educators considering their own practice, a manageable starting point is to examine one recurring learning activity.
Ask what students can currently influence. Can they question an example, identify an obstacle, request another explanation or suggest a different way to demonstrate understanding? Are these possibilities explicit, or available mainly to students who already know how to negotiate academic expectations?
Then consider the routes through which contributions reach the teacher. A brief written question before a discussion, a pause for reflection or an opportunity to identify an unresolved assumption may reveal different contributions. These are options to test thoughtfully, not guarantees of a particular learning outcome.
The response deserves equal attention. A teacher might say: this question changes the comparison we need to make; this alternative is interesting but does not address today’s objective; or this concern requires us to revisit the instructions.
Such explanations help students see the relationship between their input and subsequent decisions. They also preserve the educator’s responsibility to distinguish a promising intellectual contribution from a preference that would move the activity away from its purpose.
Learning Coach’s discussion of autonomy in education offers a related institutional perspective. The classroom question here is more specific: where can learners contribute, and what happens when they do?
Read conference research before transferring it
An engaging presentation can make an idea feel immediately applicable. Before adopting it elsewhere, identify what the speaker actually studied.
Start with the definition. Does agency refer to student choice, self-directed study, participation in institutional decisions or contributions during teaching? A shared word does not ensure a shared construct.
Next, examine the educational setting and evidence. Who participated? What did researchers observe or measure? Was the work designed to describe an experience, explore relationships or evaluate a particular change? Which conclusions follow from that design, and which remain open?
Finally, state what would need checking locally. A university team might decide that an idea merits a small exploratory discussion with students before redesigning a module. Another might find that its existing assessment rules constrain the proposed change.
These questions are particularly useful across disciplines, languages and educational systems. They allow participants to take international research seriously without treating a compelling example as a universal instruction.
Give the discussion an appropriate format
For university leaders and event organisers, learner agency can become a productive theme when the event itself allows participants to examine a concrete educational decision.
A keynote can establish a shared question and challenge a familiar assumption. A subsequent discussion can ask participants to identify where learners currently influence teaching in their own settings. A workshop can provide time to examine an activity and revise the opportunities it gives students to contribute.
The choice depends on the intended work. Learning Coach’s guide to keynotes and workshops for educators explores that format decision.
The strongest starting question may be modest: when did a learner last change the direction of a worthwhile learning conversation, and how did the educator respond? Answering it carefully could reveal more than another general promise to make students active.
For institutions planning a discussion about learning, judgement and human capabilities, explore Learning Coach’s keynote offer.
Research scope and limits
This article previews a future event using official information available on 28 October 2026. The programme remains subject to change. No conference sessions, recordings or subsequent proceedings were reviewed, and no Learning Coach participation is implied.
The research discussion is limited to one verified primary repository abstract and its bibliographic record. It is not a systematic review of learner agency. The seminar example and proposed professional questions are original illustrations, not reported research findings or evidence of an intervention’s effectiveness.
References
IAFOR. The 18th Asian Conference on Education: official conference information. Accessed 28 October 2026.
IAFOR. ACE2026 programme. Draft programme accessed 28 October 2026.
IAFOR. ACE frequently asked questions. Accessed 28 October 2026.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002. University repository abstract and bibliographic record accessed 28 October 2026.
