Challenges and Opportunities in Adopting Heutagogy in Formal School Environments

Authors

  • Rofiq Noorman Haryadi
  • Thomas K. Kartomo Asean University International, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Denok Sunarsi Universitas Pamulang, Tangerang Selatan, Banten, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51805/ijss.v1i1.314

Keywords:

Heutagogy in Education, Learning Challenges, Autonomous Learning

Abstract

Heutagogy, or learner-centered education focused on autonomy, has gained increasing attention as an innovative approach in 21st-century education. This approach emphasizes flexible learning, student autonomy, and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, the implementation of heutagogy in formal school environments faces various challenges, such as resistance from both teachers and students to changes in teaching methods, limitations in technological infrastructure, and curricula still based on traditional instruction. On the other hand, the adoption of heutagogy also presents significant opportunities, including enhanced learning motivation, the development of lifelong learning skills, and better adaptation to technological advancements and labor market demands. This research employs a qualitative method with a case study approach, involving direct observation, in-depth interviews with teachers and students, as well as policy document analysis related to heutagogy. Data were collected from several formal schools that have started implementing this approach, at both secondary and upper levels. Data analysis was conducted using triangulation techniques to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings. The results indicate that collaboration among teachers, students, and school authorities, as well as the appropriate use of educational technology, can provide solutions to effectively integrate heutagogy into formal learning systems.

References

Abraham, R. R., & Komattil, R. (2017). Heutagogic approach to developing capable learners. Medical Teacher, 39(3), 295–299.

Alnofaie, S. F. (2023). E-EFL in the Saudi tertiary classroom: Exploring teachers� perceptions of digital technology use for e-learning and learners� self-efficacy to undertake heutagogical learning. Brunel University London.

Babchuk, W. A. (2016). Review of Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (2016) by SB Merriam & EJ Tisdell.

Biasutti, M. (2017). A coding scheme to analyse the online asynchronous discussion forums of university students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 601–615.

Bizami, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Kew, S. N. (2023). Innovative pedagogical principles and technological tools capabilities for immersive blended learning: a systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1373–1425.

Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623–640.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2023). Revisiting mixed methods research designs twenty years later. The Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods Research Design, 21–36.

Daniel, N. B. (2021). Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning A Question of Self-Determined Practices in Post-Secondary Education. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary.

Denzin, N. K. (2018). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Routledge.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ulti-BASE In-Site.

Lock, J., Lakhal, S., Cleveland-Innes, M., Arancibia, P., Dell, D., & De Silva, N. (2021). Creating technology-enabled lifelong learning: A heutagogical approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1646–1662.

Malykhin, O., & Aristova, N. (2022). Boosting independent learning skills among future teachers of foreign languages: implementing innovative strategies.

Miles, H., & Huberman, A. M. (2018). Saldana.(2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3.

Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter? British Educational Research Journal, 26(1), 5–24.

Msila, V. (2020). Heutagogy and teaching: Toward liberatory methods. The International Journal of Humanities Education, 18(1), 1.

Nguyen, D. C., & Tull, J. (2022). Context and contextualization: The extended case method in qualitative international business research. Journal of World Business, 57(5), 101348.

Peel, K. L. (2020). A beginner�s guide to applied educational research using thematic analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 25(1).

Priadana, M. S., & Sunarsi, D. (2021). Metode penelitian kuantitatif. Pascal Books.

Pugu, M. R., Riyanto, S., & Haryadi, R. N. (2024). Metodologi Penelitian; Konsep, Strategi, dan Aplikasi. PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10, 281–305.

Roulston, K., & Choi, M. (2018). Qualitative interviews. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, 233–249.

Stoten, D. W. (2020). Practical heutagogy: Promoting personalized learning in management education. Adult Learning, 31(4), 161–174.

Stremersch, S., Gonzalez, J., Valenti, A., & Villanueva, J. (2023). The value of context-specific studies for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00872-9

Downloads

Published

2025-02-17