Literature Review


Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education           ISSN: 1759-667X 

Issue 14: April 2019 

 

Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for 
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 
 

John Stoszkowski 
University of Central Lancashire, UK 
 

Liam McCarthy 
St Mary’s University, UK 
 

 

Abstract 
 

Heutagogy, a form of self-determined learning, is a learner-centred approach to learning 

and teaching, grounded in constructivist principles. This case study explores final year 

undergraduate students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for (and resulting 

from) heutagogical learning. As part of a larger research study, data were collected at two 

UK universities using an online survey that was intended to elicit their perceptions and 

experiences of a module designed using heutagogical principles. Results indicate that 

foundational knowledge, skills and attitude are a requirement for, and an outcome of, 

heutagogical learning. Potential implications for the use of heutagogical approaches to 

learning and teaching are discussed. 

 

Keywords: heutagogy; self-determined learning; autonomy; sports coaching. 

 

 

Background 
 

University education has traditionally been seen as a didactic, top-down relationship 

between the lecturer and the student, with the lecturer deciding the knowledge and skills 

students need, as well as where, when and how they should be taught (Snowden and 

Halsall, 2016). In recent years, however, teaching within higher educational institutions has 

undergone a transformational shift toward increasingly student-led pedagogies, grounded 

in constructivist learning assumptions that seek to improve student autonomy, motivation, 

and achievement (Paquette and Trudel, 2018; Rowley et al., 2018). Heutagogy (Hase and 



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

2 

Kenyon, 2000), a form of self-determined learning, has been positioned in the literature as 

being ideally suited to achieving such aims (Abraham and Komattil, 2017). The 

heutagogical approach puts learners firmly in control of their own learning, moving beyond 

the development of knowledge and skills, and instead focusing on capability, that is, the 

ability to integrate and effectively apply one’s knowledge and skills in novel and 

unanticipated situations (Hase and Kenyon, 2007). Heutagogical learning is grounded in 

real-world practice and is said to nurture autonomous, adaptive and critically reflective 

learners, better aligning higher education with the needs and complexities of the 21st 

century workplace (Blaschke and Hase, 2016), where the pace of change is rapid and 

innovators, complex problem solvers, and good communicators are in demand (Kizel, 

2016). 

 

 

Context of the case study 
 

As part of an 18-month long ‘innovation in teaching and learning’ project, funded by the 

Higher Education Funding Council for England, our current work involves the application of 

heutagogy on undergraduate degree programmes at two different UK institutions. Over the 

course of a 15-week semester and consistent with the protocol outlined by Stoszkowski 

and Collins (2015), two final year cohorts, studying an optional applied sports coaching 

practice module, used collaborative online group blogs, created using WordPress 

(www.wordpress.com), to share and discuss relevant resources, as well as their ongoing 

self-determined learning and practical experiences. Students on the module self-sourced a 

community-based coaching placement to undertake applied coaching practice and it is this 

which formed the basis of their discussions. Each student’s module grade was based on 

the quality and quantity of their participation in their group blog.  

 

Our role as module tutors was that of a facilitator as opposed to a provider of content; 

indeed our primary aim was to encourage students to take personal responsibility for, and 

ownership of, what and when they learned (Ashton and Elliott, 2007). Furthermore, we 

wanted students to become active participants and co-producers of knowledge by 

facilitating engagement in cross-institutional dialogic reflection and supportive peer 

mentoring. In this case, we define peer-mentoring as students supporting, educating, 

guiding and counselling one another (Sims-Giddens et al., 2010). Remaining consistent 

with principles of heutagogic learning design as far as we could within the constraints of a 

http://www.wordpress.com/


Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

3 

taught undergraduate degree programme, we involved learners in negotiating how and 

what they learned, maintained flexible curricula, encouraged learners to learn from each 

other, provided formative and personalised feedback, and embedded opportunities in the 

learning environment for learners to explore and reflect (Blaschke and Hase, 2016). 

 

Our ongoing experiences on the module have been mixed, however, leading us to doubt 

the efficacy of heutagogical approaches when deployed over relatively short-term periods 

(i.e. over the course of a semester or academic year), especially when part of a formal (i.e. 

structured, assessed and certificated) programme of study. We suspect that, although 

heutagogical approaches offer clear potential for developing more autonomous and self-

determined learners, many students appear to lack the learner attributes needed to 

engage in more autonomous and self-determined learning in the first place. 

 

 

Aim of the case study 
 

As part of a larger research project exploring staff and students’ experiences of a module 

designed using heutagogical principles, this case study had two distinct purposes:  

 

1. To identify the attributes that students perceive they need if they are to succeed on 

a module that employs a heutagogical approach to learning and teaching. 

2. To identify the attributes that students perceive they develop on a module that 

employs a heutagogical approach to learning and teaching. 

 

 

Method 
 

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from both authors’ institutional ethics 

committees. At the midway point of the module (8 weeks), each student on the module (N 

= 62) was e-mailed an explanation of the study aims, information about confidentiality and 

anonymity, and a web link to a survey, which was hosted by the online survey tool 

SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) and developed to provide feedback about their 

ongoing experiences and perceptions of the module. It was made clear at this point that 

participation was voluntary and the sample was self-selected by their own volition.  

 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/


Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

4 

The first page of the survey repeated the information contained in the e-mail, and 

explained that all answers would remain anonymous, with students notified that by 

‘clicking’ continue they would give informed consent for any submitted answers to be used 

as data in the study. It was also made clear that, because answers were anonymous, they 

could not be withdrawn once submitted as no identifying information would be tracked or 

recorded at any stage of the data collection process. A mid-module survey was chosen 

deliberately to capture students’ perceptions of the skills that they felt they had already 

developed (over 8 weeks) as a result of heutagogic learning experiences. Further, the 

survey compelled the students to consider their future selves and the skills which would be 

required to successfully complete the module. 

 

Thirty-five students (9 females and 26 males, Mage = 21 years, SD = 1.03), completed the 

survey. The data reported in the current paper relates to two specific items in that survey. 

Firstly, students were asked to list up to three attributes they felt students need if they are 

to succeed on a module that employs a heutagogical approach to learning and teaching. 

Secondly, they were asked to list up to three attributes they felt students develop on a 

module that employs a heutagogical approach to learning and teaching. Open-ended 

survey questions were used to allow for detail, meaning and unexpected insight to 

emerge. Responses were transferred to a Microsoft Excel 2010 spreadsheet and then the 

first author conducted an inductive analysis of the raw data to generate relevant themes 

(Patton, 2002). Information rich statements were identified as stand-alone meaning units 

(Thomas and Pollio, 2002), then they were listed and labelled, before being compared for 

similarities and clustered together into raw data themes. The initial themes were audited 

by the second author to establish trustworthiness and credibility (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) 

then, in a collaborative analytical approach (Bean and Forneris, 2017), the two authors 

established relationships between raw data themes and grouped them together to 

generate broader themes where appropriate (Holt et al., 2012). 

 

 

Results 
 

Table 1 depicts the attributes that students perceived they need if they are to succeed on a 

module that employs a heutagogical approach to learning and teaching, while Table 2 

shows the attributes students perceived they develop on a module that employs a 

heutagogical approach to learning and teaching. Significant overlap was apparent between 



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

5 

the emergent raw data themes in both sets of attributes, which were grouped into three 

main umbrella themes: knowledge, skills and attitude. Twelve of the thirteen raw data 

themes in Table 1 are also represented in Table 2 (92.86%), with the addition of two new 

raw data themes (writing skills and reflection). 

 

Table 1. The attributes students perceive they need to succeed on a module 
that employs a heutagogical approach. 

 

Raw Data Theme Lower Order Theme Higher Order Theme 

Knowledge and 
understanding (9) 

Knowledge and experience 
(12) 

Knowledge and 
experience (12) 
 
 

Applied experience (3) 

Organisation (10) Self-regulation (27) Skills (51) 
 
 
 
 
 

Consistency (5) 

Time management (12) 

Communication (1) Peer discussion (12) 

Peer discussion (11) 

Criticality (9) Criticality (9) 

Reading skills (1) Reading and research 
skills (3) Research skills (2) 

Motivation/drive (16) Motivation/drive (16) Attitude (32) 

Confidence (6) Confidence (6) 

Open mind (6) Open mind (6) 

Independence (4) Independence (4) 

 

(Numbers refer to number of meaning units, not students) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

6 

 

Table 2. The attributes students perceive they develop on a module that 
employs a heutagogical approach. 

 

Raw Data Theme Lower Order Theme Higher Order Theme 

Knowledge and 
understanding (20) 

Knowledge and experience 
(23) 

Knowledge and 
experience (23) 
 
 

Applied experience (3) 

Planning and 
Organisation (2)  

Self-regulation (10) Skills (57) 
 
 
 
 

Consistency (3)  

Time management (5)  

Communication (6)  Peer discussion (16) 

Peer discussion (10)  

Critical thinking (11)  Critical thinking (11)  

Research skills (8) Research skills (8)  

Writing skills (5)  Writing skills (5)  

Reflection (7)  Reflection (7)  

Confidence (3) Confidence (3) Attitude (9) 

Independence (2) Independence (2)  

Motivation/drive (3) Motivation/drive (3)  

Open mind (1) Open mind (1)  

 

(Numbers refer to number of meaning units, not students) 

 

 

Knowledge and experience 

Knowledge was an attribute that students felt they needed to succeed, especially in terms 

of ‘understanding’ coaching practice and/or broader course content (e.g. ‘being able to 

engage with and make sense of the course content’). Similarly, knowledge and 

understanding were viewed by some as being a requirement to engage in effective peer 

discussion. For example, one student highlighted the importance of being ‘able to pick out 

key things to have a discussion about’. Some students also referred to the importance of 

having experience of applying their content knowledge in practical scenarios (e.g. ‘try the 

things we talk about... and see the impact for yourself’). Encouragingly, students perceived 

the development of knowledge and understanding to be an outcome of the module, with 

the number of meaning units almost doubling in that regard. Several students simply 

referred to ‘knowledge’ as an attribute that they develop, while some were more specific. 

For example, one student referred to ‘knowledge on topics some coaches wouldn't 

normally come across’, with others referring to specific types of knowledge (e.g. ‘different 

coaching styles’ and ‘different reflection methods’).  



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

7 

 

Skills 

Self-regulation was a key theme describing learner attributes that students felt were 

necessary to succeed. As part of this, ‘time management’ was mentioned both explicitly 

and in more explanatory terms (e.g. ‘create time to input on the blog over the week’), while 

‘organisation’ and ‘consistency’ were also referred to. Interestingly, these same elements 

of self-regulation were also alluded to as attributes that students felt they developed on the 

module, but on far fewer occasions.  

 

Being able to engage in peer discussion was cited as an attribute that was needed. For 

example, one student referred to being able to ‘interact with other students’, while another 

stated ‘good at discussion and giving their opinion’. Peer discussion was also viewed as 

an attribute that students developed, with some referring directly to ‘communication’ and 

others being more specific about the ability to ‘debate’ ideas (e.g. ‘discussing your point 

and arguing why it is valid’).  

 

Criticality in terms of analysis was also highlighted as being required, with students 

referring to the ‘ability to critique’ and ‘critical analysis skills’. This criticality was also 

viewed as being an attribute that engagement in the module develops; however, it was 

referred to more directly as ‘critical thinking’ or ‘critical thought’.  

 

Reading and research skills were mentioned as being required attributes on three 

occasions, while research skills were mentioned more often as an outcome of the module. 

Writing skills (e.g. ‘formal and informal writing’) and reflection (e.g. ‘ability to self-reflect’) 

were both reported as attributes that some students felt they develop on the module.      

 

 

Attitude 

Having a facilitative attitudinal disposition was viewed as being an important attribute to 

succeed on the module. Being motivated and driven to learn was most commonly seen as 

important (e.g. ‘motivated’, ‘self-driven’, ‘dedication’), with being confident (e.g. 

‘confidence’), having an open mind (e.g. ‘open to new concepts’) and independence (e.g. 

‘independent study ethic’) also mentioned. Importantly, these same components of 



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

8 

‘attitude’ were mentioned as outcomes of the module, but on far fewer occasions, 

especially in terms of motivation.  

Discussion 
 

The students in the current case study appear to recognise that the heutagogical approach 

we employed on the module has the potential to develop a range of attributes we as 

educators aspired to develop. However, it also appears that to be successful (i.e. engage 

in and pass the module), students might need a foundational level of many of those 

attributes in place prior to starting. For example, although Bangura (2005) suggests that 

heutagogical learning helps students develop confidence and competence, it has also 

been suggested that if an individual is to reason independently and engage in successful 

problem-solving type activities, a foundational level of domain-specific knowledge is 

required upon which to build new knowledge (Kirschner et al., 2006). Without this 

background knowledge, and if simultaneously aligned with an absence of explicit 

instruction, students are likely to become demotivated pretty quickly. Indeed, our results 

suggest that students recognise the importance of motivation if they are to take control of 

their own learning, however, the heutagogical approach taken did not appear to be 

inherently motivating for many in and of itself. It even appears that if students lack some 

specific attributes (e.g. knowledge and/or skills), it could be actively demotivating and 

taking such an approach with those students could therefore be detrimental. Indeed, 

Blumberg (2008) suggests that open-ended situations or situations lacking structure may 

frighten less motivated students.  

 

Consequently, we believe that some students might require more direct hands-on 

guidance and support, at least initially, and especially if they lack previous experience of 

being self-determined in their learning (Stricker et al., 2011). After all, it is not 

unreasonable to suggest that the education system has a reputation for defaulting to 

rewarding quantities of knowledge rather than qualities of behaviour (Nickless et al., 2015), 

and previous research has suggested that a focus on ‘teaching to the test’ contributes to 

students being underprepared for university study (Suto, 2012). Might we therefore need 

to ‘teach’ some of the attributes that emerged from this study in a more explicit way, rather 

than simply hope they emerge? That is, teach students how to learn in a heutagogical way 

before expecting them to learn heutagogically? If so, developing attributes such as self-

regulation will likely take time and we encourage both programme developers and module 

tutors to embrace that. To mitigate against, or at least minimise any potential knowledge 



Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

9 

and skills gaps, we would also encourage programme developers and module tutors to 

think carefully about what is most appropriate for their learners, when, and why, and to 

carefully develop heutagogical learning experiences over longer time periods where 

necessary. 

 

 

Conclusion and future plans 
 

In order to facilitate effective heutagogical learning, educators need to carefully consider 

the timescale over which they intend to utilise approaches of this type, as well as the 

educational and intrapersonal background of their students and the existing knowledge, 

skills and attitude they bring to the table. At the very least, it appears that there is a need 

for the carefully staged and deliberate introduction of such approaches over time – 

heutagogy is not a quick fix. This is consistent with the work of Thomas et al. (2015), who 

suggest that learners develop independent learning skills over time or may never develop 

them at all! As such, educators need to ensure they work with their teaching reality, rather 

than idealised models of practice. Moving forward, we intend to conduct more focussed 

and in-depth investigation into the underpinning mechanisms and students’ experiences of 

heutagogy. For example, work employing a realist-inspired approach to explain a single 

student’s interaction with the module is currently underway. 

 

 

References 
 

Abraham, R.R. and Komattil, R. (2017) ‘Heutagogic approach to developing capable 

learners’, Medical Teacher, 39(3), pp. 295-299. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1270433 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Ashton, J. and Elliott, R. (2007) ‘Juggling the balls – study, work, family and play: student 

perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogy’, European Early Childhood 

Education Research Journal, 15(2), pp. 167-181. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701321378 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1270433
https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701321378


Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

10 

Bangura, A.K. (2005) ‘Ubuntugogy: an African educational paradigm that transcends 

pedagogy, andragogy, ergonagy and heutagogy’, Journal of Third World Studies, 

22(2), pp. 13-53. 

 

Bean, C. and Forneris, T. (2017) ‘Examining the role of needs support in mediating the 

relationship between programme quality and developmental outcomes in youth 

sport’, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology [Online]. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1350825 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Blaschke L.M. and Hase S. (2016) ‘Heutagogy: a holistic framework for creating twenty-

first-century self-determined learners’, in Gros, B., Kinshuk and Maina, M. (eds.) 

The future of ubiquitous learning. Lecture notes in educational technology. 

Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 25-40. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-

47724-3_2 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Blumberg, P. (2008) Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 

 

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2000) ‘From andragogy to heutagogy’, Ultibase Articles. 

Australia: Southern Cross University. 

 

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007) ‘Heutagogy: a child of complexity theory’, Complicity: An 

International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), pp. 111-118. 

 

Holt, N.L., Knight, C.J. and Tamminen, K.A. (2012) ‘Grounded theory’, in Armour, K. and 

Macdonald, D. (eds.) Research methods in physical education and youth sport. 

Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 277-294. 

 

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006) ‘Why minimal guidance during 

instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, 

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching’, Educational Psychologist, 

41(2), pp. 75-86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 

(Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1350825
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_2
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1


Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

11 

Kizel, A. (2016) ‘Philosophy with children as an educational platform for self-determined 

learning’, Cogent Education, 3(1) [Online’]. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1244026 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Nickless, S., Stoszkowski, J. and Palmer, C. (2015) ‘Education’s not black and white, it’s 

vibrant grey’, Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, 9(1), pp. 73-100 

 

Paquette, K. and Trudel, P. (2018) ‘The evolution and learner-centered status of a coach 

education program’, International Sport Coaching Journal, 5(1), pp. 24-36. Available 

at: https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0038 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

 

Rowley, C., Fook, J. and Glazzard, J. (2018) ‘Adopting a student-led pedagogic approach 

within higher education: the reflections of an early career academic’, Reflective 

Practice, 19(1), pp. 35-45. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1351352 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Sims-Giddens, S., Helton, C. and Hope, K.L. (2010) ‘Student peer mentoring in a 

community-based nursing clinical experience’, Nursing education 

perspectives, 31(1), pp. 23-27. 

 

Snowden, M. and Halsall, J.P. (2016) ‘Self-determined approach to learning: a social 

science perspective’, Cogent Education, 3(1) [Online]. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1247608 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

Stoszkowski, J. and Collins, D. (2015) ‘Using shared online blogs to structure and support 

informal coach learning—part 1: a tool to promote reflection and communities of 

practice’, Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), pp. 247-270. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1019447 (Accessed: 21 August 2018). 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1244026
https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0038
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1351352
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1247608
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1019447


Stoszkowski and McCarthy Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for  
(and resulting from) heutagogical learning 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 14: April 2019 
 

12 

Stricker, D., Weibel, D. and Wissmath, B. (2011) ‘Efficient learning using a virtual learning 

environment in a university class’, Computers and Education, 56(2), pp. 495-504. 

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.012 (Accessed: 21 August 

2018). 

 

Suto, I. (2012) ‘How well prepared are new undergraduates for university study? An 

investigation of lecturers’ perceptions and experiences’, Conference of the Society 

for Research in Higher Education. Newport, Wales 12-14 December. 

 

Thomas, S.P. and Pollio, H.R. (2002) Listening to patients: a phenomenological approach 

to nursing research and practice. New York, NY: Springer. 

 

Thomas, L., Hockings, C., Ottaway, J. and Jones. R. (2015) Independent learning: student 

perspectives and experiences. York: HEA. 

 

 

Author details 
 

John Stoszkowski is a Senior Lecturer in Sports Development and Coaching at the 

University of Central Lancashire, UK, and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, UK. 

E-mail: JRStoszkowski@uclan.ac.uk 

 

Liam McCarthy is a Lecturer in Sports Coaching at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK, 

and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, UK. E-mail: liam.mccarthy@stmarys.ac.uk  

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.012
mailto:JRStoszkowski@uclan.ac.uk
mailto:liam.mccarthy@stmarys.ac.uk

	Students’ perceptions of the learner attributes required for (and resulting from) heutagogical learning
	Abstract

	Keywords: heutagogy; self-determined learning; autonomy; sports coaching.
	Background
	Context of the case study
	Aim of the case study
	Method
	Results
	Knowledge and experience
	Skills
	Attitude

	Discussion
	Conclusion and future plans
	References
	Author details