From Pedagogy to Heutagogy: A Systematic Scoping Review of Digitalization of Pedagogies to Foster Self-Determined Learning (2010–2024)

Abstract

The fourth industrial revolution technologies are primarily characterized by digitalization. Regardless of the underlying premise, i.e., pedagogical or andragogical, digitalization is the key to heutagogy. The present scoping review was conducted to 1) differentiate foundational learning paradigms of pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy as conceptualized in digital learning contexts, 2) classify digital technologies supporting digital learning, 3) classify digital platforms used in teaching and learning, 4) investigate drivers of technology-enhanced learning design in terms of financial support, infrastructure availability, and teacher preparedness, 5) investigate epistemological concerns arising from technology-enhanced learning design, and 6) investigate equity concerns of digital divide for learners from rural and low-bandwidth environments, as well as for female, disabled, and refugee learners. The scoping review followed the process of Arksey and O’Malley and aligned with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The number of studies included in the review was 36. The findings suggest that the progression from pedagogy to heutagogy underscores the importance of digital technologies for self-directedness. The digital platforms redefine the boundaries of learning - where, when, and how learning occurs. However, this evolution remains uneven across contexts. Financial support, infrastructure availability, and teacher preparedness are decisive factors in digital transformations. The digital divide persists and constrains the realization of heutagogical potential by learners from rural and low-bandwidth environments, as well as by female, disabled, and refugee learners. Epistemologically, digital pedagogy is moving toward connectivism and co-created knowledge systems, challenging traditional notions of knowledge ownership, knowledge validation, authenticity, ethical governance, and learner assessment.

Keywords

References

1. [1] Goger, A., Parco, A., Vegas, E., 2022. The promises and perils of new technologies to improve education and employment opportunities. Brookings Institution. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-promises-and-perils-of-new-technologies-to-improve-education-and-employment-opportunities/ (cited 28 September 2025).
2. [2] Lanteri, A., 2021. Strategic drivers for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Thunderbird International Business Review. 63(3), 273–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22196
3. [3] Schoemaker, P., Heaton, S., Teece, D., 2018. Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review. 61(1), 15–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790246
4. [4] Schwab, K., 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business: New York, NY, USA.
5. [5] Blaschke, L.M., 2012. Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 13(1), 56–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076
6. [6] World Bank Group, 2021. Unleashing the Power of Educational Technology in TVET Systems. World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA.
7. [7] World Economic Forum, 2016. The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland.
8. [8] Wang, M.J., 2007. Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology. 38(2), 294–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00626.x
9. [9] France, D., Lee, R., Maclachlan, J., et al., 2021. Should you be using mobile technologies in teaching? Applying a pedagogical framework. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 45(2), 221–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1773417
10. [10] Wickramasinghe, G.L.D., Wickramasinghe, V., 2024. Institutional implementation of Industry 4.0 competencies in TVET programmes in the Indo-Pacific: Critical success factors. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training. 7(1), 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14426/jovacet.v7i1.382
11. [11] Whalley, B., France, D., Park, J., et al., 2021. Towards flexible personalized learning and the future educational system in the fourth industrial revolution in the wake of COVID-19. Higher Education Pedagogies. 6(1), 79–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2021.1883458
12. [12] Chung, E., 2022. Effecting change in teachers’ epistemological and pedagogical beliefs about vocabulary learning and teaching: The role of dialogic reflection. SAGE Open. 12(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211071084
13. [13] Daniela, L., 2020. Epistemological Approaches to Digital Learning in Educational Contexts. Routledge: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429319501
14. [14] Williamson, B., Eynon, R., Knox, J., et al., 2023. Critical perspectives on AI in education: Political economy, discrimination, commercialization, governance and ethics. In Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd: Camberley, London. pp. 553–570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413.00037
15. [15] Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(1), 3–10. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm (cited 28 September 2025).
16. [16] Czerniewicz, L., Mogliacci, R., Walji, S., et al., 2023. Academics teaching and learning at the nexus: Unbundling, marketisation and digitisation in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. 28(6), 1295–1309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1876019
17. [17] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2024. Facts and Figures 2024: The Gender Digital Divide. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland.
18. [18] Nwajiuba, C.A., Ukwandu, E., 2021. Female ICT participation in South-Eastern Nigerian tertiary institutions: Inhibiting factors. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2103.13391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.13391
19. [19] Wedasinghe, N., Wicramaarchchi, R., 2014. Web, mobile and computer related model to bridge the disability digital divide in Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information & Communication Technology (ICEEICT), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 10–12 April 2014; pp. 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEICT.2014.6919120
20. [20] Badritdinova, R., 2023. Online Education: Benefits and Challenges for Refugee Students [PhD Thesis]. University of San Diego: San Diego, CA, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22371/05.2023.021
21. [21] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2023. Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2023. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland.
22. [22] UNESCO, 2023. Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms? Global Education Monitoring Report. UNESCO: Paris, France.
23. [23] Arksey, H., O’Malley, L., 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 8(1), 19–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
24. [24] Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al., 2016. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 16, 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
25. [25] McLoughlin, C., Lee, M.J., 2010. Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(1), 28–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100
26. [26] Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., 2015. Digital andragogy: A richer blend of initial teacher education in the 21st century. Issues in Educational Research. 25(4), 397–414.
27. [27] Halupa, C.P., 2015. Pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy. In: Halupa, C. (Ed.). Transformative Curriculum Design in Health Sciences Education. IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA. pp. 45–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8571-0.ch005
28. [28] Blackley, S., Walker, R., 2015. Digital andragogy: A 21st century approach to tertiary education. In Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Perth, WA, Australia; pp. 552–566.
29. [29] Dahya, N., Dryden-Peterson, S., 2016. Tracing pathways to higher education for refugees: The role of virtual support networks and mobile phones for women in refugee camps. Comparative Education. 53(2), 284–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1259877
30. [30] Yot-Domínguez, C., Marcelo, C., 2017. University students’ self-regulated learning using digital technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 14, 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0076-8
31. [31] Ally, M., Wark, N., 2018. Online student use of mobile devices for learning. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, Chicago, IL, USA, 11 November 2018; pp. 8–13.
32. [32] Blaschke, L.M., Hase, S., 2019. Heutagogy and digital media networks: Setting students on the path to lifelong learning. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning. 1(1), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1
33. [33] Kamrozzaman, N.A., Badusah, J., Wan Mohammad, W.M.R., 2019. Heutagogy approach: Effectiveness of m-learning for lifelong learning education. Sains Humanika. 11(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v11n3.1496
34. [34] Mallillin, L.L.D., Mendoza, L.C., Mallillin, J.B., et al., 2020. Implementation and readiness of online learning pedagogy: A transition to COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies. 5(2). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3321
35. [35] Al Lily, A.E., Alhazmi, A.A., Abunasser, F.M., et al., 2021. Covidian education: An enquiry into Arab culture. Technology in Society. 66, 101673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101673
36. [36] Hizam, S.M., Akter, H., Sentosa, I., et al., 2021. Digital competency of educators in the virtual learning environment: A structural equation modelling analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 704, 012023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/704/1/012023
37. [37] Olasunkanmi, I.S., 2021. The epistemology of pedagogy: A critical distinction between the ‘educated’ and the ‘learned’. International Scientific Journal of Universities and Leadership. 2(12), 211–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2021-12-2-211-220
38. [38] Vinayan, G., Harikirishanan, D., 2021. Empowering heutagogy for 21st century learning. Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Journal. 2(2), 47–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54480/slrm.v2i2.17
39. [39] Yoto, Y., Ulfatin, N.R., Zahro, A., et al., 2022. The heutagogy model of learning innovation in increasing the skill needs of the digital era of vocational students. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. 28(2), 98–104. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um048v28i2p98-104
40. [40] Pepito, M.J.T., Acledan, M.Y., 2022. Influence of digital literacy and self-directed learning in the online learning success of STEM college students. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education. 9(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0901007
41. [41] Segara, N.B., Suprijono, A., Setyawan, K.G., 2022. The influence of e-learning towards students’ heutagogy skills in higher education. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran. 54(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v54i2.33128
42. [42] Sumarni, T., Sudira, P., 2022. The role of the heutagogy approach in advanced adult education as rebuilding the vocational self-concept in the industrial era 4.0 and society 5.0. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi. 12(2), 199–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jpv.v12i2.49132
43. [43] Wijewickrama, B.N., Wickramasinghe, V., 2022. Educators’ acceptance of online platforms for personal and professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators. 11(3), 331–349. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jtee/issue/75078/1172921
44. [44] Dhakal, B.P., 2023. Digital pedagogy: An effective model for 21st century education. Academic Journal of Mathematics Education. 5(1), 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ajme.v5i1.54534
45. [45] Jensen, L.X., Buhl, A., Hussain, S., et al., 2023. Digital education for health professionals in India: A scoping review of the research. BMC Medical Education. 23, 561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04552-2
46. [46] Amare, E.M., Zegeye, R.T., Wondie, S.G., et al., 2024. Getting ready for digital shift: The level of acceptance towards educational technology among faculty members in higher education institutions in Ethiopia. Discover Education. 3, 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00090-1
47. [47] Anuar, M.A.M., Foong, L.M., Putra, A.B.N.R., 2024. The practice of heutagogy, peeragogy and cybergogy approach among vocational college instructors. Journal of Technical Education and Training. 16(2), 128–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2024.16.02.011
48. [48] Bitar, N., Davidovich, N., 2024. Transforming pedagogy: The digital revolution in higher education. Education Sciences. 14(8), 811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080811
49. [49] Getenet, S., Cantle, R., Redmond, P., et al., 2024. Students’ digital technology attitude, literacy and self-efficacy and their effect on online learning engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 21, 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00437-y
50. [50] Kaddouri, M., Benali, M., Azzimani, T., et al., 2024. Emotional, relational and digitalisation: Towards a redesign of the educational paradigm. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. 8(3), 4184–4197. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803302S
51. [51] Ntim, S., 2024. Digitalising higher education pedagogies: Gauging the perspectives of selected senior academic members in Ghana. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy. 5(4), 850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.4.850
52. [52] Zuhri, F., Setiawan, S., Anam, S., 2024. Digital literacy practices in language pedagogy: Blended learning/flipped classroom on English language teaching in Indonesia. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching. 12(3), 1326–1339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i3.11270
53. [53] Delahaye, B.L., Limerick, D.C., Hearn, G., 1994. The relationship between andragogical and pedagogical orientations and the implications for adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly. 33(4), 187–200.
54. [54] Corneli, J., Danoff, C.J., Pierce, C., et al., 2016. The Peeragogy Handbook. PubDomEd/Pierce Press: Chicago, IL, USA; Somerville, MA, USA. Available from: http://peeragogy.org (cited 28 September 2025).
55. [55] Wang, M.J., Kang, J., 2006. Cybergogy of engaged learning through information and communication technology: A framework for creating learner engagement. In: Hung, D., Khine, M.S. (Eds.). Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies. Springer: New York, NY, USA. pp. 225–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3669-8_11
56. [56] International Labour Organization (ILO), 2020. The Digitization of TVET and Skills Systems. International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/skills/areas/skills-policies-and-systems/WCMS_752213/lang--en/index.htm (cited 28 September 2025).
57. [57] Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K.H., et al., 2016. The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 25(2), 149–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
58. [58] TVET Academy, 2021. Digitalization and TVET. Academy for International Cooperation (GIZ): Magdeburg, Germany.
59. [59] Angel-Urdinola, D.F., Castillo-Castro, C., Hoyos, A., 2021. Meta-analysis assessing the effects of virtual reality training on student learning and skills development. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 9587. World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/35299 (cited 28 September 2025).
60. [60] Grech, A., Camilleri, A.F., 2017. Blockchain in Education. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
61. [61] McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., et al., 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. University of Prince Edward Island: Canada. Available from: https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/archive/MOOC_Final.pdf (cited 28 September 2025).
62. [62] Wickramasinghe, G.L.D., Wickramasinghe, V., 2024. Institutional response to implement 4IR competencies into programme offerings of technical and vocational education and training in Indo-Pacific. Journal of Technical Education and Training. 16(3), 168–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2024.16.03.012
63. [63] de Silva, T., Wickramasinghe, V., 2023. Teaching and working from home: Gender differentials in the impact of COVID-19 on university academics in Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Business Research. University of Moratuwa: Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31705/ICBR.2023.3
64. [64] Wickramasinghe, G.L.D., Wickramasinghe, V., 2025. Technical and vocational education and training in Asia and the Pacific – It’s matter for economic performance with the 4th Industrial Revolution. Journal of Economic Analysis. 4(1), 170–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58567/jea04010009
65. [65] Mahdum, M., Hadriana, H., Safriyanti, M., 2019. Exploring teacher perceptions and motivations to ICT use in learning activities in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 18, 293–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28945/4366
66. [66] Wickramasinghe, G.L.D., Wickramasinghe, V., 2025. Education 2030 – Achievements of TVET in Asia and the Pacific along with the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Technical Education and Training. 17(3), 167–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2025.17.03.012
67. [67] Gonçalves, C.U., 2019. Financing TVET: A Comparative Analysis in Six Asian Countries. Agence Française de Développement: Paris, France. Available from: https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/financing-tvet-comparative-analysis-six-asian-countries (cited 28 September 2025).
68. [68] Jacobson, M.J., So, H.-J., Teo, T., et al., 2010. Epistemology and learning: Impact on pedagogical practices and technology use in Singapore schools. Computers & Education. 55(4), 1694–1706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.014
69. [69] Williamson, B., 2017. Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. Sage: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920
70. [70] Knox, J., 2023. Educational development in the postdigital era. In: Lee, W.O., Brown, P., Goodwin, A.L., et al. (Eds.). International Handbook on Education Development in Asia-Pacific. Springer: Singapore. pp. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2327-1_119-1
71. [71] Santos, B., Meneses, M. (Eds.), 2019. Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South. Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA.
72. [72] Warschauer, M., 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6699.001.0001
73. [73] Schleicher, A., 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on education – Insights from education at a glance 2020. Available from: https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/covid19/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf (cited 28 September 2025).
74. [74] Gregory, M.S.-J., Lodge, J.M., 2015. Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education. 36(2), 210–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056
75. [75] Couldry, N., Mejias, U.A., 2019. The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating it for Capitalism. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA.
76. [76] Regan, P.M., Jesse, J., 2019. Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology. 21(3), 167–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2
77. [77] Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., et al., 2018. Everyday Schooling in the Digital Age: High School, High Tech? Routledge: New York, NY, USA.
78. [78] Tlostanova, M.V., 2010. Gender Epistemologies and Eurasian Borderlands. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA.
79. [79] Liu, T., Zhang, Z., Gao, X., 2023. Pedagogical design in technology-enhanced language education research: A scoping review. Sustainability. 15(7), 6069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076069
80. [80] Sormunen, M., Heikkilä, A., Salminen, L., et al., 2021. Learning outcomes of digital learning interventions in higher education: A scoping review. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 40(3), 154–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000797
81. [81] Zhou, X., Smith, C.J.M., Al-Samarraie, H., 2024. Digital technology adaptation and initiatives: A systematic review of teaching and learning during COVID-19. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 36, 813–834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09376-z

How to Cite

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2026 Vathsala Wickramasinghe. Published by Nature and Information Engineering Publishing Sdn. Bhd..

Article Metrics