Teaching Technology Through Heutagogy: Lessons From a Graduate Course

Innovation Description

Heutagogy, or self-determined learning, originally proposed by Hase and Kenyon (2001), extends beyond traditional adult learning theory by emphasizing learner agency, capability development, and non-linear learning pathways. While andragogy assumes that adult learners benefit from relevance and self-direction (Knowles, 1978), heutagogy expands on this by positioning the learner as the primary driver of content, process, and evaluation. In heutagogical learning environments, learners identify their own goals, select the tools and strategies that fit those goals, and engage in reflection as a central mechanism of growth (Moore, 2020).

Heutagogy is built upon the core principles of learner agency, capability development, double loop learning, and non-linear learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2007). Learner agency emphasizes the learner’s capacity to direct and determine their own learning paths. It empowers learners to decide not just what they learn, but also how they learn it, and even how their learning should be assessed. Heutagogy emphasizes capability development, which is the ability to adapt and apply acquired skills and knowledge to new, unfamiliar, and future situations. Developing capability is fostered through opportunities for experimentation, allowing learners to make mistakes and build resilience (Duchek, 2020). Heutagogy also centers on a “double-loop” learning process (Argyris, 2002), where learners are encouraged to reflect not only on what they have learned (single-loop learning) but also to critically examine how they learned it, and how this new knowledge influences their beliefs, actions, and values. Heutagogy does not follow the concept of a fixed curriculum (Agonács & Matos, 2019). Instead, learners define and choose their own diverse paths to achieve their learning goals, taking full responsibility for what and how they learn (Marie Blaschke, 2012).

Course Description

Heutagogy informed the design of a graduate-level, online course for health professions educators titled Teaching with Technology. Unlike more stable domains of knowledge, technology instruction requires learners to continuously engage with new tools, interfaces, and workflows. Heutagogy directly addresses this need by fostering learners’ confidence in experimentation, their ability to self-direct when encountering unfamiliar tools, and their resilience in adapting to digital change. While heutagogical principles can be applied to any discipline, they are especially relevant to the context of technology training, where the pace of innovation makes adaptability and self-determination essential outcomes.

The six-week Teaching with Technology course was delivered fully online in a blended, asynchronous format with optional synchronous check-ins. The course was framed not as a tool-training workshop but as a project-based learning environment, in which learners were positioned as designers of their own digital teaching materials. Although framed around a project, the heutagogical orientation distinguished the course. Rather than working on instructor-assigned projects, learners defined their own instructional challenges, selected tools that aligned with their goals, and determined the format of their final reflections. This level of choice, combined with iterative peer feedback and an emphasis on double-loop learning, positioned the course as more than project-based—it was self-determined in both process and outcome.

From the start of the course, learners were invited to identify a real instructional challenge from their professional or academic context—something they genuinely wanted to improve or communicate more effectively using digital media. This could range from creating a patient education video, redesigning a lecture, or building a visual resource to support flipped classroom instruction. Once they had articulated a specific need, they chose the digital tools and formats they wished to explore. The course provided resources and tutorials on a wide range of platforms (e.g., Canva, iMovie, Audacity, Screencast-O-Matic), but learners were free to use any tool that suited their goals. Each learner completed two major assignments:

1 A digital document or presentation (e.g., infographic, visual handout, multimedia slide deck) applying principles of aesthetic design, clarity, and interactivity.

2 An audio or video teaching product, integrating media elements such as voiceover, animation, music, or talking-head video, based on learner preference.

Both assignments were scaffolded through iterative feedback cycles. Learners posted their drafts in a discussion forum and provided structured peer feedback using prompts focused on clarity, design, engagement, and educational effectiveness. This not only enriched each learner’s own work but also fostered peer-based learning, exposing learners to a wide range of tools, styles, and teaching ideas.

The final assignment was a critical reflection, submitted in a format of the learner’s choice (written, audio, video, or infographic). Reflections were written in direct connection to learners’ completed projects (e.g., infographics, videos, podcasts). The reflection asked learners to articulate their key takeaways, describe how their understanding of technology in education had evolved, and outline how they planned to apply their new skills in future contexts. It also asked them to discuss challenges they faced, how they overcame them, and what strategies supported their growth—operationalizing the double-loop learning central to heutagogy. Grounding the reflection in concrete artifacts provides evidence not only of perceived growth but also of the processes behind the products.

While the reflection incorporated elements of self-evaluation, it was graded using a rubric that emphasized depth of insight, clarity of communication, and articulation of future plans. More broadly, course grading followed a competency-with-choice model: learners earned credit through completion of authentic products (document/presentation, audio/video project), peer feedback, and the final reflection. This approach satisfied institutional requirements for summative assessment while maintaining alignment with heutagogical principles of learner autonomy and reflective capability-building.

Importantly, the course maintained flexibility in pacing, with suggested deadlines for feedback and revision but a single firm due date at the end of the term. This allowed learners to accommodate personal schedules, adapt to their own learning curves, and revise their work multiple times based on feedback. Rather than positioning the instructor as a content expert, the course facilitators functioned as learning coaches, offering individualized feedback, curating tool-specific resources, and supporting learners in translating abstract goals into concrete, creative outputs. The result was a learning environment in which adult learners developed not just technical skills, but confidence, capability, and a greater sense of agency in their ability to teach using digital tools.

In this course, by giving learners control over the technologies they use and the problems they solve, heutagogical design fosters deeper engagement, promotes authentic application, and encourages experimentation without fear of failure. The course structure and assignments reflect heutagogical design through emphasis on choice, reflection, authenticity, and flexibility. Table 1 shows how heutagogical principles are operationalized in the course.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Heutagogical Principles in the Course.

Heutagogical Principle	Definition	Operationalize in Course
Learner agency	Learners determine their own learning goals and paths	Learners choose their projects and digital tools: To create audio or video and any form of textual product (such as infographics, websites, presentations, etc.)
Capability development	Emphasis on adaptability, problem-solving, and transferability	Assignments require creating authentic products for real-world use in the learner’s context. Learners reflected on future application.
“Double-loop” learning	Learners critically examine both what they learn and how they learn	Learners progress through open-ended projects with iterative feedback. Final reflective assignment asks learners to articulate their growth, strategies, challenges, and future application plans.
Non-linear learning	Learning is self-paced, exploratory, and personalized	The course is asynchronous with flexible timelines for assignments. Learners can select the order of assignments they want to work on, with no fixed timelines except the end of the course deadline.

Outcomes

Since 2021, this course has been offered twice a year and 105 learners have taken it in total. The final reflections submitted by the learners were thematically analyzed, and the following common themes were identified: increased confidence in using unfamiliar tools, greater autonomy, and motivation in using digital technologies, transfer of learning, empowerment, and the value of real-world relevance. Table 2 presents the themes with exemplar quotations. Reflections were de-identified prior to analysis and our IRB approved the study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Themes and Exemplar Quotations.

Theme	Quotations
Increased confidence in using unfamiliar tools	• I was surprised by how easy it was to use Canva and create a professional-looking infographic. I’ve never used it before. • I used GarageBand for the first time, and it was way less intimidating than I imagined. I actually enjoyed the process. • This course made me realize I can figure out most tools with some exploration. I feel much more confident trying new apps now.
Greater autonomy in using digital technologies	• Choosing my own topic and tools made the work feel more meaningful. I was motivated to make something I would actually use. • The flexibility to select my tools and pace my learning helped me take real ownership of the project. • Knowing I could design something that met my own needs kept me engaged in a way that traditional assignments don’t.
Transfer of learning	• I’ve already used the brochure I created to onboard new staff in my department. • The video I made for this course is now part of my resident curriculum. It’s being used across three rotations. • I adapted the infographic for use in patient education, and it’s been shared across multiple clinics.
Empowerment	• This course shifted how I see myself. I’m no longer someone who avoids technology. • I felt empowered to create something from scratch that looked professional and served a real purpose. • For the first time, I feel like I can be a designer of learning, not just a deliverer of content.
Value of real-world relevance	• What made this course so engaging was being able to solve a real teaching problem I deal with regularly. • It was refreshing to work on something I could immediately apply, not a hypothetical case. • Because I chose a project I actually needed, I was fully invested in getting it right.

While many participants initially identified as “not tech-savvy” or hesitant to try new platforms, they grew in confidence through the course of the six weeks ending with significantly elevated self-efficacy. Learners noted that they found digital tools “way less intimidating than I imagined. I actually enjoyed the process,” and they felt “more confident experimenting.” Confidence developed not only from technical success but from overcoming internalized doubts and preconceived limitations about one’s capacity to work with multimedia tools.

Learners frequently commented on how self-selection of content, tools, and pacing enhanced both their intrinsic motivation and engagement. “Being able to choose my own tools and topics made the learning feel more meaningful. I wasn’t just completing a task—I was building something I cared about.” They experienced greater autonomy and “no longer wait for permission to try new tools—I just start playing with them now.” Rather than following pre-defined steps, learners charted their own paths, experimented freely, and revised iteratively, exhibiting ownership and sustained motivation.

Many reflections detailed how projects were not merely academic exercises but resulted in products that were already being implemented in real instructional contexts. Some course products were “distributed to psychologists in the Mental Health Service line” and were “now part of the resident onboarding curriculum.” There were high levels of transfer since they were working on authentic tasks relevant to their contexts.

Learners who had previously viewed digital content creation outside their domain of expertise felt empowered after the course. Learners moved from being “intimidated by video editing. Now I’m planning a podcast series for medical students.” They now felt more “like a creative professional” capable of producing “something professional-looking on my own.” Empowerment also manifested in learners’ decisions to train others, extend learning initiatives within their institutions, and delegate and coordinate larger-scale projects. As one learner summed it up: “Now that I’ve learned these tools, I plan to share them with my program directors and encourage them to integrate games and multimedia into their curricula. I’ll help support that transition.”

Finally, many learners highlighted how working on projects grounded in their actual teaching or professional needs increased both relevance and motivation. Learners saw themselves “applying these skills in ways that matter, not just passing a class,” where they were “making something that would actually get used, not just submitted.” This alignment of course content with authentic professional tasks enhanced perceived value, deepened learning, and increased the likelihood of sustained use.

Collectively, these outcomes suggest that when graduate adult learners are given control, relevance, and the opportunity to reflect, they do not merely acquire skills—they are transformed in their approach to digital learning and teaching. They emerge not only more competent, but also more confident, creative, and capable of sustaining innovation in their own instructional settings.

Implications for Practice

Embedding heutagogical practice into institutional structures presents a persistent tension. Even when courses are intentionally designed to support autonomy and creative exploration, the presence of institutional constraints such as required deliverables and fixed schedules can dilute or counteract these aims (Hase & Kenyon, 2013). This tension between self-directed learning and structural accountability is particularly pronounced in higher education, where accreditation standards and programmatic requirements shape what is possible. In this course, institutional requirements mandated alignment with specific programmatic objectives, time limitations (a six-week format), and summative assessments for credit-bearing purposes. While these constraints ensured a level of consistency and academic rigor, they also placed natural boundaries around learner freedom.

Nevertheless, the course attempted to preserve the spirit of self-determination within these parameters. Learners were given a broad choice in what technologies to use, which problems to solve, how to demonstrate their learning, and when to engage with feedback. Assignments were framed as scaffolded opportunities for creation, not checkboxes for compliance. Yet, it is important to recognize that true heutagogy demands a flexibility that institutional systems often resist (Hase & Kenyon, 2013). This course represents an effort to balance structural accountability with pedagogical freedom, and the reflections suggest that many learners experienced this balance as empowering rather than limiting.

This course demonstrates that heutagogical principles of learner autonomy, reflection, and authentic application can be meaningfully integrated into graduate-level instruction, even within the constraints of institutional structures. Educators should prioritize project-based, choice-rich environments that frame technology learning as capability development rather than tool mastery. Allowing learners to define their own challenges, select tools, and iterate on real-world solutions enhances motivation and confidence (Moore, 2020). Reflection and peer feedback further support metacognition and deepen engagement. Supporting heutagogical design requires a cultural shift: empowering facilitators to act as coaches, loosening rigid standardization, and aligning learning environments with how adults actually learn in a fast-evolving digital world (Hase & Kenyon, 2013).

This course model offers an accessible, scalable approach for educators seeking to teach digital skills to adult learners through self-directed, project-based learning. Because learners select their own tools, timelines, and formats, the model is inherently adaptable across contexts. Importantly, it requires no institutional purchases or proprietary software. Learners used freely available tools like Canva, GarageBand, Screencast-O-Matic, and Google Suite. Educators interested in adopting this approach can begin by offering structured choice: allowing learners to define a relevant problem, choose from a curated set of tools, and create an authentic product with clear real-world utility.

The flexibility in the course supported diverse learners, including those with accessibility needs or resource constraints. Flexibility in pacing and multimodal options for assignments and reflections, allowing learners to demonstrate outcomes in formats that aligned with their strengths and accommodations, directly supported diverse learners. In addition, the choice of tools was intentionally open: learners were encouraged to use freely available platforms or technologies already accessible within their contexts, reducing economic barriers.

This model works best with mature learners who are capable of setting goals, managing time, and engaging in critical reflection (Moore, 2020). It is not recommended for novice learners without adequate support scaffolds. When implemented thoughtfully, this approach can empower learners to build lasting digital capabilities while increasing their autonomy, confidence, and instructional creativity.

While this model was implemented in a graduate-level course focusing on technology, its principles extend beyond formal higher education (Moore, 2020). Because learners define their own problems, select accessible tools, and reflect on authentic outputs, the approach translates readily to professional development programs, workplace learning initiatives, and community education contexts. In these settings, heutagogy can serve as a framework for capability-building that addresses real challenges and empowers learners to generate usable solutions (Moore, 2020). The flexibility of tool and format choice makes the model particularly suited to environments where resources and technological access vary.

Conclusion

Heutagogy is an effective and necessary strategy for teaching adult learners. In a rapidly evolving digital landscape, adult learners must become adaptive, reflective, and capable of learning how to learn. This course demonstrates that when learners are given autonomy, real-world relevance, and space for reflection, they are not only more engaged—they are transformed. Heutagogical design fosters agency, metacognition, and authentic transfer, turning hesitant users into confident creators. As educational institutions strive to cultivate digitally fluent graduates, embedding heutagogical practice into course and curriculum design is innovative and essential.