CONNECTION

From Brain-Based Learning to Heutagogy: Designing Agency With Care

How do we design learning that develops agency without assuming learners are already fully independent?

In my research this week, I found myself returning to the same question: how do we design learning that supports agency without assuming that learners are already fully self-directed or self-determined? The readings move from brain-based learning, to the space between pedagogy and andragogy, to the history of andragogy, and finally to heutagogy. Taken together, they challenge the idea that teaching and learning models can be neatly organised by age or stage. Instead, I see that they suggest effective learning design depends on context, readiness, purpose, motivation, and the kind of support learners need to grow.

Jang et al. (2022) provide a useful starting point, reminding me that learning design needs to be grounded in how learning actually occurs. Their review of brain-based learning research highlights the importance of emotion, memory, motivation, attention, neuroplasticity, and meaningful application in adult learning and human resource development. This is particularly relevant to professional learning because adults do not enter learning spaces as blank slates. They bring experience, identity, motivation, assumptions, emotions, and existing patterns of practice. However, the article also offers an important caution. Brain-based learning can be useful, but it should not be used superficially or reduced to simplified claims about “how the brain works”. For learning design, this means that neuroscience should inform careful decisions about sequencing, practice, reflection, feedback, and transfer, rather than becoming a set of attractive but unsupported slogans.

Marshak’s (1983) article complicated this further by questioning the binary between pedagogy and andragogy. Pedagogy is often described as teacher-centred, while andragogy is usually framed as learner-centred. However, Marshak argues that many learning situations sit somewhere between these two models. He introduces the term “adolegogy” though I do not agree with the article’s deficit-oriented language about adolescence. As a middle school educator, I see adolescence not as something to “cope with” but as one of the most exciting and significant periods of human development. Young adolescents are undergoing rapid cognitive, social, emotional, and identity growth. They are not simply negative in the sense of being between childhood and adulthood. They are actively becoming. They are both complete and growing, as a colleague said this week.

Still, Marshak’s core idea is useful. Learning is often neither fully teacher-directed nor fully learner-directed. This is true in middle school, and it is also true in adult professional learning. Learners may need autonomy, but they may also need clarity. They may benefit from choice, but they may also need structure. They may be capable of reflection, but they may still need modelling and feedback to develop the quality of that reflection. This made me think about whether we sometimes adopt the language of learner-centred learning without being specific enough about what kind of learner-centredness is appropriate.

Loeng’s (2018) historical review of andragogy added another important layer. I had previously associated andragogy mainly with Knowles and the idea of helping adults learn. Loeng shows that this is only one part of a much longer and more complex history. Andragogical thinking existed long before Knowles, and European traditions of andragogy often placed greater emphasis on adult education as self-formation, dialogue, social change, and systematic inquiry into adult learning. This matters because it prevents andragogy from being reduced to a simple checklist of adult learner characteristics.

The article also made me think about Knowles’s assumption that, as people mature, their motivation to learn becomes internal. In my own experience with professional learning, this does not always seem straightforward. Some educators appear highly motivated to engage with research, reflect on practice, and adapt their approaches. Others may seem resistant or reluctant, particularly when professional learning feels disconnected from their immediate work or perceived as an additional demand. This suggests that motivation is not simply a natural consequence of adulthood. It is shaped by context, identity, workload, perceived relevance, trust, and professional culture. Adult learners may need autonomy, but they also need learning that feels purposeful, connected, and worth the cognitive and emotional effort.

Tümen Akyıldız’s (2019) article on heutagogy pushed the thinking further. Heutagogy, or self-determined learning, asks learners to take responsibility not only for what they learn, but also for how they learn and how they evaluate their learning. I found the distinction between competence and capability particularly useful. Competence suggests that learners have acquired knowledge and skills. Capability suggests that they can use those competencies flexibly in unfamiliar or changing contexts. This aligns strongly with concept-based learning, where transfer is a key goal. We not only want students to know more. We want them to use what they know thoughtfully, flexibly, and ethically.

At the same time, the heutagogy article raised a developmental question for me. Is self-determined learning appropriate for middle school students? Or are we expecting too much if we ask young adolescents to take responsibility for their learning pathways, decisions, and assessment processes? I think the answer depends on how we interpret self-determination. If heutagogy means that students independently determine everything, then it may not be developmentally appropriate in a middle school context. However, if heutagogy is understood as a direction of travel, then it becomes much more useful.

In middle school, students can practise becoming more self-directed and self-determined, but they need the conditions to do so. They need explicit teaching, shared learning goals, clear criteria, structured inquiry, feedback, reflection, and gradual release of responsibility. They can make meaningful choices, but those choices need to sit within a designed learning environment. They can reflect on how they learn, but they need language and routines to support metacognition. They can participate in assessment, but they need criteria, exemplars, feedback, and opportunities to revise their understanding.

This has implications for both student learning and adult professional learning. For students, it suggests that agency should be scaffolded rather than assumed. For teachers, it suggests that professional learning should not simply tell educators to “be more learner-centred”. It needs to help teachers understand the continuum from teacher-directed to self-directed to self-determined learning, and to make intentional choices about where students are on that continuum. Some moments require explicit instruction. Some require guided practice. Some invite exploration. Some allow genuine learner determination. The professional judgement lies in knowing which is appropriate, when, and why.

I am left with the idea that learning design is not about choosing between pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy as fixed categories. It is about designing the right balance of guidance and agency for the learner, the context, and the learning goal. For my own context, the key implication is that learner agency should be designed as a developmental process. Students and adults both need opportunities to make decisions, reflect, practise, receive feedback, and transfer learning into meaningful contexts. However, they also need enough structure to make those opportunities productive. 

The aim is not to remove the teacher or facilitator from the learning process. The aim is to use teaching, facilitation, and design intentionally so that learners become increasingly capable of directing and determining their own learning over time.

References

Jang, C. S., Lim, D. H., You, J., & Cho, S. (2022). Brain-based learning research for adult education and human resource development. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(5/6), 627-651. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2021-0029

Loeng, S. (2018). Various ways of understanding the concept of andragogy. Cogent Education, 5(1), Article 1496643. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1496643

Marshak, R. J. (1983, October). What’s between pedagogy and andragogy? Training and Development Journal, 80-81.

Tümen Akyıldız, S. (2019). Do 21st century teachers know about heutagogy or do they still adhere to traditional pedagogy and andragogy? International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(6), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.215.10