Mapping the Scholarly Landscape of Heutagogy in Distance Education: A Bibliometric Analysis (2020–2025)
Resumen
Background: Heutagogy, or self-determined learning, has emerged as a critical pedagogical framework for distance and online education, particularly following the global shift to digital learning environments prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite growing scholarly interest, the global structure, key contributors, and collaborative patterns of heutagogy research remain insufficiently mapped. Methods: This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 47 Scopus-indexed documents published between 2020 and 2025, focusing on heutagogy, learner autonomy, and distance education. Bibliometric indicators including annual production trends, geographic distribution, source analysis (Bradford's Law), author productivity (Lotka's Law), co-authorship networks, and collaboration patterns were computed and visualized. The PRISMA 2020 protocol guided document selection. Results: The analysis reveals an accelerating growth trajectory, with 70% of all publications appearing after 2022. The corpus spans 167 unique authors across 44 publication sources from over 15 countries, with Malaysia, Australia, and Kazakhstan among the most productive nations. Journal articles dominate (68.1%), and English is the predominant language. Author productivity follows Lotka's inverse square law, and source concentration adheres to Bradford's Law of scattering. Co-authorship networks reveal predominantly regional collaboration clusters with limited international co-authorship. Conclusions: Heutagogy research for distance education is a rapidly growing but still emerging field, characterized by fragmented collaboration and geographic concentration. Strengthening international research networks and expanding non-English scholarship are identified as priorities for the field's consolidation.
Descargas
Citas
Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
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. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076
Blaschke, L. M. & Hase, S. (2016). Heutagogy: A holistic framework for creating twenty-first-century self-determined learners. In B. Gros, Kinshuk, & M. Maina (Eds.), The future of ubiquitous learning (pp. 25–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_2
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. https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572
Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86.
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P. & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Elsevier Academic Press.
Garfield, E. (1971). Bradford's Law and related statistical patterns. Essays of an Information Scientist, 4(19), 476–483.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. ultiBASE Articles, 5(3), 1–10.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8766
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(1), 1–12.
Jones, C., Penaluna, K. & Penaluna, A. (2019). The promise of andragogy, heutagogy, and academagogy to enterprise and entrepreneurship education pedagogy. Education + Training, 61(9), 1170–1186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2018-0211
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3714-7
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.021544898
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Priem, J., Piwowar, H. & Orr, R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833
van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Zupic, I. & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Derechos de autor 2026 Juan De Dios Marin Murillo , Juan Camilo Pérez Hernández, Hernán Andrés Carmona Garzón
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
.png)
.png)
1.png)
