Content uploaded by Anne Fensie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne Fensie on Oct 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Study of Adult Learners in Distance Education: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Anne Fensie, University of Maine, anne.fensie@maine.edu
Parm Gill, University of British Columbia, parm.gill@ubc.ca
Aubrey Rogowski, Utah State University, aubrey.rogowski@usu.edu
Karen Bellnier, University of Rhode Island, kbellnier@uri.edu
Sharon Flynn Stidham, Virginia Tech, sharon62@vt.edu
Melissa K. Jones, Florida State University, mkjones@fsu.edu
Linda Wiley, Baker University, lindamwiley@stu.bakeru.edu
Teri St. Pierre, University of Maine at Presque Isle, teri.st@maine.edu
Megan Alicea, Kent State University, mjacob22@kent.edu
Katrina Wehr, Penn State University, katrina.wehr@psu.edu
Rebecca Clark-Stallkamp, Virginia Tech, rebeccamclark@vt.edu
J. Meryl Krieger, University of Pennsylvania, mkrieger@sas.upenn.edu
Aoife O'Mahoney, Cardiff University, omahonya@cardiff.ac.uk
Lauren Stalford, Purdue University, lstalfor@purdue.edu
Kiran Budhrani, University of North Carolina, kiranbudhrani@uncc.edu
Nurul Hijja Mazlan, Universiti Teknologi MARA, nurulhijja@uitm.edu.my
Hulya Avci, Texas A & M University, hulya.avci@tamu.edu
Descriptors: systematic review, adult learning
Introduction
Distance education has been around in various forms for decades, from correspondence
courses and radio-based learning to courses by satellite and CD-ROM to today’s online and
blended courses. Throughout this time, the target audience has generally been “adult learners” -
individuals for whom the existing structure of post-secondary learning does not fit. Despite a
growing robust literature around online learning in general and on adults as learners in workplace
learning, research specifically around learning for adults over 24 through distance education has
been spotty. We set out to conduct a scoping review of the literature in this space to see what is
well established and what has been lightly examined or not at all. In this paper, we first present
our scoping review study, and then we discuss the benefits, challenges and the lessons learned
from working on such a large inter-institutional and international team.
Literature Review
Learning happens in many circumstances, whether within the structure of an educational
institution, a community event, or personal direction. Learning environments are categorized as
formal, informal, and nonformal (Coombs, 1989; La Belle, 1982; Mocker & Spear, 1982). While
initially organized around physical locations of learning, the structure can and has been applied
to distance learning (Lowenthal et al., 2009). This scoping review is limited to empirical research
conducted on adult learning delivered at least partially from a distance and by a "formally
constituted institution of education" (Hager, 2012, p. 1314).
The U.S. Department of Education records separate metrics for “nontraditional learners,”
including those who are age 24 and older (Radford et al., 2015). Findings from the fields of
neuroscience (Fjell et al., 2013) and psychology (Ackerman, 1996; Hagen & Park, 2016; Horn &
Cattell, 1967; Salthouse, 2010) provide further evidence for classifying adults as a different type
of learner.
Learning happens in many circumstances, whether within the structure of an educational
institution, a community event, or personal direction. Learning environments are categorized as
formal, informal, and nonformal. While initially organized around physical locations of learning,
the structure can and has been applied to distance learning. This scoping review is bounded by
research conducted on adult learning in formal learning settings defined as associated with an
educational organization (non-credit or for credit).
Regular data collection by the US Department of Education does not capture enough
about participation of adult learners in distance education for several reasons: 1) the primary
focus is on first-time, first-year students, 2) population distinctions do not specify the modality of
teaching/learning; indeed they assume an in-person learning environment, and 3) most data
collected around distance learning per se focuses on traditional student populations (Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Aid Assistance, 2012).
Several learning theories, models, and frameworks have been researched and found
effective for online education. These include Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2010),
Connectivism (Siemens, 2017), and Online Collaborative Learning (Harasim, 2012). However,
age is often not a variable studied.
We located eight existing systematic reviews of adult learning in distance education in a
search of the literature. Three of these articles focused specifically on health-care education
(Carroll et al., 2009; Peterson, 2009; Wu et al., 2018), and one each focused on communities of
practice (Abedini et al., 2021), problem-based learning (Jurewitsch, 2012), heutagogy (Moore,
2020), computer games (Turner et al., 2018), and adventure learning (Veletsianos & Kleanthous,
2009). No systematic reviews looked specifically at the learning processes that adults experience
in distance education.
Distance education is growing as a popular learning modality for adults though its
presence in the literature is limited. Similarly, there is a gap in exploring the learning processes
of adults, and a systematic review on this topic has not been conducted. A scoping review of the
literature will lend the field of instructional design a holistic view of adult learners in distance
education contexts and a baseline for identifying shortcomings and gaps in the literature. The
research goals are to (1) map the current state of empirical and analytical research on adult
learning in distance education; (2) identify gaps in the literature and directions for future
research, (3) synthesize definitions, and (4) organize concepts and literature for other researchers
and practitioners.
Research Questions and Definitions
The research question guiding this study is: How are researchers studying the ways adults
learn in distance education? More specifically, we will explore:
1. What are the characteristics of studies on adult learning in distance education?
2. What research methods were employed to study adult learning in distance education?
3. What trends and gaps in research on adult learning in distance education emerge?
We defined “adults” as age 24 and older as reflected in the U.S. Department of Education
definition of nontraditional learners. We explored “learning” as it relates to any actions directly
connected to course content or skills, affect, or the self-regulation necessary for student academic
success. Our context was “distance education,” meaning not in the same location or a hybrid
combination of traditional and remote learning, either synchronous or asynchronous instruction
provided by an educational entity.
Methodology
This scoping project addresses the issue of current ambiguous terminology and lack of
comprehensive review of the literature on adult learning in distance education (Peters et al.,
2015). A scoping review methodology is appropriate for the anticipated diversity of studies to be
included to address the broad questions under investigation (Peters et al., 2020). Given the nature
of scoping reviews, articles included were not assessed for quality in terms of methodological
limitations or risk of bias. Our study utilized the protocol outlined in the JBI Manual for
Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). The team developed a protocol and utilized similar
keywords to search institutional access databases to identify potential articles based on inclusion
criteria. Searches were conducted in July 2021 and were not limited by date. Studies after that
date have not been included. The initial search yielded 20,241 potential articles for review. After
removing duplicates, the total abstracts reviewed included 11,227.
Fig 1. PRISMA diagram showing abstract screening results throughout the three phases of the
project.
The research team utilized the Abstrackr platform from Brown University (Wallace et al.,
2012) to screen the abstracts, where at least two researchers reviewed each abstract, and the team
collaboratively resolved any conflicts. In the first round of abstract reviews, the team labeled 915
articles to be included, 912 as “maybe”, 1,342 received conflicting ratings, and 3,770 were
excluded (see Figure 1). The AI in Abstrackr marked 4,288 abstracts as irrelevant based on our
coding patterns. We took a random sample of 100 abstracts to confirm that these were indeed
irrelevant. At this point, the team worked to refine the criteria to be more specific in our
definitions and developed a job aid to assist in evaluating the abstracts (see Figure 2). The team
conducted a second round of reviews of the abstracts marked “maybe” and those with conflicting
scores which resulted in an additional 251 records to be included. In total, 18,786 labels were
created in these first two rounds.
Fig 2. Decision tree developed to facilitate and systematize abstract screening.
The researchers utilized Covidence to review the remaining records again. An additional
178 records were identified as duplicates, 577 were excluded, and 411 were included for the next
phase. The full text was retrieved for each of the 411 records to determine if the article actually
met the inclusion criteria. Those that will be included will be coded by research type, population,
context, learning activities, and subject area. Covidence software will be used to extract data
from the indexed articles to create a map of the literature. Descriptive statistics and crosstabs will
be used to analyze the quantitative data and thematic analysis will be used for the qualitative
data.
Preliminary Results
The research team has completed three rounds of abstract reviews to identify the records
that have the most potential for meeting the criteria of studying how adults learn in distance
education. We have documented our observations from the abstracts we have reviewed,
describing what we saw in the records we included and excluded (see Figure 3).
Reasons for which an article was excluded are as important as reasons for which an
article was included. These exclusion criteria help in keeping the focus of the scoping study tight
while enabling an understanding of the motivations and drivers supporting the study. Of the
studies we excluded, we found that a great proportion of them only reported on student
perceptions of learning or only provided recommendations for teaching adults in distance
education without presenting empirical data on student learning. While understanding the
experience of the adult learner is important, student perception alone is insufficiently reliable to
be the only measure. Learners are often not accurate judges of their own learning (Avhustiuk et
al., 2018; Deslauriers et al., 2019; Kirk-Johnson et al., 2019). Comparing course modalities
without describing the learning, only evaluating the effectiveness or preference of a tool,
focusing on learner retention, labeling traditional-aged undergraduates as adults, examining
motivation for learning rather than learning itself, and focusing on the design of the instruction
rather than its effect on learners were also commonly found exclusion reasons.
Fig 3. Preliminary results showing focus of excluded and included records.
While adult learning in distance education was studied in relation to a number of different
fields, we found that the language learning and medical education studies were more likely to
describe and measure the learning than any other topic area. The focus of the included studies
also varies. Many focused on the use of a particular technology and they also described and
measured the learning of the students, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Similarly, there were
also many studies that compared learning between face-to-face and online learning modalities.
Other common research foci included collaborative learning, including the Community of
Inquiry, social presence, and several other specific topics. Results of the data extraction will be
reported at a later date.
Team Processes
The value of this research extends beyond the results of the scoping review to come. The
experience of assembling, managing, and collaborating as an international and inter-institutional
team of 17 researchers merits its own examination. The large team of researchers is located at
different institutions, in different time zones and in different countries. We will describe how the
team formed and how members learned of the project, their motivation for participating, and how
they managed to persist in a long-term project. We will also share what the team members
learned throughout this process, the pros and cons of working on a large team, and the strengths
and weaknesses of our particular project. Each team member was asked to reflect on their
experience participating in the project. Their voices and perspectives are shared in aggregate
below.
Recruitment
The genesis for this project came from the frustration of the lead author who struggled to
find quality literature that examined adult learning processes in distance education. Most of the
literature she encountered was either (a) about distance learning but did not address age groups
or adult learners or was (b) about adult learners but addressed general recommendations not
empirical study of learning processes. The lead author reached out to other doctoral students she
had met through AECT to form a research team. The project was often discussed at Graduate
Student Assembly meetings, so other doctoral students have joined the project during the past 16
months. The lead author posted calls for participation several times over the course of the project
on Facebook, Twitter, and Gather which resulted in additional members joining, some who had
experience conducting scoping reviews or had completed their doctoral degrees and were
experienced researchers.
Motivation to Participate
Motivation to participate in this project varied among the team members. Some members
had experience with systematic reviews and were looking to continue this work, while others
wanted to increase their experience conducting empirical research. Most had a passion for adult
learners and distance education as their primary motivator, and some were hoping to find
resources that would be beneficial for their current work with adult learners in distance education
as faculty or instructional designers. Other researchers who joined the team later were impressed
with the protocol and rigor of the study and wanted to be involved in the project as a
collaborative opportunity.
Persistence
Persisting on a long-term research project can be a challenge, especially one that requires
hours of tedious work when there are so many other competing demands. Some members of the
team have left the group because they were not able to make the time for the project, and some
have left the project temporarily to address a major life issue before returning to the project. The
project coordinator reiterated to all group members that this was to be expected and that
everyone was welcome back if they needed to take a break. Notes for each of our bi-weekly
meetings were kept in a running document, including a recording, a weekly update summarizing
progress and decisions was sent out by the project coordinator and archived in a google group,
and ongoing conversations were maintained in Slack. This let people feel like they could stay up
to date with the project even when they were unable to participate.
When asked about their persistence on this project, several of the team members noted
the camaraderie and relationships that have developed which make participation enjoyable.
There is tremendous respect and admiration for each other. Others noted the helpful articles they
have discovered or the skills that they continue to develop as part of the project. One team
member explained,
I have realized that my article reading and analyzing process get better as I keep doing so.
I have had the opportunity to discuss my decisions with other reviewers especially when I
have wavered between two decisions. Additionally, the weekly meetings have helped me
learn different perspectives towards looking at an article.
Completing most of the work asynchronously has provided the flexibility that many members of
the team needed to work around their busy lives. With so many researchers in multiple time
zones, it was not possible to find one common meeting time, so two meetings were held each
week to accommodate the complex schedules. One researcher shared a strategy that helped her
continue to plug away at the project. “I keep the Scoping Review tabs grouped on my browser
window. That way, when I needed a bit of a mental break, I reviewed some abstracts. Keeping it
accessible in the browser kept it on my mind.”
Lessons Learned by Team Members
Most of the team members had never conducted a scoping review before, so this project
was an opportunity to become familiar with this methodology. Many of the team members
recognized how much more they have learned by being part of a team than they would have on
their own. Managing team dynamics and balancing multiple responsibilities were noted skills
that were developed. One team member commented on the tolerance and understanding we have
for each other in the challenges we each face, which has contributed to our sense of community
and dedication to one another.
Several team members commented on the importance of shared definitions and
documenting all of our work. For example, some of our conflicting ratings came from
mismatches in what counts as learning. We spent several weeks searching the literature for
definitions of learning and discussing what we would and would not consider to be learning for
the purposes of this study. Seeing so many abstracts was a learning experience in itself for most
of the team. One researcher explained, “I think my own manuscripts have improved because of
the number of abstracts and articles we've reviewed. Reviewing so many works and looking for
specific information (which was sometimes difficult to find) has reinforced the importance of
alignment, clarity, details, and precision.” Documenting all of our work and creating the short
weekly summaries has been helpful for us to be able to go back and revisit decisions, report on
our progress, and to easily onboard new team members. A few of the researchers noted the
importance of strong leadership in a large project like this.
Pros and Cons of a Large Team
Working with such a large team has both its benefits and challenges. There are 17
researchers who have made substantial contributions to this project so far, from 16 different
universities in four countries from around the world. A dedicated leader for a team of this size is
essential as is the selection of appropriate tools and a system for documenting all of the work.
Team members identified several pros and cons of working on a large team. For example,
one researcher noted, “diversity of opinions and perspectives (discussing what to include and
exclude is so much stronger when dialogically argued over by a large group).” She also
expressed that time was a challenge but worth it for the rigor. Another team member said, “Pros:
diverse intellectual and cultural perspectives, more ideas generated, more help. Cons:
challenging to coordinate, time zones and busy schedules make it difficult to arrange
synchronous meetings that work for all.” These are consistent with the findings from Daudt et al.
(2013) who conducted a scoping review with a large inter-professional team. They reported, “the
strengths include breadth and depth of knowledge each team member brings to the study and
time efficiencies” (p. 1). The challenges they faced included consensus and resource limitations.
A simple calculation shows the benefits of working with a large team. In our first two
rounds of abstract reviews, we recorded 18,786 labels (see Figure 1). If each abstract required an
average of three minutes to read, evaluate, and label (many required much more time), that adds
up to 56,358 minutes or 939 hours. This is an extraordinary amount of time for a small research
team to spend, but only 55 hours per person if spread evenly over 17 team members. The
additional team members add to the complexity of the project but also reduces the burden on
individuals.
Project Strengths and Weaknesses
Arksey and O’Malley (2005) explained that when conducting a scoping review, “The
process is not linear but iterative, requiring researchers to engage with each stage in a reflexive
way and, where necessary, repeat steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive
way” (p. 22). When asked about the strengths and weaknesses of our project, one team member
noted, “The start (not necessarily weakness) had growing pains (expected) and we had to figure
out what works and doesn't work. It requires flexibility, some rework, and ability to problem
solve - also patience!” Having read several studies on scoping reviews, the team was prepared to
accept the iterative nature of this type of research. We made several attempts at searching
databases with various keyword combinations and worked together as a team to determine our
final search string. We reviewed the abstracts multiple times as we came to understand the nature
of the literature on adult learning in distance education so that we could make more informed
decisions about our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Throughout the process, we found that we
needed to be more specific with our definitions and what they look like in research studies.
Documenting all of these discussions and this process helped new members to understand the
criteria and feel more comfortable with making decisions on abstracts. One researcher explained,
“we had to learn as we went about best practices, design methods, best tools for analysis, and
deciding what we were actually going to analyze … it was and remains a work in progress.”
Synchronous discussions in weekly Zoom meetings were where we hashed out most of
our team decisions, although we did carry on conversations asynchronously. One weakness of
this project was the inability to find a common time for everyone to meet. With team members in
Malaysia, British Columbia, the UK, the east coast of the US, and other places in between, we
could not find a time when everyone was available. The team member from Malaysia noted that
an 8:00 am EST meeting is at the end of her day at 8:00 pm, so she is often exhausted and is not
able to contribute as much as she would like, while the team member in Utah found morning
meeting times to be a challenge as she juggled her work and a toddler at home. We tried to
address this challenge by adding the Slack platform to make asynchronous communication easier
than it was with the Google Group and asking for input from each member of the team before we
made decisions about definitions, inclusion criteria, or technology tools. All of the zoom
meetings were recorded, and this was helpful for team members to catch up on missed meetings
or for new members to familiarize themselves with the project.
One of the strengths of this team was how tech savvy the members were as the majority
of the researchers were engaged in educational technology is some form. This allowed us to
explore a variety of technology tools and strategies to find the ones that worked best for us. The
tools that we found to be most helpful were Google Drive, Docs, and Groups, Zotero to maintain
a shared library of our records, Slack for ongoing conversations, Covidence for full text review
and data extraction, and VOSViewer for bibliographic analysis.
We looked at several tools to assist with reviewing the abstracts and doing data extraction
of full-text articles. These included Rayyan, Abstrackr, Cadima, Covidence, SRDR, and a
custom solution in Google Forms. The features that drew us to Abstrackr were the simple
interface, the ability to select keywords for color coded highlighting, tags that could be added to
abstracts, a notes tool, and most importantly, the artificial intelligence that continuously learned
from our labels to sort the remaining abstracts by relevance. Using this tool saved us from
reviewing almost 5,000 abstracts, which was a big time saver. However, only a limited number
of fields could be imported with each record. Because we lost the DOI and URL field from any
record that had them, we were unable to use a tool to automatically locate and import full text
articles for those we wanted to review. This made it necessary for us to manually locate and
upload pdf full text for the 411 records included in that round.
Conclusion
It is an ambitious undertaking to map the literature on a specific topic, but the scoping
review methodology is an appropriate strategy. Our research team found that having many hands
made light work. Our initial findings include a lack of research that specifically focuses on the
process of learning in adults in distance education; most literature used student perceptions and
satisfaction as the data source while other articles included recommendations for working with
adult learners in distance education without empirical data on adult learners. Language learning
and medical continuing education were the two dominant fields that described and measured
learning processes of the adults in their studies. Scoping reviews are iterative in nature requiring
multiple reviews of searches and abstracts to determine the final inclusion criteria. This team
benefited from the wisdom and experience of so many voices in this process which led to a
richer understanding of the literature and a more rigorous study.
The recent global pandemic has drawn attention to distance learning in general. With
increasing disruptions to learning due to global events, including increasing numbers of non-
traditional learners (Garret et al., 2021; OECD, 2021), developing a deeper understanding of the
current state of empirical and analytical research on adult learning in distance education is
becoming more pertinent. Once completed, this scoping review will provide synthesized
definitions, suggestions for future research, and organized concepts and literature for other
researchers and practitioners to consider for future research.
References
Abedini, A., Abedin, B., & Zowghi, D. (2021). Adult learning in online communities of practice:
A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1663–1694. eue.
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality,
interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22(2), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
2896(96)90016-1
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Aid Assistance. (2012). Pathways to success:
Integrating learning with life and work to increase national college completion [Policy
Brief]. https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resource-collections/profile-158
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Avhustiuk, M. M., Pasichnyk, I. D., & Kalamazh, R. V. (2018). The illusion of knowing in
metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive,
metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of
Psychology, 14(2), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., & Wong, R. (2009). UK health-care
professionals’ experience of on-line learning techniques: A systematic review of
qualitative data. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29(4), 235–
241.
Coombs, P. H. (1989). Formal and nonformal education: Future strategies. In C. J. Titmus (Ed.),
Lifelong Education for Adults (pp. 57–60). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
030851-7.50021-7
Daudt, H. M., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology:
A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-
48
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning
versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. PNAS,
116(39). https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Fjell, A. M., Westlye, L. T., Grydeland, H., Amlien, I., Espeseth, T., Reinvang, I., Raz, N.,
Holland, D., Dale, A. M., & Walhovd, K. B. (2013). Critical ages in the life-course of the
adult brain: Nonlinear subcortical aging. Neurobiology of Aging, 34(10), 2239–2247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.04.006
Garret, R., Legon, R., Simunich, B., & Fredericksen, E. E. (2021). CHLOE 6: Online learning
leaders adapt for a post-pandemic world (The Changing Landscape of Online
Education). Quality Matters and Eduventures.
http://qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-project
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Hagen, M., & Park, S. (2016). We knew it all along! Using cognitive science to explain how
andragogy works. European Journal of Training and Development, 40(3), 171–190.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2015-0081
Hager, P. J. (2012). Formal Learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of
Learning (pp. 1314–1316). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_160
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.
Horn, J., & Cattell, R. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta
Psychologica, 26, 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90011-X
Jurewitsch, B. (2012). A meta-analytic and qualitative review of online versus face-to-face
problem-based learning. Journal of Distance Education, 26(2).
http://www.proquest.com/eric/docview/1322248250/299867211D224D7CPQ/3
Kirk-Johnson, A., Galla, B. M., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2019). Perceiving effort as poor learning:
The misinterpreted-effort hypothesis of how experienced effort and perceived learning
relate to study strategy choice. Cognitive Psychology, 115, 101237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101237
La Belle, T. J. (1982). Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic perspective on
lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 28, 159–175.
Lowenthal, P. R., Wilson, B. G., & Parrish, P. (2009). Context matters: A description and
typology of the online learning landscape. 32nd Annual Proceedings. Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Louisville, KY.
https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings09/2009I/09_20.pdf
Mocker, D. W., & Spear, G. E. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, nonformal, informal, and
self-directed (No. 241; Information Series). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED220723.pdf
Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: Contexts, critiques, and
challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381–401. http://dx.doi.org.wv-o-ursus-
proxy02.ursus.maine.edu/10.1080/01587919.2020.1766949
OECD. (2021). The State of Higher Education: One Year into the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/education/the-state-of-higher-education_83c41957-en
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance
for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 141–
146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Trico, A., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11:
Scoping Reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence
Synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
Peterson, D. S. (2009). A meta-analytic study of adult self-directed learning and online nursing
education: A review of research from 1995 to 2007 (2009-99010-578; Issues 7-A)
[ProQuest Information & Learning].
https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZProxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-99010-
578&site=ehost-live
Radford, A. W., Cominole, M., & Skomsvold, P. (2015). Demographic and enrollment
characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011-12 (NCES 2015025). National
Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015025.pdf
Salthouse, T. A. (2010). Selective review of cognitive aging. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 16(5), 754–760.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000706
Siemens, G. (2017). Connectivism. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and
Instructional Design Technology. https://lidtfoundations.pressbooks.com
Turner, P. E., Johnston, E., Kebritchi, M., Evans, S., & Heflich, D. A. (2018). Influence of online
computer games on the academic achievement of nontraditional undergraduate students.
Cogent Education, 5(1), 16.
Veletsianos, G., & Kleanthous, I. (2009). A review of adventure learning. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 22.
Wallace, B. C., Small, K., Brodley, C. E., Lau, J., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2012). Deploying an
interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: Abstrackr.
Proc. of the ACM International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI), 819–824.
Wu, X. V., Chan, Y. S., Tan, K. H. S., & Wang, W. (2018). A systematic review of online
learning programs for nurse preceptors. Nurse Education Today, 60, 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.010
