Metacognitive and self-regulatory approaches in professional and workplace learning: A scoping review

Metacognition self-regulated learning workplace learning professional development reflective practice scoping review

Authors

Downloads

Metacognitive and self-regulatory approaches may help professionals set goals, monitor performance, interpret feedback, reflect on experience, and adjust subsequent strategies. However, evidence from workplace and professional-training contexts remains conceptually fragmented and methodologically heterogeneous. This scoping review mapped how these approaches have been conceptualized, designed, delivered, evaluated, and implemented across professional settings. The review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and was reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Scopus was searched for English-language publications from 2014 to 2024, with the final search rerun on 2 March 2025 and supplemented by backward and forward citation searching. The initial search identified 139 records, which were used for an author-keyword co-occurrence analysis in VOSviewer. Following screening and full-text eligibility assessment, 17 empirical studies were included in the detailed synthesis. Data were charted using a standardized form and analyzed through descriptive synthesis, combined deductive–inductive thematic coding, and structured evidence mapping. The included studies represented healthcare, education, policing, construction, industrial operations, management, and organizational training. Four overlapping categories were identified: metacognitive and guided-reflection approaches, self-regulated learning and goal-regulation approaches, emotional or physiological self-regulation approaches, and technology-supported self-regulation approaches. Reported outcomes included reflective practice, communication, interpersonal problem-solving, goal adjustment, hazard recognition, physiological regulation, professional identity, and perceived learning. Nevertheless, effectiveness was not consistent across studies, and evidence was limited by heterogeneous designs, small samples, self-reported outcomes, short follow-up periods, and limited use of standardized workplace measures. Successful implementation depended on actionable feedback, protected learning time, psychological safety, peer and supervisor support, and opportunities for authentic practice. Future research should use clearly specified mechanisms, validated workplace measures, controlled and longitudinal designs, and stronger assessments of transfer and organizational outcomes.